The New York Times weighs in on the Father Foley case. I maintain that this case became public unnecessarily. There is no evidence of criminal behavior. Yes, sinful behavior and extreme bad judgment a long time ago, but this is the sort of thing that makes you ask what you expected the cardinal to do? Should every priest who breaks his vow of celibacy be laicized even though he’s repented? Maybe in Fr. Foley’s case he should have been since he evidently had three different affairs with married women, but my point is that this isn’t the sort of thing that needed public exposure. It’s the sort of thing that should be between Fr. Foley and his bishop. There was no danger to the people; he was never accused of any kind of abuse or assault.
Dragging this episode out in public puts a bad taste in my mouth because it seems like a witch hunt. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Who among us is qualified to judge the sins of others? I think Jesus left that role to the bishops and priests.