Thread by @jdflynn

A thread:

Cardinal Wuerl knew in 2004 that Archbishop McCarrick was accused of cuddling with and exchanging backrubs with seminarians.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/wuerl-kne…

While McCarrick was under investigation for sexual abuse, seminarians in Wuerl's archdiocese were permitted to be his assistants:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/seminaria…

McCarrick lived on a seminary property:
catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-…

Before McCarrick lived at that seminary, he lived at a different seminary in Wuerl's archdiocese:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/where-did…

Wuerl had in 2004 a report McCarrick had issues with sems. Two years later, in DC, McCarrick moved to a seminary, and Wuerl didn't stop it. McCarrick moved into another seminary, and he didn't stop it. When McCarrick hired sem assistants and drivers, he didn't stop it.

That's the story.

Oh, except this. When the nuncio told Wuerl that McCarrick couldn't be on a vocations poster, Wuerl says didn't know why and he didn't ask why.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/wuerl-den…

In fact, the cardinal told WTOP 9 he never heard any rumors about McCarrick. He said yesterday he didn't want to be imprecise in his language: was he distinguishing between "rumors" and "formal reports that he forwarded to ecclesiastical authorities?"

catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-vigan…

NB: I want to clarify that with firm faith, I believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the deposit of faith.

I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

In other words, my reporting doesn't change that I'm a Catholic. But it does mean that the Church's leaders have serious questions to answer.

Since I posted this thread, several young DC priests have told me that while Wuerl was archbishop, McCarrick spent a great deal of time with them and other DC seminarians. None have reported abuse, though some said they observed McCarrick place his hand on seminarians' legs.

Two DC priests mentioned to me the Wuerl told the DC presbyterate in private meetings recently that he really hadn't known about McCarrick. Apparently, he even asked why no one had reported it to him. I imagine some DC priests are now feeling betrayed by their bishop.

*that.