So my question is, which is worse, a cardinal abuser of minors and seminarians and young priests under his authority and pastoral care who nonetheless upholds authentic Catholic teaching and is very orthodox or the cardinal abuser who abuses the actual moral and doctrinal teachings of the Church, watering these down and undermining them along with abuse of minors and vulnerable adult men?
I ask, you answer.
But I have to say that I am appalled by the lack of the use of the term "mortal sin" and how inimical any sin, but especially mortal sin is to God.
We are moved more by legal terms like crime, murder, theft, abuse and so on than we are by two simple words, mortal sin, which in its variety of manifestations is an abomination to God.
We know that for a mortal sin to be a mortal sin, the person has to know that a particular act is seriously wrong or immoral, in other words it is grave "matter". The person must then commit the sin with full consent of the will and usually with much forethought and actual planning.
To simply this, a mortal sin is 1) grave matter; 2) the sinner knows that it is wrong and 3) the person commits the sin with full consent of the will.
I presume everything that McCarrick did in the sexual realm fulfilled what is truly a an abomination before God and thus endangered the eternal salvation of his immortal soul.
I will give him the benifit of the doubt that he confessed these abominable mortal sins. But penance in this life and in the next life will be needed, be it actual criminal prosecution and imprisonment or some kind of canonical punishment like the loss of the red hat and laicization. Of course an even greater punishment would be a canonical trial to determine if his ordination as a deacon, then as a priest and then as a bishop was valid or not, an "annulment" the Sacrament of Holy Orders--it is possible but I don't know if it has ever been used in modern Church history.
Many would say that an annulment of Holy Orders, meaning the man was never validity ordained because of a grave impediment raises other questions---his sacraments, in particular ordinations of others, confessions and so on.
But I do believe there is a doctrinal solution to that, that the Church supplies what is lacking in these unanticipated situations.
What do you think about an actual canonical trial to annul the Sacrament of Holy Orders of someone who could not enter into a valid ordination because of certain moral, psychological and criminal impediments?