I could see a few different reasons why Casey didn’t answer these questions.
First, given a major part of the issues with Casa Jesus were in regards to homosexuality. Casey uses language of “building bridges” so he may want to avoid appearing too friendly or too critical of active homosexuality in the priesthood.
I could see a few different reasons why Casey didn’t answer these questions.
First, given a major part of the issues with Casa Jesus were in regards to homosexuality. Casey uses language of “building bridges” so he may want to avoid appearing too friendly or too critical of active homosexuality in the priesthood.
Second, Cupich may not want this discussed and even though as of today Casey no longer answers to Cupich. Given Cupich’s reputation for vindictive behavior he may be hesitant to go against Cupich early in role as a new Archbishop. (Not justifying it just pointing it out)
Third, he could have failed in his attempted reforms of Casa Jesus or been oblivious to the behavior going on. Either way that makes him look incompetent. Contrary to other comments I do not think that a failed tenure (provided it was not a major moral failure or a failure to report the major moral failures of others) should disqualify a priest from the episcopate as such an experience could make one wise if they allow it to do so.
Agree with you on not-necessarily-disqualifying: governance is a skill and it's natural to expect even good leaders to make some errors along the way in acquiring it. "I saw A and did B, but I didn't understand the importance of C at the time, and have since learned D" goes a long way in giving me confidence in leadership.
I would love to see bishops more willing to discuss governance errors they have made - not just to rebuild confidence with their people and their priests, but as a service to their brother bishops (and the Church's future bishops). Don't make everyone else repeat your mistakes!
Given that Cupich closed it down, I don't see why he would object to having the situation discussed. If there was a problem he addressed it effectively.
That is true and I laud Cupich for that particular action. Although I disagree with the Cardinal on numerous issues, I appreciate his backbone and commitment. A quality quite rare in the episcopate.
It is not that I think Cupich has something to hide about Casa Jesus, it actually has more to do with that the questions are coming from The Pillar. I do not think he appreciates that this amazing news source does not toe his party line.
I could see a few different reasons why Casey didn’t answer these questions.
First, given a major part of the issues with Casa Jesus were in regards to homosexuality. Casey uses language of “building bridges” so he may want to avoid appearing too friendly or too critical of active homosexuality in the priesthood.
Second, Cupich may not want this discussed and even though as of today Casey no longer answers to Cupich. Given Cupich’s reputation for vindictive behavior he may be hesitant to go against Cupich early in role as a new Archbishop. (Not justifying it just pointing it out)
Third, he could have failed in his attempted reforms of Casa Jesus or been oblivious to the behavior going on. Either way that makes him look incompetent. Contrary to other comments I do not think that a failed tenure (provided it was not a major moral failure or a failure to report the major moral failures of others) should disqualify a priest from the episcopate as such an experience could make one wise if they allow it to do so.
Agree with you on not-necessarily-disqualifying: governance is a skill and it's natural to expect even good leaders to make some errors along the way in acquiring it. "I saw A and did B, but I didn't understand the importance of C at the time, and have since learned D" goes a long way in giving me confidence in leadership.
I would love to see bishops more willing to discuss governance errors they have made - not just to rebuild confidence with their people and their priests, but as a service to their brother bishops (and the Church's future bishops). Don't make everyone else repeat your mistakes!
Given that Cupich closed it down, I don't see why he would object to having the situation discussed. If there was a problem he addressed it effectively.
That is true and I laud Cupich for that particular action. Although I disagree with the Cardinal on numerous issues, I appreciate his backbone and commitment. A quality quite rare in the episcopate.
It is not that I think Cupich has something to hide about Casa Jesus, it actually has more to do with that the questions are coming from The Pillar. I do not think he appreciates that this amazing news source does not toe his party line.