Friday, February 06, 2004
Guilty until proven orthodox
Peace, all.
This just slays me. A bishop is alleged to have had an affair with an adult man, and denies it, but some aren't so sure. Mark Shea weighs in with the question: "Do I believe or trust him as far as I could throw him?" Gerard Serafin adds a voice of reason to an otherwise contentious thread which has veered off into all kinds of great insights about liberal bishops being the scourge of the Church, not to mention the Source of All Things Scandalous and Sinful.
People can be blind to their heroes, but on the other hand, something other than virtue is operating when a person is quite willing to accept a hero's denial of guilt (such as those of the conservative bishops Law or Pell) but quite ready to lop the knees off a bishop found to be lacking in some "orthodox" respect. I remember a conservative Catholic friend who was simply gleeful when allegations against Bernardin popped up in the mid 90's. Though these accusations were later found false, it didn't stop them from being mentioned by those "Catholic and Enjoying It."
While misbehaving and sinful clergy certainly do need to account for their actions, it is entirely another matter when people professing Christianity can be so pleased at the failings of others. Wasn't anybody in church the other weekend when Saint Paul's lesson on body parts was proclaimed? Maybe that's not in the orthodox canon ...
