McCarrick Report

[KnightofChrist]

Vigano is one of the only living persons to both admit blame and be blamed, by name. 

Odd. 

Francis for a little while made it a habit to rehabilitate or defend persons who 'unknown' to him were sexual abusers. 

[Lilllabettt]

25 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Sooo your disproportionate blame on PF is misplaced, is my point... Not enough questions are being asked of Vigano. This is the fundamental 

Yes. The fundamental issue is "what did the unemployed has been crank who writes cringey open letters every other day know and when did he know it" 

Not the currently reigning absolute monarch responsible for 1 billion souls

Lol

Where does the buck stop hmm. JP2 (dead) and Benedict (resigned) are guilty as sin but they didn't lie to my face about it afaik. 

And their inability to "get it" re sexual misconduct is a dead letter. PF is still appointing people and dealing with victims... that's the fundamental issue.

[Anastasia]

I think, Aloysius, one can endlessly go into the labyrinth of who did what and why i.e. of those implicit mutual accusations and it will only cloud the matter which, to my mind, is quite simple.

Christ is both human and divine. He is both a perfect Man and also a perfect revelation of the Father. He is, so to say a walking revelation about the divine = theology and also a walking perfect human psyche; those two are united in His person. It is via His relationship with His decuples the latter learn the Love of the Father and the plan of Salvation. This is a very important point: Christ’s perfect healthy psyche and His mode of relating to the others reveal the divine Truth (theology). His disciples get to know the Father and theology via a simple relationship with the Son of Man.

Imagine for a moment (sorry, it sounds disgusting but it is needed) that one of His disciples raped or molested a child. If Jesus “covered him up” for the sake of “not compromising His mission of Salvation” the whole Incarnation would collapse. A man who suppresses the truth about the gross evil done to another person for the sake of “general Salvation” is devoid of empathy and thus is an imposter. He is not the Son of God because he is devoid of a normal human reaction.

The Church is the Body of Christ. Hence, the Church does not only have theology (divine revelation), it also has a psyche that corresponds to the perfect psyche of Christ. Just like Christ is God incarnate the Church must incarnate the divine Truth in her psyche.

If the Head of the Church has a perfect human psyche then His Body must at least be relatively normal psychologically or at least tend to it (and, when it fails, know its sins). And what is an instinctive reaction of a normal human being, not even a Christian? – To protect a child if he is assaulted. In a case if a child is assaulted in the church, the Mother Church’s normal reaction is to be horrified, to blame herself and to kick out the member who did it. A normal mother who defends her child does not care about her reputation (or even her life); she cares about her child. On the other hand, a typical reaction of a narcissistic mother to the sexual assault of her child by a relative is “how could YOU bring such a shame on our family” and a silence. It is a pathology.

As Lilllabettt wrote, such a situation, being brought into the frame of a school etc. secular establishment would not cause any doubts about the guilt of those who involved. Paradoxically, in a case with the Church, the Body of Christ it is different – while, I speculate, the evil should of be even more intolerable here.

Edited November 15, 2020 by Anastasia

[Peace]

Wait. Did somebody in this thread make the argument that a decision to cover up a sexual abuse scandal for the good of the Church is legit?

Yeah I think the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that PF covered up McCarrick's abuses.

But that is a whole lot different than saying that he could have been justified in doing that, if he is guilty of it.

[cruciatacara]

Just now, Peace said:

Wait. Did somebody in this thread make the argument that a decision to cover up a sexual abuse scandal for the good of the Church is legit?

Yeah I think the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that PF covered up McCarrick's abuses.

But that is a whole lot different than saying that he could have been justified in doing that, if he is guilty of it.

You say all the things I would say if only I had the ability to do it! I love reading what you write. Some of the posters on here are so vitriolic and seem to use words to tie things up in knots, but you seem to know what to say to cut right through those knots with clear and common good sense. I also wouldn't have the patience to keep trying to go over and over things again to people who obviously have completely closed minds. But I do enjoy Phatmass just for the things you post here. Thank you.

[Peace]

58 minutes ago, cruciatacara said:

You say all the things I would say if only I had the ability to do it! I love reading what you write. Some of the posters on here are so vitriolic and seem to use words to tie things up in knots, but you seem to know what to say to cut right through those knots with clear and common good sense. I also wouldn't have the patience to keep trying to go over and over things again to people who obviously have completely closed minds. But I do enjoy Phatmass just for the things you post here. Thank you.

Thanks a lot. I think most of the folks here have good intentions, just are looking at things from a different perspective than me. I definitely learn things through the various discussions.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Wait. Did somebody in this thread make the argument that a decision to cover up a sexual abuse scandal for the good of the Church is legit?

Yeah I think the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that PF covered up McCarrick's abuses.

But that is a whole lot different than saying that he could have been justified in doing that, if he is guilty of it.

No ... he just lied about what he knew. 

 

[HumilityAndPatience]

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Yes. The fundamental issue is "what did the unemployed has been crank who writes cringey open letters every other day know and when did he know it" 

Not the currently reigning absolute monarch responsible for 1 billion souls

Lol

Where does the buck stop hmm. JP2 (dead) and Benedict (resigned) are guilty as sin but they didn't lie to my face about it afaik. 

And their inability to "get it" re sexual misconduct is a dead letter. PF is still appointing people and dealing with victims... that's the fundamental issue.

As I have already stated, you are assuming PF  knew of McCarrick's guilt and covered it up.

How about the possibility that McCarrick was being protected by those responsible for the investigations. i.e. Vigano. 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Wait. Did somebody in this thread make the argument that a decision to cover up a sexual abuse scandal for the good of the Church is legit?

Yeah I think the evidence doesn't support a conclusion that PF covered up McCarrick's abuses.

But that is a whole lot different than saying that he could have been justified in doing that, if he is guilty of it.

If you are referring to me then you are reading my point incorrectly. At some point the thread got derailed into reading PF's statement "I knew nothing". My opinion on that was simply to show that this does not imply cover up. Quotes below relate.

So no, somebody in this thread did not make the argument that a decision to cover up a sexual abuse scandal for the good of the Church is legit?

Quote

The charitable assumption being proposed is that PF held any allegations as pending affirmation. This is not "not disclosing sex misconduct". 

Quote

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:24 PM, Lilllabettt said:

Someone using mental reservation to justify not disclosing sex misconduct in order to "protect the Church's reputation" as @HumilityAndPatience suggested,  is doing the wrong. God cares nothing about his reputation compared to the truth. The faithful have a right to know what their leaders knew and when about sexual misconduct- using mental reservation to avoid disclosing this is injustice.

 

This is a strawman. The charitable assumption being proposed is that PF held any allegations as pending affirmation. This is not "not disclosing sex misconduct". 

As the report itself suggests, the reason JP2 promoted McCarrick so much is because of his experience of Communist regimes smearing reputations of clerics. This is more convoluted than you are proposing, with respect.   

Quote

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:24 PM, Lilllabettt said:

I brought it up to illustrate why mental reservation is deployed ineffectively so much in modern world... because it is deployed by people who privilege discernment over the Gospel.

 

Does the imperfect implementation of a justifiable action (prudential judgement in respect of communicating) mean that that action shouldn't be allowed?

In other words, can you not see the risk of legalism invading logic and reason? Take the example of hiding a just man from murderers as a starting point. Do you agree that it is okay to "lie" to his assailants? If so, you agree with the principle. 

If you agree with the principle, in cases where there is charitable scope to assume justifiable prudential judgement has been used, who are we to judge that judgement? 

8 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

No ... he just lied about what he knew. 

And your basis for asserting PF "lied" is his "I knew nothing" statement, correct?

[HumilityAndPatience]

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

And their inability to "get it" re sexual misconduct is a dead letter

PF took decisive action and he is being attacked for it by Vigano out his own guilt... who is exacerbating the issue by enticing impressionable sensationalists to indulge in the saga, who in turn are fleeing the Church in her time of need. 

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Vigano is one of the only living persons to both admit blame and be blamed, by name. 

Odd. 

Francis for a little while made it a habit to rehabilitate or defend persons who 'unknown' to him were sexual abusers. 

Vigano on McCarrick Vs PF on Barros is what I think you are proposing. If so, Vigano was directly responsible for investigating McCarrick and showed negligence. PF was not directly responsible for Barros, but made a flawed judgement on character. His actions later to rectify the situation as best possible were commendable. Vigano's actions, when faced with culpability, has been to sow the seeds of distrust and schism.

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

No ... he just lied about what he knew.

Well I can understand how you can view it as a lie. He could have lied. I will grant you that. It's not an unreasonable position to take. It's kind of like Reagan not knowing that the NSA was selling guns to Iran. Seems unlikely that the Pres wouldn't have gotten wind.

But yeah I think its entirely possible that PF did not even recall whatever conversation he supposedly had in 2013 when he did the interview in 2018. Heck I can barely remember any conversation I had from 6 months ago, let alone 5 years ago.

It doesn't even really make sense for him to say "I knew nothing" if he had in fact remembered the supposed 2013 conversation, because he would have had to have known that the info would eventually come out (as it did). Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me for someone to order an investigation, if he knew the results of that investigation would contradict what he just said. It seems more plausible to me that he didn't recall the 5-year old conversation, and was speaking honestly when he said that he knew nothing.

I guess it just seems ridiculous to you that a person high-up could not have been aware of those rumors, but it seems plausible to me given the specific facts.

 I would like to see a full transcript of that "I knew nothing" interview though. Seeing the whole thing instead of the snippet might help add clarity.

@HumilityAndPatience Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

[Aloysius]

@Anastasia, I think you beg the question a bit in your response.  My point about biases is that we are not certain that PF covered things up; there are justified suspicions, but that is where some bend over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt while others throw him under the bus completely; my point is to pay attention to which side you are on in terms of that bias and be careful.

there are 3 possibilities as I see it: (1) Francis didn't really know, (2) Francis knew of allegations but was convinced they were untrue (perhaps because of his own bias intersecting with other sides he has taken on other issues), (3) Francis knew and covered it up.  Some on this thread bend over backwards to explain it as (1) to defend the pope, some bend over backwards to explain it as (2) or (3) perhaps partly because they're upset with the pope for numerous reasons... personally I have not seen the smoking gun on either side and, as I made clear in another thread, I have taken strong issue with the way Francis was responding in public as it felt like a slap in the face to any faithful who were rightly troubled by the accusations.  some ignore the possibility of (2), though, which is also a possibility (one which would also be one that Francis would deserve harsh criticism for, of course).

just pay attention to what kind of bias you have in making these judgments.  I do agree with you that any bishop or pope who has covered up abuse for the sake of the church's public face ought to be held accountable--on earth if/when we can prove it, but at least we have solace to know they will face the final judge if we can't.  anyone who made seriously negligent mistakes that were more like scenario (2) above, those people also need to be strongly corrected and face consequences, but we can understand that as a different thing; because as I said--it is true that there are sometimes false accusations and it is hard to sift through them, particularly when personal bias and other battles within the church cloud people's judgments.

[KnightofChrist]

9 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

PF took decisive action and he is being attacked for it by Vigano out his own guilt... who is exacerbating the issue by enticing impressionable sensationalists to indulge in the saga, who in turn are fleeing the Church in her time of need. 

Vigano on McCarrick Vs PF on Barros is what I think you are proposing. If so, Vigano was directly responsible for investigating McCarrick and showed negligence. PF was not directly responsible for Barros, but made a flawed judgement on character. His actions later to rectify the situation as best possible were commendable. Vigano's actions, when faced with culpability, has been to sow the seeds of distrust and schism.

Commendable, here, is correctly spelled as follows 'forced to action after a long worldwide PR nightmare'. PF deserves blame along with JPII and BXVI. I don't buy the naive and frankly willful stupidity argument the somehow PF didn't really know. If I did believe that then I would believe PF to be incompetent.

[Lilllabettt]

14 hours ago, Aloysius said:

@Anastasia, I think you beg the question a bit in your response.  My point about biases is that we are not certain that PF covered things up; there are justified suspicions, but that is where some bend over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt while others throw him under the bus completely; my point is to pay attention to which side you are on in terms of that bias and be careful.

there are 3 possibilities as I see it: (1) Francis didn't really know, (2) Francis knew of allegations but was convinced they were untrue (perhaps because of his own bias intersecting with other sides he has taken on other issues), (3) Francis knew and covered it up.  Some on this thread bend over backwards to explain it as (1) to defend the pope, some bend over backwards to explain it as (2) or (3) perhaps partly because they're upset with the pope for numerous reasons... personally I have not seen the smoking gun on either side and, as I made clear in another thread, I have taken strong issue with the way Francis was responding in public as it felt like a slap in the face to any faithful who were rightly troubled by the accusations.  some ignore the possibility of (2), though, which is also a possibility (one which would also be one that Francis would deserve harsh criticism for, of course).

just pay attention to what kind of bias you have in making these judgments.  I do agree with you that any bishop or pope who has covered up abuse for the sake of the church's public face ought to be held accountable--on earth if/when we can prove it, but at least we have solace to know they will face the final judge if we can't.  anyone who made seriously negligent mistakes that were more like scenario (2) above, those people also need to be strongly corrected and face consequences, but we can understand that as a different thing; because as I said--it is true that there are sometimes false accusations and it is hard to sift through them, particularly when personal bias and other battles within the church cloud people's judgments.

I'm in camp #2.

Honestly I dont blame anyone for misjudging character. The Bishops who knew for a fact that McCarrick was bad apparently lied about it. It's not like I expect the Pope to go around with a magnifying glass doing his own detective work. He has to rely at some point on underlings being honest.

What I cannot stand, in the year of our Lord 2020 is that these guys STILL DO NOT GET IT: That Gods people watched their clergy choose each other instead of the vulnerable and trust with them is RIGHTLY broken and RIGHTLY must be earned back. That NOTHING but complete and total transparency, humility, and disclosure will bring it back and that this is a bare minimum moral obligation, from the Pope himself on down, for shepherding Gods people in 2020. 

It is just UNBEARABLE that after 20 years of suffering they still do not get it! The kid with downs syndrome who bags my groceries gets it! No Catholic should be in the position of having to extend the benefit of the doubt to the Pope in any way shape or form on sexual misconduct! He should be bending over backwards, gladly, so there is no doubt!!!!

Incidentally PF gave this homily today:

https://aleteia.org/2020/11/15/pope-do-you-blame-others-when-youre-at-fault/

Is it possible this is a lead up to an apology? 

[Aloysius]

@Lilllabettt, I agree.  In fact my main point has been so much of the bishops' mismanagement has been fueled by situations like that #2 explanation I suggest--the human bias that's clouded by the other fights going on in the church over unrelated matters, where allies are given the benefit of the doubt and opponents who have any accusation made against them taken as truth right away.  I've been also trying to make an analogy between that absolutely disastrous mindset--one that still seems intractable in the career churchmen of today--and the way we see the laity's biases come out in relation to this whole affair.  We all need to remember to seek after the truth, no matter which side in a larger argument it helps or hurts, particularly when the truth is so important for showing genuine compassion for victims of horrific crimes. 

liberals, conservatives, jesuits and other orders, traditionalist and progressive churchmen have all been culprits, all those groups have had some of their priests falsely accused, and all those groups have also have had bishops who either seriously failed or, worse, covered up abuses out of a misguided sense of the good image either of the church as a whole or their own particular side of the debates within the church.  it's a tragedy, it's shameful, and really I think most bishops ought to be in deep in prayer and penance and even self mortification and fasting as penance and reparation for these shameful failures--right up to the top without regard for which individuals were more or less culpable in the failures but in humble pleading to the lord for mercy from the wrath that is due for shepherds who failed to care for the sheep He left under their care, and of course not just doing that as empty symbolic gestures but also doing more to ensure justice be served not just on any random priest that's a nuisance but also on the bishops themselves.

[Anastasia]

 

3 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

What I cannot stand, in the year of our Lord 2020 is that these guys STILL DO NOT GET IT: That Gods people watched their clergy choose each other instead of the vulnerable and trust with them is RIGHTLY broken and RIGHTLY must be earned back. That NOTHING but complete and total transparency, humility, and disclosure will bring it back and that this is a bare minimum moral obligation, from the Pope himself on down, for shepherding Gods people in 2020. 

If they still do not get it - and you are right, it appears they do not - they will never get it. The issue is quite clinical. This is why I wrote about Christ being a perfection of a human psyche; if the Church is His Body it is natural to expect from that Body if not tending to a perfection then at least some normality of reactions. This normality is clearly absent. My "bias" was a normal human psyche with normal reactions. There is no reason why Christian theology must make human beings pathological - and this is why, in my opinion, there is time and place to look at the situation from a position of normality of reactions. 

I recall I was quite shocked to learn about child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church (I did not think it was possible) but what truly shattered me was the knowledge of how it was "dealt with", via silence. I dug into that problem quite deeply because of my area of interest (cPTSD and childhood trauma) and I just could not believe when I saw that "deep silence", imposed not just by the clergy but by the laity as well (it is a well known fact that the victims were ostracized by the laity as well, for "bringing shame" on the Church).

There is one important aspect in this situation: silence is the best method to kill a victim of abuse. An abused person experiences the loss of meaning, even more so if it happened in the Church. It is possible to restore the meaning if the abuse is acknowledged and the normality is being restored, via adequate actions towards the abuser (obviously a sexual abuser cannot be a priest). The pervert is thrown out of the Church hence the normality is being restored, a victim can begin healing. If it is not done but a victim is being silenced and quietly "bought" via compensation on the grounds that she will shut up - then it is the end of meaning. Yet those who cover the abuse appear not care at all about the destruction of the meaning, not just in victims but in many others who get re-traumatized every time the absurdity is being reinforced.

That "murder of the souls via silence" is my major concern in that story. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Anastasia