Dreher, in a column dealing with the +Vigano Revelations:
...Though his was an improvement on his predecessor’s,* Pope Benedict’s
governing style was weak. It is a matter of speculation as to whether
that was a matter of recognizing painful realities (“My authority ends
at that door”), or whether it was a case of personal weakness — in
particular, a fear of giving public scandal by challenging prelates
publicly....
To the well-formed Catholic )and to well-formed NON-Catholics) it is somewhere between 'never-never' and 'extremely distasteful' to call a spade a spade, particularly if that spade is a priest or bishop. We all knew that Rembert Weakland was a fairy--but until it was revealed that he swiped $400 Large from the faithful, it was not a topic of conversation. Same goes for the couple of dozen priests who eventually were convicted of horrific child abuse; until they were 'named and shamed' by the nooz people, we knew, but didn't talk.
This may be changing; but who knows if it is really 'for the better.' And of course, having girl-ish mannerisms is simply NOT the same as assaulting teenaged boys, nor is it the same as trysting with another man--and in the latter case, the offender(s) don't wear neon signs saying "We're Doing It!!"
So there's public scandal--which B-16 wanted to avoid--and there's the other little problem: detraction.
John Hardon, SJ: [Detraction is] revealing another's sins to a third party who does not need to know about them, which is intertwined with this: Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a
natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect.
Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and
charity....
All this will be tested, severely, over the next several months.
Did +Vigano commit the sin of detraction with his letter? Well, that phrase "need to know" plays a very significant role, ain'a?
*As to JPII's authority problem, one only needs to look at his complete cave-in vis-a-vis the Jesuit order in Central America. See "The Jesuits" by Malachi Martin
On the other hand, it is a virtue to speak the truth; and the question of 'who needs to know?' looks very different given the scale of these scandals. Allowing children to suffer on this scale simply to avoid saying a true thing is avoiding the possibility of a lesser sin by assenting to a greater one.
ReplyDeleteYou and I agree. B-16 is no mean theologian/moralist, either, and it seems that he did not grok the urgency. That's something which he will forever regret, I think.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the Bishops and Cardinals themselves were not attacking boys. McCarrick was a terrible exception, yes. But most of what we see now has to do with 'covering up' the problems.
So what we have--largely--is this: Priest X abuses a boy and is caught. He's transferred and abuses again. He's transferred and abuses again. Finally the Bishop sends him to "rehab." He returns, abuses again, and the Bishop sends him into 'exile,' removing his faculties and giving him a severance plus "Go find a job in the private sector", but the priest was never indicted, prosecuted, or convicted b/c everything was handled at the Chancery.
That all happened, say, in 2005.
Should the cover-artist Bishop be named? To what end?
The priest SHOULD be named, as he's still a danger out there. But at this point in time, will the Faithful be served by knowing that Bishop X is a coverup artist?