Reaction To Bishop Malone: Principled Advocacy Or A Political Hit?
JUST MY OPINION:
I have significant problems with the institution of the Catholic Church, and those problems stem back to the so-called reforms of Vatican Two. In fact, I have long shared the sentiments of Pope Paul VI when in 1963 he said "The smoke of Satan is loose in the Vatican."
I am particularly concerned about the doctrines and statements of Pope Francis, whose blatant left-wing agenda is, to me, as clear as Easter bells. Pope Francis seemingly has reduced the significance of the evils of abortion, and appears to have presumed a greater insight than Christ visa v his revision of the Lord's Prayer.
Furthermore, while Pope Francis has injected himself into American Presidential politics, he has curiously remained silent about American politicians who not only support abortion, but who embrace and apply what some might style "Infanticide."
( Just my observation: The presence of two Pope living concurrently gives a rather eerie, if not substantive, appearance of a sharp schism within the Church, not present since the Middle Ages.)
Therefore, I can state sincerely that I am not an advocate for the institution of the Catholic Church, or for its component dioceses and bishops.
The Church's policies toward the pedophilia scandal is particularly disgusting, and in my opinion, well serves the cause of evil.
Regrettably, the Buffalo Diocese appears to have been a classic show piece for the application of such policies. It would seem that conduct of Bishops McNulty, Head, Kmiec, Mansell, and Malone have been in strict line with those Vatican policies. In that regard, it is reasonable to assume that had the behaviors of any of those bishops violated those policies, they would have been discharged.
Ergo, the idiom "A fish rots from the head down" comes to mind. Absent a demand for a concurrent Papal resignation, I am perplexed by the current pressures and demands of certain diocesan and lay actors for Bishop Malone's singular resignation. As I view it, these pressures and demands are suggestive of, and bear, all of the earmarks of an attempted political hit.
No decent thinking human being, myself included, doubted, or still doubts, the need for the pedophilia scandal to be brought to light and that full justice be done. Ms. Siobhan O'Conner appears to have led that charge.
I initially gave unconditional kudos to her for her courage and commitment. Now, I am somewhat hedging my bets.
I sincerely assumed that Siobhan O'Connor was strictly concerned about those abused by evil. I firmly held that her efforts were applied in the protection of the innocent. However, before Ms. O'Connor acted, she did stand at metaphoric "fork in the road;" a choice between the quiet confrontation suggestive of justice, or the loud theatrics smacking of a political tract.
It seems to me that had Ms. O'Connor chosen the road of quiet confrontation, the exclusive interests of the victims would have been served.
However, Ms. O'Conner chose the road of loud theatrics. That road, in my opinion, seems to have somewhat diluted Ms. O'Connor's virtue with the glare of celebrity; a necessary component to political success.
I was always somewhat uncomfortable that Ms. O'Conner appeared to have acted in the rather murky tradition of Daniel Ellsberg. Now, I am even more troubled by what appears to be Ms. O'Conner's move beyond the Ellsberg model, which, in my mind, appears to reduce her stated-intent of strict victim justice. In that regard, I observe that Ms. O'Conner now seems to be focused upon her role of activist, which appears committed to the ridicule and criticisms of the personal style and conduct of one man, and his dutiful application of board Vatican policy.
Does Ms. O'Conner not realize that had Bishop Malone been improper in the conduct of his office, that he would have been terminated by his superiors?
Does Ms. O'Conner not know that even if Bishop Malone were to resign, that his successor would be bound to apply the exact same Vatican policies with the exact same constraints?
While I did not necessarily agree with Ms. O'Conner's tactics, I did not doubt her intentions---until now. Along with her high-profile public personal activism, I am concerned that her seeming coordination with the "Gang of Three" reflects what may possibly be a significant role in what I perceive to be a possible political attack.
More recently is the issue of the secretly released recording of a conversation between Bishop Malone and his advisers: the tactical heir to the combined practices of John Dean and Alexander Butterfield.
It is important to remember that the conversation concerned an alleged homosexual love triangle resident among adult diocese personnel, and remains separate and apart from the pedophilia scandal. In the public or private sector, such personnel transgressions would most likely have been submitted to the confidential counsels of the human resources department(s) for its deliberations and disposition.
As such, I think that it is legitimate to consider what was the obvious purpose of the tape's public release, other than to reinforce and build upon the negative perceptions already existent from the O'Conner disclosures? Was it to possibly to tee-up the scripted reactions reflecting the pre-existing positions of those such as the Movement to Restore Trust?
It seems to me that Ms. O'Connor, the actors involved in the secretly taped conversations , and those present in the Movement to Restore Trust, may know full well that the problems resident in the Buffalo Diocese are merely symptomatic of those plaguing the Catholic Church worldwide.
In that connection, it is hard for me to believe that these learned insiders were and remain unaware that Bishop Malone, with in his own personal style, is legitimately applying Church policy, and that if he strays from that policy, he will be dismissed.
Furthermore, are not all of the above-referred actors cognizant that any successor will, with a personal approach strictly of his own, will necessarily apply the exact same Vatican policies?
Taken together with what I consider to be the demonetization of Bishop Malone by local political characters, and absent broad calls for reform and the resignations of the Pope and his collective subordinate administrators worldwide by the actors referred to above, the efforts underway in the Diocese of Buffalo seem to be either naively applied toward masking a localized symptom, or the ugliness of contemporary American politics has entered the world of faith.
