Further evidence of how widespread knowledge was about McCarrick from Father Peter Stravinskas:
On the McCarrick front, we are dealing with a very convoluted situation. “Everyone knew” about his strange sleeping arrangements with seminarians. So, why wasn’t something done about it? Years ago, I was questioned about this matter by a cardinal in Rome. I told him exactly what I knew – from some of the very seminarians affected, namely, that the Archbishop had invited them into his bed but – never touched them. The biggest difficulty was that no one was willing to testify against him for a variety of reasons. We shall come back to that issue as we move into the “testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
As you should know, Archbishop Viganò was the apostolic nuncio to the United States for nearly five years. His has been a multi-faceted ecclesiastical service, first having served in various nunciatures around the world, then actually having oversight for all nunciatures, as well as working in several capacities within the Roman Curia. His reputation is unimpeachable, universally acknowledged as competent, faithful, orthodox and honest. Indeed, he got “exiled” from the Vatican to his American post precisely because he was a “whistle-blower” in regard to financial corruption within the Vatican system. I give all this background on the man because not a few who are unhappy with his document have engaged in character assassination against him, incarnating the ancient principle of killing the bearer of bad news.
The report of Viganò is wide-ranging, spanning eleven pages. Frankly, if I had advised him, I would have counseled him to keep it to a page or two, given the inability of moderns to stay focused for more than a minute or two. That said, it is a devastating critique of corruption at the highest levels of the Church. While he does not shy away from discussing sexual immorality within the ranks of the clergy, I would submit that this is not his primary focus. Rather, he shines a laser on the abuse of power by hierarchs and the “old boy” network of ecclesiastical promotion and cover-up. That’s the real story and ex-Cardinal McCarrick features prominently on those fronts, as well as in regard to his bizarre behavior with seminarians.
According to Viganò, Pope Benedict issued sanctions against McCarrick, sanctions which – for whatever reason – were never publicly revealed and which were roundly ignored by the peripatetic McCarrick. Inexplicably, however, we are told that Pope Francis not only lifted those sanctions but used McCarrick as his personal envoy on many significant missions and gave him an outsized influence on the appointment of not a few American bishops– interestingly, the only bishops who have called into question the Viganò document.
Then we come to the heart of the matter: When a reporter posed a question to Francis on his return flight from Dublin about the Viganò testimony, he didn’t deny its validity; he simply, in great arrogance and foolishness (in my estimation), refused to engage the issue. Instead, he punted and told the media to analyze and evaluate the claims. Well, many of us have done so, and the Pope doesn’t come off very well; even the New York Times has complained of Vatican stone-walling. The Pope’s knowledge of problematic behavior and his maintenance of perpetrators of either sexual or financial corruption are the principal charges. Not to answer is a fatal blow to this already shaky pontificate, where the policy has consistently been to ignore inconvenient challenges; we have only to recall the non-replies to the dubia cardinals and the plea of the Filial Correction. That will not and cannot work in the present instance.
It is important to note that most of the criticism of the Viganò bombshell has consisted of ad hominem attacks. The Archbishop did this because he doesn’t like Francis; because he’s a disgruntled former employee; because he’s bitter that he didn’t become a cardinal. All of these are mere distractions from the weighty accusations. If I witness a murder and contact the police about it, it means nothing for the accused to say, “However, he slapped his wife two weeks ago.” The issue is whether or not the accusation is true – and that demands objective investigation. Dozens of bishops have called for this and the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, has sounded a clarion call for just such an investigation. Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul-Minneapolis, both a canon and civil lawyer, put it succinctly: “The events of these past weeks have shown that no one can be above the law, regardless of rank or privilege.”
Go here to read the rest. This demonstrates the power of the Lavender Mafia in that McCarrick was apparently open and notorious about his predilections with the Vatican never taking effective action against him. That Pope Francis has always been in the hip pocket of the Lavender Mafia is terrible enough. However, perhaps even more troubling is the ineffectual role of Pope Benedict, and the role of Pope John Paul II, who oversaw the advancement of McCarrick. Everything needs to be revealed on this, at least in regard to documents that have survived the shredding that no doubt has been a popular pastime lately in the Vatican.