Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on November 18, 2020, and is reposted in response to the news that McCarrick died recently at the age of 94.
From the day it was announced that the Vatican would conduct an investigation into the career of former Washington cardinal-archbishop Theodore McCarrick (compelled to renounce his cardinalate and subsequently laicized for sexual abuse and the abuse of power), it seemed unlikely that the McCarrick Report would fully please anyone.
That intuition hardened as two years passed without any report. During that period, I also came to the view that, whatever the report reported about details, it would not alter the basic outline of this tawdry tale: Theodore McCarrick is a narcissistic, pathological liar; pathological liars fool people; Theodore McCarrick fooled a lot of people.
The McCarrick Report did not, it turns out, please everyone, even as the world press weirdly turned it into an assault on John Paul II. But it certainly underscored that McCarrick was a singularly accomplished deceiver.
Among those he deceived were many highly intelligent people, more than a few holy people, and a lot of the progressive U.S. Catholic world, for whom he was both hero and fundraiser–much as the similarly disgraced Marcial Maciel deceived many traditionally inclined Catholics for decades. There is no safe haven on the spectrum of Catholic opinion where one’s perceptions and judgments are armor-plated against deceivers. For their wickedness is a manifestation of the work of the Great Deceiver, whom St. John described as “deceiver of the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). It would be well to keep this common vulnerability to deception in mind in the future – and as some, alas, try to use the McCarrick Report as ammunition in various internecine Catholic struggles.
The shameful story of Theodore McCarrick illustrates more than the demonic power of deception, however. McCarrick’s deceptions operated within a cultural matrix that enabled him to avoid the consequences of his depredations for decades. That dysfunctional culture–a clerical caste system that is a betrayal of the integrity of the priesthood and episcopate – must be confronted and uprooted, as the Church purifies itself of the sin of clerical sexual abuse, in order to get on with the mission of evangelization.
Theodore McCarrick knew the clerical caste system from the inside and used it assiduously. He used it, knowing that he would be unwittingly protected by decent men who simply could not imagine a priest or bishop behaving as he did. He used it, knowing the reluctance of seminarian-victims to jeopardize their hopes for priestly ordination by making his repulsive behavior known. He used it, knowing that many bishops deemed public “scandal” more damaging to the Church than sexual predation. He used it, knowing that other clergymen were ashamed of how they had strayed and had no stomach for confronting others, even after they had cooperated with God’s grace and returned to integrity of life. He used it, knowing that the New York presbyterate to which he belonged, and the American episcopate he sought (unsuccessfully) to dominate, often functioned as men’s clubs in which one simply did not call out the other members of the club, privately or publicly. He used it, knowing of the Vatican’s reluctance to take disciplinary action against cardinals.
As he gamed the system while climbing the hierarchical ladder, he also deployed his exceptional capacity for self-promotion. He was never really the all-powerful “kingmaker” he was thought to be. But he was quite willing to use that perception (which he cultivated) as protection, just as he used the equally bogus and self-promoting claim that he was some sort of secret Vatican diplomatic agent and was thus protected in Rome – a longstanding, auto-generated myth that the McCarrick Report demolishes, not least in regard to China.
The evangelical answer to the deep reform of the clerical caste system comes from the Lord himself: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church” (Matthew 18:15-17).
That ethic of fraternal challenge and correction must be inculcated in future priests in seminaries. Bishops must insist upon it with their presbyterates, making clear that evangelical, fraternal correction extends to priests challenging the bishop when conscience and the good of the Church demand it.
And that ethic must be lived within the episcopate itself. Without it, “collegiality” is a hollow slogan that enables betrayals of Christ and Christ’s people, whom the pastors are called to protect from the Great Deceiver and his accomplices.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The only one McCarrick still has fooled is you, Weigel.
Mr. Weigel is persisting in appealing for trust in the Church Establishment who, as witnessed by Dr. Fitzgibbons, have and continue to peddle “fabrications and falsehoods” and omissions.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and predicting a different result.
McCarrick not a kingmaker? He was a good enough pope-maker, even if the pope he made was only made to wreck the RC Church by turning it over to red China.
You’re not kidding. Up until now, I used to think that even though Weigel has been a Pollyanna towards the worst pope in the history of the Church, he is at least an intelligent man. To regard the “McCarrick Report” as credible and respectable has caused me to finally give up on Weigel. My library of his books are going to the thrift store. To protect the protectors of corruption at the top is to aid and abet their crimes.
Another very good article. I’m starting to like this George Weigel (he desperately needs a new picture, however–the above is just too smug looking).
Agree about the photo.
Disagree about W’s diagnosis though…
On this site, on 11 November, Dr. Fitzgibbons condemned the authors of “the McCarrick Report” for “falsehoods and fabrications” and omissions.
Mr. Weigel says “the McCarrick Report did not, it turns out, please everyone.” I take it that Mr. Weigel thinks more Catholics should be pleased with the McCarrick Report.
Putting the above together, Mr. Weigel, by ignoring the warning of Dr. Fitzgibbons, is displaying bad judgment. He apparently is arguing that practicing Catholics should be satisfied with authors who are guilty of “falsehoods and fabrications” and omissions.
Mr. Weigel, proceeding from bad judgment, goes on with bad diagnosis. Mr. Weigel has declared that the problems are a “dysfunctional cultural matrix” and “the clerical caste system,” and that these must be “rooted out.”
Mr. Weigel thinks that the solution is “fraternal correction.”
Is Me. Weigel trying to persuade serious Catholic adults that fraudulent men, false shepherds in control of the Church, who peddle in “falsehoods and fabrications” and omissions are now going to be “rooted out” by fraternal correction? That is a very bad prescription.
Mr. Weigel is weaving thin narratives with ambiguous yarns like “dysfunctional cultural matrix” and “clerical caste systems,” Mr. Weigel is clinging to his narrative that we have “system failure,” which is his attempt to avoid dealing with the hard reality confronting Catholic parents..
Dr. Fitzgibbons is warning us that the men and women in the Vatican (and of course this extends to Bishops and chanceries everywhere), under the now super-charged power of the Cardinal Secretary of State Parolin, who has been given immense bureaucratic control of the Church by the Pontiff Francis, have given the Church “falsehoods and fabrications” and omissions.
In 1970, Pope Paul VI reorganized the Vatican Curia, and demoted the Congregation for the Faith, for centuries recognized by the Church as the most important Congregation, and promoted in its place Vatican Secretariat of State. At that moment, the Pontiff and the men of the Secretariat of State chose Mammon over the faith itself. In 2018 the Pontiff Francis magnified this monstrous distortion of the Church, and made the Vatican Secretariat of State a super-power in the now thoroughly corruptied hierarchy.
The big sex abuse coverups of the John Paul II years, including the Maciel coverup and the McCarrick coverup and promotion, were all done by the Secretariat of State, which had jurisdiction over sex abuse investigations, until the very end of the JP2 pontificate, when Cardinal Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Faith convinced JP2 to take the authority for sex abuse investigations away from the Secretariat of State, whose members were covering everything up. Now, ominously, the Pontiff Francis has magnified the power of the same corrupt Secretariat of State,
I suggest we desist from weaving ambiguous narratives about “the cultural matrix” and deal with real concrete problems.
The Pontiff Francis should resign, having enabled the perpetuation of “falsehoods and fabrications” and omissions. Dismantle the Vatican Secretariat of State and demote it and replace its members. Demand the resignation of Bishops and Cardinals appointed by the Pontiff Francis by recommendation of McCarrick. Restore the Congregation for the Faith as the top-most Congregation in the Vatican.
Those would be real reforms, which might result in an organization where “fraternal correction” wouldn’t get you on the enemies list.
From what I’ve heard, the McCarrick report failed to ask basic questions like: Who selected and sent the seminarians to his beach house?
You can’t clean up corruption if you don’t look for it.
And one reform overlooked in the Church ought to be protections for rather than automatic expulsion from seminaries if a seminarian has the good sense to haul off and punch a would-be rapist right in the face no matter what his position.
“That ethic of fraternal challenge and correction must be inculcated in future priests in seminaries. Bishops must insist upon it with their presbyterates, making clear that evangelical, fraternal correction extends to priests challenging the bishop when conscience and the good of the Church demand it.”
Your term earlier in the article about uprooting the clerical caste system is a good start. Unfortunately, the only practical point you’ve made in this as well as your previous article on the matter in CWR is fraternal correction among clergy and the episcopate. That’s fine in and of itself, but abjectly insufficient. Yes, a big part of the problem is cultural, and that needs to change. George, perhaps you should lead by example and start calling out bishops that effect retribution against whistleblowers and those who speak out against episcopal corruption and cover-up–e.g., Fr. Mark White of Richmond and Fr. Biernat (spelling?) of Buffalo–each removed from ministry for daring to call out their bishop. Put a little bit of that repetitional capital you protect so much to good use.
Second, fraternal correction is nothing without practical reforms of the manner of governance. That means a system of law and order and due process in practice as well as in name, not a culture in which a person can evade responsibility or consequences because of their status or favor with x, y, or z. Your lack of specificity in this area is seriously lacking. We need rules on gift giving between bishops, periodic and independent audits of finances, and independent juridical functions with the appropriate balance of transparency and privacy to handle not only sexual abuse but also financial scandals and sexual harassment of priests and seminarians. Further, it is an absolute scandal that the Vatican cannot submit itself to an independent financial audit, something every public corporation goes through, without curial officials throwing a hissy fit.
It’s time to propose concrete reforms and get very specific. Speaking in vague generalities is getting us nowhere. Further, if you want to participate in this reform effectively, you need to start making bishops uncomfortable in a very specific way. That means, for instance, asking why Cardinal Mahoney was allowed to participate at the installation of the new archbishop of D.C., shining a light on why whistleblower priests are being suspended by their bishops etc… Oh, and by the way, why did you wait an entire *year* after Vigano’s original 2018 letter to reveal that he had previously relayed told you the same story about his interaction with Pope Francis on McCarrick?
Amen Don!
As I write I am only the third person to comment on George Weigel’s latest post – and I find it fair and balanced. It is also positive as ultimately a wake-up call for all of us Catholics, to remember that all that we say or do contributes to the way in which our beloved but currently much battered Church is regarded in the world. Incidentally, many of the comments on George Weigel’s earlier (No Smoking Gun)post seemed to be very unfair.
Mr. Jowitt –
Mr. Weigel is ignoring the warning given by Dr. Fitzgibbons, the Catholic psychologist who reported McCarrick to the Congregation for Bishops in the 1990s.
Fitzgibbons, on 11 November, published his warning to Catholics condemning the authors of Vatican Report for peddling “falsehoods and fabrications” and omissions.
Mr. Weigel has proposed no serious changes whatsoever to the governance of the Church, which is now in control of the corrupt men of the Vatican Secretariat of State, the very same who covered up for both Maciel and McCarrick, and who actually ran the second selection process that over-ruled the original rejection of McCarrick, and got him promoted to Cardinal Archbishop of Washington.
It is not serious for W to suggest that these corrupt Bishops in the Vatican and the USCCB are going to start “fraternal corrections.” That is a joke.
These men need to resign, beginning with the Pontiff Francis, who restored and promoted McCarrick after B16 demanded McCarrick’s retirement.
Can we expect any real consequences levied against those complicit in this whole affair? Anything published by supposed spokespersons so far (e.g. Barron) suggest otherwise. No wonder we end up with “catholics” such as Biden.
Agree 100%.
Coverup continues.
The words – ‘he used it ‘ – 6 times in one paragraph in the above article , good focus too – in fidelity to the prophetic warning from St.John Paul 11 about the ‘user mentality ‘ , originating in contraception .. that has led to ‘ doing good things badly ‘ leading to hardening of hearts , loss of faith and desire for
holiness , as revealed in the 24 Hour Passion Meditations to S.G .Louisa .
The effects of such choices and attitudes , in the faithful , as well as of own families of origin of those in ministry , to be also seen as serious enough areas – very likely that our Father figures , in grief , have been and are well aware of these deep connections and have been making efforts to drain the swamp , in the manner The Spirt leads them .
Tender words of the Holy Father , just on the same , on the struggle between the self will and Divine Will , where and how to get help –
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/11/18/pope-francis-mary-teaches-us-to-pray-with-a-heart-open-to-gods-will/
‘ You are the man ‘ – words of the Prophet Nathan to David , to echo in all hearts too , for every occasion of the ‘user attitudes ‘ , to make all to run to The Mother and The Lord , pleading for their abundant enough merits , united with all to trust that there is no need to fall for such , that the Life Giving Water from The Temple alone can fill the thirst and hunger in all our hearts .
““If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you.”… That ethic of fraternal challenge and correction must be inculcated in future priests in seminaries.” Correction? Odd word choice here. And I’d add that if young seminarians need heavy training about whether or not to get into bed with a superior, they probably are poor fits for the priesthood, or at least too young to yet be in seminary.
It is about giving the seminary the protection when reporting abuse, harassment of a superior. You should understand that they don’t have the protection now, and neither do other clergy, please don’t confuse knowledge with protection, and pray for our Seminarians who live to preach the word of God.
They should have good reporting mechanisms, and I think it’s clear they did not.
Seminarians also ought to know enough to prefer getting kicked out of the priesthood, to failing to report that sort of thing to the police.
There was a period when reporting to the police might not have worked either.
““If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone…But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you.”… That ethic of fraternal challenge and correction must be inculcated in future priests in seminaries.” Correction? Odd word choice here. And I’d add that if young seminarians need heavy training about whether or not to get into bed with a superior, they probably are poor fits for the priesthood, or at least too young to yet be in seminary.
I agree with this.
I think that it’s entirely likely (but hopefully doesn’t happen in all cases) that a young, idealistic, naive young man who has not been well-educated about his body and his sex drive by pious parents who have learned in their lives to suppress sexual thoughts and actions and have avoided almost all mention of “sex” and “body” in their homes and don’t have television in their homes (but use the internet–ah ha!), could be easily led into a lecherous relationship by an experienced sexual predator–which is, sadly, what priests who prey on young men who are unprepared to deal with the very strong temptation of sexual desires are counting on to acquire their victims.
I think many men, both religious and secular, would cite “sexual sin” as their greatest weakness, and this includes use of pornography. Once a person has been exposed to pornography, the images stay in their mind. I think this (porn use either accidentally or deliberately) could be one reason why young seminarians stumble and commit sin when confronted with sexual temptations and predators in real life. In the case of a young man brought up in a very strict home, that “pornography” could include pictures of women that for most men, do not incite sexual desire (e.g., a woman athlete wearing shorts and a tank top, a leotard, or a sparkly but tight-fitting competition dress
Sad article, but sexual sin is not likely to “go away” anytime soon, including in Catholic circles. The U.S. is filled with sexual images in every media form, and the temptations are many, and a cassock (or even a hair shirt) is not a sure shield against falling to tempatation.
As long as they refuse to address homosexuality as a dreadful mortal sin nothing much will change.
Sexual abuse is not about homosexuality,it’s about heterosexual males using power, dominance over susceptibility of others. Just like the 93,000 young boys sexually abused by married heterosexual males in the Boy Scouts of America, until society admits this, it will continue.
In the church, it is most certainly about homosexuality. Why are you denying that basic and indisputable fact?
Pedophiles and homosexuals are not incapable of marrying and having children.
Sexual abuse is not strictly about heterosexual males abusing power, or even strictly about males abusing power. It’s about people who do sexually perverted things and are not restrained by themselves or given consequences by others.
The reasonable thing to do, is to restrain sexual perversions. Homosexuality is one perversion, pornography is another, and priests (like our society) have problems with both. But it is generally acknowledge that Catholic priests have a disproportionately high rate of homosexuals.
The subject regarding the Catholic Church is that over 80% of the sexual abuse is pederasty by homosexual predator priests against boys and teens and seminarians.
The subject you are alluding to is the general subject is society, such as the sex abuse covered up by teachers in grammar schools and high schools.
We are not talking about the latter when the topic is McCarrick. Changing the topuc as you suggest is exactly what McCarrick did in 2002-04 with his Dallas Charter and “Virtus” program. So we should cease letting McCarrick and his cult control the discussion.
Wrong, John Paul. These are homosexual men in married relationships and marriage.
“just as he used the equally bogus and self-promoting claim that he was some sort of secret Vatican diplomatic agent and was thus protected in Rome – a longstanding, auto-generated myth that the McCarrick Report demolishes, not least in regard to China.”
Bogus or myth? I am in no position to say, but there are many who do say he was a Vatican diplomatic agent in regard to China.
Having worked in a seminary, I have to say these recommendations are a bit pie-in-the-sky. A “cultural change” to get seminarians to expose this kind of stuff? There were BISHOPS who looked the other way at +TEM bedding seminarians. If THEY wouldn’t endanger their ecclesiastical climbs, can Weigel really expect seminarians to do that? Let’s also not forget two things about what broke the Uncle Teddy scam open:
1. what finally got Rome’s attention was not Uncle Teddy bedding seminarians but his groping — not once but twice in two separate years — a minor in the sacristy of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in preparation for Christmas Midnight Mass. THAT act was what forced the hand of Francis’s Vatican — which prevaricated on whether adult seminarians are a “vulnerable” population. They are, esp. in a clerisy of sycophantic yes men, not rare creatures in Rome or seminaries, where making a mess (exc. those authorized by the boss and/or not deemed theologically “backwardism”) shows YOU lack “essential human formative qualities” for advancement to the priesthood.
2. The priest who broke this scandal was then a religious order priest (a Dominican), not a member of the Newark presbyterate. Shouldn’t we perhaps ask whether that measure of autonomy was also necessary finally to break the local omerta?
Now in 2025, Rome, the USCCB is progressively from the Truth than ever and as the affair with Bishop Strickland demonstrates the progressives are entrenched.
Seeing my name in the comment section, for a moment I thought I was hacked. So this is an old article. After 5 years, however, I think I can say that my view has changed somewhat. I started to like Weigel at the time, but soon after started to not like Weigel. The reforms that are needed are much more radical than what he is putting forth. We had over 1000 years of Apostolic tradition of married priests and bishops, but all that was dispensed with, and celibacy was imposed in the Latin West, by terribly misogynist prelates. So much for tradition!
Pietro Damiani (c. 1007-1072), a Benedictine monk, later cardinal, later a declared saint, and at the time lead papal agent of the Gregorian attack on the Catholic families of Western bishops and presbyters, writes about women:
“I speak to you, o charmers of the clergy, appetizing flesh of the devil, that casting away from paradise, you, poison of the minds, death of souls, companions of the very stuff of sin, the cause of our ruin. You, I say, I exhort you women of the ancient enemy, you bitches, sows, screech-owls, night owls, she-wolves, blood-suckers … Come now, hear me, harlots prostitutes, with your lascivious
kisses, you wallowing places for fat pigs, couches for unclean spirits, demi-goddesses, sirens, witches. You vipers full of madness, parading the ardor of your ungovernable lust, through your lovers you mutilate Christ, who is the
head of the clergy … you snatch away the unhappy men from their ministry of the sacred altar … that you may strangle them in the slimy glue of your passion …
The ancient foe pants to invade the summit of the church’s chastity through you … They should kill you.”
In still other “tirades” against the wives of presbyters and bishops, Damiani repeated his hatred for women:
“The hands that touch the body and blood of Christ must not have touched the genitals of a whore … I have attempted to place the restraints of continence upon the genitals of the priesthood, upon those who have the high honor of touching the body and blood of Christ”
Mandatory celibacy is irrational. Celibacy is a charism, it is a gift, and charisms cannot be imposed. There are too many “personality disorders” in the priesthood, men who need a woman to challenge them, men who need to be exposed to real problems and difficulties. There are some great priests out there with healthy personalities and who have lived in the world before becoming priests, but they are few and far between.
But optional celibacy is not going to solve this difficult problem, of course. The Church is too wealthy. Optional celibacy will bring in many more people to the priesthood, but priests should also be working in the world, like Deacons. Their livelihood should not have to depend on toeing the party line. You’ll never get seminarians or priests to challenge bishops when their livelihood depends upon being in the bishop’s good books. Everyone is afraid of being shut down or kicked out, and it still happens. And this vice is all shrouded within the cloak of virtue, namely, “holy obedience”. A director of Deacons once said that bishops are only interested in a comfortable life for themselves. I thought he was wrong then. But now I am quite certain, on the basis of what I’ve seen personally, that he was right. The hierarchy is way too monarchical. These princes of the Church walking around like royalty, delighting in having others fawn all over them, so many of them not interested in listening to the laity–which is why Synodality has not taken root in their dioceses–, it’s so unlike New Testament servant leadership. It’s a patriarchal Church. A male, celibate, clerical church, celibate men making all the decisions, celibate men pontificating from on high, with the laity at the bottom of the pyramid receiving their “heavenly wisdom”, now ready to transform the world. Sure!
The first step forward is to bring in married priests who are normal, who have lived in the real world and understand real problems and who are too busy with important matters to be concerned about translations of the GIRM and whether we should say “one God, for ever and ever” or “God, for ever and ever”, or how to hold your hands when processing to the altar, or vestments, etc. The next step is taking these dedicated women who are doing so much in the parish and ordaining them deaconesses. That men can have the possibility of receiving 7 sacraments but women only 6, because they are woman, is blind and intolerable chauvinism. Patriarchy is ugly, but those on the inside don’t see it, until they are on the outside. Once we get to that point, we can discuss what’s next. But hanging on to the same outdated model is not going to change a thing. The hierarchy loves its power and privilege and is not going to let it go without a serious fight. The state of souls in the parishes is secondary. Vacations, meals, dinners, pomp and pageantry are far more important to the prince.
We are a long way from proper reform.
I was with you until you argued for ordained women. Sorry, but an already overly-feminized church doesn’t need more women in leadership. It needs mature, grounded men who have courage to lead. I’m not sure that married priests would necessarily be better, but priests who have spent some time having to earn a living would be helpful.
Thomas James,
What a quote. Only a man with suppressed and wrongly channeled libido could be so sexually aggressive and vile. His words are really screaming “I am deprived and I hate you all, especially women who are the source of my torture”. What is sad but typical here: the man does not see the love and attachment being the major component of a marriage (of the presbyters and others). In his burning mind, it is all about sex and lust, apparently, hence must be done away with. What normal man would listen to someone who calls his wife “a whore”? Yet he feels entitled to say so, abusing all women in his speech, including – noteworthy – his own mother.
I often observe the “sex fixation” when the abuse within the Church is being discussed. The truth that there is no sexual abuse without emotional abuse (an abuser engages in emotional and spiritual abuse to groom/control/scare the victim) and this is why the abuse within the Church must be treated as just plain Abuse, is often overlooked. By the way, the quote provided by you is an example of spiritual and emotional abuse with pronounced sexual overtones.
Unlike some I do not see the Roman Catholic Church as “over-feminized” or “patriarchal” – that would not be as pathological as the current situation. The Church is effeminate, too many priests were brought up by powerful narcissistic mothers while their fathers were absent, emotionally or physically. The result is an effeminate character, a man who unconsciously despises his father and thus any authority and rules (father’s role is to teach a child the objective rules and structures). In the extreme cases, such men are emotionally “married” to their mothers and often have various sexual aberrations as a result.
The Western Church provides for such men an excellent cover. Very briefly, the symptoms of narcissistic/antisocial personality disorder such as entitlement, lack of empathy, impulsivity, pathological lying, inability to form long-lasting deep relationships etc. are very well assimilated/covered within a frame of being a catholic priest. Entitlement is reinforced by a given in an ordination position of “being above the laity”, “ontological difference etc.” readily recognized by all. Celibacy covers his undeveloped/aberrant sexuality. Lack of empathy is easily masked by some shallow words from above and the status of a priest (who is supposed to be compassionate). An inability to form long-lasting relationships becomes a virtue since priests are routinely moved around and also are “above” the laity. Pathological lying is covered by the fear of a parishioner to recognize that a priest lies and so on. The result is that, when a priest is narcissistic, the parish is very quickly turned into a narcissistic = pathological family. The system appears to be ready-made for such individuals and those of the same spectrum among laity.
I will add that there is no difference, in essence, between an action of a bishop who covers an emotional/spiritual abuse of his priest and some Archbishop who covered the sexual abuse of his priest. And so, while it is natural to be horrified by the scale of child sexual abuse and its cover up, one should see clearly that the same mechanics is present in covert manipulation and emotional abuse routinely found on the lower level.
Anna: That was fantastic! I want to copy and paste that, and use it in the future. Have you written on this? That was precious! I was going to respond to Athanasius, but why bother? What you wrote covers it beautifully.
You wrote: “The Church is effeminate, too many priests were brought up by powerful narcissistic mothers while their fathers were absent, emotionally or physically. The result is an effeminate character, a man who unconsciously despises his father and thus any authority and rules (father’s role is to teach a child the objective rules and structures).”
If we look carefully, we’ll notice that we don’t find the same thing among Deacons–there are exceptions, of course, I won’t name anyone on this forum. But generally they are very normal, down to earth, emotionally well adjusted. There are very good, emotionally healthy priests around, but they are not in the majority–and I’m not referring to the “manly men” type that the rad trads envision.
Lose mandatory celibacy, for starters, so that we can get more healthy personalities on the altar and break up the clerical boys club, who really believe they are in some “mystical way” superior to married men. Such priests need not receive a salary from the diocese; they can continue to do the work they do, but they’d be available for Masses and Confessions so that those who run parishes won’t get burned out so quickly. There is a charism of celibacy, but it cannot be imposed on everyone. But the Church is so slow to change and is always late. Things have to get so bad before they begin to consider alternatives.
Thomas James,
Yes, I have written about narcissistic abuse extensively, in the family and in the church (which is a big family so the same mechanics are working there), in my papers and comments here on CWR. In the Church such an abuse becomes a theological issue, not just psychological.
You may be interested in reading my essay ‘Antipriest’
http://orthodox-christian-icons.com/the-antipriest.html
It is about theological implications of a phenomenon of a narcissist priest and its effect on believers.
You may also be interested to look into ‘Lacunae’
http://orthodox-christian-icons.com/lacunae.html
There, using the visuals, I explored the most horrible dilemma which a believer may face: to go to a church and receive Christ in communion given by his/her abuser-priest and be retraumatized or not to go/not be retraumatized and be without Christ (in communion).
There are other materials on the website as well.
As for deacons, I agree with you, so as with “celibacy is a charism”. I find it symptomatic that the Church does not bring on the option for a priest to marry while it has been a norm for centuries (and still a norm in the Eastern Churches including Catholic).
Thomas James,
I answered you but my answer included two links to my papers on the topic so it may be filtered as “spam” and not published. If it does not come through, you can click on my name and it will take you to my website where you will find under ‘Writing’ the papers ‘Antipriest’ and ‘Lacunae’.
Anna:
I appreciate your comment here…I think what you say here gets to the heart of the matter.
God reveals He made Man male and female in His own image. Revulsion against women (or men) is psychologically and morally wrong…pathological.
“L’affaire McCarrick” was a conspiracy of silence perpetrated by tens, if not hundreds, of clergy who knew either firsthand or by hearsay (the sum of which in retrospect added up to the truth) about McCarrick’s sexual abuse. What did the hierarchy do? They passed emails, letters and personal communication with one another back and forth endlessly but did nothing. Dear priests, bishops, cardinals and Popes: Your brother was a deeply troubled man morally and you stood by and watched him (along with his victims) self destruct. McCarrick did the deeds but our clergy were accomplices in their silence and inaction. My dear fellow Catholics, know this: Nothing has changed. The long, black line remains in place.
Our Church is due for a climactic spiritual reforming due to entrenched homosexuality that’s directly responsible for dissolution of revealed doctrine [many who find dissipation of moral standards softens their guilt]. It may be achieved by a spiritually strong, determined Roman pontiff. Otherwise divine intervention. This opinion based on logic not prophecy.
Homosexuality is deepky entrenched in the hierarchy itself. I’m not sure that even a strong pope can dismantle it.
Yes. It would be very difficult to dismiss cardinals arbitrarily in lieu of canon law. It might be reduced to the principle that a supreme pontiff cannot be contradicted.
For clarification he can dispense from all canon law [except valid and consummated marriage]. He cannot contradict divine law, sacred tradition.
Now that McCarrick has died, let us hope the hierarchy will have the sense
not to give him a lavish Catholic funeral with gezillion bishops processing
down the aisle of a great cathedral. Of course this hope may be all in vain.
McCarrick – where did he get his abundant funds?
Saint JPII – made McCarrick and Bergy and Maciel – Saint?
It seems the Father of Lies abundantly endows his devotees.
May Our Savior King have Mercy on His suffering Church.
Saint Fulton Sheen prophesied the Laity will save the Church – the guys in costumes are too corrupt.
And let us not forget who made McCarrick the Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, and Cardinal-Archbishop of Washington, D.C. — Pope John Paul II “The Great”. Why isn’t this ever mentioned by Weigel who has constituted himself the world authority on JPII?
Let’s also remember, Paul, that no Pope vets every bishop who gets named a bishop. If he did, he’d never have time to go to the bathroom. Rather, local bishops put forth the names of candidates and along with the nuncio of that country they decide on someone and present that name to the Pope for final approval. So, yes, Popes name bishops but in most cases don’t know the man from Adam…
But JP II was given information about McCarrick, Maciel, and even the Present Occupant in Rome. Alas, he was constitutionally incapable of believing it. Since McCarrick died, several reporters–Rod Dreher and Julia Druin–have told about attempts to break the story of his crimes but were blocked by editors of major secular newspapers for murky reasons. He was very, very well protected.
Oh please, “DiogenesCaecus”, spare me the disingenuous canards about the appointment of bishops. St. JPII “The Great” appointed McCarrick to the most prestigious archdiocese in the the most powerful nation in the entire world. He knew exactly what he was doing since it is beyond dispute that every bishop in this country and the Vatican knew that McCarrick was a serial homosecual rapist, thief, and traitor.
But they do know about lawsuits that were settled out of court…..
JPII and his advisors were well aware of the lawsuits that were settled by the Diocese of Metuchen years before he was given the red hat. ALL THE US bishops including Chaput, were complicit by their silence.