"The cardinal — who is nicknamed “Tucho” after the Argentine soccer legend Norberto Méndez"
Am I the only one who continually reads that as "Tuco" and wonders who in the Vatican is going to be playing Blondie/The Man with No Name and Angel Eyes?
It’s so obvious that in this Vatican, the degree to which you get disciplined or protected depends on which team you are on. Like Goodfellas, there are the made guys (or Jesuits, as we call them), and there are mobsters who get to do whatever they like. But Cardinal Pell gets thrown to the wolves. It’s disgusting.
This passage from St. Paul in today's Office of Readings stuck out to me. 1 Tim 5:20 "If any of them are at fault, reprimand them publicly, as a warning to the rest."
"That prompted commentators who worried that the Vatican’s commitment to child protection was already flagging to ask whether the disciplinary section risked being reduced to an afterthought. "
What I'm getting out of this story is that there is a disciplinary section, and now they don't have access to the top guy. To me this sounds like they are disempowered: they can do all their disciplinary section stuff and then ... it'll go nowhere because they don't have access to anyone with authority to act on it. They'll issue reports or something. They've already complained about their work being confounded by someone in the Vatican and this looks like the final step to isolate them.
Of all the people who understand power in the church, Pope Francis is the one who understands it the best. He's spent the last few years dis-empowering and even destroying those he doesn't like, such as Opus Dei. I can't see sidelining the disciplinary section as an accident, it is obviously a deliberate action (assuming my read of the story is correct). It looks like anti-abuse measures aren't important anymore.
The truth is, the abuser/cover-upper/sexually active bishop's faction is powerful. The media is on their side, actually (and they're on its), until they are actually exposed. Looks like they have won a round in this battle.
Except that the person first suggested for the position was Scicluna, who didn't have the necessary background to handle the doctrinal side. It's too bad there isn't anybody with the necessary double background.
Perhaps I'm missing something. The office is unofficially severed into doctrine and discipline, but Fernandez only does former because, why? although long seen as remiss on discipline ... but his doctrine is acceptable?? True that Scicluna would manage the discipline admirably (such was his task for long years) but surely his doctrine is as polished as that of Fernandez.
If we want to speak of abuse, I believe there is a huge amount still in effect in the abuse of falsely accused priests. DO NOT get me wrong. The abuse of a child or vulnerable adult is intolerable and I strongly support civil law dealing with the abuser. I see the pendulum swinging in order to protect bishops. Priests are now walking targets subject to hand picked advisory boards touted as having professionals such as FBI etc. These are folks focused on guilt not innocence and in the end the bishop has the last word- God help our priests. Would I encourage a son’s vocation? Not in this environment.
"The cardinal — who is nicknamed “Tucho” after the Argentine soccer legend Norberto Méndez"
Am I the only one who continually reads that as "Tuco" and wonders who in the Vatican is going to be playing Blondie/The Man with No Name and Angel Eyes?
I was thinking Tuco from Breaking Bad!
It’s so obvious that in this Vatican, the degree to which you get disciplined or protected depends on which team you are on. Like Goodfellas, there are the made guys (or Jesuits, as we call them), and there are mobsters who get to do whatever they like. But Cardinal Pell gets thrown to the wolves. It’s disgusting.
This passage from St. Paul in today's Office of Readings stuck out to me. 1 Tim 5:20 "If any of them are at fault, reprimand them publicly, as a warning to the rest."
"That prompted commentators who worried that the Vatican’s commitment to child protection was already flagging to ask whether the disciplinary section risked being reduced to an afterthought. "
What I'm getting out of this story is that there is a disciplinary section, and now they don't have access to the top guy. To me this sounds like they are disempowered: they can do all their disciplinary section stuff and then ... it'll go nowhere because they don't have access to anyone with authority to act on it. They'll issue reports or something. They've already complained about their work being confounded by someone in the Vatican and this looks like the final step to isolate them.
Of all the people who understand power in the church, Pope Francis is the one who understands it the best. He's spent the last few years dis-empowering and even destroying those he doesn't like, such as Opus Dei. I can't see sidelining the disciplinary section as an accident, it is obviously a deliberate action (assuming my read of the story is correct). It looks like anti-abuse measures aren't important anymore.
The truth is, the abuser/cover-upper/sexually active bishop's faction is powerful. The media is on their side, actually (and they're on its), until they are actually exposed. Looks like they have won a round in this battle.
Except that the person first suggested for the position was Scicluna, who didn't have the necessary background to handle the doctrinal side. It's too bad there isn't anybody with the necessary double background.
Perhaps I'm missing something. The office is unofficially severed into doctrine and discipline, but Fernandez only does former because, why? although long seen as remiss on discipline ... but his doctrine is acceptable?? True that Scicluna would manage the discipline admirably (such was his task for long years) but surely his doctrine is as polished as that of Fernandez.
My understanding is he didn't think so and declined.
If we want to speak of abuse, I believe there is a huge amount still in effect in the abuse of falsely accused priests. DO NOT get me wrong. The abuse of a child or vulnerable adult is intolerable and I strongly support civil law dealing with the abuser. I see the pendulum swinging in order to protect bishops. Priests are now walking targets subject to hand picked advisory boards touted as having professionals such as FBI etc. These are folks focused on guilt not innocence and in the end the bishop has the last word- God help our priests. Would I encourage a son’s vocation? Not in this environment.