Saturday, May 09, 2015

The Bishop Finn affair is sad but he is not the real victim, okay?

Over at One Peter Five they  came out strongly in defense of Bishop Finn. They feel and they’re hanging onto that feeling like a dog with a bone, that the bishop had to step down not because he failed to call the police but because the forces of evil were after him anyway. Several readers objected to that idea and the comment box turned into a battlefield. Since the argument can’t be won and the whole situation is depressing,  1P5 doesn’t want to talk about it anymore .

Well now. I like Steve Skojec  and I like reading most of the writers on 1P5 but I can’t follow the reasoning here.  I don’t doubt that some bad people went after Bishop Finn because they prefer  the diocese to be something like an Episcopalian/Unitarian/New Age mix but  in trying to quietly fix Fr. Ratigan, the bishop handed his enemies an golden opportunity. My late father in law, Big Daddy used to say, “Everybody pees in the pool some time but that boy did it from the diving board.” This isn’t about “our guy” and “their guys”. This isn't about liberals, conservatives or traditionalists. This is about the bishop's legal and spiritual duty to his flock.

The excuse that the bishop was trying to save Fr. Ratigan’s priesthood because he was under the impression that the problem was “only” pornography is not acceptable especially for a man who wrote "Blessed Are the Pure in Heart - A Pastoral Letter on the Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography."  Can you see St. Jean Vianney saying, “It’s only pornography?” Can you see St. Anthony Mary Claret or St. Padre Pio  tolerating a fellow priest who had pornographic interests? Can you in your wildest imagination see St. Thomas Becket, the man who excommunicated his king and friend saying  “only pornography”? I cannot.

Pray for Bishop Finn, pray for Fr. Ratigan and if you have tears to shed, let them fall for the little girls who were violated by Fr. Ratigan. 

1 comment:

R J said...

One mustn't rule out the nightmarish conjecture that those who most loudly defend Bishop Finn do so for a reason which, at, they dare not reveal. Namely that they sympathize with, and seek to imitate, the vile practices of Ratigan.

This is not a hypothesis which I myself would have considered before last January's pro-Charlie-Hebdo lunatics and scammers redefined Catholicism as "unlimited tolerance for the filthiest blasphemy as long as it includes criticisms of Islam". But we now need to take the hypothesis very seriously indeed. Clearly the ostensibly Catholic defenders of porn didn't spring out of nowhere five months ago. They'd been burrowing away for years beforehand.

So if any of the (predominantly insane-seeming) commentators on's Bishop Finn threads ever read this comment, now is the time for them to answer. Are they in fact championing Ratigan-type perversion or aren't they? It's no use the website including protests against "Sodom's Revenge" - as, to do it credit, it does - if Sodom's Revenge has infiltrated other parts of the site.

Please understand that at my advanced time of life I haven't the slightest interest in what Skojec and co say. I'm interested solely in what they do. We know from the disgusting Society of St. John that the grossest sexual license is entirely compatible with "traditional Catholicism" of a kind.