McCarrick Report

[Peace]

OK folks the report is out.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf

Any thoughts?

I've only read the summary. My thoughts thus far are:

1) Obviously the thing is being written under PF, so the document is going to be presented so as to put blame on other people, and to shield PF. So from this standpoint we have to take it with a grain of salt.

2) It seems that much of the criticism leveled against PF has been that he reinstated McCarrick (or put him back into active ministry) when he had previously been suspended, even though he know about the sexual abuse rumors.  At least from the summary - this view does not appear to have support. The summary characterizes the situation as one in which McCarrick never left public ministry, and PF did not change the decisions that had previously been made with respect to him.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Peace

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

OK folks the report is out.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf

Any thoughts?

I've only read the summary. My thoughts thus far are:

1) Obviously the thing is being written under PF, so the document is going to be presented so as to put blame on other people, and to shield PF. So from this standpoint we have to take it with a grain of salt.

2) It seems that much of the criticism leveled against PF has been that he reinstated McCarrick (or put him back into active ministry) when he had previously been suspended, even though he know about the sexual abuse rumors.  At least from the summary - this view does not appear to have support. The summary characterizes the situation as one in which McCarrick never left public ministry, and PF did not change the decisions that had previously been made with respect to him.

"Until 2017, no one – including Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishop Becciu or Archbishop Viganò – provided Pope Francis with any documentation regarding allegations against McCarrick, including the anonymous letters dating back to the early 1990s or documents related to Priest 1 or Priest 3. Pope Francis had heard only that there had been allegations and rumors related to immoral conduct with adults occurring prior to McCarrick’s appointment to Washington. Believing that the allegations had already been reviewed and rejected by Pope John Paul II [...]"

This section suggests PF was being, haha, "Jesuitical" when he claimed to reporters, a year after he was first asked, that  " 'I knew nothing about McCarrick, of course, nothing. I have said it several times, I knew nothing,' "
 Reiterating that he knew nothing beforehand, Francis said the McCarrick case was clear-cut [...]  "You know that I did not know anything about McCarrick, otherwise I would not have remained silent,”

First of all, we all know its a falsehood that PF "said it several times, I knew nothing."  The interview where he gave this denial was big international news because it was his first public denial. His response for the year prior to the allegation was to wink at the faithful and  say 'what do you think?' [vomit]

2nd, the report admits he did know something. Of course he did.  Imo they could not deny this because it would have been incredible to do so. There is simply no way that anyone at the highest level of the Vatican was unaware of McCarrick's reputation as a primo scumbag. 

So the most charitable explanation of PF repeatedly insisting he "knew nothing about McCarrick" is that it depends what the definition of "know" is. He knew about his reputation, the rumors and allegations, but he didn't "know" as in, "i know Jesus rose from the dead." I know as in, I'm sure.   I'M SO SICK OF THIS BS FROM VATICAN TYPES.

Like with all corruption ... the coverup is worse than the crime. Why couldn't he just be straight with people from the beginning??? Why is he so lawyering ambivalent and slick?

By the way, JP2 is dead and Benedict resigned. Why should all 3 not be made the same. Since they all "knew nothing" (for sure) about McCarrick.

Gross me out.

 

 

[Peace]

25 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

"Until 2017, no one – including Cardinal Parolin, Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishop Becciu or Archbishop Viganò – provided Pope Francis with any documentation regarding allegations against McCarrick, including the anonymous letters dating back to the early 1990s or documents related to Priest 1 or Priest 3. Pope Francis had heard only that there had been allegations and rumors related to immoral conduct with adults occurring prior to McCarrick’s appointment to Washington. Believing that the allegations had already been reviewed and rejected by Pope John Paul II [...]"

This section suggests PF was being, haha, "Jesuitical" when he claimed to reporters, a year after he was first asked, that  " 'I knew nothing about McCarrick, of course, nothing. I have said it several times, I knew nothing,' "
 Reiterating that he knew nothing beforehand, Francis said the McCarrick case was clear-cut [...]  "You know that I did not know anything about McCarrick, otherwise I would not have remained silent,”

First of all, we all know its a falsehood that PF "said it several times, I knew nothing."  The interview where he gave this denial was big international news because it was his first public denial. His response for the year prior to the allegation was to wink at the faithful and  say 'what do you think?' [vomit]

2nd, the report admits he did know something. Of course he did.  Imo they could not deny this because it would have been incredible to do so. There is simply no way that anyone at the highest level of the Vatican was unaware of McCarrick's reputation as a primo scumbag. 

So the most charitable explanation of PF repeatedly insisting he "knew nothing about McCarrick" is that it depends what the definition of "know" is. He knew about his reputation, the rumors and allegations, but he didn't "know" as in, "i know Jesus rose from the dead." I know as in, I'm sure.   I'M SO SICK OF THIS BS FROM VATICAN TYPES.

Like with all corruption ... the coverup is worse than the crime. Why couldn't he just be straight with people from the beginning??? Why is he so lawyering ambivalent and slick?

By the way, JP2 is dead and Benedict resigned. Why should all 3 not be made the same. Since they all "knew nothing" (for sure) about McCarrick.

Gross me out.

 

 

Yeah I agree that saying "I knew nothing" is inconsistent with "Pope Francis had heard only that there had been allegations and rumors related to immoral conduct with adults occurring prior to McCarrick’s appointment to Washington."

I think I'll want to look at the detailed portion of the report to see if there is any additional information about the specific allegations and rumors that he heard, and how they were communicated to him.

As for the most charitable explanation (whether true or false) - I think that would be the explanation given in the report itself. He had heard of some of the rumors, but assumed that the rumors were false and had been investigated under the two popes before him, since McCarrick was still active in public ministry when he became pope.

But yeah I agree with you that if he had heard of the rumors, he should have said "I had heard of the rumors" instead of "I knew nothing." That appears to have been a mistake, without delving into it further.

I dunno about the coverup always being worse than the crime though. Like, if you murder or rape somebody, the jail sentence is going to be a lot longer for the murderer or the rapist, than for the person who acts as an accomplice and comes along later and helps him conceal the crime (burying the dead body or what have you).

Edited November 10, 2020 by Peace

[Anastasia]

I have no doubts that PF lies as he has been doing. I have a thought though: the world usually goes out of itself to shout about sexual abusers in the Catholic Church. It will be interesting to see its reaction to the news about PF (albeit downplayed). The recent scandal re: "PF endorses homosexual unions" can be very useful for the Pope who, via his silence, formed an allowance with the world - kind of. I suspect the world will be not so angry with PS as with two others.

[picchick]

...

I have no words.

[Miss Hepburn]

6 hours ago, picchick said:

...

I have no words.

I wanted to comment, but really - I have no words.

[Ash Wednesday]

Dropped right after a US election we all knew would be messy... pretty convenient timing when there are plenty of other shiny objects in the news for everyone to be distracted by.

I'm not under some delusion that Francis is some single boogeyman to be blamed in all of this. But yeah, I am going to take it with a grain of salt. I expect, as before, Catholics will still fall into their respective camps and point the fingers about the blame, either way.

[Miss Hepburn]

Ash Wed  - that was very smart of you to catch!!! Too many other things in the News...right! I like smart people. 

Isn't the Pope's main job  to the Church? So a little lie for the greater good ---keeping the Church together -- might be worth a little lie as to what he actually knew and when  ok?

Asking ...I dunno.

[Ash Wednesday]

20 minutes ago, Miss Hepburn said:

Ash Wed  - that was very smart of you to catch!!! Too many other things in the News...right! I like smart people. 

Isn't the Pope's main job  to the Church? So a little lie for the greater good ---keeping the Church together -- might be worth a little lie as to what he actually knew and when  ok?

Asking ...I dunno.

Two wrongs never make a right. That said, taking something with a grain of salt doesn't necessarily equate an accusation of lying. My skepticism is whether or not we will ever know the full truth. 
 

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Miss Hepburn said:

Ash Wed  - that was very smart of you to catch!!! Too many other things in the News...right! I like smart people. 

Isn't the Pope's main job  to the Church? So a little lie for the greater good ---keeping the Church together -- might be worth a little lie as to what he actually knew and when  ok?

Asking ...I dunno.

Pope Francis is a Jesuit.

The Jesuits are closely associated with the doctrine of "mental reservation" i.e. the "lie of necessity."  If you have Jews hiding in your basement and the Nazis come to the door, and they ask, have you seen any Jews?  The Nazis don't have a right to know that information - so you can lie about it. Or you can say something "true' but leave out important information. You can say "I saw them two blocks from here with a box of donuts" leaving out that this was 2 years ago that you saw them 2 blocks away with donuts.

This type of "lying" - choosing words with extreme care so they can mean 2 different things, answer questions without revealing anything, etc. is integrated into the charisma of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits.) You can read more about it here: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190639631.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190639631-e-10

Although this doctrine is not out right rejected by Catholic moral theology it is a risky and perilous way to live, because it is easy to abuse others with it. It is very easy to use it to protect your selfish interests rather than God's.

Imo this is the explanation  for how Pope Francis treats the faithful. For example, the press and the faithful at large "do not have a right to know" whether he is involved in a cover up of sex abuse - anymore than Pilate had a right to know if Jesus claimed to be a King. :eyeroll:

Another celebrity Jesuit, Fr. James Martin, is a master of this equivocation, mental reservation etc. Whenever you see Fr. Martin defend his orthodoxy by referring to "official" Church teaching re: homosexuality, he is being jesuitical. He is leaving out that Jesuits privilege "discernment" in moral theology - in other words, there is the official Church teaching against gay sex, but then there is your personal discernment about if and how that official teaching applies to you which is preeminent. That is why he is so careful to put in that word, "official."  We do not have a right to know what he believes about gay sex, so he has no obligation to tell the whole truth about it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Pope Francis is a Jesuit.

The Jesuits are closely associated with the doctrine of "mental reservation" i.e. the "lie of necessity."  If you have Jews hiding in your basement and the Nazis come to the door, and they ask, have you seen any Jews?  The Nazis don't have a right to know that information - so you can lie about it. Or you can say something "true' but leave out important information. You can say "I saw them two blocks from here with a box of donuts" leaving out that this was 2 years ago that you saw them 2 blocks away with donuts.

It's like when your woman asks you if she looks fat in her jeans and you respond by saying "Nah baby . . ."

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

This type of "lying" - choosing words with extreme care so they can mean 2 different things, answer questions without revealing anything, etc. is integrated into the charisma of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits.) You can read more about it here: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190639631.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190639631-e-10

Although this doctrine is not out right rejected by Catholic moral theology it is a risky and perilous way to live, because it is easy to abuse others with it. It is very easy to use it to protect your selfish interests rather than God's.

Imo this is the explanation  for how Pope Francis treats the faithful. For example, the press and the faithful at large "do not have a right to know" whether he is involved in a cover up of sex abuse - anymore than Pilate had a right to know if Jesus claimed to be a King. :eyeroll:

Another celebrity Jesuit, Fr. James Martin, is a master of this equivocation, mental reservation etc. Whenever you see Fr. Martin defend his orthodoxy by referring to "official" Church teaching re: homosexuality, he is being jesuitical. He is leaving out that Jesuits privilege "discernment" in moral theology - in other words, there is the official Church teaching against gay sex, but then there is your personal discernment about if and how that official teaching applies to you which is preeminent. That is why he is so careful to put in that word, "official."  We do not have a right to know what he believes about gay sex, so he has no obligation to tell the whole truth about it.

That is kind of an interesting concept. There are probably a few Church teachings here and there that I disagree with at the level of my intellect or "heart" but simply choose to accept them as a matter of fidelity.

Or sometimes I'll generally feel like "all this Catholicism stuff is a mountain of BS" on the inside, but I'll just tow the line and give the outward appearance of the "devout" Catholic for a bit, until my inner mood changes to match the mask that I show to the world. I would guess that a lot of Catholics kind of have these internal / external conflicts that they deal with.

[Lilllabettt]

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

Or sometimes I'll generally feel like "all this Catholicism stuff is a mountain of BS" on the inside, but I'll just tow the line and give the outward appearance of the "devout" Catholic for a bit, until my inner mood changes to match the mask that I show to the world. I would guess that a lot of Catholics kind of have these internal / external conflicts that they deal with.

For sure, but that's not what I'm talking about happening with Fr. Martin. When Fr. Martin is asked if he assents to the Church's teaching on homosexual acts, he answers by saying "the official Church teaching is they are not kosher."

This statement can get him in 0% "official" trouble, and when people are frustrated by this non answer, he can complain they are being unreasonable and demanding. Then there is another constituency, the gay-acts-are-okay group, who can hear Fr. Martin's words and say, "ah there is an official Church teaching on gay sex acts, but specifying this way implies there is also an unofficial one, perhaps more to my liking."

Imo this is the effect Fr. Martin means to have. I don't think there is an internal conflict he is being discreet about. Can't be sure, because when stakes are high, you cannot know if a Jesuit will say what they mean or instead mess with you in some way.  But its a Jesuit idea that there is an official Church teaching, which is overridden by teaching produced by your personal discernment of how that teaching impacts your life.

I will give you an example. Fr. Martin was an advisor on the movie "Silence" which is about Jesuit missionaries in Japan. At one point one of the priest characters hears the voice of "Christ" telling him to apostatize - symbolized by stepping on an image of Jesus - and in obedience to "Christ", does so. Fr Martin explained in a column in America magazine, how a Jesuit could possibly "discern" whether to commit blasphemy and conclude it is the right thing to do: https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/01/18/fr-james-martin-answers-5-common-questions-about-silence

In case it isn't clear to anyone reading, this is 1000% garbage. If you "discern" a call to apostatize and hear Jesus audibly telling you to commit blasphemy, we know on an objective level that your discernment is wrong; your discernment is probably being led by the devil himself.  But Fr. Martin sees this as a legitimate outcome of good discernment, and that is just one example of how  deeply deformed and mutated Jesuit spirituality has become in this, the first half of the 21st century.  And that deformation applies to the doctrine of "mental reservation" as well, as it is currently practiced.

Am I fan of so many of our leaders being masters of double speak - no. But I should point out 'vatican types' are as a rule good at it, whether they are Jesuits or not. I recall the archbishop of St Louis testifying that "I'm not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” referring to adults having sex with children.

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

For sure, but that's not what I'm talking about happening with Fr. Martin. When Fr. Martin is asked if he assents to the Church's teaching on homosexual acts, he answers by saying "the official Church teaching is they are not kosher."

This statement can get him in 0% "official" trouble, and when people are frustrated by this non answer, he can complain they are being unreasonable and demanding. Then there is another constituency, the gay-acts-are-okay group, who can hear Fr. Martin's words and say, "ah there is an official Church teaching on gay sex acts, but specifying this way implies there is also an unofficial one, perhaps more to my liking."

Imo this is the effect Fr. Martin means to have. I don't think there is an internal conflict he is being discreet about. Can't be sure, because when stakes are high, you cannot know if a Jesuit will say what they mean or instead mess with you in some way.  But its a Jesuit idea that there is an official Church teaching, which is overridden by teaching produced by your personal discernment of how that teaching impacts your life.

I will give you an example. Fr. Martin was an advisor on the movie "Silence" which is about Jesuit missionaries in Japan. At one point one of the priest characters hears the voice of "Christ" telling him to apostatize - symbolized by stepping on an image of Jesus - and in obedience to "Christ", does so. Fr Martin explained in a column in America magazine, how a Jesuit could possibly "discern" whether to commit blasphemy and conclude it is the right thing to do: https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/01/18/fr-james-martin-answers-5-common-questions-about-silence

In case it isn't clear to anyone reading, this is 1000% garbage. If you "discern" a call to apostatize and hear Jesus audibly telling you to commit blasphemy, we know on an objective level that your discernment is wrong; your discernment is probably being led by the devil himself.  But Fr. Martin sees this as a legitimate outcome of good discernment, and that is just one example of how  deeply deformed and mutated Jesuit spirituality has become in this, the first half of the 21st century.  And that deformation applies to the doctrine of "mental reservation" as well, as it is currently practiced.

Am I fan of so many of our leaders being masters of double speak - no. But I should point out 'vatican types' are as a rule good at it, whether they are Jesuits or not. I recall the archbishop of St Louis testifying that "I'm not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” referring to adults having sex with children.

OK you raise some interesting points for discussion here. Will get back to you later.

[Anastasia]

9 hours ago, Miss Hepburn said:

So a little lie for the greater good ---keeping the Church together -- might be worth a little lie as to what he actually knew and when  ok?

Depends on how you understand the Church. If it is a kind of “a corporation” which must “save face” etc. then of course. But if the Church has Christ = the Truth as her head then the situation a bit different, I think. The Church is all about faith. That means its members should be trustworthy, priests especially. Imagine a priest who is an alcoholic or a womanizer. He still can say “I believe in God”. But how a priest who lies can say “I believe in God”? I mean he can and he does daily but who believe him? A lying priest, postmodern style, turns a faith into a postmodern role play.

[Anastasia]

7 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

The Jesuits are closely associated with the doctrine of "mental reservation" i.e. the "lie of necessity."  If you have Jews hiding in your basement and the Nazis come to the door, and they ask, have you seen any Jews?  The Nazis don't have a right to know that information - so you can lie about it.

What strikes me in this example is that if one feels the situation he does not need the doctrine because his lie will save a life of human being in front of him. I am quite sure that Mother Maria Skobtsova (and countless others) who has been smuggling Jewish children from the ghetto in the rubbish bins simply saw before her a human being who she knew would be murdered.

The natural feeling of a heart then is being removed and swapped by a cold logical reasoning "Nazis have no rights to know so I can lie". Then this new paradigm "if one has no right to know I can lie" is applied to other situations to which, if they were evaluated by a heart (feeling) would not permit a lie.  Like "lying for keeping the Church together" is only convincing if one does not feel in his heart that he cannot lie about the Church = to lie about the Body Christ, the Truth, to keep that Body together because if one injects a lie into that Body he will poison it. But this can be only felt with a heart sensitive to a lie and Truth ("Everyone who is of the Truth hears My voice.").