The bishop knew!

And in so calling attention, Ms Russell, Rod does the Church a great service. Clericalism is a disease, insofar as it prevents the Church from acknowledging and doing penance for her abject sinfulness.

Of course, I'm talking about the institutional, hierarchical "Church" that is visible and present to us every day in her corruption and vice, not the Mystical Body of Christ. I still believe there may be a distinction between the two (against all earthly evidence). There had better be, anyway.

sad thing is this is my diocese as I live in Richmond. And very little has appeared in the local newspaper about this, nor in the diocesan newspaper. The previous bishop was very liberal and there was hope for this one. When asked about Benedict's Motu Pripio last year and whether there would be more Latin Masses in the diocese his base answer was "why? we already have a parish for that."

I agree with Rod even if he had been told an hour before the abortion the bishop could still have stopped it. Unfortunately the diocesan offices here and elsewhere tend to be filled with liberals who don't want to follow Catholic teachings.

the Richmond paper has published one story on this back on June 19th and that has been it.
http://tinyurl.com/3vdjl5

I'm not excusing the bishop's actions here, nor the actions of Catholic Charities. But is Catholic Charities really "Catholic?"

The California Supreme Court ruled that it was not, when in 2004 it ordered that the Catholic Church pay for contraceptive coverage for employees of Catholic Charities. The court found that Catholic Charities did not meet the definition of "religious employer" and therefore could not be exempt from paying for "prescription contraceptives."

Of course, many "prescription contraceptives" are also abortifacient, preventing implantation of a developing human embryo. So while the outrage over Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Virginia's failure to act to prevent this particular abortion is very justified, I think we have to decide once and for all: is Catholic Charities really a "Catholic" organization? Or is it as "Catholic" as the vast majority of so-called "Catholic" universities, hospitals, schools, and other institutions which have already been ordered to violate Catholic principles and teachings under various state laws?

If Catholic Charities is really just a quasi-state organization with the weakest possible ties to the Church, then it would behoove the Church to sever all remaining ties to this organization, and demand a change in the name. But if, instead, Catholic Charities is really a religious organization, then there needs to be no further acceptance of state funds or state control--and certainly no passive acceptance of the state's mandate, in California, that the Church become complicit in the use of contraceptives by its non-Catholic or even Catholic employees.

I see at least some of the current confusion over just what the bishop could or couldn't do as being directly due to the various unholy compromises the Church in America has made in order to keep doing social work in an increasingly hostile secular environment. A truly holy bishop would rush to interfere anyway, even if it put the organization at risk of a lawsuit or some other penalty later, so again, I'm not excusing Bishop DiLorenzo for his inaction. But we can't demand that organizations with ties to the Church forget those ties when it's convenient for us as a society, and remember them only when we agree they should, without opening the possibility that tragedies like this one will occur.

One needn't think the bishop a crypto-pro-choicer to be appalled by his actions. I find it most plausible to imagine that the bishop simply didn't care enough to go out of his way.

But given the responsibilities and powers that the office of bishop entails, he had the duty and power to act. The mindset that it wasn't worth his time, or that it would be too much trouble, is scarcely distinguishable on a moral continuum from outright endorsement. The bishop here has acted infamously, whether he was motivated by secret beliefs or merely by indifference.

Yeah there is a point here, but I think Rod has overestimated the bishop's ability to do things as well as the bishop's intent.

I wonder if Catholic Charities is very Catholic myself and to what extent the bishop has leverage here. I think there is some, like being able to shut down the adoption activity rather than being force to give children to homosexual couples, but it is hard. Yes, Bishop Dilorenzo should have gone out of his way and tried harder, no doubt about it. What surprieses me is why he did not realize the flack this would create.

Same is true for "Catholic" Universities. It is high time to shave the the Catholic beard off these schools and let them go without any confusion.

Goodguyex: I think Rod has overestimated the bishop's ability to do things as well as the bishop's intent.

This is always the fallback argument - the pope can't discipline the bishops, the bishops can't discipline their "flock". What the bishops can do apparently is live the high life on the faithful's dime.

But let's not be too censorious. This DiLorenzo is merely doing yeoman's service for his liberal Anglicising faction in the Church. Furthermore he is now on the fast track for a curial sinecure along with his fellow travelers Levada and Burke. He probably regards "to abort the incontinent" as a corporal work of mercy. At least he didn't consecrate a eunuch as a nun.

Incidentally, Catholic Charities of Boston was ordered by Cardinal O'Malley out of the adoption business when it was ruled that they had to permit adoption by sexual inverts. They had previously placed several children with such people. It has not yet been revealed whether the organization is providing mercy abortions.

Another skull for the tarmac of Tartarus.

Erin: A truly holy bishop would rush to interfere anyway, even if it put the organization at risk of a lawsuit or some other penalty later

Ah, but because of this abortion, CCR is now under federal investigation for having possibly violated the law.
---
Masha, I say shame on the Romanian Orthodox Church.
---
Of course I don't think the bishop is a secret pro-abort, any more than I think the bishops who covered up pedophilia were secret pedophile-ophiles. I think the Bishop did the convenient thing, the thing that would be least likely to rock the boat -- even if it involved an abortion. This is what happens when you see your vocation as managerial, not prophetic. DiLorenzo may or may not be an "evil cad," Sally; what I think he is is a bureaucrat. Keeping the organization running smoothly required him not to make a fuss when told that an abortion was going to take place that had been arranged by Church employees under his authority. So he didn't make a fuss. It's the same mentality that led to the abuse scandal.

And I invite you who are mad at me for making a big deal of this again to consider that none of this would have been discovered had a) the federal government started an investigation, and b) Julia Duin hadn't written about it in The Washington Times. I don't know how she got her information, but I'm betting one or more Catholic insiders who knew what was going on and were sickened by it did more than just complain to a reporter, but actually provided her with evidence that she could publish.

I don't know how she got her information, but I'm betting one or more Catholic insiders who knew what was going on and were sickened by it did more than just complain to a reporter, but actually provided her with evidence that she could publish.

Wasn't it published in a diocesan newspaper before Duin reported it. I don't think hers is original reporting.

You might be right, Daniel. I hadn't heard that. Anybody know?

Todd K. is right, John M. The bishop was not in a position to force this minor not to have an abortion. But he was certainly in a position to try to dissuade her from killing her unborn child, and absolutely in a position to withdraw any cooperation with this evil on the part of the Church's agencies. He didn't.

masha et al, let's not be too hard on the Romanian Orthodox here: see this.

"And so the answer is to force a minor female to carry a child to term? Sorry, but I think the Bishop may have recognized the impossibility of this situation, sans the ideological extremism of the 'pro-life' movement."

You're right John. It's easier just to murder the innocent unborn. She may be a minor by law, but she's biologically mature enough to deliver. The law is somewhat arbitrary; nature is not. And we're extreme? We're not the ones slicing and dicing the innocent for the sake of convenience or population control or whatever.

Unfortunately, the Church's anti-abortion stance has become a mere formality, to a large extent.

Once a year, right around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, every bishop issues an anti-abortion proclamation, which parish priests dutifully, unenthusiastically read. And then the issue is forgotten for another year.

Catholic Charities is no longer staffed or funded primarily by the Church itself. They're far too heavily staffed by professional social workers, who may or may not share the Church's opinions on important social issues. They've also come to rely far too heavily on tax dollars, and we all know that "he who pays the piper calls the tune." If refusal to provide abortions could threaten future funding, the people at Catholic Charities are likely to provide them, and the bishops are likely to look the other way.

The Church in Boston got out of the adoption business entirely, rather than start placing children with gay parents. But that kind of principled stand is increasingly rare. More often, the people in charge are going to dither, then decide "Well, we're doing a lot of good with the government money we get, and a lot of people would suffer if we didn't have that money to provide services... besides, we're not PERFORMING abortions, we're just sending girls somewhere else."

With regard to the girl's being "biologically mature enough to deliver" (and it's nice that Irenaeus has psychic skills and is able to know this without being a doctor):

The article did say that the 16 year old already had a child:

"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."

Perhaps the best course of action would have been for the Catholic agency to have transferred this young woman to the care of another agency.

All I'm saying is that it is not clear from what has been reported that the Bishop was indifferent. Perhaps he was. Perhaps there is more to the story than has been reported and he was anguished and made phone calls and tried to intervene but could not. Either of these two cases is possible. Or perhaps there are additional facts that would explain the case in a different light - it's pretty clear that this is not the whole story.

But Rod is certain of the crass motives and personal indifference for the sake of "not rocking the boat" by the bishop. He has the gift of reading hearts from the bare and not very intelligible story presented in a newspaper. And he never fails to use this gift to condemn those he knows nothing of other than that they are Catholic bishops.

Bishops today have a very, very tough job notwithstanding they can "live the high life on the faithful's dime" as Chanson posts at 8:12 am. And it is more that a bit presumptuous to imply that Bishop DiLorenzo is going to hell, even if stated in colorful terms.

All this is evidence that there may be some very uncomfortable decisions forced on a lot of people in the times ahead. And I do not mean just priests and bishops, but people like me and you.

It would seem that what happened here is that the bishop was told that since the girl was officially a ward of the government, and was seeking the abortion on her own, there wasn't anything legally they could do to stop her.

Yes, Erin--even though, as you say, we approach this from different sides--that would be my assumption too. It seems very unlikely that the bishop really condoned the abortion. I think it would be very interesting to see the Catholic church stop cooperating with the federal government. Catholics have a long history of charity, and I would hate to see that ended. Does the Church have the will and the wherewithal to operate a completely separate network of social services and hospital care, funded by donations alone? I don't know, but it would be interesting to find out.

John E., I know that the girl was said to have a child already. I still don't think that alone is enough data to make a judgment on her situation now. Do you think that if a girl gives birth at, say, 12, and manages to survive, she should be fair game for pregnancy from then on? I don't. We don't know if she was in good health, if it was a high-risk pregnancy, if she was mentally capable of taking care of another baby--there are a lot of factors you can't guess at from this distance. It sounds as if people are saying "Because you've given birth once, you have no excuse not to be pregnant now."

I do wonder exactly what kind of care the Catholic agency was taking of this girl, such that she already had one child and was still, or again, having unprotected sex. I tried to check the age of consent in Virginia, and the law appears to be a mess. However, there's no excuse for a man getting a 15-16 year old pregnant whether it's statutory rape or not. It sounds to me as if the CCR care had failed some time earlier. Why wasn't she in a more protective environment? I think that's quite a scandal in itself.

"John E., I know that the girl was said to have a child already. I still don't think that alone is enough data to make a judgment on her situation now."

Fair enough...

Scott R., I think that case was of a Romanian girl, different from the one in Richmond. But I agree with you anyway, because I think the principles involved are much the same. I wonder how it feels to be a girl watching all these adults screaming about the fetus inside you, through no choice of your own, while they completely ignore you and your welfare. The fetus is precious, perfect and innocent. You are not. You barely register in their consciousness. The bishop is urged to bar the door to the abortion clinic, presumably screaming "don't murder your baby!" What about the murder of the girl child's soul that has already taken place? Why weren't there any Christians rushing to the scene to stop the exploitation and rape of these girl children before it went as far as making them pregnant? Is anyone hurrying to comfort the girls involved, to offer them safety, shelter, counseling to get over what was done to them? All they're being told is "have the bqby and then turn it over to us so we can give it to some good, virtuous people--not like you!" Does anyone think twice about what it does to the body of a child to have to give birth? It's not that easy even for an adult who wants to have a baby. Childbirth would tear up the body of an 11-year-old. She'd feel damaged and destroyed before she even really entered puberty. Does anybody think about how that would feel? Apparently not.

"An 11-year old child who has been raped by a family member should be forced to bear the fetus? What kind of savagery is that? How do you force a person to go through something like that? Her life would surely be over if she went to term. Chances are, her life is over already anyhow."

Scott, usually 11 year olds who are pregnant are pregnant due to incest or abuse. Abortion only hides the abuse and protects the abuser NOT the victim. Pregnancy and baby REVEALS what is happening behind closed doors. As a former high school teacher, I witnessed three separate girls who had been raped for years by fathers and uncles and the rape went unnoticed. It was only when they gave birth to babies that doctors or the State took notice. The babies were adopted out and the men got the typical slap on the wrist for rape and incest, but the girls at least did not have to live under those conditions any more.

And why do some of these posts seemingly arbitrarily get sent for review - never to be seen or heard from again?

I agree with Erin that the basic problem is that CCR has been allowed to drift away from the Church. With all due respect to Caroline, help as many people as possible" is not a Catholic tenet but a utilitarian one. It is Catholic to refrain from doing something morally evil even when it might have good consequences.

Clearly the problems did not begin with this abortion. The girl "had been fitted with a contraceptive device provided by CCR two months earlier". One evil inevitably leads to another: once you start getting into the business of making sure that someone in your care doesn't have a baby, it's only a matter of time before you start procuring abortions.

Why was CCR fitting girls with IUD's in the first place? Did they have to agree to do it in order to receive public funds? Was it a secularist culture that had developed at CCR? Whatever the answer, the Bishop is responsible for having permitted it to happen, and a baby is dead because of it.

The Bishop's 'communications officer' isn't doing much of a job either: "It is very awkward, it is very embarrassing." A kid is dead and it's just "awkward" and "embarassing"?

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.

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.