Church Militant has posted an article that we suggest you read when you are able. It's about Theodore McCarrick's young years in high school, specifically in New York at Xavier High School, which was and still is a very prestigious school.
Church Militant has obtained multiple photos of McCarrick in his freshman and sophomore years, and what they show is a stellar student, involved in virtually everything and excelling in the debate club, the yearbook, the editorial staff, you name it. It's a very telling article, and we ask you to please take a couple of moments to read it — but not just for idle curiosity. The photos point to something sinister already at play way back then.
For starters, McCarrick did not graduate from Xavier. He just suddenly was no longer a student. Then, after many months that are unaccounted for, he suddenly remerged as a student at Fordham Prep, another highly prestigious school.
We are left with two questions: One, why did he suddenly depart Xavier? Two, how did he enroll in Fordham Prep? The first question is especially intriguing because someone is lying about the answer. In interviews a number of years ago, McCarrick claims he was expelled for being a bad student, an overall ne'er-do-well. In contacting Xavier, we are told he was not expelled.
Judging from the photos tracing his couple of years at Xavier, McCarrick appears to be the very opposite of a student heading for expulsion. In fact, he appears to be on his way to being voted most likely to succeed and student body president. Yet he claims he was expelled. The answer to that question appears as though it will remain a mystery, but it sure seems hard to believe he was expelled — at least for being a bad student. It could have been something else perhaps, but not that.
The second question regards how he got into Fordham Prep. Catholic schools, especially very prestigious ones, do not just enroll anyone, especially if the student had been expelled from a rival school of prestige. So how did McCarrick get into Fordham Prep? That's the second question. And it's not just curiosity because from what Church Militant has been able to piece together, it seems as though the young student (during those roughly six months he was not in either school) somehow entered into the circle of Cdl. Francis Spellman.
Whether directly or indirectly, various people we've spoken to have suggested McCarrick somehow fell under Spellman's influence during this time. The story also seems to have some merit because Spellman had a very friendly relationship with Fordham Prep, and a phone call from the cardinal or his staff would have immediately tossed aside any concerns about McCarrick's abrupt departure from Xavier.
Spellman is a figure who looms large on the landscape of the Church in America. For decades, multiple rumors have swirled around the question of him being homosexual and carrying on with young broadway entertainers, as just one example. Likewise, an article in Salon two years ago reported that a man, who at the time was a West Point cadet, says he was groped by Spellman in his office while conducting an interview for the academy paper.
A monsignor who was present at that interview kept intervening, but the young cadet, who was accompanied by another cadet, says, looking back, he now knows what was going on. And here's the interesting point of all this about Spellman: He was known for his, dare we say, rigid orthodoxy. And because of that, no one would be willing to even consider that a powerful, orthodox archbishop was a practicing homosexual. But that was 1967. Fifty years later, we are all very willing to believe it because we know such a thing can be true, the prime example being McCarrick himself, who Spellman ordained to the priesthood approximately 10 years after those missing months between Xavier and Fordham Prep.
But how could a strong, orthodox, high-ranking prelate also be a pervert? That's a point many Catholics don't get. Spellman, after all, was a ferocious defender of the Church and the Faith. Well, the answer is in an acronym: DOT (which stands for Daughters of Trent). It's an old expression for a cleric who loves the lace and pageantry and tradition and candles and incense and bells and drama of the liturgy but is also a homosexual.
On the outside, he's all about the Church. But there is another side where he is also homosexual. Many lay Catholics make the mistake of oversimplifying the whole homosexual clergy issue. They are too quick to say that if such and such a bishop is orthodox, then he's not gay. Likewise, if a particular bishop is liberal, then he must be gay.
While in very large strokes there is likely some truth to that, it's a mistake to simply assume that everything is OK just because a priest or bishop is a fan of the Latin Mass and preaches orthodoxy. DOTs are deeply conflicted. They compartmentalize — a lot. Unlike their heterodox bishop brothers, they would never say anything to deliberately undermine the Faith. They would defend it to the death. But interiorly, there is an entirely different dynamic going on.
They are sympathetic to the whole homosexual issue going on in the Church, and they made friends in seminary days with other homosexual men. Of those who stayed, most remained just parish priests. Some left and "married" homosexual men. Others remain closeted and carrying on homosexual affairs, some of them on Grindr. Some raped altar boys. And some got promoted to bishop while also being homosexual and oftentimes active.
Some gave up being active but have remained sympathetic to their homosexual comrades in miters, telling themselves that as long as minors aren't involved, it's not that bad. The hierarchy is drowning in an acceptance of sodomy. Those who are sympathetic give a pass to homosexual men, cover for them, make excuses for them, promote them, protect them, socialize with them, purchase property with them.
And the deep interior conflict these men experience prevents them from defending the Faith entirely. When it comes to areas of sexual morality, they fall silent. They get what Cdl. Timothy Dolan described as "laryngitis" on those topics, something he himself suffers from.
McCarrick is the showpiece example of all this. But he certainly was not and is not the only case. His pedigree stretches back to Spellman, who, despite the outward orthodoxy, has many questions swirling around him. Spellman greatly favored McCarrick with various assignments, thereby putting his seal of approval on him. After graduation from Fordham Prep, McCarrick traveled to Switzerland with the well-to-do Edelmann family (which would later marry into the Grein family) with whom he had become friendly during his last two years of high school.
When the family returned to the States, McCarrick remained in the family's hometown in Switzerland, St. Gallen. How a poor kid from New York managed to provide for himself in a foreign country in the immediate aftermath of World War II is another mystery. In research following the aftermath of the "Summer of Shame," Church Militant discovered that St. Gallen was one of over 30 locations in Western Europe where the Soviets had set up communist indoctrination centers in their effort to undermine the West.
The young McCarrick stayed in St. Gallen without any visible means of support, but when he returned to New York, he enrolled in seminary under Cdl. Spellman and was ordained in 1958. McCarrick went on to be the most prolific (that we know of) homopredator in the Church, often sounding very orthodox yet undermining the Faith at every turn, possibly as a communist-trained agent, given the fact that he returned to St. Gallen yearly for many years.
Until there is a move, a very public move, to rid this particular evil from the Church, every bishop is suspect — orthodox or heterodox. They refuse to acknowledge homosexuality as the omnipresent influence it is in their own ranks. They lie about it being the root of the sex abuse scandal. They will not breathe a word about it under any circumstances. Some of them — even orthodox ones — will freely admit privately that they know other bishops who are homosexual, and they are fine with it.
Whichever demon it is that controls this wicked vice, that demon has a stranglehold on the U.S. hierarchy. And it doesn't matter if the bishop is a liberal or a DOT. They are all under that demon's influence.