Bill, I don't see Chris's commentary as unfairly critical. I don't think the expectation is that Bishop Barron have the perfect words to address every complaint raised in the moment of this meeting, or an accusation that the major flaw here is an inconsistency of approach. The problem I see--in quote after quote from the meeting, undersc…
Bill, I don't see Chris's commentary as unfairly critical. I don't think the expectation is that Bishop Barron have the perfect words to address every complaint raised in the moment of this meeting, or an accusation that the major flaw here is an inconsistency of approach. The problem I see--in quote after quote from the meeting, underscored by Chris--is that at every turn, Bishop Barron's disposition was toward sympathy for his friend, colleague, and the perpetrator, and an unwillingness to engage empathetically with the victim or anyone else who demonstrated empathy for her. At best, he was too focused on the reputational impact to Word on Fire, and at worst, he was annoyed and dismissive of the victim and the idea that her claims might represent reality.
That gives me no joy to type--I read Bishop Barron's "Letter to a Suffering Church" and am a regular listener to his Word on Fire podcast. I was comforted by "Letter to a Suffering Church" in that it showed a U.S. bishop willing to grapple with the emotional weight and pain caused by the abuse crisis. The quoted remarks above are painful for me to read. They suggest Bishop Barron did not learn the institutional lessons from the abuse crisis I thought he was taking seriously, and is instead perpetuating them.
Really? You don't see phrases implying Bp Barron was comparing these women to *Satan* as being "unfairly critical"? Is there any point in the article that Damian ("Interesting name for an author, don't you think, given the horror film franchise"... See how stupid that sounds?) represents Bp Barron as exercising prudential judgment; that Damian remarks on the seriousness of investigative matters in workplace environments; that Damian mentions the necessity of caution and the necessity of privacy in investigations? Does Damian mention the context of any of these conversations? Does he parse what he feels are the most "condemnatory" statements possible from the words of Bp Barron?
Or is it one, after another, after another, of the absolute worst-possible and entirely-slanted portrayal of what's happening at WoF?
Frankly, the more I read this article, the more its tone is plainly ridiculous.
Yeah, that particular remark is a little over-the-top, but the point I see Damian making is that Bishop Barron himself has referenced "the accuser" as one of the primary names for Satan, suggesting it's not a word he'd use lightly. That connection (and the way it's written) may be a bridge too far, but that one point doesn't color my general view that this is a critical commentary, but not unfairly so.
Bishop Barron's remarks themselves are a gut punch, even without any of the accompanying commentary. There's no question that commentary is critical, probably even uncharitable, and I can understand quibbling with any particular comment, but the sum really points to a disheartening reaction from Bishop Barron. This is a bishop I've looked up to as someone who I thought was taking the abuse crisis seriously, understood its ramifications, and thus might have some clue on what it meant to hold and exercise clerical power. There is so much danger in a cleric whose instinct is to be charitable to those close to him without extending that same empathy to their victims. It's painful to see Bishop Barron take an approach that doesn't demonstrate that kind of much-needed empathy--toward someone victimized by a friend and colleague of his, or toward his employees who express discomfort at the tenor of the workplace conversation as driven by their superiors. I do think that merits a critical response.
Your sincere comment is what made me write my original comment. This is the part that is so patently false. The writer picked out any comment where Bishop showed any love to Joe and then assumed Bishops meaning and tone and manipulated it into the writers own narrative.
Bishop absolutely cares for the victims and launched a whole 3rd party investigation to protect them and to remove the alleged offender from the ministry. His actions show that the manipulated narrative of the author of this article was false. Not quoted in this article are any of bishops actions or words contrary to the authors pre-determined narrative. Such as when bishop said that he would have accepted no other board recommendation than termination. And that he voted for Joes termination. And that we need to be praying for these women. (Why does the author only mention when he said to pray for Fr Steve and Joe?)
Bill, I don't see Chris's commentary as unfairly critical. I don't think the expectation is that Bishop Barron have the perfect words to address every complaint raised in the moment of this meeting, or an accusation that the major flaw here is an inconsistency of approach. The problem I see--in quote after quote from the meeting, underscored by Chris--is that at every turn, Bishop Barron's disposition was toward sympathy for his friend, colleague, and the perpetrator, and an unwillingness to engage empathetically with the victim or anyone else who demonstrated empathy for her. At best, he was too focused on the reputational impact to Word on Fire, and at worst, he was annoyed and dismissive of the victim and the idea that her claims might represent reality.
That gives me no joy to type--I read Bishop Barron's "Letter to a Suffering Church" and am a regular listener to his Word on Fire podcast. I was comforted by "Letter to a Suffering Church" in that it showed a U.S. bishop willing to grapple with the emotional weight and pain caused by the abuse crisis. The quoted remarks above are painful for me to read. They suggest Bishop Barron did not learn the institutional lessons from the abuse crisis I thought he was taking seriously, and is instead perpetuating them.
Really? You don't see phrases implying Bp Barron was comparing these women to *Satan* as being "unfairly critical"? Is there any point in the article that Damian ("Interesting name for an author, don't you think, given the horror film franchise"... See how stupid that sounds?) represents Bp Barron as exercising prudential judgment; that Damian remarks on the seriousness of investigative matters in workplace environments; that Damian mentions the necessity of caution and the necessity of privacy in investigations? Does Damian mention the context of any of these conversations? Does he parse what he feels are the most "condemnatory" statements possible from the words of Bp Barron?
Or is it one, after another, after another, of the absolute worst-possible and entirely-slanted portrayal of what's happening at WoF?
Frankly, the more I read this article, the more its tone is plainly ridiculous.
Yeah, that particular remark is a little over-the-top, but the point I see Damian making is that Bishop Barron himself has referenced "the accuser" as one of the primary names for Satan, suggesting it's not a word he'd use lightly. That connection (and the way it's written) may be a bridge too far, but that one point doesn't color my general view that this is a critical commentary, but not unfairly so.
Bishop Barron's remarks themselves are a gut punch, even without any of the accompanying commentary. There's no question that commentary is critical, probably even uncharitable, and I can understand quibbling with any particular comment, but the sum really points to a disheartening reaction from Bishop Barron. This is a bishop I've looked up to as someone who I thought was taking the abuse crisis seriously, understood its ramifications, and thus might have some clue on what it meant to hold and exercise clerical power. There is so much danger in a cleric whose instinct is to be charitable to those close to him without extending that same empathy to their victims. It's painful to see Bishop Barron take an approach that doesn't demonstrate that kind of much-needed empathy--toward someone victimized by a friend and colleague of his, or toward his employees who express discomfort at the tenor of the workplace conversation as driven by their superiors. I do think that merits a critical response.
Your sincere comment is what made me write my original comment. This is the part that is so patently false. The writer picked out any comment where Bishop showed any love to Joe and then assumed Bishops meaning and tone and manipulated it into the writers own narrative.
Bishop absolutely cares for the victims and launched a whole 3rd party investigation to protect them and to remove the alleged offender from the ministry. His actions show that the manipulated narrative of the author of this article was false. Not quoted in this article are any of bishops actions or words contrary to the authors pre-determined narrative. Such as when bishop said that he would have accepted no other board recommendation than termination. And that he voted for Joes termination. And that we need to be praying for these women. (Why does the author only mention when he said to pray for Fr Steve and Joe?)
It’s lies.
To be clear: the “lies” you are accusing me of are my interpretation/narrative of the events? There’s nothing factually that you’re disputing?