Bizarre comments from U.S. bishops' new v.p.
What does the U.S. bishops' election, last week, of Cardinal Francis George of Chicago as USCCB president and Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas (formerly of Chicago) as vice president and presumed successor, signify?
You could be forgiven for not thinking it means things are going to change for the better anytime soon.
That's because the Chicago Sun-Times reported the following (click on this post's title) on Nov. 14:
"While rector of [Chicago's] 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...
"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.'...
"'I don't think there was anything I could have done differently,' Kicanas said."
------------------------------
Of course. one thing then-rector Kicanas could have done differently would have been to boot him from the seminary.
He would have saved those boys from being molested. Wasn't it "grossly unfair" to them for the then-rector to let a man with that track record be ordained?
If the rector found it distasteful to kick him out, he could have just pretended to himself that the seminarian favored the Latin Mass or opposed women priests, or some other offense that liberals find heinous. (Disclaimer: This is sarcasm.)
Over half of the bishops voted for Bishop Kicanas as their v.p. Wonder how the members of our hierarchy here in L.A. voted?
I haven't found any subsequent comments by Bishop Kicanas about the Sun-Times article or the whole situation. If he made any, I would be glad to see them and relay them here.
You could be forgiven for not thinking it means things are going to change for the better anytime soon.
That's because the Chicago Sun-Times reported the following (click on this post's title) on Nov. 14:
"While rector of [Chicago's] 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...
"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.'...
"'I don't think there was anything I could have done differently,' Kicanas said."
------------------------------
Of course. one thing then-rector Kicanas could have done differently would have been to boot him from the seminary.
He would have saved those boys from being molested. Wasn't it "grossly unfair" to them for the then-rector to let a man with that track record be ordained?
If the rector found it distasteful to kick him out, he could have just pretended to himself that the seminarian favored the Latin Mass or opposed women priests, or some other offense that liberals find heinous. (Disclaimer: This is sarcasm.)
Over half of the bishops voted for Bishop Kicanas as their v.p. Wonder how the members of our hierarchy here in L.A. voted?
I haven't found any subsequent comments by Bishop Kicanas about the Sun-Times article or the whole situation. If he made any, I would be glad to see them and relay them here.
posted by Quintero at 8:21 PM
1 Comments:
I am curious to know how our heirarchy out here voted as well. (Maybe there's a way to look on the USCCB site to see how they voted on an issue, I'll have to look that up)
...Although one would think if something like that is reported one would take action....
Post a Comment
<< Home