There is a rumor spreading around TWITTER that +Gregory will be tapped to replace +Wuerl, to be part of the group to help select new cardinals. In part, this would be due to his race.
Now, this would be a mistake for two reasons: (1) we do not need to put people in positions due to race, we need to put them in because of competency; (2) he is a Bernadin/McCarrick protege.
BTW, +Wuerl is 80 and therefore must step down from the committee, which helps identify cardinals.
Fr. Mark White, a priest in the Diocese of Richmond, was recently interviewed by Church Militant.
As some of you know, Fr. Mark White was ordained in the Archdiocese of Washington by Cardinal McCarrick. Also, as you know, Bishop Knestout was part of the Archdiocese of Washington, at the time.
At some point, Fr. White asked to leave the diocese and managed to be reassigned to the Diocese of Richmond. A few years later, Bishop Knestout was assigned as the Bishop of the Diocese of Richmond.
It is interesting to watch, but what I found most interesting, starting at the 29 min. mark, was something mentioned by Fr. White. He talks about a comment made by Bishop Knestout about an "old wound."
Now, in my conversations with Melvin, when all of this started, I discussed the fact that I believe that something happened between Fr. White and Bishop Knestout (or maybe Cardinal Wuerl) at some point, while both were in the Archdiocese of Washington, but I don't know for certain. This may be what Bishop Knestout referred to?
In addition, I speculated to Melvin, that Fr. White might know something, that others are worried that may come out. Fr. White alludes to this.
Listen to all of it, or at least from the 29 min. mark to the end.
I wanted to share with you a podcast that I regularly listen to: The Angry Catholic.
Now, I don't listen to a lot of podcasts, especially ones more than ten or fifteen minutes in length, but I do listen to this one.
The show is focuses on the goings on in the Church in the US.
It is broken up into four segments: An Introduction and three 15 to 20 minute segments. Sometimes they all focus on the same theme/topic, and sometimes, the segments will focus on different topics. I will say that each week I do learn something from the podcast.
How did it come about? According to Paul:
Twice in two different dioceses, my sons were put in direct contact with priests who had abused children and the Bishops knew. The McCarrick revelation and the release of the Pa Grand Jury report make me ANGRY and there needs to be an outlet to discuss the issues in a public format. I have spoken with many different people about the current situation in the Church, and I found people either didn’t know about, didn’t care, or thought that the abuse scandal was from long ago.
I have seen nothing so far to make me believe that most of the bishops are taking this situation seriously enough. Our bishop sent a DVD to each parish about the scandal. The presentation was so offensive, filled with “Bishop Speak” and sounded like it was written by an overpaid PR firm. My family and I literally got up and walked out a third of the way through the DVD presentation. I was outraged that our bishop tried to protect himself and said nothing about his involvement in the scandal. He can behave this way because we allow it. He thinks that there is no one to hold him accountable for his actions. If the laity continues to go to Mass, stay quiet, and send money to him, why would he have any reason to think otherwise.
I no longer trust that our bishops will protect their flock. I strongly feel that it is the Bishops of the United States’ responsibility to come clean and be truthful if there is any hope of regaining that trust with the laity. I have seen nothing to date that would make me believe that they are serious about being truthful with us. Leaders in the Church that are not truthful and forthright should not be allowed to continue in their positions. We cannot wait for our bishops to wait out the storm. We need to demand that they right the ship.
If you have a tip or know of something that is happening in your diocese, especially with clergy who are being railroaded by their bishop or maybe some sort of corruption, please drop them a line: mail@TheAngryCatholic.com
Well, by now, you know that the McCarrick Report has been out.
In case you did not read it, let me share with you the section which mentions +Gregory:
In early 2004, Cardinal McCarrick and then-USCCB President Bishop
Wilton Gregory (2001-2004) traveled to Rome to meet about the issue with
CDF Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger and Congregation for Bishops Prefect
Cardinal Re.641 In June and July 2004, some Catholic groups, which self-identified
as “conservative,” accused McCarrick of having mis-characterized
a private letter, later divulged by a news organization but never published by
either the USCCB or the Holy See, that Cardinal Ratzinger had provided to
McCarrick and Bishop Gregory following their Rome meeting.
McCarrick, who has stated that he had remained in close contact with
Cardinal Ratzinger regarding how to address the issue, was never reproached
by the Holy See for his handling of the matter.643 Nonetheless, McCarrick’s
interpretation was thereafter referred to by some as mis-representative of
what Cardinal Ratzinger had intended and as a distortion of Catholic
teaching.
Personally, I don't believe it. If this is the case, then the easiest way to clarify the matter would be to release the letter. However, they won't because, as I believe, it will show that +Gregory hid vital information from his brother bishops.
I have been reading the McCarrick Report and you can tell that there is a good deal of whitewashing going on. Why?
For one thing, and I have to give credit to George Neumayr, that the report allowed for Wuerl to once again claim that he knew nothing about McCarrick. This is a lie.
More on the report later.
