I’d imagine a bishop apologizing for a specific wrongdoing would create significant civil liability. That being said, the present situation seems unjust for the reasons JD says.
I believe Ben's point cannot be overemphasized or repeated too often. The reality today is that all public statements from Church officials about ANY episcopal "mistakes," "errors," or "poor judgment" are scrupulously (and understandably!) vetted by diocesan attorneys, always imagining the possibility that such admissions may - and likely will - be used against the diocese in some future civil action. As long as the Church is regarded by the public and attorneys as a "cash cow" from which lucre can be endlessly squeezed, complete public "transparency" will remain an eschatological ideal - not a present possibility. Such, tragically, is the world in which we live.
Your recounting of the Hunthausen scenario is inaccurate
An auxiliary Bishop was first appointed in 1985 with special faculties whose name was Donald Wuerl
When he was transferred and became ordinary of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 1987 a coadjutor was then named to Bishop Hunthausen by the name of Thomas Murphy who eventually succeeded him 4 years later
I'm concerned that allowing for penalties other than removal will end up meaning that nobody gets removed.
Also, as the article notes, if Bishop X is found to have covered up/ impeded a clergy abuse case, then Bishop X will lose the confidence of the Catholics in his diocese except for probably a subgroup of his biggest yes-men and fans, who are usually in denial that this cleric they have up on a pedestal could possibly have done anything wrong.
I’d imagine a bishop apologizing for a specific wrongdoing would create significant civil liability. That being said, the present situation seems unjust for the reasons JD says.
I believe Ben's point cannot be overemphasized or repeated too often. The reality today is that all public statements from Church officials about ANY episcopal "mistakes," "errors," or "poor judgment" are scrupulously (and understandably!) vetted by diocesan attorneys, always imagining the possibility that such admissions may - and likely will - be used against the diocese in some future civil action. As long as the Church is regarded by the public and attorneys as a "cash cow" from which lucre can be endlessly squeezed, complete public "transparency" will remain an eschatological ideal - not a present possibility. Such, tragically, is the world in which we live.
Your recounting of the Hunthausen scenario is inaccurate
An auxiliary Bishop was first appointed in 1985 with special faculties whose name was Donald Wuerl
When he was transferred and became ordinary of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 1987 a coadjutor was then named to Bishop Hunthausen by the name of Thomas Murphy who eventually succeeded him 4 years later
Ah, thank you. I forgot that Wuerl was not a coadjutor. Will adjust as soon as possible.
I'm concerned that allowing for penalties other than removal will end up meaning that nobody gets removed.
Also, as the article notes, if Bishop X is found to have covered up/ impeded a clergy abuse case, then Bishop X will lose the confidence of the Catholics in his diocese except for probably a subgroup of his biggest yes-men and fans, who are usually in denial that this cleric they have up on a pedestal could possibly have done anything wrong.
Removal is the right penalty.