Northwoods Catholic Churches -- St. Anne, Boulder Junction; St. Mary, Sayner; St. Rita, Presque Isle

St. Veronica. / Credit: Bernardo Strozzi, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Vatican City, Apr 5, 2025 / 08:00 am (CNA).

On Sunday, April 6, the fifth Sunday of Lent, St. Peter’s Basilica will display the revered “Veronica’s Veil,” a cloth that, according to tradition, was used to wipe the face of Jesus on his way to Calvary, renewing a very ancient tradition of the Catholic Church.

At 6 p.m. local time, while the litanies are being intoned, the faithful will walk through the naves of the basilica, entering through the Holy Door. From the Veronica loggia, the relic, also known as the Holy Face, will be displayed in an extraordinary liturgy.

Afterward, the archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, is scheduled to celebrate a Mass with the canons participating.

But what exactly is this relic, and why has it attracted more and more people for centuries?

The relic is referenced in the sixth station of the Way of the Cross, where a woman named Veronica wipes the face of Jesus with a cloth as he carries the cross to Calvary.

According to tradition, this cloth bears the true image of Christ’s face.

The woman who wiped Jesus’ face is commonly known as Veronica, derived from the Latin “vera icona,” meaning “true icon.” It is believed that Christ’s image was imprinted on the veil on his way to the cross. The cloth itself is also named Veronica.

Along with a relic of the cross and the relic of the lance of St. Longinus, the Veil of Veronica occupies a place of great importance within St. Peter’s Basilica. According to tradition, Longinus was the soldier who pierced Christ’s side.

The cloth, linen, or veil of Veronica (or simply Veronica) is normally kept in a chapel that lies behind a balcony above a colossal statue of the saint by Francesco Mochi situated in an alcove that is part of one of the piers supporting the dome.

Although the account of Veronica does not appear in the Gospels, she was later associated with the woman with a hemorrhage who was cured by Jesus. The apocryphal book of the Acts of Pilate (sixth century) also speaks of a woman, known as Veronica, who wiped Christ’s face with a veil as he made his way to Calvary.

This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King in Liverpool, England / Chowells / Wikimedia (CC BY 2.5)

CNA Newsroom, Apr 5, 2025 / 07:36 am (CNA).

Pope Francis has appointed Bishop John Sherrington as the new Archbishop of Liverpool.

Sherrington replaces Archbishop Malcolm Patrick McMahon, O.P., who submitted his resignation after serving the archdiocese since 2014.

The Holy See Press Office announced the appointment on Saturday, April 5. Archbishop-elect Sherrington, who has served as an auxiliary bishop of Westminster and titular bishop of Hilta since 2011, will be installed as the tenth Archbishop of Liverpool during a ceremony at the Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King on May 27.

In a statement following the announcement, Archbishop-elect Sherrington expressed gratitude for the appointment.

“I thank Pope Francis for his trust in me on my appointment as Archbishop of Liverpool which I accept with humility and joy,” he said. “We pray for our Holy Father at this time of sickness as he recuperates and prepares for Holy Week and Easter.”

Archbishop-elect Sherrington, 67, was born in Leicester in 1958 and holds a master’s degree in mathematics from Queen’s College, Cambridge. After working briefly in management consultancy, he was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Nottingham in 1987. He later earned a licentiate in moral theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

His experience includes serving as a professor of moral theology at All Hallows College in Dublin and at St. John’s Seminary in Wonersh, as well as parish ministry in Nottingham and Derby. Within the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, he has served as a member of the Department for Social Justice, responsible for life issues since 2014.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, welcomed the appointment, noting that Pope Francis has continued his work despite recent health concerns.

“Those who have been following reports on the health of the Holy Father and keeping him in their prayers will know that he has continued his work, including the appointment of bishops,” Cardinal Nichols said.

“In Westminster we know his gifts, dedication, and utter generosity only too well. We will miss him greatly,” he added.

Archbishop McMahon, who has led the Liverpool Archdiocese for the past decade, expressed gratitude for his successor’s appointment.

“We are receiving a new Archbishop with considerable gifts, talents and skills, but most of all we are receiving a man of deep prayer who loves the Lord Jesus and who loves His Church,” he said.

The Archdiocese of Liverpool, which covers the city itself and surrounding areas, including Wigan, St. Helens, Southport, and the Isle of Man, is one of the largest Catholic dioceses in England.

The archbishop-elect acknowledged the rich heritage of the archdiocese, stating: “I look forward to serving as shepherd of the historic and faith-filled Church in the Archdiocese of Liverpool which is rich in its heritage of the English martyrs, Irish immigration, and now looks to the future.”

Deacon Johnny Al-Daoud celebrates his release from captivity in Syria on March 2, 2025, with family and friends. / Credit: St. Michael's Church - Maskana Parish

ACI MENA, Apr 5, 2025 / 07:00 am (CNA).

On the morning of Sunday, March 2, without any prior notice, Johnny Fouad Dawoud, a deacon in the Syriac Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Homs, was released from a Syrian prison after a decade of confinement.

ACI MENA, CNA’s Arabic-language news partner, spoke with him after he was reunited with his family to discuss his ordeal of being captured by the Al-Nusra Front, his moments of faith and doubt behind bars, and the light that now shines in his life.

ACI MENA: Tell us first about your upbringing and journey in the Church.

Dawoud: I was born into a religiously committed family, and from childhood, I was passionate about participating in pastoral activities. At the age of 12, I joined the minor and then the major seminary in Lebanon, graduating in 2009 with a degree in theology and philosophy from the University of the Holy Spirit in Kaslik, Lebanon.

I returned to Homs to prepare for my priestly ordination, but as the date for the diaconal ordination approached, I felt unprepared to take on those roles and was not entirely convinced about celibacy. After much reflection and consultation, I decided to be honest with God and myself, and withdrew — a decision that surprised my family and friends, especially my uncle, Cardinal Patriarch Mar Ignatius Moses I Daoud.

[Editor’s note: Dawoud later became a permanent deacon in the Syriac Catholic Church, allowing him to read the Epistles during the liturgy.]

What challenges did you face after that?

I got married and was blessed with a child. However, with the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, I lost my home in the Christian district of Hamidiyah in Old Homs due to clashes. Military service was the biggest challenge; I was moved between several fronts, the last being Abu Dhuhur airport, where we were besieged for months.

The situation was tragic; food supplies ran out, and we were forced to eat grass and leaves. The water was contaminated and not potable, leading to various diseases. In September 2015, the rebels stormed the airport, and only 38 out of 300 survived.

After you were captured and taken to prison, how did you experience captivity?

We were held hoping for a prisoner exchange, but regime officials did not seriously cooperate with our case. At one point, their negotiators even said, “Kill them; we no longer care about them.” Throughout the 10 years, we were generally treated well and were not subjected to torture or insult, except during the initial investigation period. Yet, our suffering was immense, the hardest part being the complete isolation from the outside world, enough to destroy anyone’s psyche. Living in the unknown as if you were dead causes constant turmoil and devastating frustration.

We fell ill, including with COVID-19, which nearly killed us, and we didn’t even know it had claimed millions outside. Food and water were generally good, though the lack of washing and bathroom water troubled us, but we managed. 

After three years of captivity, we were allowed one short call per year (during Ramadan) with our families, thanks to a meeting with Abu Mohammad al-Julani, leader of the Al-Nusra Front.

How did this experience affect your faith?

It’s very difficult for a captive to describe his spiritual experience in prison in a few words. 

Muslims were interested in discussing religious issues with me, some of whom I avoided debating due to their blind fanaticism — they knew only words like infidel, polytheist, apostate, atheist, and hypocrite. 

However, graduates from Islamic legal institutes and colleges were enjoyable to discuss with, as I had a margin of freedom to speak and defend my faith, which they accepted and understood.

I truly loved witnessing to my faith as if I were living among our saintly fathers and martyrs in times of early persecution. I always lived with Apostle Paul, saying with him: “We are ambassadors for Christ,” indeed being an ambassador for Christ and not just in words, in a place where that was considered heresy.

I prayed a lot, conversing with my Lord at night and calling upon him during the day. But it pains me to say that at the beginning of my captivity, as the years passed and my and my family’s suffering increased, my faith wavered. My trust in God began to shake, and I wondered: Why does my Lord not respond to me? Why is he punishing me? What sins did my family commit to deserve all this suffering?

What about the moment of your release and your reception in Homs?

On the morning of Sunday, March 2, without any prior knowledge, they called my name, asking me to prepare to leave. I stood outside the prison gate, unbelieving that I was free. I was transferred to the Christian village of Ya’qubiya in Idlib countryside, where Father Louai the Franciscan and the locals warmly received me, leaving a lasting impression on me. There, I contacted the pastor of our Syriac Catholic archdiocese, Bishop Jacob Murad, and my family. My brother Munther, who did not know I had been released, began screaming with joy when I told him, “Prepare dinner, I’ll be home this evening.”

When I arrived at my diocese in Homs, Bishop Jacob, along with priests, my wife, my son, and many relatives and friends, were there to receive me. We entered the church to give thanks to the Lord, and I received holy Communion from his eminence the bishop. After receiving congratulations, I headed to my village, Maskanah (in the Homs countryside), and we entered the village with a grand celebration. 

Christians and Muslims, young and old, welcomed me, and crowds from other areas came. When I saw the joy of the people at my liberation, I truly and immediately forgot the suffering of those 10 years.

This story was first published by ACI MENA, CNA's Arabic-language news partner, and has been translated and adapted by CNA.

The Vatican flag. / Credit: Bohumil Petrik/CNA

CNA Staff, Apr 5, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

What does the flag of Vatican City look like? What should it look like?

Beyond the recognizable general design of the yellow-and-white flag with the crossed keys on its right side representing the papacy, most Catholics — even if they see this flag displayed every day at their parish — don’t scrutinize the details. 

That changed two years ago, when many people learned for the first time — thanks in part to a viral CNA story — that a commonly-used design for the Vatican flag, flown frequently even at the Vatican itself, actually contains a small but easily-noticed error: The circular bottom of the papal tiara should be white, not red, as depicted on many, many flags (oh, and even on emojis). 

Given that the image of the “Flag of Vatican City” displayed on Wikipedia from 2017 to 2022 had the erroneous red-tiara design, many people in 2023 deduced that the Wikipedia entry had likely contributed to the proliferation of incorrect flags worldwide. (For better or worse, the CNA story and other news articles contributed to that narrative.)

Father William Becker, a flag expert and pastor at St. Columbanus Parish in Blooming Prairie, Minnesota, told CNA at the time that the variations demonstrated a need for the Vatican to step in and clarify exactly what its flag should look like. 

And lo and behold, just months after flag enthusiasts on Reddit discovered the error, Pope Francis promulgated a new Fundamental Law of Vatican City State, which, to Becker’s delight, finally included a high-resolution image and a detailed description of what the flag should look like. 

The long and the short of it is that the official design for the flag in the 2023 Fundamental Law does not include the red disk at the bottom of the tiara. The official design for the Vatican City coat of arms, also newly-promulgated along with the flag design, doesn’t have a red disk either. 

Case closed? Not quite. 

The revelations about the flag and the proliferation of “incorrect” flags sparked a passionate debate online — a debate that raised new questions.

Wikipedia’s fault? 

At first, the Vatican flag saga seemed to be a textbook case of “citogenesis” — a term that refers to the manner in which false information can be inadvertently “laundered” after appearing on Wikipedia, especially if authoritative sources such as journalists pick it up.

In this particular case, given that no one noticed that the flag design on Wikipedia was wrong for a period of several years, it seemed likely that many people — including flag makers — assumed it was correct, given how many red-disk flags now exist out in the wild.

Doubts began to stir, however, when users online pointed out numerous examples of older Vatican flags, such as the one Apollo astronauts brought to the moon in 1969, that have the red tiara design as well. A single Reddit user discovered at least four other Vatican flags in his personal collection that feature the red disk and that he says all date to the mid- to late 20th century.

In addition, older pre-internet flag reference books, such as the British Admiralty’s “Flags of All Nations” (1955) depicted the tiara with a red base, potentially influencing flag makers in the U.S. and U.K.

And in a final, ironic twist, the Vatican itself likely contributed to the confusion nearly two decades ago when it posted this image of its flag, which, head-scratchingly, featured a red disk, despite the 2000 Vatican constitution — which was in force at the time — not featuring one. 

So was the infamous Wikipedia edit a cause of the confusion or a symptom? 

The obvious solution to the question is to ask the Wikipedia editor why he or she changed the public image file to a red-disk design in the first place. Wikipedia is an anonymous forum, though, which makes such a request tricky. 

By a stroke of luck, however, the editor who changed the design in 2017, WikiDan61, shed some light on his decision-making process on the Wikipedia talk page in early 2025. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly, WikiDan cited examples of red-disk flags he had seen out in the world — such as this one from 2008 — as the reason he thought the red-disk flag was the correct one. 

“To be fair, I did not create the image of the flag with a red interior for the tiara; that image [existed] in the world prior to my creation of the Commons SVG file,” WikiDan61 wrote in response to an interview request from a (non-CNA) journalist. (That journalist created a video essay on the Vatican flag controversy that is well worth watching.) 

“It seems even the Vatican itself is not clear on the design of its flag. That being said, I’m not really a very public person, so I would not be interested in discussing this topic off-Wiki,” WikiDan61 concluded. 

Origins of the flag

Despite what many people may presume, given the Church’s venerable history, the Vatican flag as we know it today has only represented Vatican City for less than a century. In fact, Vatican City itself is less than a century old — at least in the legal sense of it being its own sovereign country. 

For a period of a thousand years, leading up to the late 19th century, the pope was the ruler over the Papal States, large regions mainly within present-day Italy. The Vatican’s 1870 loss of control over the Papal States left it not only geographically tiny but also quite literally surrounded.

The ratification of the Lateran Accords of 1929, 60 years later, finally ushered in harmony between the Vatican and Italy. Vatican City became, and remains, the world’s smallest sovereign country.

In the days of the Papal States, many different flags existed, but the yellow-and-white color scheme was a common feature. First used by the merchant fleet in the Papal States from 1825 to 1870, the design used today was chosen as the new flag of Vatican City in 1929. The same flag chosen in 1929 was reconfirmed in the revised Vatican constitution issued by St. John Paul II in 2000.

In addition to being displayed in most Catholic parishes worldwide, the flag has special significance beyond the walls of Vatican City as a marker for the Vatican’s dozen or so extraterritorial properties, many of which are in Rome. These properties, which include major basilicas such as St. Paul Outside the Walls and St. Mary Major, are marked as belonging to the Vatican through their flying of the papal flag.

Hark the heraldry

So are the variations in the Vatican flag’s exact design out in the world really a big deal?

Jonathan Dixon, a flag expert from Australia who frequently contributes to the subreddit that uncovered the Vatican flag variations, commented to CNA that the idea of an “official design” for a flag is “foreign to the historical use of heraldry and flags.”

“The heraldic tradition has long worked on the idea that the blazon, or verbal/written description of a coat of arms or other heraldic emblem, is what defines it, with a decent amount of variation in how each individual artist depicts it being expected, and treated as a strength rather than a weakness,” Dixon said in written comments to CNA. 

“[It’s] a mistake to take every official illustration (such as the one in the Vatican fundamental law) and assume that it’s intended to be treated as something to be precisely replicated.”

For his part, Becker, the Minnesota priest and flag expert, said he considers precise flag standardization a “modern luxury” that some countries — the Vatican included — simply don’t prioritize.

“Actual flags flown at the Vatican have never been very standardized, and there’s no local urge for uniformity,” Becker wrote in an explainer article on the Vatican flag that he shared with CNA.

While flag specialists might regard the design shown in the Vatican’s Fundamental Law as a binding production norm, Becker said Vatican authorities and local flag vendors commonly regard it more as “a general guide.”

That said, while acknowledging the historical variations and Vatican attitudes, Becker said he personally prefers flag standardization — in part to provide reliable guidance for flag makers.

“How much design variation is acceptable in flag production? Vexillologists differ on the matter. I lean toward uniformity over artistic license, because it’s useful for flag makers seeking authoritative guidance for quality control in a global marketplace. At the very least, major reference sources should replicate the Vatican’s constitutional model as an authoritative design guide,” he wrote.

The banner yet waves

It seems clear that the “blame” for all the red-tiara flags is far more difficult to assign than previously thought — and probably ought not be assigned at all. 

Since the variations in the Vatican’s flags came to light in 2023, the Vatican has updated its official flag design, which is undoubtedly a significant step. But the persistence of older variations and the absence of rigorous enforcement from the Vatican suggest that a diversity of designs will persist. 

Becker noted in an email to CNA that even after the last flag revision in 2000, it took “over a decade” before the adjusted flag model was replicated by a major Italian producer and started appearing at some Vatican sites. Other producers kept using their old templates and still are using them, he said. 

“Unless for some reason the Vatican decides to insist on more uniformity from producers and/or those who procure its flags, minor variations will continue as they always have,” Becker said. 

Perhaps the bottom line is this: No matter the design quibbles, every Vatican flag serves as a reminder that Jesus Christ’s Church is alive and well here on earth — and that’s significant.

And if you spot a red-tiara design in the wild? It’s a trivial detail, yes, but an oddly satisfying one, and perhaps an opportunity to embrace the complexity and nuance of flag design. 

If you know, you know. 

Matt Vallière (at left), executive director of the Patients Rights Action Fund, and Inclusion Canada CEO Krista Carr (at right) discuss opposition to assisted suicide at a Religion News Association panel moderated by EWTN News President Montse Alvarado (center) on April 4, 2025. / Credit: Ken Oliver/CNA

Washington D.C., Apr 4, 2025 / 19:52 pm (CNA).

Advocates for those with disabilities focused on what they call troubling trends in government-backed assisted suicide programs in the United States and Canada during a panel on the subject held Friday at the 2025 annual conference of the Religion News Association.

Although physician-assisted suicide is still illegal in most parts of the world, the practice is currently legal in about a dozen countries, including Canada, Germany, Spain, and Belgium, along with 10 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The phenomenon is causing growing concern for patients’ rights advocates and disability rights advocates who have warned that jurisdictions that allow assisted suicide are failing to provide necessary life-affirming care for vulnerable populations in need of it and are rather encouraging suicide as a cheaper, quicker, and easier option.

According to Matt Vallière, executive director of the Patients Rights Action Fund, U.S. state-level assisted suicide programs are discriminatory against people with life-threatening conditions and are a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Vallière spoke at the conference along with Krista Carr, CEO of Inclusion Canada, during an April 4 panel moderated by EWTN News President Montse Alvarado.

Illustrating the problem, Vallière pointed out that many states do “not guarantee palliative care,” yet “they will pay for every instance of assisted suicide.”

“I don’t call that autonomy, I call that eugenics,” he emphasized.

In Canada, Carr’s organization has filed a lawsuit against Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) program. The lawsuit focuses on the country’s expansion of MAID to include people with disabilities that are not immediately life-threatening. 

Canada has expanded the program, Carr explained, to “people with an incurable disease or disability who are not dying, so they’re not at [the] end of life and their death is not reasonably foreseeable,” Carr indicated. She noted the government plans to expand the program even further in 2027 to include people who have mental illnesses. 

Carr warned that “it’s being called a choice,” but “it’s not a choice.” Similar to Vallière’s concerns with the United States, Carr said assisted suicide is being pushed on people who are in “a desperate situation where they can’t get the support they need.”

According to Carr, Canada does not guarantee a right to live a decent life, but “we do have a right, a funded right, to a lethal injection.”

Carr noted that last week, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommended that Canada repeal the application of the MAID program to people “whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable” as well as halt extension of the program to people whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.”

Former cardinal Theodore McCarrick arrives outside Massachusetts' Dedham District Courthouse for his arraignment, Sept. 3, 2021. / Credit: Andrew Bukuras/CNA

CNA Newsroom, Apr 4, 2025 / 19:20 pm (CNA).

The following is a timeline of important dates from the McCarrick Report and elsewhere regarding abuse allegations against recently deceased former cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

Published by the Vatican on Nov. 10, 2020, the McCarrick Report examined the “institutional knowledge and decision-making” regarding McCarrick, who was found guilty of sexual abuse of minors and seminarians in 2019 and laicized after an expedited canonical investigation. 

July 7, 1930: Theodore Edgar McCarrick is born in New York City, the only child of Theodore E. and Margaret McLaughlin McCarrick.

1954: McCarrick graduates from Fordham University in New York with a bachelor of arts degree in philosophy.

1954-1958: McCarrick attends St. Joseph’s Seminary in New York and attains a master of arts degree in theology.

May 31, 1958: New York Cardinal Francis Spellman ordains McCarrick to the priesthood at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. McCarrick is incardinated into the Archdiocese of New York.

November 1965: Pope Paul VI grants McCarrick the honorary title of monsignor. 

June 29, 1977: McCarrick is consecrated as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of New York by then-archbishop Cardinal Terence Cooke.

November 1981: Pope John Paul II appoints McCarrick as bishop of Metuchen, New Jersey, after receiving glowing reviews of him in the terna evaluating him for the position.

Mid-1980s: A New York Catholic mother, identified as “Mother 1,” sends out an anonymous letter to every cardinal in the United States as well as to the papal nuncio detailing concerns that McCarrick is “attracted to boys.” Mother 1’s family had grown close to McCarrick during his time in New York. Mother 1 grew suspicious after she observed McCarrick rubbing her sons’ inner thighs and chests, and when she was told he bought alcohol for the young men on overnight trips. Fearing backlash for speaking against the prominent cleric, she kept her identity anonymous. No copies of Mother 1’s letter are found for the McCarrick report. 

May 24, 1986: Pope John Paul II appoints McCarrick, nearly 56 years old, as archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, after receiving strong recommendations from bishops in the U.S. None mention concerns regarding inappropriate behavior.

1989-1996: Three priests, identified as Priest 1, Priest 3, and Priest 4, report to Bishop Edward Hughes (McCarrick’s successor in Metuchen) instances of sexual assault they suffered by McCarrick while he was in Metuchen. The accusations, reported in separate meetings, include sharing a bed with McCarrick and sexual touching and assault that occurred during overnight stays at a beach house on the Jersey shore while two of the priests were seminarians. One of the incidents, reported by Priest 3, occurred while he was a priest. These priests later said that Hughes listened to them but either sent them on for therapy or urged them to forgive McCarrick. There is no evidence that Hughes told anyone else of these priests’ reports of McCarrick’s misconduct.

January 1990: Monsignor Dominic Bottino of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, attends a small celebration with McCarrick. Both Bottino and his bishop, James Thomas McHugh, notice McCarrick groping the crotch of a young priest. McHugh dismisses Bottino’s voiced concerns and says McCarrick was just “different.” Bottino tells his spiritual director at the time of the incident but no one else, since his bishop dismissed the incident.

1992-1993: Six anonymous letters and one pseudonymous letter alleging sexual misconduct by McCarrick are mailed to various Catholic prelates, including U.S. apostolic nuncio Agostino Cacciavillan, Cardinal John O’Connor, and leaders of the U.S. bishops’ conference. The letters accuse McCarrick of pedophilia or incest and sharing beds with young men. Some of McCarrick’s “nephews” with whom he shared beds were his distant relatives.

The accusations against McCarrick at this time are dismissed on the basis of McCarrick’s good reputation and due to the anonymity of the letter and the lack of specific accusations.

1993-1995: Newark is evaluated as a potential site for a papal visit by Pope John Paul II.

During this evaluation, Mother Mary Quentin Sheridan, superior general of the Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma in Michigan, and a priest call Cacciavillan about reports they had heard of seminarians abused by McCarrick. After consulting Cardinal James Hickey of Washington, D.C., about the allegations, Cacciavillan dismisses them as “possible slander or exaggeration.” 

Hickey tells the nuncio he knew McCarrick and his associates very well and had never heard of or seen any inappropriate behavior from McCarrick.

1995: Pope John Paul II visits Newark, and the visit proceeds without any report of scandal.

1996-1997: Priest 1 has been accused of sexual assault of two minors and was on leave. In the course of an evaluation of his fitness for ministry, Priest 1 told psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons and priest-psychologist Monsignor James Cassidy of the sexual assault he witnessed and experienced at the hands of McCarrick. Cassidy reports the matter to O’Connor, who told Hughes. In 2000, in an account to Cacciavillan, Hughes stated that he was not sure whether to believe the report, as Priest 1 has a “history of blaming others for his own problems.”

March 1997: Fitzgibbons travels to Rome to share the information he had received from Priest 1 with an official at the Congregation for Bishops. The congregation unsuccessfully attempts to contact Priest 1. There is no evidence of further action taken. 

June-July 1999: Pope John Paul II tells O’Connor that he is considering appointing McCarrick to the Archdiocese of New York.

July 1999: O’Connor advises aposolic nuncio Gabriel Montalvo that McCarrick should not be elevated to New York due to moral issues. Montalvo asks O’Connor to put his concerns in writing.

Oct. 27, 1999: Montalvo sends a report to Cardinal Lucas Moreira Neves, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, regarding the archbishopric of New York. Based on recommendations from U.S. bishops and cardinals, Montalvo recommends McCarrick for the position and notes he would be a “worthy member” of the College of Cardinals. He adds that McCarrick has been accused of “misplaced affection” but that there is no supporting evidence. 

Oct. 28, 1999: After a delay for cancer treatment, O’Connor writes Montalvo with his concerns about McCarrick. O’Connor states that it was common knowledge among clergy in the Archdiocese of Newark that McCarrick frequently shared beds with male guests, including priests and seminarians. He also notes that there had been a priest very close to McCarrick who accompanied him on at least one international trip who had since left the priesthood. Furthermore, he recalls that a psychologist and psychiatrist had confirmed the veracity of the claims of at least one priest who said he was victimized by McCarrick.

O’Connor also states that McCarrick had written a letter of defense of a young man convicted of murdering a young woman. He also notes that the general attitude among clergy in Newark and Metuchen is that their concerns about McCarrick had been ignored. 

Montalvo forwards the letter to the Congregation for Bishops and to the Secretariat of State. Then-Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re, then substitute of the Secretariat of State, informs Pope John Paul II of the letter. At the request of the pope, Re consults Cacciavillan, who had been nuncio in the U.S. when most of the allegations against McCarrick had occurred.

Cacciavillan casts serious doubt on all six of O’Connors concerns, saying the incidents were just a few rumors. He adds that McCarrick had not been given a chance to defend himself. Still, he recommends that McCarrick go to Washington, D.C., instead of New York, because O’Connor had not recommended McCarrick as his successor.

Nov. 22, 1999: Re, per the request of the pope, writes to Montalvo, asking him to look into the claims against McCarrick at his convenience “for the sake of the truth.”

Feb. 8, 2000: Cardinal Moreira Neves of the Congregation for Bishops tells Montalvo that, based on the accusations against McCarrick, as well as his age (almost 70), he should not be transferred to a different diocese. 

May-June 2000: Following the death of O’Connor, Montalvo investigates the claims against McCarrick. He asks Bishop James T. McHugh (Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, 1998-2000); Bishop Vincent D. Breen (Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, 1997-2000); Bishop Edward T. Hughes (Diocese of Metuchen, 1987-1997); and Bishop John M. Smith (Diocese of Trenton, New Jersey, 1997-2010), to send him any factual information or other observations about any moral weaknesses in McCarrick. 

May 12, 2000: McHugh responds to Montalvo. He confirms knowledge of McCarrick sharing beds with seminarians, priests, and other men, though he says he had not witnessed “improper behavior” but rather a “familiarity [that] was imprudent.” He confirms McCarrick’s defense of the young man convicted of murder and offers to be of further assistance.

May 16, 2000: Breen responds to Montalvo, saying he heard rumors of “illicit activities with young men” but that he had no way to prove them. He recommends contacting Hughes for more information. 

May 18, 2000: Smith responds to Montalvo. He says while he lived with McCarrick, he would be visited by his “nephews” from New York on occasion and that they would sometimes spend the night but never indicated the next morning that they were upset or that anything improper had happened. He says he would be “completely shocked” if an individual were to accuse McCarrick of serious wrongdoing or moral failure. 

May 22, 2000: Hughes responds to Montalvo. He says he does not have factual information regarding McCarrick’s moral weaknesses. He notes that two priests who came forward with accusations, Priest 6 and Priest 1, did so in the course of admitting their own moral failures and may have been attempting to justify their actions. He recommends against McCarrick’s promotion but also against disciplinary actions. 

June 21, 2000: Montalvo sends his findings to Re, informing him that his investigation found that accusations against McCarrick “are neither definitively proven nor completely groundless.” Based on this, he said, it would be “imprudent” to consider McCarrick for any kind of promotions.

May-July 2000: Montalvo receives more endorsements for McCarrick’s appointment for Washington.

July 2000: Re and Pope John Paul II conclude that it would be unwise to promote McCarrick to Washington, D.C.

Aug. 6, 2000: McCarrick writes to Bishop Stanisław Dziwisz, Pope John Paul II’s secretary, refuting the accusations against him. He says he was “tipped off” by a Curia friend about O’Connor’s letter, which had “deeply attacked” him and left him “bewildered.”

“Your Excellency, sure I have made mistakes and may have sometimes lacked in prudence, but in the 70 years of my life, I have never had sexual relations with any person, male or female, young or old, cleric or lay, nor have I ever abused another person or treated them with disrespect,” McCarrick writes. “... If I understand the accusations that Cardinal O’Connor may have made, they are not true.”

McCarrick adds that he would accept whatever decision the Holy Father makes.

August 2000: Dziwisz delivers McCarrick’s letter to the pope, who gives the letter to Re. Re later says John Paul II had become convinced of McCarrick’s innocence after that letter. 

Sept. 16, 2000: Pope John Paul II appoints Re as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.

Sept. 20, 2000: The secretary for the Congregation for Bishops writes to Cacciavillan and asks that McCarrick be reconsidered for the Washington archbishopric based on his letter to Dziwisz pleading innocence. 

Sept. 25, 2000: In a written memorandum, Cacciavillan recommends McCarrick to the Congregation for Bishops for the Washington position. He says McCarrick could defend himself against any accusations that may come to light with the appointment since they were false. 

October 2000: McCarrick travels to Rome for a private audience with Dziwisz and Pope John Paul II. There is no record of what occurred in the meeting.

Oct. 11, 2000: Re recommends McCarrick as one of two candidates for the Washington position to Pope John Paul II.

November 2000: Pope John Paul II appoints McCarrick as the archbishop of Washington, D.C. 

Nov. 24, 2000: Dominican Father Boniface Ramsey, who taught at the seminary at Seton Hall University from the late 1980s-1996, knew of prevalent rumors of McCarrick sharing beds with seminarians. Alarmed at the news of McCarrick’s promotion, he writes to nuncio Montalvo, stating that he had heard from multiple seminarians about sharing McCarrick’s bed at the Jersey beach house. He adds that while he did not know of any certain sexual relations that had occurred, “at the least the archbishop was seen to be acting with extreme impropriety and to be playing with fire.”

Ramsey declines to name specific seminarians and suggests the nuncio speak with other rectors at the seminary to confirm the rumors. Ramsey tells a friend and Montalvo that he strongly feared backlash for expressing his concerns. He does not recall receiving any response.

Early 2001: Montalvo receives an anonymous note warning of serious scandal if McCarrick is made a cardinal.

January 2001: Montalvo forwards the anonymous note and Ramsey’s letter to Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who forwards the letters to Pope John Paul II. The pope gives them back to Sodano, who makes a note: “Nihil dicens,” or “nothing is produced.”

Jan. 3, 2001: McCarrick is installed as archbishop of Washington.

Feb. 21, 2001: McCarrick is elevated to a cardinal by Pope John Paul II. 

Early 2000s: McCarrick continues extensive work on numerous national and international committees of the U.S. bishops’ conference, including a prominent role in constructing new policies for addressing child sexual abuse within the Church. He is also appointed to numerous Vatican council positions.

His position in Washington means he regularly meets with federal government officials, including President George W. Bush. Following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, McCarrick plays a prominent role in addressing the crisis with national figures.

McCarrick, despite refusing a salary as an archbishop, continues large donations and financial gifts to the Holy Father, other prelates, religious orders, and disaster relief funds. His extensive international travels continue. He is also tasked by the U.S. government in 2001 with developing diplomatic relations between China and the Vatican, a project he enthusiastically undertakes and that was supported by the nuncio.

Nov. 15, 2001: Cardinal James Hickey, then archbishop emeritus of Washington, receives a letter from a Catholic layman and former student about “wrongdoing” by a bishop, but he does not mention McCarrick specifically. The man requests a meeting to discuss the matter more. Montalvo assigns Bishop William Lori to meet with the man. In a written report, Lori says the man could not recall any specific details of wrongdoing by McCarrick and ultimately dismisses the allegation as “hearsay.” 

January 2002: The Boston Globe publishes a series of stories about child sexual abuse by U.S. priests, and a major scandal erupts in the Church in the U.S.

March 2002: Montalvo receives another letter from a layman who had spiritually directed a transitional deacon at Seton Hall who claimed that McCarrick had been “sexually inappropriate” with him at the Jersey beach house. Montalvo contacts Newark Archbishop John Myers, who later responds that he did not recognize the deacon’s name. He adds that he had received other anonymous accusations against McCarrick but that they were untraceable rumors and not concrete incidents. No further action or investigation is undertaken. 

April 2002: McCarrick admits to Susan Gibbs, communications director for the Archdiocese of Washington, that he had shared beds with seminarians as she questioned him about rumors. He tells Gibbs that he only ever traveled with groups of seminarians and not alone, and that they were always clothed when they shared a bed. He said he shared beds with them because he thought it was inappropriate to ask seminarians to share beds with each other. 

Gibbs questions McCarrick multiple times about the rumors and contacts former diocesan personnel of his, but none of them report any specific instances of improper behavior. She also talks to reporters from the Washington Post and the New York Times, who also cannot get anyone to go on the record or on background with any specific allegations. 

McCarrick is questioned for two separate media interviews about the sex abuse crisis, including the allegations against him. He tells reporters that the accusation was anonymous, that he had brought it forward, and that he had never had sexual relations with anyone in his life. 

Nov. 15, 2004: Bishop Donald Wuerl of the Diocese of Pittsburgh sends Montalvo a signed statement from Priest 2, the former seminarian and priest of the Diocese of Metuchen. In it, the priest recalls “problematic” and “extremely inappropriate” behavior including backrubs and bed sharing with McCarrick. He does not overtly accuse him of sexual abuse in the statement. There is no record that Montalvo forwarded the letter to the Vatican. 

Feb. 24, 2005: Myers writes to nuncio Montalvo warning him that McCarrick’s behavior, according to Priest 2’s lawyer, may constitute abuse. There is no record that Montalvo contacts the Vatican about this.

April 2005: McCarrick travels to Rome after the death of Pope John Paul II and participates in the conclave that elects Pope Benedict XVI.

June 2005: A settlement is reached with Priest 2 and the Diocese of Metuchen for $80,000. No lawsuit is filed, and McCarrick is not named specifically in the settlement, which also covers accusations of abuse from a high school teacher in the diocese. McCarrick sends $10,000 to the diocese around this time, apparently as part of the settlement. There is no indication that the nuncio or the Vatican know of this settlement.

Late June 2005: In a dispute about Priest 1’s fitness for ministry, summaries of the instances of abuse from McCarrick suffered by Priest 1 are sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

June 22, 2005: The night before his 75th birthday, McCarrick submits his resignation as archbishop of Washington to Pope Benedict XVI, as is customary per canon law.

Summer 2005: Cardinal Re, after consulting Pope Benedict XVI, extends McCarrick’s position in Washington two more years. 

September 2005: A canonist working with the CDF writes in an internal memorandum that Priest 1 had indicated that he did not want to cause public scandal in the Church with his allegations against McCarrick. Priest 1’s petition to return to active ministry is denied and the case considered closed by the Vatican.

Nov. 5, 2005: Pope Benedict XVI reverses the decision to extend McCarrick’s term in Washington, based on credible accusations against him, likely obtained by Archbishop William Levada, the new prefect for the Congregation for Bishops. Re informs the Congregation for Bishops of the request.

Nov. 7, 2005: Re sends nuncio Montalvo a copy of McCarrick’s Aug. 6, 2000, letter pleading innocence to Bishop Dziwisz. Re adds a note stating that new information had surfaced, making the accusations seem credible, and that he is going to ask McCarrick to withdraw from Washington. Re also writes to McCarrick asking him to come to Rome before the end of the month to discuss the decision.

Dec. 5, 2005: Re meets with McCarrick in Rome. McCarrick admits to sharing beds with seminarians but says that nothing sexual ever happened, including no “incomplete” acts. He accepts moving his resignation up to Easter 2006 but asks that it be done in a way that would not be seen as a “punishment.”

Shortly thereafter, Bishop Paul Bootkoski of the Diocese of Metuchen forwards to nuncio Montalvo specific allegations previously made by Priest 1 and Priest 2. Priest 2 recalled specific instances of sharing a small bed with McCarrick during which there was “inappropriate ... although not clearly sexual” physical contact.

Priest 1 said he had witnessed “sexual touching” of McCarrick with his sleeping partner on one trip and that he was told he “would be next.” On a subsequent trip, McCarrick shared a bed with Priest 1 and touched him in a sexual way. The reports are forwarded to Re.

Dec. 17, 2005: Montalvo announces his retirement from the U.S. nunciature, and Archbishop Pietro Sambi is named as his successor. 

Dec. 28, 2005: Re writes to Montalvo, still in office, to inform him of his meeting with McCarrick and to ask him to start the process of finding McCarrick’s successor in Washington, D.C. 

Jan. 17, 2006: McCarrick meets again with Re in Rome. This time, McCarrick brings a three-page handwritten refutation of the allegations against him. He emphasizes that he never had sexual relationships with anyone in his life and vigorously denies that he had ever had any inappropriate contact with anyone, swearing to it on his “oath as a bishop.” He then says he would accept the judgment of the Holy Father. 

March 2006: McCarrick asks Monsignor Robert Sheeran, president of Seton Hall University, about residing part time in an on-campus residence for priests, close to the seminary. Archbishop Myers tells Sheeran he strongly opposes the move. McCarrick arranges to live part time at the Redemptoris Mater seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland.

May 16, 2006: Pope Benedict XVI accepts McCarrick’s resignation as archbishop of Washington. Bishop Donald W. Wuerl is selected as his successor. As archbishop emeritus, McCarrick receives housing, a stipend, health benefits, an office, a secretary, and transportation. He declines to draw a pension.

June 2006: An attorney representing Priest 1 meets with officials from the Diocese of Metuchen, and an incident report is filed with the diocese. Priest 1 has since moved to a different state and has been removed from the clerical state due to accusations that he had sexually assaulted two minors. The report notes that Priest 1’s allegations against McCarrick had also been filed with multiple district attorneys’ offices as well as dioceses in New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

In the report, Priest 1 recalls that he witnessed McCarrick having sex with another priest and that on multiple, specific occasions, he felt forced to share a bed with McCarrick, who would touch him in a sexual manner.

August 2006: Priest 1’s attorney and representatives of the dioceses of Newark and of Metuchen agree to a mediation conference with a former civil judge on Nov. 15, 2006.

Oct. 3, 2006: Archbishop Myers faxes the incident report to the U.S. nunciature. In a memorandum, a nunciature official notes the unequal relationship of McCarrick to Priest 1, as the incidents took place when Priest 1 was a seminarian — “thus a ‘superior-subordinate’ relationship.” The nunciature faxes the report to the Congregation for Bishops.

Oct. 17, 2006: Re, prefect of the congregation, responds to U.S. nuncio Sambi and, fearing media scandal, advises that McCarrick move out of his seminary residence and live a life of quiet prayer “so as to not cause himself to be spoken of.” Re adds that he discussed McCarrick’s situation with Wuerl in Rome but that the nuncio should be the one to ask McCarrick to move and live a quiet life of prayer. 

November 2006: Priest 1’s testimony about incidents regarding McCarrick were video recorded. No records indicate that the recording was sent to the Vatican. The parties agree to a settlement for Priest 1’s claims.

Sambi advises Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone against involving McCarrick in further foreign and domestic affairs of the Church due to allegations of abuse against McCarrick.

Dec. 6, 2006: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, at the time the delegate for pontifical representations within the Secretariat of State, writes a memorandum related to the November 2006 communication from Sambi to Bertone.

In it, he notes that Priest 1’s accusations “amount to the crimes of entrapment, solicitation of seminarians and priests to commit wicked acts, repeatedly and simultaneously with more than one person, making a mockery of the young seminarian who tried to resist the archbishop’s seduction in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplice to these wicked acts, and sacrilegious concelebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts.” 

Viganò’s memorandum is read by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri and Secretary of State Bertone, who phones Re to speak about the matter. The memorandum is then archived.

December 2007: Sambi meets with McCarrick to discuss his move out of the Redemptoris Mater seminary and the request that he live a quiet life of prayer. An emotional McCarrick tells Sambi that because Priest 1 was 25 at the time of the allegations, what had happened was not a crime, and that his continued pursuit of the allegations seemed to be a grab for money. 

January 2007: Sambi reports his meeting with McCarrick to Re and adds that he looked into whether the leaders of Redemptoris Mater seminary considered McCarrick an active threat. Seminary leaders say McCarrick was “touchy” but they did not consider him to be a threat.

Jan. 15, 2007: Bertone and Pope Benedict XVI discuss problems relating to McCarrick in a private and unrecorded audience. Bertone later recalls that Benedict XVI wanted McCarrick’s activities “contained” but did not think it necessary to pursue a CDF investigation.

May 2007: Legal counsel for McCarrick tries to get Priest 1, as part of the settlement, to sign a statement saying that McCarrick never had sexual relations with Priest 1 nor did Priest 1 observe McCarrick having sexual relations with anyone. Priest 1 refuses to sign. 

August 2007: Priest 1 reaches a $100,000 agreement with the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen. The settlement does not name McCarrick or include an admission of wrongdoing. There is no record that the Vatican was informed that a settlement was reached. 

2007-2008: McCarrick remains active in work for multiple U.S. bishops’ conference committees as well as work with other Catholic nonprofits and maintains an extensive international travel schedule for this work. He attends several international events where Benedict XVI is present and engages in occasional diplomatic work for the Vatican.

McCarrick keeps Sambi regularly informed of his extensive travels. McCarrick writes to Sambi about having spoken with Pope Benedict XVI during a 2008 general audience: “I did see the Holy Father during the public audience and his greeting to me was, ‘You are still traveling a lot.’” McCarrick admits he did not know if this was a warning or a friendly greeting. 

Sambi seeks McCarrick’s input on numerous matters including politics, international affairs, and U.S. bishop appointments. He regularly encourages McCarrick’s activities and thanks him for his work. It appears Cardinal Re is unaware of McCarrick’s travels at this time.

McCarrick maintains residence at Redemptoris Mater Seminary in Hyattsville, Maryland, during this time, where he lives in his own wing. 

April 2008: Pope Benedict XVI travels to the U.S. McCarrick concelebrates Mass with Pope Benedict XVI at St. Patrick’s Cathedral and attends dinner with the pope in New York.

Spring 2008: Shortly after the pope’s trip, psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk Richard Sipe publishes an online “open letter“ to Pope Benedict XVI titled “Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the Pattern of the Sexual Abuse Crisis in the United States.“

Sipe claims that abuse in the Church is “systemic” and uses McCarrick as an example. He says he had heard from several seminarians about the sleepovers at the beach house and that he had written testimony from priests about sexual advances made toward them by McCarrick.

May 2008: Re writes to Sambi regarding the open letter, telling him to follow McCarrick closely and to let Re know if he needs to repeat his warnings to McCarrick about his residence and travels. He suggests working with Wuerl to find McCarrick an alternative residence to the seminary. 

Archbishop Viganò writes a second internal memorandum related to McCarrick to the Congregation for Bishops, noting the accusations in the open letter. He includes an urgent appeal to Benedict XVI to discipline McCarrick. He says dealing with the McCarrick case before legal authorities and before a scandal erupts could be healthy for the Church, and he recommends a CDF investigation. No action is taken.

Mid-May 2008: McCarrick travels to Rome and appears at a public event with Pope Benedict XVI. Re is displeased to see McCarrick in Rome and confronts him about disobeying instructions to live a more private life. McCarrick “does not take it well.”

May 27, 2008: Sambi reports to the Congregation for Bishops that he and Wuerl recommended that McCarrick cease public appearances in the U.S. but that he should be allowed to keep his international travels, as they believe it would cause McCarrick “psychological collapse” to live a life of full retirement.

June 2008: Re responds to Sambi and McCarrick separately. Re tells them both that McCarrick is not to travel publicly in the U.S. or abroad, barring rare exceptions made by the Holy See. McCarrick is also to seek residence in a home run by religious sisters or a monastery, Re suggests. Re later recalls he had communicated the substance of the letters to Pope Benedict XVI, who responds: “Good, very good.”

August 2008: McCarrick writes to Sambi about the restrictions against him. He says he was “bewildered” by Re’s letter because he thought he had been following Vatican instructions by not actively seeking invitations to travel but rather by accepting them from bishops. 

He says he was concerned that sudden cancellations of events, or a sudden move to a monastery, would raise red flags in the media. He asks to be moved to a parish, Seton Hall University or other universities, or Rome for his retirement rather than a home for the elderly or a monastery. He promises to cease public engagements. 

McCarrick keeps numerous domestic and international public commitments made prior to this letter, which had been left to his judgment. 

September 2008: McCarrick appeals to Re and Bertone for leniency regarding his residence and travels.

Sept. 8, 2008: Re responds to nuncio Sambi, saying McCarrick must consult with Wuerl about moving to a parish and must decline public engagements both in the U.S. and abroad, unless he has explicit permission from the Vatican to do otherwise.

Sept. 17, 2008: Bertone meets with McCarrick in Rome and reiterates restrictions from Re regarding his residence and public engagements.

Oct. 1, 2008: McCarrick writes to Sambi to clarify the sanctions against him and asks permission to attend some interreligious meetings with the Catholic delegation to the Vatican. He adds that he will appeal to the Holy Father for permission to visit Rome.

Oct. 3, 2008: Sambi responds to McCarrick and reiterates the sanctions against him, including that he should not travel for groups and agencies of which he is a member. 

Oct. 7, 2008: McCarrick writes his letter to Re with blind copy to Bertone. He asks for leniency on the travel sanctions, particularly to be allowed to go to Rome to pray and attend public audiences of the pope. He also asks to be allowed to travel to help with Catholic Relief Services projects in developing countries.

Oct. 21, 2008: Re responds to McCarrick. He says McCarrick would be allowed to visit Rome for private pilgrimages and to visit friends. He tells McCarrick to decline future invitations to engage in meetings for Muslim-Christian dialogue and Catholic Relief Services work, unless given explicit permission from the Congregation for Bishops.

Early November 2008: McCarrick meets with Re on Re’s invitation. There is no record of the meeting.

Nov. 4, 2008: McCarrick emails CRS president Kenneth Hackett and Archbishop Timothy Dolan (then chairman of CRS’ board of directors), with a blind copy to Sambi. McCarrick reports that he had permission to continue work with CRS “as long as I can do it without too much publicity.”

Dec. 21 2008: Following the election of U.S. President Barack Obama, McCarrick writes to Sambi and Bertone, saying he had made important contacts in the new administration and asks if he should keep those contacts as a liason for the Holy See with the new administration.

Dec. 27, 2008: Sambi relays McCarrick’s message to Re and says it would be dangerous to allow McCarrick to have permission to act as a liaison to the White House. Sambi says he told McCarrick that he should instead suggest the president of the USCCB or the archbishop of Washington in his place. 

Jan. 5, 2009: McCarrick sends a confidential letter to Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. He tells him of the Vatican sanctions against him “in case you do want to pursue this.” He also tells him of the political connections he has “so that you too can guide me in any efforts that I should make in the political arena in whatever years ahead the Lord desires to give me.”

Jan. 7, 2009: McCarrick writes Sambi to report on a meeting he had with an Obama foreign policy adviser. 

Jan. 15, 2009: McCarrick writes a letter to Sambi, which encloses a letter to Re. McCarrick tells Sambi that he is “doing his best” to keep to the sanctions from Re and asks Sambi to look over his letter to Re. He also informs Sambi that he will be traveling to Israel for a Council of Religious Institutions meeting.

Jan. 19, 2009: After speaking with Sambi, McCarrick writes to Re, asking if he may participate in APSA meetings since he considers them low-profile. He adds that it has been “very difficult” to turn down invitations to attend public event invitations from the White House. He adds: “It is so interesting that my reputation among so many of my brother bishops and among the leaders of government, who have access to investigative agencies, still remains so high that they want me present at their functions while the Church seems unwilling to have any confidence in me.” 

He adds that he was “trapped” into accepting an invite to say the prayer at the opening of Congress for the House of Representatives. He also notes that he will be traveling to Israel for a project with the State Department as well as to Kosovo, Serbia, and Georgia for CRS projects.

Feb. 23, 2009: Archbishop Domenique Mamberti, the secretary for Relations with States, writes to Sambi regarding McCarrick’s activities with the White House. Mamberti writes that McCarrick should hand over all civil invitations to Cardinal Wuerl or to the president of the USCCB. Mamberti forwards a copy of the letter to Re.

Early 2009: McCarrick moves to St. Thomas the Apostle Parish in Washington, D.C., as arranged by Wuerl. According to the report, McCarrick still maintains an office at the Redemptoris Mater Seminary “and travels there frequently for work.”

McCarrick’s Holy See diplomatic passport is renewed and is sent to him through Sambi. The passport comes with a note that said it would be particularly useful for trips to the Middle East.

May 15, 2009: McCarrick writes to Re asking permission to attend APSA meetings in Rome and the pallium ceremony for Dolan’s induction to the Archdiocese of New York.

May 30, 2009: Re responds to McCarrick, approving his attendance at APSA meetings since they are private. He adds that McCarrick must not attend the pallium ceremony for Dolan due to the media attention the event will receive.

Mid-2009: There is no further record of correspondence between McCarrick and Re or any other member of the Congregation for Bishops. No investigation is launched into the investigations against McCarrick.

Heretofore, the “indications” or sanctions imposed upon McCarrick are not explicit directives of the Holy Father and thus not considered “orders” under canon law. McCarrick is still allowed to continue active ministry, including publicly celebrating Mass and the activities previously mentioned.

July 16, 2009: Archbishop Viganò leaves his position in the Secretariat of State and is appointed secretary-general of the Governorate of Vatican City, “where he would not have been involved in matters pertaining to McCarrick,” according to the report.

Fall 2008 to fall 2011: McCarrick maintains membership in a number of USCCB committees and attends its semiannual meetings. He also remains on the board and foundation for CRS and makes a number of trips for this work. He maintains an extensive international travel schedule during this period. He communicates his travel plans to the Vatican only “on rare occasions” during this time. He also continues to participate in public liturgies and consistories in Rome. There is no record he was reprimanded for this.

He continues to celebrate public Masses in the Archdiocese of Washington, give public statements, and testify before Congress.

According to the report, he keeps Sambi informed on most of his travels and activities and thanks him for his support. Sambi corresponds with him regularly, particularly about foreign affairs, and thanks McCarrick for his work. 

May 2010: An official with the Archdiocese of Washington contacts Monsignor Peter B. Wells, the assessor for general affairs of the Secretariat of State, seeking a letter from the pope or Bertone offering blessings on the occasion of McCarrick’s 80th birthday. Wells had heard “rumors” of McCarrick’s misconduct with seminarians but is not aware of the restrictions placed on McCarrick’s movements. 

June 2, 2010: In an internal memorandum of the Secretariat of State, George and Wuerl say a birthday message from the Holy Father “seemed inopportune” because it could prompt a “nasty” article from the New York Times about McCarrick’s moral life. Wells decides that a birthday message will not be sent.

June 2010: A Mass is celebrated for McCarrick’s 80th birthday and attended by prominent political officials and Catholic prelates. 

Late 2010-early 2011: McCarrick moves from St. Thomas the Apostle Parish Church to a small house near the Church of the St. John Baptist de la Salle Parish in Hyattsville (Chillum), Maryland, which is under the care of the IVE religious order. 

Jan. 12, 2011: McCarrick is appointed by the Library of Congress as the distinguished senior scholar in the library’s John W. Kluge Center to study the role of religion in diplomacy and peace negotiations. He accepts the appointment after consulting Sambi. 

July 27, 2011: Sambi dies suddenly. Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume is the person responsible for the nunciature until Sambi’s successor is appointed.

McCarrick communicated to Sambi and then communicates to Lantheaume his interest in continuing to help build relationships with China and offers his assistance as needed in this area. 

August 2011: Priest 3 files a civil complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the Diocese of Metuchen, the Archdiocese of Newark, and Bishop Bootkoski. It does not name McCarrick but describes three incidents involving him in explicit detail. The complaint is not forwarded to the nunciature.

September 2011: McCarrick travels to Iran to meet with the country’s president and other officials about two American hikers being held in the country. The hikers are soonafter released, and the trip is highly publicized.

Oct. 19, 2011: Viganò is appointed by Pope Benedict XVI as Sambi’s successor as U.S. nuncio. According to the report, Viganò receives no written instructions regarding McCarrick, though Cardinal Marc Ouellet, who was appointed prefect in 2010, recalled telling Viganò that McCarrick’s movements were restricted due to past conduct.

In his 2018 testimony, Viganò said he repeated sanctions to McCarrick in a meeting with him. According to the report, there is no record of this meeting, and McCarrick denied that it took place.

During Viganò’s nunciature, McCarrick keeps up his normal activities with the USCCB committees of which he was a member as well as his activities with CRS. He also continues extensive international travels and makes numerous public appearances.

McCarrick regularly communicates his activities and travels to Viganò, and according to the report, there is no record that Viganò recommended McCarrick stop them. 

March 2012: Priest 3’s counsel files a certification in the New Jersey case “signed by Priest 3 under penalty of law, which detailed the three incidents involving McCarrick.” There are no records of the nunciature being informed of the certification.

June 2012: McCarrick writes to Viganò, letting him know of multiple upcoming international trips and meetings. McCarrick says that though he enjoyed “the give-and-take of these meetings, I am most willing to go into a more retirement mode if Your Excellency or my other superiors feel that this would be preferred.”

There is no record that Viganò asked McCarrick to enter into a more low-profile retirement mode.

June 29, 2012: A parishioner from Maryland writes to the Archdiocese of Washington expressing concerns about McCarrick, calling him a “predator.” She expresses concerns about his residence at the seminary, his assignment of priest “secretaries,” and his freedom to “roam the world seeking the destruction of souls.” There are no specific accusations made.

Viganò notes the “serious” accusations, but the record does not indicate that he followed up with anyone about the letter.

July 24, 2012: McCarrick and his priest secretary attend a dinner at the nunciature with Viganò. McCarrick sends a thank-you note the next day. 

Aug. 6, 2012: Priest 3 writes a letter to Viganò. He says he was sexually assaulted by McCarrick during his time in Metuchen, which he believed was the cause of his “recent problems with the Diocese of Metuchen.” He says he felt he had been wrongfully accused of financial mismanagement and transferred from the Portuguese and Brazilian communities he had been serving.

“Cardinal McCarrick was a sexual predator. As one of his victims, I saw firsthand what it was to be a priest in America,” he writes.

He adds that his civil case is pending, but that regardless, he plans to go public with his accusations against McCarrick, as well as accusations of misconduct against Bishop Bootkoski, and to take his case to the CDF. 

Aug. 13, 2012: Viganò writes to Congregation for Bishops prefect Ouellet, attaching Priest 3’s letter and a copy of Re’s June 2008 letter directed to McCarrick. He notes that this was the first he was hearing of accusations against Bootkoski.

Viganò notes that McCarrick had not followed Re’s instructions to live a private life and traveled extensively and continued to accept public invitations. He also adds that he only recently changed residences and that his new residence still gave him access to young religious of the IVE.

“Accordingly, one can affirm that Cardinal Re’s admonition to him is a dead letter,” Vigano writes. He says he awaited instructions on how to act and feared a public scandal regarding McCarrick was imminent. 

Copies of the letter are sent to Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, the substitute in the First Section of the Secretariat of State, and to Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, the new prefect of the CDF.

Sept. 8, 2012: Viganò writes Ouellet after seeing an advertisement that McCarrick has been invited to be a featured speaker at a vocations retreat in the Archdiocese of Washington. He asks Ouellet to issue new restrictions against McCarrick. Viganò then informs Wuerl, who says he was unaware of the event and would cancel it.

Sept. 12, 2012: Ouellet responds to Viganò with instructions for McCarrick. He tells him to 1) Clarify Priest 3’s accusations; and 2) Reiterate to McCarrick that he should live a reserved life of prayer and only travel or accept invitations with the explicit permission of the Holy See. He tells Viganò to evaluate McCarrick’s current residence to see whether it presented a problem.

According to the report, there is no record that Viganò ever contacted Priest 3, who later recalled that he was disappointed to not hear a response from Viganò. Viganò instead “telephoned Bishop Bootkoski, who informed Viganò that Priest 3 was neither credible nor reliable.”

There is no record of Viganò informing leadership of the USCCB or CRS about the renewed restrictions against McCarrick or of an investigation into McCarrick’s new residence. 

Mid-November 2012: At the fall general assembly of the USCCB, McCarrick meets with Viganò to complain that he went through Wuerl to cancel the vocations dinner. McCarrick recalled in later interviews that he told Viganò to talk with him directly if he had a problem. McCarrick said Viganò stayed silent during the meeting and “never said anything more to me. He never said I was doing anything wrong. He never did say anything to me about my ‘conduct.’” 

McCarrick reported this meeting to Wuerl. There is no record of this meeting elsewhere, in correspondence to the Vatican or in nunciature files.

Feb. 10, 2013: Pope Benedict XVI announces his intent to resign. While McCarrick is too old to vote in the next conclave, he attends meetings in Rome with the cardinals and remains in Rome for the duration of the conclave.

March 13, 2013: Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is elected pope and takes the name Francis.

Pope Francis met with McCarrick prior to his papacy during McCarrick’s trips to Argentina in 2004 and 2011. According to the report, Francis knew McCarrick was an “indefatigable traveler” engaged in Church work throughout the world despite being retired.

Prior to becoming pope, Francis would not have known of the accusations or restrictions against McCarrick, nor were they discussed in meetings with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. 

Early May 2013: McCarrick ordains an IVE seminarian in California without the proper authorization required by the Code of Canon Law. Wuerl, recognizing the error, writes to Viganò to grant McCarrick the authorization, as he was also scheduled to ordain priests at the end of May for the Archdiocese of Washington.

Viganò submits the request to Rome and informs Wuerl once permission is granted. There is no discussion about whether it would be appropriate for McCarrick to perform ordinations. 

McCarrick writes to Viganò and Pope Francis to thank them for the prompt granting of permission to ordain priests.

May 20, 2013: Bishop Bootkoski writes to Viganò, informing him that a confidential settlement had been reached with Priest 3, the Diocese of Metuchen, and Bootkoski, without “any admission of liability.” 

Bootkoski encloses a letter sent to Priest 3 after the settlement was reached. Priest 3 had been placing flyers on windshields in the dioceses, accusing Bootkoski of engaging in homosexual relations and accusing McCarrick of being a sexual predator. Bootkoski outlines “remedial measures” for Priest 3, including supervision, therapy, and spiritual direction. 

June 13, 2013: Viganò writes to Ouellet, forwarding Bootkoski’s letters. According to the report, this “constituted Viganò’s sole response to Ouellet’s letter of Sept. 12, 2012.” There is no other correspondence with Vatican officials about the accusations or restrictions against McCarrick or Priest 3’s case. 

The report noted that Pope Francis was still not consulted in matters regarding McCarrick. It added that Becciu, who was serving as substitute in the Secretariat of State since mid-2011, later recalled that he had mentioned restrictions in McCarrick to Pope Francis sometime in 2013 and once again in the next few years.

Pope Francis later recalled that he had never heard specific accusations and that he assumed that had been found to be without grounds, because of John Paul II’s elevation of McCarrick. John Paul II was so “morally strict, of such moral rectitude, that he would never have permitted a rotten candidacy to move forward,” Francis said.

June 20, 2013: Pope Francis receives McCarrick in a brief private audience at the Domus Santa Marta.

June 21, 2013: Pope Francis individually greets over 100 nuncios gathered for a meeting in Rome, including Viganò. 

June 23, 2013, and Oct. 10, 2013: Pope Francis meets with Viganò at Santa Marta. Viganò later said that during these meetings, he told Francis that there was a thick file of accusations against McCarrick at the Congregation for Bishops, that he had committed “crimes” and was a “serial predator.”

Pope Francis said in a later interview that he did not recall Viganò speaking of McCarrick with any “force or clarity.” He said he likely would remember being told of any crimes or abuse committed by McCarrick since he was familiar to him.

There are no written records of these meetings, nor any other written records of Viganò communicating with the Secretariat of State, the Congregation for Bishops, or Ouellet about McCarrick. 

McCarrick’s activities 2013-2017: McCarrick keeps up his activities with CRS, the USCCB, as well as numerous public events, Masses, ordinations, and the consecration of bishops, as well as an extensive international travel schedule. He also continues his customary gift-giving to Vatican officials at Christmas. 

Until 2016, McCarrick lived in the second story of a house at the IVE seminary in Maryland. In early 2017, he moved to a retirement home run by the Little Sisters of the Poor, at the request of Wuerl and due to declining health.

Between these years, he also wrote 17 known letters to Pope Francis, often discussing his overseas travels. He also made recommendations for bishop appointments in the U.S. He was occasionally thanked for these letters by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Becciu, and a few times by the pope.

In the course of his travels, McCarrick met with Pope Francis privately on June 2013, February 2016, and February 2017. He also occasionally saw him while staying at the Santa Marta in Rome.

McCarrick regularly communicated with Vigano as well, including about his travels and participation in ordinations and other public events. 

2013-2014: McCarrick increases his trips to China in order to improve Vatican-China relations. According to the report, these trips were funded by private lay U.S. Catholic donors. Pope Francis’ adviser on China at the time was Parolin. 

April 2014: McCarrick is sent by the U.S. State Department with other religious leaders to the Central African Republic on a conflict resolution mission. The trip receives some media publicity in the U.S.

May 5, 2014: Viganò, concerned with McCarrick’s movements, writes to Parolin. He asks whether there are new instructions regarding McCarrick, given that he is continuing to make public appearances despite the Congregation for Bishops’ restrictions. 

July 14, 2014: After a brief conversation with Parolin, Ouellet writes a letter to the Secretary of State about the restrictions given against McCarrick, including that he move out of Redemptoris Mater seminary and that he live a private life of prayer and not accept invitations in the U.S. or abroad.

Parolin makes a note to speak with McCarrick about what he had learned from Viganò and Ouellet. The report added that Parolin “adhered to the diplomatic precept that it is best to promote dialogue and ‘never close a door’” and thus allowed McCarrick’s China project to continue. Parolin did not take any further action.

March 16, 2015: Becciu responds to Viganò’s May 2014 letter regarding McCarrick’s travels. He says the information had been “carefully noted.” 

February 2016: McCarrick travels to Beijing and discusses environmental policy and the encyclical Laudato Si’ with an nongovernmental organization leader. After the trip, he meets with Parolin in Rome to discuss what he had learned. 

March 8, 2016: McCarrick writes to Pope Francis thanking him for allowing him to continue his work and travels but offers to go into retirement at any time. He also writes to Parolin, informing him of upcoming meetings with Muslim leaders but also offering to go into retirement.

Parolin later recalled briefly mentioning “gossip” about McCarrick’s “past imprudent acts” to Pope Francis around this time, but he said he did not present it as grave matter. He said Francis responded that perhaps McCarrick could still be useful. 

April 12, 2016: Viganò’s resignation is accepted by Pope Francis. Archbishop Christophe Pierre is appointed the new U.S. nuncio. Toward the end of his term, Viganò thanks McCarrick in a letter “for your commendable ministry to the Church universal and your reaching out most recently to China and the Muslim world, efforts that will no doubt bear much fruit.”

June to November 2016: McCarrick attends several meetings with Chinese officials in Rome. According to the report, these “secondary contacts initiated by Cardinal McCarrick appear to have played no role in leading to the eventual formal agreement between China and the Holy See related to bishops in September 2018.”

June 8, 2017: The Archdiocese of New York receives a claim through its Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program alleging that McCarrick “unlawfully touched” Minor 1 in the early 1970s, when Minor 1 was 16 or 17. This was the first allegation against McCarrick involving a named minor. The allegation is reported to local law enforcement.

Sept. 7, 2017: Cardinal Dolan writes to Parolin for instructions on how to proceed with the allegation. 

Oct. 18, 2017: Pope Francis, via the cardinal secretary of state, tells Dolan to conduct the preliminary investigation called for in canon law and to have the review board of the archdiocese examine the allegation according to its own norms and that of the USCCB. 

Oct. 28, 2017: Parolin, at the request of Pope Francis, tells Dolan to submit the findings of these initial investigations to the CDF. 

December 2017 to April 2018: The preliminary investigation is conducted with the assistance of lay investigators. The review board conducts interviews with the claimant and McCarrick and unanimously finds the allegations to be credible. 

April 23, 2018: Dolan communicates the board’s findings to Parolin.

May 8, 2018: Dolan recommends to Parolin that, given the gravity of allegations against McCarrick, he be permanently removed from public ministry to a life of prayer and penance, and that the case be made public, as it involved sexual abuse of a minor. 

May 2018: Becciu informs Pope Francis that the allegation against McCarrick involving Minor 1 was found to be credible. He later recalled that the pope was “shocked” by the news.

May 22, 2018: Parolin writes to nuncio Pierre, asking him to send a letter to McCarrick. The letter tells McCarrick “in the name of the Holy Father” to strictly refrain from public ministry and appearances “until a final decision is made” regarding the allegation.

June 20, 2018: The decision to pull McCarrick from public ministry is made public. Following this, more individuals and information come forward about McCarrick’s misconduct, including a second minor. The Holy See starts a search to identify even more possible victims.

July 28, 2018: Pope Francis accepts McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals.

Dec. 14, 2018: Pope Francis authorizes the CDF to conduct an administrative penal proceeding regarding the McCarrick case. With CDF support, Father Richard Welsh, the judicial vicar of the Archdiocese of New York, gathers evidence and testimonies from witnesses. 

Jan. 3, 2019: McCarrick is heard and his legal counsel submits a defense. The information from the proceedings is sent to the CDF and to the civil authorities.

Jan. 11, 2019: Based on the findings of the proceeding, the congress of the CDF issues a decree that states that McCarrick was found guilty of solicitation during the sacrament of confession as well as “sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.”

The prescribed penalty is dismissal from the clerical state. McCarrick attempts an appeal of the decision.

Feb. 13, 2019: After considering McCarrick’s appeal, the CDF confirms the original verdict and penalty, which is soon after confirmed final by Pope Francis. 

2018-2019: The USCCB and the dioceses of New York, Newark, and Metuchen, as well as Seton Hall University, all launch their own investigations into files related to McCarrick or cooperate with Vatican and civil investigations. 

Besides knowledge of bed sharing and inappropriate conduct with seminarians, as well as the reports made to the Diocese of Metuchen by the priests, these investigations do not uncover prior knowledge of sexual abuse of minors by McCarrick by anyone at these entities.

July 28, 2021: McCarrick is charged with sexually assaulting a teenage boy in Massachusetts in the 1970s, marking the first time the disgraced ex-prelate was criminally charged with abuse. 

July 29, 2021: A civil lawsuit is filed in a New Jersey court accusing McCarrick of sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy in 1986.

Au. 4, 2021: A new civil lawsuit is announced against McCarrick alleging sexual abuse during the late 1970s. 

Sept. 1, 2021: Two new lawsuits are brought against McCarrick alleging sexual abuse dating to 1991. 

Sept. 3, 2021: McCarrick appears in a Massachusetts district court and pleads not guilty to several charges of sexual assault. 

Sept. 16, 2021: Another sex abuse lawsuit is filed against McCarrick in a New Jersey court. 

Sept. 30, 2021: A New Jersey federal judge rules that the Archdiocese of Newark can be held financially responsible for the abuse committed by McCarrick.

Nov. 23, 2021: A former Catholic priest who had previously alleged McCarrick sexually abused him when he was a seminarian files a lawsuit against the accused abuser. 

Jan. 13, 2023: McCarrick’s lawyers claim he is in “significant” mental decline and may not be fit to stand trial for the abuse that allegedly occurred in the 1970s. 

Feb. 27, 2023: McCarrick files a motion claiming he is “legally incompetent” to stand trial for the 1970s sex abuse charges, citing “significant, worsening, and irreversible dementia.”

April 16, 2023: McCarrick is criminally charged with fourth-degree sexual assault in Wisconsin for an incident that allegedly occurred in April 1977.

June 2023: A mental health expert hired by Massachusetts says McCarrick is not competent to stand trial on the criminal sexual abuse charges in that state. 

Aug. 30, 2023: A Massachusetts district judge says McCarrick is not competent to stand trial on criminal sexual abuse charges due to his dementia. 

Jan 10, 2024: A Wisconsin judge suspends the criminal sexual assault case against McCarrick in that state after a psychologist hired by the court found that the former prelate is not competent to stand trial.

Dec. 27, 2024: A Wisconsin judge says the sexual assault case against McCarrick will remain paused until the laicized clergyman dies. 

April 4, 2025:  McCarrick dies at 94.

This timeline was first published on CNA on Nov. 21, 2020, and was updated April 4, 2025.

Father Arul Carasala served as a pastor in the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas for over 20 years. / Credit: Courtesy of Archdiocese of Kansas City

CNA Staff, Apr 4, 2025 / 18:12 pm (CNA).

Police have arrested a man in connection with Thursday’s shooting death of a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas.

Gary Hermesch was taken into custody at the Nemaha County Jail under suspicion of first-degree murder in the shooting of Father Arul Carasala, according to the Nemaha County Sheriff’s Office. 

Carasala had been shot at Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Seneca on Thursday afternoon. The priest later died from his injuries at Nemaha Valley Community Hospital, according to a press release from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

The motive for the shooting was unclear as of Friday afternoon. An employee of the parish told the Associated Press that “an older man walked up to [Carasala] and shot him three times.” 

Hermesch, 66, is reportedly a resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The Kansas Bureau of Investigation and the Nemaha sheriff’s office were investigating the shooting as of Friday. 

Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann said in a Facebook post that Carasala “was a devoted and zealous pastor who faithfully served our archdiocese for over 20 years.” 

“His love for Christ and his Church was evident in how he ministered to his people with great generosity and care,” the archbishop said. “His parishioners, friends, and brother priests will deeply miss him.”

Nuns of the Little Sisters of St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus in Haiti. / Credit: Courtesy of Aid to the Church in Need

ACI Prensa Staff, Apr 4, 2025 / 17:24 pm (CNA).

Sisters Evanette Onezaire and Jeanne Voltaire, members of the Congregation of the Little Sisters of St. Therese of the Child Jesus, were murdered in Haiti by armed gangs that continue to sow chaos in several cities across the country.

The news was confirmed April 2 by Archbishop Max Leroy Mésidor of Port-au-Prince to the pontifical foundation Aid to the Church in Need, following media reports of the attack perpetrated by members of a coalition of gangs known as “Vivre Ensemble” (“Living Together”).

The group stormed the town of Mirebalais in central Haiti on Monday, March 31, freeing some 500 prisoners from a jail, storming a police station, and setting fire to several homes, although the exact number of homes affected has not yet been determined.

According to the pontifical institution, when the attack began, the nuns “were forced to take refuge with others in a house. Unfortunately, the attackers discovered their hiding place and murdered the entire group.”

“During this attack, several murders occurred, including the two sisters from the local congregation of the Little Sisters of St. Therese of the Child Jesus. All the prisoners have escaped, and the bandits occupy the city,” Mésidor confirmed.

According to the Latin American and Caribbean Bishops’ Council, the spokesman for the Haitian Bishops’ Conference (CEH), Father Marc Henry Siméon, issued a letter expressing mourning and condemnation, stating that they are “assaulted by the injustice and absurdity of a world that seems to be collapsing under the weight of evil.”

The CEH also reiterated its call for reason to “the architects of violence and those involved in crime; this call is also intended to be a call for respect for the life and dignity of this wounded people.”

How does violence affect the life of the Catholic Church?

Haiti continues to be mired in a wave of violence, exacerbated by the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse on July 7, 2021. Since then, the country has faced a power vacuum, lacked legitimate elected leadership, and suffered the growing influence of armed gangs that control large areas of the country.

Mésidor lamented that the situation also affected life in churches, noting that “28 parishes in the Archdiocese of Port-au-Prince are closed, while around 40 are operating at a reduced level due to gang control in their neighborhoods.”

Priests “have been forced to flee, seeking refuge with their families or other clergy. They need help. The archdiocese is also in difficulty,” Mésidor told the pontifical foundation.

“Here in Haiti, our Lent is truly a Calvary, but we offer it in communion with the sufferings of Christ. Haiti is in flames and urgently needs help. Who will come to help us?” he asked.

This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA.

Former cardinal Theodore McCarrick arrives at Massachusetts’ Dedham District Courthouse for his arraignment, Sept. 3, 2021. / Credit: Andrew Bukuras/CNA

CNA Staff, Apr 4, 2025 / 15:47 pm (CNA).

Theodore McCarrick, the disgraced former cardinal and archbishop of Washington who spent decades moving in the highest circles in the Church and was later found guilty in a Vatican investigation of sexually abusing minors and adults, died April 3 at age 94. 

A spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Washington on Friday shared a statement with CNA in which Cardinal Robert McElroy confirmed McCarrick’s passing. McCarrick, who was reportedly suffering with dementia, had been living in a facility in rural Missouri. 

“Today I learned of the death of Theodore McCarrick, former archbishop of Washington. At this moment I am especially mindful of those who he harmed during the course of his priestly ministry. Through their enduring pain, may we remain steadfast in our prayers for them and for all victims of sexual abuse,” McElroy said. 

Ordained a priest in 1958, the New York-born McCarrick rose through the ranks of the American Church throughout the mid- to late-20th century. During his episcopal tenure he was an auxiliary bishop of New York, then led the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey; the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey; and later Washington, D.C.

He was a leading participant in the development of the 2002 Dallas Charter and the USCCB Essential Norms, which established procedures for handling allegations of sexual abuse concerning priests.

In 2018, reports of McCarrick’s abuse, grooming, and harassment of seminarians burst publicly onto the scene amid a nationwide reckoning on clerical sexual abuse. 

A Vatican investigation in 2019 found McCarrick guilty of numerous instances of sexual abuse, and Pope Francis laicized him in February of that year. The year after, the Vatican published a lengthy report on McCarrick examining in detail the “institutional knowledge and decision-making” regarding the former cardinal and how he continued to be promoted despite rumors of misconduct. 

In addition to the Vatican investigations, McCarrick faced numerous criminal charges. However, a Massachusetts state district judge ruled in 2023 that McCarrick was not competent to stand trial on the criminal sexual abuse charges brought against him. 

A criminal case against McCarrick in Wisconsin was suspended in January 2024 after a psychologist hired by the court found McCarrick was not competent to stand trial.

This is a developing story.

null / Credit: nito/Shutterstock

CNA Staff, Apr 4, 2025 / 14:18 pm (CNA).

New data from Oregon’s public health authority shows that the number of prescriptions for lethal drugs under the state’s assisted suicide law increased by roughly 8% last year, with assisted suicide deaths accounting for nearly 1% of all deaths in Oregon in 2024.

The data from the Oregon Health Authority, which analyzes the year 2024, shows the number of reported assisted suicide deaths decreased slightly — 376 in 2024 versus 386 in 2023. Since 1998, a total of 3,243 people have died under the state’s assisted suicide regime. 

However, nearly a third of all patients who were prescribed lethal drugs last year in Oregon are unaccounted for, as their “ingestion status” is listed by the health authority as “unknown.”

According to the report, of the 607 patients for whom prescriptions were written during 2024, 333 (55%) died from ingesting the medication, with time from ingestion until death ranging from seven minutes to 26 hours, with a median time of 53 minutes.

An additional 96 (16%) did not take the medications and later died of other causes. Forty-three people with prescriptions written in previous years ingested medication during 2024. 

At the time of reporting, “ingestion status” was unknown for 178 patients (29%), the report continues. Of these, 91 patients have died, but follow-up information was not yet available. For the remaining 87 patients, both death and ingestion status are “not yet known.”

Oregon is one of several U.S. states to have legalized assisted suicide and was the first state in the nation to do so, in 1997. Oregon’s assisted suicide law was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006. The number of recipients in Oregon remained low for the first decade and a half of the program, only exceeding 100 after 2010, before climbing sharply each year after 2013. 

Last year’s report, covering 2023, showed a more significant rise in assisted suicide prescriptions and deaths compared with 2022, with prescriptions up from 433 to 560 and known deaths up from 304 to 367.

In a Thursday statement, Lois Anderson, executive director of the pro-life group Oregon Right to Life, called the report evidence of a “devastating increase in lethal prescriptions for Oregon residents and people from other states.”

“Legal assisted suicide sends a harsh message that our state believes some lives — especially the elderly, disabled, and medically complex — are less worth living. Real dignity and compassion is shown in love, care, and support — not in offering death as a solution,” Anderson stated.

She noted that according to the report, only three patients were referred for psychological or psychiatric evaluation.

“No matter their age or condition, a patient’s request for suicide should always trigger a thorough mental health analysis,” Anderson continued. “Failure to provide this basic support for vulnerable patients is unconscionable.”

Assisted suicide is not the same as euthanasia, although the two phrases are often used interchangeably. Euthanasia necessarily involves a person other than the patient, such as a doctor, being directly responsible for ending the patient’s life. Despite being legal in some other countries, such as Canada, euthanaisa remains prohibited in the U.S. 

Assisted suicide, on the other hand, involves a doctor or other authorized health care professional making the means of suicide — usually a lethal dose of medication — available to the patient, who then kills him- or herself.

The Catholic Church teaches that euthanasia and assisted suicide are sinful because they violate human dignity and represent a rejection of God’s gift of life. 

In the face of aging, illness, and pain, the Church instead advocates for palliative care, which seeks to treat symptoms, manage pain, and improve the quality of life of people suffering from severe illnesses.

Beginning in 2022, Oregon stopped enforcing its residency requirement in response to a lawsuit from the assisted suicide and euthanasia advocacy group Compassion & Choices. The Oregon Legislature removed the residency requirement entirely the next year. In 2024, 4% of all assisted suicide drug recipents were known to live outside of Oregon. 

Oregon’s law has several outwardly protective provisions, including that the person seeking a lethal prescription must be 18 or older, capable of making and communicating his or her decision, and have a diagnosed terminal illness, with six months or fewer to live. There is also a 15-day waiting period, though patients are exempt from any waiting period that exceeds their life expectancy.

The state’s 2024 report says that most assisted suicide patients were age 65 years or older (83%) and white (92%). The most common diagnosis was cancer (57%), followed by neurological disease (15%) and heart disease (11%).