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

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

[Notwithstanding]

see #254 - that it

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

"If O'Connor had lived in St. Patrick's rectory by himself, I'd have been all over him. He likely lived with a half-dozen other priests and bishops."

Oh, my, sinkspur. Certainly you realize that St. Pat's rectory, as large as it is, could likely house a dozen or more men! If the late cardinal was only sharing it with a half-dozen, then half or more of the place was going to waste! Oh, dear!!

Furthermore, I'd bet the rooms in that old Victorian mansion are quite large. If divided into merely adequate bedrooms, perhaps it might house TWO dozen men!!

And also, that's prime real estate! Its sale would likely net many millions. You could rent some efficiencies for the late cardinal and his half-dozen companions, and have nearly all the money left over to buy sprinklers for poor children, and prop up failing Catholic schools!!! Where is your sense of outrage??

Oh, and you never did tell me whether all these ascetic priests, upon marrying, should force their wives and children to share in their ascetism. ;-)



sitetest

[AlguyA]

"If Archbishop Myers is living in his new digs with other priests or bishops, I'll take back everything I said about him."

Wow, now this is an interesting take on Christian charity. Apparently, according to the catechism of Sinkspur, when one here's gossip -and it is now becoming fairly apparent that's all this is- one should feel free to spread that gossip, add to that gossip whatever spin one wishes to cast the person being gossiped about in the worst light, and then self-rightously and piously offer that should said gossip and/or spin later prove to be untrue one can simply 'take back' what one has said.

Tell me, sink, do you have any Scripture, any quote from the Fathers or Doctors of the Church which exhorts you to act in such a manner?

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

As well, you don't know what other uses the archbishop makes of the property. It is likely that he has an office in the house, and it is likely that there is office space for one or more of his assistants. If this is where he lives most of the time, a considerable part of the space is likely set up for entertaining.

Or do you think that's immoral, un-ascetic, as well, for a bishop to give parties? To receive visitors? To entertain guests, to show hospitality?

Will you permit your married ascetic priests to have an occasional party or two??? ;-)


sitetest

[Notwithstanding]

Sink's persistent calumny has been spotlighted. What is worse is that he is now fudging about whether he really did anything wrong by dragging a good bishop down without cause.

I am curious to see if the good that sitetest sees in sinkspur will now manifest itself via an admission on his part that he got it all wrong.

[sinkspur]

one here's gossip -and it is now becoming fairly apparent that's all this is- one should feel free to spread that gossip,

I first heard of Archbishop Myers' home on Bill O'Reilly's nationally-syndicated radio show, last Wednesday. He mentioned both Murphy's $1.2 million dollar mansion on Long Island and Myers' $600,000 house.

As you know, O'Reilly has never had to retract a story. This is not "gossip."

[BlackElk]

If you are going to persist in attacking any of the rare Catholic Bishops in America who actually believe and practice Catholicism, do you really think that people should refrain from going after Bishop Delaney?

Please state publicly the ground rules that you think should apply among Catholics on responding to your posts against Archbishop Eldon Curtiss of Omaha and Archbishop Myers of Newark and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and whether we may feel free to point out the shortcomings of Bishop Delaney.

Is there a common rule that you envision as to all of these prelates or is Delaney a special case not to be criticized in return? If so, what makes him so special and why?

[ninenot]

Same. Amplification is sort of the "venial" sin to the CD/Tape/Album "mortal" sin. It's not natural (as in naturally produced.)

[Notwithstanding]

Oh stop pretending!

You can see we are not going to let you get out of the corner youhave painted for yourself without a sincere public apology.

You know Myers has a $600k residence.
Everything else is wild specualtion and gossip.

You are calumnous.

[BlackElk]

What is even worse is those who see the speck in the eye of others but fail to see the mote in their own.

[Notwithstanding]

It gets better. O'Reilly is infallible now.

[ninenot]

It may be that swimming is part of his daily exercise regimen.

BTW, if swimming is part of his routine, whether by choice or by medical advice, it is FAR MORE PRUDENT for him to swim at home than anyplace else...

[sitetest]

Dear ninenot,

Hush! You're letting the facts get in the way of a good, juicy bit of gossip!!!

;-)


sitetest

[ninenot]

Meeting with abuse victims is sometimes a matter of taking legal advice. He MAY (I don't know...) have been told NOT to see them.

[Loyalist]

I'm surprised that no one on this thread has called for the Pope to lead by example and sell all the real estate and artwork in the Vatican.

Even if the proceeds therefrom do nothing to alleviate poverty and starvation in the Third World, we can all feel morally superior for the Pope having cast off these riches.

[sinkspur]

You have never failed to criticize Bishop Delaney, at every opportunity. Be my guest. He's had some very questionable dealings with some priest "friends" of his whom he moved into the Fort Worth diocese, who were found to have later molested young men.

He acted the same way Curtiss, and Myers, and two-thirds of the American bishops acted when faced with these accusations: they were more concerned about potentially abusive priests than they were about teenage children.

So, have at him. Just don't accuse me of covering for him, because I'm not covering for him. If you want to drag every newspaper article that's ever been written about him onto Free Republic, you're welcome to, and I'll agree with all of them.

But I am not responsible for Bishop Delaney; your past criticisms have always attempted to somehow link me to his corruptions.

I'm the one, BTW, who told him, in 1988, about one of the most senior monsignors in this diocese who made a pass at me when I was in the seminary (he kissed me on the lips; hell, my father never kissed me in his entire life, nor has any other man), and nobody at the seminary would believe that he would do such a thing; I was laughed at. Delaney didn't laugh, and when, a year later, the monsignor mocked a young priest from the pulpit for having a drinking problem, Delaney retired him the very next day.

Bishop Delaney's been very good to me, and he's now dying of pancreatic cancer. But, I won't defend someone who's looked the other way while children were being abused.

[sitetest]

Dear Loyalist,

And while we're at it, we ought to all give up meat and wine and eat nothing but bread and drink nothing but water!!

Let us all wear rags, get rid of all those decadent conveniences like electricity, indoor plumbing, and aspirin!!

Let us rid ourselves of such corrupting influences like cars and planes and trains and x-rays, and heart bypass surgery, and computers...!!

Yes! Computers!!!

Sinkspur! Throw away your computer!!! WWJD??? Jesus never used a computer!!! The apostles never used computers!!! How sybaritic!!!


THAT will solve all the world's problems!



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!



sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

The source here is Bill O'Reilly??

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

This just gets better and better!!!

Well, sinkspur, your difficulty is that you know a bare fact, that Archbishop Myers may have bought/built a home for $650,000, or something like that.

Everything else that Mr. O'Reilly said, or that you've said, for that matter, is a projection of what's in him and what's in you. You have no idea what the money bought, why the acquisition was made, if it was justified or not, or anything else. You've taken a bare fact presented to you by a man who can barely present even bare facts accurately, and blown it up into some sort of evil thing.

Is it possible that the purchase/building of the house wasn't justified? Sure. But before you may justly say that against another person, you must present some facts that support your conclusion. It's even more likely that the action was completely justified, and unless you have evidence otherwise, you harm a good man's good name.

Wouldn't you call that calumny.

sitetest

[sinkspur]

I'm surprised that no one on this thread has called for the Pope to lead by example and sell all the real estate and artwork in the Vatican.

You're being silly.

The Pope moved into the existing papal apartments.

He didn't decide he needed to build a new set of apartments somewhere else.

[ninenot]

Well----you've obviously decided to become part of the liturgical foofoo/poofter wonk crowd. Back to the original stuff....