Matt points out the concerns expressed by Tim Drake and also quotes an Illinois private investigator who is dedicated to exposing sexual predators, Thomas Hampson. Hampson points out the inconsistency in Kicanas conflicting statements that there was no "evidence" that the priest in questions had really raped the children but he concluded that the "activity" of raping children was something the priest would get out of his system eventually:
"It was an open secret that McCormack was involved with boys during the time he was in seminary. On the one hand Kicanas said there was no 'credible' evidence against McCormack. On the other he said that McCormack's involvement with two adult males and a minor, 'was a developmental process and he had learned from the process.' [A 2007 Chicago Sun-Times article] also reported that Kicanas sent McCormack to counseling for a drinking problem. What did he do about McCormack's involvement with the minor? Such involvement would have been a crime! Was he in the habit of overlooking criminal conduct that was brought to his attention? So, was there no credible evidence, or did he just consider it a developmental issue?"
I don't know how to say this charitably, but there also seems to be a problem with Kicanas' honesty.
Matt also links to concerns raised by Mary Ann Kreitzer, our efforts here in Boston, and Tom Roeser.
Catholic Culture has also picked up the story.
It is noteworthy to keep watch on the Commonweal crowd.