COMMENTARY: A spirit of defiance offers a possible
explanation that merits further investigation.
Father Raymond J. de Souza
 |
| Then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in Rome in 2013 (intermirifica.net via CNA) |
Did Pope Benedict XVI put disciplinary
restrictions on Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2009 or 2010, as claimed by the
“testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò?
Pope Francis has asked journalists to
provide the initial response to the archbishop’s testimony. The Holy Father
declared that he will “not say one word,” and no senior Vatican officials have
come to his defense on the substance of the charges.
So the journalists are hashing it out, and
the key issue debated in the days since the publication of
Archbishop Viganò’s testimony is whether Pope Benedict XVI did
in fact place restrictions on the cardinal’s ministry. If so, why was there no
public announcement of it, and why did McCarrick carry on in retirement as he
had while in office, namely the world’s premier “airport bishop”?
It is a legitimate question. The gravamen
of the Viganò testimony depends upon the answer.
The
simplest answer is that, in fact, there were no sanctions, and that Archbishop
Viganò somehow misunderstood what he had been told by the Congregation for
Bishops and what his predecessor as nuncio in Washington, Archbishop Pietro
Sambi, had told Cardinal McCarrick.
Yet that answer is so simple that,
if true, it is a wonder why the Secretariat of State — which supervises nuncios
— or the Congregation for Bishops doesn’t simply explain that, making the
matter largely disappear.
Pope Benedict himself could make his
view known, as he did earlier this year when the Vatican communications chief,
Msgr. Dario Viganò (no relation), attempted to manipulate the
pope emeritus in relation to a series of booklets celebrating the theology of
Pope Francis.
If Benedict did not sanction
McCarrick, he could make that known easily.
Not
to be forgotten in all this is Archbishop McCarrick himself, who is not dead,
but, rather, in seclusion. Unless he takes perverse delight in Pope Francis
suffering on his account, he could simply clear the air on the truth about the
sanctions. Whether anyone would believe him is another matter, but it would be
the least he could do.
So the silence of those who could
easily dismiss Archbishop Viganò’s claims at least prompts journalists to
consider that some sanctions were in place, but in a manner that was not clear,
not public and not enforced. Is that plausible?
In short, yes, as a possibility that
merits investigation.
It must be remembered that what
“everybody” apparently “knew” about Archbishop McCarrick for years was not the
kind of material that could justify a penal sanction, the result of a canonical
process. There were plenty of rumors, but no specific allegations from specific
victims. Only in 2018 was there a “credible and substantiated” allegation. The
settlements made in 2005 and 2007 were on a confidential basis, meaning that
the victims were almost certainly not available for a canonical trial.
Whenever Pope Benedict became aware
of McCarrick’s abuse, the remedy Ratzinger/Benedict employed in the case of
Legion of Christ founder Father Marcial Maciel — send an investigator to
interview the known victims in preparation for a canonical trial — may not have
been feasible.
Ordering a priest to a life of
prayer and penance is a penalty that ought to be the result of a canonical
process, which may have been impossible in the circumstances. So is it
plausible that communicating the sanctions privately was thought the best
option available, counting upon McCarrick’s goodwill to observe them?
Is it plausible that, after
receiving such unpublished sanctions, Cardinal McCarrick would simply ignore
them? Yes.
In the spring of 2004, the bishops
in the U.S. were examining the question of whether resolutely pro-abortion
Catholic politicians — John Kerry was running for president that year — should
be admitted to Holy Communion. Cardinal McCarrick headed up the bishops’ task
force on that question and, in that capacity, received a letter from Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger saying that in such circumstances, politicians “must” not be
admitted to Holy Communion.
Cardinal
McCarrick concealed that letter from his
brother bishops and lied about what Cardinal Ratzinger had written. Only later
did the truth come to light when the complete letter was leaked to the press.
So we know that Cardinal McCarrick
was willing to defy the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith even to the extent of withholding a letter intended for his brother
bishops. And we know that the consequences were mild.
The following April, Cardinal
Ratzinger was elected pope. I recall on the very evening of the election, the
press officer for the Archdiocese of Washington was scrambling to assemble the
Washington priests and seminarians in Rome. She warned them against speaking to
the media, as she wanted to avoid any stories that might examine the
relationship of Cardinal McCarrick to the new pope. She assumed that the
election of Cardinal Ratzinger would mean the end of her boss — not over sexual
abuse, but the previous year’s mendacity.
How did Benedict deal with McCarrick
after his election? Cardinal McCarrick turned 75 in July 2005; if Benedict
wanted to swiftly punish him for his dishonesty in the 2004 discussion, he
could have immediately accepted his resignation in July 2005. But Benedict
permitted McCarrick to stay in office until the following spring. That too
conforms with the idea that Pope Benedict moved against Cardinal McCarrick, but
did not opt for the most severe option.
In May 2009, I covered Benedict’s
visit to the Holy Land. At the time, I heard an odd story from a senior member
of the papal entourage while in Jerusalem. Apparently in the preparations for
the trip, the Vatican made very clear to Cardinal McCarrick that he was not to
accompany the Holy Father. At the time, I thought it was because the Holy See
was tired of the cardinal’s meddling in their diplomatic activity on his
frequent — three or four times a year — trips to the region. So he was not on
the trip.
But when Pope Benedict was having
his meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, the king innocently mentioned that
Cardinal McCarrick had been through shortly before, passing himself off as
doing preparatory work for the papal visit. Cardinal McCarrick had defied
Benedict again.
In
August 2009, when longtime Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy died, the Vatican
opted out of the eulogies. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston attended the
funeral, but was clearly restrained in any praise of the late politician.
Cardinal McCarrick took it upon himself to appear at the graveside service in Arlington,
Virginia, and read a standard Vatican correspondence
reply as if Pope Benedict was eulogizing the late senator
personally. It was a clear act of defiant spin.
When the Archdiocese of New York
received the accusation that Cardinal McCarrick had abused a minor in the early
1970s, it notified the cardinal that an investigation was underway, led by
laypeople in the district attorney’s office and the archdiocesan review board.
The Catholic Herald reports that Cardinal
Donald Wuerl, Cardinal McCarrick’s successor in Washington, was also notified
in 2017 and wrote to his predecessor, telling him to withdraw from public
ministry while under investigation. Yet even while under investigation for
abuse of a minor, Cardinal McCarrick was defiant, continuing his public
appearances and leading an overseas pilgrimage in honor of his diamond jubilee
of ordination.
As a journalist, then, I would
conclude that there are four major episodes of defiance that make it plausible
that Archbishop Theodore McCarrick could have defied sanctions placed upon him.
A spirit of defiance does not alone
establish the truth of Archbishop Carlo Viganò’s testimony. It does not
adequately answer questions about why any sanctions were imposed privately and
not enforced. It does, though, offer a possible explanation that merits further
investigation.
Father Raymond J. de Souza is the
editor in chief of Convivium magazine.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét