Scandal update

I linked earlier to a site that discussed the gossip that the Wuerl scandal, that said his firing and "golden parachute" actually would lead to him having more power.

GetReligion discusses and has several links to news articles on the scandals, including this one that has affirmation of the gossip:

Now, if you read the long New York Times piece on Wuerl’s exit — with evidence that his power in Rome may actually increase ...

the gossip said Dolan lost in the fight over who would control US bishops, but this article (predating the resignation) has Dolan defending Wuerl.

Dolan and Wuerl represent, in a sense, the “old guard” of U.S. bishops. Although not aggressively orthodox, the two rose to prominence during Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate.

italics mine

,,,  Although Dolan famously capitulated to LGBT activists, allowing them to participate in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, and applauded Michael Sam for announcing his homosexuality (“Bravo!”), neither he nor Wuerl is as radical as some in the clique of Francis-appointed prelates including Cardinals Joseph Tobin and Blase Cupich and Bishop Robert McElroy.

the back story of this is the rumors about the gay agenda being pushed at the conference on yutes that the Vatican is holding. Many suspect the conclusions have already been written to push gay rights. as one sees here, where a "delegate" who is pushing the meme: "inclusion".

“They wanted the church to be more open [...] a multicultural church that’s open to all, that should not be judgmental, a community that makes everybody feel at home, reflecting the message of Jesus Christ,” Morales said, according to a Vatican translator. “The church should not discriminate against minorities or people with different sexual orientations or who are poorer, no.” They also wanted a church more “welcoming” to “fragile” people, as well as a more representative role for women.

Well, the irony is that one does not "join" the Catholic church as one does a protestant church. Anyone can go to mass, and no one cares.

however, to say not to preach repentance from sin so one doesn't feel "excluded" is wrong. And to let people living in sin to receive the sacraments is wrong, as Paul pointed out.

So does "inclusion" include welcoming gays and prostitutes? How about murderers, mafia hit men, crooked politicians and businessmen who steal everything in sight, or crooked politicians who order hits on their political rivals?

Yup. they are all here at mass. No one is chased out unless they openly flaunt their sin.

In the past, the laws were strict, but it was understood that people were in dilemmas and that God would give them mercy.

But now we face not just sin in our bishops, which has been around since Eli's sons schtupped those visiting the Ark of the Covenant or Judas skimmed donations given to Jesus to support his work.

What we have now is a Pope whose minions want to change the laws themselves, because niceness is the highest rule (never mind those who are harmed when they wink at sin). This is something very very different.

So how the church should act when confronted with sinners?

If one is too strict, they will leave in despair and anger and never be open to repent, but if one is too lax, you end up with people who simply don't know what they are doing is wrong.

And maybe instead of "reforming" bishops by looking the other way, the Pope should have study sessions on St Gregory the great's instruction about how to find good bishops and how those bishops should rule.

The church has over a billion people and has been around for 2000 years, so it's not as if we face something new. Most Catholics know the clergy is not the church: And the mass is more about meeting Christ in the sacraments than it is about glorifying the pastor or even "celebrating" each other as in some "modern" Catholic churches.

The bishop/priest is a sinner? Well, he is still a priest. And his ability to give you the sacraments is not changed any more than if your doctor was sctumping all the nurses or cheating the IRS would mean that your penicillin wouldn't cure your pneumonia.

so do you leave because of corrupt bishops? Or do you stay because that is where you find God?

Oscar Romero was just canonized, to the delight of the left and despair of the right wing in the church. watch the movie here.

But he faced the problem that I saw in Africa: Do you remain silent when faced with atrocities by the government and by the "rebels", or do you confront them? He dared to criticize government atrocities and was killed, but you know, quite a few priests who criticized the "rebels" in various third world hellholes also were killed (quite a few were killed by FARC in Colombia, for example, and we had priests and sisters killed by both sides when I worked in Zimbabwe in the 1970s.)

so do I leave the church because of Wuerl's sins, or do I stay because I knew priests and bishops who were martyred for defending the rights of the people?