Rod Dreher: More on McCarrick Needs to be Made Public

Church: Cardinal McCarrick Is A Molester

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2018/06/20/rod-dreher-more-on-mccarrick-needs-to-be-made-public/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

11 comments on “Rod Dreher: More on McCarrick Needs to be Made Public

  1. The whole Church – bishops, priests, seminaries, colleges, universities, laity – need to have a “come to Jesus” moment on this issue and deal with the reality that perverts who enjoy pretending to be priests have a severe mental disorder. Enough with the head in the sand “who am I to judge?” rhetoric and Opus Dei/Neo-Con fops from Princeton hugging Father Martin for media cameras, as if it is all one big joke among the elite. There is nothing funny, charming, or fuzzy-wuzzy about crazy perverts dressing up in clerical black and pretending to be Catholic priests (or bishops). It has cost the Church billions of dollars in legal costs and settlements. When you have administrators at CUA counting pennies, cutting faculty positions, and scratching their heads wondering where all the money went… just look at the rainbow in the rectories, seminaries, and chanceries.

    • Mandela Effect footnote: I don’t recall typing “Neo-Con” for the Opus Dei fop classification. Although, presumably, some make it through Swarthmore and Harvard to hugging LGBTQ modernists for emotivist and drama-queening PC virtue signaling to their handlers. A debate for another time perhaps.

  2. The bigger tragedy is what these clerics have done to the teaching of the Church the last 60 years. So all those conspiracy nuts were right after all the church was full of gays, masons and communists trying to destroy it.

  3. How did Cardinal McCarrick’s secret last so long?

    By Phil Lawler | Jun 20, 2018

    At least fifteen years ago, I wrote a confidential email message to a few trusted friends, telling them to brace themselves. 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 today.

    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, now writes 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. In 2003, as the rumor mill churned, I heard that a bold American bishop had confronted the cardinal, urging him to resign in order to avoid a scandal. Again the plea was dismissed.

    Now that the story has finally surfaced, Dreher wants to know: “Why were so many bishops willing to run cover for Ted McCarrick all these years?” That’s a good question. But I have another.

    Why were so many journalists willing to let the rumors go unexplored? Or, if they did explore the rumors, why were they willing to drop the story, at a time when so many other allegations were splashed across the headlines? Could it be because, for anyone seeking to influence a cardinal, the threat of disclosure is more effective than disclosure itself?

  4. Well, it could explain why the cardinal never did a thing to discipline pro-abortion liberal politicians claiming to be Catholic. How much hush money had he paid over the years?

  5. The cardinal was in his 30s when the Sexual Revolution hit in the 1960s in the aftermath of Vatican II. He was 38 when the Stonewall Riot launched the modern gay movement in New York in 1969. In his forties when it became fashionable in the mid 1970s. Late bloomer?

  6. A sad story.

    But not the worst secret of the clergy sex abuse crisis. A pathetic modernist cardinal being a homo is no reason to abandon the faith or worse, to become a professional anti-Catholic evangelist, leading others into error and confusion. There were homos pretending to be priests a long time before this.

  7. [As Rod requests, more on McCarrick the molester]

    Posted by Tancred on Wednesday, June 20, 2018

    Cardinal McCarrick is an Evil Sexual Predator

    Edit: now that someone has publicly accused McCarrick, it’s interesting that Richard Sipe is on record very publicly warning Benedict XVI about the evils of Collegeville on TIA way back in 2008. Rod Dreher just wrote an explosive “told ya so” piece wherein he says:

    I never wrote the story about McCarrick, because I could not get anybody to go on the record. That spring, I fielded more than a few calls from Catholic priests from the New Jersey area who had direct personal knowledge of McCarrick’s sexual derring-do with seminarians. They would phone me, tell me what they knew, and then beg me to “do something”! I would tell them that I could do nothing until and unless they provided documents, and/or were willing to put their name to public accusations.

    Taking a look at Richard Sipe’s piece will show you just how slippery this McCormick is, but also how negligent McCarrick’s superiors were, since they were already well-informed about his sexual depravity before they appointed him to one of ththe Church’s most important Sees. Dreher says there was a well-known conservative priest had intervened to defend McCarrick. Wonder who that was?

    However much we might deplore Dreher’s apostasy, he certainly was aware of a lot of dirt in the hierarchy that no one, including Benedict XVI and “Saint” John Paul II., effectively addressed.

    Here’s Sipe:

    [TIA] Your Holiness, I, Richard Sipe, approach you reluctantly to speak about the problem of sexual abuse by priests and bishops in the United States, but I am encouraged and prompted by the directive of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium,Chapter IV, No. 37. “By reason of knowledge, competence…the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things that pertain to the good of the Church.” And also moved by your heartfelt demonstration of concern for victims on your recent visit to the United States I bring to your attention a dimension of the crisis not yet addressed. It is closer to the systemic center of the problem and one most difficult for you to address.

    null
    Card. McCarrick under the appearance of holiness…

    As the crisis of sexual abuse of our children and vulnerable adults by priests and bishops in the United States is unfolding, the dynamics of this dysfunction are becoming painfully clear.

    This sexual aberration is not generated from the bottom up – that is only from unsuitable candidates – but from the top down – that is from the sexual behaviors of superiors, even bishops and cardinals.

    The problem facing us in the American church is systemic. I will present Your Holiness with only a few examples:

    Bishop Thomas Lyons, now deceased, who was an Auxiliary in the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. groomed, seduced, and sexually abused a boy from the time he was seven years old until he was 17. When that boy grew into manhood he in turn abused his own child and young relatives. When I asked him about his actions he said to me, “I thought it was natural. Father (Lyons) told me a priest showed him this when he was growing up.” A pattern was perpetuated for at least four generations.

    Abbot John Eidenschink of St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota sexually abused some of his young monks during confession and spiritual direction. He admitted this behavior in regard to two of the monks I interviewed. They described the behavior in disturbingly graphic detail. Older monks that I interviewed told me that they knew that John’s Novice Master was inappropriately affectionate with him during his two years as a novice. More than a dozen of the monks of this monastery have been credibly accused of abuse of minors while Abbot Eidenschink was promoted to President of his Monastic Congregation, the American Cassinese.

    While I was Adjunct Professor at a Pontifical Seminary, St. Mary’s Baltimore (1972-1984) a number of seminarians came to me with concerns about the behavior of Theodore E. McCarrick, then bishop of Metuchen, New Jersey. It has been widely known for several decades that Bishop/Archbishop now Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick took seminarians and young priests to a shore home in New Jersey, sites in New York, and other places and slept with some of them. He established
    a coterie of young seminarians and priests that he encouraged to call him “Uncle Ted.” I have his correspondence where he referred to these men as being “cousins” with each other.

    null
    ‘Uncle Ted’ allegedly used different pretexts to attract seminarians and priests

    Catholic journalist Matt C. Abbott already featured the statements of two priests (2005) and one ex-priest (2006) about McCarrick. All three were “in the know” and aware of the Cardinal McCarrick’s activities in the same mode as I had heard at the seminary. None of these reporters, as far as Abbott knew, had sexual contact with the cardinal in the infamous sleepovers, but one had first hand reports from a seminarian/priest who did share a bed and received cards and letters from McCarrick. The modus operendi is similar to the documents and letters I have received from a priest who describes in detail McCarrick’s sexual advances and personal activity. At least one prominent journalist at the Boston Globe was aware of McCarrick from his investigation of another priest, but until now legal documentation has not been available. And even at this point the complete story cannot be published because priest reporters are afraid of reprisals.

    Your Holiness, you must seek out and listen to these stories, as I have from many priests about their seduction by highly placed clerics, and the dire consequences in their lives that does end with personal distress.

    I know the names of at least four priests who have had sexual encounters with Cardinal McCarrick. I have documents and letters that record the first hand testimony and eye witness accounts of McCarrick, then archbishop of Newark, New Jersey actually having sex with a priest, and at other times subjecting a priest to unwanted sexual advances.

    Your Holiness, you must seek out and listen to the stories, as I have from many priests about their seduction by highly placed clerics, and the dire consequences in their lives that does end in their victimization alone.

    Such behavior fosters confusion and makes celibacy problematic for seminarians and priests. This abuse paves the way for them to pass the tradition on — to have sex with each other and even with minors.

    The pattern and practice of priests in positions of responsibility for the training of men for the priesthood — rectors, confessors, spiritual directors, novice masters, and other clergy — who have sexual relations with seminarians and other priests is rampant in the Catholic Church in the United States. I have reviewed hundreds of documents that record just such behavior and interviewed scores of priests who have suffered from this activity. Priests, sexually active in the above manner have frequently been appointed by the Vatican to be ordained bishops or even created cardinals.

    I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your Holiness requests I will submit to you personally documentation of that about which I have spoken.

    Your Holiness, I submit this to you with urgent concern for our Church, especially for the young and our clergy.

  8. There were liberal homos pretending to be priests when Dreher was still a Methodist in diapers. That the gay movement in 1970s America encouraged them to act out their fantasies was not caused by Catholicism. No one’s faith should be contingent upon McCarrick’s or any other crazy modernist homo’s sex life. There were queers in Caligula’s and Nero’s Rome, in Anglican British public schools during the Victorian era, and in the Continental Army, if we can believe George Washington. By similar logic, someone could claim that they have to stop being an American because Abe Lincoln allegedly had gay desires.

    The story circulating in clerical circles is that JP2 was extremely naïve and squeamish about sex, refusing to believe molestation allegations about modernist clergy because accusing priests of being homosexuals was a Communist tactic in Warsaw Pact countries. Whatever process or committees were involved in selecting bishops and appointments in the U.S. hierarchy were obviously controlled by the Lavender Mafia, liberals sympathetic to the LGBT agenda, or complete idiots.

    John Paul II was going senile and weakened by Parkinson’s by the point McCarrick was elevated to the Washington appointment. There were discussions in Rome among Catholics about the problem in the U.S. during JP2’s pontificate. I know because I was there.

    There is a demonic component to the infiltration and corruption of the modernist clergy. Viewing these scandals from a mundane and practical, political point view which ignores this supernatural and diabolical dimension misses the mark.

    There was a clique in the Pink Palace which went back at least as far as the Vietnam era when fruitcakes entered seminaries to conceal their homosexualism and avoid the draft. Hence, the spike in pervs among the seminary classes of ’69, ’70, and ’71. That wasn’t caused by Catholicism. It came from modern American homosexual subculture. Vatican II just made it easier for them because liberal queers didn’t need to learn Latin in order to fake being priests.

    It may not be so easy to dismiss Bella Dodd’s claims as just paranoid conspiracy theories. Whoever approved McCarrick to be elevated to cardinal for Washington knew he would stand down on abortion for pro-abortion liberal “Catholic” politicians.

    One area which escapes much discussion in these “told you so” reviews: how many of the pervs pretending to be priests joined the Lodge? There is a reason why the Illuminati invite Fr. Martin, S.J. on to CNN to dissemble on Catholic debates and why he gets virtue-signaling hugs from Opus Dei supernumeraries in Ivy land.

    Somewhere in South Beach or Key West there is a party in a condo where the answers to this are known.

  9. Maybe there is a connection.

    Some time before the Übernumeraries began preening with Never-Trumper smugness and condescension about how we just needed to sit this one out and let Hillary Clinton become president and pack the Supreme Court with Baby Killers and Alinskyite Communists, some of them were promoting the idea that one may never lie to Nazi Storm Troopers knocking on the door looking for people hiding in your attic. Apparently, according to this elite Harvard thesis you’re supposed to give them the keys to the attic and hand over Anne Frank and friends.

    It’s not clear whether you actually have to be an initiate of a weird Spanish mind control cult in order to come up with half-baked ideas like this, but a connection would not be that surprising (even apart from the bromance with Fr. Martin).

    Catholicism as a Harvard discussion club on the theories of John Rawls seems to be a work in progress (perhaps not quite thought through completely).

Leave a Reply