Vatican Cancels US Bishops’ Vote on Sex-Abuse Reform Measures

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe_5859 said:
It makes little sense for the U.S. Bishops to do something that will just have to be changed in February.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine changing (removing/rescinding) anything; I would think that the meeting in February might add to whatever the U.S. bishops come up with.
Joe_5859 said:
The Dallas Charter is still in effect.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, bishops are exempt from reporting under the Dallas Charter.
 
Last edited:
Something just feels wrong about this whole situation. DiNardo was apparently shocked and genuinely bothered by the last minute notification, but Cupich quickly defends the Pope and suggests they take a non-binding vote anyway?! According to some of the news articles, Cupich appeared ready for the news and yet DiNardo was caught off guard!

There’s a reason for the delay and I don’t buy that it has anything to do with miscommunication. Could’ve been that the USCCB’s actions were going to send a message that the Vatican did not approve of. Perhaps it was too harsh, and given the actions of the hierarchy, that seems plausible.

Maybe the non-binding vote was to see who, among the bishops, are the ones that they need to hamstring, so they can push forth their agenda. Whatever the reason, the Vatican needed to react quickly to save face come February.
 
Crusader13 said:
Something just feels wrong about this whole situation. DiNardo was apparently shocked and genuinely bothered by the last minute notification, but Cupich quickly defends the Pope and suggests they take a non-binding vote anyway?! According to some of the news articles, Cupich appeared ready for the news and yet DiNardo was caught off guard!
Click to expand...
Understandable that it does not feel right. I did not get the feeling that Cupich knew the information ahead of time and DiNardo did not, but my cynical nature at this point does cause me to not discount your suggestion,

But the US Bishops were about to take a step that is rather unique in the history of Church, effectively giving lay people power of a Bishop holding his office. I suspect that this gave the Pope pause and I hope he wants to determine a course of action that will solve the problem for the whole Church.

I see nothing wrong with the delay in the vote since bishops from around the world are meeting on the subject in February.
 
It should, as I pointed out on another thread, the evidence strongly suggests that the most prevalent type of abuse still occurring is that of adult seminarians by senior clergy. This has apparently continued unabated since 2002 in this country and throughout the world. It has obviously been covered up by other clergy. It is a rot in our church that has to be purged.

I am more than a little concerned that, due to media portrayal, people are not understanding the problem.
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
Something just feels wrong about this whole situation. DiNardo was apparently shocked and genuinely bothered by the last minute notification, but Cupich quickly defends the Pope and suggests they take a non-binding vote anyway?! According to some of the news articles, Cupich appeared ready for the news and yet DiNardo was caught off guard!

There’s a reason for the delay and I don’t buy that it has anything to do with miscommunication. Could’ve been that the USCCB’s actions were going to send a message that the Vatican did not approve of. Perhaps it was too harsh, and given the actions of the hierarchy, that seems plausible.

Maybe the non-binding vote was to see who, among the bishops, are the ones that they need to hamstring, so they can push forth their agenda. Whatever the reason, the Vatican needed to react quickly to save face come February.
Click to expand...
This article may contain an answer to your question:

www.ncregister.com

Cardinal DiNardo: Vatican Directive Came From Congregation for Bishops

USCCB head said the bishops have not lessened their resolve for action and that they are not pleased by the Holy See’s decision.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com

Guess who the two American bishops are on the Congregation. One is Cardinal Donald Wuerl. The other…Cardinal Cupich.

Coincidence? I highly doubt it.
 
Last edited:
EXACTLY. The bishops relinquished responsibility for decades. Now, Abp Pierre says the bishops are responsible – DUH – that’s what THIS MEETING was about. He says THEY are responsible then he takes it back and says the Vatican is responsible. --DUH – DUH – DUH

The Vatican has done nothing for decades to stop this problem.
 
Yeah the Wash Post article questions “what if anything” the bishops will accomplish in Baltimore. Some have said the bishops have lost all credibility. That’s one issue.

Does the current position of the Holy Father mean that the 2002 U.S. bishops’ charter is now also obsolete? Which way is it? Do the US bishops have ANY authority at all?

The Abp. disparages outside independent audits. THAT’S EXACTLY what the 2002 Dallas charter set up! I just got an email from my diocesan communications office that the audit was done and that there were no findings ! ! ! <-----This despite the facts that 2 priests have been suspended from priestly faculties for sexual abuse in the last 12 months AND a transitional deacon was supposed to be ordained, and THAT ordination was cancelled (one month before the ordination was scheduled to occur) due to allegations of sexual abuse.

This is an absolute circus. I cannot restrain myself from complaining to my young pastor. He responded the other day, telling me to “be a saint.”

You know where I would start cleaning up this mess?? the pope and all those cardinals and bishops on Weight Watchers or Nutrisystem.
 
Last edited:
The issue of the Lavender Mafia should be addressed squarely, head on. What do they hope to accomplish? Are they trying to hi-jack the Catechism and other Church teaching? If they want a gay church, then why don’t they just go off and start their own?
 
This seems contrary to the goal of increased collegiality.

Also, I wonder what will happen when PRC-chosen bishops want to do their own thing?
 
Perhaps there are limits to collegiality when bishops history is to fail so spectacularly. That seemed to be the end result in Chile.
 
tafan2 said:
This has apparently continued unabated since 2002 in this country and throughout the world
Click to expand...
This is just a thought based on what you wrote.
In today s world, gay marriage included now,there is really no need for alibis or hiding places for adults to do let us say,what they want as it may have been in the past.
If the issue has continued in seminaries,and less that what we now come to know about decades past, the Church will no longer be a " coveted" place for adult male provision. As the world is today,it is no longer necessary if you know what I mean.
Not to lower our guard,but what seems to be an expectable trend diminishing. Much more so with careful seminary admission .
It is a thought,Tafan.
 
Last edited:
It is thought that should not be completely discounted. Although, on a societal scale, I do not think this is a step forward. However, if there is a culture of accepted homosexual activity among clergy and it is infecting our seminaries, I do not think you can rely on it going away completely just because homosexual activity is more accepted in the wider culture. It may reduce for the reason you point out, but at some level its persistence would be even stronger due to the wide cultural acceptance of that activity.
 
Thanks for posting the article by John Allen. I would like to highlight the last couple of paragraphs (boldness added by me):
In much American media discussion on Monday, casual references to “the Vatican” standing in the way of the U.S. bishops abounded. However, the plain truth is that under Francis, the traditional structures of the Vatican have lost most of their power in favor of personal leadership by the pope himself.

Sooner or later, the question will become not where “the Vatican” stands, but the pontiff himself.

In the meantime, one hopes that bishops from the countries which lost the fight at the recent synod - the U.S., Australia, Ireland, the UK, Germany, Belgium, and other places that have lived the abuse crisis in full-blown form - are organizing ahead of the February meeting, so they can deliver a unified and effective message about the need for meaningful reforms.

In the absence of that, the fear would be for another Vatican meeting with an ambivalent and ambiguous outcome. Were that to happen, it could spell pastoral disaster for countries where the crisis is a real and present fact of life, including the United States
Click to expand...
I understand Francis’s wanting to delay this until the February meeting in the Vatican, but it is imperative that the meeting have a concrete outcome. I like John Allen’s reporting, always have, and one cannot say he is a super conservative/traditionalists. Yet he points out that in today’s church, it will all boil down to Pope Francis. There was just cause in criticizing the book, “The Dictator Pope”, the title alone violated the respect we owe to the Holy Father due to his office (if nothing else). But if John Allen says that “traditional structures of the Vatican have lost most of their power in favor of personal leadership by the pope himself”, one cannot help but think that there is some truth in the reports of Francis’s leadership style being rather authoritarian.
 
Here is a good summary of the discussion so far at the bishop’s meeting in Baltimore:

www.ncregister.com

Intense Debate Over Handling of Abuse Scandal Ensues at USCCB Meeting

More than 20 bishops and cardinals offered passionate speeches during an open-floor discussion in Baltimore Tuesday afternoon.
www.ncregister.com www.ncregister.com

Some of the comments by bishops are very good (and the article notes they get applause), while other bishop’s are clearly in a state of denial. I am surprised that Cardinal Mahoney spoke, and one cannot help but interpret his words as “lets just pretend this is not happening”.
 
Last edited:
Did you mean to quote your own post here? It sounds like you were intending to share a news article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top