At least at first glance, what seems to be a fairly successful handling of the McCloskey case might give the Church a way to handle Cardinal McCarrick. Or not. My regular correspondent does make a worthwhile comment:
While the ghost-written book reviews etc seem like a pathetic stratagem on the part of Opus Dei, they are at least consistent with the long-term attempt to cover for Fr McCloskey, now apparently over. The alternative hypothesis ---that he doesn't have dementia, but is being sheltered behind a fake diagnosis---requires him to be kept out of sight for decades, potentially. To what end? His reputation has been pretty thoroughly trashed in innumerable recent stories.
I pretty much agree, he's been thrown under the bus after what seems to have been several years of covering up his status. Naturally, the easiest and best resolution, removal from the priesthood following an investigation into the potential delict in 2002, would have eliminated the need for all the extra effort now. As
this commentator noted,
The variety and complexities of such adult cases means that superiors have to exercise good judgment, prudence and courage. But in an anti-authority environment where even the Pope concedes that bishops have lost their credibility, almost anything short of permanent banishment from ministry becomes suspect, as a consequence of religious authorities having lost the trust of the faithful.
But a second- or third-best approach seems to be what Opus Dei took: temporize with the matter, however belatedly, and keep it quiet. However, when outside forces intervene, such as a complainant now requesting the matter be made public, throw the guy under the bus. (In effect, this is what the Diocese of Spokane also did with the hinky Jesuits.) Even so, as my regular correspondent put it,
Continuing to publish ghost-written reviews over the name of a man in the last stages of dementia is bizarre even before we get to the other stuff. As you point out, he can't have long to live. What were they planning to say he died of?
The ingredients for a successful crisis management in this case would be:
- A case that has already been resolved, but whose circumstances have now come to light
- A sympathetic spokesman who can appear to be sincerely transparent
- Sincere acknowledgement of errors
- A clear and sincere explanation of what's been, or will be, changed to prevent recurrence.
Opus Dei has been able to claim, though, that this is the first and only such settlement paid in the US. I don't think the Church has the same circumstances with McCarrick. It does appear that Pope Francis would like to dispose of the McCarrick issue definiteively before the February conference in Rome, but simply throwing McCarrick under the bus won't be enough. The differences include:
- Numerous cases over decades, already well-publicized
- A well-publicized history of coverup
- Unsympathetic spokesmen like Cardinal Cupich
- An unwillingness to address the real problem, gay networks in seminaries and chanceries
- No clear plan for resolving the problem, along with a perception that sincere efforts from places like the USCCB are not supported in Rome.
I think it's fairly plain that what will be needed will be a future strong pontiff, indeed, one stronger than John Paul II, who appears to have allowed the situation to reach its current point.
