The heavy reliance of the notion of "scandal" is so maddening. It seems to make optics supreme. Based on what's reported here, it's impossible to tell whether the Vatican thinks Sevilla actually did inappropriately retaliate against Fontana, or just did the right thing in a way that gave rise to incorrect impressions. And what's up with these investigations constantly failing to interview obviously relevant parties? Not the way to restore trust. Thanks for the continued reporting on Vos Estis.
I think there's a misunderstanding (a very, very common one) of what "scandal" is. In modern American parlance, scandal is usually a public relations crisis that makes an organization or a person look bad. In the Church, however, Scandal is a serious sin. Scandal is to cause someone else to sin by your actions. To "scandalize" someone is to lead them into sin. The results of scandalizing someone (without sacramental confession) would be to cause damnation for yourself and the one you scandalized. I can't think of something more terrible than that.
I don't think that explanation, while helpful, completely resolves the issue. In the example at hand, for instance, did Sevilla cause scandal as a result of retaliation against a whisteblower? Or did he cause scandal through a clumsy yet otherwise blameless handling of the case? The two situations are drastically different.
I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that "scandal" is a second-order question here, and I'm much more interested in the first-order question. And more generally, I often find that the focus on scandal tends to obscure these first-order questions.
Personally, I think Vos Estis is just allowing the foxes to guard the chicken coop. Basically useless for restoring trust in the US bishops. Were those cleared really innocent or were they just "investigated" by friends who would never have found them guilty no matter what they did? We'll never know.
The heavy reliance of the notion of "scandal" is so maddening. It seems to make optics supreme. Based on what's reported here, it's impossible to tell whether the Vatican thinks Sevilla actually did inappropriately retaliate against Fontana, or just did the right thing in a way that gave rise to incorrect impressions. And what's up with these investigations constantly failing to interview obviously relevant parties? Not the way to restore trust. Thanks for the continued reporting on Vos Estis.
I think there's a misunderstanding (a very, very common one) of what "scandal" is. In modern American parlance, scandal is usually a public relations crisis that makes an organization or a person look bad. In the Church, however, Scandal is a serious sin. Scandal is to cause someone else to sin by your actions. To "scandalize" someone is to lead them into sin. The results of scandalizing someone (without sacramental confession) would be to cause damnation for yourself and the one you scandalized. I can't think of something more terrible than that.
I don't think that explanation, while helpful, completely resolves the issue. In the example at hand, for instance, did Sevilla cause scandal as a result of retaliation against a whisteblower? Or did he cause scandal through a clumsy yet otherwise blameless handling of the case? The two situations are drastically different.
I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that "scandal" is a second-order question here, and I'm much more interested in the first-order question. And more generally, I often find that the focus on scandal tends to obscure these first-order questions.
I’m just an English major. Scandal to me is the way the Vatican is turning a blind eye to bishops who are ACTUALLY causing scandal.
Personally, I think Vos Estis is just allowing the foxes to guard the chicken coop. Basically useless for restoring trust in the US bishops. Were those cleared really innocent or were they just "investigated" by friends who would never have found them guilty no matter what they did? We'll never know.