Some news coming out about McCarrick today.
I am a loss for words. I am like. You where found guilty and removed from priestly duty. But you still say it is not true, do I believe him?
Could this be a case of right wing power as he stated?
Why did he talk to Slate? Who is the extreme left?
Why is he being allowed to talk to the press? I thought he was living a life of prayer and penance. I didn’t think that included giving interviews.
And why is the NCR picturing him in collar? Why do they show his picture at all?
Honestly, why is this even news?
Reading the original Slate article, it doesn’t sound to me like he is supposed to be giving interviews. The reporter was told in no uncertain terms that McCarrick was not available to speak with her. But reporters are often persistent (pushy?) when trying to get material for their stories, so on the last day that the reporter was in town, she rang the doorbell to the friary, and an elderly man in a wheelchair let her in to talk to McCarrick. See below, from the article:
Father John, who met with me twice in Victoria, told me kindly but firmly that McCarrick was not available for an interview and that visitors were not welcome inside the building; he declined my request for even a limited tour. But on my last morning in Victoria, I rang the doorbell at the friary.
A small plastic sign in the entryway asks visitors to ring once and wait three or four minutes for a response. It took about that long before an elderly man in a wheelchair opened the door; I told him I was a reporter and that I would like to speak with Ted McCarrick. He wheeled over to a phone on a small end table, and after a few false starts, his voice echoed through the building on the internal intercom: “Ted, there’s somebody here to see you.”
Sounds like they need some better security than an elderly, possibly confused man in a wheelchair.
Yes, that is for sure.
It sounds like an ambush interview, which, on an 89 year old man, is certainly a form of abuse.
In a more civilized era, Catholic media sites wouldn’t have provided respectability by echoing it.
Because “once a priest, always a priest”
Just last year, he held a high position in the church. Not a big difference between age 88 and 89, so no ambush.
McCarrick should be answering the questions. What has occurred with child sexual assault and the cover-up throughout the RCC globally needs a Root Cause Analysis, so effective changes can be put into practice, imho.
Sorry Tis Bear, my computer is misbehaving.
No, he shouldn’t, unless he is compelled to do so by a legal process.
In the USA we have a right to remain silent and that applies to McCarrick as much as it does to anyone else.
He should hush up.
Besides, it’s clear that between him being 89 and him having all the usual denial and psych issues of abusers, there is nothing to be gained by him making a statement. He will likely never admit he did wrong because he likely doesn’t think he did.
As I understand it, McCarrick is not bound to obedience any longer. He was removed from clerical state, and is free to go about his business as he like. The “rules” talked about are those that the monastery ask of him, but he is not required to obey. They can kick him out when they want to. But out of love they will not.
I wonder if he is not as bad off, health-wise, as has been reported. Around the time when the accusations first started becoming public it was reported that he was showing signs of dementia; other reports made it sound like he was on the verge of senility. But given when this information came to light, that might have just been a line fed to the press by his lawyer angling to get Rome to take it easy on him. But you are right that as early as a year before the allegations were made public he was still in a very important position for an 80+ year old Cardinal, carrying out special tasks for Pope Francis.
I don’t have any opinion on whether he should be taking interviews or answering questions; I doubt he will see any repercussions from this since he was already removed from the priesthood.
I believe you are correct. He isn’t technically restricted to the friary in Kansas; he can leave if he wants. He was probably restricted there before he was laicized but now that he is a layman he would just have to abide by the terms of his laicization (not celebrating the sacraments except in emergency, don’t wear clerical garb, etc.). Other than that he can do what he wants.
Thanks for that tidbit. I tried to read the Slate article, but her stile of writing I can not read. Too much unneeded information for me.
There was a thread a while back about the fact that this friary is next to a school. Optimists among us argued that he was safely tucked away in the friary and couldn’t pose a thread to the young boys. This makes it sound like he could waltz out whenever he wants.
That’s not true. There are often various conditions imposed by Rome on priests who are dismissed from the clerical state.
Regardless, I’m pretty sure he’s still a cleric…he was simply stripped of the rank of cardinal.
I beg to differ.
Hush up what?
The truth needs to come out.
We have the right to remain silent. Yes, we can plead the fifth.
But there is a responsibility to protect children. There are few sins that call out for God’s vengeance and there is one sin that Christ said it would be best if the sinner were never born-the sin of stumbling children.
If children are going to be safe in the church, then the truth must come out and new patterns of protection established. If it doesn’t, it will be business as usual and atrocities will continue against children in the church.
Thank you for acknowledging that.
He told the interviewer he’s not allowed to step foot off the grounds and doesn’t even go into the Basilica attached to the friary.
Sounds like he is abiding by that.
At his age and given the publicity his case has received, I doubt he is going to be walking around out in public unless he gets Alzheimers and wanders away from the friary.
Also, if he had left the friary, he surely would have been seen and photographed or videoed and made the news by now.
His modus operandi also was not to go entice little children from schools into his clutches with candy. He preyed on people he knew personally and worked with or socialized with.
I don’t think we have to lay awake nights worrying about this unless he is actually seen by someone outside the friary, which hasn’t happened in all the time he’s been there.
How are they not being protected? This man was so inaccessible that the Slate reporter had to repeatedly visit his residence and play a trick on an old man in a wheelchair to even speak to him .
He has not been seen in public, he has not been seen anywhere around children, he has not left the grounds.
As far as “the truth needs to come out”, I think we’re all amply aware of what he did and steps have been taken to remove him and watch him so he does not do anything else.
If some legal authority wants to sue him or criminally charge him, then they have to make a case just like any other crime or lawsuit situation. But you seem to be asking for something way beyond the bounds of US due process. That isn’t going to happen.
Muting this thread now because, like usually happens with threads on the sexual abuse crisis, it seems to be veering away from logical discussion and into emotionalism.