Depending on your point of view, Cutie's tactic in this book will have different resonances. He apparently makes very broad charges against the Catholic Church, and he is a very believable person to be making them because of his intricate involvement with the Archdiocese of Miami at high levels of administration of important branches of their "mission", like radio. Yet, he apparently demurs on being specific as to names, except broadly on the former Archbishop. This may strike the critical reader as a bit suspicious, because if you are going to make an assertion you better have the courage to back it up with detail. But the critical reader might be forgetting then that part of the very dilemma someone like Cutie would be facing is the very real "Guess Who, Don't Sue" aspect. So the choice might have been whether to make the observations at all, if for prudential reasons you cannot be specific given the very formalized venue of a published book. In this regard, I think Cutie's forthrightness is to be appreciated very much, even though he does not seem to name names. Especially since it must be clear that he could have! The other aspect that the critical reader might home- in on is the sense of great opportunism in the story he presents. Such a critical reading would quickly highlight the fact that the sort of double- life he describes, which after all effected him personally more than anyone else, may not have been the most salient difficulty on an ethical level. To be more specific, if Cutie had such profound insights into the ethical difficulties of the Roman Catholic positions on moral issues going quite far back, then the advice he dispensed by very public means, and the moral conundrums for others who might have heard such orthodox- sounding advice would leave the reader with a quandary as to some culpability on his part for potential anguish caused others. Cutie seems to deal with this by expressing a general sense of disappointment in himself. But it is all very broad, from every report. I am certainly not suggesting that this lovely guy should spend a lot of his time in self-recrimination, far from it. He is already doing the world a lot of good with the level of honesty he has achieved. And further, there may be a more important yet tawdry explanation for some of his travails. I am referring to what should be obvious to any candid observer of the Catholic Church. That is that a very handsome guy would surely have a quite vexed path in the Catholic priesthood. Since so much of his story has become public, by his own intent, I think it is crucial to focus on this matter. Many who have passed through the arms of the Church, and had something others found attractive, will be able to sympathize with what this guy must have had to navigate. For few can have had quite the difficulties of a guy with potentially movie-star appearance, and photo- congeniality. I attended the same seminary in Miami as Cutie, and I well remember the general type of seminarians that occupied the place, and I can only imagine what the guy went through. In a way this can only have increased when he got into the priesthood, because if my experience with many priests in Miami taught me anything it was that a de facto covertness was expected. In fact one of my strangest memories about that time in my life is how many conversation actually started with the very words: "Don't tell anyone, but..." So having endured so much of this in his adult life, I think the critical reader can cut this man some slack if he is still giving some obeisance, conscious or unconscious to this psychological set-up. I think it is in this sense we should parse the very strange fact, given his recent revelations, that just last year on national TV he was still referring to the Church as "a wise mother." From this perspective what looks like opportunism may have been at bottom a simple attempt to salvage some from his predicament: handsome beefcake amidst the salivating clerical wolf-pack. This is a potentially very disempowering psychological set-up for a guy, and certainly could have caused hard to distinguish traumas. When looked at from this perspective I think we can see that some of the man's choices become more ethically legible in a positive direction. But however one construes the matter, it is clear that now he is doing a solid good for society by trying to be honest. Personally, I am grateful to him.