What is even more scandalous, more evil, is the fact that the USCCB joined the mainstream media in making it into a "pedophilia" issue, by intent, with malice.
When the Cardinals went to Rome to first meet with Pope JPII, when the stories were fresh in the Boston Globe, multiple bishops were saying that we had a "homosexual priest" problem.
However, by the time the USCCB had their own first meeting to deal with it, they had decided on, or been coerced into, labeling it a "pedophilia crisis," despite knowing quite well it was a homosexuality issue.
How did they get away with it, IMO?
During the weeks leading into that first USCCB meeting, the New York newspapers were running gossip column stories about "outing" one of the US Cardinals.
When that USCCB meeting started, Bruskiewitz wanted it to deal directly and primarily with the homosexual priest crisis.
He was voted down and silenced by the rest of the USCCB. And the USCCB ever since has called it a "pedophilia" problem, even though their own John Jay Report findings are diametrically opposed to their cover story.
Fast forward to the 2004 elections: Ratzinger tells McCarrick to refuse communion to pro-abort politicians.
Kerry asks McCarrick for a "personal meeting" that summer, and McCarrick grants it.
After that meeting, McCarrick misrepresents Ratzinger's letter and says to the USCCB that Rome supports McCarrick in NOT refusing communion to the likes of Kerry.
What are the chances that Kerry did NOT know what all the New York newspapers knew going into the first USCCB meeting about the pederast crisis? The New York newspapers were in Kerry's back pocket!
What are the chances that Kerry did NOT use that information, about a homosexual Cardinal that COULD STILL be outed, to influence McCarrick's decision to disobey Rome and direct the USCCB NOT to refuse Kerry communion.
McCarrick recently tendered his resignation early for when he turns 75.
Lots of other reasons have been given, but knowing the circumstances above, I think we know better.
I read somewhere, just after John Paul II's death, that he didn't cotton to the whole accusation of homosexuality thing because he was sensitive to that issue on account of having grown up under first Nazi, then Soviet occupation. Apparently, it was typical to try to bring someone down politically, or personally by using an accusation of homosexuality. He may have let his personal experience with this cloud his judgement. I don't think Benedict XVI will have the same probelm.
Thanks for connecting the dots. It will be very interesting to see how quickly BXVI replaces McCarrick. I understand that the pace of these procedures can be rather, shall we say, leisurely. If his successor is named and installed soon after McCarrick's 75th birthday, that will be a signal to the other members of the lavender clergy.
Does McCarrick really wield that much power over the rest of the bishops? I'm not denying your connection of the dots. I'm just stunned by it. Do you have any other info to back this up or is it just an informed hunch?