Top Trump Lawyer Foretells Huge New Evidence Dump in 2020 Vote Fraud Case, by Steven MosherNovember 21, 2020
Saint of the Day for November 21: Presentation of the Blessed Virgin MaryNovember 21, 2020
Fr. Gerald E. Murray, The Catholic Thing, Nov. 21, 2020
Note: We’re moving along well with this fundraising campaign, but we still need the many of you who have not responded to do so, without delay. I won’t harangue. Tomorrow is the Sabbath – the Feast of Christ the King, in fact – when fundraising doesn’t happen here. So, please, act today. You’ll be happy you did. And you’ll continue to have TCT to read every morning to get you through 2020 and into what we hope will be better days in 2021. – Robert Royal
The publication of the McCarrick Report was a welcome step by the Holy See. It answers some questions raised by the appallingly successful ecclesiastical career of a now-defrocked cardinal, long known by many to be a sexual predator who used his authority to gain access to young male victims. A closer study of the Introduction to the Report, however, raises other serious questions, and reveals fundamental deficiencies in the Report.
To begin: Who wrote the report? No author is cited. The cover page states: “Prepared by the Secretariat of State of the Holy See.” Was the author an employee of Secretariat, or someone brought in from the outside? Did he bring in investigators to help him? If so, who were they?
The credibility of an investigative report depends in large part on the up-front identification of the prior relationship between the author and the institution he is investigating. It also depends upon the author’s willingness to stand behind his findings and conclusions, as well as to answer questions and criticisms following the publication of his work. So far, this has not happened. …