Was the Vatican’s McCarrick report a shameful whitewash?

The title is from this article:

in which Thompson argues that Pope Francis “altered the approach that had been adopted by Benedict. He rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick — not surreptitiously but spectacularly.”

Pope Francis “was almost certainly told about McCarrick’s squalid behavior by Archbishop Viganò,” according to an interview on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo. Furthermore, the article states that Pope Francis has a “long record of defending clerical allies whom he knows have been accused of committing or covering up sex abuse. The child abusers Fr Julio Grassi and Mgr Mauro Inzoli; …Bishop Juan Barros of Chile, …Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium…and Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, currently standing trial in Argentina for abusing seminarians and stealing money — all of these have been defended, rehabilitated or promoted by Francis. In every case, he knew what they had done or were credibly accused of doing.”

This is going to cause such anguish to so many Catholics. Does anyone have any more information about Pope Francis hiding information about abuse?

It’s possible that Francis honestly believed these people were innocent, which is understandable if the accuser didn’t provide corroborating evidence and instead left it a case of one person’s word against another. That might mean he’s too trusting or that he’s a poor judge of character, but that’s not the same as being willfully complicit.

1 Like

The Spectator can be like LifeSiteNews. The stopped clock analogy.
If we prayed as much as we gossip, there would never have been a McCarrick report.


I see the main drawbacks of the report to be as follows:

  • the compilers of the report are not named
  • the sources of McCarricks money are unexplained
  • two key witnesses, Vigano and Grein, were not interviewed
  • however in Vigano’s case there were 306 references to him, while in Grein’s case zero
  • there is no effort to explain where the systemic fault lies
  • there is no discussion about the ongoing influence McCarrick may have via his proteges, favourites and people he promoted.

Except that you added a question mark.

Why did you do that?

1 Like

Damian Thompson ends his Spectator article with these two sentences:

This is the fantasy narrative constructed by the McCarrick report. Now let’s see what happens as it falls apart.

Give it a week or two, and either it will have fallen apart by then, or it won’t. If it’s really as bad as Thompson says it is, a further stream of gruesome facts will surely now come pouring out. Let’s wait and see. There’s not much else we can do.

This sort of article is what comes from worldly-minded people trying to understand how God works. This is a common error and has been since St. Paul addressed it. The Church interacts with the world, but she does not mirror the politics.

We should really try to be the same way so as to avoid making false idols of political figures and ideologies.

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