US Vatican cardinal: "Not once did I even suspect" McCarrick


The gratuitous insults against Catholics who allegedly have nothing better to do than to worry about homosexual predators of minors and seminarians are really astonishing.

That said…whether the good cardinal knew anything about his wicked mentor or not…one thing he COULD do…today, not tomorrow…today…is announce he will be getting a new coat of arms. His current one explicitly honors McCarrick.


“Never once did I even suspect,” he said. “Now, people can say ‘Well you must be a right fool that you didn’t notice.’ I must be a right fool, but I don’t think I am. And that’s why I feel angry.”

Talk about tone-deaf. That’s the last thing he should be angry about.


Where are these insults you are talking about? I did not see any in the article.

And let’s be careful about labeling predators in the Church “homosexual”. There are also new reports out that sisters around the globe have also been abused by priests and Bishops.

This scandal is not just about sex, it is also about abuse of power.


McCarrick is a homosexual predator. The label is quite accurate.


Yes, he is. But not all predators in the Church are.


The thread is about the homosexual predator McCarrick.


I am replying to the quote of yours saying that there are insults against people who worry about homosexual predators in the Church.


Did I make my point clear enough? This is not just about sex, it is an abuse of power also, and many people, men and women are being abused.


The majority of cases of sexual abuse by clergy = acts of homosexual perversion.

Homosexuality is also not normative. Homosexual inclinations are disordered and unnatural.

Simple reading comprehension skills would also allow one to discern that my original post did not say that ALL predators are homosexual.


In fairness to Farrell, I think it’s justifiable for him to be angry for being played like a fool. Not that it’s the only thing he should be angry about, nor the most important. But he doesn’t say that it is.

I see no reason not to believe Farrell at this point in time. It seems evident to me that this wouldn’t have stayed in the dark for so long a time if every bishop and priest the McCarrick ever encountered was aware of it. And considering Farrell worked with him in DC, and there hasn’t yet (that I’ve seen) been any stories of abuse committed while McCarrick was in DC, it seems plausible.


I asked you about a very specific quote in your post.
You said there are insults being hurled at anyone who is worried about homosexual predators.

First off, I see none of that in the story you link to.
Second, not all abuse in homosexual in nature.

You (and many others) are trying to blame all gay clergy for acts of a few men and I for one will not stand for it.
There are many, many men who are priests who are gay who have no problem keeping their promises and their hands to themselves.


Benedict XVI wisely urged that NO ONE with deep seeded homosexual inclinations should be ordained.
The fact is, homosexual inclinations are abnormal.
The SAD fact is that in too many dioceses, a young man with traditional inclinations…which are not abnormal…will be rejected from the seminary. But a young man with deep seeded homosexual inclinations will be admitted, no problem.

And THAT is a large part of why we have the current mess.

The majority of clerical abusers are homosexuals.


Some comments from Jennifer Roback Morse may be relevant here.


Using an acronym that everyone else has been using for years is hardly “running interference for people like McCarrick.”


The author is correct. The acronym in question is widely used by those who support, endorse, or otherwise excuse a perverse lifestyle.

Sometimes God works in mysterious ways. One could wonder about recent events. Just as forces in the Church were actively working to try to normalize/seek acceptance for the perversion of homosexual acts…McCarrick the homosexual predator is finally exposed, over 20 years after the first bishop was warned about him.

The timing might well prove to be providential in derailing the agenda of some.


Yes, I admit I stopped reading the article at that point.

I would listen to someone make the case that it is unwise for the Vatican to use that term in an official Church document (though, technically, this is just a working document for an upcoming synod; it’s not an official Church document at all). I might even agree with them. But to say that the use of that acronym is evidence of people in high places covering for McCarrick is beyond a stretch. It makes it difficult for me to take anything else in the article seriously.


I will never believe, as some do, that there is an underground gay movement, the supposed, “Lavender Mafia”, that has infiltrated the Church.

Anyone who even hints toward that type of conspiracy and cover up is not worth my time.

Sexual scandals have been going on since the beginging, and sadly always will. God might have created the Church, but he gave it to men to control. Maybe it’s time to start looking at how the control is handled.


I’ve long been put off by that term, too. Though, I fear, with this McCarrick scandal, purveyors of that theory are going to feel vindicated and emboldened.

What McCarrick did (provided the allegations are true, of course) is nefarious and reprehensible. And I’m sure he conspired in so far as it was necessary to keep his practices going without being caught. But I’m skeptical of a pervasive “mafia-like” underground.

My perspective may be skewed, though. The dioceses I have lived in for my adult life have been good dioceses with good priests and good seminarians. Not that there haven’t been issues. But they are all dealt with and are not the norm.


“Uncle Ted” admitted certain men to the seminary and not others. He promoted the careers of certain priests and not others. He recommended certain men as bishops and not others. He encouraged the creation of a group of privileged men whom he called “nephews” and recommended they refer to each other as “cousins.”

But oh no. There’s no Lavender Mafia. There’s no conspiracy. It’s just one guy who got caught.

Twenty-four years after the first bishop was warned he was a gay predator.


But again, God works in mysterious ways. Father James Martin has been noticeably quieter lately in posting tweets that oh so carefully endorse the gay lifestyle. The McCarrick downfall has come at a providential time.


Bishops all around the world do the same thing every day. That is, admitting certain men over others, promoting some to higher positions than others, recommending priests for Bishop over others, that is what an Ordinary does.

In McCarrick’s case he was using his sexuality as a tool to get what he wanted, but make no mistake, everything you lament above is basically what a Bishop’s job description is.

Or do you think we should just get rid of Bishops? :smirk:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit