One need not be "anti-Catholic" or a lunatic liberal to observe that the audit is a devastating critique of horrific mismanagement in the Chicago chancery. I'm neither liberal nor anti-clerical, and am squarely on the side of conservatives, yet I think the Cardinal George Fan Club is making a huge mistake in failing to acknowledge that the cardinal is being ruined by his own staff.
The audit indicates that Cardinal George's staff broke Illinois law, broke all sorts of archdiocesan rules and regulations, and were effectively engaged in a cover up of Fr. McCormack, for years. They betrayed Cardinal George by not informing him of the true story about Fr. McCormack. Remember, much of this happened after 2002, when the Boston Globe Spotlight series was published.
Questions:
* Is there ever a point when an orthodox cardinal will demand -- and get -- responsible behavior from his staff?
I keep hearing that Cardinal George doesn't control his chancery, that he came in to "clean house" in Chicago, but hasn't done much heavy lifting yet. Like so many other orthodox bishops, he is said to lack the will or the ability to control his staff.
* Shouldn't the Cardinal George Fan Club be agitating for the immediate firing of the chancery staff that failed so miserably in this particularly situation?
I really doubt that the McCormack case is the end of such atrocities in the Diocese of Chicago.
I was present at a press event several years ago (at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor) when I asked Cardinal George if he thought homosexals were unfit for the priesthood, or they should not be ordained. He replied firmly that he was not in favor of banning homosexuals from the priesthood, and that he knew many good priests who were homosexuals. Thus, given Cardinal George's own attitude about gay priests, it is not surprising that the chancery would go out of its way to cover up for them.
Jay -
I agree that the available data suggests that the chancery appears to need some rigorous attention. However, it is not clear to me if this is a wide spread problem or if it is isolated to a few offices. If one already has a negative opinion about the state of the chancery then this I suppose would seem to support it but for those without one it is not necessarily a condemnation of the whole organization.
I am unsure that the report clearly points to a cover up. The expunged seminary record is certainly a data point that could lead one in that direction. The rest of the concerns, a lost letter from the sister back in 2000, the late reporting to the Cardinal about the arrest, etc., could suggest this but the report does not provide any evidence that these events were part of an orchestrated cover up. If there was, I pray this will be quickly addressed.
I will have to say that I am unwilling to draw broad conclusions based solely upon a report that restricted its attention to identifying problems with one program needing correction without placing these problems in the context of the state of the over all program.
However, if you noticed there are some changes that have taken place. There is a new Vicar General who was the Rector of Mundelein Seminary. The previous Vicar General, Bishop Rassas, was moved to be the Vicar of Vicariate 1. I do not want to speculate too much but this seems to me to suggest that they may have already identified where some key changes need to be made.
If you understood your exchange with Cardinal George correctly back in 2002 I will admit that I would disagree with him on this account. First, one must make some distinctions. There is the disorder of same-sex attraction which comes in varying degrees. I prefer to avoid the term "homosexual" because it appears to feed into the mistaken notion that same-sex attraction is ontological rather than a disorder. The term "gay" was formulated in the last half of the 20th century to identify a movement to push an agenda to make society accept a subculture of disordered sexual encounters as mundane. Given the rationale from the recent instruction from the Holy See on not admitting those who suffer from this disorder into the seminary, I believe that Cardinal George would not give the same response today.
I will admit that having spent 20 years in the AF that my first inclination is to blow up my enemies. Left to my own devices, I would probably go into a place like Cardinal George found in Chicago kicking butt and taking names (which is military lingo for cleaning house). Thus I can sympathize with frustration that there are still major problems. However, a Bishop is not an army general but the father of a family. In trying to lead the Archdiocese back to orthodoxy, it is clear that the Cardinal wants to bring the whole family along. One can argue with his prudential judgments here and there and I am sure that he has made his share of mis
While sharing David's instinctual desire to kick butt and take names, I suspect that one of the problems feeding this kind of situation is that the sort of people one often finds working in a curia (or wanting to work in a curia) are simply not the sort of people who are good are keeping a tight rein on potentially suspicious or dangerous activities. Unfortunately, given the nature of the scandals that have plagued the church over the last half century, they clearly need to learn to act that way. But people who are not naturally guard dog types often end up making very poor gaurd dogs. I wouldn't surprise me if that is some of what we're seeing, as well as or instead of active attempts at coverup.
Brendan - very good thoughts. Thanks!
Commenting by HaloScan
