Sadly, I have found so far one of the best examinations of the infamous McCarrick Report.
My own stomach-turning look at the Report left me with the impression that whoever assembled it had the primary objective of shielding Francis through the means of insinuations about the misfeasance of John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Archbp. Viganò. That would be consistent with the way all three have been treated over the last few years. We have seen a systematic attack on the Magisterium of John Paul, marginalization of everything Benedict did, and scorn levelled at Viganò. These three are easy scapegoats.
Last night my friends Robert Royal, Fr. Gerald Murray and Raymond Arroyo talked about the Report, after Arroyo’s phone interview with Archbp. Viganò. HERE
However, this morning I read at Crisis Magazine the best look I’ve seen so far.
How McCarrick Got Away by Michael Warren Davis.
Some readers here are not going to like Davis’ remarks about Viganò. In effect…
We must consider the possibility that Viganò did not carry out his investigation into Priest 3’s abuse. … If Viganò had the opportunity to provide the Vatican with a substantial case against McCarrick in 2012 but failed to do so, then he must accept his share of the blame. And if he’s as committed to institutional reform as he claims, than he will understand if his fellow reformers feel the need to scrutinize his record. He’ll understand that no bishop can be above scrutiny in this matter.
I’d ask, at this point, that people avoid even thinking about my combox until they have read the whole piece at Crisis. It often happens that having read two sentences into posts, people channel their inner Leeroy Jenkins and charge into the combox without a clue. I hope against hope.
Davis look objective about the roles of John Paul and Benedict in the slippery escape of McCarrick. I must admit that their abundance of caution or perhaps fear of negative consequences resulted in a prolongation and worsening of the inevitable agony.
The penultimate part of the piece, however, concerns “the Francis papacy”.
It isn’t pretty. And pay attention to the link he provides to another piece he wrote about Francis and the “Deep Church”. Okay, I’ll just post it… HERE
Lastly, the writer provides three take-away points, each one heavy.
Over all, this is a good summary – a status quaestionis. From just that point of view it is useful. However, it also opens up serious questions about things that need reform.