Ok, apparently it does not matter if I hold my peace on this or not on this as I am a shithead regardless, so here goes.
Frankly I don;t have much comment on this at all, as I actually don't know much about what's going on here not am I familiar with the archbiship or the Cardinal involved.. The one line that leaped out at me on reading the daily beast article was this
In one case cited in the report, Wuerl – acting on a doctor’s recommendation – enabled priest William O’Malley to return to active ministry as a canonical consultant...
And that is an aspect of all this that has been given very very little comment at all, though it has been mentioned as a factor in report after report. Basically what happened is that these guys would be put into a rehabilitation program, and after a few years the Doctors would certify them as Cured. So if someone is cured and the experts are saying that they are no longer a threat to children, why not put them onto a separate parish? Inds not like priests grew on trees even in the good times. And of course by the time new complaints would start arriving the Bishop would have moved on and the new guy would put them in for treatment and the cycle would continue anew. So why haven't the doctors that gave these diagnoses have had any blame attached to them? After all the Bishops were acting on their recommendation.
Now on McCerrik, all I will say on that is that I was listening to France News 24 a couple of nights ago while I was reading at the computer, and then they said "abused minors in the Seminary" and that make be stare open mouthed at the TV, as if people are in the Seminary that are not freaking Minors. Granted consensual gay sex in this situation raises huge questions of power relationships and so on, but its not freaking child abuse. But even France News 24, which I usually have the highest of regard for just wants to make this 100% about Child abuse. Gaah.
Rereading the Daily beast article just now I saw that there were also 2 minors that were abused, so fair enough, but that was not made clear by the international news agency, which is a bare faced lie as far as I am concerned.
Ok, comment over. I am however reminded of the Bishop of Limerick that was forced to resign despite the fact that child protection agencies were united in giving him their unqualified support. Because as an underbishop (a glorified secretary) he had just refereed any complaints to the bishop proper rather than doing "something" which was left vague, but apparently he was supposed to do stuff he didn't have the authority to do. But even the support of people in Child care, who said that his removal was a bad day for child protection in Ireland, was not enough to save him. Not saying this guy is on this level, but it does femind me of that.