“John Paul II was a man so morally rigorous, with such moral integrity that he would never allow a corrupt candidacy to be promoted” – such words fall from the mouth of Pope Francis as a definitive assessment on page 400 of the Vatican report on former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick – writes Fr. Francis Longchamps de Bérier specifically for Political Theology.
“John Paul II was a man so morally rigorous, of such moral righteousness, that he would never allow a corrupt candidacy to be promoted” – such words fall from the mouth of Pope Francis as a definitive assessment and is reflected on the page 400 in the report on former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. The report was published on November 10, 2020 by the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, acting as the government dealing with the church’s affairs. Astonishing are the detail of this unprecedented official document of the highest rank, which depicts the whole life – from 1930 until 2017 – of a man extremely influential and well-known in the world. Since the report deals with institutional memory and the decision-making process of the body of international law and the apparatus leading the universal Church, it is worth to look at the report with the eye of a lawyer. This must be done from the perspective of the rule of law, as there are attempts to make accusations against specific persons: the late and the living, including Pope John Paul II and Stanisław Cardinal Dziwisz.
- What is not included in the report?
The accusations turn out to be unreliable. First of all, because the document is an analysis of what the recorded actions of the institutions of the Catholic Church bear witness to. It is about establishing knowledge of the facts at the various stages of the review procedures (1977, 1981, 1986, 2000, 2005) and how the decision was made, especially at key and difficult moments and issues – on the basis of this knowledge or possibly against the information that was obtained. Thus, there are at least two complex issues that are outside of the report, which have been resolved a long time ago.
The question of the decision of holiness of Pope John Paul II and its announcement, first in the form of beatification by Pope Benedict XVI, and then the canonization by Pope Francis are totally outside of any aspects of the report.
The guilt judgment in case of Theodore McCarrick’s took place in a separate, already closed procedure carried out under canon law by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was not removed from public life or resigned from cardinal dignity. As a bishop, a member of the college of purples was transferred to a secular state. Speaking in the military language, he was shamefully demoted from a four-star general to a private held in isolation.
The question of the ruling on the holiness of Pope John Paul II and its announcement first in the form of beatification by Pope Benedict XVI and then canonization by Pope Francis are totally outside of any aspects of the report. Both took place on the basis of lengthy and detailed proceedings, ultimately led by the Congregation for the Causes of Canonization. A careful reading of the report will make it clear to everyone that it does not provide any possibility to undermine the beatification and canonization processes, nor even casts a shadow over the correctness of their conduct or the reliability of the results.
- Who not to listen to?
Due to the nature of the report as a study of documents, judgments quickly made in the media turn out to be unreliable. The main reason is not the number of pages to read – 447. It takes a lot of time to get acquainted with the report, because the report is extensive substantive as a result of a long and meticulous internal investigation. It began as a research, collection, translation and analysis of all documents available in Rome and across the ocean. Numerous witnesses were interviewed, including Pope Francis and Pope Benedict. It ended up selecting and arranging the most important quotations from documents and from testimonies or describing their contents with balanced words. The report requires in-depth reading and thought, and it takes time to do so. So it is not possible to seriously comment on its content within 24 hours of publication, and maybe even in 48 hours or 72 hours … Thus, statements made at that time constitute, at most, declarations of intention and belief, not a comment on the report or the facts or documents referred to there in it. Nothing surprising: each crisis reveals, in the first phase of the course, first of all, the ideas of hearts: what was previously perhaps hidden, the initial circumstances that make the audience aware of themselves. Normally, therefore, it would be necessary to prepare a list of those who made a judgment at that time: not to remember them. A lawyer would demand to exclude them from the formulation of assessments or judgment if, in advance, they come as biased. Somebody else will say that there is nothing to argue with their voices, because they were not made for this purpose.
- Disappointment with the report
To the surprise of many, in the report the reader will find little information about Pope John Paul II or about the Cardinal of Dziwisz. I think that’s why we are trying to make the spotlight and the decisive point of appointing Theodore McCarrick Archbishop of Washington, D.C. in the year 2000. His appointment as bishop of the U.S. capital paved the way for him to become Cardinal. Indeed, the following year he became a member of the College of Cardinals. However, institutional memory and knowledge of the decision-making process at this point proves to be very instructive. It is not just about the decision itself. Its accuracy was confirmed by everything that had happened before: the success of Th. McCarrick in various fields and subsequent promotions since his appointment as Auxiliary Bishop of New York in 1977 by St. Pope Paul VI. Its accuracy was confirmed by what happened later: another undisturbed path of success, including Benedict XVI’s extension of his mission in 2005 by two years despite the retirement age of 75. And, even when the evidence and testimonies began to emerge, the talented American hierarch brimmed in the world’s salons, skillfully and brazenly coping in the shadows of doubt. He continued to do what he liked: travels for which the Holy See extended his diplomatic passport in 2009.
McCarrick received a prestigious award from President Bill Clinton. He met repeatedly with President George W. Bush and worked closely with the Obama administration
In the 1980s and 1990s, he provided many services to the U.S. government. As the new Archbishop of the capital, he immediately received a prestigious award from President Bill Clinton. He met repeatedly with President George W. Bush and worked closely with the Obama administration, which saw great opportunities in his numerous trips to fulfill delicate missions for his homeland. A report by the Holy See’s Secretariat of State makes it clear that he had to be checked repeatedly by US special services. State affairs made him an expert in Chinese, which Rome began to use already during the pontificate of John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI dreamed of establishing relations with China, which was definitely taken up by Vatican diplomacy under Pope Francis, using the services of Theodore McCarrick.
Rumors of inappropriate McCarrick’s behavior have been circulating from time to time. And, this only involved the period from 1981 to 1986, when he was the first Bishop of Metuchen and then during his time as Archbishop of Newark. He maintained that he was unwise, because his openness and cordiality could be treated ambiguously. There was talk of sharing a bed with young men and trips with clerics to a diocesan seaside house. He claimed that impropriety was seen by people of bad will, who could not imagine that with a limited number of sleeping places, men without overtones could sleep on both sides of a large sleeping place – moreover, always in pajamas and always as a travel group; he never went with one person. He had many friends from the pastoral activities of the family, of which he became friends for decades. As an only child, a man without brothers and sisters he treated them as his sewn relatives.
In all rumors and allegations were about adults. However, a document accusing Mr McCarrick of homosexuality was formulated in November 2006. It was only then that any evidence began to emerge. Under their influence, he retired in May 2006 with a residual residence at the neocatechumenal’s Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland. Pope Benedict believed that disciplinary measures had been taken, Theodore McCarrick was touring the world, and while staying in the Eternal City, he was fulfilling his Cardinal functions in various Roman dicasteries. The Congregation for the Bishops expected that he will stay in the shadows, but he did nothing about it; he was certain impunity resulting from a lack of evidence that would allow the sanction of canon law to be taken. In 2008, he was not allowed to pray with Benedict XVI at the Site of the World Trade Center in New York, although he concelebrated Mass and was at dinner with all the participants of the Papal visit. In mid-2009, the Congregation stated in a characteristic way: “As to the allegations against Mr. McCarrick no administrative or judicial proceedings have been initiated or any preliminary investigation was not undertaken. No dicasteria has established any specific facts and no guilt have ever been found.” It is not surprising that the US House of Representatives asked him on January 6, 2009, at the beginning of his new term, for an inaugural prayer. He unlawfully ordained a priest in California at the beginning of May 2013 and later sought in Rome through the mediation of his Washington’s successor, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, not to receive punishments that would have prevented him from being able to ordain other in the same month. From 2013 to 2017, he collected prizes, participated in political life by making various declarations, publicly celebrated Masses, the sacrament of marriage, ordain deacons and priests, and held funerals.
Always tireless, capable, brilliant, sympathetic and hardworking; genius in fundraising and in the organization of projects. He enjoyed a great reputation among other Bishops
In 2017 a credible accusation of sexual harassment of a minor brought the end of everything. It occurred in the early 1970s, thus before the episcopal consecration in 1977. However, these were decisive times: he was already considered for Bishop appointment in 1968 and 1972. Since then, he has exemplarily performed successive ecclesiastical functions. He cared about vocations and was successful in this regard: the number of seminarians in seminaries increased. Always tireless, capable, brilliant, sympathetic and hardworking; genius in fundraising and in the organization of projects. He enjoyed a great reputation among other bishops. It wasn’t until 2017 that people felt embodied. Evidence began to trickle down, which showed Theoodore McCarrick’s culture of intimidation built to achieve personal goals. A kind of genius turned out to be a hostage to disordered sexuality, which not so much led to the collapse of the influential hierarchy – still traveler who was in deep retirement at the time – but above all the deletion of the achievements of his entire life.
- Witnesses of guilt are needed
The lack of evidence remained crucial until 2017, or at least until 2006. For all in the Church know the norm formulated by St. Paul in his First Letter to Timothy that even “against the priest do not accept the accusation, unless on the basis of two or three witnesses” (5:19). And, the issue related to a Bishop – since 1977. The requirement in the New Covenant to base the accusation on the testimony of more than one person was still the result of Old Testament law. The requirement of two witnesses was a new element for the Roman world. Roman law did not immediately bend to the Christian requirement of more than one witness. The well-known saying “one witness, no witness” will make sense only after the declaration of tolerance for Christians in 313. The requirement to base the accusation on the consistent testimony of at least two witnesses giving the same reason for the allegations is an ancient expression of skepticism about the subjective view, the message derived from the accounts of one person; it is a manifestation of helplessness towards, as we say today, words against the word. This skepticism is alien to modern criminology as a science of crime and all perhaps penal sciences, but also historical studies about the law. Today, it is claimed, in particular, that the fact that someone with the sincerest belief claims that he has certainly seen or heard or knows something, participated in something or witnessed something does not have to be based on a lie. The firm belief that he testifies “as it was” and “the whole truth” can result from many and various factors that led to the irregularity or unconscious untruthfulness of the memory. Therefore, testimony and legal arguments should not be accepted if reasonable doubts arise: first, that at least two people report the sin to the ecclesial superior and that the accusations must be the same (as in the trial of Jesus Christ himself); secondly, as to the credibility and consistency of the testimony on which the prosecution is based.
- Wojtyła – McCarrick meeting
When Karol Wojtyła and Stanisław Dziwisz appear in the report and all the sad history? Actually, only twice. It is not a question of the appointment of the Auxiliary Bishop of New York as the Bishop of Metuchen in 1981 or the subsequent appointment as the Archbishop of Newark in 1986. In 1977 the research consisted, among other things, of 52 confidential surveys being sent out. Now the candidate was already a Bishop, he belonged to the skeleton of the hierarchy of the Church. Who else was supposed to enjoy the trust? However, before the promotion to be an independent Bishop’s integrity and personal predisposition to perform specific new functions was re-examined. A solid and typical examination of the candidacy brought great opinions about a person who was considered perhaps a little too ambitious. An exemplary mission to organize the new Diocese of Metuchen quickly brought promotion to the Archbishop of Newark in 1986. Pope John Paul II was presented with documents for the nomination of the candidate, who seemed to be the first and most appropriate to all. John Paul II was presented documents of nomination of the candidate for his signature. To all he seemed first-class and most appropriate.
John Paul II was presented documents for his signature. Documents of the candidate’s nomination that seemed to be the best and most appropriate for all.
Karol Wojtyła and Stanisław Dziwisz appear in the report in 1976. The Metropolitan of Krakow arrives on a visit to the USA and the Archbishop of New York is not sure about the English language skills of his guests. He pulls Father Theodore McCarrick from a youth camp in the Bahamas. Father McCarrick speaks four foreign languages: Spanish, French, Italian, and German. In the presence of the Cardinal from Krakow, he allows himself to joke that he had to cease his vacations for him. As a result, he was remembered: during Bishop T. McCarrick’s first visit to Rome, Pope John Paul II asked if he was able to return and continue his vacations.
- Candidate for three Cardinal capitals
The second time the story is longer. The efficient Archbishop of Newark becomes a candidate to take the Archdiocese of Chicago in 1997, that is, the cardinal’s capital. It turns out that a moment earlier he was checked by the Vatican services and Cardinal John O’Connor of New York. It was about the appropriateness of John Paul II’s visit to Newark in 1995. Nothing disturbing was reported and the meeting with the Pope turned out to be a pastoral success.
The Congregation for the Bishops sitting in plenary meeting when considering candidatures for the Cardinal capital of Chicago learns about rumors and accusations in connection with the person Theodore McCarrick. However, Cardinal O’Connor declares that he knows nothing about it. He is against the appointment of the Archbishop of Newark for other reasons. There needs to be someone who can better cope with the situation and the crisis that has arisen. Metropolitan Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, who died of pancreatic cancer, was accused of harassment by a former cleric. In the end, unequivocally it turned out to be false, but the case went on for a long time and gained notoriety, which caused a lot of scandal and caused a lot of damage.
On the clear instructions of Pope John Paul II, the substitute of the Holy See Archbishop Giovanni Battista asked for the opinion of the previous nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciavilian, who had been on his mission in the US for eight years. He found no basis for the accusations.
McCarrick soon began to be considered as Cardinal O’Connor’s successor. At that time, the latter received information about rumors and gossips towards McCarrick. Before that time more than once, he had proposed to Theodore McCarrick to become his coadjutor with the law of succession. After the surgery for brain cancer, which soon became the cause of death, he revealed his doubts to Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, who was the newly appointed nuncio. He had no evidence, but for security he wrote a confidential letter about everything. There was his testimony that it was at most about old affairs, because there were no new suspicious behavior of the Archbishop of Newark. In this situation, on the express instructions of Pope John Paul II, a substitute for the Holy See, Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re asked for the opinion of the previous nuncio, Archbishop Agostino Cacciaviman, who had been on his mission in the US for eight years. He found no basis for the accusations, but pointed out that Theodore McCarrick never had a chance to answer them. Meantime, someone else becomes the Archbishop of New York. Pope John Paul II demands that the current Nuncio Gabriel Montalvo check any “rumors and talks” about McCarrick in the United States.
The Nuncio asks for testimony from four bishops who have known Theodore McCarrick well and closely for many years. Three of them mention rumors and accusations, but also that they have not encountered any evidence to justify them. The fourth writes the longest letter, presenting McCarrick in the best light and explaining the innocence of the circumstances or behaviors that might have seemed unwise to an outside observer. Nuncio sums up the investigation by writing that he has still not found any evidence; all this is gossip and rumors. In his opinion, he follows the suggestion of the late Cardinal O’Connor and one of the three bishops who testified: it would be unwise to entrust Theodore McCarrick with more important, responsible matters in the Church.
At that time, Nuncio Montalvo receives letters from four prominent U.S. hierarchs suggesting the appointment of McCarrick to another Cardinal’s capital – Washington. The only negative factor they see is the age of a candidate who is almost 70 years old. The retiring Archbishop is also supportive of his candidacy. In comparison with his request, John O’Connor’s doubts begin to lose importance: there is an impression that the Archbishop of New York simply did not want McCarrick as his successor.
Neither Archbishop Cacciavillan nor Archbishop Re seems to doubt the innocence of the candidate.
In Rome, Archbishop Re receives all documentation. He commissions the on-the-spot opinion of the former Nuncio Agostino Cacciavillan. He believes that Gabriel Montalvo is to strongly influenced by the opinion of Cardinal O’Connor, rather than taking a holistic view of the case. Neither Archbishop Cacciavillan nor Archbishop Re seem to doubt the candidate’s innocence, but the latter, writing a definitive position, proposes not to entrust McCarrick to the Cardinal capital for pragmatic reasons: not to create an opportunity to raise old accusations which will serve neither the Church nor the candidate. This opinion is joined by the Pope, handwritten “In voto JPII 8.VII.2000”. This way, John Paul II blocks the candidacy. The Congregation cannot take this candidacy when examining who could become archbishop of Washington.
Let’s add here that everything and all the time this is ongoing behind the back of Theodore McCarrick. No one asked him anything, including the Nuncio. Every observer will notice that this does not match the requirement under Roman law: “Let the other party also be heard”; especially since there have been accusations. This fundamental principle of procedural fairness is dictated by the requirements of rationality and the rule of law. He expresses the expectation of simple honesty towards man, fair action. Saint Luke cites in the Acts 25:16 the statement: ” I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge.”
- McCarrick’s handwritten letter
Referring to hearings about the existence of Cardinal O’Connor’s letter (he was never informed about the existence of this letter, thus it was asked how he knew that it was received by the Holy See), Theodore McCarrick decides to write his own letter to the Pope. It presents this as an act of desperation: in the face of an institutional blockade caused by the decision of Pope John Paul II, he addresses a letter to the personal secretary – Bishop Stanisław Dziwisz. The handwritten letter, without any foulness with the addressee, looks like a dramatic gesture. That is the content of it. Everyone can read the whole thing in the report: well written, good composition, which is avoiding a simple defense, expressing mainly the humility of the author. He declares his willingness to step down even from his current position as Archbishop of Newark if he has indeed lost the trust of the Holy Father.
McCarrick’s handwritten letter, without any foulness with the recipient, looks like a dramatic gesture. That is the content of it. Anyone can read the whole thing in the report: well written, good composition, which is avoiding a simple defense, expressing mainly the humility of the author.
In the pious text, a key lie is made in the words that pretend to be sincere to the pain: “Excellency [to S. Dziwisz], I certainly made mistakes and sometimes lacked caution, but in the seventy years of my life I have never had sexual relations with any person, man or woman, young or old, clergy or secular, I have never abused another person or treated them disrespectfully.” McCarrick has consistently repeated this as Archbishop of Washington for the press and speaks of rumors circulating about him that are examples of false accusations. He is the victim. Did the American press believe him?
Pope John Paul II believed Theodore McCarrick’s confession. What did this mean legally? He removed the blockade and allowed the Congregation for the Bishops did not exclude him from seeking the best candidate for archbishop of Washington. He was not included in the list of three proposed by Gabriel Montalvo. However, proposals from the Nuncio in a given country are taken into account as one of the suggestions. There were also letters from four American hierarchs and members of the Congregation for Bishops were up to date with available candidatures. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has previously reported that there are no negative comments – nothing in its documentation indicates that the candidacy of Theodore McCarrick should be warned. The Congregation for the Bishops took further, typical actions in such circumstances, asking for the opinion of Archbishop Cacciavillan. He thought it was the best candidacy for Washington.
The Pope believed in the integrity and purity of the Archbishop, who suggested that he would step down if he lost Papal trust. He recovered it, but that didn’t equal the promotion. This Pope has done the promotion, but at the request of and after a routine and meticulous procedure in such cases, in the Congregation for Bishops, which met collegiately.
The Pope asked the U.S. Secretary of State Angelo Cardinal Sodano to convey to Theodore McCarrick that he believed his words. Cardinal Sodano made no mention of a possible appointment to Washington on this occasion. He gave a signal that things should not be combined. The Pope believed in the integrity and purity of the Archbishop, who suggested that he would be willing to step down altogether if he lost Papal trust. He recovered them, but that didn’t equal the promotion. This was done by the Pope, but at the request of and after a routine and meticulous procedure in such cases, in the Congregation for Bishops, who deliberated collegiately. Its members, too, were convinced of McCarrick’s moral integrity. Again – the Congregation seriously considered the pragmatic premise that prevailed in the earlier blockade of Theodore McCarrick’s candidacy. However, since there was no evidence after such a long research, it was believed that if rumors and gossips were repeated, the situation would be safe. In a note accompanying the documents sent to Washington, the Secretary of the Congregation wrote to the Nuncio: “If such rumors reappeared at his promotion, it would be easy to answer them. There is a risk that such rumors will be heard again: Cardinal O’Connor, a man of great integrity and great seriousness, would not have talked about this risk if he had not considered it really possible. However, now that you are sure that the accusations are false, they can be easily refuted.”
The first evidence does not appear until six years later. Yet, Theodore McCarrick’s re-examination in 2005 brings positive verification, as it was smoothly decided not to accept the resignation caused by the canonical requirement of 75 years. Pope Benedict XVI will extend McCarrick’s mission in Washington by two years. If more serious evidence had come out, it was enough not to take any action, as was done – mainly for health reasons, after all, everyone is finally entitled to a pension.
- Believe the liar?
And, what was the role of Bishop S. Dziwisz? Modest. Theodore McCarrick’s handwritten letter was sent to Castel Gandolfo, where he immediately asked James Cardinal Harvey to translate it into Italian for the Pope. That is all. The report includes the Cardinal Harvey’s note that this was a complete exception and he was never asked for anything like it. So, Bishop Dziwisz did not hide the letter from John Paul II. When currently asked during the preparation of the report about the whole situation, he testified that he did not talk to the Pope about the contents of the letter. The decision not to block the nomination was made directly by Pope John Paul II to Archbishop Re.
Suspicion is not a part of the Vatican report that shows documents with all openness. Some criticize it or are scandalized. They prove that suspicion was also not a part during the entire decision-making procedure.
The authors of the report try to explain the reasons why Pope John Paul II believed the assurances of the letter. In the summary, at the beginning of the report, they write: “Although there is no direct evidence, on the basis of the elements acquired, it seems possible to assume that John Paul II’s previous experiences in Poland regarding the use of false accusations against Bishops to undermine the role of the Church have influenced his propensity to acknowledge McCarrick’s denials.” The arguments are provided by an extensive footnote 580 on pages 173–174. The report mentions the attempted fabrication in 1983 of the scandal of morality with John Paul II in the main role, and above all, explains the Pope’s cautious attitude to moral charges, coming from unspecified sources, especially those not presented to the church superiors – suspicion dictated the experience of Ubek’s provocations and frequent accusations against priests.
Although, personal reasons for trusting someone or not may be relevant to the decision and the particular person concerned. They are not crucial to the procedure for establishing the facts. The procedural problem was the lack of evidence combined with negative statements. And the principle of Roman law instructs and dictates that: “the one who acknowledges is subject to the evidence, not the one who denies.” This is a requirement of rationality, which the rule of law demands. It therefore acts as an essential element of procedural fairness in all legal systems – with us, for example, as Article 6 of the Civil Code. Less so, so that the accused was not asked by anyone, and rumors and gossip were repeated behind his back. Thus, there is no sensible way of keeping evidence of a negative circumstance: that something did not occur, did not take place, was not said. It remains to look for a positive claim. In the role of proof, there is a statement in this situation: “I was not”, “I did not”. It can be called into question, but with evidence. Those who oppose the statement must then present it.
John Paul II comes out in the report as a prudent, diligent and responsible superior who manages the additional investigation, but also has confidence in the whole institution that he directs.
Is it possible not to give faith in the statement? In all our work in the Church, especially in parish offices, we rely on the assumption that one who makes statements and presents facts, tell the truth. We do not follow a culture of suspicion, because by paying homage to it, we will not go far. The solution is pragmatic, but characteristic of people with strong faith. If anything, they do not lie to us. Everyone takes responsibility in front of God for their words. When someone cheats, that person cheats God. The Anglo-Saxons repeat that whoever cheats on others is actually cheating on himself. In American law, even colloquially accusing someone of lying in a simple conversation can easily end up in court. The case will be difficult, because the lie must be proved – after all, “the one is subject to the evidence, who make claims, not who denies”. In the culture there, reliance on word and signature is an absolute basis for proceedings. There is also almost “eternal” lack of forgiveness and ruthlessness of unreliability if someone was caught lying at least once.
Suspicion is not present in the Vatican report that shows documents with all openness. Some criticize it or get scandalized. They show that suspicion was also not present in the entire decision-making procedure: in 1977, 1981, 1986, 2000 and 2005. Those who seek ways to undermine the sanctity of Pope John Paul II must be dissatisfied with the report. In it, he is presented as a prudent, diligent and responsible superior who requests the additional investigation, but also has confidence in the entire institution he oversees, in the Congregations which supports him in his work done in the world, and respect for his colleagues. He is the first to request an additional investigation, and this is the only investigation in the period up to 2006, actually until 2017. The report also does not give a chance to find something against Cardinal Dziwisz. The lawyer sees no points of claims against these people.
Fr. Francis Longchamps de Bérier, Professor of Law
Teologiapolityczna.pl
