Thanks. Some very important points I was not aware of. We have to remember 'We don't know what we don't know'. The fact is that many bad things happened under the reign of Pope St. John Paul II, BUT we do not have all of the facts as to why they happened. He made mistakes. Some very bad ones, but his goal was not to subvert and corrupt the Church as this current crop are out to do.
I don't know, Padraig. That video raised more questions than answers for me. Just to be clear, I'm not accusing Mr. Grein of lying. I simply don't know whether I can accept at face value everything he said in that video.
No I would place this evidence in tow parts. The direct evidential part of his won experience which he can testify too, which I have no difficulty accepting becuase this is very, very strong supporting evidence. ..and a testimony which is suppositional which is way up there in the air and which is entirely another matter. I am a little surprised Dr Marshall was not more on top of this aspect, he has a very fine mind.
Yes, and one comment I read (can't remember where) springs to mind - something to the effect that JP11 was used to dealing with Communists but that Italians, especially in the Curia, were a whole different ball game. I wouldn't confine it to Italians. I also read somewhere about a Polish priest in the Vatican who found some way of making money out of arranging audiences with Pope John Paul. We don't know how much information was withheld from the Pope or edited/qualified in some way before being passed on to him. One comment from Mr. Grein which I found particularly jarring was what he said about Pope John Paul being concerned for his own legacy. I don't believe for a minute that Pope John Paul was concerned about his legacy or that he didn't care about money being donated for the poor not going to the poor.. He did make terrible appointments, but didn't he choose from the candidates proposed by the national Bishops' conferences? I think his fault lay in trusting those around him and adhering to the established procedure for appointing Bishops and Cardinals. I'm reminded of what Fr. Malachi Martin said about Pope John Paul: that he was surrounded by men who despised him. Regarding Mr. Grein's own relationship with McCarrick, the one glaring problem for me is when he says that McCarrick's hold over him lasted for 18 years since age 11. I can't get my head around a 29 year old man, especially one from a privileged background, hanging around with someone who had abused him as a child. Mr. Grein says that he was afraid that McCarrick would expose him. Surely a grown man would have been aware that McCarrick would have risked his own career by spilling the beans on Grein. I also find it hard to believe that Mr. Grein feared for his life, although I suppose that could have been the case. It doesn't gel, however, with Mr. Grein's account of telling McCarrick that he would open his mouth if McCarrick didn't show up at his mother's funeral in 2012. I also don't understand what he meant by being introduced to prominent politicians as being "someone of interest". Why doesn't he name the politicians? It's easy, of course, for me to dissect Mr. Grein's testimony because I haven't walked in his shoes. My heart goes out to anyone who fell under McCarrick's influence. Many good people may well be tainted just because they knew him.
Actually the way the Vatican works is if you want an audeince with the Pope you get charged for it. So say if you are the head of the Fransicans and you want to see him you get chrged, the last I heard somehwere around $10, 000. I know this sounds crazy but it is good beuaracratic procedure. The difficulty being it can be misinterpreted as graft.
He may not have named the politicians for legal reasons - he mentions he has a lawyer advising him -- Grein was groomed. He was under the influence of a charismatic groomer who was a close family friend. Personally if it was me I would have battered McCarrick with my fists but then I have never been groomed so cannot say for sure so as you say we haven't walked in his shoes. With regard to Pope John Paul II, he must have been informed/warned about McCarrick! Boniface Ramsey informed the papal nuncio Higuera in the year 2000 and McCarrick was promoted to Archbishop of Washington anyway. So the problems go back a good few decades and makes me think our recent Popes have not done a particularly good job of dealing with the abuse since the problems were so deeply ingrained in the system. No wonder Benedict resigned. I really understand now why he did. The problems are too deep seated and rooted in the system. Nothing would now surprise me in the Church -- perversion was allowed to reign in the seminaries. Perversion of the faith and perversion of the flesh. Let's be honest if a holy Pope had sacked all abusers, molesters, homosexual or heretic prelates there would only be a minority left. I want to speak up for the abused. Have we any real idea what hell they were put through? Physically and spiritually abused by those who were meant to represent the Heavenly Father! And we are not talking about one or two 'victims' but countless thousands! It is time that we faced this head on this evil that has entered the Church. And the evil needs to be exposed to the light and then expelled into the darkness. Let's bring all of this into the light so that we can put on sackcloth and ashes in reparation for those spiritually, physically and sexually abused.
In prayer this morning I was given an image of sin being like a stone thrown into a pond -- the ripples go on and on. Even small sins create a ripple -- Huge sins create huge ripples -- expanding ever outward. So all sin has an effect -- The sin of an abuser priest creates a tsunami --
Yes, having watched the EWTN interview posted by Chiara, I understand better now the effects of years of grooming. James was more believable in that interview than the Taylor Marshall interview. He said in the EWTN interview that he did try to tell his father when he was 13. There are some discrepancies about when McCarrick came into his family's life, e.g. when he met James' uncle. Focusing on those details detract from the essential message - that sexual predation destroys lives and must be stamped out at all levels in the Church. Listening to James, I get the impression that he is being influenced by Evangelicals, people who would use this evil to advance their own agenda against Christ's Church. If that's the case, the Bishops have only themselves to blame, and if it forces them to finally take decisive action to root out the evil, the victims (including the Church) will be the ultimate beneficiaries. Crises like this give rise to the notion that the Church and the faithful are somehow separate and apart from each other when the opposite is true. The Church (we) needs holy, committed priests and bishops. The task facing all of us, especially the hierarchy, is how to empty the bath without throwing out the baby.
I really have to say that I admire Mr Grein for the courage he has been given to lay out these details of his life for all of us to see and I hope that his witness and testimony moves others who have similar experiences to come forward. What strikes me is that he has no anger, he speaks about praying for McCarrick and for all the Bishops and forgiving them. It's pretty clear that he isn't spiteful and is grateful for the opportunity to tell his story and possibly help others who have gone through the same abuse. It is also clear that he gives God all the glory for saving his life.
Strange, Don, that you should refer to Mr. Grein's forgiving and praying for McCarrick. Strange because I had been thinking of that earlier and what struck me is that saying we forgive someone and actually forgiving them are not the same thing. Perhaps saying "I forgive him" leads to actual forgiveness but I'm not so sure that James is there yet. I'm not saying that to point fingers at James because if I were in his shoes I'm not sure I could bring myself to utter the words, never mind forgiving him in my heart.
If it cost $10,000 to have an audience with the pope, how much money is it going to cost me to see God? I may be in trouble! On a serious note. I think asking for money for everything in the Church is wrong.
It costs a lot of money to run the Vatican. Tickets for the museum are not so very expensive, and tourists are packed in like sardines in a tin especially in the Sistine Chapel. If they raised the ticket prices, they could eliminate all those scandalous photo-ops the Pope has with people who are far from being good role models. Here's part of what a person (username Figaro Hey) posted in the comments section under the Taylor Marshall youtube interview (I had read something similar a while ago but had forgotten that the polish priest was actually a bishop): "What he says about John Paul II needing money to 'build his legacy' or whatever sounds way too American, like they are talking about an American president, not John Paul II. It does NOT square with JPII's personal poverty which is attested to by people who knew him from the time he was a young priest, as bishop, as pope... He was definitely NOT personally concerned about ambition and 'leaving a legacy' or promoting himself somehow. That's just not how JPII was. What you need to do with JPII is investigate Cardinal Dziwisz and others surrounding JPII. The flow of information to ANY pope is controlled by the people around him - for good or for ill. It is well-known in Poland that Dziwisz did not allow information to get through to Pope John Paul II regarding a 'McCarrick-style' bishop abusing his seminarians in Poland. John Paul II finally learned about it when a personal friend from Poland, Dr Wanda Poltowska (who was healed by prayers of intercession of Padre Pio), took the information in her purse and passed it to John Paul II privately during a personal meeting, which Dziwisz could not block or control or interfere with. When JPII got the information, he got rid of the bishop. Dziwisz was protecting that sodomite bishop because the bishop had been a pal of Dziwisz's in seminary. Sound familiar? The information is controlled. There is credible talk of Dziwisz screening who got access to JPII based on who made a donation to a fund for a hospital Dziwisz was building. It's very easy to imagine that all JPII heard about McCarrick (and Maciel) was what the leftists and Freemasons and homosexuals around him wanted him to hear: this man is bringing in a lot of money, doing good work, revitalizing the Church, etc., and he's trustworthy. Any other information was blocked. Also, John Paul II didn't particularly trust the Vatican 'regulars' and surrounded himself with a fairly small group of trusted Polish people, further cutting himself off from the gossip and secrets of the politicians and careerists and factions in the Vatican."
Dr Marshall did another video with Mr Grein and his cohort Timothy speaking about Grein's recent meeting with the representative for the Holy See in NY where he gave his testimony. As well, he addresses several more questions regarding Saint Gallen, the men involved, the plot, McCarrick's role as well as men such as Saint JPII, Pope Paul VI, and Pope Francis's roles in all of this. Dr Marshall asked him if he had any info regarding what he thought would come of the McCarrick trial and Mr Grein stated that his attorney told him that there would be a sentence handed down very soon and no trial. This whole St Gallen thing sounds remarkably like Malachi Martin's book Windswept House. Even down to the town and the lake. I pray to God that he brings the truth to light and heals HIS Church. https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...ccarrick-sexual-abuse/?utm_term=.8cfbec14d5fe The Vatican moves quickly toward punishing ex-cardinal McCarrick for sexual abuse Theordore McCarrick speaks in 2015, when he was still a cardinal in the Catholic Church. (Robert Franklin/Pool/South Bend Tribune/AP) By Michelle Boorstein , Julie Zauzmer and Chico Harlan January 9 at 6:38 PM Vatican investigators have finished collecting evidence in the sexual abuse case of disgraced ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick, according to a person familiar with the investigation, indicating that the Catholic Church is moving quickly toward sentencing the cleric in its secretive justice system. The former prominent archbishop of Washington, who now stands accused of sexually abusing three minors and harassing adult priests and seminarians, already has become the first U.S. cardinal ever removed from that office due to sexual misconduct allegations. Now, he faces the prospect of soon being defrocked — meaning he would no longer be a priest of the Catholic Church and would lose his church housing and financial support. In the past several weeks, witnesses far from the Vatican offered testimony under questioning by American clergy tapped to help with the case. James Grein, who has spoken publicly about his alleged abuse by McCarrick which he says began when he was 11, told The Washington Post that he testified in late December in the office of the Archdiocese of New York. A man who says McCarrick molested him when he was a teenage altar boy has also testified, along with a third man who was a minor when he was allegedly abused by McCarrick. ['What has transpired today is holy,' Grein says after testifying against McCarrick] A person familiar with the investigation said that the Vatican required all testimony be completed by the first weekend in January. The transcripts and recordings of all those witness statements are now in the hands of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, an arm of the church that handles discipline in many abuse cases. Another person in the Vatican, who like others in this report spoke on the condition of anonymity, said he felt that the Holy See waited too long to start the canonical process, the workings of the Vatican’s internal justice system, but that the case is now accelerating. The CDF is now trying to “make up for lost time,” he said. The bishops have the option, “when the evidence is clear,” to skip a full canonical trial, which can last years, and instead opt for an abbreviated process, he said. In rare instances, the pope has decided such cases directly. In the last two instances, a decision could conceivably be reached ahead of a February meeting of top bishops from around the world called by Pope Francis to discuss the subject of sexual abuse in the church. “I don’t know what the timetable will be. Much depends on the results of those testimonies. But I think it may as well be very short,” he said. “But always respecting the rights of the individuals. They are not trying to be theatrical. They have already done that part by stripping him” of his rank as cardinal. [Opus Dei paid $977,000 to settle misconduct claim against prominent Catholic priest] The Rev. Davide Cito, a canon lawyer at Rome’s Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, said the process would happen mostly on paper, if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith opts for the accelerated option. “Don’t imagine a public debate. The accused isn’t present,” he said. Continued...
The CDF would give a file of evidence to the accused cleric’s defense lawyer, and the lawyer would write back with his defense, Cito said. Then a judge and two assistants would meet — in a room that Cito described as “little more than a closet” — and make a decision, which the cleric could appeal. McCarrick, who was ordered last year to a friary in a remote Kansas town to live in seclusion, prayer and penance, testified in the case by electronic means, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. When the first accusation, that of the teenage altar boy, was publicly reported last year, McCarrick denied any memory of the abuse. He resigned from the college of cardinals when additional reports came to light, and he has not offered any public statement since. His church and civil lawyers have both declined to comment. Kurt Martens, a professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, said the faster administrative penal process can be used instead of a full trial when the evidence is very strong or, when the evidence is strong and the accused does not dispute the charges, the decision can come straight from the pope. The last option is rare, he said: “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith understands they have to give the accused some fair trial as well. It’s always a balancing act.” McCarrick is the most prominent defendant in such a case in recent memory. Martens pointed to other bishops whose cases took a variety of courses. Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Guam went through a complete trial on charges including sexually abusing minors last year. He was found guilty on some charges and is appealing his case. Archbishop Józef Wesolowski, a Polish cleric who was the Vatican’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic, was expelled from the priesthood after a canonical trial for abusing children, and died in 2015 while awaiting a civil trial. In other cases, Pope Francis has acted directly. In October, he expelled from the priesthood — the official term is “laicized," or made a member of the laity — two Chilean bishops accused of sexually abusing minors. The Catholic site Crux, in reporting the news then, called it “an extremely unusual, if not unprecedented, move,” one “tantamount to the Church’s version of capital punishment.” Francis also laicized two other Chilean clergy earlier in 2018. A common punishment in Vatican cases is to sentence the accused to a life of prayer and penance — which Francis has already imposed on McCarrick before trial. McCarrick, currently an archbishop, would lose his church housing and stipends if he is laicized, Martens said. He would not be allowed to wear clerical garb, celebrate Mass or present himself in a priest in any way. He would retain only one priestly role, Martens said, because the church believes the ordination it confers on priests is permanent: In an emergency, he would still be obligated to minister to a sick person in danger of dying. Catholics are already debating McCarrick’s potential punishment. Some Catholics are saying they find it insulting — and insufficient — that regaining the status of a layperson is a punishment for a cleric who abuses children. Why is laicization the penalty for assaulting a minor?! This is insulting to lay people! VAT2 says lay people are to be holy. Do we believe that? Just assign abusers to unwashed hoi polloi laity? Why not excommunication? We apply that for grave sin? Not grave enough? #clericalism — Michael Barber (@MichaelPBarber) January 5, 2019 McCarrick served as archbishop of Washington from 2001 until his retirement in 2006, after which he remained a prominent diplomat representing the church and occasionally the U.S. State Department around the world. His successor in Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, announced his own early retirement in October due to vociferous complaints about his handling of sexual abuse when he was bishop of Pittsburgh. Wuerl has denied knowledge of McCarrick’s behavior. But critics suspect he knew, because the cardinal’s indiscretions with adult priests and seminarians were widely rumored and because Wuerl was named in Robert Ciolek’s 2005 settlement involving McCarrick, a fact reported by The Washington Post in September before Wuerl stepped down. Wuerl remains the administrator of the Archdiocese of Washington until Pope Francis appoints a new archbishop, and remains a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But archdiocese spokeswoman Chieko Noguchi said his duties on the CDF do not include judging McCarrick’s case. Stefano Pitrelli contributed to this report. Correction: An earlier version of this story said that Archbishop Anthony Apuron was expelled from the priesthood. He was not expelled, and is still appealing his case.
