The mystery of non-resigning bishops

The pattern appears to be consistent. More bishops resign when it is shown that they directly violated the law or their oath of celibacy (yesterday, the Kentucky guy, today McCarthy). What mystifies me is why these guys stay until the last dog dies and they are exposed and humiliated in the press. I mean, if I were some gay cardinal or bishop or something and I knew that lots of people knew all about my extra-curricular activities and that the American press was searching every nook and cranny looking for still more evidence of scandal, I think I would have to be some sort of masochist to cling to the job, jabbering about “extreme sadness in this time of difficulty” and blathering about “the need to restore trust” all the while knowing that all my sins and hypocrisies were going to be on the front page tomorrow morning. Why would I cling to such a job? Just to make my humiliation as complete as possible when I was exposed? Why not resign right away (or at least attempt to, if Rome is letting them) and avoid looking like you clung to office hoping against hope that you would not be discovered?

I dunno. Maybe the bad ones have tried and Rome won’t let ‘em like She apparently won’t let Law go. It just baffles me though that these guys seem to think they can go on chattering bishop talk about “trust” and “healing” and so forth while living this preposterously public double life. I suspect they just got used to it and now that the environment has suddenly changed, they are like stegosaurs trying to adapt and not succeeding very well.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X