« | Main | Reactions »
November 15, 2004
Business as usual
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.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83471fd3069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Business as usual:
Comments
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
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 15, 2004 3:47:32 PM
Cardinal George at VP is good, no? Given the seniority rules at the USCCB, it at least indicates the bishops' direction.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 15, 2004 3:56:49 PM
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.
Posted by: George at Nov 15, 2004 4:08:01 PM
"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??)
Posted by: Leo at Nov 15, 2004 4:11:52 PM
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.
Posted by: JohnMcG at Nov 15, 2004 4:37:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Leo at Nov 15, 2004 5:48:24 PM
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?"
Posted by: Lynn at Nov 15, 2004 5:59:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Ignatius at Nov 15, 2004 7:49:46 PM
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...
Posted by: eadfrith at Nov 15, 2004 8:06:09 PM
48% of the bishops didn't want him.
Posted by: Anna at Nov 15, 2004 10:02:22 PM
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!
Posted by: Meaghan at Nov 15, 2004 11:41:55 PM
"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.
Posted by: Anon at Nov 15, 2004 11:41:58 PM
And as a p.s., Cdl. George could do the Church SO much more good heading the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy.
Posted by: Anon at Nov 15, 2004 11:43:16 PM
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?
Posted by: James Kabala at Nov 16, 2004 12:09:28 AM
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.
Posted by: Lynn at Nov 16, 2004 12:42:13 AM
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. :-)
Posted by: Kim at Nov 16, 2004 1:07:26 AM
"48% of the bishops didn't want him."
Are we talking about Skylstad or Kerry?
Posted by: Jim2 at Nov 16, 2004 7:07:50 AM
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?
Posted by: RP Burke at Nov 16, 2004 9:27:29 AM
I don't want to seem to be defending the bishops....
Yes, we wouldn't want that.
Posted by: Tom at Nov 16, 2004 9:47:03 AM
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.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Nov 16, 2004 12:12:47 PM
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?
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Nov 16, 2004 1:35:49 PM
I agree with Rod that Trautman is the worst possible choice to head the Committee on the Liturgy. If true, that is very disappointing.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Nov 16, 2004 1:38:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Richard at Nov 16, 2004 1:47:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Leo at Nov 16, 2004 1:49:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 16, 2004 1:53:54 PM
