Replies

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.

I agree that in normal times and under normal circumstances, he should have gone to his bishop first.

But you've touched on a difficult point about which I have a perplexity of conscience. I have grave doubts about it because of the bishops' very poor decades-long history of prompt effective action (yes "the" "bishops," 75% of whom have personally shuffled and covered up allegations of abuse). And this is triply true of the man who wears the mitre in Dallas, Most Reverend Charles V. Grahmann, who frankly has a substandard record in this regard.

Your allegation that Rod Dreher published what he knew "to help further his career" is uncalled-for. You impute the worst possible motive, when Dreher's stated and perfectly plausible motive was to inform the public about a matter which was already public (the Scranton bishop had issued a press release) and to protect his parish and his fellow parishioners.

Why are you, who are laudably committed to protecting the reputation of a priest, so casual about impugning the motives of a layman: a husband, father, parishioner, and journalist?

So many good Catholic lay people have tried to act in filial trust toward their pastors, only to be ignored by chancery functionaries and obstructed by layers of clerical bureaucracy. Isn't it amazing, how chancery offices communicate with us now through press releases and lawyers!! How lay people long for a bishop who is at least accessible when serious matters arise ---a spiritual father and shepherd of souls!