Sorry, sitetest, but I have to call you on this one. When a woman has been raped, passed repeated lie detector tests, and has testified of such abuse to the Vatican, it can no longer be called entirely unsubstantiated opinion. That is what they used to do to rape victims all the time. Just because the man charged was a cardinal does not mean we revert to old modes of discrediting witnesses. Re read the article:
there is a real individual behind the story and an actual instance of satanic abuse.
"Agnes," a pseudonym for her actual name, ...has consented to and passed several polygraph examinations ... made her accusations in sworn affidavits, written statements to Vatican officials ...Among those Agnes has implicated in the attack upon her was ... Joseph Bernardin.
Agnes states that in the fall of 1957, in Greenville, S.C.,... Bernardin, raped her ...
The charges are gravely serious.
"When a woman has been raped, passed repeated lie detector tests, and has testified of such abuse to the Vatican, it can no longer be called entirely unsubstantiated opinion."
I haven't seen the results of the lie detector test. I haven't seen the affidavits. I have no evidence that they were forwarded to the Vatican. I haven't met the woman or interviewed her. I don't have any clue as to whether or not she is a credible person. No court, to my knowledge, has admitted any of this material as evidence. No prosecutor has alleged any of this material as true. No defense attorney has had any opportunity to test any of this.
This has been reported at least third-hand in this article. That's just not substantiation. The author here, as far as I can tell, did not interview this woman directly. He is taking the word of others. One of the reasons I'm willing to credit much of what was reported in Mr. Rose's book was because he interviewed directly the people which he quoted, and at least some of them were willing to come forward, and not hide behind the shield of anonymity.
The charges are without substantiation until the substantiation is placed in a public forum. Usually, a court of law would be where such allegations would be made. If someone wished to substantiate a claim of rape, she would have to permit the evidence to be presented publicly. Though the press has traditionally chosen to shield the identity of rape victims, her testimony would offered in open court, and anyone could view the court records and determine who she was, and offer to the defense attorneys countervailing testimony, if they so wished.
Questions of veracity, sanity, credibility, etc., could be tested under oath through cross-examination.
Then, the charges would at least be credibly substantiated.
Unfortunately, that wasn't what happened, and it can't happen, now.
And without the ability to test the allegations made through some sort of adversarial process, one cannot reasonably give credence to such awful allegations.
I hope that if anyone ever makes similar charges against me after I'm dead, you won't believe them without seeing the evidence for yourself, even if you're just depending on the court reporter for the local newspaper. That's a fairer shake than Cardinal Bernadin is receiving.
But, even now, the charges would be more credible if the individual were to leave behind the cloak of anonymity. I understand entirely if the woman doesn't wish to come forward. But then, I can't give credence to the allegations. They are unsubstantiated. Literally, no substance has been given to them. They are words on paper, or digital ink in the ether, not even tied to a specific person whom I can identify.
As an example, what made Juanita Broadrick credible was her willingness to make her allegations herself, in public, for all the world to see. In the case under discussion, I haven't seen this happen. I'm sure that if there were any chance at all that this person were willing to go public (if, indeed, she really exists - I'm being asked to take a lot on faith, here, including that there is such a person), the Boston Globe would be on her doorstep in seconds.
Worse yet, my friend, I'm not being asked to believe that Cardinal Bernadin was doing 80 mph in a 55 mph zone. I'm not even asked to believe that Cardinal Bernadin was caught shoplifting nylons in Woolworth's. I'm expected to believe an extremely outrageous story about a Prince of the Catholic Church raping a young girl, and engaging in satanic rituals against her, all on the third-hand reporting of Mr. Westerman.
I'm not so far into my dotage as to have forgotten the McMartin preschool cases, where children testified that they had been raped and subjected to satanic rituals, but where it was ultimately proven that the testimony given was physically impossible. Regrettably, this wasn't the first or last time such ugly and malicious false prosecutions were entered into by authorities.
Yet, even in these cases, with some semblance of due process, and the protection of the rights of the innocent, a miscarriage of justice occured.
How could I give any credence at all to these charges here, which are entirely unsubstantiated by any evidence within the realm of public review?
sitetest
With her father watching?
Polycarp, there is NOTHING to this story, and the fact that Malachi Martin highlighted it in a book does it no favors.