The McCarrick report has told us who is responsible for promoting McCarrick. Now we need a report on who McCarrick was responsible for promoting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximian

Guest
Dead people were responsible for putting him in place, But the future may be shaped by living people who were his protégés. Who are they? Did he promote them on the basis of merit?
 
Last edited:
Now we need a report on who McCarrick was responsible for promoting

Who is “we”? Should we be concerned about the reputation of those clergy? I wouldn’t like for them to be tried in the kangaroo court of the press and social media.
 
Last edited:
We is every member of the Church which has been harmed by corruption.
 
How do you envision the information being gathered, disseminated, and used, so that the reputation of innocent clergy are not ruined by their incidental association with McCarrick?
 
Last edited:
I trust that the Vatican will do a really thorough report which ensures that the innocent are not castigated.

Or do you doubt the impartiality of the compilers of the latest Vatican report?
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
Or do you doubt the impartiality of the compilers of the latest Vatican report?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you added that. I have no reason to think ill of them or even suggest it.

I am more worried about bloggers and commentators.
 
That’s not a reason to leave in place a network of McCarrick’s friends.
 
I understand the desire to destroy the evil, but you still haven’t explained how you would protect the good.

This situation reminds me of the Parable of the Weeds among the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). The servants said, “Do you want us to go and pull them up?” The Master replied, “No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.”

Once again, how do you envision the information being gathered, disseminated, and used, so that the reputation of the innocent is not unjustly harmed?
 
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” or are the old saws to be also sidelined?

A report which neglects to engage in the investigation of who (if anyone) was promoted by McCarrick is almost worthless and shows contempt of the whole investigatory and reporting procedure.
 
What do you understand by “ a report”?
What was its objective?
What was it based on?
 
Last edited:
IanM said:
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” or are the old saws to be also sidelined?
Click to expand...
I shall be satisfied if you can show how that will be compatible with the Church teaching on respect for the reputation of others (e.g., CCC 2477-2479).

I will ask this a third time, and I hope to get an answer: How will laying it all out in the sunlight, as you propose, be accomplished without harming the innocent along with the guilty?
 
graciew said:
What do you understand by “ a report”?
Click to expand...
Why not ask the people in the pews who are expected to continue to have faith in the seriousness of the hierarchy`s intent to right grievous wrongs and who are also expected to continue to pay damages for those who were guilty of protecting wrongdoers?
 
Beryllos said:
How will laying it all out in the sunlight, as you propose, be accomplished without harming the innocent along with the guilty?
Click to expand...
Well this is the first time I have ever seen anyone try and justify the lack of investigation of wrongdoing on moral grounds!
 
I asked very simple questions in reference to the report .The one you attribute contempt in investigation procedures.
So again what were those procedures?
 
Last edited:
Where in the report do you find evidence of contempt?
What sort of limits were placed for the investigation?
How can you conclude it is open or closed to claims? Support your statements on the report , not baseless opinions
 
Last edited:
According to the normal procedures of any enquiry, interviewing all the relevant persons in total confidentiality, exactly as they have just done in the recently conducted report on McCarrick.

Why should there be any less scrutiny of the living than of the dead, who were connected to McCarrick?
 
Well, I’m happy to leave this to OP and whatever brigade of scandal hunters he might wish to join or start.

I have more important things to in my own spiritual life than go around playing Scooby Doo with whoever McCarrick might have promoted and checking on whether they themselves were corrupt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top