The Ramsey Letter Similar to Typhoon Toves

John "the typhoon" Toves was the first one who claimed that Archbishop Apuron sexually molested his cousin.  Later, the media learned that John Toves never spoke to his cousin.  John stated that he learned about the alleged sexual molestation of his cousin through someone else.  After that, no one really paid much attention to him.  Even the jungle dismissed him as inconsequential. Regarding John Toves, Tim stated: 

Okay, so he pops up from time to time and trots out the same old unproven, unsubstantiated allegations. But so what. Even the talk show host who first gave him a voice on Guam recently told him not to bother to call back unless he actually had something real. 

Even those who initially supported him had pretty much told him thanks but no thanks. "We appreciate your passion but without substance you're really no help.".........

Even I had reprimanded him several times and told him not to bother unless he had something. And you know what Archbishop, until you sent him that big bad letter from that big bad lawyer that you paid for with our big bad money, little John STILL had NOTHING! 

Exactly, John Toves had nothing.  All he had was third-hand information.  Why did I bring this up?  Because it is very similar to the letter written by Father Boniface Ramsey, who was a faculty member of the Immaculate Conception Seminary in South Orange, New Jersey from 1986 to 1996.  According to Catholic News Agency (the bold is mine):

 In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, affirms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop 'shared his bed with seminarians,' inviting five at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.”

The letter that Father Ramsey sent in 2000 was in regards to recurring RUMORS he heard in the seminary about Archbishop McCarrick. What needed to be determined was whether those rumors were true or not.  Thus, came the letter dated October 11, 2006 by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, asking for more information regarding McCarrick.  The 2006 letter stated:

"I ask with particular reference to the serious matters involving some of the students of the Immaculate Conception Seminary, which in November 2000 you were good enough to bring confidentially to the attention of the then Apostolic Nuncio in the United States, the late Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo."

Many news report are using this 2006 letter as evidence that the Vatican knew about the sexual misconduct of Cardinal McCarrick since 2000.  This is merely their own assumption.  The 2006 letter was asking for more evidence.  What is needed are evidence, not recurring rumors.  What is needed are seminarians or priests involved in the sexual misconduct with Cardinal McCarrick at the beach house.  What is needed are for those seminarians and priests to come forward in their own testimony.  Father Ramsey only HEARD the rumors, just like John Toves only HEARD the sexual molestation of his cousin. However, no one came forward until after 2002.  Why after 2002?  In 2002, the Boston sex abuse scandal hit the news, and the church was giving out money.  Then suddenly, the accusers of Cardinal McCarrick came forward.

In 2005, Robert Cioleck, a former priest of the Diocese of Metuchen received a secret payment of $80,000 from the Diocese of Metuchen and the Archdiocese of Newark as a settlement for an alleged abuse by Cardinal McCarrick.  Then in 2007, another former priest of the Diocese of Metuchen who claimed to be abused as a seminarian in New York by Cardinal McCarrick also came forward.  He received a settlement of $100,000.  However, Cardinal McCarrick was not removed after these settlements.  Could it be because these former priests claimed abuse by Cardinal McCarrick when they were adults?

Then in April 2018, the Archdiocese of New York received an allegation that McCarrick abused a teenage boy.  Cardinal McCarrick denied the accusation, saying that he was innocent; however, he never denied the sexual misconduct with seminarians and priests (who were adults).  

In June 2018, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan announced that Cardinal McCarrick was removed from ministry at the direction of the Vatican after an investigation found the charge "credible."  Cardinal McCarrick was sanctioned by Pope Francis.  This was the only sanction of Cardinal McCarrick that is known to the entire world.  

Also in June, 2018, Metuchen Bishop James F. Checchio stated that a re-examination of diocesan archives did not uncover "any report or allegation that Cardinal McCarrick ever abused any minor during his time in Metuchen."  Bishop Checchio acknowledged that in the past, there have been allegations that McCarrick engaged in sexual behavior with adults.

So, why now?  Why did these adults come out now especially at a time when the Catholic Church was giving out money by settling out of court?  Why did they not come out at the time of the abuse?  After all, they were all adults.  Father Gordon MacRae can shed some light as to why they did not come out during that time, but instead chose to come forward with lawsuits after 2002. Accordng to Father MacRae:

I do not pretend to psychoanalyze Cardinal McCarrick – and it would be a grave injustice to do so – but I remember being a seminarian in the late 1970s when he was an auxiliary bishop of New York, and in 1981 when he became Bishop of Metuchin, New Jersey. I remember the stories about him told by young men who did not present themselves as victims, but as predators in their own right. They did not present as McCarrick’s conquests, but often rather the other way around.

Some of Bishop McCarrick’s seminarians and their friends openly boasted of what they concluded was his attraction to them. They spoke of how they fostered it, were invited to his beach house, even slept in the same bed at times, but there were no stories of overt sexual predation or force until the lure of money was at the other end of the story.