And another reply from Rod Dreher
I’m not sure where this reader is coming from. The Keating Commission only has the power to investigate and recommend, not to order the disestablishment of bad bishops. Where does the reader get the idea that American Catholics will face the choice of submission to Rome or submission to the Keating Commission? Of course we will submit to Rome. But why does Keating have to be ordained for his findings, whatever they may be, to have credibility? (At this point, his lack of ordination only helps his credibility, if you ask me). I’d be all for a papal legate with the power to sack bishops, but the absence of one doesn’t affect my view of the Keating Commission’s work one bit. It will stand on its own. If Keating and his team find that Bishops A, B, and C knew that priests were raping children, and not only covered it up, but abetted it by reassigning them repeatedly, then they presumably will say so, and lay out their evidence. If the evidence is persuasive, then the onus will be on Rome to act on it. Keating seems to be under the impression that Rome will therefore force the resignation of the bad bishops. I think he is rather too hopeful, but I hope to be proved wrong. If Keating, operating with the US bishops’ imprimatur, discovers gross moral, even criminal, malfeasance, makes that public, and Rome still refuses to act against these prelates – well, American Catholics will be faced with a devastating situation. But that won’t be Frank Keating’s fault, now will it?