Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Revisionist Hardball

From the Union-Leader in Manchester, the John McCormack self-exoneration tour continues:
THE INTERCESSIONS published on the Diocese of Manchester's Web site for Mass this past Sunday asked Catholics throughout New Hampshire to pray for reconciliation with those "who have been in leadership roles and have unwittingly allowed" sexual abuse to happen -- a thinly veiled reference to Bishop John McCormack and Auxiliary Bishop Francis Christian.

Slipped in amongst mention of those who were abused and those who were the abusers, this clever effort to exonerate our bishops of their shameful records deserves rebuttal.

"Bless me Father, for mistakes were made" is their version of confession instead of "Bless me Father, for I have lied, deceived, covered up sexual abuse, and endangered children." Bishop McCormack's habitual turn to euphemisms about "mistakes and inadequacies" cannot obscure the plain, simple truth. What they say now about what they did then reveals a clerical mindset bent more on damage control than honesty. The continuing spin, like these intercessions, is what is so wounding to the Body of Christ. Where are the bishops who speak truth from the heart and do not practice deceit?
If Bill Donohue's going to tar victims as "vultures" and urge the bishops to "start playing hardball," what about vulture-bishops who have done nothing but play hardball?

What's fair is fair, right?



Blogger Disgusted in DC said...

Boy, Ms. Disco is truly a blowhard.

First, McCormack - like everyone else - has no moral obligation to publicly incriminate himself. That is especially true if he reasonably believes that he never committed a crime. He is not morally obligated to admit that he was "negligent" when there are adverse legal consequences to such an admission.

Second, the colloquy between the Jesuit psychologist and the attorneys does not prove that Bishop McCormack lied about Shanley's history. The Jesuit psychologist's recollection may be correct or, possibly, he might himself be lying to cover his own ass or his recollection might simply be faulty. We have nothing more here than a dispute of fact. (As an aside, though not terribly relevant to McCormack's conduct, the lawsuit against Shanley itself was completely bogus insofar as the lawsuit was based on so-called "recovered memories." The editorialist, for all of her grandstanding about the "silence" of the bishops and "accountability" seems not to be terribly interested in the truth of the allegations against Shanley.)

Third, I don't understand what she is driving at in the Geoghan case. Her point is quite simply incoherent. If he did something wrong, she certainly hasn't demonstrated it.

McCormack may indeed be a cad of a bishop, but this silly sanctimonious screed doesn't prove it.

30/8/05 15:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home