It is important reading.
Hilary provides the facts of the mistreatment of Bishop Finn revealing in it also, true humility of himself, as opposed to the false humility we see elsewhere contrasted with the intent of lawbreaking and arrogance of a Belgian Cardinal in the good books of Jorge Bergoglio, the Bishop or Rome. She draws in the circumstances of other bishops in Italy and Central America with something in common to Bishop Finn.
The article closes with a quote from John Allen of Crux;
"A good chunk of the Church may conclude that if the pope sees them as the enemy, there's no good reason they shouldn't see him the same way."
And that my friends, is what it is coming down to.
Bishop Finn and Cardinal Danneels: two different responses to abuse ‘cover-ups’
ROME, May 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – For some time, observers have expected the final outcome for Bishop Robert Finn, former head of the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese, who was ordered by Vatican officials to tender his resignation last month. The predictable sides have lined up: either condemning and saying, ‘It’s about time,’ or defending him. With all the noise made, it may be difficult for most readers to tease out the truth, but an examination of the facts of the Finn case and that of another high-profile prelate may be enlightening.
If Finn, why not the many, and much worse, others?
With Finn’s 2012 conviction of the misdemeanor offence of “failure to report” a priest caught with images of children on his computer, some of which were judged to be pornographic, it has been expected by supporters and enemies alike that the bishop would be asked by Rome to step down. But while the mainstream secular and liberal Catholic press are triumphing, some very pertinent questions are being left unanswered, primary among which is, if Finn, why not others? All the others…all the many, many others?
Read the rest at LifeSiteNews.
2 comments:
One Peter Five had an excellent article on the Bishop Finn case which laid out the facts in entirety. The conclusion was yes, the Bishop made mistakes and maybe dropped the ball on his timing and thorough investigation on this Priest soon enough, and obviously because he trusted the information given to him by others that he should have investigated himself.
OK, so......what of the others that have been proven to even take part themselves in pedophilia? Daneels, Barros and others? Far as I can see, they've been given a pass because they are part and parcel of the present 'ideological persuasion' that seems to be the ruling class of the Church at present. There really is no other way to look at this situation. Bishop Finn is a traditional Bishop that had attracted many to the seminary because of his 'truth stance'. Because he was traditional he was also a sitting duck in a Diocese that is predominately progressive. I do believe they were gunning for him right from the start. Yes, he made mistakes, probably because he was too trusting, but I will NEVER BELIEVE that he was blatantly trying to cover for a pedophile. The facts just don't bare that out.
There was no "abuse cover up" on the part of Bishop Finn. Bishop Daneels has sanctioned the most evil abuse of children, including a pornographic book, promoting sexual perversions involving children. Bishop Finn upholds Faith and morals; Daneels attacks them continually. They are polar opposites.
Post a Comment