I think that although it's old-fashioned, it still may be of value to argue from actual facts, and not from unfounded public opinion. There's an excellent 2015 article in the Catholic Herald (UK) that gives some solid information on the Barros situation. The writer of the article seems to think that Francis's appointment of Barros was unwise, although there is no solid evidence against Barros. It still seems to me to be a case of "all smoke and no fire." But yet, there has been strong and even violent opposition to Barros.

Let's look at this thing again. There has been a lot of opposition to Barros, but yet the Pope named him bishop in 2015, and continues to support Barros. The politically expedient thing would be for the Pope to give in to public opinion and remove Barros and sentence him to "a life of penance and prayer." What has the Pope to gain by supporting Barros? - nothing. His decision to support Barros is politically foolhardy.

The Pope gains nothing from supporting Barros, so why would he do it? I think he does it, because he firmly believes that it's the right thing to do - and he's taking a big risk by continuing to support such a controversial figure. This Pope has shown a habit of doing what's the right thing to do, even though it may be unpopular.

Up above, I said, "they're (the victims) just not in a position to know whether Barras did a coverup or not."
And Jim Carroll replied Of course they are Joe - that is nonsense.

But is it nonsense? Again, we're dealing with thirty-year-old offenses. Barros was apparently a subordinate of a child molester priest. What do we really know about what he knew? Child molesters ordinarily do their deeds in private, and they are extremely clever at covering up what they've done. That cleverness is what allows them to seduce children - but I think that molesters are equally able to seduce the adults around them into thinking that nothing is wrong. But since Barros was close to the molester, a huge number of people are sure he must have known what the molester was doing. As far as I can see, that's the only "evidence" against Barros - guilt by association. He was close to the offender, so he should have known.

I an embarrassed to say that I have known a number of child molesters. I went to the seminary with them. Generally, I thought of them as extremely good people - but yet ten years after I knew them, they were molesting children. Never would I have expected these good guys to do such a horrible thing, but I have to face the fact that they did.

I think that may well be the situation with Barros. He served under the molester, but there's a good chance he had no idea that this seemingly-admirable priest was molesting children.

I think that we all know molesters - but yet most of the time, we don't know anything at all about the crimes they are committing. Child abuse is one of the best-hidden crimes in existence.

I think that those who are to blame should be punished, and removed from any positions from which they might be able to do further harm. But as with any crime, I think we need to be sure we're blaming the people who actually are to blame. I think the Pope is right to ask for evidence, and for specific information. I haven't seen any specific information about Barros, other than the fact that he worked closely with a child molester. So did I my friends, so did I - and I had no knowledge of that until decades later.

-Joe-