It’s a bit like the credits of Monty Python’s Holy Grail: the people who have been responsible for leading our response to abuse have now been accused of abuse.
I wish I could say I was shocked by this, but I’m not. For whatever good he has done, it is quite apparent that Pope Francis is unwilling to take any action against clergy accused (and/or convicted) of sexual abuse or improprieties. Ouellett joins the long list, from Grassi to Inzoli to Ricci Barros to Zanchetta. Is it because he is committed to “mercy” above all other considerations, regardless of the damage these individuals have done to victims or to the reputation of the Church? Or is there something more sinister at the heart of it? For someone who decries clericalism, this smacks of hypocrisy.
Faithful Catholics deserve better. But sadly they’re not like to receive better under this pontiff.
> or asked the pontiff to allow him to retire to a life of prayer and penance.
In an ideal world, people who had held for years a position of authority (which having just read St Teresa's Life, I am bound to think of as rather dangerous) would be happy to have any excuse to retire to a life of prayer and penance.
As alleged, these facts seem imprudent at the least but they do not yet include any question of genital contact, same-sex attachment, or any cover up by "settlement" -- and the lapse of time before complaining troubles me.
Is it not also possible that these facts constitute innocent affection?
Is it just me or does it seem like (especially as the article suggests, probably quite rightly) that the Holy Father’s playbook is based on The Prince by Machiavelli. There seems to be a lot more double agendas (public versus hidden), subterfuge and intrigue them in the past.
Is Peter to “confirm the brethren” or confuse them?
It’s a bit like the credits of Monty Python’s Holy Grail: the people who have been responsible for leading our response to abuse have now been accused of abuse.
But does anyone ever get sacked?
I wish I could say I was shocked by this, but I’m not. For whatever good he has done, it is quite apparent that Pope Francis is unwilling to take any action against clergy accused (and/or convicted) of sexual abuse or improprieties. Ouellett joins the long list, from Grassi to Inzoli to Ricci Barros to Zanchetta. Is it because he is committed to “mercy” above all other considerations, regardless of the damage these individuals have done to victims or to the reputation of the Church? Or is there something more sinister at the heart of it? For someone who decries clericalism, this smacks of hypocrisy.
Faithful Catholics deserve better. But sadly they’re not like to receive better under this pontiff.
“I’m very sorry dear lady…I will assign one of your alleged abuser’s cronies to investigate..”. You can’t make this stuff up.
She may be the first, but I highly doubt she'll be the last.
> or asked the pontiff to allow him to retire to a life of prayer and penance.
In an ideal world, people who had held for years a position of authority (which having just read St Teresa's Life, I am bound to think of as rather dangerous) would be happy to have any excuse to retire to a life of prayer and penance.
As alleged, these facts seem imprudent at the least but they do not yet include any question of genital contact, same-sex attachment, or any cover up by "settlement" -- and the lapse of time before complaining troubles me.
Is it not also possible that these facts constitute innocent affection?
Is it just me or does it seem like (especially as the article suggests, probably quite rightly) that the Holy Father’s playbook is based on The Prince by Machiavelli. There seems to be a lot more double agendas (public versus hidden), subterfuge and intrigue them in the past.
Is Peter to “confirm the brethren” or confuse them?