The Catholic vote is the religious swing vote, which is why the Trump and Biden camps pursued it. This explained their outreach via Catholics for Trump and Catholics for Biden.

More important than these campaign efforts was how the two candidates approached issues that are central to Catholicism. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops previously declared abortion to be the “preeminent” issue for Catholics. On this score, Trump’s pro-life position was consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Biden, who was once pro-life, turned out to be a champion of abortion-on-demand through term; he was therefore wildly out-of-step with his religion’s position.

Trump and the Catholic Church were in agreement that marriage should be the preserve of one man and one woman. Biden rejects the Church’s teaching and is a devotee of gay marriage. School choice is favored by the Catholic Church, and Trump is a rabid supporter of it. Biden is opposed to all school choice initiatives.

Religious liberty has emerged as one of the most important issues of our day, affecting domestic and foreign policy alike. We tallied nearly 50 instances where Trump embraced or advanced religious liberty in the past three-and-a-half years.

We examined Biden’s record over 47 years of public service and could find almost no instances of his support for religious liberty. He did vote for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, but his recent endorsement of the “Equality Act” and “Do No Harm” effectively vitiates his position: both would seriously undercut, if not neuter altogether, RFRA. Most glaringly, Biden’s support for the Health and Human Services mandate that would force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plan has led him to be denounced by Catholic leaders, lay and clergy alike.

The official Party Platforms offer a revealing look at the way the Trump and Biden campaigns address religious liberty. There are nine references to religious liberty in the Republican Party Platform, all of which are positive statements. The Democratic Party Platform cites religious liberty six times, four times positively and two times negatively.

Both Trump and Biden have been praised and criticized by some bishops. This matters less to Trump as he is not Catholic. But it matters greatly to Biden.
Cardinal Raymond Burke has said that Biden should not be given Holy Communion because of his pro-abortion record. Some priests have, in fact, denied him the Eucharist, or have warned him not to come to Communion, because of his stance.

Bishop Richard Stika called out Biden over the summer. “Don’t understand how Mr. Biden can claim to be a good and faithful Catholic as he denies so much of Church teaching especially on the absolute child abuse and human rights violations of the most innocent, the not yet born.” Bishop Thomas Tobin took an oblique shot at Biden when he observed that there was no Catholic on the Democratic ticket this time.

Some bishops have made more veiled-like comments. Bishop Joseph Strickland has spoken out strongly about the election and how the “Sanctity of Life, true marriage between a man & a woman, supporting the nuclear family and sexual morality based on biblical truth” must be paramount. Bishop Thomas Daly has advised those who “obstinately persevere in their public support for abortion, should not receive Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church.”

What got Biden into deep trouble with the bishops was his decision not only to support gay marriage, but his willingness to officiate at a wedding between two men. Three leaders of the bishops’ conference, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Bishop Richard Malone, and Archbishop Thomas Wenski issued a statement that was obviously aimed at Biden. They criticized him for being “a counter witness, instead of a faithful one founded in the truth.”

The most recent bishop to call into question Biden’s standing in the Catholic Church—without mentioning him specifically—is Archbishop Samuel Aquila. “It is not possible to be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion or assisted suicide, to promote unnatural sexuality, or to seek to push people of faith out of the public square.”

Finally, there is the issue of anti-Catholicism. The Trump administration has never been tagged with anti-Catholicism, but the Biden campaign certainly has. In fact, his running mate, Kamala Harris, made a stunning contribution to this ancient strain of bigotry when she badgered a man being considered for a seat on a federal district court in Nebraska simply because he belonged to the Knights of Columbus.

Then we had Humanists for Biden, an off-shoot of Secular Democrats of America, also of recent vintage. The parent group was off to a fast start bashing Catholics. Biden also had in his employ Nikitha Rai, a data expert who believes that Catholics like Amy Coney Barrett, who espouse traditional moral values, should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court.

It is evident that Biden’s policies on key issues are problematic from a Catholic perspective. Add to this his strained relationship with many priests and bishops, as well as the support he receives from anti-Catholics, and the difference between Trump and him is considerable.

New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may not get along, but they have one thing in common: an insatiable appetite for power. They love it when they can control people. But they hit a brick wall with Orthodox Jews.

The Catholic League understands the need for reasonable protocols to combat Covid-19, but we object to directives that are discriminatory in application, and this is especially true when religious institutions are subjected to a more burdensome standard than non-religious ones. This is why we support the objections raised by the Orthodox Jewish community in the New York City area. We only wish Catholics would be as aggressive in pushing back against edicts that are patently unjust.

On October 7, Cuomo ordered the shutdown of some neighborhoods, many in Brooklyn and Queens, because of a spike in coronavirus cases. While the target of his directive is the Orthodox Jewish community, he did not hold back in penalizing Catholic churches and schools, even though neither is exhibiting a health problem.

De Blasio issued a new directive that went into effect October 8. Those who do not wear a mask will be fined up to $1,000, and mass gatherings will be subject to fines up to $15,000. His order is hypocritical, discriminatory and wholly indefensible.

Why are so many Orthodox Jews mad? For the same reason why New Yorkers who are not part of their community are mad. Both the governor and the mayor have allowed, and indeed justified, mass gatherings in the form of protests. And now they want us to respect what they say?

Why are non-violent mass gatherings at synagogues and churches subject to shutdowns when violent mobs can roam the streets with impunity? As one Jewish reporter said to New York City’s health commissioner, Dr. Dave Chokshi, “What justification can we tell readers—why do they have to be careful when the mayor carves out exceptions based on his own personal politics?”

The reaction of Borough Park Community Board leader Barry Spitzer was similar. “People in the community have lost a lot of trust in the government, because people were told they can’t pray but thousands of people can gather in the streets to protest, or because rules kept changing from minute to minute without rhyme or reason.” Another Jewish leader opined, “They had no issue with the demonstrations, with the protests with thousands of people in the streets.”

When the mob was taking over bridges, burning police cars, and breaking into stores all over New York, de Blasio never tried to stop them. When asked in June why people cannot go to church or synagogue because of fear of Covid-19 infections, but they can riot in the streets, de Blasio said, “We’re in the middle of a national crisis, a deep-seated crisis. There is no comparison.” He was referring to what he said was “400 years of American racism.”

In other words, if de Blasio agrees with the purpose of a protest—no matter how violent—Covid-19 restrictions can be thrown to the wind. But religious funerals cannot be held.

Now de Blasio has outdone himself. On October 7, he proved once again what a rank hypocrite he is. “There’s a place for peaceful protests,” he said, “but the NYPD will not tolerate people doing harm to others. There will be no tolerance for assaults, for damage to property, for setting fires.”

But when it came to Antifa and Black Lives Matter, de Blasio not only told the cops to tolerate their violence, he told them to stand down and do nothing. He allowed them to harm others, assault others, damage property and set fires. They did it night after night. He had plenty of tolerance for that.

When the governor of New York tells rock stars scheduled to perform at the MTV Video Awards in New York City that they don’t have to abide by his order to quarantine for 14 days, and when the mayor of the City of New York treats people of faith as the enemy—while supporting rioters—it is no surprise that New Yorkers have turned cynical.

De Blasio and Cuomo have shot whatever moral authority they once had. No one should pay them any heed.

In the last issue of Catalyst, we noted how we went after Texas A&M professor Filipe Castro. He not only made a series of wholly bigoted and obscene comments about Catholicism, he threatened some Catholics. We contacted school officials, the university’s accrediting agency, government officials, and the media.

The head of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission thanked us for alerting her to this situation. She said she would consider an investigation. We heard from many students and alumni, and the school newspaper interviewed our director of communications, Mike McDonald.

It was telling that the guilty professor refused to speak to the media about his situation. He most certainly has been put on notice and hopefully something more concrete will emerge.

Joe Biden entered the senate in 1973, the same year the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its Roe v. Wade decision. He has evolved from being strongly pro-life to rabidly pro-abortion. Here is a list of his changing positions.

1974: A year after Roe v. Wade was decided, he said the ruling had gone “too far” and that a woman seeking an abortion should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
1976: He votes for the “Hyde Amendment” which bans federal funding of abortions.
1981: He introduces the “Biden Amendment” which prohibits foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving abortion.
1982: He votes for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1983: He votes against a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade.
1984: He votes for the Mexico City Policy which bans federal funding for abortions.
1987: He becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and leads the fight against Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, whom he said was opposed to Roe v. Wade.
1994: He says, “Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.”
1995: He votes to ban partial-birth abortion.
1997: He votes to ban partial-birth abortion.
2003: He votes to ban partial-birth abortion
2007: He criticizes the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, calling it “paternalistic.”
2008: He says he is opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
2012: He says the government does not have “a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.”
2019: He says he is opposed to the “Hyde Amendment” which bans the federal funding of abortion.
2020: He says he supports abortion “under any circumstances.”

There is no one in public life who has undergone such a dramatic transformation. He did not change because of the Catholic Church: it did not change its position on abortion. He did not change because of science: it did not change its position on when life begins. It was Biden who changed, and he did so for totally political reasons.

Anti-Catholicism engulfed the Biden camp this presidential season. The latest guilty party is Nikitha Rai.

Rai was Deputy Data Director for the Biden campaign. She became incensed over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She argued that Barrett’s Catholic beliefs should bar her from serving.

Rai took to Twitter for an exchange with Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. At issue was Barrett’s alleged membership in a charismatic Christian organization that holds to traditional moral values. Biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality became the topic of discussion.

After someone else made reference to these teachings, citing Barrett’s previous service to a “South Bend private school” [she was a trustee at Trinity School], Hamid questioned why this was news. “Isn’t this the standard position for any orthodox Catholic?” Rai answered, “Unfortunately, yes.” Hamid then said, “to be fair, it’s the standard position for any orthodox Muslim or Jew as well…”

Rai’s response was unequivocal. “True. I’d heavily prefer views like that not to be elevated to SCOTUS, but unfortunately our current culture is still relatively intolerant. It will be a while before those types of beliefs are so taboo that they’re disqualifiers.”

In other words, any person of faith who holds to biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality is intolerant and should be barred from serving on the Supreme Court. That would include all practicing Catholics, evangelical Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews. Nikitha Rai is the intolerant one.

We called for Biden to dump her but he refused.

Humanists for Biden is a newly formed organization, an off-shoot of Secular Democrats of America, an entity that itself is of recent vintage. The pro-Biden group is headed by Greg Epstein, a humanist “chaplain” who splits his time between Harvard and MIT.

The quotation marks are intentional: Merriam-Webster defines chaplain as “a clergyman in charge of a chapel.” Epstein is a confessed atheist, and a chapel is a place of worship. Therefore, there is no basis in reality for his self-identity. Not only is Epstein delusional, those who access his services as a chaplain are equally delusional.

Humanists for Biden sought to attract all those who believe in nothing: agnostics, atheists, and the religiously confused. They are a growing part of the nation and are heavily populated by young people, and, of course, the learned ones in the professoriate.

A look at what Humanists for Biden believe yields a lot of pedestrian stuff. They are, of course, fashionably “diverse.” They claim to be fans of science and foes of bigotry, two attributes that distinguish themselves from no one. But are they really opposed to bigotry? The evidence is not persuasive.

Consider what we know of the parent organization, Secular Democrats of America (a redundancy if there ever was one).

Secular Democrats of America is opposed to school vouchers, a social justice cause that just happens to be championed by Catholics. If this is an oblique shot at Catholics, a more direct expression of its animus is the following: “In the United States, 1 in 6 hospital beds are in a Catholic institution, where care can be dictated by religious doctrine.” In other words, we as a nation have a serious problem on our hands: Catholic hospitals follow Catholic teachings. Worse, there are too many of them.

The humanists did not have the courage to say what needs to be done about this alleged problem, though we all know what their atheist agenda entails.

Not surprisingly, Secular Democrats of America is opposed to most religious exemptions; they want to secularize the churches. In fact, they explicitly argue that there should be no distinction in law between secular institutions and religious ones. This would gut the tax-exempt status of all religious institutions, and effectively neuter faith-based organizations.

They also say they are opposed to “religious tests” for public office. For reasons that are not hard to understand, they have said nothing to condemn those Democrats—the secular ones—who have sought to subject Amy Coney Barrett to a religious test.

Naturally, Secular Democrats of America do not value innocent human life. Organized atheists rarely do. For example, they are pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia, goals shared by every totalitarian regime in history (all of which have been expressly atheistic).

What seals their animus against Christians is their charge that “Christian Nationalists” are a threat to democracy. This has become the new dog whistle of Christian bashers. They are always vague in defining who a “Christian Nationalist” is, but they are anything but ambiguous in attributing to evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics all kinds of nefarious conspiratorial motives and practices.

If a conservative were to link secular Democrats with Antifa, he would be denounced. But somehow it is acceptable to link evangelicals and traditional Catholics with white supremacists. This is exactly what Secular Democrats of America does, warning its followers about the “intersection of Christian nationalism and white supremacy.”

Humanists for Biden say they are not an official part of the Biden campaign, but this is mere window dressing. Secular Democrats of America was welcomed at the Democratic National Convention; they were awarded three panels to promote their Christian-bashing cause.

Joe Biden is no stranger to welcoming these kinds of activists. On February 26, 2010, the Obama-Biden administration became the first presidential administration in history to formally meet with organized atheists. That was when officials from the Secular Coalition for America, home to some of the most rabid Christian haters in the nation, was invited to the White House for consultation.

What made Humanists for Biden so troubling was that this organization was being rolled out in the same week that one of Biden’s staffers, Deputy Data Director Nikitha Rai, lashed out at Amy Coney Barrett for holding to biblical teachings on marriage and sexuality. Rai said such beliefs—which are held by practicing Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Mormons and Muslims—should disqualify any nominee for public office.

Biden refused to fire Rai. He then doubled down by befriending a group of Christian-bashing atheists.

The Catholic League In The News (NTD’s America Is Talking):

The Catholic League’s Director of Communications Mike McDonald spoke in defense of the Diocese of Brooklyn challenging Cuomo in the Supreme Court. CLICK HERE TO WATCH

Bill Donohue

This is my analysis of the “Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision-Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick,” or what is commonly known as “The McCarrick Report.” Much of what follows is a summary overview designed to spare readers the necessity of reading the 461-page document. It also includes my assessment of some key events.

The “McCarrick Report” excels in providing abundant information about the ascent of Theodore McCarrick to the highest ranks of the Catholic Church. No other study comes close to providing such rich material, much of it heretofore unknown to the public.

If there is one outstanding flaw, it was the refusal to interview Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. This is especially unconscionable given that the Report mentions him 306 times, mostly to discredit him.[1] What makes this truly astonishing is that persons who were mentioned only a few times were interviewed. Thus, the decision not to interview Viganò was deliberate.

I never met Archbishop Viganò but I can attest to his integrity. In late 2015, after a notable Catholic contacted me about a bishop who refused to do anything about a rogue priest, I reached out to Viganò; at the time he was the Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. He got right on it and acted responsibly. Indeed, he took my request to investigate this matter very seriously. This is important because he says the Report unfairly blames him for not investigating McCarrick, something which he vigorously denies.[2]

When I became president of the Catholic League in 1993, McCarrick was the Archbishop of Newark. At the time, our office was located in the Catholic Center at the Archdiocese of New York; Cardinal O’Connor was kind enough to move our office to the 20th floor, next to his office, so I got a chance to know him well.

I was only in the job for a few years when I received a call from McCarrick. I remember two salient comments he made. He was very kind, praising my work combating anti-Catholicism. But he also said something that rocked me: He said it was his desire to come across the Hudson and succeed Cardinal O’Connor as the next Archbishop of New York. Why, I thought, would he tell me this?

McCarrick’s quest to assume this post apparently consumed him. As we learned from the Report, while talking to two bishops in 1990, he “pounded the table and blurted out ‘I deserve New York.'”[3] His sense of entitlement was appalling.

It now becomes clear from reading the Report that one of McCarrick’s characterological weaknesses, present from the beginning, was his excessively ambitious nature. It was in 1968 that McCarrick, then a monsignor, was first considered for elevation to the episcopate. Those charged with assessing his credentials were impressed by his multiple skills, but “several informants expressed concern that McCarrick might be overly ‘ambitious.'”[4]

He was made Auxiliary Bishop in the Archdiocese of New York in 1977. Four years later, he was being considered to head a newly created diocese, the Diocese of Metuchen in New Jersey. He again impressed everyone. Yet there was a “sole concern,” that being his “obvious ambition to be promoted in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.”[5] He was a careerist, a priest whose quest for a red hat (to be a cardinal)—in one of the nation’s most prestigious dioceses—proved to be an unhealthy preoccupation.

The first signs of trouble became apparent in the 1980s. That is when his homosexual escapades became known. At least three of the four bishops in New Jersey at the time failed to act responsibly: they allowed him to continue his predatory behavior unchecked.

McCarrick’s penchant for seducing seminarians is well documented in the Report. His house in Sea Girt, down the Jersey Shore, was a favorite spot for him to lure these young men. He intentionally invited more men than he had beds for, and he did this with regularity. He didn’t just sleep with these young men: He either attempted to have sex with them, or succeeded in doing so.[6]

What McCarrick did was not simply wrong—it was evil.

Evil is a strong word. It should not be used promiscuously. In a book that I have written about this subject, Disabling the Catholic Church: The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse (to be published later next year by Ignatius Press), I make it clear that while the molesting priests—the vast majority of whom were homosexuals—were sick men, it would be inaccurate to label most of them evil. The same cannot be said of McCarrick. Let’s be honest: Any bishop who would stain young men preparing for the priesthood has the hand of the Devil on him.

McCarrick had some help from other priests. For example, Monsignor Anthony Joseph Gambino, after listening to a priest who told him what McCarrick did to him, Gambino had the nerve to admonish him.[7] Just as disconcerting, after Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the Apostolic Nuncio, learned from Father Boniface Ramsey in 2000 about McCarrick’s sexually abusive behavior at his beach house, sharing beds with seminarians, Montalvo never got back to him.[8]

After McCarrick was appointed Archbishop of Newark in 1986, Bishop Edward T. Hughes succeeded him as the Bishop of Metuchen. When a priest came to Hughes relaying how McCarrick abused him, he listened carefully but never got back to him.[9] In fact, he never said a word to anyone in the U.S. or Rome. Hughes did the same to every other priest who confided in him.[10]

McCarrick not only abused seminarians at his beach house, he preyed on them at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. One of them told Hughes—to no avail—that McCarrick “tried to convince me that priests engaging in sexual activity with each other was normal and accepted in the United States, and particularly in that diocese.”[11] To the extent this is true, it is proof of the homosexual network in the Catholic Church in the 1980s.

What did Hughes do when he heard this? Amazingly, he told the priest “to forget about McCarrick’s misconduct and to forgive McCarrick ‘for the good of the Church.'”[12] No one speaks this way simply to protect a fellow bishop. I have read too much about this issue to know that there was something else going on in Hughes’ life that explains his response.

On January 25, 1990, soon after Bishop James McHugh was appointed to head the Diocese of Camden, he had dinner with three other priests: Monsignor Dominic Bottino, Newark Auxiliary Bishop John Smith, and a young cleric. In front of everyone, McCarrick started rubbing the crotch of the cleric. The young man froze while the others looked away. No one said a word.[13]

We know this because in 2018 Bottino finally admitted what happened. Neither bishop found what McCarrick did objectionable. In fact, McHugh even commended Bottino for the way he “handled” the incident.[14]

If the New Jersey bishops were delinquent, the Archbishop of New York proved to be meritorious. It was Cardinal John O’Connor, a man whom I worked with and greatly admired even before reading the Report, who had the courage to blow the whistle on McCarrick. Regrettably, he ran into opposition, both in the U.S. and in Rome.

In the early 1990s, Cardinal O’Connor started receiving anonymous complaints about McCarrick.[15] O’Connor knew McCarrick for many years, and he also knew how common it was to field all sorts of false complaints about priests, so he understandably passed the letters on to McCarrick. Then more letters of this sort reached O’Connor’s desk. Also receiving copies was the Nuncio, Rev. Agostino Cacciavillan.[16] The Report notes that no investigation took place.[17] But things were only heating up.

In 1999, Cardinal O’Connor engaged the new Nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, in a conversation about McCarrick’s suitability to succeed him as Archbishop of New York. O’Connor warned him that there are “some elements of a moral nature that advised against” consideration of McCarrick’s candidacy.[18] Influencing O’Connor were psychiatric reports on one of McCarrick’s seminarian victims; a graphic account of McCarrick’s behavior was provided.[19]

At the same time that McCarrick was being considered for the New York archdiocese, he was being assessed as a candidate to assume the duties at two other dioceses. He received the support of several bishops, who rallied to his side. Washington Archbishop James Cardinal Hickey named McCarrick as his number one choice for promotion.[20] Cardinal Bernard Law, Archbishop of Boston, was also supportive of McCarrick’s candidacy, admitting, however, that “from time to time ‘a cloud’ appeared over McCarrick’s head regarding what he termed a ‘misplaced affection.'”[21] Others might call it sexual abuse.

O’Connor proved his chops when he wrote a six-page letter to Nuncio Montalvo; the letter was dated October 28, 1999.[22] It was so personal and confidential that the Archdiocese of New York does not have a copy of it.[23] But the Vatican does.

The case made against McCarrick was sober and convincing. O’Connor relied on the findings of Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist from Pennsylvania, and Monsignor James Cassidy, a psychologist from the Archdiocese of New York.[24] I did not know Cassidy (he died in 2015), but I have spoken to Fitzgibbons, and I am well aware of his outstanding work. I hold him in high regard. O’Connor did as well.

At the end of his letter, O’Connor said that he could not “in conscience, recommend His Excellency, Archbishop McCarrick for promotion to higher office….”[25] As we know, McCarrick had a wide network of allies, and they proved to be decisive, but not before McCarrick had a chance to weigh in against O’Connor.

On August 6, 2000, three months after O’Connor died, McCarrick wrote to Bishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, particular secretary to Pope John Paul II, addressing O’Connor’s allegations against him.[26] McCarrick admitted that friends of his in the Curia came across O’Connor’s letter and “tipped me off about it.”[27]

McCarrick accused O’Connor of “deeply attacking my life as a bishop,” saying he knew O’Connor “did not want me as his successor.”[28] He was apparently clueless as to why. Worse, he lied when he said, “I have never had sexual relations with any person, male or female, young or old, cleric or lay, nor have I ever abused another person or treated them with disrespect.”[29]

It is a source of great disappointment that Pope John Paul II believed McCarrick, not O’Connor.[30] Whether it was his experience in Poland of hearing malicious lies about priests, as some have suggested, or his being surrounded by dupes, it is not clear. Perhaps both. According to Archbishop Viganò, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State, was the one most responsible for convincing the pope to side with McCarrick.[31]

McCarrick did not succeed O’Connor but he was appointed Archbishop of Washington. He served from 2001 to 2006, without new accusations being made against him.[32] But he was confronted by Susan Gibbs, the archdiocese’s communications director, and CNN reporter Connie Chung, about past allegations. He denied them all, admitting only to sharing beds with seminarians (as if this wasn’t a problem in itself).[33]

On the eve of his 75th birthday, McCarrick submitted his required resignation to Pope Benedict XVI. Nuncio Montalvo wanted McCarrick to stay on for another two years, and Benedict agreed.[34] But then new information about McCarrick’s homosexual advances came to the pope’s attention, and he quickly reversed his decision. McCarrick was told of the Holy Father’s desire that he “immediately resign as Archbishop of Washington.”[35] On May 16, 2006, Benedict accepted McCarrick’s resignation.[36] His problems, however, were only beginning.

A month later, an attorney representing a priest who said McCarrick abused him met with Vatican officials. The priest described a fishing trip in upstate New York that took place in 1987. McCarrick invited him and two other priests to go with him. They had dinner and then went back to a local hotel to watch TV. Shortly after going to bed, the priest “rolled over and noticed the Archbishop and another priest having sex on another double bed. At that point the Archbishop noticed that I was looking and invited me to be ‘next.’ The other priest laughed and joked at the Archbishop’s invitation for me to have sex with him.”[37] Though shaken, he did not accept the invitation.

The priest subsequently offered more testimony about another incident. The Diocese of Metuchen reached a settlement with his claims in November 2006.[38]

More problems emerged when Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk and psychotherapist, sent a letter to Pope Benedict about McCarrick’s sexual misconduct, providing a lot of information, including reports by Catholic journalist Matt Abbott.[39] Though Sipe’s letter was posted on the internet, it received little attention by the media. Fortunately, it wasn’t ignored in Rome.

In 2006, and again in 2008, Archbishop Viganò sent a memorandum to Pope Benedict XVI about what Sipe had said, and what he himself had learned about McCarrick.[40] The evidence of McCarrick’s misconduct was mounting, becoming ever more difficult to deny, though some still tried to defend him. Among them was Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who lived with McCarrick for 6 years in Washington. He claims he never heard of any wrongdoing, and indeed “never suspected, or ever had reason to suspect, any inappropriate conduct in Washington.”[41] That would make him unique.

McCarrick proved to be shameless. He was asked many times not to present himself in public and to quietly retire. As stubborn as he was  self-serving, he blew everyone off. He even claimed victim status, contending that the proposed restrictions amounted to “persecution.”[42]

If there is one big mistake Benedict made, it was not laying down the law in writing.[43] When it comes to manipulative and self-absorbed people like McCarrick, the door must be shut firmly in their face, otherwise they will exploit any remaining opening.

This explains why McCarrick refused to abide by every request to curtail his public appearances—he saw the lack of teeth in the requests as evidence of their flatulence. He traveled all over the world under Benedict, and did so with greater ease under Pope Francis.[44]

When Pope Francis was elected in 2013, he said he never heard of any rumors related to McCarrick’s past sexual conduct. Similarly, he professed not to know of any restrictions on his travelling.[45] He said he assumed that allegations against McCarrick must have been without foundation, otherwise Pope John Paul II would have treated him differently.[46]

On June 23, 2013, Pope Francis agreed to meet with Archbishop Viganò; they met again on October 10. Five years later, on August 22, 2018, Viganò claimed that Pope Francis asked him about McCarrick during the June meeting. Viganò says he told him about “a dossier this thick” on  McCarrick. “He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” Viganò added that McCarrick had committed “crimes” and was a “serial predator.”[47] Viganò says he discussed McCarrick’s exploits again at the October meeting.

According to the Report, Pope Francis “does not recollect what Viganò said about McCarrick during these two meetings.” In fact, he says he never knew a thing about McCarrick until the Archdiocese of New York revealed allegations against McCarrick in 2017.[48]

On June 8, 2017, the Archdiocese of New York received a complaint about McCarrick abusing a teenage male in the 1970s. Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan had established an Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program to deal with past cases of priestly sexual abuse, and it was this mechanism that proved to be McCarrick’s last straw. This was the first time anyone had heard of McCarrick abusing a minor.[49]

An investigation of this matter concluded that the allegations against McCarrick were “credible and substantiated.”[50] Following the archdiocese’s policies, Dolan recommended that the case be made public. That was done on June 20, 2018, and on July 28, Pope Francis accepted McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals.[51]

This sad chapter in the history of the Catholic Church in the U.S. is now  over. Most of the sexual abuse took place between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. Media reports, however, continue to poison the public mind, having the public believe it is still ongoing. What they are reporting, in almost every instance, are past cases of abuse. Most of the bad guys are either dead or out of ministry.

Had the New Jersey bishops acted responsibly, McCarrick would not  have been able to continue with his predatory behavior. How could this happen? Lurking behind all of this is the overwhelming presence of a homosexual network of priests, both in the U.S. and in Rome. They are very good at covering for their own. Until and unless this web of deceit and perversion is owned up to—which it hasn’t—lay Catholics will continue to be wary of the hierarchy.

We should not forget the heroes. Pope Benedict XVI has written with great clarity and honesty about the “filth” in the Church. Significantly, he understands the social and cultural dynamics that brought about the scandal as well as anyone. This has angered so-called progressive Catholics.

Their interest is not in telling the truth. Their interest is in diverting attention away from the homosexual origins of the scandal. They, and their allies in the media, continue to talk about the “pedophilia” scandal, when the fact is it has been a homosexual scandal all along. When we fail in the diagnosis, we fail in combating the malady.

Cardinal O’Connor, as we have seen, proved to be heroic. He should be a role model for every priest, regardless of rank. Had it not been for another New York archbishop, Cardinal Dolan, McCarrick might have gotten away with it. How many other institutions in our society, secular as well as religious—many have been plagued with sexual abuse—have ever brought charges against one of their own offenders at the top rungs of their organization? There are none.

There will be much more written on this subject, but for now at least, we have in “The McCarrick Report” a much better understanding of how the breakdown in accountability happened. What still needs to be addressed is why it broke down, and what steps can be taken to make sure it never happens again. That is something I discuss in my new book.

[1]Archbishop Vigano made this comment on the Nov. 12 episode of Raymond Arroyo’s ETWN show, “The World Over,” Nov. 12, 2020.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “The McCarrick Report,” p. 91.

[4] Ibid., p. 23.

[5] Ibid., p. 27.

[6] Ibid., pp. 70-71.

[7] Ibid., p. 73.

[8] Ibid., p. 190.

[9] Ibid., p. 76.

[10] Ibid., p. 77.

[11] Ibid., pp. 84-85.

[12] Ibid., p. 87.

[13] Ibid., p. 92.

[14] Ibid., p. 93.

[15] Ibid., pp. 95-99.

[16] Ibid., pp. 101-10

[17] Ibid., p. 111.

[18] Ibid., p. 129.

[19] Ibid., pp. 117-23.

[20] Ibid., p. 130.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., p. 131.

[23] Ibid., p. 140.

[24] Ibid., pp. 134, 137.

[25] Ibid., 139.

[26] Ibid., p. 169.

[27] Ibid., p. 170.

[28] Ibid., pp. 169-70.

[29] Ibid., p. 170.

[30] Ibid., pp. 173-74.

[31] “The World Over,” EWTN, Nov. 12, 2020.

[32] “The McCarrick Report,” p. 211.

[33] Ibid., pp. 215-219.

[34] Ibid., pp. 230-31.

[35] Ibid., p. 232.

[36] Ibid., p. 246.

[37] Ibid., p. 251.

[38] Ibid., p. 260.

[39] Ibid., pp. 279-81.

[40] Ibid., pp. 282-86.

[41] Ibid., p. 290.

[42] Ibid., p. 308.

[43] Ibid., p. 298.

[44] Ibid., pp. 370-72.

[45] Ibid., p. 394.

[46] Ibid., pp. 401-02.

[47] Ibid., pp. 403-04.

[48] Ibid., pp. 404-05.

[49] Ibid., p. 433.

[50] Ibid., p. 434.

[51] Ibid., p. 435.

Bill In The News (Breitbart):

Catholic League President Bill Donohue condemns dissident Catholics attempting to cancel “‘the cult of St. John Paul II.'” READ MORE HERE

Bill Donohue comments on an editorial from the National Catholic Reporter slandering St. John Paul II:

Over the years, I have documented the attacks by the dissident Catholics at the National Catholic Reporter against the Church. Hardly a day goes by that they do not impugn at least one aspect of the Faith. However, their editorial “US Bishops, Please Suppress the Cult of St. John Paul II” sinks to an even greater low as they seek to censor this beloved saint.

The Reporter cites Pope John Paul II’s “calamitous, callous decision-making” regarding former Cardinal McCarrick for why the legacy of this holy man must be cancelled. Particularly, the Reporter believes that he “willfully put at risk children and young adults in the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and around the world” while setting “a deplorable example for bishops in ignoring the accounts of abuse victims.”

Oh, how they cherry pick their history.

While the Reporter is quick to note that St. John Paul II personally instructed the Vatican’s Secretary of State to add McCarrick to the list of those being considered for promotion, they fail to note that it was John Paul II who initially removed McCarrick in the first place over concerns for his “moral maturity.”

When claims of sexual misconduct reached the pope, following standard protocol, he asked for an investigation into the matter. While accusations of McCarrick’s vile acts did arise, other bishops came to his defense and discounted these allegations.

Further, McCarrick used personal relations in the Vatican, particularly a letter written to John Paul’s personal secretary, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, to assure the pontiff that nothing was amiss.

Even though there is sizable evidence that St. John Paul II took proactive steps (although, in hindsight, less than effective ones,) and he was misled by McCarrick, the Reporter argues that now the chief item to address next week during the annual U.S. Bishops’ Conference should be “requesting the Vatican formally suppress John Paul’s cult.” These dissidents will only be happy if the Swiss Guard is sent out to remove his name and image from every church, school and other public venue.

In reading this editorial, one gets the sense that the true villain of the “McCarrick Report” is not the predatory ex-cardinal, but rather Pope John Paul II. This allows the blame to shift away from the true perpetrator of the crimes, and in doing so, one could argue that the Reporter has done more to cover for McCarrick than John Paul ever did.

It is ironic as it is perverse, that the Reporter, which is quick to judge others for the clergy sexual abuse scandal, denies its own role in contributing to it. To be specific, its relentless attacks on the Church’s teaching on sexuality enabled sick men to justify their homosexual assaults.

While every pontiff who is mentioned in the “McCarrick Report,” in hindsight, could have done more to confront the homosexual ex-cardinal, to hold St. John Paul II particularly responsible and to banish any public devotion to him is beyond the pale. In cancelling his legacy, look for the dissident Catholics at the Reporter to fill the void with some charlatan more in line with their deranged preferences.