There are gestures that cannot be explained by loyalty, nor by priestly fraternity, nor by that soft mercy that some wield for everything. Ten days after the video, the question is elementary and terrifying: why does Cardinal Cobo insist on protecting José Castro Cea? When everyone expects that, at least, the minimum gesture of prudence is to remove him from the training of future priests, Cobo simply supports him. And there is no more irrational act than saving someone who sinks you.
When pushing into the pool costs you your life
Imagine you’re about to push someone into a pool and, in the last second, the person grabs your arm. If you push them, you both fall. That’s exactly what’s seen: a prelate who no longer acts seriously for the Church but for survival. We’re not talking about simple «friendship» or delicate pastoral considerations. We’re talking about attitudes that are only understood in terms of reciprocal dependence.
The logic of unmotivated protection
In ecclesiastical life, when a superior protects someone clearly harmful with such zeal, only two hypotheses fit: either the protection responds to a noble reason (which is not seen here) or it responds to interests that are preferred to be kept under lock and key. We do not affirm facts we do not know; we point out a pattern. And patterns speak louder than words. When the behavior is self-harmful—when a high cleric seems willing to sacrifice himself before letting another fall—the plausible explanation is rarely the heroic one.
Second readings that scream
Anyone who has spent years watching ecclesiastical politics knows it: there are silences, crossed favors, and loyalties that are not of faith but of survival. That’s why it’s not surprising that, alongside this case, others emerge that follow the same score: episcopal silences, appointments, key positions that resist any logic of cleansing. We don’t say it out of malice: we say it methodically. Where institutional decisions become irrational, it’s always worth looking at the closed room where the reasons are kept. In Madrid, and in any other place.
Does Cobo fear that by letting go of Josete something else will fall with him? It’s a question that many ask in a low voice. It’s not an accusation; it’s a bitter observation: sometimes the preservation of one’s own position explains gestures that, otherwise, would seem suicidal. And when that happens, the institution itself is at clear risk: mutual protection becomes shielding from the truth.
If the Church does not want to become a chronicle of complicities, it needs more than occasional headlines: it needs internal courage. And if in the offices containment is preferred to protect crossed interests, no one should be surprised when credibility continues to crumble. Because in the end the question cries out: if a superior protects a subordinate with a hardness that cannot be explained by loyalty, what is it that he really protects?