Washington Times reporter Julia Duin reveals that Francis DiLorenzo, the Catholic bishop of Richmond, Va., knew in advance that Catholic Charities of Richmond was about to oversee the carrying out of an abortion it arranged for a minor in its care -- and the bishop did nothing to stop it. Excerpt:
The Roman Catholic bishop of Richmond was told that a diocesan charity planned to help a teenage foster child get an abortion in January and did not try to prevent the procedure.Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo "was told erroneously that everything was in place and there was nothing he could do to stop it," said Steve Neill, Bishop DiLorenzo's communications officer. "He is very apologetic about the whole episode.
"It is very awkward, it is very embarrassing. A human life was taken. He certainly has not taken it lightly in any way. He is clearly opposed to abortion."
Mr. Neill said the bishop was informed Jan. 17, the day before an abortion was performed on the 16-year-old Guatemalan girl, who was a foster care client of Commonwealth Catholic Charities of Richmond (CCR), a group incorporated under the diocese.
CCR Executive Director Joanne Nattrass also knew about the planned abortion, Mr. Neill said.
"The director was very upset about it and it clearly went against all she stood for as a director of Catholic Charities," he said.
Bullsh*t. A bishop of the Church is told a day in advance that an abortion is going to take place under the Church's auspices ... and he doesn't try his damnedest to stop it?! The director of Catholic Charities is supposedly distraught about the planned abortion because it "went against all she stood for" ... and she didn't try to stop it?! They're covering their butts, and doing a poor job of it.
Here's Steve Neill, the bishop's flack, on why CCR staff organized this abortion:
"They were so caught up with the plight of the young girl who already had a child," Mr. Neill said. "She was not a Catholic. She got pregnant by her boyfriend, and she was determined not to have the baby."
Yes, well, the unborn child wasn't a Catholic either, so her life counted for nothing? It's amazing what you find yourself saying when your livelihood depends on defending the indefensible.
Honestly, these people. Of course, no one in authority will lose his or her job, or feel compelled to resign in shame, because these things aren't done. Mistakes are made, plausible deniability is asserted, however pathetically -- but bishops are forever. The poor Catholics of Richmond endured Bishop Walter Sullivan for what, nearly two decades -- and now this DiLorenzo guy. What did they do to deserve this?
Note well that if it hadn't been for Duin's initial reporting, this whole thing would have remained a hush-hush affair between the bishops.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Even if a person is anti-abortion, surely this is one of those circumstances where an exception should be made.
Posted by: Scott R. | July 1, 2008 10:48 PM
It seems Orthodox Church makes exceptions, it tolerates abortions for sick women when it is obvious that childbirth will cause invalidity or death for mother, i.e. between mother and unborn child it chooses mother.
She'd feel damaged and destroyed before she even really entered puberty.
Posted by: sigaliris | July 1, 2008 8:04 PM
There were some occasions when 11 y.o. gave birth to healthy children and survived:
http://megalife.com.ua/2007/09/21/devushka_rodila_v_11_let_4_foto.html
The girl became mother at 11, now she is 14, student of ordinary school. Maybe it turned into a happy exception because that child is fruit of love (the girl and the boy plan to marry soon). Abuse by close relatives is quite different.
And why do some of these posts seemingly arbitrarily get sent for review - never to be seen or heard from again?
I have no idea. I hate this new software, I really do. It even forwards some of my posts to the spam bucket. The spam bucket fills up really fast. If one of your posts is held for whatever reason, please e-mail me at rdreher -at - dallasnews.com to let me know. If I don't go in and find it pretty quickly, it will be irrecoverable.
I apologize for this, but I don't know what else to do about it. Like I said, I hate the software.
Goodguyex: And it is more that a bit presumptuous to imply that Bishop DiLorenzo is going to hell, even if stated in colorful terms.
The original colorful term belongs to St. John Chrysostom. And the safety of one's immortal soul requires that the bishops be considered guilty until proven innocent, especially these days.
But isn't presumptuousness a theological virtue? It certainly is a "cardinal" virtue, as evinced by none other than Cardinal O'Malley. When presented with a brief detailing the solvency and vibrancy (oops, sorry, Rod) of a parish that he had closed to pay the buggery bills, he imperiously declaimed, "It does not rise to the level that would have me change my mind". Oh thank you, your "Eminence", may I kiss your sandals now? And he seems one of the humbler "princes" of the Church.
But nihil sub sole novum as the Preacher says. All the great heresiarchs were priests, bishops, patriarchs. The stuff of a fine infernal parquet.
trp
I was being facetious. I have often been condemned for preaching that the Church should stop taking Caesar's money to do good works even if it means we feed fewer poor etc.
Chanson writes "All the great heresiarchs were priests, bishops, patriarchs. The stuff of a fine infernal parquet."
I suspect the typical priest, bishop, patriarch can be compared to a Pied Piper in that he leads hundreds into either heavenly bliss or "infernal parquet".
I think you focus too much on these soloists leading others to the pit and forget about the others doing well.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.