From Father Z’s blog:
Elsewhere, Card. Tobin, according to CNA, declined to investigate reports about disgraced non-Card. McCarrick.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin told a journalist Friday that he heard rumors shortly after his 2017 arrival in the Archdiocese of Newark about the sexual misconduct of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. He said he did not investigate those rumors because he found them unbelievable.
In a column published Aug. 31 in the North Jersey Record, journalist Mike Kelly reported that “Tobin told me that soon after arriving in Newark, he heard ‘rumors’ about McCarrick’s beach house. But he never bothered to check them out. He says he thought the story was too ‘incredulous’ to believe.”
“Shame on me that I didn’t ask sooner,” Tobin reportedly told Kelly.
(end Father Z blog)
I would think most people would have been curious to look into things, who knows?
I think with a sincere and thorough investigation of the McCarrick mess there’d be many bishops/cardinals who would come away not looking too good.
That said though, what I’ve been reading lately seems to suggest that even though many knew he was a homosexual, very few knew about his abusive behavior. From NC Register:
"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. "
What’s troubling is that, even if ABP McCarrick were not known by many bishops to be an abuser, there were ample reasons to consider him an imprudent man.
Why didn’t someone move him out of a position where he could take imprudent actions?
Did Pope Francis rely on his advice as alleged in the ABP Vigano letter? We need a response to that question. Even If the answer is to plead ignorance of McCarrick’s defiant and disobedient pattern, that in itself is a problem.
The Dicoese made payments in 2005 and 2007. These weren’t just rumors of a beach house but an actual payment to people due to sex abuse. So focusing on a specific beach house rumor is really a ‘rabbit hole’. And even as a rabbit hole it was still not something that any reasonable person would find hard to believe given there were actual payoffs.
Does a bishop not know who his diocese pays off for sexual abuse? How could he not know when the abuser was a former bishop of the diocese and cardinal? When the payoffs were made no one thought to look deeper?
All homosexual sex is abusive sex. It is abuse for both parties even if consensual. There absolutely were specific allegations at least before 2005 and 2007 when the diocese made payoffs.
But specifics about McCarrick were made even earlier as I recall. I believe I read an article in the early days of this story that discussed how a letter and even mission to the Vatican concerning McCarrick were ignored.
There isn’t a lack of communication among the powerful, rather, there are often the wrong kinds of communications; i.e., those which are sinful.
My own diocese was forced into bankruptcy by its’ former bishops’ embrace of homosexual clergy. I feel so sorry for those innocent laity and clergy in these affected diocese. This is the very definition of scandal. Some bishops are only thinking of excuses for themselves rather than of the many victims of this scandal.
What I see is an appalling lack of communication between the hierarchy and the laity. As in why a man whom cost the Church money in the form of sexual abuse settlements was promoted to Cardinal? I wish they’d communicate with us on that one.
I believe they communicate quite thoroughly amongst each other. The problem in the hierarchy is one of tolerance and inaction.