After The Pillar reported on a pending Vatican-ordered investigation in a Louisiana diocese, the Bishop of Baton Rouge told priests that media reports did not tell the whole story, and that diocesan officials had not been informed whether an investigation was underway.
I find it tremendously funny when the Pillar studiously reprints catty criticisms from people they've reported on. You can tell they're double checking to make sure they got every word.
I just don't get the continued tone-deaf attitude and constant fumbling from bishops, like this guy. It seems like some just want to stay in the past (bury head in sand and hope it goes away) rather than proactive management from the jump. Still praying. This is not intended as a broad brush because some bishops seem to get it right.
Lou, I think I can explain the attitude of certain bishops. They distinguish between criminal activities involving minors and theoretically consensual, ie. not illegal, activities with adults. They do this primarily to alleviate diocesan accountability, but fail to realize that most of these “relationships” are not consensual, but are deeply manipulative and quite harmful. Essentially, the bishops are trying desperately to limit financial liability, and are failing to see the forest for the trees.
They're not limiting liability in this age of MeToo when the vulnerable adults can always turn around and make criminal complaints or sue. The news just reported that a suspended priest in a Pennsylvania diocese just got arrested after two men made complaints. Unfortunately the two men were employees at some Catholic retreat center where this suspended priest had been sent to live, apparently with not enough supervision.
Aside from that, adult lay people need to feel comfortable working and volunteering around the clergy without feeling at risk of the priest getting inappropriate with them.
I agree Kurt, but what would help the most would be if the bishops collectively committed to transparency as to the nature of the charges in a specific case, the findings of the investigative bodies, and what consequences were meted out to those found guilty. No bishop and very few priests want this, but it’s the only thing that would put a stop to the problem. Victims have the right to confidentiality, and innocent priests have a right to be vindicated, but with those two conditions in mind, I’m in favor of much more transparency than the current practice envisions
Thinking of bishop-ing as management is part of the problem. Managers have a responsibility to the organization, ensuring that it survives with a stable, low-risk, long-term outlook, with good PR and a reliable income. Shepherds have a responsibility to the sheep, and imitating the Good Shepherd leads to death, literally or metaphorically.
Circling the wagons for organizational survival is such a common instinctual behavior that there's probably a library of books on it. You need a very different mindset and set of habits to establish different instincts - and bishops are supposed to have that.
I understand the distinction you are making, but managers should recognize they have a larger and more grave responsibility towards doing what is right and just than they have towards the good of the company. Of course, this view is probably why I will never be promoted to management :-)
They should... and they often do. But that's still not the same as leaving the 99 to find the 1 lost sheep. Managers have no obligation to lay down their careers to save you from unjust treatment by someone else in the company, still less from a justly deserved firing.
Just treatment does not require a manager to go out of his way to help a wayward employee, and sometimes it requires the opposite. Employees are not the purpose of the company, they are there to provide a service in exchange for money. That is why either side gets to walk away if they choose.
This is fundamentally not what the Church is about though. A father *does* have an obligation to go out of his way to help a child, and a bishop has an obligation to go out of his way to help the laity in his diocese. Neither side can amicably depart, because there is an obligation to stay. A bishop should not be thinking about how little he can get away with doing to help them understand and still meet the requirements of justice, or how he can spin things to make the questioners look bad and save his face. Saving souls is the purpose of the Church, and everything, including discipline, should be for the building up.
I truly believe many of them were formed in a church pre-2002 where they were taught over and over again that no matter what you must "protect the Church" even at the expense of truth and justice to victims, and even if it jeopardizes the safety of minors and or adults
It's baffling to us, but most of our current bishops and many older priests had this drilled into their heads so much that it's second nature to them to deny, cover-up, and hide the truth in some ridiculous effort to protect the reputation of the church and its abusive priests
“Catholic Internet Newsletter”
I know! That was a rather clumsy attempt to minimize The Pillar’s significance as the leading online Catholic news outlet!
Surely that should be "Well-funded Catholic Internet Newsletter"?
Ed certainly would dispute that statement
I find it tremendously funny when the Pillar studiously reprints catty criticisms from people they've reported on. You can tell they're double checking to make sure they got every word.
The Pillar should sell T-shirts with that on there
Another reason that when I drive to Houston, I drive hundreds of miles out of the way to avoid Louisiana.
booooooo
You are missing out on some great traffic and even better boudin!
I just don't get the continued tone-deaf attitude and constant fumbling from bishops, like this guy. It seems like some just want to stay in the past (bury head in sand and hope it goes away) rather than proactive management from the jump. Still praying. This is not intended as a broad brush because some bishops seem to get it right.
Lou, I think I can explain the attitude of certain bishops. They distinguish between criminal activities involving minors and theoretically consensual, ie. not illegal, activities with adults. They do this primarily to alleviate diocesan accountability, but fail to realize that most of these “relationships” are not consensual, but are deeply manipulative and quite harmful. Essentially, the bishops are trying desperately to limit financial liability, and are failing to see the forest for the trees.
They're not limiting liability in this age of MeToo when the vulnerable adults can always turn around and make criminal complaints or sue. The news just reported that a suspended priest in a Pennsylvania diocese just got arrested after two men made complaints. Unfortunately the two men were employees at some Catholic retreat center where this suspended priest had been sent to live, apparently with not enough supervision.
Aside from that, adult lay people need to feel comfortable working and volunteering around the clergy without feeling at risk of the priest getting inappropriate with them.
I agree with you 100% sqplr
Lacking lay oversight, this is going to continue.
I agree Kurt, but what would help the most would be if the bishops collectively committed to transparency as to the nature of the charges in a specific case, the findings of the investigative bodies, and what consequences were meted out to those found guilty. No bishop and very few priests want this, but it’s the only thing that would put a stop to the problem. Victims have the right to confidentiality, and innocent priests have a right to be vindicated, but with those two conditions in mind, I’m in favor of much more transparency than the current practice envisions
Thinking of bishop-ing as management is part of the problem. Managers have a responsibility to the organization, ensuring that it survives with a stable, low-risk, long-term outlook, with good PR and a reliable income. Shepherds have a responsibility to the sheep, and imitating the Good Shepherd leads to death, literally or metaphorically.
Circling the wagons for organizational survival is such a common instinctual behavior that there's probably a library of books on it. You need a very different mindset and set of habits to establish different instincts - and bishops are supposed to have that.
I understand the distinction you are making, but managers should recognize they have a larger and more grave responsibility towards doing what is right and just than they have towards the good of the company. Of course, this view is probably why I will never be promoted to management :-)
They should... and they often do. But that's still not the same as leaving the 99 to find the 1 lost sheep. Managers have no obligation to lay down their careers to save you from unjust treatment by someone else in the company, still less from a justly deserved firing.
Just treatment does not require a manager to go out of his way to help a wayward employee, and sometimes it requires the opposite. Employees are not the purpose of the company, they are there to provide a service in exchange for money. That is why either side gets to walk away if they choose.
This is fundamentally not what the Church is about though. A father *does* have an obligation to go out of his way to help a child, and a bishop has an obligation to go out of his way to help the laity in his diocese. Neither side can amicably depart, because there is an obligation to stay. A bishop should not be thinking about how little he can get away with doing to help them understand and still meet the requirements of justice, or how he can spin things to make the questioners look bad and save his face. Saving souls is the purpose of the Church, and everything, including discipline, should be for the building up.
I truly believe many of them were formed in a church pre-2002 where they were taught over and over again that no matter what you must "protect the Church" even at the expense of truth and justice to victims, and even if it jeopardizes the safety of minors and or adults
It's baffling to us, but most of our current bishops and many older priests had this drilled into their heads so much that it's second nature to them to deny, cover-up, and hide the truth in some ridiculous effort to protect the reputation of the church and its abusive priests
How is this bishop getting investigated by the Vatican and still claiming he knows nothing like Sergeant Schultz?
If I were Bishop Duca's/ the diocese's lawyer I'd be telling him to just hush his mouth right now.
Op-erator, won't you put me on through?
Gotta send my notificationofavaticanauthorizedvosestisinvestigation down to Baton Rouge
Hurrrry up, won't you put him on the line?
Gotta talk to the bishop just one more time!
"Pillar reader Michael Duka" 😂😂😂
Now I finally know what The Pillar and its readers mean by "in a bad way."