Dissident Catholic Website Whitewashes Cardinal McElroy’s Abuse Case Cover-Ups

The National "Catholic" Reporter, a/k/a the "Fishwrap", or National Schismatic Reporter, is at it again, trying to make McElroy look good.

From LifeSiteNews

By Janet E. Smith

How can the Catholic Church convince people that it takes sexual abuse seriously? It certainly can’t count on the Catholic media to expose what needs to be exposed.

Since the revelations of widespread sexual abuse and its cover-up in the Catholic Church, the public is rightly interested in the record of bishops in dealing with sex abuse issues.

A recent article in the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) tries to make the case that Cardinal Robert McElroy, newly appointed as archbishop to the highly influential Archdiocese of Washington, has not been guilty of covering-up sexual abuse. It does not succeed. Rather, the article itself is a sad instance of an attempt to cover-up for McElroy’s cover-ups.

This article will first report on McElroy’s cover-up for former priest Jacob Bertrand, a cover-up completely and irresponsibly ignored by NCR.  NCR reports only the charges against McElroy for having failed to respond to Richard Sipe’s accusations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (recently deceased) and attempts to exonerate him. The second half of this article will show that McElroy manifestly covered up for and protected McCarrick.

In 2014 the Diocese of San Diego received accusations against Father Jacob Bertrand, who had sexually abused a young woman, Rachel Mastrogiacomo, in 2010 while celebrating private Masses in Minnesota.  The abuse involved extremely blasphemous use of sacred objects  (For an extended report of how Bertrand programmed Rachel for the abuse see, “Lay woman’s saga illustrates clerical sexual abuse of adults.”). When presented with a report of his conduct (written by John Pendergrass, a sex abuse advocate from the Diocese of South Carolina), Bertrand admitted it was true to some extent. Bertrand was then sent for “treatment” for a few months. His parish was told that he was suffering psychological stress because of a fire at the parish.

In April 2015, shortly before McElroy was installed in San Diego, Bertrand was reassigned to another parish which was not told of the accusations against him. Bishop McElroy permitted Bertrand to remain in ministry until 2016 after criminal charges against him had been filed. McElroy refused to cooperate with the legal proceedings against Bertrand. He also did not recommend the young priest for laicization until 2018 when Bertrand, who had pleaded guilty to the charges against him, was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, a felony offense. The explanation given by a diocesan spokesman for the delay in removing Bertrand was “We knew that it was poor behavior. We didn’t know that it was criminal behavior.” (A thorough report of Bertrand’s abuse of Rachel can be found in the Wall Street Journal: “Stopping the Priests Who Prey on Adults”)

McElroy has never spoken with Rachel. To be ignored by a bishop, by a spiritual father, is especially devastating for a victim. (See my 2018 interview with Rachel about her response to McElroy’s cover-up of her abuse: “What McElroy’s Appointment Says about the Church’s Commitment to Sex Abuse Victims”.) In a recent interview, McElroy stated that he wished “he had spoken to Mastrogiacomo directly, either on the phone or by flying her to San Diego, instead of relying on her written testimony.” I am sure Rachel would make herself available even now to speak with Cardinal McElroy – not only to explain how painful his cover-up was but also to tell him that she forgives him. (I know this because I am one of Rachel’s advocates.)

Bertrand would probably still be in ministry today and preying on other vulnerable young women if Rachel had not sought criminal charges and exposed Bertrand’s felonious behavior.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was a notorious sexual predator. When his practice of sexually abusing seminarians and his abuse of James Grein from boyhood into adulthood became known, it revealed that the bishops of the Catholic Church were both involved in sexual abuse and covering up for each other. Remember, the bishops exempted themselves from the Dallas Charter established in 2002 for reporting clerical sexual abuse. The reason for that exemption is very clear: the influential McCarrick was the one who championed it.

The NCR article focuses on McElroy’s response to Richard Sipe’s accusations against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2016 and reports McElroy’s recollections of the meetings he had with Sipe. Sipe died in 2018 and obviously cannot counter McElroy’s claims.  We will have to do it for him, and it is not hard.

Sipe, a former Benedictine monk, left the priesthood because of the high incidence of homosexuality in his own order and the priesthood, as well as the poor handling by the Church of abuse of minors and vulnerable adults. Sipe spent his life as a psychotherapist, often treating “problem priests.” An expert on homosexuality in the priesthood, on violations of celibacy, and on sexual abuse, Sipe wrote several books, among them, Celibacy in Crisis (2003); Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’s 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse(with Thomas P. Doyle and Patrick J. Wall; 2006) and contributed to others, including Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: A Decade of Crisis, 2002-2012 (2011).

Years earlier, on April 22, 2008, Sipe had posted an “Open Letter” online to Pope Benedict XVI wherein he accused Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of being a homosexual predator. Many believe that letter moved Benedict to have restrictions placed upon McCarrick to prevent him from engaging in further predatory behavior. After Benedict’s resignation, when McCarrick basically resumed his public ministry without restrictions, Sipe decided to follow the “chain of command” and reiterate his findings via McElroy and then-Archbishop Christophe Pierre (the Apostolic Nuncio) to Pope Francis. The pontiff alone had the authority to discipline McCarrick.

In 2016, Sipe met with Bishop McElroy of San Diego to discuss his concerns about sexual abuse in the priesthood. When Sipe realized that McElroy was avoiding further meetings with him, he had someone pretending to be a donor to deliver a letter to McElroy on July 28, 2016. Because of that ploy, McElroy decided he could not trust Sipe and refused to pursue the matter further.

The method of delivery does not discount the merits of the letter’s content.  Sipe had vast experience with deceptive, indifferent, perfidious, abusive bishops and a great deal of documentation of their abuse and deceit. Out of concern for victims, he understood the importance of proof that the letter was received by McElroy.

(Note that the NCR states that McElroy did not forward Sipe’s letter to Rome since he found Sipe untrustworthy and the charges to be based on “hearsay”, whereas in an article in America Magazine, McElroy is said to have sent Sipe’s letter to Rome. Just how trustworthy is McElroy?)

In his letter, Sipe catalogued some of the more egregious examples of episcopal abuse and cover-up. He lamented the deplorable state of the priesthood: “When men in authority — cardinals, bishops, rectors, abbots, confessors, professors — are having or have had an unacknowledged-secret-active-sex life under the guise of celibacy, an atmosphere of tolerance of behaviors within the system is made operative.” He reported what his years of study had revealed: “My calculation of 6% (six percent) clergy abusers as a base line has held up very well. [The most recent validation is between 6 ½ and 9% in the U.S. Some dioceses have registered 23%. Some religious houses have recorded 25%.] Sexual violation within the RC clergy is systemic. I say that on the basis of observation and scientific conclusion. And I say that with empathy and concern.” He also reported that homosexual activity in seminaries was common, both among faculty and students.

Sipe also spoke of his work with victims: “The accounts of the victims are among the most horrendous from the point of view that exemplifies how deeply sex even with minors is integrated within the clerical culture.” Sipe’s letter is well worth reading even though the grisly details of the abuse are exceedingly difficult to read; it enables one to understand the devastation of clerical abuse and the cover-up culture among bishops.

Sipe’s deep concern for the victims and predators contrasts sharply with McElroy’s inadequate and dismissive response; it shows no concern for victims or for the souls of abusers.

McElroy claims that Sipe could not provide corroborating evidence of his claim that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had abused 12 seminarians. The NCR article fails to note that the evidence was given confidentially to Sipe. According to canon law, when bishops receive accusations against priests, they are to initiate an investigation into the accusations. Despite the high number of McCarrick’s victims, McElroy seemed to be trying to find reasons not to pay attention to Sipe’s charges.

Why would McElroy refuse to work with Sipe to investigate the charges made?  Did he really have no reason to think that Sipe’s accusations were true?  Was he the only one who did not know what is said to have been common knowledge – that McCarrick regularly had seminarians sent to him from Immaculate Conception Seminary in New Jersey to his ocean cottage and had a seminarian sleep with him in the same bed?  Was he afraid of McCarrick? Was he afraid that McCarrick would block his ascent up the episcopal ladder? That McCarrick would disclose things about him or his friends?  It is not pleasant to insinuate that these factors may have influenced McElroy’s decisions, but it is hard to find the reasons he gave as plausible. A bishop who cared about victims or even predators would have taken meaningful action.

Had McElroy agreed to work with Sipe, the scandal of 2018 that revealed “what everyone knew” – again, that McCarrick had been an abuser for decades – might have been mitigated. Exposing McCarrick would have shown that the Church was willing to be transparent about the problem of abusive clerics, even prominent ones.  But, as Richard Sipe had long known, the Church hadn’t been, wasn’t then, and, indeed, isn’t now ready to expose and eradicate the prevalence of abuse and cover-up in its own ranks.

Further questions are raised by the fact that McElroy joined Cardinal Blase Cupich and Cardinal Joseph Tobin, longtime friends of McCarrick, in voting against a USCCB resolution in 2018 calling for the USCCB to release documentation to the Holy See about the allegations against the infamous predator McCarrick. That vote reeks of cover-up.

In 2018, McCarrick resigned and, in 2019, was laicized after being convicted of sexual misconduct in a canonical trial. In 2020, the Vatican released an unprecedented – and seriously flawed – report of an investigation into McCarrick and the failure of the Church to respond to reports of his predatory ways.

One might have expected that the Vatican would appoint to DC a bishop known for transparency about clerical sexual abuse; instead they appointed McElroy, a bishop who shirked his duties in respect to various serious accusations against McCarrick and who covered up for a priest guilty of ritual sexual abuse. One fears the Vatican may have chosen him precisely for that record. As another sexual abuse advocate has observed: “Based on McElroy’s record in San Diego, he is probably one of the most qualified bishops to complete this task [of covering up for sexual abusers], particularly in a See previously governed by none other than ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.”

How can the Catholic Church hold its head up?  How can it convince people that it takes sexual abuse seriously? It certainly can’t count on the Catholic media to expose what needs to be exposed: articles such as the one in the National Catholic Reporter simply perpetuate the problem. Indeed, we must conclude that the NCR (and other media as well) are complicit in the cover-up.