Replies

You are correct that not ever Bishop engaged in the coverup.

However, we still have many Cardinals and Bishops unwilling to follow directives from the Vatican regarding communion for abortion supporting politicians -- like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Even the Pope's own representative.

Examples:

"At the installation Mass of the new Archbishop of Washington, Donald W. Wuerl, Thursday, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the representative of Pope Benedict XVI, was seen giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion Senator and former Presidential candidate John Kerry."

My question is if these leaders show constant disobedience to simple directives, why do they still have a job?

"In the summer of 2003, Archbishop O’Malley of Boston said, “A Catholic politician who holds a public, pro-choice position should not be receiving Communion and should refrain from doing so.” O’Malley also said that “It is not our policy to deny Communion. It is up to the individual.”"

Bishops involved directly in the scandal.

* Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, New Mexico, resigned in March 1993 following accusations that he had abused five teenage girls (p. 176).

* Bishop J. Keith Symons of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned in 1998 after having admitted he had molested five altar boys decades earlier (p. 182).

* Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, California, resigned in 1999 after he was sued for abusing an altar boy for over 20 years and a priest for two years (p. 101).

* Bishop Anthony O’Connell of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned in March 2002, after he confessed to having abused a boy (p. 195).

* Bishop J. Kendrick Williams of Lexington, Kentucky, resigned in June 2002, facing allegations he had abused minors and an 18-year-old man (p. 215).

* In August 2002, it came to light that late Bishop James Rausch of Phoenix, Arizona, had abused a minor (p. 218-219).

# Bishop Daniel Ryan of Springfield, Illinois, resigned in October 1999 as a consequence of revelations of two male prostitutes, of whom he was a client (pp. 183-184).

# Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, resigned in May 2002 after indisputable public evidence was released to the media by his homosexual partner (pp. 102, 107-109).

Card. Roger Mahony who paid $660 million to more than 500 victims to settle their complaints out of court in order to prevent his conduct as Archbishop of Los Angeles from becoming public.

Thomas Daily, the Palm Beach Diocese's first bishop, acknowledged in depositions last year that he urged seven sexual abuse victims in Boston to keep quiet two decades ago, rather than subject the church to scandal.

Cardinal Bernard Law covered up for the sexual abuse of Fr. John Geoghan and Fr. Paul Shanley. http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/law_admits.html

My question is if these leaders show constant disobedience to simple directives, why do they still have a job?

If you have to ask that, you don't understand the depth of the problem. Removing a bishop has always been a major problem for the Church from time immemorial. Imagine removing 20 bishops. Or 50 bishops. Or 100 bishops. All of whom will support each other. And the press will portray it as if the Vatican was persecuting these poor souls.

Many of these bishops (Mahoney, in particular but others like Clark and Hubbard as well) have strong ties to local media and politicans in both parties. They are effectively protected. For some of them, I'm convinced that their goal is to do as much damage to the Church as possible.

Someone at the Vatican has determined that the best solution to the problem is to wait these guys out and replace them with bishops who are better. I'm not in a position to say that this isn't the best strategy, frankly.