Rather, this goes to show that, even when the archdiocese does something "right" in the midst of many, many mistakes, it gets publicly pilloried regardless.
As anyone reading the threads on FR's religion forum can tell you, I am *hardly* a fan of the way things are getting done overall in the archdiocese of Boston. Nevertheless, I applaud the cardinal for upholding the clearly stated, previously disclosed rules in this case. Perhaps this signals a turn-around of sorts from the former collective mindset.
I saw a lengthy interview with this gentleman two nights ago. While I am thankful that his daughter is alive and well, I came away noting several things.
First, he consistently said that "we chose life over abortion for her," as if abortion *might* have been considered. Thank God he and his girlfriend made that choice, but the way it was phrased hardly makes them candidates for the Right-to-Life Couple of the Year.
Second, even he admits that the morals clause in his contract was disclosed to him well before the pregnancy, so it wasn't sprung on him. I wonder how much he was thinking about that before he did his thing with his girlfriend.
Third, speaking of his girlfriend, she was *entirely* absent from the interview, and he didn't so much as *mention* her by name or allusion even once! I wonder if that is because she wants to marry the guy and he has thus far refused.
Fourth, he himself, in depicting his options, never once mentioned that the "option" of marrying his girlfriend and mother of his child has been available to him during the entire 11 months from the child's conception to the present. He makes this whole thing sound like the mean old Archdiocese of Boston is firing him without due recourse to a modification of behavior as an option first. Well, clearly, this is a self-imposed deprivation of options, he and his girlfriend have had the option of marriage all along!
The whole story was slanted in such a way as to highlight the puritanical, antediluvian morals of the archdiocese as demonstrably hypocritical in light of the recent and massive sexual abuse scandal. In a way, that's fair enough, coming from a secular organ disinterested in the Church's teachings. The Church has only itself to blame in the hamstringing of its role as moral teacher around here, and it will have to suffer the slings and arrows of hypocrisy charges for some time to come, I suppose. But this guy, aiding and abetting the chorus of "Hypocrisy!" through his whining about something he knew the consequences of in advance, deserves no sympathy. Let him marry the woman who gave birth to his daughter, and then I imagine the archdiocese would be willing to discuss his reinstatement (if only to get the secular world's approval).
Until then, we should thank God that the Cardinal is putting principles over pragmatics, even if, on the surface, it heightens potential embarrassment. Too bad he and his predecessors didn't disregard issues of public embarrassment earlier, in other matters...
I think we may be neck and neck on how little a fan of the workings of the Archdiocese of Boston we are (I do have the handicap of having worked in the Chancery office for 5 years) but this is the Diocese of Fall River which I know so little about.
The worst thing I have to say about them is that they didn't keep that Bishop that they had before Coleman.