On April 3, 2025, former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick died at the age of 94. His death closes a dark stage in the recent history of the Catholic Church in the United States, but it also invites us to turn our gaze to its protective environment, its network of allies and beneficiaries. Among them, a congregation that our readers know well: the Institute of the Incarnate Word (IVE), founded by Carlos Miguel Buela in Argentina in 1984.
The relationship between McCarrick and the IVE was not superficial or merely diplomatic. It involved direct financial support, participation in key institutional events, shared accommodation with seminarians. This article compiles public sources to critically examine this alliance.
A privileged benefactor
Former Cardinal McCarrick was one of the key benefactors of the IVE in the United States. According to documents revealed by The Washington Post, between 2001 and 2018 McCarrick distributed more than $600,000 from a special fund of the archbishopric to various people and institutions. Part of that money was destined to the IVE and its founder, even when allegations of abuse against both were already circulating (The Washington Post, 2018).
In 2020, The National Catholic Register confirmed that McCarrick donated at least $1 million to the IVE over several years, in an opaque transfer scheme. The congregation did not deny the fact and the Vatican did not take steps to demand the return of the funds, despite the fact that the founder of the IVE had already been sanctioned for abuse of power and sexual misconduct with adult seminarians (National Catholic Register, 2020).
A pattern of abuse: seminarian grooming
The McCarrick scandal became international when in 2018 testimonies of men who had been subjected to grooming – a form of emotional and spiritual manipulation – by the then-cardinal came to light. The modus operandi was repeated for decades: invitations to cohabitation, emotional pressures, non-consensual “affectionate” touching, and a vertical structure that nullified any ability to defend themselves.
The official Vatican investigation, published in 2020, documented how McCarrick shared a bed with seminarians in retirement homes and beach houses, often without them feeling free to reject the situation (The McCarrick Report, 2020).
The relationship with the IVE in this context becomes even more troubling: for years, McCarrick lived in the IVE’s home in Maryland, where he was assisted daily by seminarians and young priests from the institute. As reported by Catholic News Agency, this residence offered him “comfort, anonymity and young staff” who cared for him, including transfers, meals and personal assistance (CNA, 2018).
No testimony has directly linked IVE seminarians to McCarrick’s abuse, but the prolonged exposure of young people in formation to a figure already under suspicion raises serious questions about the institute’s institutional responsibility.
Mutual support: ordinations and legitimation
In 2004, McCarrick traveled to Argentina to ordain priests of the IVE, despite growing internal allegations against Carlos Buela. In 2014, he again officiated at a priestly ordination of the institute in Buenos Aires. These ceremonies not only strengthened diplomatic ties between the two, but also sent a message of mutual legitimation: McCarrick continued to be presented as a father figure, even a “saint”, by the IVE, while the IVE benefited from his prestige to expand internationally (AICA, 2014).
The exchange was not only symbolic: the IVE offered hospitality, visibility and obedience; McCarrick responded with influence, funds and institutional coverage. In this context, it is no coincidence that for years the Holy See ignored the allegations against Buela, nor that the Vatican’s 2020 report on McCarrick omitted any reference to the IVE.
Two parallel biographies: Buela and McCarrick
Carlos Buela was sanctioned by the Vatican in 2016 after an investigation that confirmed “inappropriate sexual behavior” with adult seminarians. He was forbidden any contact with members of the IVE and a life of withdrawal and silence was imposed on him. However, as with McCarrick, the move came too late.
Both clerics built their careers on a vertical power structure, exacerbated clericalism and manipulation of consciences. Both cultivated images of charity, orthodoxy, and missionary zeal, while protecting abusive dynamics. And both fell only when the system that sustained them became unsustainable in the face of public pressure.
Conclusion: a warning that cannot be forgotten
McCarrick’s death does not close the case. If his story — and his relationship with the Institute of the Incarnate Word — teaches anything, it is that clerical abuse it is not sustained only by individual perversity, but by networks of complicity, economic interests and structural silences. As long as these networks are not dismantled, the possibility of new victims remains open.
The IVE, which still today trains dozens of young people in different parts of the world, must be held accountable for its role in this story. Accepting funds from an abuser, exposing seminarians to his influence and actively collaborating in their public rehabilitation are not innocent mistakes: they are institutional decisions that mark an orientation.
What is at stake here is not only the memory of the victims, but the future of the Church. A Church that does not learn from these perverse alliances is condemned to repeat them.
Leave a Reply