In an interview last month with Slate staff writer Ruth Graham, Theodore McCarrick said he doesn’t believe he committed the acts of which he has been accused.
McCarrick, 89, has been in public disgrace since June 2018, when credible allegations of sexual abuse of a minor were made known. He was dismissed from the clerical state in February 2019, after an administrative penal process by which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith found him guilty of solicitation in the confessional, and sexual abuse of minors and adults, aggravated by abuse of power.
“I’m not as bad as they paint me,” McCarrick told Graham Aug. 14 at the St. Fidelis Friary in Victoria, Kan., about 90 miles west of Salina, where he resides. “I do not believe that I did the things that they accused me of.”
Graham wrote in an article published Sept. 3 that when she challenged McCarrick saying he “makes it sound as if he’s leaving it an open question,” and that it sounded as though he thought it was possible he had committed the acts, he responded no.
She said McCarrick spoke with her briefly before lunch at the friary. He told her he doesn’t leave the friary, even to enter the adjoining Basilica of St. Fidelis; a condition of his residence is that he remain on the grounds of the friary. He indicated that he spends much of his time in the chapel and the library.
McCarrick discussed in particular the accusations by James Grein that he had solicited him during confession: “The thing about the confession, it’s a horrible thing. I was a priest for 60 years, and I would never have done anything like that … That was horrible, to take the holy sacrament and to make it a sinful thing.”
The former cleric told Graham that he thinks men who said he abused them while they were seminarians during weekend trips to his New Jersey beach house “were encouraged” to develop similar stories, attributing this encouragement to unnamed “enemies.”
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
McCarrick may be on to something here! There are many conservative Catholics who do not care for his more liberal approach. Just as the conservatives are trying to undermine Pope Francis and have a say in who is the next pope, perhaps they decided to take out McCarrick with some made up stories.
You can’t be serious. The evidence against McCarrick was overwhelming and came from seminarians with no reason to lie. Do you really believe that the current leadership in Rome would have defrocked such a kindred spirit? Your conspiracy theory is absurd.
Your contempt for the victims is disgusting ! so ted is a martyr ? all those people are lying ? this is all part of a grand conspiracy ?. No ! he is the face of evil , the damage has he caused , and because of his actions will continue to cause , he is why people have left the church , he has cost souls and with the statute of limitations being lifted he will cost more money and more souls. He is one of the reasons why the church has lost its legitimate moral authority , and why it has not only lost souls but, has actually made enemies of former parishioners. BTW who exactly by name is involved in this cabal to punish him ? how did they manage to get so many people involved ?.
Presumably McCarrick had sufficient opportunity to present evidence in his defense during the penal process. The Church needs to remove those Bishops and Cardinals who have been found guilty of abuse.
Since McCarick is 89, he is long past the age to be a Papal Elector. So I suspect his influence on the selection of Francis’ successor is near zero, if not possibly negative.
mike m. You realize his hat was removed a while ago and he was laicized a few months ago, right?
“I do not believe I did the things they accuse me of?” How about, “I did not do the things they accuse me of.” What a non-denial denial. He’s guilty.
Homoheresy in the Catholic Church is real and they got Benedict XVI out and Francis in. McCarrick brought Peronism to the World stage.
I dunno. Maybe we should send McCarrick and Pell off to a deserted island together and let them find water and food together.
Please don’t equate a homosexual predator Cardinal (former) with a Cardinal who was railroaded (and innocent?) by the Leftist media because of his orthodox views against abortion and sodomy.
I just did, because they are both sexual predators, as determined by a jury who heard the evidence in the case of Pell. The media had nothing to do with it. The orthodoxy of these men has nothing to do with it either.
The first jury acquitted Pell overwhelmingly you forget. There was only one accusation (the second one recanted) and the circumstances and place where it occurred were impossible to have taken place without someone else witnessing it. No one corroborated this incident. Again please don’t equate a homosexual predator with multiple victims who can testify to their abuse with a single accusation by someone whose facts and memory were confused along with a complacent media who despised Cardinal Pell for his opposition to abortion and the radical gay agenda. And Cardinal McCarrick was not orthodox, not at all!
I’m not aware that Pell was “acquitted overwhelmingly” by a jury. Please give us some reference to that statement. Nevetheless, he was convicted “overwhelmingly” on other charges. I’ll continue to equate the two because there are multiple accusation against both men.
“Witnesses who attended Pell’s trial said that the jury had voted overwhelmingly, 10–2, voted for Pell’s acquittal” One accusation is all there was in the second trial. Not multiple.
10-2 is not “voting overwhelmingly”. In America, at least, that’s called a hung jury. Besides, there have been untried accusations against Pell going back decades. I’m not sure why you feel it so necessary to defend a man who has been found guilty by a unanimous verdict of molesting minors.
A trial in secret with “one” accusation where the whole media was against because of your strong opposition to the abortion and homosexual lobbies and where no other accusations were ever proved credible tells me that this was all a set-up. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
There are unlitigated accusations against Pell going back decades besides the unanimous conclusion of a jury who actually heard the evidence from both sides, and several appeals courts who have relitigated his case. There are very few clerics who have been subjected to that level of scrutiny. If you want to take sides with a child molester, I suppose that is on your soul. I won’t have it on mine.
There are no credible allegations against Pell that I know of except this one accusation which is questionable. Secret trial, everyone stacked against you because of your opposition to sodomy and the violence of abortion, my conscience is clear. Until they can substantiate this ONE accusation I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Good Lord. A JURY UNANIMOUSLY found the accusation to be not only credible but factual. You find it questionable – but you did not hear the evidence presented at trial. Prior adjudications found there to be credible accusations of abuse going back decades, but the age of the accusations prevented prosecution. Keep defending the child molestor all you want, I suppose, but you realize that people’s faith in God and in his Church is diminished because people defend child molesting priests.
Good Lord yourself! Will you please give it a rest! How dare you disparage a Cardinal that was most likely set up. I do not defend homosexual Priests, the majority of the abusers. The Jury acquitted him the first time. What changed? A SECRET TRIAL! Find one more accusation, and it has to be credible, and I might change my mind. You’re fighting the wrong battle. Put your passion into fighting the homosexual lobby in the Church!
If I disparage a cardinal it is becuase he is a convicted criminal child molestor. Please stop saying the inaccurate thing, that a jury acquitted him. NO jury acquitted Pell. What you are saying is completely inaccurate. The first jury was hung. A hung jury is NOT an acquittal. You aren’t telling the truth.
Ok so the jury was deadlocked by 10-2 in favor of acquittal! I am not inaccurate in saying he was railroaded by a “secret trial” (no coverage at all by any media) and by those who hated him. ONE accusation that’s it by one accuser and by multiple witnesses that said it NEVER occurred! We’ll agree to disagree because nothing will convince you that he could be innocent. Now homosexual McCarrick is a different story…..
Ya know, I was trying to keep the conversation focused, but you are also inaccurate when you say the trial was secret. It was NOT secret. It was suppresed, which under Australian law means that the public witnesses were not allowed to report until after the trial, so a to avoid the spectacle that surround trials like that of OJ Simpson, where every single night of the trial, it was relitigated in sensational style, in the press. After the trial, the public witnesses were allowed to report what they saw when the suppression order was lifted. Here is the way one of the journalists describes HIS experience of both trials. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/inside-the-pell-trial-we-sat-in-court-for-months-forbidden-from-reporting-a-word
Cardinal Pell wasn’t convicted of one offense, he was convicted of five offenses, after a trial that lasted about a month and featured many many witnesses for the defense. Several other offenses were not brought to trial because it was ruled that there wasn’t enough corroborating evidence to try them justly. There were accusations going back decades, which prior panels had found credible but too old to bring to trial.
You keep defending a convicted child molestor.
The Guardian?…I’m still laughing. You’re too closed mined to continue this conversation. Good-bye
For those who want to make sexual abuse about this pope and not others, it was THIS pope that ordered him an other clerics laicized. It was THIS pope who sought the authority to remove Bishops from their sees for sexual abuse crimes.
And it is THIS Pope who at the same time when he is allegedly laicizing and removing some abusive Priests/Bishops, is elevating other men who embrace the homosexual agenda in the Church. It’s contradictory and confusing.
There isn’t a connection between a priest who follows the Catechism’s call to treat homosexual people with dignity and respect, and those who commit heinous crimes against minors of either gender.
I disagree. I believe there is a connection between Priests who promote acceptance of this lifestyle without repentance, and homosexual abuse. Everyone should respect the dignity and value of every human life regardless of the sin. We’re all sinners. But loving the sinner should never include overlooking or condoning the sin.
You disagree with the catechism? You think that those who follow the catechism are committing heinous crimes againt minors?
Disagree with the Catechism? No the ones who promote or condone same-gender confusion are the ones who disagree with the Catechism.
Again, Ronnie, my statement was that the Catechism requires everyone, including priests, to treat homosexuals with dignity and respect, and that there is no connection between that call by the Catechism and clergy sex abuse. Apparently you disagree with a statement that was never made, or else you disagree with the Catechism itself.
I’ve never stated that I don’t, or the Church shouldn’t, treat homosexuals struggling to heal their gender confusion with compassion. Of course they should. But not those infiltrating the Church trying to change the Church’s teachings on this. The Catechism states clearly: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as grave depravity, tradition has always declare homosexual acts as intrinsically disorder…They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity…..So we must treat them with respect and compassion but never condone or promote their sin. And never let our compassion replace or override our duty to lead them to eternal life through the rejection of their sin.
Rollie, what have you been “rolling” and smoking?
Pray that McCarrick would publicly repent of his sins and crimes. It would be, admittedly, a small step, but for the sake of the Church and his own soul, a needed step.
Apparently McCarick resigned as a cardinal in July 2018, fourteen months ago and was laicized seven months later, February 2019. In Church ‘time’ that’s almost yesterday.
Seems that McCarrick does not believe the detailed testimony by Archbishop Viganò that got him defrocked.
“I do not believe that I did the things that they accused me of.”
Whenever I say “I don’t believe I ate that entire cheesecake” or “I don’t believe I ate all the lasagna,” it usually means I ate the entire cheesecake or all the lasagna – just not both at the same sitting (You see, I do not believe I would do that.).
GOD: “Cain, where is your brother?”
CAIN: “I do not believe I am my brother’s keeper.”