The report's release comes days before the U.S. bishops gather virtually Nov. 16 and 17 for their annual meeting.

"On Tuesday, 10th November 2020, at 2 p.m. (Rome time), the Holy See will publish the report on the Holy See's institutional knowledge and decision-making process related to former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (from 1930 to 2017), prepared by the Secretariat of State by mandate of the Pope," Vatican officials said.

It added: "The same day, an hour before publication, a section of the document will be provided in advance to accredited journalists."

Read More

Also known as laicisation and sometimes referred to colloquially as defrocking, a sentence of laicisation would complete a stunning fall from grace for the former cardinal, who at one time wielded immense influence in both Rome and the United States.

Last year, then-Cardinal McCarrick was reported to the Archdiocese of New York, accused of abusing a 16-year-old boy in the 1970s.

Two more allegations of the abuse of minors also surfaced, as did claims that Archbishop McCarrick sexually harassed and assaulted priests and seminarians.

If the Vatican decides to expel Archbishop McCarrick from the priesthood, it would close one chapter of the abuse crisis, but many questions will remain.

What is laicisation?

The term "laicisation" refers to scenarios in which a member of the clergy, through the use of the church's legal apparatus, is no longer permitted to act as a priest.

Sometimes a priest may petition Rome for laicisation, often in order to marry. (A priest who wishes to marry needs, in addition to laicisation, to request being released from his vow of celibacy, which is a separate process.)

In other cases, laicisation is a form of punishment, commonly described as being "dismissed from the clerical state," often because of violations of the commandment barring adultery. (Before the 1983 revision to the code of canon law, priests who were laicised were often referred to as being "reduced" to the lay state.)

A sentence of laicisation would complete a stunning fall from grace for the former cardinal, who at one time wielded immense influence in both Rome and the United States.

This is the portion of canon law used by the church to prosecute priests and bishops accused of sexual abuse of a minor.

Between 2004 and 2014, the Vatican laicised 848 priestsbecause of sexual abuse.

Only the Vatican can laicise priests so accused, which critics say makes the process too cumbersome.

What does laicisation entail? Is it the same as defrocking?

When a priest is laicised, he is no longer permitted to celebrate the sacraments. He cannot preach a homily or hold a post at a seminary..

Nor is he allowed to present himself as a priest, meaning he cannot wear clerical garb.

This is where the slang term "defrocked" originates, referring to the taking away of a priest's attire, though "defrocking" is not a technical term. (It is possible, however, that a priest could be ordered to refrain from wearing clericals in public without being dismissed from the clerical state.) Continue reading

• Image: Italian Insider

He also discussed the personal letter Pope Francis sent him upon accepting his resignation Oct. 12, as well as his 18 years as a bishop in Pittsburgh, the Pennsylvania grand jury report, his 12 years as archbishop of Washington D.C., the McCarrick case, the accusations leveled against him and the pope by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet's response.

"I was very moved that [the pope's letter] it highlights what is so important to me, namely that the shepherd's first responsibility is to his flock, is to the people entrusted to his pastoral care and that the unity of the flock is so important," Cardinal Wuerl told America when asked for his reaction to the letter from Pope Francis.

"I felt that my ability to be able to serve that unity would have required concentrating on a defense of myself and of my actions and that would, I believe, have taken us in the wrong direction rather than trying to do the healing and unity as quickly as possible. That's why I asked the Holy Father to accept my resignation so that a new and fresh leadership did not have to deal with these other issues."

In his letter, Pope Francis appeared to believe that while the cardinal committed "some mistakes," he did not engage in "cover up" or fail "to deal with problems."

When asked if that was how he saw it, too, the cardinal responded: "Yes, and I said that. I made errors of judgment when we were dealing with all those cases before the Dallas Charter.

"Some of those errors in judgment were based on professional psychological evaluations, some of the errors were based on moving too slowly as we tried to find some verification of the allegations. Those were all judgmental errors, and I certainly regret them."

And, he added, "I think it is also worth noting that all those priests who were faced with allegations in my time there, if there was any substantiation for them they were removed from any ministry that would put them in contact with young people."

He said, "I think what we can say is that a careful reading of the [Pennsylvania grand jury] report and the Diocese of Pittsburgh's response, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed to be attached to the grand jury report, shows that I acted in a very responsible way to remove predator priests."

When asked if he wished he had done anything differently during his 18 years as a bishop in Pittsburgh, the cardinal said: "It's a hard question to answer because in those early years of my ministry, that was before the change in canon law, before the Essential Norms, there were a lot of things that I did that went in the direction of trying to get some proof of allegations.

"I think where we are today is a different place. When an allegation is made today without any corroborating testimony or proof, the person is still put on leave.

"I think had that practice and that approach to canon law been operative when I began ministry in Pittsburgh, things would have been very different. Then we were required to have some modicum of proof before moving out the person."

In his letter of August 25, Archbishop Viganò attacked Pope Francis for allegedly covering up Archbishop McCarrick's abuse and accused him of lifting the sanctions that Benedict XVI had imposed on McCarrick.

He also accused Cardinal Wuerl of not enforcing the secret sanctions.

Last Sunday, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, of which Cardinal Wuerl is also a member, responded in an open letter to Archbishop Viganò's attack against the pope, addressed the question of sanctions and stated, "I conclude that the accusation is a political plot devoid of real foundation that could incriminate the pope and has profoundly wounded the communion of the church."

Asked if he agrees with the Canadian cardinal when he calls Archbishop Viganò's attack "a political plot [set up]," Cardinal Wuerl responded: "In my read of that testimony, particularly the part that touches me, it is not faithful to the facts.

"There can be reasons for that, and I think Cardinal Ouellet is touching on what may be the primary one. In his testimony, Archbishop Viganò clearly says that there were secret sanctions in some form.

"But he also says himself that he never communicated them to me.

"Yet this should have been his duty.

"I find it difficult to accept his version that he holds me responsible for implementing something he never passed on or his gratuitous insult that I must be a liar when I say that I never received these secret sanctions.

"Certainly I would never have guessed that there were sanctions against Cardinal McCarrick from all the times I encountered him at receptions and events hosted by Archbishop Viganò at the Apostolic Nunciature.

"The gap between what he says and what he did and his easy calumny call into question for me the real intent and purpose of his letter." Continue reading

• Image: America Magazine

Every crisis demands the same, including the sex abuse crisis.

So, while it is always a mistake to try and figure out what the crazies at Church Militant will do or say, it is important that we monitor what is being said by seemingly responsible people to make sure we are all keeping each other honest.

In a recent essay at The Weekly Standard, Mary Eberstadt wrote "The Elephant in the Sacristy, Revisted," a kind of reprise of an article she first wrote in 2002.

"Back then, like today, the plain facts of the scandals were submerged in what we now call whataboutism," she writes.

"According to these evasive maneuvers, the wrongdoing was supposedly explained by reference to clericalism, celibacy, sexual immaturity, and other attributes invoked to avoid the obvious."

And, for her, then as now, the key to understanding the scandal was:

A cluster of facts too enormous to ignore, though many labor mightily to avert their eyes. Call it the elephant in the sacristy. One fact is that the offender was himself molested as a child or adolescent. Another is that some seminaries seem to have had more future molesters among their students than others. A third fact is that this crisis involving minors—this ongoing institutionalized horror—is almost entirely about man-boy sex.

First, it is always an honor to be mentioned alongside Frs. Spadaro and Martin, as well as Professor Faggioli.

But, while I can't presume to speak for them, I can assure Ms. Eberstadt that the reason I called Vigano's filthy lies a "putsch" attempt was because he not only mixed just enough truth amidst the lies to tantalize many journalists for a week, and apparently still has her believing him, but he called for the pope to resign.

In the face of the fact that Francis is the only pope who ever really took action against McCarrick, this call for his resignation was self-evidently an attempt at triggering a putsch, the modern day ecclesial equivalent of the shot fired by the cruiser Aurora to trigger the October Revolution in 1917.

This is what Viganò and his crowd of admirers want, for Francis to go.

"The Catholic laity is far from blameless in this hour.

"The scandals might have been reduced long ago if the laity's rejection of church teaching on birth control hadn't led to collusion of mutual misuse," Eberstadt writes.

"Many priests winked at the laity's breaking the law against contraception and many laity tacitly returned the favor by not worrying overmuch about their priest and some of his friends."

She is actually on to something important here.

It is true that a sense of unreality and deceit surrounds the subject of sexual ethics within the Catholic Church, but that is a consequence of the deeper problem, namely, that the church's teaching on sex has been for too long presented in the language of neo-scholasticism and with no apparent connection to the Gospel.

And, at least in the Anglo-Saxon world, and precisely among writers like Eberstadt, sexual ethics has been the primary focus of Catholic identity, giving the subject an outsized importance within the church.

Eberstadt is not alone.

In a column at First Things, and distributed through syndication, George Weigel takes a swipe at Cardinal Blase Cupich, albeit without naming him.

Weigel mistakenly compares a Cupich interview with a press conference given by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, then-prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, in 2002.

Cupich did not say, as Castrillon Hoyos did, that the pope had better things to worry about than sex abuse.

The Chicago cardinal said the pope had better things to worry about than the self-serving, score-settling "testimony" offered by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a man Weigel had previously dubbed the best nuncio to the U.S. ever.

Weigel then goes on to quote at length and approvingly from a letter issued by Hartford Archbishop Leonard Blair to his priests and seminarians. Blair wrote:

The anger and disillusionment of our Catholic people is only matched by my own, and no doubt yours as well. After all the massive effort that has been made since 2002 to rid the Church of this evil and to try to bring healing to victim survivors, how is it possible that we find ourselves confronting the same perception of the Church, and of us as priests and bishops, as if nothing has changed?

But, why, then, if he is so angry and disillusioned, and so resolved to do what it takes to eradicate this evil, why has not Archbishop Blair taken the simple step of publishing the names of those priests who have been credibly accused of sexual abuse against a minor?

Why does Weigel attend to his words and not his deeds?

And why should anyone think Weigel — defender of serial molester Fr. Marcial Maciel, friend of enabler Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, biographer of the pope who set the pattern of dismissing victims and covering up crimes — credible on this subject?

You can spend time checking to see which essayists quote which bishops, and whether those bishops have actually done anything to put the sex abuse scandal behind us.

You can examine their arguments and decide whether they make sense to you or not.

But, here is a shortcut, a quick way to tell if they are serious: Do they even mention St. Pope John Paul II ?

He was the one who not only set the pattern for ignoring victims, but who led the Vatican in the '80s and '90s, when bishops were routinely told to reinstate priests, not to be too tough on "poor father."

He was the one who promoted Theodore McCarrick not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times. Continue reading

• Image: Indian Express

And again, people say they are shocked and outraged, which shows how Catholics still refuse to see that there is an underlying issue to these cases.

It is the fact that almost all of them concern males — whether they are adolescents, post-pubescent teens or young men.

And while no adult who is of sound psychosexual health habitually preys on those who are vulnerable, there is no denying that homosexuality is a key component to the clergy sex abuse (and now sexual harassment) crisis.

With such a high percentage of priests with a homosexual orientation, this should not be surprising.

But let me be very clear: psychologically healthy gay men do not rape boys or force themselves on other men over whom they wield some measure of power or authority.

However, we are not talking about men who are psychosexually mature. And yet the bishops and officials at the Vatican refuse to acknowledge this.

Rather, they are perpetuating the problem, and even making it worse, with policies that actually punish seminarians and priests who seek to deal openly, honestly and healthily with their sexual orientation.

McCarrick's case made me think of that of the late Scottish Cardinal Keith O'Brien, who in 2013 was removed from ministry after the surfacing of reports that he'd harassed and been involved with seminarians.

That year, cardinals picked a pope, and O'Brien stepped back - or was pulled back by higher-ups.

Something I wrote then comes to mind amid the McCarrick scandal: O'Brien should not have recused himself from voting in the pope-picking "conclave," as "only a naif could believe that he is the only man among the electors who has broken his solemn promise to remain celibate," I wrote in the March 9, 2013, edition of the Tablet. "There are likely others. And even those who've done worse," I warned.

Our problem in the Church is of the abuse of power, an abuse that happens as a result of homophobia that keeps gay men in the closet, bars them from growing up and results in distorted sexuality for many gay priests.

We need to address this elephant in the rectory parlor.

Had O'Brien attended the 2013 conclave, I believe he could have looked several of his red-robed confreres who have also "fallen below the standards" directly in the eyes.

This is not to justify his conduct, but rather to say that the hypocrisy must end. Continue reading

• Robert Mickens is editor of La Croix International. He writes from Rome, Vatican City.

Vigano alleges Pope Francis knew former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had "corrupted generations of seminarians and priests" but nonetheless decided to lift sanctions.

Sanctions that included "a life of prayer and penance" which had been imposed on the retired D.C. archbishop by Pope Benedict XVI in either 2009 or 2010.

Archbishop Viganò, the papal representative to the United States from 2011 until he was recalled to Rome by Pope Francis in 2016, did not provide documents proving that sanctions were imposed by Benedict.

Nor did he provide evidence that Francis knew about the sanctions or that he lifted them.

During the years that then-Cardinal McCarrick was allegedly sanctioned by Rome, he kept up a public profile that included preaching at high-profile Masses, giving talks and accepting awards.

He testified in front of a Senate subcommittee and appeared in the media.

The cardinal also kept up a famously robust travel schedule, in part because he served on the board of Catholic Relief Services and chaired the board of the charitable arm of the international development nonprofit.

A spokeswoman for C.R.S. told America that then-Cardinal McCarrick traveled on "a couple of dozen trips during that time, including in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America" between 2009 and the end of Pope Benedict's papacy in 2013, adding that C.R.S. was "unaware" of any sanctions.

Archbishop Viganò alleges that after several specific attempts to convince the Vatican that then-Cardinal McCarrick should be sanctioned because of allegations of sexual misconduct with priests and seminarians, prohibitions were handed down in 2009 or 2010.

Those sanctions, he said, required the cardinal to move out of a seminary where he was living and forbade him to celebrate Mass in public, participating in public meetings, giving lectures or traveling.

He was to dedicate "himself to a life of prayer in penance."

Pope Francis removed then-Cardinal McCarrick from ministry in June following substantiated allegations that he had sexually abused a minor decades ago.

Sharon Euart, R.S.M., a canon lawyer and the executive director of the Resource Center for Religious Institutes, said that while she could not comment on the specifics regarding the onetime archbishop of Washington, D.C., a priest or bishop who is punished with sanctions removing him from ministry would be notified in writing.

Sister Euart said that whoever has jurisdiction over the offender would normally be notified of the penalty so that the offender could be monitored.

In the case of then-Cardinal McCarrick, it is not clear who may have been asked to monitor him.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who succeeded Archbishop McCarrick in Washington, has said he was not made aware of any sanctions, a statement challenged by Archbishop Viganò.

"There is certainly expectation that they would abide by the regulations of their particular situation," Sister Euart said, adding that she would find it "unusual" for such penalties to remain secret. Continue reading

• Image: America Magazine

As The Times made clear in its reporting, many church leaders had received multiple notices of the cardinal's behavior.

Local dioceses had been told, the papal nuncio in Washington, D.C., had been told and, eventually, even Pope Benedict XVI had been told.

But none of these reports interrupted Cardinal McCarrick's rise through the ranks nor his appointment as cardinal nor his eventual retirement in 2006 as a respected leader of the U.S. church.

Nor did these reports lead to his removal last month from public ministry, which finally resulted from a credible allegation of abuse of a minor almost 50 years ago, recently revealed and acted on by the Archdiocese of New York.

It is true that none of the earlier reports of abuse alleged criminal behavior with minors, but they were serious enough that Cardinal McCarrick should have been called to account for the terrible misuse of his office and authority.

The church and its leaders should be ashamed of their failure to do so.

The slow and halting progress the church has made by way of reforms adopted in response to the sexual abuse of children, for example through the Dallas charter, has been called into question by the revelation of its ongoing failures to deal with other reports of abuse.

Nor should the media, including we in Catholic media (Cardinal McCarrick was a longtime friend of this magazine and delivered the homily at our centennial celebration in 2009), be absolved of responsibility for any failure to take these and other rumors and reports as seriously as was required.

To demand accountability only of the hierarchy is itself hypocrisy.

The church also cannot pretend that this is an isolated incident.

There are very likely similar reports involving other bishops and church leaders who have abused their authority or committed sexual offenses that have been ignored over past decades.

As societies around the world reckon with the unfolding of the #MeToo movement and victims of sexual abuse and harassment find their voices, the church must not pretend that this is merely a regrettable episode that will soon be over.

In all likelihood, there are more reports still to come that will show this situation is worse than is now known.

The church should remember that real improvement consists not in the cessation of bad press for the church but in the development of a culture in which powerful leaders do not expect their misdeeds to be silently covered up and in which victims of abuse and harassment feel supported in their decisions to confront those who have mistreated them. Continue reading

All these years, McCarrick apparently knew he was a ticking time bomb, a man with an alleged history of sexual predation who had heretofore avoided the hammer.

At 87 years old, he'd almost made it too; he'd almost successfully run the gauntlet and avoided the reach of earthly justice.

That is, until the Review Board of the Archdiocese of New York deemed an almost 50-year-old accusation of assault against a minor not just credible but substantiated.

Compounding the news was the revelation from the archbishop of Newark, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, that there have been at least three accusations leveled in the past against McCarrick by adults, two of which were settled out of court (and perhaps contained clauses requiring the victims' silence).

Cardinal McCarrick has appealed the decision, but over the last week an increasing number of sordid stories about his sexual harassment of seminarians and other inappropriate actions have emerged.

Once again, the public's trust is shattered, the reputation of the Church is harmed, another respected name is reduced to ashes of shame.

Cardinal McCarrick joins the ever-growing litany of prominent and powerful men who have fallen from grace in recent years upon allegations that they committed or covered up sexual predation: Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Roger Ailes, Al Franken, Joe Paterno, Jimmy Savile, Marcel Maciel, Bernard Law.

Some of these men, like Cardinal McCarrick, first faced charges in the waning years of their lives. Others were at the peak of their careers when they were outed.

The extent of the crimes of some, such as British television personality Jimmy Savile, were not exposed until after their deaths.

And, as with so many of these men, the public may never know the full extent of their crimes.

One question that troubles me greatly is how many predators might there be who have not yet been exposed?

How many prominent priests, bishops, and cardinals are hiding sex crimes from their pasts and hoping to avoid the public shame of having them revealed?

There's a reason why Catholics have traditionally named buildings and institutions after saints.

In due time, the Archdiocese of Washington will rename the McCarrick Center (home to Catholic Charities and a Spanish-language mission) in Silver Spring.

At least no one has to worry about renaming McCarrick high school in New Jersey; it was already shut down in 2015. Continue reading

• Michael Lewis is one of a group of Catholics who have become increasingly concerned about the attacks from within the Church on Pope Francis and his teachings. He blogs at www.wherepeteris.com

Within a few days, I said, a major secular newspaper would break a sensational story about Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

To my surprise, the newspaper never ran the story—which finally came out 20 June.

At the time, several reporters had spoken with me about the cardinal.

Most had been unable to find anyone willing to go on record with complaints.

Rod Dreher, one of the journalists who was investigating the rumors, writes 23 June, about the frustration he felt when witnesses refused to go public.

I ran into the same brick wall; while I heard multiple accusations, without a willing witness I had only hearsay evidence.

But at least one reporter found a former seminarian who was ready to tell his story—or so I was told.

Yet that story never emerged— at least not in the mainstream media.

Today Rod Dreher reveals that a delegation had gone to Rome sometime before 2000, to caution Vatican officials against the rumored appointment of then-Archbishop McCarrick as Cardinal-archbishop of Washington.

Their advice was ignored. Continue reading

• Phil Lawler (pictured) has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org
• Image: Lifesite News

I have been waiting for this story to break since 2002.

Back then, I received a tip from a priest who had gone on his own dime to Rome, along with a group of prominent US Catholic laymen, to meet with an official for the Roman Curial congregation that names bishops.

It had been rumored at the time that Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop of Newark, was going to be moved to Washington, DC, and to be made a cardinal.

This group traveled to Rome to warn the Vatican that McCarrick was a sexual harrasser of seminarians.

The story this priest shared with me was that McCarrick had a habit of compelling seminarians to share his bed for cuddling.

These allegations did not involve sexual molestation, but were clearly about unwanted sexual harassment.

To refuse the archbishop's bedtime entreaties would be to risk your future as a priest, I was told.

Rome was informed by these laymen — whose number included professionally distinguished Catholics in a position to understand the kind of harm this would cause -that McCarrick was sexually exploiting these seminarians, but it did no good. McCarrick received his appointment to the Washington archdiocese in 2000.

In early 2002, though, the priest who tipped me off wouldn't go on the record.

It would have meant the end of his priesthood, quite possibly.

He gave me the name of a couple of medical figures who had been on the same journey.

I called one, who confirmed it, but wouldn't go on the record.

I called the other, who gasped when I said it out loud, and who said, "If that were true, then I wouldn't confirm it for the same reason Noah's sons covered their father in his drunkenness."

That's where the investigation stood after a couple of days.

For all I knew, these were only allegations.

Then a personal friend of McCarrick's — a closeted gay man, someone whose name you would know — contacted the news organization for which I was working on this story.

The caller did so on McCarrick's behalf, trying to get me pulled off the story.

I won't go into details, but the man who made the call conceded that McCarrick was guilty, but insisted that no laws had been broken, and therefore it wasn't a big deal.

My supervisor on the story, to his great credit, simply said to keep digging, but to keep him informed.

How did McCarrick find out?

It turned out that the priest who tipped me off had only told his spiritual adviser, a well-known conservative cleric, who had almost certainly called McCarrick.

My informant — remember, this was early 2002 — was still under the naive impression that you could tell the good guys from the bad guys in the Catholic scandal based on where they lined up theologically.

Not true! Continue reading

• Rod Dreher is a senior editor at The American Conservative. He has written and edited for the New York Post, The Dallas Morning News, National Review, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Washington Times, and the Baton Rouge Advocate.
• Image: Pulpit and Pen