recluse diocese

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Jul 05, 2005

In Springfield, Massachusetts,

Diocesan spokesman Mark E. Dupont said the current bishop stands by his position that the diocese doesn't release personal information about personnel - clergy or lay.

That's a reasonable, prudent policy-- so long as we're talking about personal information.

Now when you meet someone for the first time, strike up a conversation, and he casually asks you where you live, do you think he's being nosy? Is that an impertinent personal question?

In this case it's transparently obvious why the diocese doesn't want to give out information. The current bishop is protecting the former bishop. Why?

That protection is embarrassing to the Church, and destructive to the cause of evangelization. It's certainly undeserved, and just as certainly unnecessary. No principle is being served here; no Catholic doctrine or discipline is under attack. A few folks have a valid reason to want Bishop Dupre's current mailing address; that's all.

If we lived in a society that openly persecuted the Church, and Bishop Dupre was the object of unjust prosecution, we'd heartily endorse whatever subterfuge or outright defiance the Springfield diocese used to protect him. Protecting him from just prosecution (or, if the statute of limitation prevents that, lawsuits) is quite another thing.