No surprise:
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted today against asking the Vatican to release its records on former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.
In what was eventually an 83 to 137 vote, the USCCB decided against asking the Vatican for its documentation on the disgraced prelate.
The move was triggered when the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops at the last minute spiked the U.S. bishops’ plans to pursue acting upon two agenda items intended to deal with the growing crisis precipitated by the cascade of stories of clergy sexual abuse in dioceses across the country.
While the proposed communication to the Holy See consisted of a simple, single 40-word sentence, the prelates were far from unanimous in support for the move.
The discussion that ensued revealed equal parts fear among the members of the USCCB: fear of anger by laity and priests back in their home dioceses; fear that if they don’t write something they might appear to be passive and uncaring pastors; and fear of offending or being misunderstood by the Holy See.
As one bishop had noted earlier in the day, there is sometimes a dynamic tension between two important principles in the Catholic Church: subsidiarity and community.
Bishop Boyea of the Diocese of Lansing authored the amendment, which aimed to give concrete wording to the USCCB’s motion on Monday:
Be it resolved that the bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops encourage the Holy See to release all the documentation that can be released consistent with the canon and civil law regarding the misconduct of Archbishop McCarrick.
There was immediate disagreement among the bishops.
Bishop Christensen of Boise proposed adding the word “soon” to the proposal, in order to convey a greater sense of urgency to the Holy See. A vote was taken and the amendment with “soon” added to it was approved 111 to 106.
Some bishops seemed to not like the idea of pushing the Vatican at all.
Cardinal Blase Cupich suggested the bishops would simply be asking the Holy See to do what it already intended to do and others agreed with him.
Cardinal William Levada worried that the communication from the USCCB to the Vatican would not have the desired effect, and joined with Cardinal Joseph Tobin’s suggestion that the bishops simply express support for an October 6 statement from the Holy See.
Bishop David Walkowiak suggested the wording was biased. He proposed the bishops change “misconduct against” to “regarding the allegations.”
Go here to read the rest. Our Church is led by fools, cowards, knaves and worse.
Manana… always manana.
Our Church is led by fools, cowards, knaves and worse.
Isn’t that the usual case?
No comment
Why isn’t “uncle ted” demanding to have his name cleared?
“Isn’t that the usual case?”
Church leadership has often been pretty poor, but I suspect that it is as bad now as it has ever been.
Does the state need the Vatican papers to proceed with prosecution? I think not. “uncle ted’s ) resources ought to be frozen.(and returned to the donors) for taking money under false pretenses.
Does “Uncle Ted” have something on the bishops that voted no?
(Argh, I can’t help but wonder.)
I’m not sure what to make of the “manana” comment.
It brings to mind “Maranatha”, which would be an appropriate response.
It also brings to mind two videos that might be commentaries on the procedings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhT049R0pE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQ.
Then again, Philip probably just meant mañana.
Well, we know how the story ends, even if we haven’t a clue about the current chapter. Personally, I think the Church has survived worse.
@David WS
Goat’s are forming on the left without even thinking twice about the significance of the position.
So be it.
Polaroid’s and parties from the “free love” era might just support your suspicions. The Lavender Mafia must be eradicated. How is the question.
83 bishops? I think that was the same number of US bishops who protested covering a crucifix because Obama was visiting (Georgetown? or Notre dame) There were about 350 give or take if you include arch bishops.
“Isn’t that the usual case?”
No it is not. And certainly not on this scale.
This is a complete sellout of the faithful by our bishops and our pope.
The sellout to Arius was bigger.
To me, the famous response mañana, is fitting with the Bishops move to wait via Vatican suggestion; “Bishop Christensen of Boise proposed adding the word “soon” to the proposal, in order to convey a greater sense of urgency to the Holy See. A vote was taken and the amendment with “soon” added to it was approved 111 to 106.”
“Some bishops seemed to not like the idea of pushing the Vatican at all.”
reference-
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-bishops-vote-against-asking-vatican-to-release-mccarrick-documents
Soon and “mañana” seem very appropriate. Years ago in the construction trades, our southern neighbors would commonly use “morning” as a reply to a request to get the job done..now!
Apologies to those who were offended.
Is there any way that I can find out how our bishop, Ronald Gainer (diocese of Harrisburg), voted on this? It will make a difference in our diocesan contribution plan.
It is reported Bob that he did not attend because he is recovering from knee surgery.
Thanks Don, I knew he had undergone knee surgery. I also think this may be a good excuse for him to be the “Vicar of Bray.”
The United States Cowardly Catholic Bishops.
The German bishops can decide to give Communion to Protestant spouses of Catholics….and the Pope says nothing. This is because he is their puppet. The American bishops, as a body, have permitted Communion to abortionists for decades. They aren’t going to grow a backbone now.
All it takes is one body of bishops to tell Bergoglio to shove it, and the fraud behind the curtain will be fully exposed.