Cardinal McCarrick: Everybody Knew

The American Conservative ^ | 06-20-2018 | Rod Dreher

[Just mythoughts]

The John Jay Study showed it was priests and teenage boys. So yes, there was a homosexual dimension to it, but since it was legally minors that the John Jay report disclosed, the media could ignore the homosexual dimension of it. Take the case of McCarrick. There were 4 cases that were recently documented, the 1 in 1958 involved him grabbing a 16 year old (he was 28 at that time). The other 3 involved him harassing seminary students in their 20’s (homosexual dimension). Had the John Jay study documented incidents like McCarrick and the seminarians, the homosexual dimension could not have been ignored. However, while this is sinful (gravely) it did not under law warrant the state to intervene since it was not illegal under current U.S. law and the law at the time the sexual abuse crisis became well known, 2001-2002.

Did 'John Jay' study IF these perverts, schooled the minor 'Pre pubescence' boys, for the sole purpose of calling the sin a consenting homosexual relationship. One of the things I look forward to, perhaps, is getting a ring side seat, watching the excuse makers give a full accounting. I do not expect the John Jay doctrine to have any weight where it counts. The reams and volumes written in distinguishing the difference in when a so called 'father' of God messes with the young.

[CTrent1564]

The John Jay study what it documented. What happened in the abuse of minors going back to the 1950’s. What it did not document was situations like McCarrick harassing Seminarians. Now the reason it did not document it is because it was not looked into at all. High ranking Bishops like McCarrick and his cohort did not push for it to go that direction. Like You, lets have a full accounting. My guess is it was Bishops like McCarrick who were the ones covering up all the mess for all these years. Think of priests who were involved with McCarrick (voluntarily). They rise through the ranks and become Bishops, teaching at Semimaries, etc. You out me, I out you. thus, nobody wanted to deal with the homosexual dimension to it. Making it about Minors is something the secular press could get interested in while looking at the homosexual dimension to this is something they would not get interested it because the mainstream media and the homosexual lobby are political allies.

[Just mythoughts]

The John Jay study what it documented. What happened in the abuse of minors going back to the 1950’s. What it did not document was situations like McCarrick harassing Seminarians. Now the reason it did not document it is because it was not looked into at all. High ranking Bishops like McCarrick and his cohort did not push for it to go that direction. Like You, lets have a full accounting. My guess is it was Bishops like McCarrick who were the ones covering up all the mess for all these years. Think of priests who were involved with McCarrick (voluntarily). They rise through the ranks and become Bishops, teaching at Semimaries, etc. You out me, I out you. thus, nobody wanted to deal with the homosexual dimension to it. * Making it about Minors is something the secular press could get interested in while looking at the homosexual dimension to this is something they would not get interested it because the mainstream media and the homosexual lobby are political allies.

This is pure unadulterated hogwash. How many of these 'now' teen homosexuals grew up in the church? The church has attempted to whitewash their abominations, and you are not alone in repeating their claims about the so called 'secular press'. Take a poll, how many in this so called 'secular press' are Catholic? God said, early on that homosexuality was an abomination, and He did not distinguish between ages that practice the acts. Furthermore, a man that wears a title of 'Father', as in a 'holy man', regardless the age of the minor, is the offender. Secular press notwithstanding.

[CTrent1564]

Just mythoughts:

You are not reading what I said. The homosexual dimension of this was not covered because there were homosexual allies in the Church that did not want this to be covered. The secular press would not cover this story if it was about homosexual Bishops harassing adult seminarians and priests.

I am not argueing about the moral theological argument that homosexuality is a sin. That is a theological argument. The Secular press does not care about that. In addition, there are elements in the Catholic Church, as there are in all Christian confessions, that want to not teach the moral prohibition of homosexuality. In the last 20-30 years, most protestant confessions have split over this topic among others.

As for how many of the secular press are Catholic, some are, most are politically liberal and did not want to deal with the homosexual dimension of this. There are many conservative Catholics who did not want to believe there were Bishops complicit in this as well.

Like I said, the John Jay study only documented sexual abuse of minors (with is both mortal sin and a felony in secular law). The homosexual issue like McCarrick and the 3 documented cases with adult men can’t be labeled sexual abuse of minors like what was documented in the John Jay Study so if that is what was studied, you bring up the homosexual dimension totally. Now, the homosexual nature of the abuse crisis of minors was implicitly there always since the cases were same sex. Nevertheless, had the argument been made that it is only homosexual priests that sexually abuse minors, that is empirically not true. Every day there are reports of 25 to 30 year old female teachers getting busted for sexual activity with 13 to 15 year old boys. That is also sexual abuse of minors. There are police officers, HS football coaches, pastors of other churches (who are married) that abuse minors (both sexes).

I am not whitewashing anything. I am only going by what the John Jay reported and what it did not report. The incidents like Cardinal McCarrick and the 3 adult male seminarians was not part of the John Jay study.

Why do you think the secular press is not reporting about McCarrick sexually harassing seminarians (many of which found it morally repugnant and reported it to other Church authorities) in front page fashion.

So again, your argument about God not making distinctions between age is a theological one. Not a Legal one. So if two adult males, priest, pastor, rabbi, police officer, news anchor or whatever engage in same sex relations voluntarily, that is a moral argument but no one that is a legal issue under secular law.

Now, some writer argues for a Metoo movement for Catholic seminarians. I agree, there needs to a be confidential hotline that seminarians can report which current Bishops (like McCarrick) subjected them to homosexual harassment. That is something is “mortal sin” and is against secular law (Kevin Spacey) was fired from House of Cards because of this. Furthermore, it would clean up the homosexual lobby that is entrenched in many Big City Catholic dioceses that run major seminaries. If you speak up, you are told you are not priest material, which was documented by Rose in his book.