I somewhat disagree with your statement about bishops who didn’t directly commit crimes not being responsible for the crimes the priests committed in their dioceses. The bishop’s office is the Catholic HR, and there wasn’t a single complaint or accusation that didn’t go through their office. BISHOPS protected predatory priests by using …
I somewhat disagree with your statement about bishops who didn’t directly commit crimes not being responsible for the crimes the priests committed in their dioceses. The bishop’s office is the Catholic HR, and there wasn’t a single complaint or accusation that didn’t go through their office. BISHOPS protected predatory priests by using their standing to shame a family out of reporting any incidents. BISHOPS moved those priests from parish to parish instead of defrocking sexual predators, each time giving them fresh meat to gnaw on.
Cardinal Whuerl even tried to expose the problem in the early 2000s when he was the Bishop of the Pittsburgh Diocese, but his true function was to act contrite and get NDAs from the families in exchange for money. The bishops cannot extricate themselves form a problem they perpetuated.
I understand, and join in the condemnation down the line of those bishops who hid, obfuscated and transferred the predator priests, as well as downplaying the problem.
YET, the point remains that one cannot fairly or accurately cast the condemnatory net over the entirety of the Catholic bishops.
Beyond that, the glaringly out of touch error of the bishops' position on the ERA stands on its own, without the need to color the margins with inappropriate references to the abuse scandals.
I still link the two because the power to dictate to one’s followers is the power to oppress, manipulate, and abuse. They’re not out of touch; rather they are the rock against which the waves of progress slam. And though there is a sense of safety one feels in acquiescing to the standard, that standard hides its own sins that leaders never feel the need to disclose.
And if you’re so sure of the integrity of your diocese, ask your bishop for total transparency, on any complaint made about any priests in the last 30 years. Good luck.
So since I started this conversation way above, I would like to add: Yes, Daniel, not every bishop is a criminal, it's true. HOWEVER, and I say this from experience working for one, as a group they do NOT engage in "fraternal correction" as they are supposed to do. Since each bishop is in effect accountable to no one--really not even the Pope except in rare circumstances--they can get away with everything. Fraternal correction, if indeed it is ever done, has absolutely no effect. If not one bishop (and remember, bishops are the direct descendants of the apostles) has the cojones to stand up and say "this is wrong," then it's not so terribly wrong to call them all accomplices.
I somewhat disagree with your statement about bishops who didn’t directly commit crimes not being responsible for the crimes the priests committed in their dioceses. The bishop’s office is the Catholic HR, and there wasn’t a single complaint or accusation that didn’t go through their office. BISHOPS protected predatory priests by using their standing to shame a family out of reporting any incidents. BISHOPS moved those priests from parish to parish instead of defrocking sexual predators, each time giving them fresh meat to gnaw on.
Cardinal Whuerl even tried to expose the problem in the early 2000s when he was the Bishop of the Pittsburgh Diocese, but his true function was to act contrite and get NDAs from the families in exchange for money. The bishops cannot extricate themselves form a problem they perpetuated.
I understand, and join in the condemnation down the line of those bishops who hid, obfuscated and transferred the predator priests, as well as downplaying the problem.
YET, the point remains that one cannot fairly or accurately cast the condemnatory net over the entirety of the Catholic bishops.
Beyond that, the glaringly out of touch error of the bishops' position on the ERA stands on its own, without the need to color the margins with inappropriate references to the abuse scandals.
I still link the two because the power to dictate to one’s followers is the power to oppress, manipulate, and abuse. They’re not out of touch; rather they are the rock against which the waves of progress slam. And though there is a sense of safety one feels in acquiescing to the standard, that standard hides its own sins that leaders never feel the need to disclose.
And if you’re so sure of the integrity of your diocese, ask your bishop for total transparency, on any complaint made about any priests in the last 30 years. Good luck.
I like your phrase "they are the rock against which the waves of progress slam", Jane. Pithy and powerful.
Yet your seeming indictment of the entire church clerical establishment is a tad over the top, methinks.
I’ve seen the damage firsthand. So color me bitter.
So since I started this conversation way above, I would like to add: Yes, Daniel, not every bishop is a criminal, it's true. HOWEVER, and I say this from experience working for one, as a group they do NOT engage in "fraternal correction" as they are supposed to do. Since each bishop is in effect accountable to no one--really not even the Pope except in rare circumstances--they can get away with everything. Fraternal correction, if indeed it is ever done, has absolutely no effect. If not one bishop (and remember, bishops are the direct descendants of the apostles) has the cojones to stand up and say "this is wrong," then it's not so terribly wrong to call them all accomplices.