Posted on 05/20/2002 7:49:43 PM PDT by Polycarp
On Fox tonight O'Reilly said a cardinal is about to be outed as an active homosexual. Rumor has it Bishop Bruskiwiecz sent a letter telling this Cardinal to "resign, or else..."
NY POST: WHICH American cardinal recently disclosed to insiders a confidential letter he received from a bishop urging the cardinal to resign for the good of the church? The cardinal is being urged to quit before his much-gossiped-about homosexual indiscretions are uncovered by the media . . . WHICH ranking priest of a major diocese predicted over a boozy dinner the other night that if the media outs this particular cardinal, "then the dominoes will really start to fall"?
Thanks for the sad info. :(
When I was an employer, I would have fired someone like her so fast that she would not have known what happened. When I was an employee, I expected the same treatment. Maybe Archbishop Curtiss is too liberal for his own good.
Well, my friend, why is Curtiss protecting a child-pornography-viewing priest?
Curtiss is an obstinate man who thinks he and his priests are above the law.
The woman did a service to society which showed up Curtiss.
He's angry because he's been outed as a protector of a pervert.
IF, and I say IF, the Omaha priest is actually guilty, his case will be dealt with by the courts and also ecclesiastically by Eldon Curtiss.
Do we have the same confidence in the heretical likes of Archbishop Rembert Weakland, the Mad Monk of Milwaukee, who threatens libel suits against J Random Catholic in hid diocese writing to him to report clerical misconduct? No.
Do we have the same confidence in Roger Cardinal Mahoney? Of course, he tried to use his influence as a cardinal to silence Mother Angelica and to sieze for the left termites a piece of EWTN's programming time, ;est Americans be exposed to Catholicism. Since the Vatican unlike the Los Angeles Archdiocese is still actually Catholic, he failed. Apparently no reason for confidence in scum like Mahoney.
How about William Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore? He threatened parents who resisted and publicly complained of their daughters being taught at Loyola High School in Baltimore that lesbianism was an acceptable alternative to sex as intended by God. No, no confidence there.
Those are only three execrable examples of the leftist AmChurch hierarchy about whom you NEVER complain and three examples of behavior far worse than ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTING to view kiddie porn on the internet. As a recovering attorney, I have a good deal of difficulty figuring out the apparently assumed difference between reading kiddie porn books and downloading kiddie porn off the internet. Assuming that the priest is guilty of the attempt, he is a sinner and a sinner without apparent actual victim other than the state of his own soul.
If the insubordinate schoolmarm is telling lies, she too is a sinner and one in direct contact with kids whom she may influence. If the insubordinate schoolmarm is telling the truth, she is still guilty of gross insubordination, has a rotten attitude toward hierarchical authority, especially in an archdiocese blessed with an archbishop like Eldon Curtiss, and she is still acting as though she were incharge of her archbishop rather than vice versa and in charge of her employer rather than vice versa.
Intellectual honesty demands that, long before you attempt to create a tempest in a teapot against such actually Catholic ordinaries as Eldon Curtiss and Fabian Bruskewitz (whom you previously attacked over military pederast behavior by a Lincoln priest who was convicted of his crimes about ten years before Bruskewitz ever saw Nebraska and who was no longer around when he arrived), you deal with the criminal homosexual pedophilia, pederasty and exploitation which was so rampant next door to you in the Diocese of Dallas (you also attacked Bruskewitz for withdrawing his seminarians from Dallas to his own new seminary in Lincoln), or, at least, Rembert Weakland.
When laws require violating the seal of the confessional, the Pope and Canon Law agree that the Church is above the law, if necessary, and in our country, courtesy of the First Amendment, it is the consistent ruling of our courts that the contents of confessions to priests or other clergy are no business whatsoever of the government.
Until you demonstrate special knowledge of the priest in Omaha or something other than the word of this insubordinate "Catholic" schoolteacher who obeys neither her boss nor her Archbishop (one and the same) or give us your views on the threats against in-house whistleblowers by Weakland, why should your speculations about Curtiss be taken seriously as other than the same old/same old attacks on a prelate because he is Catholic? Do you really think that the ALLEGED ATTEMPT to download kiddie porn, even if true, is the worst matter facing our bishops today on this front? Do you think it is in the top one thousand? No, you are naturally embarassed that Kumbaya Catholicism has brought us lavender seminaries, lavender rectories, lavender "Catholic" colleges, acceptance of every form of perversion as "normal" by the bishops behind the document of the NCCB called "Always Our Children."
You are diverting attention from the real problems by scrawling a few prophylactic but weak attacks on Catholic bishops because you know that it is the hierarchical heretics and the hierarchichal indifferent who are responsible for this scourge. Bear in mind that right after the next conclave or, hopefully, sooner, the purge (may it be relentless) begins.
I've criticized Weakland this very morning, Mahony and his monstrosity of a Cathedral. Keeler I know nothing about and haven't read anything about any of the priests in his diocese.
As for the Omaha case, the original article said that "court records indicate that the priest admitted to viewing child pornography on several occasions." That's a crime. Curtiss held his knowledge of these accusations in abeyance for eight months.
The woman whom you call "insubordinate" is a hero. Curtiss has a habit of upbraiding lay people for circumventing him, as he did two letter-writers to the Omaha World who dared criticize him in public.
Curtiss is pompous and arrogant, and everybody knows it.
As for the "military priest" whom you reference, that's news to me. You're confusing me with someone else on that one, as this is the first I've heard that there was ever a problem of any kind in Lincoln.
I don't favor bishops of any stripe, as I think the vast majority of them are collared CEO's rather than spiritual shepherds. They don't give a damn about their priests, and the feeling is usually mutual.
The only time lay people encounter bishops is when they're transferring a priest or begging for money; bishops certainly don't make themselves available to dialogue with their "flock," because most bishops could care less what their people think.
Will you go to any lengths to clear Curtiss? Are you actually positing here that child pornography has no victims?
Apparently, it will have to be beaten into the heads of some of these guys that they will no longer be allowed to hide criminality from the community.
That having been said, reprehensible and sinful though downloading kiddie porn or any other kind may be, and evidence of a sick and disordered soul though it may be, I do believe that this is more a matter for the Church than for the ubiquitous drunken dinosaur known as government. I don't like this behavior at all but I don't think it is illegal whatever some collection of preening legislative panderers may say or the usual gang of suspects in black judicial robes for that matter. A nation that cannot muster the moral resolve to protect unborn innocent children from the abortionist's scalpel or suction machine has some gilt-edged nerve claiming to act morally on behalf of kids. Our government would not know a moral principle if its continued existence depended on it. If an adult is somehow legally guaranteed the right to view pictures of subhuman liberals engaged in sex with horses or in group scenes, one attached to the other ad infinitum, because our august judges think the First Amendment Freedom of Speech was intended to protect such "communications," where is there mention in the constitution of a distinction having to do with pictures sexually exploiting children?
Thomas Jefferson, no noteworthy religious enthusiast, explained in his famous 1811 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Church that the purpose of the First Amendment Freedom of Worship is to guarantee that the churches are free, without fear, to hold government accountable and that government shall not hold the churches accountable. If a priest or a bishop sexually violates a child or anyone else and/or if a bishop covers up the misbehavior after the fact, there are criminal legal remedies but the Church has absolutely NO OBLIGATION to cooperate with its traditional enemy, the government, and, if violating the seal of the confessional is demanded, priestly martyrdom is preferable. We will bury any government that tries as we have for twenty centuries.
By the way, in our country, in our time, liberal populism is a contradiction in terms.
Thank God for mother Angelica's Conservative Network, Eternal Word Television Network. EWTN has quietly matured for over 20 years as the preminent Catholic TV/Radio Conservative Media. May EWTN & EWEN be recognized as a key instrument of God's plan for re-invigorating the Catholic Church.
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.