What of your Crimes, Bishops? A Piece on McCarrick

I've given myself a few weeks to chew on the McCarrick disaster, as I am fond of calling it, to consider the facts at hand and their import and what should be done in consideration of those facts. Additional facts may come to light to shade my opinion one way or another, but my central concerns have not changed since early on though they have sharpened into focus. My concerns and worry have moved on from the person of McCarick and his appalling actions, that is, the seduction and/or rape of young men and at least one child we know of; after all, despicable behavior in itself is not a surprise. In a Catholic Bishop? Yes, actions of the sort purported by McCarick qualify I think as incredibly bad, reaching to and attaining the the heights of evil. Or, let's put it this way: when people hear a hundred years from now what McCarrick did they will be disgusted, and his behavior will be yet another black mark on the Church, now, and forever. McCarrick's name (and others yet unknown, perhaps - though I personally think Cardinal Law should get at least a dishonorable mention for his suppression of crimes in the archdiocese of Boston...) - but I say, the name of McCarrick will ring on the lips of anyone of a mind to question the authority and authenticity of the Roman Catholic Church. He alongside other characters, including a handful of notorious Popes - but, as I said, it is not McCarrick's actions or character that most concern me. Not at all. For evil men are great infiltrators, and a rotten apple is bound to slip into the barrel now and again.

So I have moved on in a sense from McCarrick except to wish he would confess his crimes publicly, or that those he raped and fondled and subjugated to his power would come forward and say something. A brief note: it's interesting to me that women, feminists, have had the guts to come forward in the #metoo movement to name their assailants but that there is nary a peep from the brave men of holy orders who McCarrick had his way with. And this is yet another point of shame, to my way of thinking, which brings me back to me central concern, which is this:

Why did the Catholic Church do nothing about McCarrick?

But perhaps this question seems too obvious. It is certainly the question everyone is asking, and the answers vary. Predictably, one answer gaining currency is that no one did anything because our culture is too accepting of homosexuality. This answer is, of course, nonsense. The commission of any sexual act other than that of conjugal union qualifies as sinful. One can be homosexual and Catholic - of course! One simply cannot engage in homosexual acts and remain in a state of Grace. Nor can one engage in adulterous acts, or obtain divorce, or use contraception, etc. and remain in a state of Grace. The Church is quite clear on this point. It promotes the vocation to chastity or temperance for all persons, including married couples (see the Catholic Catechism (CC), Section 2337). Here is an excerpt from the Catechism to put us in the proper frame of mind for this discussion:

"Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy. Man's dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end." (CC 2339)

The Church contemplates and attains to one goal: unity. Unity in mind, body, and spirit. As Christ was and is the very person in whom all that is true and divine is unified, so we as persons are called to a self-same unity. It is this aspect of Christianity - of Christ in his divine person - that controls moral law. 

Or so we are told. In this context, let me repeat my question: 

                                  Why did the Catholic Church do nothing about McCarrick?

How could a person - any person - be allowed to administer the Sacraments and - worse yet, it seems to me - be allowed to receive Communion when it was known by members of the Church that he had committed the crimes McCarrick committed? How could persons in the church - including Bishops, priests, and the seminarians he raped - allow this to happen? It would have been better if the Blessed Host and chalice of Sacred Blood had been torn from his hands and dashed to the floor rather than to allow him to insult and violate the Body of Christ in sharing communion with Him. This crime goes unconfessed and unaddressed, and it is my principal concern because the crimes and complicity attack the very person of Jesus Christ. 

None of the saintly twaddle and culture-blame being blown around these days addresses the crimes of the Episcopacy in not merely in allowing McCarrick to carry out his crimes against human persons but against the Trinity itself. 

How I wish church leadership would speak to the crimes committed against the very heart of the Church by its silence and inaction. Of course, I assume the Church recognizes the nature of these crimes. Otherwise, the Mass is a mere show and the persons engaged in it are actors in a sad, if lovely, historical play. I choose to believe such is not the case. I ask our Bishops to indicate that they believe, too, while addressing the crimes committed against our belief.