Fr Lucie-Smith has recently written in the Catholic Herald "Given that his alleged misbehaviour has been widely rumoured for some time (I myself heard some of these stories when I was a student in Rome in 2000), it is only natural to ask why he was made a bishop, then an archbishop, and finally a cardinal, if his faults were common knowledge. If the people who were responsible for the appointments did not know, then they must explain their ignorance."
This precisely mirrors the unease I have several times expressed on this blog (apologies to regular readers) about the Kieran Conry Scandal.
Here again, rumours were rife within Sussex. And at least one account questioning his suitability had occurred in print around the time of his Consecration.
We have never been given any explanation of how he attained the episcopate. Not unnaturally, there have been rumours that Cormack M-O'C was involved. It may not be easy to check this, but presumably there are paper trails of some sort in the Nunciature and in Rome.
The plain fact is that the Great and the Good stick by each other. I believe that the case of the Anglican Bishop Peter Ball is currently under review in the British enquiry into sexual abuse. I remember speaking to one of Ball's highly placed 'Establishment' supporters about his misbehaviour, and being very loftily put down. And this even happened after he had accepted a police caution and resigned his diocese. Ball and his grand chums were by then putting it around that, although innocent, he had accepted the police caution in order to save the Church [of England] embarrassment.
The Conry business is, I am sure, quietly buried, and for good.
I would think more highly of the CBCEW if this were not so.
Lucie-Smith is right. Such appointments are too important to be left at the mercy of grand people who make remarks in the ears of other grand people.
Grand people do not always know best. Indeed, it can be surprising how often they get so many things wrong. This can be because they are so susceptible to the deceits of other grand people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Kieran Conry: The usual lies and cover-up. When will they ever learn? And Conry was put in charge of evangelisation despite having said you could not talk of salvation to children.
In my view the faithful of A and B have a right to more information about the rise, fall and fate of the bishop set over them.
I am told from a growing number of friends who are priests, that evidence is being gathered as to who knew what about the Conry scandal. Some of these friends are themselves being asked about who knew what, and some are telling their stories. Apparently, the highest echelons of the hierarchy knew and did nothing and, it seems, those who are researching this, are almost ready to publish. I don't know if any of it is true but, if it is, there is yet to be another nail in the coffin of the hierarchy. The difficult and upsetting issues in the Church at the moment all seem to have their locus and origin in the hierarchy. Perhaps there is a lesson here. I would hope that, from humility and honesty, they might resign before being embarrassed. But probably not...
I thought the naughty Yankee was just gay. So, logically, there was no scandal, and therefore nothing to inhibit his ascent. The Great and the Good do not think St Paul was right on this one and act accordingly.
Indeed, following my previous comment, there is a definite trend in a lot of progressives that suggests they think gayness is somehow more virtuous that heterosexual behaviour. Not least, I suspect because it is seen to require a subjection to prejudice or shame, which itself now bestows a sort-of virtue on the victim, whomsoever they are and whatsoever they did/ do. But I suspect the same attitude derives from scorn for the fecundity of heterosexual unions, which is gross, debasing and filthy. And is why our churches have no children in them, but the mosques do. We're back with Manichaeism.
I saw KC walking down my local high street in his civvies just a few years before the scandal broke. His generation of priest were tasked to manage the collapse of the Church and they dutifully obliged. In my youth, I lazily blamed either them personally or "the Council" for this outcome. Now in my maturity, I see through all of this.
One thing the late, Jonathon Bowden got right (from CMOC's alma mater no less) was the source of the West's collapse. The political situation however is beginning to turn towards Bowden's vision. Our emptied Churches have nothing to contribute to what might be about to happen. God help our people.
I was born on the wrong side of the railway tracks. A minor handicap compounded by the loss of a parent at the age of six. Perhaps further compounded by being abused by a priest at the age of ten. I viewed with envy the Irish aristocrats who dominated parochial and scholastic life as there seemed to be a “Murphy-O’Connor” or similar in every Catholic parish and school.
I met that Gatwick airport chaplain in 1995 before flying out to Frankfurt and on my own. He was a truly terrifying man. Did his late bishop seriously think he was suitable to be working as a priest? Having been proved to be so criminally wrong in this matter, would this same bishop not have experienced some self-doubt as to his own suitability to evaluate candidates for the priesthood, episcopacy and the see of Peter itself?
Post a Comment