The US Bishops have met again, debated the scandal, again, appointed committees, instituted studies and decided that any church worker who molests a minor will be removed and reported. No word as to what will happen to a bishop who tolerated this behavior.
Contrast this with the actions of:
• The actions of Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe, who accepted the resignations of, Rear Adm. Duvall M. Williams, Jr. and Rear Adm. John E. Gordon. Their mistake, they covered up Tailhook, an incident in which a women pilot was fondled. (Not to minimize this, but it is not in the same category as molesting children.)
• The replacement of Commandant BG Taco Gilbert and other leaders after an investigation of rapes at the Air Force Academy.
I could multiply examples all day. What are we to conclude?
Does it hold the military hold its leaders to higher standards? If so, why?
Is it merely more sensitive to its public image, knowing that it is best to throw a few leaders to the wolves when caught stonewalling?
Here is a clue. The military sanctions against its leaders generally follow a congressional investigation. The Constitution gives congress the power to fund and regulate the military. As law dean and former chairman of the National Review Board Nicholas Carfardi observes,
"Since only the Holy Father can remove a bishop, and that happens very rarely, the only way a bishop is going to removed is if he looks into his own conscience and says, 'I blew it, and I blew it so badly that I can't really function as a bishop again,' " he said.
The bishops were warned in 1985 that the scandal would cost them a billion dollars.
Somehow, I will have a hard time hearing them the next time they speak on steward ship.
(thanks to Amy Wellborn for posting the link on Nicholas Cafardi)

Comments