教義部裁定麥卡里克性侵罪成被撤聖職身份

2019年2月16日,教廷教義部發表公告宣布現年88歲的前任樞機及美國華盛頓榮休總主教麥卡里克(Theodore Edgar McCarrick)已被撤銷聖職身分。以下是公告全文:

2019年1月11日,教義部大會針對華盛頓榮休總主教麥卡里克的懲戒訴訟程序作出結案裁決,宣判他在擔任聖職人員期間被控告的下述罪行有罪:他藉著聽告解的機會引誘未成年人和成年人犯下第六誡之罪,並因濫權加重案情。為此懲罰撤銷他的聖職身份。

2019年2月13日,教義部例行會議審查了申訴書所陳訴的理由,並決定確認大會的裁決。這項決定已於2019年2月15日通知麥卡里克。教宗依法確認了這是最終決定,使它成為既判事項,換言之,此案不得再申訴。

2017年9月,紐約總教區向聖座舉報,有一名男子指控時任樞機麥卡里克曾在上個世紀70年代對他施加侵犯。教宗遂下令在紐約總教區展開初步的全面調查,並在調查結束後,把相關報告移交給聖座教義部。2018年6月,在教宗的指示下,聖座國務卿帕羅林樞機要求麥卡里克不得繼續公開履行司鐸牧職。與此同時,由於浮現重大線索,教宗於2018年7月28日接受了麥卡里克辭去樞機團成員身分的請求,命令他不得公開履行牧職,並且務必度祈禱和懺悔的生活。

2018年10月6日,聖座一份公告大力肯定:「無論是侵犯行徑或是掩蓋事實,我們都不再予以容忍;而對於犯下如此惡行或者加以袒護的主教們作出差別待遇,其實是一種絕對無法接受的教權主義形式。」

公告再次重申,教宗方濟各「懇切呼籲同心協力打擊在教會內外的嚴重侵犯禍患,預防這種罪行再次發生,以免社會上最無辜弱小者受傷。如同早已宣布的那樣,教宗召集了世界各地主教團主席2019年2月一同開會,而教宗最近在《致天主子民信函》中的話語仍在迴盪著:『我們回應這殃及許多生命的災難的唯一方法,是要把它當作關乎我們天主子民每個成員的任務。這種感到我們是天主子民的一分子並擁有共同歷史的意識,將能幫助我們承認我們以前的罪過,秉持懺悔的開放態度讓自己從內在得到更新。』(2018年8月20日)」

2018年10月7日,奧萊特(Marc Ouellet)樞機發表一封公開信,以回應宗座前任駐華府大使維加諾(Carlo Maria Viganò)總主教有關麥卡里克事件的指控。奧萊特樞機以主教部部長的身分作出個人見證。當然,他問道:「今天眾所周知他言行不一的人,當年怎麼會步步高升,甚至擔任華盛頓總主教和樞機這種高層職務。」

奧萊特樞機對此表示訝異,並承認當事人的遴選過程有瑕疵。無論如何,他指出,歷任教宗作出的決定立基於在那切確時刻所掌握的信息,由此形成的謹慎判斷並非不會出錯。再者,奧萊特樞機也觀察到,麥卡里克懂得自我防衛,很擅長打消種種針對他的疑慮。先前之所以沒有對他作出後續如此嚴厲的決定,是因為今日不同往昔,當時沒有足夠的證據來定他的罪。

主教部部長解釋道,在本篤十六世教宗的牧職期間,麥卡里克「被嚴正告誡」不得旅行或公開露面,以免引起更多的流言蜚語,但麥卡里克卻置若罔聞。將本篤十六世的這些舉措扭曲為「制裁處分」,並聲稱教宗方濟各加以取消,這是不實的說法,奧萊特樞機予以強烈譴責。更何況,教宗方濟各「與麥卡里克在紐約、梅塔欽等地的升遷毫無關聯;當麥卡里克侵犯兒童的指控證據明確時,教宗還撤除了他的樞機尊位」。

 

教會調查麥卡里克侵犯案:一名受害者在紐約作證

美國弗吉尼亞州一名叫作格倫(James Grein)的男子表示,華盛頓榮休總主教麥卡里克(Theodore E. McCarrick)曾對他施加侵犯長達數年之久。格倫已於12月27日在紐約總教區司法代理人面前提供證詞。這項調查是在聖座的命令下展開,由教義部透過一名在紐約教區供職的代表蒐集證據。

格倫聲稱從11歲起開始遭到侵犯。他通過律師諾克爾(Patrick Noaker)向《美聯社》發表聲明,寫道:「格倫盼望他的教會回歸正途。他覺得,為了達成這項目標,必須站出來作證,講述所發生的事,給教會一個做正確事情的機會。」

眾所周知,在有關麥卡里克總主教行徑的指控公諸於世後,教宗方濟各在7月28日接受了他辭去樞機職務的請求,並「已禁止他行使任何公開職務,強制他生活在一個指定的寓所,度祈禱和懺悔的生活,直到針對他的指控按照正常的教會法程序得以澄清」。

隨後,今年10月6日,梵蒂岡新聞室的一份公告解釋道:「2017年9月,紐約總教區向聖座舉報,有一名男子指控時任樞機麥卡里克曾在上個世紀70年代對他施加侵犯。教宗遂下令在紐約總教區展開初步的全面調查,並在調查結束後,把相關報告移交給教義部。」

奧萊特樞機就最近對教廷的指控發表公開信

2018年10月7日,聖座新聞室公布了教廷主教部部長奧萊特樞機(Marc Ouellet)寫給維加諾總主教(Carlo Maria Viganò)的一封公開信,指出後者最近對教廷的指控絕非來自天主的神,而是一種缺乏實際根據的政治渲染,危害教會的共融。奧萊特樞機籲請維加諾總主教踏上坦途,痛悔自己的違叛,恢復與伯多祿繼承人的共融。

維加諾總主教最近透過媒體發表訊息,指控教宗方濟各和羅馬聖座,稱一種地方性的腐敗侵蝕了教會的聖統,甚至侵佔了她的最高層。這項指控與華盛頓教區前總主教麥卡里克(Theodore McCarrick)的性侵案有關,成為引起輿論喧嘩和維加諾總主教要求教宗辭職的題材。

對以上指控,奧萊特樞機以自己的親身接觸和聖座主教部的檔案文件予以駁回。維加諾在指控中談及他於2013年6月23日蒙教宗方濟各接見時,就已告知教宗關於麥卡里克的案件。

奧萊特樞機對此表示,教宗那次首次會晤維加諾總主教,而且教宗要在那個機會上收集大量的關於許多人和許多情況的口頭和書面訊息。因此,麥卡里克引起的注意程度並非如同維加諾總主教所願意相信的那樣。再説,麥卡里克那時已是個82歲且7年沒有職務的退休總主教。

奧萊特樞機接著談到,他從2010年6月30日接任主教部部長一職起,從未將麥卡里克案帶給教宗本篤十六世或教宗方濟各,只是在麥卡里克喪失了樞機的身份後,他的案件在最近這段時日才被提到。這位前樞機於2006年5月退休,一直被強令不得旅行和在公開場合露面,以免引起其它的流言蜚語。

此外,說教宗本篤十六世曾對麥卡里克採取措施,頒布了「制裁處分」,而後又被教宗方濟各取消,這是不真實的。奧萊特樞機表明,在重新審核檔案後,證實既沒有這兩位教宗簽署的有關文件,也沒有前主教部部長雷樞機(Giovanni-Battista Re)審案的記錄,以教會法典嚴厲的刑罰命令退休總主教麥卡里克度靜默和非公開的生活。

奧萊特樞機提到,與今天不同的是,這樣做的原因是當時還沒有假設麥卡里克有罪的足夠證據。「主教部出於謹慎的立場,以及我和我的前任的信件,透過宗座大使薩姆比(Pietro Sambi)還有你,都強調這規勸,即為了他自己和教會的益處度一種祈禱和懺悔的生活。」

至於麥卡里克為何能多次升遷,擔任總主教,甚至被擢升為樞機?奧萊特樞機指出,我們必須理解,教宗在作決定時所根據的是在那個確切時刻所掌握的訊息,這些訊息並非不會出錯。再説,我們談及的那位總主教也懂得以極大的才幹來維護自己,應付所受到的質疑。但麥卡里克的升遷與教宗方濟各毫不相干。在指控麥卡里克侵犯未成年人的案件顯然成立的情況下,教宗方濟各免除了他的樞機身份。

奧萊特樞機懇切地闡明,維加諾總主教的指控是一種缺乏實際根據的政治渲染。這指控深深地傷害到教會的共融。他對維加諾總主教說:「無論如何,我覺得你利用在美國性侵犯的轟動性醜聞,為使你的長上,教宗的道德權威蒙受聞所未聞和不應有的打擊。你自以為能更好地服務,卻在天主子民當中加重分裂和混亂!」

英語全文

Dear brother Carlo Maria Viganò,

In your last message to the press, in which you make accusations against Pope Francis and against the Roman Curia, you invite me to tell the truth about certain facts that you interpret as signs of an endemic corruption that has infiltrated the hierarchy of the Church up to its highest levels. With pontifical permission, and in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I offer my testimony about matters concerning the Archbishop emeritus of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, and his presumed links to Pope Francis, matters that are at the center of your public accusations and your demand that the Holy Father resign. I write my testimony based on my personal contacts and on documents in the archives of the Congregation, currently the object of study to clarify this sad case.

Out of consideration for the good, collaborative relation we had when you were Apostolic Nuncio in Washington, allow me to say, in all honesty, that I find your current attitude incomprehensible and extremely troubling, not only because of the confusion it sows among the People of God, but because your public accusations gravely harm the reputation of the bishops, successors of the Apostles. I recall a time when I enjoyed your esteem and your trust, but now I see that I have been stripped in your eyes of the respect that was accorded to me, for the only reason I have remained faithful to the Holy Father’s guidance in exercising the service he has entrusted to me in the Church. Is not communion with the Successor of Peter an expression of our obedience to Christ who chose him and sustains him with his grace? My interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, which you criticize, is grounded in this fidelity to the living tradition, which Francis has given us another example of by recently modifying the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the question of the death penalty.

Let us address the facts. You said that on June 23, 2013, you provided Pope Francis with information about McCarrick in an audience he granted to you, as he also did for many pontifical representatives with whom he met for the first time that day. I can only imagine the amount of verbal and written information that was provided to the Holy Father on that occasion about so many persons and situations. I strongly doubt that the Pope had such interest in McCarrick, as you would like us to believe, given the fact that by then he was an 82-year-old Archbishop emeritus who had been without a role for seven years. Moreover, the written instructions given to you by the Congregation for Bishops at the beginning of your mission in 2001 did not say anything about McCarrick, except for what I mentioned to you verbally about his situation as Bishop emeritus and certain conditions and restrictions that he had to follow on account of some rumors about his past conduct.

From 30th June 2010, when I became Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, I never presented in audience the McCarrick case to Pope Benedict XVI or to Pope Francis – not until recently, after his dismissal from the College of Cardinals. The former Cardinal, retired in May of 2006, had been requested not to travel or to make public appearances, in order to avoid new rumors about him. It is false, therefore, to present those measures as “sanctions” formally imposed by Pope Benedict XVI and then invalidated by Pope Francis. After a review of the archives, I find that there are no documents signed by either Pope in this regard, and there are no audience notes from my predecessor, Cardinal Giovanni-Battista Re, imposing on the retired Archbishop the obligation to lead a quiet and private life with the weight normally reserved to canonical penalties. The reason is that back then, unlike today, there was not sufficient proof of his alleged culpability. Thus, the Congregation’s decision was inspired by prudence, and the letters from my predecessor and my own letters urged him, first through the Apostolic Nuncio Pietro Sambi and then through you, to lead a life of prayer and penance, for his own good and for the good of the Church. His case would have deserved new disciplinary measures if the Nunciature in Washington, or any other source, had provided us recent and definitive information about his behavior. I am of the opinion that, out of respect for the victims and given the need for justice, the inquiry currently underway in the United States and in the Roman Curia should provide a comprehensive and critical study of the procedures and the circumstances of this painful case in order to prevent something like it from ever happening in the future.

How is it possible that this man of the Church, whose incoherence has now been revealed, was promoted many times, and was nominated to such a high position as Archbishop of Washington and Cardinal? I am personally very surprised, and I recognize that there were failures in the selection procedures implemented in his case. However, and without entering here into details, it must be understood that the decisions taken by the Supreme Pontiff are based on the information available to him at the time and that they are the object of a prudential judgment which is not infallible. I think it is unjust to reach the conclusion that there is corruption on the part of the persons entrusted with this previous discernment process, even though in the particular case some of the concerns that were raised by testimonies should have been examined more closely. The Archbishop also knew how to cleverly defend himself from those concerns raised about him. Furthermore, the fact that there could be in the Vatican persons who practice or support sexual behavior that is contrary to the values of the Gospel, does not authorize us to make generalizations or to declare unworthy and complicit this or that individual, including the Holy Father himself. Should not ministers of the truth avoid above all calumny and defamation?

Dear pontifical representative emeritus, I tell you frankly that to accuse Pope Francis of having covered-up knowingly the case of an alleged sexual predator and, therefore, of being an accomplice to the corruption that afflicts the Church, to the point that he could no longer continue to carry out his reform as the first shepherd of the Church, appears to me from all viewpoints unbelievable and without any foundation. I cannot understand how could you have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation. Francis had nothing to do with McCarrick’s promotions to New York, Metuchen, Newark and Washington. He stripped him of his Cardinal’s dignity as soon as there was a credible accusation of abuse of a minor. For a Pope who does not hide the trust that he places in certain prelates, I never heard him refer to this so called great advisor for the pontificate for episcopal appointments in the United States. I can only surmise that some of those prelates are not of your preference or the preference of your friends who support your interpretation of matters. I think it is abhorrent, however, for you to use the clamorous sexual abuse scandal in the United States to inflict an unmerited and unheard of a blow to the moral authority of your superior, the Supreme Pontiff.

I have the privilege of having long meetings with Pope Francis every week to discuss the appointment of bishops and the problems that affect their governance. I know very well how he treats persons and problems: with great charity, mercy, attentiveness and seriousness, as you too have experienced. I think it is too sarcastic, even blasphemous, how you end your last message, purportedly appealing to spirituality while mocking the Holy Father and casting doubt about his faith. That cannot come from the Spirit of God.

Dear brother, how much I wish that I could help you return to communion with him who is the visible guarantor of communion in the Catholic Church. I understand that deceptions and sufferings have marked your path in the service to the Holy See, but you should not finish your priestly life involved in an open and scandalous rebellion that inflicts a very painful wound to the Bride of Christ, whom you pretend to serve better, while causing further division and confusion among the People of God. How could I answer your call except by saying: stop living clandestinely, repent of your rebelliousness, and come back to better feelings towards the Holy Father, instead of fostering hostility against him. How can you celebrate Mass and mention his name in the Eucharistic Prayer? How can you pray the Holy Rosary, or pray to Saint Michael the Archangel, or to the Mother of God, while condemning the one Our Lady protects and accompanies every day in his burdensome and courageous mission?

If the Pope was not a man of prayer; if he was attached to money; if he favored riches to the detriment of the poor; if he did not demonstrate a tireless energy to welcome all miseries and to address them through the generous comfort of his words and actions; if he did not seek to implement all possible means to announce and to communicate the joy of the Gospel to all in the Church and beyond her visible horizons; if he did not lend a hand to the families, to the abandoned elderly, to the sick in body and soul and, above all, to the youth in their search for happiness; one could prefer someone else, according to you, with a different political or diplomatic approach. But I cannot call into question his personal integrity, his consecration to the mission and, above all, the charisma and peace he enjoys through the grace of God and the strength of the Risen One.

Dear Viganò, in response to your unjust and unjustified attack, I can only conclude that the accusation is a political plot that lacks any real basis that could incriminate the Pope and that profoundly harms the communion of the Church. May God allow a prompt reparation of this flagrant injustice so that Pope Francis can continue to be recognized for who he is: a true shepherd, a resolute and compassionate father, a prophetic grace for the Church and for the world. May the Holy Father carry on, full of confidence and joy, the missionary reform he has begun, comforted by the prayers of the people of God and the renewed solidarity of the whole Church, together with Mary, Queen of the Holy Rosary!

Marc Cardinal Ouellet Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops,

Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, October 7th 2018.

來源:梵蒂岡新聞網

圖片:Catholic News Service

梵蒂岡打破沉默回應前任樞機麥卡里克的指控

在有關麥卡里克總主教(Theodore McCarrick)行徑的指控公諸於世後,教宗方濟各意識到並且擔憂這些指控正在信眾良心內造成迷惘,因此決定發表以下公告:

2017年9月,紐約總教區向聖座舉報,有一名男子指控時任樞機麥卡里克曾在上個世紀70年代對他施加侵犯。教宗遂下令在紐約總教區展開初步的全面調查,並在調查結束後,把相關報告移交給聖座教義部。與此同時,由於在調查期間浮現了重大線索,聖父接受了麥卡里克總主教辭去樞機團成員身分的請求,命令他不得公開履行牧職,並且務必度祈禱和懺悔的生活。

聖座也將在適當時機公布麥卡里克總主教案件的結論。此外,至於其它針對麥卡里克總主教的指控,聖父決定針對聖座各部會檔案室裡現存有關時任麥卡里克樞機的所有資料進行詳細的研究,並將它與初步調查中蒐集到的信息匯整在一起,以釐清所有重大事件,將一切放在其歷史背景中客觀地評估。

聖座知道在審查事實和情況的過程中,或許會發現當時的一些選擇與今天應對這類問題的態度相左。然而,誠如教宗方濟各所言,「我們將走真理之路,不論這條路將帶我們前往何處。」(費城,2015年9月27日)無論是侵犯行徑或是掩蓋事實,我們都不再予以容忍;而對於犯下如此惡行或者加以袒護的主教們作出差別待遇,其實是一種絕對無法接受的教權主義形式。

教宗方濟各再次懇切呼籲同心協力打擊在教會內外的嚴重侵犯禍患,預防這種罪行再次發生,以免社會上最無辜弱小者受傷。如同早已宣布的那樣,教宗召集了世界各地主教團主席明年2月一同開會,而教宗最近在《致天主子民信函》中的話語仍在迴盪著:「我們回應這殃及許多生命的災難的唯一方法,是要把它當作關乎我們天主子民每個成員的任務。這種感到我們是天主子民的一分子並擁有共同歷史的意識,將能幫助我們承認我們以前的罪過,秉持懺悔的開放態度讓自己從內在得到更新。」

來源:梵蒂岡新聞網

圖片:Catholic News Service

美國主教團針對性侵犯問題提出三個目標和三項準則

2018年8月16日,美國主教團主席迪納爾多(Daniel N. DiNardo)樞機提出了三個目標和三項準則來應對該國性侵犯問題的「道德災難」。這項防治計劃將邀請平信徒、專家和梵蒂岡參與其中。更詳細完整的計劃方案將於11月份在美國主教團全體大會上提出,並由迪納爾多樞機親自前往梵蒂岡向聖座介紹。

隨著近日麥卡里克總主教(Theodore McCarrick)的案件曝光,以及賓州大陪審團的報告出爐,迪納爾多樞機表明,當前的危機不僅需要在靈性上悔改,還需要作出實際的改變,以免重蹈覆轍。為此,美國主教團執行委員會於8月中旬開會制訂了三個目標,以保護所有的人遠離在教會內意圖侵犯者的魔爪,不再發生包庇袒護的情況,並以最高標準的透明度和責任歸屬來檢驗主教。

這三個目標分別是:

一、調查有關麥卡里克總主教的問題

迪納爾多樞機進而解釋道,全面徹查麥卡里克總主教的問題,有助於預防重蹈覆轍,並保護未成年人、修生和其他弱小者。因此,美國教會也將邀請梵蒂岡派專員前來視察,與主要由平信徒領導的團隊一同應對這些問題。

二、為投訴主教的案件,開啟新的保密渠道

要補全2002年《主教承諾宣言》的不足,建立可靠的第三方舉報機制,讓受害者得以揭發「主教的侵犯行徑或其它性方面的不當行為。

三、提倡以更有效的解決方法來處理未來的投訴案件

提倡以更完善的程序來解決投訴主教的案件,使之更及時、更公平、更透明,並闡明在過程中的各個階段,可能會加諸在主教身上的種種限制。

為實踐這些目標,務必落實三項準則:

一、獨立辦案

-要避免偏見或主教施壓的影響。

二、充分授權

-旨在尊重教宗處置主教的權威,同時也保護弱小者免於教會內的瀆職濫權。

三、主要由平信徒領導

-團隊不僅促使各領域的專家參與其中,也加強獨立辦案的承諾。

最後,迪納爾多樞機為他自己和主教弟兄的過失,謙卑地請求寬恕。他坦言:「一個禍根在於主教領導方面的疏失,其結果是為數眾多的天主鍾愛的兒女遭到遺棄,獨自面對濫權的問題。這是一場道德災難,並殃及許多追求聖德、一心侍主的忠貞司鐸,他們也因這過失而沾上污點。」

來源:梵蒂岡新聞網

圖片:Catholic News Service

美國華盛頓總主教烏爾樞機提議成立性侵案件高級委員會

美國華盛頓總主教唐納德·威廉·烏爾樞機(Donald William Wuerl)提議成立一個高級委員會來接收和評估任何有關主教團成員不當性行為的指控或聲音,並在可能的情況下告知宗座大使和聖座。2018年8月9日,烏爾樞機接受全美天主教通訊社(National Catholic Reporter)的電話採訪時,表明上述提議,並敦促美國主教團在有關他的前任麥卡里克的事件後,果斷採取行動。

與此同時,美國哈里斯堡教區主教蓋納(Ronald William Gainer)在寫給信眾的公開信中,親自宣布了關於內部調查華盛頓榮休總主教麥卡里克(Theodore McCarrick)性侵該教區司鐸和修生的痛苦結果。根據指控,這些罪行的發生並被掩蓋甚至可追溯至1947年。哈里斯堡主教決定將指控的清單公開。主教早在2016年就有意公布這份清單,但司法部門要求保密,以保護當時調查的良好進展。

來源:梵蒂岡新聞網

圖片:Catholic News Service

教宗方濟各接受麥卡里克辭去樞機職務的請求

2018年7月27日晚上,88歲的華盛頓榮休總主教麥卡里克樞機致函教宗方濟各,提出辭去樞機團成員身份的請求。2018年7月28日,聖座新聞室發表公告稱:「教宗方濟各接受其辭呈,並已禁止他行使任何公開職務,強制其生活在一個他將指明的寓所,度祈禱和懺悔的生活,直到針對他的指控按照正常的教會法程序得以澄清。」

上個月,聖座國務卿帕羅林樞機按照教宗方濟各的指示,已經禁止麥卡里克樞機公開行使他的牧職。做出這項決定,是因為紐約總教區的調查委員會認定對麥卡里克的指控「可信且有根據」。他被指控45年前在紐約擔任司鐸期間性侵一名未成年人。麥卡里克表示接受上述決定,同時也表明自己是無辜的。

來源:梵蒂岡新聞網

圖片:Catholic News Service