[sinkspur]

I agree Bishop Timlin was naive and sometimes derelict--but he was not protecting a gay coterie--he was trying to keep scandalous charges from wrecking the economics of a religious enterprise that depended heavily on the good will of traditional donors.

Which he did not accomplish: either saving the economics of the school, or protecting the gay coterie. And how "religious" could the school be if it was run by deviants?

It pays to look at clergy these days with as little emotion as possible. Every one of them should have to earn whatever trust is placed in them, not given it because they've got collars around their necks.

[ultima ratio]

"And how "religious" could the school be if it was run by deviants?"

Your ignorance about this case almost equals your malice toward traditionalism. The minors involved were on retreat at with the Society of St. John. They came from a Catholic prep school nearby and were not attending school at St. John's on-paper-only college. Yes, there had been drinking. Yes, the boys admitted sharing a bed with Fr. U. But they told Timlin nothing happened--and he believed them. The explanation was that there were inadequate accommodations on the site--which actually was true.

Add to this the fact that the so-called "President" of Justin Martyr had his own credibility problem. Having accepted a position and moved his family to a non-existant college, he was furious at how he had been deceived by the order--so he had a sharp ax to grind. In any case, to place Timlin in the same category of Law and Mahony and some others would be wrong. He was not covering anything up--he removed the priests involved. But he properly wanted to limit the scandal. Can't blame him for that--there were millions of dollars at stake.