Business as usual

Skylstad elected USCCB prez

Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., was elected overwhelmingly to succeed Bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville, Ill., who is ending his three-year term after leading the conference through the height of the abuse crisis.

Out of a field of 10 candidates, Skylstad received 52 percent of the vote — no one else came close. Chicago Cardinal Francis George was elected vice president.

Comments

[Dale Price]

Business as usual, indeed.

Once again, our shepherds turn their bad ear to the flock, electing a bishop with a less than completely functional memory when it comes to abusive priests assigned to their supervision.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002074016_skylstad27m.html

Favorite quote:

"I also came to understand better that there really is no such thing as a supposed consensual sexual relationship between any adult and a minor."

As a bonus, Bp. Skylstad's also a voice of surrender on the issue of pro-abort Catholic pols.

http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/BW_2004/bw061004.htm

[Rich Leonardi]

Cardinal George at VP is good, no? Given the seniority rules at the USCCB, it at least indicates the bishops' direction.

[George]

According to the article: "Every vice president who has sought the top job has won."

So that means Cardinal George is heir apparent. With Bishop Skylstad's issues, that may come sooner than three years.

[Leo]

"I also came to understand better that there really is no such thing as a supposed consensual sexual relationship between any adult and a minor."

That statement boggles the imagination in so many different directions that one hardly knows what to say. For one thing, I heard that priests have sworn off of "sexual relationships" altogether, whether consensual or not??!? (If it's "consensual" it's somehow OK? So if I commit adultery and my partner in crime consents, I'm off the hook? Anything but forcible rape, huh?)

And of course anyone who didn't understand that sex with minors is wrong from square one....someone who had to "learn" that....where are institutions for the mentally retarded when we need them?

Well, naturally the man is surrendering to the pro-abort pols. He's apparently too bewildered to find the door.

(It always amazes me what some of these men say in public. Don't they LISTEN to themselves? I know they have expensive public relations people - don't THEY listen??)

[JohnMcG]

Leo,

I'm quite sure the bishop did not mean to imply that id the relationship was "consensual" it would be OK, but to indicate the degrees of cuplability.

As a married man, both rape and adultery would be wrong, but I would consider rape to be an order of magnitude worse (and the rape of a minor an order of magnitude worse than that.)

What the bishop was saying is that is is useles to try to tease out this difference when a minor is involved, since minors cannot give consent.

This doesn't seem a terribly unreasonable statement to make, unless one's audience is predisposed to try to condemn him, which is where you seem to be.

[Leo]

I guess where I'm coming from is, OF COURSE "CONSENT" OF A MINOR TO SEXUAL CONTACT IS IRRELEVANT. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that.

To me this statement reads like saying, "I also came to understand better that the sun rises in the east."

Wouldn't you wonder a little bit where this person had been living heretofore? How much trouble did it take to get this understanding through to this person? He sort of understood it before, but he needed to understand it better?

It's not that I disagree with the statement (!) but that it sounds as though this man somehow reached adulthood before this insight dawned on him.

[Lynn]

I had the same reaction, Leo. Some things seem self-evident/obvious: minors can't consent to sex with adults; it is always wrong. I'm glad it finally dawned on him, but why did it take s long?
Sorry if I'm being judgmental; I don't have any opinion about the speaker; it's just one of those statements that makes me ask, "What?"

[Ignatius]

Bishop Skylstad said
"I also came to understand better that there really is no such thing as a supposed consensual sexual relationship between any adult and a minor."

A friend of mine once told me that I taught him that there is no such thing as a consensual sexual relationship between and adult and a minor. That friend had been molested at the age of 10 or 11 for some months by a man in his forties.

My friend never had sexual contact with a minor; he chose older partners until he was almost fifty, when he dated someone about 7 years younger.

My friend had been kicked out by his father at a young age and was vulnerable to the advances of a pedophile (or ephebophile). I don't think my friend wanted to justify his abuser's behavior; I do think he wanted to justify his need for love at that age and to express his desire to believe he was loved.

This friend, who is almost twenty years my senior, has never had anything but unselfish relationships with anyone younger, including me.

Perhaps, the bishop had a similar experience.

[eadfrith]

Gosh, do you think he'll promise to run the conference as well as he runs his diocese? Although maybe it's not such a bad thing for the USCCB to go bankrupt...

[Anna]

48% of the bishops didn't want him.

[Meaghan]

Had to really smile at the comments of, I think, the Tuscan bishop when he stated that Skylstad was the perfect candidate for president because he is already going through the issue of Chap. 11 for a diocese and would, therefore, be able to offer help and advise to other dioceses! I believe the comments were honestly stated and not tongue in cheek!

[Anon]

"I also came to understand better that there really is no such thing as a supposed consensual sexual relationship between any adult and a minor."

I guess I am in the minority, but I can understand this comment.
I remember when the Bishops were debating their draconian "zero tolerance" policy (aren't we all lucky God doesn't have one?)
I do understand that it is "useless to try to tease out differences" but I thought at the time that if I learned that my 50 year old spouse was currently having sex with 7 year olds I would feel very differently that I would were I to discover that 30 years ago he had had sex with a 16 year old.
Both would be, or have been, illegal and immoral but surely we would ALL look at the two situation in a different light.
Is it so hard to imagine that the Bishop became familiar with situations covering as broad a spectrum as these two? And that he looked on them differently? And that he no longer could make such distinctions?
Perhaps that is all he was saying.

[Anon]

And as a p.s., Cdl. George could do the Church SO much more good heading the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy.

[James Kabala]

I don't want to seem to be defending the bishops, but Anna's point is right. It wasn't really an "overwhelming" vote, as the article claims. If anti-Skylstad people had united behind one candidate, Skylstad would still have won, but very narrowly. (Of course, chances are that some of the other nine also had bad records on sexual abuse, but at least none of them actually lived under the same roof as a pedophile or headed a diocese that went bankrupt.)
Why were there so many candidates? Is that typical, or was this year unusual? If the vice-president inevitably becomes president, as some previous commenters have said, then weren't the nine challengers being a little naive?

[Lynn]

That perspective never even occurred to me, Ignatius and Lee. It is all too easy for those of us who have not suffered abuse to forget that those who have may bear the scars for year or life.

[Kim]

Tragically, Skylstad publically outed all priests accused of abuse whether they were actually found guilty or not. Those who were basically homosexuals he made an effort to protect while those who later turned out to be either innocent or guilty of consensual hetero relationships were not. He also strongly supported Kerry for pres. in the local diocesan newspaper because he was against capital punishment. Apparently it was ok that he favored abortion. :-( But there is hope with George as heir apparent. :-)

[Jim2]

"48% of the bishops didn't want him."

Are we talking about Skylstad or Kerry?

[RP Burke]

A reply to Anna and Jim 2.

48% of the bishops didn't want him.

Actually, it was 48% of the US public that didn't want Bush, not Kerry. So therefore Skylstad has a mandate, right?

[Tom]

I don't want to seem to be defending the bishops....

Yes, we wouldn't want that.

[Rod Dreher]

The bishops are hopeless, just hopeless. If George had won, the reason for optimism would hardly have been greater, as he is not known for being a boat-rocker.

Worse, the bishops have apparently now voted Bishop Trautman as head of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy. This is horrible, horrible news for those of us who are more traditional on matters liturgical. In this America article, Bishop Trautman expresses his views about the wretched oppression Rome is visiting upon the Church with its attempts to reform the liturgy.

[Henry Dieterich]

The Eastern Catholic Churches are looking more and more inviting.
Or better yet, Maranatha!
But when the Son of Man appears, will He find faith on earth?

[Mike Petrik]

I agree with Rod that Trautman is the worst possible choice to head the Committee on the Liturgy. If true, that is very disappointing.

[Richard]

Hello Rod,

I've been somewhat critical of you of late in regards to the bishops (and the Pope) but I really can't refute your point in regards to Bishop Trautman. Certainly not after reading his article in America. Thank you for posting it.

"Whether we like it or not, in the English-speaking world exclusive language has become objectionable." I could care less what is objectionable, your eminence. I care only about Truth.

As Christ himself told us, the Truth will be highly objectionable to some men.

It would sure help if Bishop Trautman recognized why the congregation opted for a centralized approach to reform: because the bishops have had their way for the last few decades and the results have been dismal at times. Because they failed to act, the congregation had to. And it is apparent that, sadly, Bishop Trautman is much more part of the problem than the solution.

Based on this essay, he was a poor choice to be placed in charge of the committee on the liturgy.

[Leo]

Oh, I donno. My own parish treats liturgical norms...flexibly. Hey, we like it. Some stand during the eucharistic prayer, some kneel. So shoot us.

The old old joke: What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.

In my view the bishops have far graver matters to address than who stands and who sits when. We all have to be all alike in these minor matters? All over the planet? Whyever?

Let's root out those who rape children, and those who support the murder of the unborn. And those who grind the faces of the poor or support and aid that. And don't forget whose who promote unjust wars. When we're done with all that, let's work on who stands and sits when.

[Dale Price]

Bishop Trautman, eh?

Full speed behind.

I imagine Gabe Huck and the American liturgical apparatchiks are doing a victory dance at this very moment. At a minimum, you can officially kiss a non-ICEL-fied revised missal goodbye. With the old guard firmly in charge at the USCCB, Rome can churn out liturgical documents at a rate that threatens to deforest Africa and it won't make a lick of difference Stateside.

[Maria Ashwell]

Dale-
Funny...but sad.
Ah well, not sure if this should be filed under the "we get the Bishops we want" category. What is the deal with USCCB? I watched the vote for president on EWTN. Chaput was nominated and he got something like 5 votes. Very telling. I just wonder if other bishops simply shrug their shoulders and follow the crowd out of fear.
And Trautman was rather a coup wasn't it, nominated suddenly from the floor...

[Leo]

Hey, speak for yourselves, *I* don't want these guys.

[GregY]

I contacted our Archbishop's right-hand man to let him know my extreme displeasure (politely, of course!). This is devastating news, as I long to see reverence and sacrality restored in the Mass and am well acquainted with His Excellency, Bishop-we're-not-going-backwards-Trautman's views on the liturgy.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the bishops can nominate someone who openly opposes the Vatican's liturgical directions to lead their liturgy committee!! Where is the outcry from the orthodox bishops on this? I am sending out this news to as many as possible to try to rally a reaction against this that will be heard loudly and clearly.
Perhaps we should begin a stopTrautman.com like a stopspecter.com?

[GregY]

I contacted our Archbishop's right-hand man to let him know my extreme displeasure (politely, of course!). This is devastating news, as I long to see reverence and sacrality restored in the Mass and am well acquainted with His Excellency, Bishop-we're-not-going-backwards-Trautman's views on the liturgy.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the bishops can nominate someone who openly opposes the Vatican's liturgical directions to lead their liturgy committee!! Where is the outcry from the orthodox bishops on this? I am sending out this news to as many as possible to try to rally a reaction against this that will be heard loudly and clearly.
Perhaps we should begin a stopTrautman.com like a stopspecter.com?

[Richard]

Hello Leo,

"The old old joke: What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist."

LOL.

Now that we're cracking liturgist jokes, I can't help but think of Fr. Rutler's:

"Were we to confine our diet to creatures that lacked sense and do not even respond to light, we could only eat liturgists and liberal Democrats."

Fixing the sex abuse scandals certainly is at the top of the list. But the problem is that it's part of the larger problem of heterodoxy and dissent (with an unhealth admixture of clericalism) in the Church. And part of that is what has happened to the liturgy.

People wonder why there's such a difficulty getting new vocations. With the way the Novus Ordo is sometimes manhandled, I would not feel particularly inspired as a young man to feel a vocation either. The mystery is stripped out of the mass.

FSSP's seminary in Nebraska has a long waiting list. That raises all kinds of questions that bishops like Fr. Trautman would rather not answer, I fear.

[GregY]

More background on Bishop Trautman, fyi:
Bishop Trautman to Liturgists: "Keep up your courage"--Doctrine Committee chairman urges liturgists to resist "pullbacks", "reform of the reform"

http://www.adoremus.org/1103Trautman.html

[Rod Dreher]

GregY: I am sending out this news to as many as possible to try to rally a reaction against this that will be heard loudly and clearly.
Perhaps we should begin a stopTrautman.com like a stopspecter.com?

It'll do no good, Greg. None whatsoever. The bishops do not listen, and have no reason to listen. No one holds them accountable. As long as they don't run someone down with their Buicks or get caught in a public sex scandal, they can do what they like. Only way I can see to resist them is to give no money to them or any of their pomps and works. Give directly to the St. Vincent de Paul, or some other ministry where you know your money will be used by trustworthy Catholics.

[GregY]

Rod Dreher: It'll do no good, Greg. None whatsoever.
(sigh)..Yes, I do not expect to change them. The Church is a monarchy not a democracy, thank God. But, I do intend to raise awareness and perhaps the more orthodox bishops will take up the cause--if not now, perhaps in years to come. I mean, the bishops are men and are susceptible to pressure (e.g., they do respond to pressure from some folks!)

[Kevin Miller]

Anyone who doesn't think that any of their pomps and works are worthwhile ought to look again at the immediately previous post on this blog.

In any case, we have an obligation to support the Church - and the Church is our diocese, not only (or even primarily) organizations like St. V. de P., however worthwhile those may also be.

This, I repeat, is one of our most basic obligations as Catholics, right up there with annual confession of grave sins and communion, and Mass on Sundays/Holy Days, and so on.

[Patrick Rothwell]

"Worse, the bishops have apparently now voted Bishop Trautman as head of the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy. This is horrible, horrible news for those of us who are more traditional on matters liturgical."

I agree with Rod. I am appalled that Bishop Trautman is the head of the Liturgy Commitee. Perhaps, however, it won't mean much of anything anymore now that the reform of the reform is in Rome's hands. I wonder if Msgr. Maloney will be replaced...

[Sandra Miesel]

The idea that directives from Rome would have the slightest effect on liturgy in the US under the tender care of Bishop Trautman is just too droll. Our only recourse is to pray: "Lord bless and keep the bishops--far away from us."

[David Kubiak]

My distaste for Bishop Trautman is second to none, especially since I have vivid boyhood memories of one of his predecessors in the Diocese of Erie, the great John Mark Gannon. But I am not as upset as some, for two reasons. First, radical collegiality has made it irrelevant who has a position like Bishop Trautman's, since individual bishops do whatever they want liturgically in their dioceses. Second, as a group Catholic bishops have the most pure old-boy system still in existence anywhere. Bishop Trautman has always been associated -- however repulsively -- with the liturgy, so in their system he deserves to get the job. He's an old man and cannot last long; the Father Tuckers and Johansens and Sibleys of the Church have a good fifty years to make their influence felt. In the meantime, thank God for the Indult.

[Rod Dreher]

The idea -- Kevin's -- that refusing to put one's tithe into the hands of ecclesial bureaucrats whom we have good reason to believe will not use it to advance the cause of Jesus Christ puts one's soul in danger of hell is ... also just too droll.

[Maria Ashwell]

Sandra-
Thank you for the humor and the reality check.

[Kevin Miller]

Rod: It's not my idea. It's canon law's and the Catechism's - and is really very basic: To the extent that you refuse communion with the Church, to that extent are you putting your soul in danger of hell. If you don't agree, then why exactly do you bother to be Catholic at all? And again, I invite readers to read Amy's previous post about one "ecclesial bureaucrat" and his family.

[Gavin Duncan]

As a Catholic of the Spokane diocese, it looks as if I'm going to have to be extremely tactful about how I write my letter requesting a change of canonical jurisdiction to the Ruthenian Eparchy of Van Nuys... afterall, I'm one more pocketbook to help offset the financial damage brought about by this scandal.

And I wonder what effect Trautman's appointment is going to have on the Missa Cantata celebrated at GU. We've fought too long and too hard to preserve the musical heritage of the Latin church to be shut down, and it seems like Trautman is on a personal crusade to do just that. I agree with and second Mr. Kublak's comment about the Indult Mass. And I would aslo like to thank God for our Eastern Catholic eparchs who haven't lost their minds!

Ut omnes errantes ad unitatem Ecclesiae revocare, et infideles universos ad Evangelii lumen perducere digneris, te rogamus audi nos!

[Susan F. Peterson]

I read Bishop Trautman's essay and on the whole did not find it objectionable in itself. His general observations about translation are true. A word for word translation is not only a bad translation; it is not a translation. Any translation is necessarily an interpretation to some extent. One does have to consider how the expected audience will hear the passage-what it will mean in their language as they use and understand it.

It is perfectly true that anthropos means human being, not male. I was clearly taught by my very grammatical parents that in English masculine is the common gender. I will not surrender grammatical decency to anyone's sensitivities on this point. "Everyone take out their book." is an atrocity. If one cannot understand that "his" is perfectly fine here for a mixed group, well then, say his or her.

On the other hand, there are places where it does no harm to say "People" instead of "Men."
I think the meaning of "men" has been successfully changed whether we like it or not. I say this because I cannot read my old college papers in which I wrote "Men think X" and have the "People think X" meaning come to mind first. I have to push aside the "Males think X" or "Men-as opposed to women-think X" meaning to get to "people." I cannot hear the sentences the way I myself wrote them thirty plus years ago.

Sometimes one must surrender a point and he who will not is a stubborn fool. ("She" is too!)
Speaking is the stubborn fool who still insists on singing "And I will raise him up" Instead of "And I will raise you up" because the changes in that song were made for political correctness reasons, and this irritates the hell out of me.

But the bishop is correct: If we stop saying "brothers and sisters," and only say "brothers" women are going to feel excluded. They are just not going to think,"Oh, in this context, brothers means me too."

I would say, let us use inclusive language if it does not result in grammatical atrocities such as plural pronouns attempting to agree with singular nouns, if it does not destroy felicity of phrase, and if it does not apply to God ie we should not be praying to "Our father and mother in heaven."

Back to the literal translation vs translation of meaning issue. The translator is going to be making judgements as to which words best convey the meaning to people in a cultural context. The question is, what is the intent of the translator; what meanings does he want to transmit; what is the slant of his interpretation? That is where the issue is.

"And with thy spirit" as the Episcopalians still say in their first rite, is quite euphonious. I have never understood exactly what it means, however. "And with your spirit." is much more difficult to say:try saying it outloud a couple of times. Also, this use of the word "spirit" is archaic; it works with the archaic pronoun, but not with the modern one. The problem with "And also with you." is that it is bland, plebian, stretched out with an extra unnecessary word "also" to make it fit the rhythm expected by those used to saying "Et cum spiritu tuo" or "And with thy spirit." How about just "And with you." ?

I also agree in principle that these things should be done locally, in the countries where the language is spoken, with veto power from Rome. IF it should happen that those in any particular country really lack the faith to such a degree that they cannot write a translation of the liturgy which expresses it, only then should one be imposed. Are we indeed in such a state?

I don't think we need to try to recreate the rhythms of Latin or its rhetorical style in English. We need something which is beautiful, reverent, solemn, in the rhythms of the English language.

Just my thoughts on the issue.
Susan F. Peterson

[Susan F. Peterson]

PS I know nothing about Trautman other than this essay. For all I know he could be hidng all kinds of evil intent under the benign theory.
SFP

[Socius]

If you like conspiracies, try this:

Liberal and moderate bishops were concerned with the direction that renewal of the liturgy is going, in part due to Cardinal George's leadership of the Liturgy Committee, his role with ICEL, and his work implementing Vox Clara. So, they supported his candidacy for vice-president (and virtually president-elect), so that he would resign as Liturgy Chair and they could get Trautman in.

They recognized that the Chair of the LIturgy Committee has more power over what matters than the Conference president and vice president. Furthermore, they get Cardinal George in as Conference President for the next U.S. presidential election, and they imagine that he will undercut the stronger stance against pro-abortion Catholic politicians taken by Chaput, Burke, and others.

[Kevin Miller]

Regarding liturgical translations:

1. On the meaning of Et cum spiritu tuo, see Michael K. Maggee, "The Liturgical Translation of the Response 'Et cum spiritu tuo,'" Communio 29 (2002): 152-71.

2. On the problems that can arise with even "horizontal inclusive language," see Gregory Vall, "Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ," Thomist 67 (2003): 579-606.

[George]

Wow. A return to the liturgy wars. Who knew? And I thought the real issue was pederasty in Spokane. All over "and with your spirit" and "I believe." As a fan of traditional liturgy, I believe there is no reason that modern liturgy can't coexist with traditional English and Latin liturgies.

Imagine if every parish was required to a have at least one Mass in traditional language with appropriate music every month. We will never have a significant revival of traditional liturgy if we wait for Rome to rule. Even fully implemented, the GIRM and actual Missal will still have us worshipping like low-church Episcopalians.

Folks, let's make one thing clear. Rome loves that the Americans are so divided. They love that neither a Kerry or Santorum will ever be elected president. They love that we can't agree on our liturgical language. Whenever possible, they choose mediocre bishops who will be divisive leaders. On the one thing the American church could actually agree on--defrocking pederast priests, they even managed to gum that that one up a bit.

The last thing Rome (and most of rest of the Church) wants is a strong, united Catholic Church in America, be it orthodox or heterodox. If you are an orthodox Catholic who happens to be conservative, remember that the curia was by one estimate 60-40 for Kerry. Remember that the Pope himself picked Cardinal McCarrick to head the Catholics in Public Life commission. And that Archbishop Chaput got five votes.

I am not saying the Holy Father is Jacques Chirac, but there are very few friends of America or the Church in America in Rome. Notwithstanding George Weigel's or John Allen's rose-tinged reports.

[Maclin Horton]

Susan,

I don't think we need to try to recreate the rhythms of Latin or its rhetorical style in English. We need something which is beautiful, reverent, solemn, in the rhythms of the English language.

It exists, in the handful of Anglican Use parishes around the country. These are Episcopal congregations who came en masse into the Catholic Church, sometimes or often complete with priest. This was a movement that I had hoped would grow but alas has not.

Regarding gender-neutral language, I once heard a liberal Catholic say that he couldn't understand why there was such resistance to it, when it was thoroughly accepted in the media, the government, and the academy. I found that pretty funny: each of those institutions is notable for the low esteem in which many or most people hold it.

[GregY]

Susan:I read Bishop Trautman's essay and on the whole did not find it objectionable in itself. His general observations about translation are true. A word for word translation is not only a bad translation; it is not a translation.

If you read Liturgicam Authenticam, you'll see that Bishop Trautman is taking something out of context--notice that he cites that "wooden" translations shouldn't be used in specific phrases that have become almost a part of the language (mea culpa is given as example). But the Bishop spins Liturgicam Authenticam bans all wooden translations and then claims there's a contradiction with Vatican 2. In other words, he sets up a straw man in order to justify our shoddy paraphrase of a translation. Hopefully most bishops are astute enough to not fall for that kind of nonsense.

[David Kubiak]

It's true that the particular article of Bishop Trautman linked by Mr. Dreher is not so terrible if you didn't know other things about him. Very amusing to me, however, is his wanting to come off as a profound scholar of the subject while he manages to misspell "supersede".

Mr. Miller's predictable intervention on behalf of the status quo is interesting, since in this, as in other of his opinions, he comes from a conception of Church structure and discipline that was not really set out and implemented until Trent. So in this respect he is in fact quite conservative. What he does not realize is that Vatican II and its aftermath set out precisely to demolish that model of the Church. The parish is now a meaningless religious concept, as the Pope admits in his patronage of various "ecclesial movements". The bishops have been restored to a mediaeval degree of independence from Roman authority, and are returning to a position of cowed subordination to secular authority, however ungodly; the laity save their souls as they can. In this context it is quite impossible to identify giving money to the USCCB as "supporting the Church", if for example a significant number of bishops are in fact covert operatives of the Democrat party.

I heard a very pathetic but eloquent caller on EWTN tell Karl Keating today that after these bishops' elections it was becoming impossible to counter the claims made by his traditionalist friends. Mr. Keating gave a nervous and convoluted response that provided no clue as to how that might successfully be done.

What indeed can be said when after all that has happened in the last two years the bishops could elect as their president a man who has been seriously compromised in the sexual scandals, and whose diocese has filed for bankruptcy. Bankrupt is perhaps the adjective of the moment.

[PJ]

There's obviously been a great deal of good discussion going on here, and I can't imagine that I could add that much, but here goes.

I, too, am terribly dissapointed with the bishops' decision. I frankly think that the whole conference should disband and start new. We don't need an ecclesial mouthpiece for any political parties.

While there are many very legitimate reasons to critique His Excellency, I think that prudence dictates that we shouldn't discuss his sex life. I have no knowledge of his having been abused, let alone of "widespread abuse" in minor seminaries. Talk about loaded language. I think that we should recognize our bishops for who and what they are; earthen vessels charged with holding, in great measure, the treasures of heaven. While we need to call them to fidelity, we should first heed the call to prayer.

[amy]

Thanks, PJ..I had not kept an eye on this thread and had not noted such comments, which are not what I need on this blog. Have deleted -

[Ignatius]

But PJ, our bishops even have their victims from minor seminary praying for them:

Early the next morning, O'Connell sent an e-mail [to a] former student of St. Thomas Aquinas. The man was now 50 and still clung to his dream of becoming a priest. For these articles, the former student asked to be identified by his initials, T.L., to help protect his family and his privacy.

T.L. said O'Connell began to abuse him in the late 1960s while T.L. attended St. Thomas. T.L. was kicked out of St. Thomas during his junior year after he confided to O'Connell that he was sexually attracted to other students. [O'Connell turned the student in to the seminary director.] Even then, O'Connell held a powerful control over T.L. He continued to seek him out for sex until T.L. was well into his 30s, according to a suit T.L. filed against O'Connell and the Jefferson City Diocese.

In 1994, T.L. said, he told church officials of the abuse and asked them to get O'Connell help. He also told them rumors of the abuse at St. Thomas. He then confronted O'Connell, who promised T.L. that he was getting help and that such behavior was no longer occurring.

Since then, O'Connell had sent T.L. a few hundred dollars nearly every month, according to the suit. The payments eventually totaled about $21,000, the last coming just days before O'Connell resigned, T.L. said.

"Please know that you are in my feeble prayers these days," O'Connell wrote in his e-mail to T.L. "Please keep me in yours."

Almost immediately, T.L. responded that he was praying for the bishop.

"I am totally unworthy, as I have been all along, of your love, prayers and forgiveness," O'Connell responded. "Just know that I'll continue to help you in every way I possibly can, no matter where I am."

[Dale Price]

It's probably impossible to tell, but is there any way to estimate--and all I'm saying is a plausible guess--just how much of the weekly parish offering goes to support the bishops' conference?

[Mike Petrik]

Dale,
I'm sure it is tiny. Most dioceeese "tax" parishes at a given rate. That tax is usually about 10% I think. I would be very surprised if more than a couple per cent of the diocesan budget went toward such conferences. Thus we are talking about a very small fraction of a single per cent of each weekly parish offertory.

[Dale Price]

Mike:

That sounds reasonable.

Thanks!