McCarrick said at the time he had “absolutely no recollection of this reported abuse,” adding “[I] believe in my innocence.”
“I am sorry for the pain the person who brought the charges has gone through, as well as for the scandal such charges cause our people,” McCarrick added.
The New York archdiocese said it was the only such accusation against McCarrick it was aware of. The Archdiocese of Newark, where McCarrick had been an archbishop, said it had never received any report or accusation of sexual abuse of a minor against McCarrick.
The Diocese of Metuchen, where McCarrick had also been a bishop, said it had not received allegations of McCarrick sexually abusing minors, but added that the Metuchen diocese and the Newark archdiocese had received three allegations of “sexual misconduct with adults,” and two of those allegations had resulted in settlements.
After the initial report, media reports emerged accusing McCarrick of the serial sexual abuse of minors, and of serial abuse, manipulation, and coercion of seminarians and priests.
It also emerged that Church officials had been informed of some concerns about McCarrick as early as 2000, and several times subsequent to that. There was no public response to the reports made about McCarrick over the years.
After an August 2018 statement from former apostolic nuncio Archbishop Carlo Vigano, reports from CNA and other media outlets indicated that at various times McCarrick had faced informal restrictions in the Church, but had not been formally accused of canonical crimes.
McCarrick was permitted to live on seminary grounds and have seminarian assistants even after legal settlements were paid for claims against him, and reports indicate that some U.S. bishops were aware of some parts of the pattern of claims made against McCarrick, and of settlements for them.
Finally, reporting has shown that McCarrick maintained a large discretionary account while he was archbishop of both Newark and Washington, DC, with which he gave cash gifts to bishops and Vatican officials; financial records of those accounts have not been released.
In October 2018, Pope Francis announced a Vatican review of files and records related to McCarrick’s career, which was expected to focus on who might have enabled his conduct, ignored it, or covered it up. American dioceses sent boxes of material for that review.
The McCarrick Report is expected to detail the findings of that investigation.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
At Catholic News Agency, our team is committed to reporting the truth with courage, integrity, and fidelity to our faith. We provide news about the Church and the world, as seen through the teachings of the Catholic Church. When you subscribe to the CNA UPDATE, we'll send you a daily email with links to the news you need and, occasionally, breaking news.
As part of this free service you may receive occasional offers from us at EWTN News and EWTN. We won't rent or sell your information, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Why isn’t McCarrick in jail?
After a canonical process at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, McCarrick was in 2019 found guilty of serial acts of sexual abuse and misconduct, and laicized.
Once ordained, a priest remains a priest forever and can not be “unordained.” But McCarrick is no longer a cleric, which means he is no longer regarded as an ordained minister of the Church, but as a layperson. He can not perform priestly functions unless someone in danger of death has immediate need of the sacraments.
Some allegations against McCarrick have been referred to law enforcement, but the former cardinal has not been arrested, and no charges pressed against him.
In some cases, the criminal statute of limitations for his crimes may have run out, meaning that he can no longer be charged with those crimes. In other cases, McCarrick’s acts of manipulation or coercion against adults, especially priests and seminarians, while immoral and possible canonical crimes, may not fit the criminal statutes of civil law.
McCarrick is suspected by some of possible financial crimes, if he defrauded donors to his charities, or if he used money from his discretionary fund inappropriately. There is some suspicion his discretionary fund may have paid his living expenses, while McCarrick drew no salary, which could constitute a kind of fraud. But because financial records from his discretionary accounts have not been released, that suspicion remains at the level of speculation.