Adamec Takes On Rod Dreher In Wall Street Journal

Wall Street Journal (via Diocese Report) ^ | March 18, 2003 | Rod Dreher

[Maximilian]

I don't want to flog a dead horse with the abuse cover-up business, but this article seemed significant because for once, a bishop is not getting away with the lying and the coverup and the threatening of his own (faithful) priests. Rod Dreher is not going to be intimidated. Thank God for these few faithful lay Catholics who are fulfilling their roles, in this case as a journalist.

The photo of Adamec vs. Dreher ran fine in preview mode, then it didn't come out when I posted the article. But Rod Dreher and Michael Rose look like they could have been separated at birth. And they're both quite young, and they won't be going away for a long time to come.

[Land of the Irish]

...Rod Dreher and Michael Rose ....they're both quite young, and they won't be going away for a long time to come.

I hope the opposite is true for Adamec. May he soon join the ranks of Law and Weakland.

[sinkspur]

Drive them out. Drive all of these con artists, out!

There is something similar going on here in Dallas. Wick Allison, former editor of National Review and current publisher of D Magazine, has organized a group of prominent laymen who are pressuring Bishop Charles Grahmann (of Rudy Kos fame) to resign. Grahmann has a coadjutor, Bishop Joseph Galante, but Galante has been shunted to the side. The morale in the Dallas chancery is at rock-bottom, as it is in some parishes and the diocesan seminary.

It is clear that Rome is going to do nothing about these bishops, nor are their cohorts. Their priests are scared to death of them. So, it is up to laymen to drive them out.

[eastsider]

That presentation explained the laws of the church relative to a person publicly inciting public dissent against the church. The law is not mine but that of the universal church as found in the code of canon law ...

Stop it, you're scaring me.

[tracer]

No slam intended, BTW. I found your topic interesting and wanted to comprehend that which was being said. Probably says more about my ADD than anything. Thanks for 'splaining, and all the best....

[ultima ratio]

It's amusing to hear Adamec claim he only wants to punish dissenters. Since when have American bishops ever troubled themselves with religious dissent except when it comes from the right and when it has challenged their own multiple corruptions? And where has Rome been on all this? Nowhere. It's too busy protecting Saddam--passionately.

[8mmMauser]

smiling bump

[american colleen]

Their priests are scared to death of them. So, it is up to laymen to drive them out.

What to think, what to think.

Maybe it is in other diocese that priests are scared to death of their bishops, but the opposite is true in Boston. There are so many dissident priests here that the bishop was afraid of them. Have any of the so-called Catholic Colleges and Universities signed the mandatum? That could be one criteria... if the Catholic theologians have not signed the mandatum find out if it is them or the bishop who opposes signing it. Then you know who is afraid of whom.

That said, I do not believe Adamec is one of the good guys. Nor is Grahmann. It would be interesting to see what would happen if each diocese sold off the chancery and had the bishop live in a regular rectory with a regular housekeeper, cook and no special treatment. The "job" might not be quite as appealing.

I dunno if the loudest laymen are any better than the bishops... sometimes this stuff is all about power. Again, I am drawing on my own personal experience. The move is on here by VOTF to control the parishes via connected parish councils, voting in/out bishops/priests and uh, changing some of the more "restrictive" rules. And VOTF, our current new Call to Action type group using a different moniker, was started by some of the very liberal Universalist Unitarian Catholic priests (not afraid of the bishop, obviously) who have been around long enough and have had their finger on the pulse enough for me (and others) to wonder why it is that they never reported an abusing priest - even when they were friends or roomates of those priests. Curious.

The bottom line is that, after reading quite a bit, history always repeats itself. Aside of all our modern ammenities, some things have never changed over the course of our 2,000 year old history of Christianity.

[Palladin]

Adamec is a punk and a bully. I'd like to see Dreher take him out back for a couple of rounds, mano a mano.

In fact, there're a lot of these sissy bishops I'd like to see taken on by loyal Catholics who despise pedophiles.

[ninenot]

It might be fun, but...Canon Law also prohibits smacking a priest (or Bishop.) Sorry.

OTOH, Rembert Weakland called the cops a few years back when he spotted a strange guy carrying a roll of paper towels walking back and forth in front of his royal palace (the towel-carrier was about 100+ yards from the residence...)

Rembert was truly a bully and a snake--the 'bully' description is proved by this story...a man with a roll of toilet paper scared him.

hint, hint, hint...

[sinkspur]

I dunno if the loudest laymen are any better than the bishops... sometimes this stuff is all about power.

Sometimes? All the time.

The question is, is the kind of power that's been exercised by these bishops best left in their hands, or shared, more or less, with responsible laymen?

There'll be abuses in both. It just depends on what kind of abuses the faithful want to put up with.

[Scupoli]

It's amusing to hear Adamec claim he only wants to punish dissenters

dissenters from his opinion that is.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Criminal law prohibits obstruction of justice. I'd take my chances in Canon court.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

[Palladin]

No contest!

[dsc]

"It might be fun, but...Canon Law also prohibits smacking a priest (or Bishop.) Sorry."

Does canon law prohibit picketing them? (serious question)

How about twisting their arms up behind their shoulders and giving them the bum's rush off Church property? (only half joking)

[ninenot]

Picketing (the usual conditions, respectful, etc., etc.) is just fine under Canon law--meets the requirement of "talk first with the offending brother" before going to others with the problem.

PHYSICAL assault including arm twisting, smacking, slapping, or kneecapping a priest is prohibited. Of course, if you are under grave duress, and have lost control of yourself, penalties will be mitigated.

[dsc]

Thanks for the answers, but, ummm...how does one call a person an enabler of molestation in a civil manner?

[Mike Fieschko]

Stop it, you're scaring me.

"[A] doctrine which has ceased to be affirmed is doomed, like a disused organ, to atrophy." [Msgr Ronald Knox in The Belief of Catholics]