From the accounts McCarrick used his position to coerce seminarians into behaviors they were at the lease uncomfortable with. It would be difficult to claim that consent was given when the persons involved were on such an unequal footing. McCarrick had a lot of power he could have used against these young men. What he did was wrong. And it was abuse.
How come nobody could come forward to say that when it was actually going on, and McCarrick’s ecclesiastical career could have been justly derailed early on?
Thank you for reply! I see this better now. Power and intimidation, combined with trust of priesthood. Look at snapshot of boy and McC on Vox Cantoris website- it shows in every line and gesture of the 2 figures! One strong and commanding and grabbing, the other shy, shrugging, frowning, deferential, etc.