On 28 October 1999, Cardinal O’Connor wrote a letter in response to Nuncio Montalvo’s

prior request in July 1999. Cardinal O’Connor’s letter was dated just weeks after the Cardinal
had been released from an extended stay in the hospital for surgery to remove a brain tumor,
a condition from which he would die on 3 May of the following year.

Cardinal O’Connor’s six-page letter, accompanied by exhibits, was received by Nuncio

Montalvo, who forwarded it to the Congregation for Bishops and to the Secretariat of State.
Archbishop Re, at that time the Substitute of the Secretariat of State, informed Pope John
Paul II of Cardinal O’Connor’s letter.

Cardinal O’Connor’s letter to Nuncio Montalvo stated the following:

HIGHLY PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

FOR THE EYES OF HIS EXCELLENCY,
ARCHBISHOP GABRIEL MONTALVO
APOSTOLIC NUNCIO

Your Excellency,
As you have requested I relate here what has been brought to my attention concerning a good
friend and a devoted servant of our Holy Father, His Excellency, the Most Reverend
Theodore McCarrick.

This is an extremely difficult letter for me to write, because I have seen his extraordinary
contributions at first hand and believe that he has untiringly advanced the cause of the
Church for many, many years. For the good of the same Church and in integrity, however,
most particularly if our Holy Father should have in mind a new and even more important
assignment for Archbishop McCarrick, especially a Cardinatial See, I have no choice but to
provide you with this information.

I might add, most confidentiality (sic), that during my most recent very personal visit with
our Holy Father in late June or early July of 1999, our Holy Father seemed to make clear to
me in his own subtle way that he was very much interested in and grateful to Archbishop
McCarrick, and that he might want to place him in a higher position, even as my successor as
Archbishop of New York.

I now provide the description of events, as related to me by absolutely impeccable authorities

as occurring in the Archdiocese of Newark during this past year.

1) After Archbishop McCarrick was appointed as Ordinary, it was said that he would
frequently invite male visitors for dinner and to stay overnight. Usually they shared a
bed, although there were sufficient guestrooms. Archbishop McCarrick referred to the
visitors as neighbors or cousins. They were not cousins since he had no siblings. This
did not become known outside the house, but it was a cause of concern for those who
live there.

1|Page
 2) Shortly after coming to Newark, the Archbishop persuaded Bishop Edward Hughes,
then Bishop of Metuchen, to sell to the Archdiocese of Newark a house belonging to
the Diocese of Metuchen in Spring Lake, New Jersey, a seashore resort.[506] The
Archbishop frequently visited the house and often arranged for seminarians to visit.
The arrangement was for seven seminarians, six of whom shared the guestrooms and
one of whom shared the bed with the Archbishop. This became known and was a
source of joking among the clergy.

3) A young priest from Metuchen received much attention and accompanied the
Archbishop at least once on a trip to Puerto Rico. This priest subsequently left the
priesthood.

4) A key authority relates that the stories, especially in regard to the seashore house,
circulated in the Diocese of Metuchen, as well. At the same time, this authority states
that he had no personal knowledge of any specific problems, but believes that some
problem did occur involving at least one person, perhaps a priest, and that Bishop
Hughes handled that personally and secretly. I, myself, recall talking with Bishop
Hughes by telephone very privately, regarding this same case, which did in fact
involve at least one priest, and perhaps two. As I recall, both where (sic) in
psychiatric treatment. I personally asked a priest psychologist of the Archdiocese of
New York to speak with the psychiatrist who was treating at least one of the priests
involved, and perhaps another as well. Both the priest psychologist and the
psychiatrist seem convinced that the priests or priests (sic) in treatment were
victimized, willingly or unwillingly, in their inappropriate relationship with the then
Bishop McCarrick, while Bishop of Metuchen. I must confess that I did not really
find my discussion with the priest psychologist or the findings of the psychiatrist to
be definitely persuasive. At the same time, I could not dismiss their findings, because
of the gravity of the allegations.

5) In another vein, several years ago a so-called “preppy murder” took place in Central
Park. A young man apparently engaged in sexual activities with a young woman
[who] was convicted of murdering her. Archbishop McCarrick wrote a letter on behalf
of the young man. As memory serves, the Archbishop asked for reduction of bail, in
order [to] facilitate the young man’s being released from prison during preparatory
time for the trial. As I recall, the parents of the young woman who had been murdered
were irate. The newspapers discovered a copy of the Archbishop’s letter, so that the
matter became public. It has arisen again, particularly in speculation about who
might become the Archbishop of New York. The explanation the press has given for
the letter is that the young man’s mother was known to Archbishop McCarrick, and he
wanted to give her some support. The general assessment seems to be that the
Archbishop had made a well-intentioned but unfortunate error in judgment.

6) It is reliably reported that the various events and behavioral activities described above

2|Page
 have changed completely, and that no similar events have occurred in recent times.
Nonetheless, rumor and gossip about these earlier activities persist among the clergy,
many of whom feel that there has been little interest in them or in the diocese.

Permit me to comment on the above, first by repeating that what has been related above has
been provided me by unimpeachable and highly knowledgeable authorities. In addition I
enclose a Sub-Secreto Pontificio letter of October 3, 1996, addressed by me to His
Excellency, the Most Reverend Agostino Cacciavillan, then Apostolic Pro-Nuncio, in
response to his inquiry of September 3, 1996, Protocol Number [redacted]. The letter
concerns the potential elevation to the episcopacy of [redacted], of the Archdiocese of
Newark [redacted]. As you can see, I recommended a “dilata”, for reasons given. In addition,
however, you will note that I felt it necessary to suggest that the climate of opinion of the
Archdiocese of Newark about certain issues in the Archdiocese should be ultimately clarified
before a possible promotion might be indicated.

In addition, I regret to have to provide copies of four letters received before (sic) November
of 1992 and September 1993. Please note that it has been my long-standing policy,
whenever I receive an anonymous letter about a priest or bishop, simply to send him a copy
of the letter with a covering note, making no judgement, and usually expressing my personal
support. If verifiable, obviously, these letters would be severe indictments.

I enclose, as well, a copy of my letter addressed on April 25, 1986 to His Excellency, the
Most Reverend Pio Laghi, then Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in response to his telephone inquiry
concerning the appointment of an Ordinary for the Archdiocese of Newark. At the time, I
knew nothing of any allegations or rumors concerning the then Bishop Theodore McCarrick,
Bishop of Metuchen. As you can see, since I had known Bishop McCarrick while he was an
Auxiliary Bishop in the Archdiocese of New York and I was an Auxiliary Bishop in the
Military Vicariate, then situated in the Archdiocese of New York, I found him very
impressive and I had no hesitancy in recommending him in first place for the Archdiocese of
Newark.

The comments concerning the one or two Metuchen priests, my discussions with Bishop
Hughes, with [the] priest psychologist and his report from the psychiatrist, are unknown to at
least one of the authorities providing me with all the other allegations stated above. I offer
them on the basis of my own authority, but without complete certitude concerning the
charges alleged by the priest or priests, despite the apparent certitude of their validity on the
part of the priest psychologist and psychiatrist. On the other hand, the priest psychologist
after consulting with the psychiatrist, seemed certain of the validity of these charges of
inappropriate behavior involving the priest or priests.

A certain context might be provided concerning Archbishop McCarrick’s referring to visitors

as neighbors or cousins. It is widely understood that the Archbishop was an orphan, with no
living relatives. Nonetheless, he seems to be very close to what appears to be a highly well-
adjusted family whom he always refers to as his cousins, although it is alleged that he has no
living relatives. I remember while we were both in New York dining in their home with him
many years ago, his relationship seemed to be a very healthy one. He speaks, at times, of a

3|Page
brother in Washington, with whom he seems to stay when visiting there. A similar situation
seems to prevail, that he may call someone that he feels close to “brother” or “cousin”, not in
any way to be literal, but to express a closeness in relationship and to feel part of a blood-
related family, although such is not the case.

This is an Archbishop of extraordinary talent, of exceptional linguistic ability, given to a

pattern of almost unceasing work. Outside the circles described above, I have never heard
the vaguest references to these alleged aberrations. Certainly, I am personally unaware that
any such may be known to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, unless, of course,
the Conference has received anonymous letters, such as those I have enclosed. He works
unceasingly on various committees, in giving congressional testimony and in travelling
almost constantly to various parts of the world as a member or head of various committee
activities. As President of the Papal Foundation, he travels likewise extensively to raise
funds for our Holy Father’s charities.

Your request of me has not been to assess the Archbishop’s overall activities, but only the
unfortunate allegations described above. I should note, as perhaps germane, however, that if
I am properly informed, a major question or even criticism is raised about his seemingly
incessant need to travel outside the Archdiocese to different parts of the world and in so
doing to subordinate the demands of the Archdiocese. I mention this only to question
whether there is any relationship between this seeming need to travel outside the
Archdiocese and his apparently having put his former alleged inclinations behind
him. This would be difficult to determine. It is quite conceivable, however, that he has, by
way of this travel, put all of his energies into Church business, in part as a way of
displacing the use of that energy in the kinds of inappropriate activities described above.

What, then, would be my overall assessment at this moment? With deep regret, I would have
to express my own grave fears and those of authoritative witnesses cited above, that should
Archbishop McCarrick be given higher responsibility in the United States, particularly if
elevated to a Cardinatial See, seem[] sound reasons for believing that rumors and allegations
about the past might surface with such an appointment, with the possibility of accompanying
grave scandal and widespread adverse publicity. It has been my personal experience over
many years that the truth is very difficult to determine in such complex cases. Obviously,
however, while charity must prevail and the benefit of the doubt always given to the
“accused”, the good of souls and the reputation of the Church must be seriously considered
and the potential for scandal given equally serious consideration. I can not, therefore, in
conscience, recommend His Excellency, Archbishop McCarrick for promotion to higher
office, should this be the reason for your inquiry concerning him at this time. On the
contrary, I regret that I would have to recommend very strongly against such promotion,
particularly if to a Cardinatial See, including New York. Nevertheless, I subject my
comments to higher authority and most particularly our Holy Father. I would support
unconditionally any appointment of our Holy Father, including an appointment to the
Archbishopric of New York, and give every assistance to anyone appointed, including
Archbishop McCarrick. At the same time, I consider it a grave obligation to recommend to
higher authority, including our Holy Father personally, against such an appointment.

4|Page
Although I have forewarned neither, Your Excellency might wish to consult with His
Excellency, the Most Reverend James McHugh, currently Coadjutor-Bishop of Rockville
Centre, previously Auxiliary Bishop of Newark, with Archbishop McCarrick as his
Ordinary, then Bishop of Camden, NJ, within the same State of New Jersey and the same
Metropolitan Province. Bishop McHugh is highly authoritative in this matter.

You might want to consult, as well, the exceptionally authoritative Mr. Thomas Durkin,
Esq., very well known attorney in the Archdiocese of Newark. Mr. Durkin, a devout
Catholic, highly knowledgeable, is consulted by many, most particularly, in criminal cases,
used by both the Archdiocese of Newark and the Archdiocese of New York in assisting
when priests have been accused of grave offenses. Mr. Durkin has been frequently a
benevolent advisor to Archbishop McCarrick and, from time to time, has warned him
strongly concerning various issues of judgment and spoken with him very forthrightly about
rumors and allegations cited above. Mr. Durkin’s address is: [redacted]. Another who might
be consulted would be the Reverend Monsignor James Cassidy, the priest psychologist cited
above, whose address is: [redacted].

I must emphasize, finally, that it is conceivable that Archbishop McCarrick has never been
given the opportunity to defend himself against these allegations.

With deep regret for having to provide the above at the request of Your Excellency, and
writing very painfully about a personal friend of extraordinary ability, I nonetheless submit
the above in conscience. I am sure that Your Excellency will be kind enough to advise me if
this letter meets your needs, or if you would consider it inadequate as written, in which case I
would try to improve upon it and to provide whatever other information you may desire.

5|Page