In the recent minor kerfuffle over Bishop Gumbleton withdrawing from a speaking engagment in Tucson (the story is that the speech was sponsored by a local chapter of Call to Action, and Bishop Kicanas refused the group permission to meet and host the speech in a Catholic church. The implication of articles on this is that Kicanas refused Gumbleton permission to speak, but it seems to me the permission refused was for the group to meet on Church property. Same effect, perhaps, and I don’t know the history of CtoA in the Tucson diocese, but the broader picture is about the group, not Gumbleton)…

okay, in the minor kerfuffle, as well as in stories about Bishop Gumbleton’s retirement, the meme "outspoken advocate for victims of clergy abuse" has started being bandied about as a descriptive for Bishop Gumbleton.    He has been speaking out about the issue for a couple of years, acknowledging that he was a victim of abuse by a priest as a high school seminarian, and testifying here and there in favor of bills extending statutes of limitations and such. He recently claimed that his retirement was a consequence:

"I’m sure it’s because of the openness with which I spoke out last January concerning victims of sex abuse in the church. So we’re all suffering the consequences of that, and yet, I don’t regret doing what I did because I still think it was the right thing to do," he said, as the congregation rose and erupted in applause.

A question nags, however. When Gumbleton was a non-retired auxiliary bishop in Detroit…what did he do in relationship to accusations of clergy abuse?

The question has been raised by a former editor of the Michigan Catholic newspaper, who says:

Having spent five years (1990-1995) in the Archdiocese of Detroit, where I watched the local scandal unfold, I have no recollection whatsoever of Gumbleton doing anything but being part of the cover-up. Indeed, in one instance, I believe he obstructed justice, as he did not comply with archdiocesan policy.