Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, claims RCF has no evidence

Roman Catholic Faithful ^ | Spring/Summer 2001 | Stephen Brady

[history_matters]

On February 26, 2001 RCF sent the following to Cardinal George of Chicago.

Your Eminence,

I recently received a letter from a Mr. Matt Abbott regarding his Feb. 24, 2001 conversation with you at St. Rita High School during Parish Leadership Day. According to Mr. Abbott:

‘..he [Cardinal George] doesn’t like the fact that you make accusations with no evidence to back them up. He used the [Bishop] Ryan case as an example: He claims that there as no evidence of wrongdoing, other than Ryan’s “imprudent” association with certain individuals’

Surely Mr. Abbott misunderstood your comments, to assume otherwise would suggest you are a liar who has some reason to protect a pervert bishop.

The lawsuit filed against Bishop Ryan one week after his resignation mentions Ryan’s homosexual activity with clergy and male prostitutes. Are you suggesting the attorneys who filed the lawsuit had no affidavits to back up their statements? Are you calling them liars as well? How about the statement from the ex-wife of Ryan’s former lover? What about the statements from 3 priests and 2 former male prostitutes?

It seems everybody is lying except you and bishop Ryan – and General Absolution doesn’t happen in Chicago and there has never been a child sexually abused by a Catholic priest.

Maybe RCF’s work in Springfield is not complete. In an effort to defend RCF’s reputation and my good name, we might need to present to the public all the evidence including the size and shape of Bishop Ryan’s penis along with statements and copies of cancelled checks. One wonders what bishop Ryan must know that would cause other bishops to lie for him. Maybe we should take a closer look at others who protect the wolf. RCF has credibility and speaks the truth Cardinal – you do not.

Sincerely,

Stephen Brady, President
Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.

On March 1, 2001 the Cardinal answered RCF’s letter.

Dear Mr. Brady:

This is in response to your faxed letter of February 26. I’ll attempt to clarify the report which Matt Abbott gave you of our short conversation in the corridor of St. Rita High School. I had not realized that, in speaking with him, I was speaking with you; but it is good to take the occasion to raise with you the distinction between an accusation and an accusation accompanied by proof.

Let me use a fictitious example. Suppose that, last week, a woman who has been in prison for drug dealing off and on over the years came to me and told me you had committed adultery with her four times last year. She gave me the times and places, describing your physical characteristics in some detail. She also showed me copies of checks you had written to her. Is any of this evidence that you are an adulterer? Since I have no knowledge of your physical characteristics and the checks didn’t say “payment in service for sexual favors”, am I free to assume she has verified her story? Am I morally justified in concluding that her story is true? Am I then free to write and tell anyone willing to listen that Stephen Brady is an adulterer?

The answer, of course, is no. You have a right to your good public reputation which, like anyone’s, can be easily destroyed. In talking to Matt, I did not say that you or anyone else is lying. I said there has been no conclusive evidence given to prove the accusations you’ve made against Bishop Ryan, who also has a right to his good reputation without conclusive proof against him. I had assumed that the lawsuit filed against the diocese might clarify some of the accusations, but I have not heard anything about the case since it was filed. Filling a suit isn’t proof of anything, except of the intent of the one who files. Filling an affidavit isn’t proof of anything until it is contested and adjudicated. I have not seen any the “evidence” you have accumulated. Interviews by Mr. Lago with some of the parties concerned left the accusations unresolved. Bishop Ryan befriended some individuals whom, he explains, he was trying to help. At this point, I am in no position to say anything more: nor have you given me any proof which would justify saying anything more.

You know that your remark about a child never having been sexually abused by a Catholic priest is merely sarcasm, the kind of sarcasm often used by enemies of the Catholic faith who hate bishops and priests.

What does it say when you and Call to Action adopt the same tone? In the Archdiocese of Chicago, at least, every accusation by someone who claims to be a victim of sexual abuse by a priest is carefully investigated. Not every accusation is true, but some are. If there is something I need to know about sexual abuse of a child by one of the priests of the Archdiocese, I ask you to have the victim contact me. You know, as well, that priests have been permanently removed from ministry and their victims helped, to the extent possible, to overcome the effects of such terrible sin committed against them. Also, you may or may not know that the practice of giving general absolution, an abuse which began years ago in the Archdiocese of Chicago, has begun to be addressed.

Finally, I am sorry that you believe you have to make personal innuendoes and threats to get attention, even for causes you believe in sincerely. This is Lent, a time when Christ, through the Church, calls us all to conversion. You are in my prayers; please keep me in yours.

Yours in Christ,

Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago

On March 6, 2001 Roman Catholic Faithful responded to the Cardinal’s letter

Francis Cardinal George
Archdiocese of Chicago
Office of the Archbishop
Post Office Box 1979
Chicago, Illinois 60690

Your Eminence,

Let me begin my response to your March 1 letter by first commenting upon your remark that the practice of your diocesan priests giving general absolution has begun to be addressed. In this remark, your cowardice and insincerity are laid bare. You have been bishop of Chicago since May 7, 1997, a total of more than three years. At any time you could have ordered this practice stopped by simply commanding your priests to obey, under penalty of discipline. The expression “has begun to be addressed,” is more appropriate for problems like termite control or poor grades in children’s math scores. Such subtle problems are often not subject to readily recognizable remedies. You like to give examples. Let me give you an example. Suppose these priests practicing general absolution were instead handing out pamphlets stating black people do not have souls and cannot go to heaven. Do you have any doubt that you would instantly order this practice ceased? Do you think you would wait four years before “beginning to ad- dress” the problem? Of course not. General absolution places the eternal souls of your flock in eternal jeopardy. Your failure to come to their rescue is a disgrace and a betrayal of your office.

With regard to Bishop Ryan, you know fully well that Fr. Hardon flew to Rome with statements from priests and personally vouched for the accuracy of the charges. This is in addition to the sworn statements that I referred to previously. To respond to your analogy, if in addition to the sworn statements from these drug addicts, Fr. Hardon flew to Rome with two women who claimed to have committed adultery with me, and he vouched for their accuracy, I would consider this a sufficient basis in which to conclude that the adultery had occurred. When combining this information with the affidavits filed with a civil lawsuit, for which attorneys can be disbarred for unfounded allegations, any possible doubt would be removed from my mind. It therefore appears that the only way you would acknowledge that a priest or bishop was engaged in sexual misconduct is if we sent you photos of the priest performing these acts. However, when we attempted to provide you with photos of clergy misconduct last year in connection with the St. Sebastian Website, you faxed me a letter in which you said that you would not look at these homosexual photos because they could be a near occasion of sin for you. You have thus built a wall around yourself which guarantees plausible deniability on your part for any sexual misconduct on the part of your clergy. Although this is shameful and cowardly, we must at least congratulate you on the genius of this scheme.

Yes, Cardinal George, we will continue to pray for you. It is clear we have not been praying hard enough.

In Jesus’ Name, The Way, The Truth, and the Life,

Stephen Brady

[Burn24]

It's easy to see how people slide into moral relativism, isn't it? You could equate a French Resistance fighter in WWII to a teenage Palestinian homicide bomber and come at it from endless angles of thought and analysis, and what you'd have in the final analysis are two dead guys.

Who really, really believed in something once.

[patent]

>>>It's easy to see how people slide into moral relativism, isn't it?

It is much easier to be a relativist. There are indeed somethings we can't judge, and this impossibility makes relativism so attractive because it makes dealing with that fact easy. The mere fact that we may not be qualified to judge a particular issue, however, does not mean there is an eternal truth there. That truth is not changed by our social customs, but is set by the living God. Our understanding of that truth may change, but it does not. Fully accepting all of this is a very hard line to walk down. It is so easy to fall off the line toward either side and say (in error) "its all relative" or "its all a sin." Catholicism seeks a balance in truth, not in ease.

God bless,

patent

[patent]

>>>does not mean there is an eternal truth there

Should be "does not mean there is NO eternal truth there"

[Burn24]

God bless,

Back at ya!

[RobbyS]

Re: #29. They don't want him to touch gay issue, is that right?

[RobbyS]

the conservatives don't like homosexuals. THIS conservative likes many of the gays he has known, but I think they suffer from a kind of madness.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I’ll give you one example. He was invited to speak before one of the umbrella groups for gay Catholics. He got up and promptly started lecturing them about the Catholic view of homosexuality, right down the line. You may not like that he hasn’t shut enough of these groups down, but he clearly holds firm to the faith, and is not afraid to speak it.

Thank you. That is what I was looking for, and it's encouraging to hear that he did that. It certainly tempers my criticism of him, and makes me believe that my faults with him stem more from my lack of understanding of all the relevant issues (that is, there's more than meet's the eye to what is required to accomplish the things he needs/wants to accomplish).

[Proud2BAmerican]

It is not a valid form of the Sacrament, and thus is an abuse.

I thought it was valid in extreme circumstnaces? (i.e., the scene in Braveheart where the priests walk up and down the lines of Scottish soldiers?)

[Notwithstanding]

My sentiments, exactly. Good idea, poorly executed.