Lots of other liberals, of course, are overjoyed that the matter is now over, as though this isn't going to grind through the courts for some time. Tony Clavier laments this as a "refus[al] to make adequate space for dissent", but really, that seems to be precisely the point for a more severe progressives. The various "good riddance" remarks I've seen here and there bespeak the campaign, heavily supported in the church establishment, to push the wrong-headed over the side if they can't be barred from positions of power. As Bishop Martins says, and as I said earlier, this looks like a coup on the part of the diocese's dissidents, and the picture isn't improved by the revelation that the PB and her legal rep had been making preparation for Lawrence's deposition with the dissidents for months.
One would like to hope, with Fr. Clavier and others, that this whole crisis could be unwound and South Carolina be put back in place, and then some less destructive course chosen. But too many people have taken actions which they claim are irrevocable, and nobody could possibly admit that the only think that cannot be turned back is their intransigent pride. And besides, it's all according to plan, as both sides have cooperated in the departure/expulsion. So the plan moves forward and the lawyers start to burn the billable hours.
5 comments:
You assume, of course, that Lawernce is just a victim. From what I gather, from people on the ground, is that the situation is exactly what Bishop Salmon wanted. Systematically controlling the clergy allowed in the Diocese, using shame and fear to quell opposition have all been part and parcel of this. South Carolina is exactly where it, and it's Bishop, want it to be, except of course for the people who may just now be figuring out that they've been led down path.
John, as far as being a victim of the PB misrepresenting what he said, that's manifest on the face of it. As for the rest: no, I don't assume that he's a victim. SC is where it is because they and the head offices want it there; the codependency is not exactly well-concealed.
I don't blame the PB for simply stating a fact: Lawrence has gone back on his (repeated) promises, and has been doing so since he stood up after his consecration. I doubt it, sincerely, if 815 wanted this situation. Seeing him as a victim in any way is simply handing him a victory. This cycle depends upon the idea.
If it's to Lawrence's advantage to be perceived as the victim of unfair and ill-executed process, then to take away that advantage, it is necessary that the process be fair and properly executed. As I said at the start of this, there was always a better road to addressing his supposed canonical violations: going down the normal church discipline paths and depose him that way. OK, and maybe I can entertain the idea that the intent is not malicious, but then the alternative explanation is stupidity: there is no way that these shortcuts-through-misrepresentation aren't going to look bad in a USA where, after all, we do have some definite notions about what due process looks like. If 815 didn't act badly in exactly the way that its opponents claim it acts, it wouldn't be so easy to complain about their tyranny.
From what I gather, this was move on the part of 815 to try and stop some of the abuse, and there is no other word for it, going on down there. One of my friends has been told that she is excommunicate until she "repents" of her support she voiced for the petition to the PB. Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder, and rough treatment for a lying bully who like to play with fire hardly strikes me as such.
Post a Comment