Archbishop choice seen as imminent: Pittsburgh's bishop called top candidate

Boston Globe ^ | June 8, 2003 | Walter V. Robinson and Michael Rezendes

[tridentine]

The appointment of Boston's new archbishop is imminent, according to knowledgeable church officials, who said that Bishop Richard G. Lennon knows he is about to be replaced and the archdiocese has already identified at least three sites that may be used for the announcement.

In interviews last week, church officials said they believe that Pope John Paul II's choice to head the most troubled of American archdioceses is likely to be made public this month, with this Tuesday the earliest possible date.

And some church officials privy to internal discussions said they now believe that -- even if the decision has not been finalized -- the most likely choice is Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh.

[dsc]

"but it is still against liturgical regs to use recordings, tapes, or CD's to "produce" music in a Catholic church proper."

What about amplified instruments?

[Notwithstanding]

"What do you do with your young boy lovers?" is an apt response to your nasty baseless maligning of an untainted bishop, which I paste below:

===================

---

To: ELS

"and then added an in ground swimming pool"

What does he need a pool at his house for? As an excuse to invite young boys over?

38 posted on 06/08/2003 11:42 PM EDT by dsc ("Holistic" is only part of a word.)
[

[drstevej]

AC in post 188 said,

***well ya know ya gotta deal with the wheat and the tares thing!***

Rather than telling her the passage didn't relate to my point (#180) to her about dealing with unholy / unorthodox bishops I used her term.

I am well aware of your point.

[drstevej]

***plus my mother having an affair with a priest bothered me somewhat as it culminated in my parents divorce and then she got an annulment***

Man, how horrible and sad. His continued blessings to you!

[dsc]

" is an apt response to your nasty baseless maligning of an untainted bishop"

FR has rules against posting the kind of thing that would be an apt response to that weasel excuse.

A bishop is a public figure, and not another poster here, and it appears to stand unchallenged that abuse took place in his diocese on his watch. You want to tell me that his "gaydar" is so deficient that he had no idea the offending priests suffered from SSAD?

Believe it if you want to, just as you seem to believe that a priest having a private swimming pool installed at church expense is appropriate.

[Notwithstanding]

You have no facts and are posting malicious gossip.

You are maligning a bishop's character with zero facts, and boatloads of specualtion both as to any cover-up and as to any residence he bought or modified.

[Notwithstanding]

You asked a question about Bishop Myers.
I asked a question about you.

Both questions have equal merit.

[dsc]

I didn't see you denying that abuse took place on his watch, or that he had a swimming pool put in.

[american colleen]

Rather than telling her the passage didn't relate to my point (#180) to her about dealing with unholy / unorthodox bishops I used her term.

My point about the "wheat and the tares" was that although I hope and pray for a holy and orthodox bishop (wheat) you never know if you may get a tare, instead. Look at poor LA with Mahony... and you have to deal with it and go beyond and work out your salvation in trembling and fear and hope, regardless of who is appointed shepherd of your particular flock.

[Notwithstanding]

So far I have asked you 2 questions that made you uncomfortable. Here is the second one:

You attacked me for posting that I feel sorry for obese people because their wekaness is on public display, noting that obese people do not overeat (and I never even mentioned overeating). And so I asked a relevant question: are you obese.

[dsc]

You're hopeless.

You don't even see the insult in your assumption that obese people are obese because of a weakness.

And, as with your earlier spate of flinging garbage at sinkspur, you are determined to make me the subject of the discussion, rather than a religious issue.

I'm done with this bootless food fight.

[Notwithstanding]

Because there is no credible evidence to the contrary:

I deny he covered up abuse or was negligent in trying to prevent it.

I deny he did anything the least bit improper as to his new residence.


Whereas, without any credible evidence, you assume he is a pervert and big-spender.

Where is your evidence? Please let us all know about it.

[Notwithstanding]

You are just mad because I exposed you as an unjust maligner of Archbishop Myers.

Based on no more than gossip based on gossip.

Pound sand.

[Notwithstanding]

A vast majority of obese people are obese due to overeating.
Period.
This is a weakness.

[Notwithstanding]

I expect that you will threaten to "turn me in" soon.
Or perhaps you already have.

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

"I didn't see you denying that abuse took place on his watch, or that he had a swimming pool put in."

That he had a swimming pool put in at his new residence doesn't justify comments about inviting over young boys. As for the cases of abuse, perhaps you haven't read this thread carefully. Please refer to post #56, where AlguyA explains thusly:

"Actually, there is nothing coincedental about it at all. Myers left our diocese in Sept. of 2001. In Jan. of 2002, the Boston Globe launched the series of articles which drew national attention to the scandal. At that point, the victims came forward.

"Also, in each instance (with the exception of the one case I outlined before) the abuse took place years before Myers was appointed Bishop. It was the national attention, which even the victims admit, caused them to come forward. And they didn't come forward until after Myers had already left."

It seems that the circumstances of these cases support the assertion that Archbishop Myers did nothing wrong here, had no knowledge of these cases, and cases of abuse didn't actually occur during his time in this archdiocese. The one case referred to here as occuring during his reign was explained by AlguyA as follows, in post #21:

"In the other case, the priest in question made a remark to two young men. Even the young men didn't consider it abuse, but they did tell their parents. When the parents reported it, the priest in question was moved to an administrative position in which, trust me, there was absolutely no way he would come into contact with kids."

Thus, your comment about why he might have a pool installed at his new home was out of line. It would have been out of line, even if Archbishop Myers had mishandled these cases, as it is one thing to misadminister cases of child abuse, it is entirely another thing to actually commit acts of child abuse, and to suggest that someone guilty of the former is also guilty of the latter is a low and base thing. However, that the abuse didn't occur during his reign, nor was it reported until after he left, makes your comments all the more egregious.

But, I'm sure now that the facts have been pointed out to you, you'll stop saying ugly, false things about a Catholic bishop of good reputation.


sitetest

[dsc]

http://www.herald-review.com/rednews/2002/04/24/build/Local_News/localnews2.php

"...So Koenigs didn't tell -- not when the priest's colleague also began molesting him, not while the abuse continued over the next three years, not when he broke off sexual relations with both priests at age 15 and not after he attempted suicide at 19.

He stayed silent until his abusers resigned from public ministry in 1993, after admitting they molested another teen-age boy in the 1970s. Koenigs went to the Catholic Diocese of Peoria -- which covers 26 counties in Central Illinois, including Piatt, DeWitt and Logan -- to report his experiences to then-Bishop John Myers.

Koenigs said Myers told him the two men would never again be active priests.

After undergoing the counseling the diocese offered, Koenigs said the nightmare receded for a while. Then a church employee tipped off Koenigs' mother last May that the diocese planned to reinstate their former priest on a substitute basis.

Her complaints caused the diocese, still led by Myers, to quickly withdraw the reinstatement."

---

http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/753510/posts

Myers' successor in Peoria, Bishop Daniel Jenky, removed seven priests for alleged abuse last May, and some parishioners said Myers had left the problem for Jenky. Cleveland and New Hampshire also have undergone extensive investigations of sex abuse...

"John Myers left a very messy situation in Peoria," McBrien added.

David Clohessy, national director for the Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests, said it was wise to remove the bishops.

"It's simply a smart PR move when you have scores and scores of bishops from which to choose to take men like McCormack and Quinn and Myers out of the spotlight on the sexual abuse issue," Clohessy said. "Given what's come to light about (Myers') tenure in Peoria, I think it would be embarrassing were he to be reappointed."

---

It doesn't appear that his reputation is good in all quarters.

If you found my cynical wisecrack offensive, then I apologize to you for that. However, I think it's a little early to conclude that he did everything he should have done, or even, given the "reinstatement" business above, that he understands the necessity for laicizing priests who suffer from SSAD.

As for the pool...no. That offends me. I cannot imagine what would possess a bishop to have a pool put in at the bishop's residence. You clearly disagree, but that makes me very suspicious.

[Notwithstanding]

Richard McBrien?
Oy vey.

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

If you are going to cut and paste, you should at least try to provide the more important details.

Regarding the "reinstatement" of a priest who molested Mr. Koenigs, you have left the impression that all was to be forgiven, and the priest would just sort of get back to normal. Actually, after nine years of suspension for the priest, here is what really transpired:

"Koenigs confided in his wife, went to Bishop Myers in October of that year and underwent several months of counseling. Engels and Harbert had already resigned, and Koenigs did not consider a lawsuit for the same reason the two priests were never convicted of a crime -- the statute of limitations had expired. 'I went on with my life for a while,' he said.

Then last May, Dianna Olson, secretary of St. Francis of Assisi Roman Catholic Church in Kewanee, told Koenigs' mother Theresa, a custodian at the church, the diocese was going to allow Engels to say Mass on an emergency basis. 'I thought she deserved to know,' Olson said.

"Kate Kenny, Diocese of Peoria director of communications, confirmed the diocese dropped the idea of reinstating Engels to limited ministry after the family complained.

"'Since then our sexual abuse policy has been revised so that no one removed from priestly ministry can be reinstated,' Kenny said."


Of course, you have left out the part that the abuse happened long before Bishop Myers became bishop of Peoria, that the case was reported to Bishop Myers years after it happened and after the statute of limitations had run, and that it was Bishop Myers who disciplined the priest, and removed him from active ministry. And it was Bishop Myers, who, when he thought to have the priest perform very limited ministerial functions (limited to saying Mass only when there was no other priest to say it) after nine years of suspension, also, after reflecting on Koenigs' protest, stopped even that.

And, it was under Bishop Myers that the policy was changed, to forbid abusing priests from ever being reinstated to active ministry.

Regarding your second link, you say:

"It doesn't appear that his reputation is good in all quarters."

Well, I read the link, an old FR thread repeating some gossip reported in a local NJ newsrag, and I gotta ask, where's the beef?

A few liberal Catholics, including the infamous Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame, say he left "a mess", regarding the seven priests cited by AlguyA in this thread, for the next bishop. But no evidence is offered of that. The new bishop is not quoted as having said this. In fact, the new bishop isn't even quoted, and there is no evidence in the article that anyone even asked Archbishop Myers' successor, Bishop Jenky, about the whole thing. That's really good journalism! Not.

The closest thing to a fact in the entire piece of garbage is: "...some parishioners said Myers had left the problem for Jenky."

Well, as AlguyA has pointed out IN THIS THREAD, the accusers DIDN'T EVEN COME FORTH UNTIL AFTER BISHOP MYERS LEFT PEORIA.

No, there is no evidence in this ort of gossip. None. No details are provided. It is nothing other than gossip, and now you have repeated it. And the evidence against this calumny was already in this thread, thanks to AlguyA. And it was pointed out to you.

Yet you chose to repeat already-discredited calumny.

Good going.

AlguyA has provided actual information, actual facts, which clears Archbishop Myers in these cases. So, let's weigh things out: evidence of right behavior versus gossip by those with an agenda and an axe to grind.

This isn't a hard call, dsc.

Until you actually have some real evidence, some actual facts, to show that Archbishop Myers did wrong in Peoria, could you please stop spewing calumny against the man?

"If you found my cynical wisecrack offensive, then I apologize to you for that."

For your calumny, you owe Archbishop Myers and all devout Catholics here an apology. It was contemptible.

"However, I think it's a little early to conclude that he did everything he should have done, or even, given the 'reinstatement' business above, that he understands the necessity for laicizing priests who suffer from SSAD."

Well, the evidence from your links shows that he has done much more than most bishops, and the evidence also shows that he got the message on reinstatement. He reflected on the protests of an abuse victim, took the man's words to heart, and changed diocesan policy as a result. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

"As for the pool...no. That offends me. I cannot imagine what would possess a bishop to have a pool put in at the bishop's residence."

Why? This one, I don't understand. It may be that swimming is part of his daily exercise regimen. Swimming is an excellent form of exercise, especially for older folks. Bishops are often busy folks. It may be that he knows that he is unlikely to take the time to swim unless he has a pool nearby.

I'm appreciative of priests and bishops who take a little care for themselves. Their vocations are demanding, spiritually, psychologically, and physically. To put a very nice pool in the backyard will run about $20,000 - $50,000. If this helps an archbishop stay healthy and have more energy and stamina to serve God, then it is a very small price. It amounts to a drop in the ocean, in terms of costs, relative to the income of the Archdiocese of Newark. But the return on investment is likely quite high. Especially if it helps a bishop known for his orthodoxy and otherwise good reputation, the calumnies of heterodox liberal theologians notwithstanding.

"You clearly disagree, but that makes me very suspicious."

I interpret this remark in that you are made suspicious of the archbishop by the acquisition of the pool, not that you are suspicious of me for disagreeing with you. Though the latter reading is grammatically more likely, the former reading is more charitable toward you.

Yet, regrettably, it shows your own lack of charity toward the archbishop.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear dsc,

I should add that considering your willingness to repeat unsubstantiated, already-discredited gossip against a Catholic bishop with an otherwise good reputation, your own biases against the bishop are now legitimately called into question.

A prudent individual will no longer consider you a reliable source of information regarding Archbishop Myers. Now, should you say, "Archbishop Myers has ten toes," one would do well to insist on counting them oneself before believing your assertion.


sitetest