The Anchoress (Elizabeth Scalia) reports, “Pope Francis has appointed Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid to a Bishopric in Southern Chile, and Barros is set to be installed there tomorrow, March 21,” — and this, despite credible reports that he not only knew of but was actually present at times when boys were abused by priests. Neither the Pope nor Barros have addressed the issue, despite public protests over the appointment, as reported by CBS and Cruxnow.com (both linked to by The Anchoress).
This is deeply disturbing. The priest in question was determined to have been guilty but not actually sentenced due to local statute of limitations issues.
What gives? Scalia says,
for all any of us know, Barros has confessed to whatever culpability he may (or may not) have had in these ugly incidents, and has been absolved and done penance. For all I know his soul is now pristine as the snow falling outside my window, and he is more fit for heaven than I am at this moment.
But what is just, in this case? Some of the details reported in those articles will, at best, give scandal to the church and further erode her moral authority in the eyes of a world already inclined to distrust her. At worst?
At worst, they discredit Pope Francis in the eyes of many, and cast a jaundiced eye toward his pronouncements about “zero tolerance,” and his mercy for the victims of sexual abuse around the world.
Is Francis really appointing him out of a conviction that his repentance is sincere? That doesn’t make sense. Common sense says that repentance, however sincere, may wipe your sole clean, but doesn’t exempt you from temporal punishment. Some defenders (can’t find the link now) are saying that the Vatican is only now in the process of adding to canon law punishments for being an accessory to abuse, rather than the direct perpetrator, but it’s inconceivable that these acts wouldn’t disqualify you from a big, fat promotion.
Now, I don’t know the least thing about the hierarchy of the church in Latin America, whether they each of the national leaderships operate completely independently, or whether, Chile and Argentina being neighbors, there is some connection there, and whether Francis has some unknown connection to this man. If he were a European like all his predecessors, you could speculate that he was simply indifferent to the concerns of Latin Americans, but that can’t explain things in this case.
Is Barros unjustly accused? Cardinal Bernardin was, back in 1993, when he was accused by abuse “remembered” by his accuser during therapy. The accuser later recanted, and the two men later met, and Bernardin not only forgave the accusation, but stayed in touch with him as the man died of AIDS. (Story here, and elsewhere, of course.) And, indeed, Barros denies the accusations, though his public opponents say, quite reasonably, that even if his role is not proven, it’s highly likely, based on his close relationship with the perpetrator, and this alone will prevent him from effectively ministering to his flock.
Has the Pope simply been sucked into that mindset that says, “I know I’m right [that Barros is unjustly accused/a penitent man/whatever his rationale is] and don’t have to explain myself to anyone” — in the same way as he seems to be a loose cannon in some of his off-the-cuff remarks to reporters?
I don’t know. I thought if I rambled about it for a while I might stumble into an answer, but I’m not any closer.
Thoughts?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In