McCarrick report: Pope John Paul II knew of misconduct allegations nearly two decades before cardinal was defrocked

The report, released two years after Pope Francis authorized an internal investigation, represents the Vatican’s most comprehensive effort to provide transparency about a major abuse case and provides a stunning play-by-play of how church leaders disregarded clues about McCarrick’s misconduct, believed “church men” over victims, and tried to keep any discipline modest and private.

John Paul II was informed in 1999 that the then-bishop shared a bed with young seminarians over whom he had authority but decided nonetheless to appoint McCarrick as archbishop of Washington and later name him as a cardinal.

The report suggests that the pontiff gave weight to a letter McCarrick wrote to the pope’s personal secretary asserting he had never had sexual relations with anyone.

The Vatican was also misled by several U.S. bishops who did not come clean with what they knew. They said McCarrick had shared a bed with young men, but they did not indicate with certainty that McCarrick had engaged in sexual misconduct.

“This inaccurate information appears likely to have impacted the conclusions of John Paul II’s advisers and, consequently, of John Paul II himself,” the report said.

Catholics had been hoping the report would address questions about the extent of impunity and coverup in one of the highest-profile abuse cases in modern church history.

“By virtue of the simple fact that this investigation had to be conducted and this report had to be written, my heart hurts for all who will be shocked, saddened, scandalized and angered by the revelations contained therein,” Wilton Gregory, head of the D.C. archdiocese, wrote in a statement Tuesday, acknowledging he hadn’t yet read the full report. “Nonetheless, we know that if true redemptive healing is ever to commence — for those who have been harmed and for the Church Herself — this disclosure must be made.”

The report describes how John Paul II and McCarrick, though ideologically different, found common ground as Cold Warriors and developed a fondness for each other after sharing time on overseas trips. Priests in Communist Poland were sometimes subject to smear campaigns, something else that could have influenced John Paul II’s handling of McCarrick.

“McCarrick successfully deceived the pope,” said George Weigel, a John Paul II biographer.

During his time in Washington, McCarrick hosted dinners for President George W. Bush, presided over memorial services for Washington’s elite, and turned into a world-traveling church power broker and diplomat.

He also earned clout as a formidable church fundraiser, giving money not just to charities but also directly to other clerics — including the ones in the Vatican who would have been involved in assessing the misconduct claims against him.

According to the report, there was no evidence “that McCarrick’s gift-giving and donations impacted significant decisions made by the Holy See regarding McCarrick during any period.”

After John Paul II’s death, Pope Benedict received warnings about McCarrick, as well — including from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who suggested a canonical inquiry. But Benedict chose not to apply formal penalties. Instead, McCarrick was told — orally and then in writing — to keep a lower profile and minimize travel “for the good of the Church.”

Still, the allegations against McCarrick prompted the Holy See to request McCarrick’s “spontaneous” withdrawal as archbishop of Washington in 2006, after he reached the standard retirement age of 75.

McCarrick left his role in D.C., but continued to widely represent the church around the world — ignoring the instructions he had been given.

The report appears to limit the culpability of Pope Francis, for whom the report was prepared and who is portrayed as acting against McCarrick when clear evidence emerged of wrongdoing. The report says that Francis, before 2017, had heard “only that there had been allegations and rumors related to immoral conduct with adults,” and was under the impression the allegations had been “reviewed and rejected by John Paul II.”

The report noted how McCarrick helped to foster better relations between the Obama Administration and Cuba when he facilitated a letter exchange that helped to loosen sanctions in 2016.

In 2016, a cardinal said he had told Pope Francis that McCarrick was “gossiped about” and had been told to lead a more reserved life. During this exchange, Pope Francis commented that “maybe McCarrick could still do something useful,” according to the report.

It was not until 2018 that McCarrick was officially removed from public ministry, after the New York archdiocese publicly revealed a credible allegation of abuse against a minor that dated back to the 1970s. At the same time, two New Jersey dioceses revealed they had reached settlements with adult victims. Soon, other seminarians came forward, describing how McCarrick had forced them to share a bed at a weekend beach house.

The diocese of Metuchen, McCarrick’s first bishop posting, on Tuesday released a statement saying it had launched its own internal investigation, to provide the research to the Vatican report investigators. The statement said Metuchen found seven people who alleged abuse by McCarrick when they were adults. After submitting the report to Rome, the diocese wrote, four additional claims of minors’ abused came in.

Jose Gomez, the archbishop of Los Angeles and the president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, said in a statement that the Vatican report was “another tragic chapter in the Church’s long struggle to confront the crimes of sexual abuse by clergy.”

John Carr, the former longtime head of domestic lobbying for the U.S. bishops and a survivor himself of clergy abuse, wrote in a statement that McCarrick’s cool reaction to accusations have been especially rough. Carr worked for years in D.C. with McCarrick.

“For me, the former Cardinal’s repeated abuse of young people and children, his constant lies, and his ongoing refusal to accept responsibility and apologize are a greater betrayal of trust than what I experienced more than 50 years ago as a young seminarian,” wrote Carr, who has become an advocate for church reform.

McCarrick’s case, when it became public, caused extraordinary tremors within the U.S. church, which has been contending for more than two decades with the scale of the sexual abuse crisis. The ripples spilled across the global church soon after, when Viganò, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States, released a public letter saying that both Francis and his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, had known about McCarrick’s misconduct with young men.

Viganò portrayed Benedict as trying to quietly discipline McCarrick and Francis as lifting those sanctions. A former McCarrick aide has since bolstered Viganò claim that the Vatican had tried to push McCarrick to retreat from public life during Benedict’s papacy. But it is also clear that, even while Benedict remained pope, McCarrick ignored the orders and retained his role as a world-traveling representative of the church.

In the aftermath of Viganò’s letter, Francis authorized a “thorough” study of the Vatican archives related to McCarrick — the origins of the report released Tuesday.

“The Holy See is conscious that, from the examination of the facts and of the circumstances, it may emerge that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues,” the Vatican statement at the time said.

Francis initially did not respond directly to Viganò’s accusations, but said last year in an interview that, regarding McCarrick, he “knew nothing. Obviously, nothing, nothing.”

Boorstein reported from Washington and Pulliam Bailey from New York. Stefano Pitrelli in Rome contributed to this report.