Blog Song

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

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.

19 comments:

  1. Diana,

    Pope surprises Kiko with a phone call with words of courage and support to Kiko, his work and the 800 (you read right) seminarians gathered in P.S.Giorgio!!!
    https://www.revistaecclesia.com/el-papa-francisco-sorprende-a-800-seminaristas-del-camino-neocatecumenal-mirad-siempre-al-senor/

    I am sure (alleged pedophile and wife-abuser) Tim Rohr will find a spin to attack all the good work of the Pope and Kiko.

    Let those called to be "Semei" throw all the stones at Kiko and the Pope, and let us keep our eyes fixed on the Lord and work to rescue this generation from the grips of the flesh, world and the Devil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 11:22 am,

      Is there an English version?

      Delete
    2. There is an italian version...
      http://www.lastampa.it/2018/09/10/vaticaninsider/neocatecumenali-il-papa-sorprende-seminaristi-con-una-telefonata-guardate-sempre-al-signore-CgNUvkLi6hDr3rH5iIMTSO/pagina.html

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 10:47 pm,

      Thank you. My computer was able to translate the Italian version, so I will publish it in the English version.

      Delete
  2. Archbishop McCarrick then of Newark had a standing policy, that " he would not ordain any seminarian to be priest until he knows them personally,". (ex-seminarian of RMS Newark)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 12:19 pm, 

      Of course he would. That would be the only way he can figure out who was gay. The gays were the ones he invited to his beach house. That would explain the rumors at the seminary. As Father MacRae pointed out, they were bragging about it. A person who is not gay would not be invited for he would be disgusted. It may not have been about the ordination. His goal was to find out who was gay.

      Delete
  3. Ramsey wrote his letter to the nuncio in 2002, but he didn't get a reply until 2006. That's 6 years later! It sounds like the nuncio probably didn't take Ramsey's letter seriously until that ex-priest claimed abuse by McCarrick in 2005.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Jane Doe, 

      Exactly my point when I was comparing it to the allegations made by John Toves. By the way, Ramsey's letter was written in 2000, not 2002.

      The 2006 letter is not evidence showing that the Vatican or the Pope knew of Cardinal McCarrick sexual misconduct. It was a request for more information. The Vatican needed alleged victims to testify, but no one came forward. As Father MacRae's blog pointed out, what happened at the beach house may have been consensual. Allegations only came out "until the lure of money was at the other end of the story."

      Delete
  4. 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?

    So what if they were adults. if he was engaged in sexual relationships with men (or women, for that matter) he should have left the priesthood or been removed. not everyone is suitable to be a priest. Those who identify as homosexual are not suitable.

    Also, you quoted Fr MacRae but it works against you. Don't get me wrong, but Fr MacRae's statement is really dumb. Trying to explain or excuse McCarricks bad behavior because he may not have been the predator?! He was a bishop for goodness sake!

    And, in any case, everything Fr MacRae said is RUMOR. Which is precisely your criticism at the start of the article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 1:21 pm,

      Father MacRae nor I have not been making any excuses for Cardinal McCarrick. I am setting the record straight because the media had mistakenly portrayed him as a child abuser, and the conservative radicals are using that to paint the Vatican in an evil light.

      What Father MacRae said has already been substantiated by Bishop Checchio when he reviewed the diocesan archives on Cardinal McCarrick. I agree with you that Cardinal McCarrick should have stepped down or have been removed; however, that also goes with the seminarians and priests he slept with. What McCarrick did was NOT a criminal offense, but goes against his oath of celibacy.

      Nevertheless, the seminarians and priests who shared a bed with McCarrick should also be removed. It was these people who needed to come forward to testify. Their testimony is the evidence needed for the Vatican to remove McCarrick. However, their testimony would also mean their removal from the seminary and the priesthood as well.

      Delete
    2. Diana, you made this statement in your post:

      “St. John Paul II once told the Christians in the Middle East not to side with Israel or with the Palestinians. As Christians, we are to work for peace and reconciliation between the two.”

      http://neocatechemunal.blogspot.com/2014/05/resolving-simple-disputes-within-church.html

      So, why choose to side with the pope? Shouldn’t we be side with no one and work for peace and reconciliation?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 3:00 pm,

      The pope suggested that Christians not take any sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and work for peace and reconciliation between the two. However, this should not be compared to the conflict between Pope Francis and Archbishop Vigano. My allegiance is always to God and His Church. Christ gave the keys only to the Apostle Peter. It is through Peter and his successors whom all Catholics should be in communion with.

      CCC 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

      Delete
  5. Even if Ramsey indicated that it was a rumor he heard in the seminary, shouldn't the nuncio at least investigate to rule it out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 4:55 pm,

      Other than the letters by Father Ramsey, the Vatican probably had very little information on Cardinal McCarrick. Regarding Father Ramsey's second letter to Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the National Catholic Reporter stated:

      "During the time period he mentions in the letter, 1986 to 1996, he says he was teaching at Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University in New Jersey. He writes of the accounts he'd heard of McCarrick's repeated trips to a New Jersey beach house where, after too many seminarians were invited for too few beds, "the extra seminarian was then told that he could share the archbishop's bed."

      "Some of these stories were not presented to me as mere rumors but were told me by persons directly involved," he wrote.

      In an Aug. 13 phone interview with CNS, Ramsey said he didn't know any sexual acts were taking place, "but I thought his (McCarrick's) behavior was extremely inappropriate at the least." He said he was careful about what he wrote in the letter to O'Malley because he didn't want to be spreading rumors he'd heard, but he had concerns about the bed-sharing after hearing that it weighed on one of his friends who was tasked with finding seminarians for the archbishop's beach visits.

      "I'd never heard of any adult who had sex with McCarrick," he said, but felt the constant bed sharing he'd often heard about was "something he shouldn't have been doing."

      https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/abuse-letter-cardinal-omalley-was-second-priest-sent-officials

      So, what evidence can the Vatican go by when even Father Ramsey admitted in an interview that he did not know if there were any sexual acts taking place? All he knew was that Cardinal McCarrick was sharing his bed with seminarians, which he found to be inappropriate.

      What was needed was not second- or third-hand information with speculation as to what was going on in the beach house. What was needed were the seminarians and priests who were at the beach house to testify.

      Delete
    2. Diana, do you think there might be some truth to Vigano's letter?

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous at 7:42 pm,

      Yes, I think there may be some truth in it, but an thorough investigation can shed some light on which part is truth and which are not.

      It is well known among many seminarians, priests, and bishops that Cardinal McCarrick was inviting priests and seminarians at his beach house. Although Father Ramsey has never been to the beach house, he was aware of the stories surrounding it. Even Father Gordon MacRae was aware of the beach house and the stories about it. Those who were inside the beach house were certainly aware of McCarrick's sexual behavior.

      However, this civil war in the Church no longer has anything to do with child sexual abuse because Cardinal McCarrick is not a child sexual abuser. He is gay, having gay relations with priests and seminarians. In civil law, gay relations between consenting adults is not a criminal act.

      So, the question is why is all this coming up now?

      Delete
  6. People will take any opportunity they can to bash the catholic church,even if things are proven to be false,they will continue to twist the story,because they know people will still believe it.As for the catholics that are also going against the pope do it because they think it makes them special.They think they're doing the right thing.But what they don't realize is what their actions can cause.When making a decision one must look at all the factors it touches.Look at what happened on Guam.Ccog and JW thought they were doing the right thing and pushed for a bill that is causing harm to the church on the island.Since they still believe they're the "good guys" they won't even take the blame or responsibility for their actions.This is a very good example.The church cannot rebuild itself when it's same laity attacks it.There is a difference between telling the truth and accusing without knowing the full truth.

    I hope and pray these folks realize what they've done instead of praising themselves or blaming other people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous at 5:52 am,

      Perhaps, the reason they are blaming others is because subconsciously they realized the damage they have caused and could not handle it. Janet B., a Junglewatch member is passing the blame to someone else. This was her comment in the jungle:

      Janet B - MangilaoAugust 3, 2018 at 12:13 PM

      A case could be made that solely due to the reckless and spiteful defense of Apurun by Adrian/Tenorio/Egivaldo we are facing hundreds of lawsuits........

      If Andrian/Tenorio/Egivaldo had just shut up, even the threats by Apurun would not have been enough to spark laws repealing the statute of limitations. So Adrian/Tenorio/Egivaldo are really responsible for the lawsuits we have today.

      http://www.junglewatch.info/2018/07/running-amok-and-doing-whatever-they.html?showComment=1533262383597#c2740789533442628902

      Fortunately, most people are not blind. They know for a fact that it was the jungle, CCOG, and LFM who introduced a bill, lifting the statutes of limitations, and worked for its passage. Consequently, the jungle have lost its credibility as many people (including their members) realize that the jungle, CCOG, and LFM were responsible for damaging the church. In time, as more lawsuits continue to rise, the church will be forced to sell its parishes.

      Also, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the Cardinal who is leading the U.S. delegation to Rome regarding Vigano's letter has now been accused by two people of ignoring child sexual abuse. You can read the allegations in the weblink below:

      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/cardinal-meeting-with-pope-accused-of-ignoring-abuse-1.769765

      Delete
    2. Aiiiiii. More church drama! 🙄. This time on the Cardinal calling for an investigation on the Vigano letter.

      Delete