Sauce for the Gander
By Fr. Wilson (articles ) | Mar 05, 2004
A New York Times editorial.
Am I correct in thinking that the only Bishop who has suggested that there need to be consequences for Bishops who were part of the cover-up of this mess is Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Sullivan of Brooklyn? I remember him at the Dallas meeting, stepping up to the mike as the USCCB was considering a motion censuring its public critics, and saying that this was the worst thing they could possibly do, that there were many in the Church who saw this crisis as part of a larger problem, and that the bishops needed to realize that they were imposing sanctions on priests while bishops "part of this body" were not being held accountable for their poor decisions.
Has anyone else said anything like that?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Mar. 05, 2004 1:31 PM ET USA
I am continually amazed -- Bishop Wilton "not that Gregory!" Gregory does the soft shoe and mentions a 3rd party report on the deplorable state of seminaries -- but no one seems to cue in on who is responsible for the State of the Seminaries? Even the most clueless lay business executive would be expecting about half the bishops to be falling on their own swords -- it happened on their watch -- either do a Pell style housecleaning or hit the retirement home. Deplorable.
Posted by: extremeCatholic -
Mar. 05, 2004 10:37 AM ET USA
Fr. Wilson, your recall is correct, but here's the rest of the story: citing a special relationship of paternal trust and forgiveness between the bishop and his priests, "zero tolerance" would make immediate forgiveness for the priest at the discretion of the bishop impossible. Likewise, as you point out, the policy imposed a grave burden on priests (i.e. not to be sexual predators) than was not being imposed on the bishops and priests would see that as unfair.