Read on Twitter
So, here's my questions about the McCarrick report in order of occurrence, not importance. Unless you actually know the real answer and can prove it, I invite you to not offer your own answers.
Thread.
Thread.
1. Why does the report lack a “methodology” section at the beginning? Who was interviewed? How was evidence gathered? By whom?
2. Why does the report lack a “recommendations” section at the end? In what way is this report considered actionable?
2. Why does the report lack a “recommendations” section at the end? In what way is this report considered actionable?
3. “McCarrick was never a diplomatic agent of the Holy See.” Why was he allowed to freelance as one? Why were his connections used?
4. No evidence that McCarrick’s white envelopes of cash impacted “significant decisions made by the Holy See regarding McCarrick”. Did these gifts influence other decisions – specifically, about the nomination of bishops?
5. “Neither Pope Francis, nor Cardinal Parolin, nor Cardinal Ouellet lifted or modified the prior ‘indications’ related to McCarrick’s activities or residence.” Why so specific a list – did someone else modify them? Is “non-enforcement” tantamount to lifting them?
6. Numerous notations that files are missing from diocesan archives, the nunciature, and congregations in Rome. Who were the responsible parties for ensuring the security of those files? Have they been held responsible for this canonical crime?
7. re: Priest 2 and Priest 3, why was Bishop Hughes so eager to cover for McCarrick?
8. On 21 Nov 92, McCarrick wrote that he turned over a letter to “our friends in the FBI” – did this not raise flags as being obsessive or weird?
8. On 21 Nov 92, McCarrick wrote that he turned over a letter to “our friends in the FBI” – did this not raise flags as being obsessive or weird?
9. Why did O’Connor cover for McCarrick in the mid-90s? Did anyone ever ask why O’Connor changed his tune when McCarrick was likely to succeed him?
10. re: Re’s letter of 22 Nov 99, why did JP2 indicate that Montalvo was to carry out an investigation “without urgency”?
10. re: Re’s letter of 22 Nov 99, why did JP2 indicate that Montalvo was to carry out an investigation “without urgency”?
11. Montalvo never followed up with 4 bishops who wrote (&covered) for McCarrick. Why?
12. “The record does not disclose any evidence indicating that +Fiorenza, +Harvey, ++Maida, or +Murry were aware of any rumors or allegations relating to McCarrick.” How was evidence gathered?
12. “The record does not disclose any evidence indicating that +Fiorenza, +Harvey, ++Maida, or +Murry were aware of any rumors or allegations relating to McCarrick.” How was evidence gathered?
13. Is the material missing from Newark’s archives available at the Nunciature?
14. Why did Montalvo fail to contact the layman and the psychologist provided by Bishop Lori?
15. Why did Montalvo fail to act on letters indicating misdeeds?
14. Why did Montalvo fail to contact the layman and the psychologist provided by Bishop Lori?
15. Why did Montalvo fail to act on letters indicating misdeeds?
16. Why did Montalvo / the Nunciature not forward Priest 2’s statement to the Curia?
17. McCarrick wasn’t party to Priest 2’s confidential agreement, but he knew about it. Who told him?
17. McCarrick wasn’t party to Priest 2’s confidential agreement, but he knew about it. Who told him?
18. Why were Church leaders so solicitous to gain silence about McCarrick (specifically) re: Priest 2 and Priest 3?
19. How did McCarrick discover that a list of potential victims had circulated in Rome after he was named a Cardinal?
19. How did McCarrick discover that a list of potential victims had circulated in Rome after he was named a Cardinal?
20. McCarrick refers to a settlement in January 06, but the agreement with Priest 1 was only executed in August 07. Was this investigated? How?
21. Knowing what he knew, why did Pope Benedict select McCarrick to serve as his envoy to a summit in 2007?
21. Knowing what he knew, why did Pope Benedict select McCarrick to serve as his envoy to a summit in 2007?
22. Wuerl denies knowing anything about McCarrick at least three times. Was contrary evidence, available to the public, ever presented to him?
23. “Instructions” limiting McCarrick’s activity were called “proscriptions” and “directives.” McCarrick planned to “appeal” them. Though not legally binding, were they morally binding?
24. “After his letter of 15 May 2009, there is no further trace of McCarrick having written again …” How was this investigated?
25. Why did Sambi not relate information about McCarrick’s activity to Rome?
25. Why did Sambi not relate information about McCarrick’s activity to Rome?
26. “…there is nothing in the file to suggest that Viganò followed up on this letter…” Why?
27. “Neither the Diocese of Metuchen nor the Archdiocese of Newark forwarded the complaint to the Nunciature or the Holy See.” Why?
27. “Neither the Diocese of Metuchen nor the Archdiocese of Newark forwarded the complaint to the Nunciature or the Holy See.” Why?
28. “…Viganò did not memorialize the meeting in the Nunciature files.” Why?
29. Becciu and Parolin say that they made Pope Francis aware of the rumors surrounding McCarrick as early as 2014. Why did the Pope decide to make continued use of McCarrick?
End.
29. Becciu and Parolin say that they made Pope Francis aware of the rumors surrounding McCarrick as early as 2014. Why did the Pope decide to make continued use of McCarrick?
End.
