Lawler has a point.
In fact, I have been asking myself many of the same questions.
I have also heard some say this case, while bad, isn’t “as bad”, because many of the men were adults, so they must have consented. That’s just bull balls!
These men were at McCarricks mercy- where they lived, studied, served, he controlled it all, and I am sure he was a man who didn’t like to be told no.
I pray the justice is done and that all those who have been affected by McCarrick’s behavior find some peace.
McCarrick was made a bishop by Pope Paul VI. He was made a Cardinal by a Saint, St John Paul II. What did the Saint know about McCarrick in 2001? Surely Pope Benedict XVI knew something about it during his tenure.
Apparently the author only felt comfortable singling out Pope Francis by name, in an article about McCarrick. Go figure. I’m guessing “First Things” is a Traditionalist site.
Indeed it is! Such a piquant choice of words.
You might want to do a bit of research about First Things. Try the Wikipedia article; it is even-handed.
In any event, I’m not sure how Pope Francis is to blame for this. Mccarrick’s promotion happened long before Pope Francis was in charge. Pope Francis has been actively cleaning house.
It would seem that the problem the author has with Pope Francis has to do with a guy who has perhaps committed financial irregularities and whose deputy committed sex abuse and has now resigned. If the deputy has been kicked out, then it doesn’t look to me like the Church is sitting around tolerating sex abuse.
The point of the article seems to be to bash Pope Francis, as opposed to the Popes who were actually reigning while McCarrick was getting promoted. An article about Pope Francis should have been about the financial scandal guy Maradiega, and not McCarrick.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.