Scandals is Ireland and Miami

The Thirsty Gargoyle writes from Across the Pond:

Just thinking, regarding Cloyne -- because it really doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon, especially with the Vatican having recalled the Nuncio -- it might be useful for you to link to my latest post.

I returned to the topic in a question and answer format, going through what's in the report, what the Taoiseach said was in the Report, what certainly isn't in the Report, and how odd it is that the Taoiseach was so critical of Rome and so uncritical of Irish priests, and the probable safety of the Confessional Seal.

Have a look when you get a chance.

It's long, but every answer is short and clear, I think.

He knows better than I what's going on, so check him out for all your Irish Great Enema News.

Speaking of the Great Enema, Gawker has a new piece out about the mess in Florida. It's a curious piece for a number of reasons, but I think the central point it makes--that the Church was poisoned for quite some time by a corrupt gay cabal has enough solidity to it to warrant an investigation from Rome and get rid of any of that cabal who have not already been made gone. The tricky thing about the piece is parsing the sundry agendas at work in it.

Of course, there are the agendas of the accused who are not eager to be exposed and very eager to call things like this a "witchhunt" when the rest of us might be inclined to call it "good citizenship".

There are also the agendas of the various tribalists eager to function according to this paradigm:



So, for instance, I find it funny that the person who sent me the link to this story wrote, "Sort of big news. Wonder if you will devote even a post to it." This, being translated, means "Ah ha! You see! The crooked gay bastards! I bet you won't even talk about this, you foul persecutor of Corapi and Voris!" Indeed, many people wept bitter tears about the injustice of "the process" when Fr. Corapi was accused and who spent (and are still spending) quintillions of electrons rending their garments in anguish over a "media trial" of the good father. Many of these same people are delighted at the thought of a media trial for these, their ideological enemies.

Me: I think the same thing due both Corapi and these people: suspension and an investigation. If the charges are true, they should be laicized and, if any crimes have been committed, they should be punished. It's only complicated if we want it to be (and we typically want it to be when its somebody from our Tribe at stake.)

In addition to this dynamic, there is the curiously tormented agenda of the Gawker reporter, who obviously wants to maintain his cred with his post-Christian hipster readership and assure them that he confesses the post-Christian hipster creed that homosexuality is not merely tolerable, but absolutely perfectly fine and even meritorious and that only Neanderthal Catholics could have an issue with it. So he starts the article with a lot of "get a load of these maroons and their ridiculous hangups" mugging for the camera to make clear that he is slumming with the squares and watching the silly apes fling poo at each other.

But as the story progresses, he can't help but find himself appalled at the behavior of the, yes, gay cabal as it commits sundry despicable acts. The result is a deeply conflicted and schizophrenic piece of reportage as the guy comes to mug and remains, if not to pray, at least to sympathize with those who do and loathe, in spite of himself, the gays who prey.

Finally there is the agenda of the sundry people who are after the cabal. There's the old saying that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. There's also the reality that just because they are out to get you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid too. There are three dynamics in the article with respect to the accusers that raise questions for me and make me hesitate before simply declaring "This is the TRVTH! Destroy every person this article accuses!":

1. Why is this story in Gawker? It is not, after all, the normal way of approaching Rome, nor is this particular journal one's immediate go to source for reliable, dispassionate analysis of the Catholic Church. Why and how, precisely, did the accusers make the decision to go *here* in their quest for justice and not, say, a more mainstream journal or even, you know, Rome. The piece itself makes clear that the documentation and testimony amassed by the accusers was intended for Rome. So what happened? Did some canonist somewhere say, "This is largely gossip and hearsay and won't bear up under canonical examination" or what? I have no idea how these processes work, so I'm puzzled as to why this material didn't go to Rome and instead went to this venue?

2. Speaking of facts, how many of the allegations in the piece are, in fact, fact and not hearsay or highly prejudiced testimony from people with an ax to grind? I don't have time to do a careful parsing of the piece to get a sense of that, but certainly a goodly chunk seemed to be rather sketchily sourced. If readers want to try pinning down what is actually provable (like the rental records of the priest and his Special Friend, knock yourself out.

3. I ask this because I have interacted with at least one of the people cited in the article and, well, he has always struck me as highly prejudiced and with a heavy ax to grind. And not just me. I know others from the area who attest that he tended to see conspiracies against him when in fact, he was just annoying and not an easy person to like.

None of this is to say I think the article dismissable. It certainly smells bad and many of the claims made in it seem to be sourced. However, a lot of it also seems to me to be pseudoknowledge of the "everybody knows that insiders say X about this guy" variety, coupled with at least some testimony from a source that I, at any rate, am not inclined to regard as impartial or super reliable. Still, I think there's enough here to warrant a serious investigation from Rome. I also note that a goodly chunk of this seems to be dealing with people who are now largely out of the picture (thank God) and with things from 20 and 30 years ago. Of course, the question remains, "How many of these people are still in place?"

Bottom line: let the investigation happen, the chips fall where they may, and let the Great Enema continue till all this perversion and "filth" as Benedict called it is washed away. In the end, we owe whistleblowers like this a debt--and we owe the accused the courtesy of finding out if they are being accused with good reason.