Where’s the ‘c’atholic Left’s usual liberal outrage?

Here is something curious.

The Holy Father meets with his new Gang of 8, the cardinalatial kitchen cabinet, for – what? – 3 days? Did I get that right?

Fr. Federico Lombardi, SJ, the papal spokesman said that during the meetings of the Gang of 8 the issue of clerical sexual abuse did not come up.


I find this fascinating.

Think about this.

Had Benedict XVI had a Gang of X, and had the papal spokesman said that the topic of clerical sexual abuse was not discussed by them with Benedict, the MSM would have thrown a grand mal spittle-flecked nutty.

Pope Francis has – so far – successfully refocused the world’s attention elsewhere.

Also, be careful.  Don’t conflate discussion of possible regional tribunals that took place during the recent consistory with the 3-day discussions of the Gang of 8.  Moreover, there will – of course – be local news coverage of clerical sexual abuse when and if new cases arise. For example, I’ve been watching with consternation another break-out in my native place of St. Paul and Minneapolis. But, that’s not the point.

Francis and the Gang did not address this issue and there is no liberal outrage, not even from the usual suspects of the catholic Left.

I guess this is no longer a burning issue.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Benedict XVI, Biased Media Coverage, Clerical Sexual Abuse, Francis, I'm just askin'... and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. McCall1981 says:

    While he has been successful at changing the focus away from the abuse scandals, he has moved the focus to “the Pope is changing Catholic morality so nothing is a sin anymore”, so I’m not sure how good of trade off that really is.
    Some good news is that he slammed the pantheistic understanding of St. Francis in Assisi today, which I think would have drawn some “patriarchical oppressor” comments if Benedict had said it.
    “Many people associate St. Francis with peace, however their understanding of this peace is not profound. “Franciscan peace is not something saccharine,” he said emphatically. “Hardly! That is not the real St. Francis! Nor is it a kind of pantheistic harmony with forces of the cosmos… That is not Franciscan either,” he continued to applause. “It is a notion some people have invented! “The peace of St. Francis is the peace of Christ, and it is found by those who ‘take up’ their ‘yoke’…”


  2. Bob B. says:

    Maybe it’s because Cardinal O’Malley us one of the gang – though he is also the Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities. (Wonder if he ever talked to Kennedy about this? Is Kerry part of his archdiocese?)

  3. John of Chicago says:

    You are absolutely right. The abuse of children (as well as others who are, likewise, vulnerable) and added measures for their protection have not been sufficiently, publicly addressed. Some will argue that because Bishop Miranda of Peru and Archbishop Wesolowski, Nuncio to the Dominican Republic, were quietly removed and that a coadjutor was appointed for Archbishop Myers of Newark, Pope Francis is acting expeditiously and decisively. While all that is true, unfortunately the codification of child protection policies and procedures announced this summer applies only to Vatican City and there are bishops (one even convicted in Kansas City) who endangered children by cover-up who are still in place. [I don’t consider that an accurate description of the state of things.] There needs to be transparency, effective procedures, and prompt action throughout our Church so that we can be certain that past failures to protect the children will never again be contemplated by those in authority, much less repeated.

  4. MarkG says:

    I don’t condone nor downplay any abuse of anyone, sexual or otherwise.
    Having said that, I think the Catholic Church has been singled out on this issue.
    Billy Graham’s grandson has come out and said that protestant sex abuse record is worse than Catholics. He’s a law professor and spent his lifetime in the evangelical inner circles.

  5. Clinton says:

    John of Chicago, I’m not sure if you’re correctly summarizing the point of Father’s post.

    I am very sure that you have incorrectly summarized what happened in the case of
    the Bishop of Kansas City. The details of that case do not support your description of
    Bishop Finn as a man who endangered children by cover-up. Sadly, there are bishops
    who do fit your description, but I believe the Bishop of Kansas City is not one
    of them. I invite any readers of this blog who might be unfamiliar with the Kansas City
    case and who would otherwise accept John of Chicago’s comment to spend a few moments
    reading up on the particulars of the case before deciding on its accuracy.

    Father Z., I apologize for opening what is likely a rabbit hole, but I could not let that comment
    stand unchallenged. [Let’s not make it any wider or deeper.]

  6. bposullivan says:

    I get that the point is about outrage, but the post still made me ask myself why the council members weren’t consulted about this important issue.

    But then again, maybe they were, right? Weren’t the C8, or at least most of them, in Rome by the time of the consistory? If so, they must have attended, right? That would mean they had an opportunity to give advice about the tribunals and the handling of abuse along with the other cardinals. And isn’t it likely that they–or at least Cardinal O’Malley, given his experience in the issue–were consulted individually before the consistory?

Comments are closed.