I’m a little late in offering my thoughts about Katie Reiser’s Remnant post as picked up by Cathinfo, but here goes
At this point, everybody and his brother knows about the sex scandals.   The Church has paid out billions.  There’s been a movie about it.
So the Society’s recent article focuses on explaining what is to be made of it all.  But as usual, some people treat careful reasoning as evidence of weakness or even perfidy.
One thing the Society analysis doesn’t say, but is a clear implication of what is does say, is that much of the current reaction to the sex scandals is an exercise in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.  The number of abuse cases has dropped dramatically, beginning from the 2002 Dallas Charter.  By and large, the U.S. hierarchy has done its job on this matter.  There are still plenty of issues to criticize it for, but this isn’t one of them.
The PA grand jury report is clearly an exercise in after the fact virtue signaling.  The statute of limitations has run for all but two of those charged.  But all the names have been released.  Traditional Catholic moral teaching is that everyone has a right to his good name unless there is good reason to disclose his wrongdoing. 
The Society article also rebukes Cardinal DiNardo for talking as if the whole mess is is the fault of the Church.  This is quite scandalous, and ammunition for the Church’s enemies; but only the Society seems to have noticed.

Some people are scandalized at the Society’s saying that the whole matter is a “shame,” apparently thinking this wishy-washy or worse.  But it seems that they didn’t notice two sentences further down the following:
“Christ warned, ‘Woe to him through whom scandal comes’ (Lk. 17:1). And again: ‘He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea’ (Mt. 18:6).”
The plague is over.  On the other hand, sodomy in ecclesiastical high places, and the percolation of “gαy” friendliness through the conciliar church is not a minor issue, nor one that shows any signs of improving. So it seems a more appropriate matter for concern.

One final remark on ++Vigano.  I am told that in his days as nuncio to the U.S., he never did anything for the Society, and was rather unpleasant in dealing with it.  His recent efforts are a very good thing, but there seem to be no grounds for thinking him a traditionalist nor at all sympathetic to traditionalism.  Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press says that ++V reads its books.  I fear that James Vogel of Angelus Press couldn’t say the same for Angelus Press.

In caritate,

John McFarland