Cardinal Francis George has been elected the new president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Bishop Gerald Kicanas has been elected Vice-President of the Conference which almost guarantees his election to the presidency three years hence when George's term expires.
I've already linked to the disturbing history George brings to the USCCB. It appears now that his potential successor, Bishop Gerald Kicanas, also played a part in the story of Daniel McCormack.
While rector of Mundelein Seminary in the 1990s, Bishop Gerald Kicanas says he knew about three reports of "sexual improprieties" against then-seminarian Daniel McCormack.
Still, Kicanas supported McCormack's ordination, he told the Sun-Times.
"It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him," said Kicanas, now bishop of Tucson, Ariz., who was interviewed Tuesday after his election to vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
McCormack went to prison in July for molesting five boys while assigned to a West Side parish.
U.S. bishops are trying mightily at their assembly in Baltimore this week to portray the scandals as largely a problem of the past. The McCormack case exposed the Archdiocese of Chicago's recent failures when allegations surfaced before the priest's 2006 arrest.
Mundelein officials learned in 1992 about sexual accusations against McCormack involving two adult males and a minor. The incidents began in 1988 when McCormack was at a seminary school known as Niles College, according to archdiocesan reports.
"There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience," Kicanas said. "I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that."
McCormack was ordained in 1994. The following year, Kicanas became a Chicago auxiliary bishop.
The archdiocese's vicar general, the Rev. John Canary, also worked at Mundelein at the time. He recently told the Sun-Times that McCormack should have never been ordained.
Kicanas disagrees, saying there was no "credible" allegation against McCormack.
"I don't think there was anything I could have done differently," Kicanas said.
- Susan Hogan-Albach, Religion Reporter for the Chicago Sun Times (11.14.07)
Clearly, concordpastor, the news you are reporting calls for renewed prayer on the part of all Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that these two men were elected by their fellow bishops to lead the USCCB speaks volumes. It proves that they do not take the sexual abuse of children seriously. If they did, they could never elect these men to lead their conference. So much for "fraternal correction".
ReplyDeleteAssuming Bishop Kicanas succeeds Cardinal George, the bishops' leaders will be marked with the stain of the ongoing sexual abuse crisis for at least the next 6 years. Bishop Wilton Gregory was indeed mistaken when he proclaimed the crisis "history".
Cardinal Francis George personally went to Rome to present the USCCB Charter to Protect Children to the Pope. Yet, he still violated it with no repercussions. To this day, the Vatican has not held a single bishop accountable for his role in the crisis. Cardinal Law went to Rome to avoid indictment in Boston. He has more influence in Rome today, than he did when he was the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.
Just another example of why our bishops have lost their moral authority. The emperors have no clothes.
Cardinal O'Malley criticizes Democrats who are for abortion rights and gay marriage. It would be nice if the bishops had as much respect for life once a child is out of the womb. Why is he not more outspoken about a Republican president who bombs tens of thousands of Iraqis, watched as the death penalty was carried out in Texas, cut funding for programs that help the poor, and vetoed a program to provide health care for children?
The Cardinal says the church doesn't focus on a single issue. But apparently, as long as Republicans agree with the church on abortion and gay marriage, a blind eye can be turned to the rest of it.
And the church wonders why our numbers are dropping and people are looking for other places of worship that are not tainted the way the Catholic Church has been. I know there are abuse crisis throughout all areas, including other denominations, but the Catholic Church reserves the right to disconnect from the pain, hurt and trauma it has caused and continues to cause by turning a blind eye.This is such a sick situation. There must be some way to distribute accoutablity, and punish ALL those involved in this crisis, no matter how small thier involvment may seem. Perhaps if accountability means changing the laws so that we are allowed to put the perpetrators on trial and sentence them to jail, we may open the eyes of at least some of the higher ups who chose to look the other way.And who knows, a miricle may occur, and the light bulb may go off, and perhaps, just perhaps, some may "see the light" instead of hiding behind it.
ReplyDeleteThank you blogger Michael for mentioning Cardinal Sean's "advice" for today. How much longer can I continue to support/participate? Using pews as precincts is the wrong course of action.
ReplyDeleteMichael, The bishops spoke to the matter of the Iraq war, as noted in an item below on this blog. And abortion, with its estimated death toll of 40 million in the US since Roe v. Wade, arguably has more weight than the current dispute over a specific health care program.
ReplyDelete"Bishop Wilton Gregory was indeed mistaken when he proclaimed the crisis "history".
ReplyDeleteThank you Michael, for your comments....I found them very interesting and well thought out.
It is so discouraging to continue to read about the lack of accountability that is so apparent.
Yes, we need to pray, Irish Gal, but we also need to do so much more. I strongly feel we need to continue to keep after the Bishops so they will not be able to bury their heads in the sand and get away with it.
"Bishop Wilton Gregory was indeed mistaken when he proclaimed the crisis "history".
ReplyDeleteThank you Michael, for your comments....I found them very interesting and well thought out.
It is so discouraging to continue to read about the lack of accountability that is so apparent.
Yes, we need to pray, Irish Gal, but we also need to do so much more. I strongly feel we need to continue to keep after the Bishops so they will not be able to bury their heads in the sand and get away with it.
I would much rather have seen the headline in the Globe today read "Cardinal Sean O'Malley (or any of the bishops attending the USCCB Conference) Asks Fellow Bishops To Examine Their Consciences Regarding Their Ongoing Handling of the Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Church." I don't think we will see that headline, because I don't think any of the bishops has the courage to admonish his fellow bishops.
ReplyDeleteBack again. I found this interview by journalist John Allen with Archbishop Chaput of Denver. In it he discusses the bishops' statement on faithful citizenship. http://ncrcafe.org/node/1431
ReplyDeleteI thought you might all find it interesting, especially his answer on voting for pro-life politicians. God bless.
Ooops. Forgot to add he addresses the ongoing sexual abuse issue.
ReplyDeleteI read the NCR link posted above and need help understanding what Archb. Chaput is specifically stating. Is it that the abortion/pro-choice issue is the only issue for a Catholic?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the archbishop was making the point that our temporal choices in every arena of life have eternal consequences.
ReplyDeleteAll of this makes me think of the Voice of the Faithful initiative to support laypersons in helping elect bishops. I believe (but I am not sure) that was the way it was done in the early Church and, I must say, having the bishops elect each other has led to nothing but disaster. I wonder if laypersons even know that this is a right/responsibility they have lost over the centuries?
ReplyDeleteResponding to "anonymous" who quoted the death toll since Roe v. Wade, the bishops spoke out against the war, but O'Malley did not in the article this morning. And he wasn't saying abortion was more important than just a health care policy: "O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers."
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree that abortion is a greater problem than the war we're in. And if abortion were illegal, women in this country would be dying. How can O'Malley (and so many others) be so sure he is right?
This link tells stories we will hear again if abortion is outlawed: http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html
Forgive me, but NOW is not an unbiased source. No, indeed. Go to the website of Human Life International or Priests for Life or even Right to Life and look into the information there, then come back and say abortion is not a critical issue, anonymous!
ReplyDeleteDear Irish Gal-
ReplyDeleteand the sources you refer to are without bias?
The sources referred to are Catholic. They explain Catholic thinking and doctrine, and not the thinking and doctrine of the "culture of death" that John Paul II spoke against.
ReplyDeleteIf you read NOW's statement of purpose written by Betty Friedan in 1966 you will hardly find it to be a doctrine of a "culture of death". It speaks to the equality of women. As a woman born and raised a Catholic, I hardly feel as an equal within this community.
ReplyDeleteNOW's statement of purpose is completely beside the point of the abortion discussion. Every time there is an abortion, a child dies a very gruesome death.
ReplyDeleteIrish Gal, do you believe abortion is a "forgivable" sin?
ReplyDeleteThis thread has made it very clear why I am finding my way,after all these year, to a non-catholic faith community.
ReplyDeleteSecond to last anonymous: All sins are forgivable according to Jesus; it doesn't really matter what Irish gal would respond to that question. What matters is what Jesus preaches: Jesus forgives, has mercy on us, and doesn't look back, once forgiven.
ReplyDeleteI would also venture to guess the majority of Catholics believe in some form of contraception, do not believe it is wrong, and most certainly do not believe it is a form of abortion. You can disagree, and still be a Catholic - I believe. It is only up to Jesus, to judge me, and all of us in the end.
Grace is correct; it does not matter what I think. What matters is what the church teaches about the forgiveness of sin. Through its Catechism, the Catholic Church says:
ReplyDelete"There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. [John Paul II, DeV 46] Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss."
And then there is a link that discusses the relationship between contraception and abortion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=6141
I keep checking this blog thread hoping to see the discussion expanded by those on all sides of the abortion/prochoice/prolife issue. Why was there apparently so little public response to Cardinal Sean's statement? As in so many aspects of life and relationships, including the secular and sacred, I get concerned/uncomfortable when there is silence.
ReplyDeleteI read this blog regularly and prefer to post anonymously, however, I do post. With all the "hits" this site seems to receive, I know I would benefit from more people chiming in. Thanks.
The silence comes when two sides basically announce their positions and appear unwilling to learn from each other. There's only so many times that "I'm for this vs. I'm that" can be announced before folks realize the conversation isn't going anywhere.
ReplyDeleteA follow-up article in the Globe about the silence of politicians after the Cardinal's statement actually speaks volumes. I believe they're not going to get into the ring and do "I'm for this vs. I'm that" when they know it goes no where.
I'd love more comments, too, but I know that I only occasionally comment on blogs I read. I'd love to see all the anonymous folks come up with screen names - but I'm not holding my breath on that. Screen names instead of anonymous might help the discussion because folks would have some sense of which line of thought they were reading/responding to. With so many anonymous responders, that becomes more difficult.
That people keep coming here to read tells me that they're finding something worthwhile here (either that or they enjoy wasting their time on useless blogs!).
Such is life in the blogosphere!
Yours is not a "useless blog," Concord Pastor!!! I have learned so much in the last several months. Thanks! Initially, for a long time, I was "Anonymous." Then I decided to brave it with my pseudonymn "Daisy." By the way, I miss "Sami," who was a frequent commenter at the beginning of your blog.
ReplyDeleteThank you Daisy for noting the fact that this is far from a "useless blog". When I read ConcordPastor's response to my query about the blogalogue last night it made me feel quite sad because it has brought me great solace in a particularly lonely time. I look forward to checking in and seeing what is new; finding a source of inspiration; a point for quiet reflection; a beautiful image to treasure not too mention all that I have learned or recollected. I continue to be anonymous as it actually fits how I feel these days; sadly invisible.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what I wrote that made Anonymous feel "quite sad" - that certainly wasn't my intention in any way. If you let me know what saddened you, perhaps I could clarify what it was.
ReplyDelete