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!
The parish in question is in Arlington in the diocese of Ft. Worth.
No, Dreher is stating the worst possible interpretation of the circumstances, and has been riding herd scandalmongering for several years now, building himself up as quite the "expert" in the matter. The Dallas Morning News is also a known anti-Catholic fishwrapper according to local Catholics. He is helping to push forward an anti-Catholic agenda in the Liberal/Masonic press. And of course he is doing it for career advancement - that is what we all strive for at work.
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.
The matter was not public until Dreher gave his Newspaper to the story. The press release and Dreher's piece followed.
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?
Because he has made himself a public heretic, by renouncing the Papacy in public, which brings to the fore his questionable judgement and thought processes already to be seen in his very extremist reaction to the homo Priest scandal in the Church (essentially, "the Church is untrustworthy, most parishes worthless and snares of the devil, I can't let them near my children, and all/most the Priests and Bishops are guilty of being part of this cover-up"). His questionable judgement has been used to help impugn the 99% of priests who are innocent, and seperate them from influence on the lives of Catholic children. What a masterstroke for the Devil for Rod to do this work for him!
What need is the to protect the reputation of someone who lets it all hang out in public? All I am doing is drawing conclusions from what he has done and written.
So many good Catholic lay people
Rod is no longer good or a Catholic. He has denounced and renounced Holy Mother Church and its Pastors. Don't get confused on this point.