Over at Insight Scoop, Fr. Fessio has written a very good article explaining in detail what actually happened in the case of the pedophile priest that has the world ready to lynch the Pope. It explains the case from a POV that, surprisingly enough, I had never seen mentioned in any of the MSM reports.
The remaining problem, in my humble and quite unsolicited opinion, is that the MSM has no way to understand what is there between the lines: it is yet another case of the American bishops throwing the flock to the wolves one more time.
This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins.
It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the
priest's sins seriously. (He called the accusations "very serious"
[gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was
taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.
And again, this entire affair had nothing to do with preventing further abuse by this priest. That had already been
done, or should have been done, by the local bishop.
Emphasis mine.
In order to understand Fessio's explanation of the case, one would have to understand the Church's position on the nature of a vow. Needless to say, in a world where the celebrities we worship get married for a weekend, it's hard to make anyone other than an orthodox Catholic understand that context. (As we discovered in the last election, 54% of American Catholics cannot be bothered to care what the Church teaches.)
Of course, it is very helpful for Fr. Fessio to spell it all out for the orthodox Catholics one more time. (I say that as someone who needed to have it spelled out.) I have always said that there is nothing wrong with preaching to the choir, because the choir needs the moral support! And the choir is capable of becoming extremely confused, in a world where they are told that they'll go to Hell for missing Mass, and yet they watch Abortion Queen Nancy Pelosi waltz down the aisle to communion every Sunday.
But...
I still have a problem with the state of things. (Everyone is surprised, right?) And it is this: WHY do the Powers That Be continue to use "the bishop should have done it" as an excuse, when surely they know who our bishops are. Yes, this case is very old. But how many years has Cardinal Mahony remained the shepherd of Los Angeles, long after Rome knew full well who he was/is? While everyone is now celebrating that L.A. will finally have a real bishop, anyone who lives in L.A. knows what he is up against, and knows that it will take many years before he's able to make a difference.
And now the chorus about how slowly the Church works... blah blah blah.
Here's the thing: mothers don't care how slowly the Church works. Mothers care about the souls of their children.
A priest friend told me, not long ago, that the #1 cry he hears from parents re their children is not that they'll get into a good college or find a good spouse, or even that they'll escape accident and illness. The #1 concern of parents is for the souls of their children.
For years I have been saying that if priests, bishops and popes had children, the Church would not spend hundreds of years righting a wrong.
Maybe the Pope was guiltless 25 years ago, but he knows who our bishops are now, and they are still our bishops. So I still have a problem.
Recent Comments