The bishops of the US conference (USCCB) will be electing their president next week. The custom of the conference is to elect the vice-president in the previous term as president. In this case, following custom, they would elect Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tuscon.
The media (Catholic and secular) are reporting that Bishop Kicanas defended the ordination of a man later convicted of child molestation. Various Catholic blogs have drawn attention to these reports and have asked the USCCB to seriously consider whether or not Bishop Kicanas is fit for the post of president.
The Register has given Bishop Kicanas the chance to respond to these media reports.
Follow HancAquam ------------>
I feel very mixed about this.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, I believe the Church should begin resisting the MSM/Press's reign of terror has dictated for years now, word for word, how the Church should handle the sexual abuse scandal. The MSM/Press, not the Church, is the true author of the unreasonable Zero Tolerance Policy. The Bishops just cowardly caved in to what the MSM/Press had dictated, rather than defending the Church, their priests and their own operational policies of ten years' standing (which were valid but flawed).
In this instance, Bishop Kicanas has produced a reasonable explanation for his conduct regarding the Michael Maquire case. Nothing more should be needed to establish his suitability (even though I wouldn't vote for him on other grounds) for candidacy.
On the other hand, no one, not one person on earth, seems willing to listen reasonably to the Church's explanations for mistakes that occurred with regard to this scandal, nor to the many reasonable reports that show how minor the Church's involvement in all of this is, as far as the entire context of sexual abuse in society is concerned. We simply have no other forum other than what the MSM/Press chooses to say about the Church. Therefore, it could be prudent to acknowledge what is already the case, we are the slaves of the MSM/Press and all that is required of us is total, compelete and imemdiate obedience at all times to the vapid dictates of the MSM/Press. Would life be easier then? Would that be more sensible? I just cannot decide. So I don't know if Bishop Kicanas should withdraw his nomination or not. Clealy he wants the office, and probably that is the best reason to avoid giving it to him!
I once asked one of the currently-retired archbishops in the United States, with all of the Church's talent, resources and funds, where is the Church's national damage control program designed to help create a morew accurate public impression of what happened and to the restore the Church's decimated image. Certainly there are resources available to construct creative ways that public opinion on this issue can become better informed and inclined to make more merciful judgments about the Church. For example, I explained, the prevailing attitude of the man-in-the-street is that this is uniquely a problem for Catholic clergy and that priests regularly rape prepubescent children. This is a far cry from the fact that almost every priest-abuser has been guilty of far lesser forms of erotic contact and generally (although not exclusively) with post-pubescent males just under the age of 18. Still outrageously and heart-breakingly awful, but a far different picture. The archbishop replied that there has been no damage control program because the bishops themselves are highly divided and cannot agree on how to proceed. In the meantime, this will take care of itself? Doesn't the word "leadership" somehow fit into their job description?
ReplyDelete