Posted on 08/26/2004 3:38:43 PM PDT by corpus
Here's the WHOLE story.
Joel Green was a barber, and active in his Lutheran Church in Prescott, MN. He underwent a sex-change operation and later petitioned Bp. Flynn in Twin Cities for formal constitution of his/her Order "Franciscan Servants of Jesus." Flynn turned it down.
Green then goes to Burke and asks same. Burke says 'fine.' Green proceeds to teach religious ed and hold retreats for confirmations around the Diocese.
Enter the complainant, who knew Green in Prescott. She writes to Montalvo, who refers it to Burke. Burke writes to the complainant (the letter in the thread-head post.)
On January 16, 2003, Burke's official paper suppresses the "Franciscan Servants..." under provisions of Canon 326.
That's because the Vat had issued a document (referred to by Nat'l Catholic Reporter 1/24/03) which stated that 'sex-change operations' do NOT change the born nature...individuals who have had operations are not eligible for ordination, religious life, or marriage....
I leave it to you to determine why Bp. Burke would tell the complainant that "Rome approves....I checked this all out..." while the appropriate Roman document had already been sent--and why Burke suppressed the Order.
You can find the "Sr. Julie" website (!!!) at www. pressenter.com, which was the business she operated. She's quite successful with it--I know of at least one parish which uses 'pressenter' as their ISP/Web hoster.
So she/he isn't a nun then anymore. How about them apples!
Ping to #121.
Dear ninenot,
Let me see if I'm getting this right:
1. Article in local homosexual rag states Archbishop Burke approved of group and "lady."
2. Rome, after hearing from layperson in diocese, gives Burke a heads up about the issue.
3. Burke suppresses order in his diocese.
4. Article in local homosexual rag states that Burke wrote a letter, pretty much to the contrary.
Thus, as an example, this sentence, quoted from the homosexual rag, contradicts the facts you are now reporting:
"With regard to Sister Julie Green, F.S.J., the recognition of the association of the faithful which she and Sister Anne LeBlanc founded was granted only after consultation with the Holy See."
Is that where things stand?
Thanks,
sitetest
Yup.
Something fishy here. Bp Burke should retain an ex-FBI guy to do backgrounds on every single person he allows in, or hires. B trusts too much--good for some things, but not in all things...
Dear ninenot,
What's fishy, other than the homosexual rag fishwrap?
It appears that the bishop didn't realize the original circumstances, rectified the situation when he became aware of it, and has been lied about by the homosexual rag.
Am I missing something?
sitetest
The problem is that Burke "interviewed" this individual and took at face value EVERYTHING he was told. We've all been conned, granted. But Burke also had that crazy wacko embarassment who had claimed to have been gang-raped in the Milwaukee Chancery out there, as well.
Fool me once...shame on you. Fool me twice--shame on ME.
It is POSSIBLE that Burke knew about the transvestite thing, as well. Eyewitness friend tells me that Green still looks like a man.
The thing should have had enough odor so that Burke should have looked harder, a LOT harder.
Dear ninenot,
You may be right, but that's a separate issue from what was originally reported.
"But Burke also had that crazy wacko embarassment"
Are you referring to the Ryan St. Ann-or-whatever fellow?
sitetest
Yes, Ryan St whatever.
And, of course, the ICK affair.
My point is that it is really NOT a separate issue. Once it is clear that he could be bamboozled, he should have made it a firm policy. ONE strike, ok. Two? Three????
In fact, the Catholic Conference/Wisconsin should hire that FBI retiree for all the Dioceses and split the cost. Join a couple of the Internet background-check boards (pay some moneys) and--really--that ought to be required by their casualty (D&O) policy provider...
Dear ninenot,
No, it's two issues. Archbishop Burke may be delinquent in this or that way, but the homosexual rag lied about him. The "facts" presented didn't add up to the truth.
It seems that the homosexual rag in question is taking its journalistic cues from the National Catholic Regurgitator. Fortunately for the homosexual rag, it has some distance to fall before it reaches that dismal level.
But your point is well taken, that separately from the issue of the truth of the article, Archbishop Burke may need to adopt policies and procedures to protect him from these problems. I suspect that he is a better soul than most, and perhaps finds it difficult to believe evil of people, especially when he meets them in person. Not every good and decent person is also shrewd and cunning. In fact, often the opposite is the case; our Lord assured us of this.
We must redouble our prayers for our good bishops, and pray that God will send us more, and men who are not only good and decent, but shrewd and wise, too.
sitetest
How did it lie about Burke? His words are his words, and he clearly supported, at one time, a transgender to found a religious order. And he said that Rome supported him on it.
Also if, as ninenot says, Julie still looks like a Joel, how on earth could Burke get sucked in by some nice-sounding ideology?
Thanks for your diligence on this thread. It got WAY off the path I originally set for it (see post 1, that no one ever replied to) but they would not pull it for me. Sheesh! Shows you how a bad piece of journalism can really get blown out of porportion. Keep up the good works. Mae culpa.
Dear sinkspur,
Read the exchange of posts between ninenot and myself. What ninenot found out directly contradicts what was reported in the NCR-like homosexual rag. As far as can be determined, the quote in which Archbishop Burke defends Mr./Ms. Green is either wildly out of context or made up of whole cloth.
Given the choice of believing the results of ninenot's research or a rag aspiring to NCR levels of journalistic integrity, I think I'll go with ninenot.
sitetest
I read it. Ninenot's recounting in no way contradicts the article; in fact, it shows Burke to be very gullible as long knows what to say to him.
We've both spent more time on this than it deserves, but the good bishop doesn't seem to have a very sensitive human-judgment antennae.
Dear sinkspur,
Archbishop Burke is quoted by the homosexual rag as follows:
"With regard to Sister Julie Green, F.S.J., the recognition of the association of the faithful which she and Sister Anne LeBlanc founded was granted only after consultation with the Holy See."
This quote is at odds with what ninenot reports, that in fact, after talking with the Vatican, Archbishop Burke realized his error and suppressed the order. His actions contradict this alleged quote.
sitetest
The order was founded and functioned for a period of time, then suppressed after someone blew the whistle on Joel/Julie.
Have you ever been to New Orleans? Could you not pick a transgender out of a crowd? Ninenot states that the order was "suppressed," which means it was founded. I find it incomprehensible that an adult Roman Catholic bishop could make that kind of mistake, especially one who's a canon lawyer.
Dear sinkspur,
Right, the order was approved.
But then, when the question was brought to the attention of Rome, ninenot says:
"Enter the complainant, who knew Green in Prescott. She writes to Montalvo, who refers it to Burke. Burke writes to the complainant (the letter in the thread-head post.)
"On January 16, 2003, Burke's official paper suppresses the 'Franciscan Servants...' under provisions of Canon 326.
"That's because the Vat had issued a document (referred to by Nat'l Catholic Reporter 1/24/03) which stated that 'sex-change operations' do NOT change the born nature...individuals who have had operations are not eligible for ordination, religious life, or marriage.... "
Archbishop Burke then suppressed the order. The alleged letter is at odds with ninenot's reporting of the facts. The homosexual rag says it states in part, "With regard to Sister Julie Green, F.S.J., the recognition of the association of the faithful which she and Sister Anne LeBlanc founded was granted only after consultation with the Holy See."
That contradicts what Archbishop actually DID after hearing from Rome, which is suppress the order. Consultation with Rome, according to ninenot, DID NOT result in the recognition of the association. That happened PRIOR TO Rome's involvement, according to ninenot. Once Rome became involved, the association was SUPPRESSED.
I'm not sure what is the exact nature of the discrepancy, sinkspur, but it appears that this homosexual rag has misreported what happened.
sitetest
Well, you take the rag to task. I'm more concerned with the lack of judgement of Bishop Burke, who sat across from a transgender and approved her to head a religious order.
Dear sinkspur,
That's a valid note, but it wasn't my original point at all, or the point on which you commented to me.
sitetest
Site, your argument w/Sinky concerns a fact not in evidence: the date of the Vatican document which established that transgendered (?) people are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Ordination. I don't know the date it was published. The NCR published a story on the Vatican document, early 2003 (1/24?) but I did not reference the article to find the actual original publication date.
Let's assume that the Vat put out its document in late 2002; then all of this falls into place: Burke is approached by Green, asks/gets permission, establishes. Complaint follows; Montalvo refers to various Congregations, the document is published and transmitted.
THEN Burke suppresses, following "updated" Vatican instruction.
That's not an incredible sequence at all. It is very likely that the Vat never addressed the question of transsexuals for religious congregations, after all...
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.