The Washington Post article on Cardinal McCarrick is now up and while I was quoted accurately, I’m not very happy with it.
Domenico Bettinelli, editor of Catholic World Report, a conservative monthly in Salem, Mass., said yesterday that in his view, McCarrick is part of “a passing generation of bishops” who took “a soft-pedal approach where it’s more important to not offend people than to stand firmly for the truth and the church’s teaching.”
McCarrick “has given long service to the church, is obviously dedicated to the church and is doing what he thinks is right for the church,” Bettinelli said. “But it would be a service to the church to bring in a younger man with more energy to renew the faith.”
I didn’t really mean “energy.” By all accounts, Cardinal McCarrick has plenty of energy. What I meant was vigor in the faith, a dynamic orthodoxy and a strong backbone to stand up against heteorodoxy and the challenges that face the Church. In my opinion, McCarrick doesn’t have that.
Contrary to what another blogger claims, I do not want the schismatic Richard Williamson in DC. I am on record as saying I don’t consider myself a Traditionalist, although I am not hostile to those who prefer the Tridentine rite. I’m certainly not a schismatic. To claim that I support Williamson is a bald-faced lie and slander because I never said such a thing. (I’m not linking to his comments because they are petty and designed to elicit a reaction. Linking to them will only feed his oversized ego. If you’re really interested, a Google search will have to do.)
Anyway, the man I’d like to see in DC would be in the mold of Archbishops Burke or Chaput or Bishops Sheridan, Olmsted, Vigneron, or one of the other recent appointments who’ve shown themselves to be a new breed of man. I suppose Bishop Bruskewitz would be way too much to hope for in DC. I’m afraid he’s destined to spend the rest of his days in Lincoln because of his very strong and outspoken manner of being a bishop, which is good for Lincoln, but too bad for the rest of us.
