One thought on “Final Articles about the Personal Grace of Christ”
Your book helped me better appreciate something that I hadn’t seen the importance of previously. That is, McCarrick’s denial of misconduct to you and the rest of his new Washington seminarians is a very critical piece of evidence towards your defense.
In other words, suppose I sell you my used car, and you ask me how’s the engine, and I tell you point blank that it’s lousy. Suppose you’re ultra-confident though in your mechanic skills, and you’re certain that whatever problem you find you can fix it up and still sell the car for a profit. But then, when you get the car back into your garage, you see the engine is way beyond anything you can fix. In that case, I wouldn’t feel entitled to refund your money since I told you about the engine and you’re the one who didn’t ask further questions. Caveat emptor.
But supposed I had told you the engine purrs like a kitten. Then, I committed outright fraud and you’d have a just claim that I owe you your money back.
So, had McCarrick NOT denied the rumors you guys were hearing, and simply didn’t address them one way or the other, your bishop could rightly say, “Look, Mark, you knew there was a cloud around Uncle Ted, we all heard the rumors, but yet you still signed up and promised obedience just like I did. If you didn’t look into the rumors back then, that’s your problem. I’m expecting to live up to what you promised, so take down your blog and get back to work, you little punk.”
But since McCarrick explicitly addressed the allegations and falsely denied them, you’re in the different moral category of having made your promise under false pretenses. The only correct thing for Bishop Knestout to do now is to say that if you so desire he’ll regard your prior pledge null and void, and give you a chance to either make it anew to him, or find another bishop to whom you can promise your obedience and return to the most important job on earth.
Now, based on how he has acted towards you in all this, I think it’s clear which option you should choose if given that choice. Since he persists in treating you like this under circumstances in which you and other men were victimized by being told a lie, he’s the one acting unjustly in all this, not you. This key detail, I think, underscores both how righteous and innocent you are, and how your bishop is acting like a man deranged by the crushing weight of his own guilty conscience.
Father Mark White Blog 
Your book helped me better appreciate something that I hadn’t seen the importance of previously. That is, McCarrick’s denial of misconduct to you and the rest of his new Washington seminarians is a very critical piece of evidence towards your defense.
In other words, suppose I sell you my used car, and you ask me how’s the engine, and I tell you point blank that it’s lousy. Suppose you’re ultra-confident though in your mechanic skills, and you’re certain that whatever problem you find you can fix it up and still sell the car for a profit. But then, when you get the car back into your garage, you see the engine is way beyond anything you can fix. In that case, I wouldn’t feel entitled to refund your money since I told you about the engine and you’re the one who didn’t ask further questions. Caveat emptor.
But supposed I had told you the engine purrs like a kitten. Then, I committed outright fraud and you’d have a just claim that I owe you your money back.
So, had McCarrick NOT denied the rumors you guys were hearing, and simply didn’t address them one way or the other, your bishop could rightly say, “Look, Mark, you knew there was a cloud around Uncle Ted, we all heard the rumors, but yet you still signed up and promised obedience just like I did. If you didn’t look into the rumors back then, that’s your problem. I’m expecting to live up to what you promised, so take down your blog and get back to work, you little punk.”
But since McCarrick explicitly addressed the allegations and falsely denied them, you’re in the different moral category of having made your promise under false pretenses. The only correct thing for Bishop Knestout to do now is to say that if you so desire he’ll regard your prior pledge null and void, and give you a chance to either make it anew to him, or find another bishop to whom you can promise your obedience and return to the most important job on earth.
Now, based on how he has acted towards you in all this, I think it’s clear which option you should choose if given that choice. Since he persists in treating you like this under circumstances in which you and other men were victimized by being told a lie, he’s the one acting unjustly in all this, not you. This key detail, I think, underscores both how righteous and innocent you are, and how your bishop is acting like a man deranged by the crushing weight of his own guilty conscience.