In the past, the gentleman's way out was not golf, but going into one's library and reaching for the revolver in the desk drawer. Not that I am advocating that, of course.
Then there are bishops like Robert Morneau who take responsibility for their actions seriously and spend the remainder of their lives in prayer and penance. It should be so for every bishop, not just those who have behaved egregiously. But that would mean they actually care about their own salvation and that of others. I believe it was Chrysostom who said something like “the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
And a question: When will the provincials of religious orders be held accountable for the part they played in covering up abuse and protecting priests and religious? I know from personal experience they are not held accountable. They exercise considerable power and have failed miserably to protect the vulnerable so they could protect their subjects and their institutes. Someone needs to investigate them. Any takers?
Hold on. You can't end the podcast on a cliffhanger like that
Middle of the show: there is a cynicism that pinkos, masons, whatever have infiltrated the Church that harm the universal call to holiness
End of show: there is a woman who has served as a private spy for the Vatican who lives a James Bond lifestyle and is heavily involved in Freemasonry (and has in fact infiltrated the Church and geopolitics?)
Pick up the story about this fascinating woman next time!
So many great things in this post (and the podcast)!
1. I love the idea of Zoom drinks with you guys and I'm just bummed others beat me to it. Please open more dates sooner rather than later.
2. The Draft Rankings were both highly amusing and highly entertaining. Now we just need a Fantasy Financial League! On a more serious note, as much as I generally favor at least a semi-flavor of capitalism (I'm actually more of a distributist/localist in the vein of Chesterton and Beloc and more modernly Medaille) I am thoroughly appalled that such opaque financial dealings are possible much less legal. I'm even more appalled and horrified that the Secretariat of State was involved in such dealings. Why are they borrowing money to make secular investments? Why are they propping up failing hospital? Why are they buying property in London? These to me are questions that have not been answered for me at all. And on top of that, to misuse Peter's Pence funds to guarantee a shady loan, to even have the *power* to do that is inexcusable. And yet the people involved seem to have been left to largely just fade away, back to home dioceses or with a vague "suspension" or early retirement. I don't have a problem giving to my home archdiocese because to this point it doesn't seem to be mired in financial scandal but Peter's Pence (any anything else at the Vatican) won't see a dime from me until I can be sure its being used to further evangelism and charity and not to buy London buildings or make movies about lifestyle choices incompatible with Catholic teaching or writing grants to pro-abortion organizations (like was done with the CCHD money here in the states). There is a long way to go before there's true financial transparency and trust can be restored.
3. I'm generally with Ed on the "progress" regarding the bishops and accountability. While I concede JDs point that there is movement in the right direction, I feel like I agree more with Ed that it can't really be called "progress", at least not yet. To use a (american) football analogy its like being second and 20 (second down, 20 yards until first down), running the ball 1 yard for 3rd and 19, and saying you made progress. Technically "true" but not completely accurate. Then again in our family I'm generally the parent that will reward once the task is done, not when the kid has moved in the right direction.
4. That being said, on the article about the lady who complained to the priest about the lay volunteer, I empathize with both the lady and the diocese. I feel for her pain which she should never have had to endure. I'm frustrated with the priest who seems to probably not have done the right thing at the time, but it seems like she's wanting a punishment (removal from being pastor - and for how long? It almost felt like she wanted him permanently removed?) that is excessive for something that wasn't a crime when it happened and for which corroborative evidence does not seem to exist. Even OT law required testimony from 2 witnesses to convict someone of a crime. I found myself wanting to side with her because of what she's gone through but at the same time agreeing with the diocese on pursuing a rehabilitative process rather than just punitively punishing the priest on her say-so. I did find the comments from the canon lawyer with YA Responds helpful in understanding maybe some other options and I'd like to know more about what a process would look like that protects victims and helps them feel heard, loved, cared for, and healed while protecting the innocent from false accusations and rehabilitating instead of punishing when appropriate. I'd like to know more about what a process that doesn't turn every accusation into what feels like a trial of the accused would look like.
And can we hash out when rehabilitation vs punishment is appropriate? Clearly abuse of power (for sex or anything else, regardless of whether a minor is involved) is not rehabilitatable. I think we can probably agree on that. But by what standard do we judge past actions regarding reporting or handling accusations? The standards of the time including the regulations in place then? Or today's norms and regulations? Are today's standards somehow retroactive? Or does failure to meet today's standards back then warrant education and rehabilitation? I'd argue for the latter.
5. I'm also intrigued by this Italian Freemason connection for Miss CeCe. Please say more...
6. Missed the game this week 😕
Thanks for all your hard work. Proud to be a supporter and listening to your podcast is one of the highlights of my week. Your banter always has me in stitches even when you may not mean it to be funny. (And I'm usually Team Ed!)
In the past, the gentleman's way out was not golf, but going into one's library and reaching for the revolver in the desk drawer. Not that I am advocating that, of course.
Then there are bishops like Robert Morneau who take responsibility for their actions seriously and spend the remainder of their lives in prayer and penance. It should be so for every bishop, not just those who have behaved egregiously. But that would mean they actually care about their own salvation and that of others. I believe it was Chrysostom who said something like “the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”
And a question: When will the provincials of religious orders be held accountable for the part they played in covering up abuse and protecting priests and religious? I know from personal experience they are not held accountable. They exercise considerable power and have failed miserably to protect the vulnerable so they could protect their subjects and their institutes. Someone needs to investigate them. Any takers?
Hold on. You can't end the podcast on a cliffhanger like that
Middle of the show: there is a cynicism that pinkos, masons, whatever have infiltrated the Church that harm the universal call to holiness
End of show: there is a woman who has served as a private spy for the Vatican who lives a James Bond lifestyle and is heavily involved in Freemasonry (and has in fact infiltrated the Church and geopolitics?)
Pick up the story about this fascinating woman next time!
So many great things in this post (and the podcast)!
1. I love the idea of Zoom drinks with you guys and I'm just bummed others beat me to it. Please open more dates sooner rather than later.
2. The Draft Rankings were both highly amusing and highly entertaining. Now we just need a Fantasy Financial League! On a more serious note, as much as I generally favor at least a semi-flavor of capitalism (I'm actually more of a distributist/localist in the vein of Chesterton and Beloc and more modernly Medaille) I am thoroughly appalled that such opaque financial dealings are possible much less legal. I'm even more appalled and horrified that the Secretariat of State was involved in such dealings. Why are they borrowing money to make secular investments? Why are they propping up failing hospital? Why are they buying property in London? These to me are questions that have not been answered for me at all. And on top of that, to misuse Peter's Pence funds to guarantee a shady loan, to even have the *power* to do that is inexcusable. And yet the people involved seem to have been left to largely just fade away, back to home dioceses or with a vague "suspension" or early retirement. I don't have a problem giving to my home archdiocese because to this point it doesn't seem to be mired in financial scandal but Peter's Pence (any anything else at the Vatican) won't see a dime from me until I can be sure its being used to further evangelism and charity and not to buy London buildings or make movies about lifestyle choices incompatible with Catholic teaching or writing grants to pro-abortion organizations (like was done with the CCHD money here in the states). There is a long way to go before there's true financial transparency and trust can be restored.
3. I'm generally with Ed on the "progress" regarding the bishops and accountability. While I concede JDs point that there is movement in the right direction, I feel like I agree more with Ed that it can't really be called "progress", at least not yet. To use a (american) football analogy its like being second and 20 (second down, 20 yards until first down), running the ball 1 yard for 3rd and 19, and saying you made progress. Technically "true" but not completely accurate. Then again in our family I'm generally the parent that will reward once the task is done, not when the kid has moved in the right direction.
4. That being said, on the article about the lady who complained to the priest about the lay volunteer, I empathize with both the lady and the diocese. I feel for her pain which she should never have had to endure. I'm frustrated with the priest who seems to probably not have done the right thing at the time, but it seems like she's wanting a punishment (removal from being pastor - and for how long? It almost felt like she wanted him permanently removed?) that is excessive for something that wasn't a crime when it happened and for which corroborative evidence does not seem to exist. Even OT law required testimony from 2 witnesses to convict someone of a crime. I found myself wanting to side with her because of what she's gone through but at the same time agreeing with the diocese on pursuing a rehabilitative process rather than just punitively punishing the priest on her say-so. I did find the comments from the canon lawyer with YA Responds helpful in understanding maybe some other options and I'd like to know more about what a process would look like that protects victims and helps them feel heard, loved, cared for, and healed while protecting the innocent from false accusations and rehabilitating instead of punishing when appropriate. I'd like to know more about what a process that doesn't turn every accusation into what feels like a trial of the accused would look like.
And can we hash out when rehabilitation vs punishment is appropriate? Clearly abuse of power (for sex or anything else, regardless of whether a minor is involved) is not rehabilitatable. I think we can probably agree on that. But by what standard do we judge past actions regarding reporting or handling accusations? The standards of the time including the regulations in place then? Or today's norms and regulations? Are today's standards somehow retroactive? Or does failure to meet today's standards back then warrant education and rehabilitation? I'd argue for the latter.
5. I'm also intrigued by this Italian Freemason connection for Miss CeCe. Please say more...
6. Missed the game this week 😕
Thanks for all your hard work. Proud to be a supporter and listening to your podcast is one of the highlights of my week. Your banter always has me in stitches even when you may not mean it to be funny. (And I'm usually Team Ed!)
Well, those whisky sign-ups went fast! I'll lift my glass to y'all those evenings, and look forward to future tipplings.