If today's post by Kathy Reeves on RH Reality Check is typical fare for them, may I suggest that the term "Reality Check" is a misnomer? She states that she is "disgusted by the conservative smear campaign that labeled Kicanas a homosexualist, and I’m disappointed in the USCCB for taking such claims seriously."
The "conservative smear campaign" that Reeves decries is simply the telling of truth. The fact that the truth may not suit her proclivities does not render the telling of that truth a "smear campaign". Case in point is Kicanas' handlng of the McCormack matter. Kicanas never disputed that he knew of McCormack's pederast tendencies; he simply (and unconscionably) defended his handling of the mess - which facilitated McCormack's horrific abuse of numerous children, including his own relatives
Moreover, Reeves conveniently omits the opposition to Kicanas posed by Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests - SNAP. They issued a most strident press release opposing Kicanas' nomination to the post. Read it. I point out to Reeves and her fans that SNAP is by no stretch of the imagination a bastion of conservatism in the Catholic Church. They, like many of us, simply took the common-sense position that if the USCCB is going to be serious about eradicating the gay-pederast rot from within the clergy, then they cannot have a pederast enabler in such a prominent and influential position. What is so difficult to comprehend about that?
Reeves utters some very knee-jerk, reactionary statements, to wit, "the Church applauds bishops who refuse Communion to Democrats". No, dear. You have it completely wrong. Here's Canon 915 - "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion." How can anything so simple be misunderstood by so many? I cannot single out Reeves for not grasping this, since so many bishops won't acknowledge it either. These people pretend confusion about the matter because they don't wish to be accountable to its crystal-clear demands. I'm sure that not all Democrats support the ongoing slaughter of babies in their mothers' wombs, nor do they support the so-called "right" of confused people to "marry" anything they want and thus to bastardize the family. Similarly there are many Republicans who, for the good of their immortal souls, should likewise be refused Communion until they repent of their public sins, lest they commit yet another mortal sin of sacrilege (Rudy Giuliani comes to mind).
Let me now ask Reeves a question. No one disputes the immense suffering caused by this gay pederast of a priest, McCormack, and no one (save Kicanas himself) disputes the judgment that Kicanas bungled that situation badly and exposed countless children to immense danger. Do these children not matter to Reeves as she laments his defeat in that election? Progressives like her will trot out their so-called "compassion for the children" when it suits their purposes, but when a certain individual is seen as benefitting the overall progressive agenda, somehow all that "compassion" gets tossed aside as the mere disguise that it is. This is quite a common occurrence amongst liberals and progressives. Recall how the NOW type of feminists waxed indignant at the thought of a womanizing power-monger. However, when Bill Clinton polluted the White House, all of the sudden NOW turned a blind eye towards the plight of the women that Clinton was exploiting. I see something similar almost every week in front of the abortion mills. The so-called "champions of choice" are there to keep us from offering help to the women. However, when a young girl is being dragged into the mill against her will, the so-called "escorts" don't give a damn - as long as their precious abortuary gets their blood-money. Kathy Reeves just tipped the hand of the progressives big-time.
Cheer up, Kathy! You're not alone! I found some like-minded folks with whom you can commiserate!
May 20, A Question.
59 minutes ago