Posted on 07/17/2002 6:58:26 AM PDT by Polycarp
I don't think it's as faulty as you think.
Washington, DC also sports a Jesuit institution: Georgetown University. Our archbishop doesn't have the same relationship with GU as with CUA. Yet, our last cardinal archbishop, James Cardinal Hickey, made his presence felt there, as well, to the point of intervening in the administration of the university at times.
Certainly, the ordinary of the diocese may decline to be involved with the Catholic institutions of higher learning in his see.
But the bishop may also choose to have a greater level of involvement, as well. I don't know what was Cardinal Bernadin's level of involvement at Loyola. I do know that it isn't unreasonable to think that the men knew each other through that nexus.
My friend who died lived with her sister, and had no husband or children of her own. Friends showed up to find out what had happened. No one came with meals or other offers of help. It was a sudden, unexpected death, and the first rumors on the telephone lines included a hint of foul play. People came from the sense of shock and bewilderment. "What happened?" was all that could be heard. Within a couple of hours, the police were so swamped with friends, they were shooing them away.
If Cardinal Bernadin were friends with the victim, I would not find it at all unusual that he would have showed up at the scene.
sitetest
Now, THAT'S scary...And so sad. Sad that men who have such evil habits and tendencies have all but taken over the one profession I can think of that people should be able to trust implicitly. Sad that the men with true vocations have been turned away at the doors of almost every seminary in the country if they refused to participate in this evil. Sad, that all through these 40, 50, 60, or even 80 years, as mentionend in the article, men with no respect for their holy vows have been in positions of trust all througout the church in America. If there was ever any doubt in my mind that there was an organized effort to undermine the authority of Rome in the American church, it has been wiped away.
One of the very saddest days in my entire life was the one, not too long ago, when I had to sit my two sons down and tell them about this scandal. (Which I had to do, given the jokes starting to spread all over school, and given that my younger son's Catholic school had been involved in a horrible way in it.) My oldest son's first question was: Why would any man do such things? His second question: How could a priest do such things?
This is my question as well: Why do so many of the victims SHUT UP FOR MONEY?
I don't like thinking this, but it seems that if they were primarily concerned about the welfare of children, they wouldn't.
I completely agree. We must pray very hard for Gov. Keating -- prayers, sacrifices, fasting. The Lord has chosen him for this important service, and he will be under all sorts of temporal and spiritual assault.
We really need to pray for him and to plead the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I am reminded of Chesterton saying that sensationalism is not as great a danger as secrecy, for most of society's ills are more due to secrecy than to startling revelations. (Sorry for the paraphrase - I don't have time to track down the quote.)
It's started already but the man has acorns.
At the same time, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating is promising to use his unprecedented new position with the U.S. bishops’ conference to help lay people remove bishops who might have looked the other way or transferred known priest-abusers.
Remember, it was Martin Luther who suggested early in his efforts that the lay community get involved in reforming the Church so there would not be a collapse of faith by the faithful,” Keating said, answering critics who say laity boards should not seek removal of bishops.
I like Keating's approach. This article may have been posted already.
BS, sink.
We just had a local case of a man that sodomized his own son for 10 years.
Your point does not refute the validity of this woman's story of abuse, as recent history highlights.
"'With her father watching? Polycarp, there is NOTHING to this story'
"BS, sink.
"We just had a local case of a man that sodomized his own son for 10 years.
"Your point does not refute the validity of this woman's story of abuse, as recent history highlights. "
Of course, this detail of itself doesn't disprove the story. However, it is a detail that demands explanation.
Though in-home sexual abuse of children is far more commonly committed by non-related adult males in the household, some small number of biological fathers abuse their own children.
However, being a little familiar with the literature (I used to be in the mental health field), the common pattern of abuse is one-on-one, with a heavy emphasis on the part of the adult on absolute secrecy. Because of the way the abusive father frames the relationship in his own mind, it'd be exceedingly rare to see a biological father "share" his daughter with another.
Thus, the detail reduces the credibility of the story, at least without further explanation.
sitetest
I was too polite to mention that.
Are some people more dead than others? Is it not OK to impugn the reputation of a Cardinal, but it's OK to impugn the reputation of a priest? Unless you two have evidence regarding Fr. Martin, I would suggest being more circumspect. Otherwise your suggestions to others on this thread ring rather hollow.
In the opinion of police detective/profilers working on the case, the brutality and manner of the killing indicated that it was carried out either by a woman or a homosexual, Callaghan stated."
This sentence caught my eye.
Just how does a homosexual or a woman murder someone, and how does their manner of murder contrast with that of a heterosexual man??
This sentence does not make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that the police should report on "the facts...just the facts, ma'am", and leave speculation -- es[pecially speculation that, on its surface, is somewhat non-sensical to the airheads in the media.
It is my opinion that Malachi Martin, especially in his later years, was mentally ill. His paranoia colored everything he said and wrote.
"Are some people more dead than others? Is it not OK to impugn the reputation of a Cardinal, but it's OK to impugn the reputation of a priest?"
Differences abound. It surprises me that they need to be pointed out.
Here's the first:
The difference between discussing what is openly known and discussing rumor and gossip. Fr. Martin's work is openly known. To discuss its merits and demerits is not gossip. To criticize his work as possibly being less-than-totally credible is not rumormongering.
To discuss and spread unproven allegations about deceased bishops is rumormongering and gossip.
If we were speaking about generally-accepted facts which reflected poorly on the deceased, that wouldn't be the same thing, now would it? If we find uncontrovertible evidence, and it is made public for all to see and test, that a deceased bishop committed a grave sin or crime, then the discussion thereof will no longer be rumormongering and gossip.
I'm sure that you can appreciate the difference.
There is, of course, another dimension to the difference:
The accusation that someone's professional work may be somewhat inaccurate is of a different nature than the accusation of grave, deeply hurtful personal sin.
If one speaks charitably, the former is a perfectly reasonable topic for discussion. The latter often is not. Open discussion of the latter is often the sin of detraction.
I've alluded to a question of the credibility of Fr. Martin's work. I've made no allegations that Fr. Martin was engaged in some sort of grave personal sin. And if you are aware of any such accusations, please don't let me know. I'm just not interested.
The discussions around here concerning various dead Catholic bishops have centered around grevious personal sin that they may or may not have committed. It's a discussion with a different character.
sitetest
So very well intentioned for Yendu..He does have a knack of repeating accusations that ultimately will be seen, heard by the gullible and will result in further harm to a reputation of a great many honest, devoted men of cloth. Rather, I would like to see and hear more positive attitudes. I have been greatly blessed, for I have always been associated in a parish where integrity was prevelant. Listening and reading of yendu, I pray that his circumstances will change for the better. He most likely was exposed to the worst, if not in mind then in spirit.
My interpretation of sinkspur's initial comment, "...and the fact that Malachi Martin highlighted it in a book does it no favors." is that it was an unsubstantiated swipe at Fr. Martin's character. My interpretation was confirmed in sinkspur's response to me. Sinkspur wasn't discussing the credibility of the novel. Rather, he was expressing his opinion of Fr. Martin. sinkspur, do you have a mental health expert's report on Fr. Martin's mental state? Did you personally interview Fr. Martin? or are you drawing a conclusion based on what you've read and heard in the public media?
If we were speaking about generally-accepted facts which reflected poorly on the deceased, that wouldn't be the same thing, now would it?
My concern is the "generally-accepted facts" regarding Fr. Martin. It appears there have been many unsubstantiated rumors about Fr. Martin (including accusations of his having committed mortal sins) that have taken on the appearance of "truth" because they have been repeated so many times. If a lie is repeated often enough, they will believe it, eh? If there is incontrovertible evidence of said accusations, then I'm with you, but as far as I've seen there has been much mud slinging at Fr. Martin after his death with no hard evidence to back it up. That, to me, is no different than what you are warning others of doing to Cardinal Bernardin.
The accusation that someone's professional work may be somewhat inaccurate...
I've alluded to a question of the credibility of Fr. Martin's work.
How credible does a work of fiction have to be, anyway?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.