VATICAN CITY — Two weeks after Pope Francis’ papacy was thrown into crisis by accusations that he covered up sexual misconduct by ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Francis has refused to respond, his accuser has changed his story and a host of new characters have entered the fray.
Cardinals, bishops, priests and ordinary faithful are demanding answers, given that the Vatican knew since at least 2000 about allegations McCarrick had bedded seminarians.
Francis is coming under increasing pressure to respond to claims by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano that he rehabilitated McCarrick from sanctions Pope Benedict XVI had imposed.
Here is a look at the scandal, which has split the U.S. Catholic hierarchy and further tarnished Francis’ record on abuse.
What was the original accusation?
Vigano said in his Aug. 26 expose that Benedict imposed “canonical sanctions” on McCarrick in 2009 or 2010 that were similar to what Francis imposed this summer after McCarrick was accused of groping a minor.
“The cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate Mass in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance,” Vigano wrote.
Vigano said he told Francis on June 23, 2013, that McCarrick had “corrupted a generation of seminarians and priests” and that Benedict “ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”
But he said Francis effectively rehabilitated McCarrick and made him a trusted counselor as he sought to remake the U.S. church leadership to be less focused on the culture wars.
The public record, however, is rife with evidence that McCarrick lived a life devoid of any sanction from 2009 onwards, traveling widely for the church, attending official functions, including at the Vatican alongside Benedict and Vigano, who as Vatican ambassador in 2012 had the duty of honoring him at an awards ceremony in New York.
How has Vigano’s story changed?
Faced with such evidence, Vigano altered his story to say that while Benedict’s measures were in place, McCarrick “didn’t obey” them and Vigano was unable to enforce them.
Vigano told LifeSiteNews, an ultraconservative site, that Benedict had made the sanctions “private” probably because McCarrick was retired and Benedict, seeking to avoid scandal, thought he would obey.
Even the conservative National Catholic Register, which originally published Vigano’s revelation, acknowledged that the severity of the measures reported by Vigano is now an open question.
Citing someone close to Benedict, the Register reported that Benedict couldn’t recall how he handled the matter but that there was no formal decree against McCarrick, “just a private request” to keep a low profile.
If true, that would undercut Vigano’s core accusation that Francis rehabilitated McCarrick from actual canonical sanctions.
How has the Pope responded?
Hours after Vigano’s accusations came to light, Francis told an in-flight news conference: “I will not say a word about this.” He challenged journalists to investigate Vigano’s claims and said, “If time passes and you’ve drawn your conclusions, maybe I’ll speak.”
That said, Francis has referred indirectly to the scandal a few times since. He has said “silence and prayer ” are often the best response to people seeking scandal. He has said it is un-Christian to accuse other people, but necessary to accuse oneself to recognize sin. And he has told newly ordained bishops to work in communion — not as lone actors bent on settling personal scores.
The Vatican press office has refused all comment, declining to say what, if any, sanctions were ever imposed on McCarrick, and what, if anything, Francis did about them.
What was going on in 2013?
When Francis and Vigano met in June 2013, Francis was three months into a new job where he knew he was going to make enemies with the type of conservative culture warriors Vigano championed.
A month after the reported encounter over McCarrick’s sexual past, Francis would go on to win praise from the liberal Catholic world for saying of another purportedly gay priest he had named a close adviser: “Who am I to judge?”
That suggests that Francis, at least in 2013, didn’t consider the past sex lives or homosexual orientation of his counselors to be a firing offense — or recognize that those relationships could constitute an abuse of power.
