"As Rod notes about the Priest in question: "He had been suspended ...after formal abuse accusations had been leveled against him...the pastor knew all about his past, had concluded that he had been falsely accused, and put him into active ministry ... Now, this priest might well be innocent -- nothing has been proved against him" "
Since this is what Rod said about this priest, the charge that Rod is guilty of the sin of detraction needs a little more substantiation, wouldn't you say?
You also charge Rod with the sin of taking scandal. This means being shocked-shocked when there was nothing to be shocked-shocked about. For instance, I saw this on an unnamed bee-in-the-bonnet blog:
"Cardinal Karol Wojtyla on a hiking excursion around 1975. His intimacy with this woman is such that he is comfortable being pictured with his knees touching hers. "
Geez! if somebody has a problem with this picture I'd say that's a pretty clear example of "the sin of taking scandal."
In Rod's case, the scandals were real--- and serious. As a journalist investigating the sexual-abuse situation for a major metropolitan daily as well as for the Catholic World Report, he saw and heard a lot more than was ever published. (That in itself shows discretion, not scandal-mongering.)
More than one bishop of Dallas was implicated in cover-ups involving clergy who were guilty of multiple crimes of abuse. You should read up if you don't know this.
"If a man comes home early once and has sex with the teenage babysitter, does he need to be permanently seperated from all contact with teenage girls? "
He'd certainly be separated from contact with MY teenage girls; and from me as well.
Since this is what Rod said about this priest, the charge that Rod is guilty of the sin of detraction needs a little more substantiation, wouldn't you say?No, what Rod wrote was basically a smear job on a man who appears to be innocent. See these two articles:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_01_Dreher_BlowingThe.htm
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2004_07_12/2004_07_02_Adams_ExBishopPriest.htm
Rod claims proudly: "I helped reveal troubling information about Father Christopher Clay, an accused sexual abuser"
However: "Bishop James Timlin and others say the Rev. Christopher Clay was entitled to resume ministerial duties when no criminal charges resulted from a young man's accusations against him."
Rod decided that it was better to publish what are apparently hafltruths and innuendos to help further his career than it was to take the proper route of going to his Bishop with his problems with Fr. Clay. He even publicly said that even had St. Ambrose been his Bishop, he wouldn't have given him a chance to resolve the issue before splashing it in the press.