I’ll preface by noting I’m a papist myself, but more than kinda of the American cafeteria variety. To me God does have white robes and a long beard, and sits on a cloud up there. And I’m pretty much pro-Life. But I am not worried about the fate of my eternal salvation where I might disagree with the church, as on with the gays, their sins, and their ability to live with whom they want in the way they want. Nor am I worried about their eternal salvation. I have my doubts people are remanded to hell based on Old Testament bylaw.
Which is just to say, I think I am objective enough to be skeptical of the church despite some support and affection for it.
So on with an application of that objectivity. In today’s examination of hypocrisy watching we have both Minnpost Chortle and Andrew Sullivan relaying the investigation of Archbishop Nienstedt as if there’s obvious irony there:
The investigation is ostensibly into Nienstedt’s homosexual history. Such a history would be in conflict with Nienstedt’s role as a doctrinaire enforcer of Church doctrine re gay marriage and life. So a gay history by Nienstedt would make him a hypocrite eh.
Well enough, were it true. But we’re far from knowing that, and as such it seems premature for chortles and snickers. There’s isn’t even an anecdote or association noted that can be related as a basis for the investigation.
Note Nienstedt ordered the investigation into himself. Ostensibly he knows the truth, and feels safe in making the report a signature gesture of the Church’s new efforts at transparency re the scandals.
Other thing is…. I don’t know that Nienstedt should be despised for his role as the mere local magistrate for an out-of-date institution. Seems he ought to be pondered more as an inconsequential peon . But despised he is. And with the passion there is about it, there’s a good half a chance people are making stuff up about him.
My judgment: we don’t know anything. There’s no hypocrisy here by Nienstedt. Yet.