Yet Another Reason Why I Never Fully Trusted Cardinal Egan
He made it so easy
First came his very public inter-faith prayer services right after 9-11. And it was glaringly obvious that he left out all references to Jesus. Why? So not to offend the Jews or Moslems sharing the stage. At least the Protestants had the guts not to abandon Christ.
Anyhow, the lawsuit against the good Cardinal for his his weak attempt (at best) to protect victims of homosexual-rapist "priests" speaks volumes, namely, because the good Cardinal is an active homosexual himself. Or so states the priest who's putting it all on the line with this lawsuit itself against Cardinal Egan.
And now this from Catholic Culture. Here's some of it;
Cardinal Egan: 19 alleged abuse victims not a ‘significant’ number
December 03, 2009
Documents released by the Diocese of Bridgeport on December 1 revealed that Cardinal Edward Egan, while bishop of the Connecticut diocese, characterized the number of alleged abuse victims as insignificant when seen in the context of a diocese of 360,000 Catholics.
“Bishop Egan, the fact that 19 individuals have come forward and made claims: you don’t consider that to be a significant number of individuals?” an attorney asked.
“I do not consider that a significant segment or factor,” Cardinal Egan answered.
“Would you agree with me, Bishop Egan,” the lawyer continued, “that if one person, one individual, has been affected by the sexual abuse of a clergy member, when that person was a child, that that’s far too much to accept in any diocese?”
“It would not be a significant portion of the diocese,” Cardinal Egan answered. “Your question was ‘a significant portion of the diocese.’ ”
“However, were even one person to have been abused sexually, while that one person could not numerically be categorized as a significant portion,” Cardinal Egan added, “the activity would be significant and more.” Wonderful example of doubletalk and sidestepping. So much for leaving the 99 sheep to find the one missing.
But draw your own conclusions.
He made it so easy
First came his very public inter-faith prayer services right after 9-11. And it was glaringly obvious that he left out all references to Jesus. Why? So not to offend the Jews or Moslems sharing the stage. At least the Protestants had the guts not to abandon Christ.
Anyhow, the lawsuit against the good Cardinal for his his weak attempt (at best) to protect victims of homosexual-rapist "priests" speaks volumes, namely, because the good Cardinal is an active homosexual himself. Or so states the priest who's putting it all on the line with this lawsuit itself against Cardinal Egan.
And now this from Catholic Culture. Here's some of it;
December 03, 2009
Documents released by the Diocese of Bridgeport on December 1 revealed that Cardinal Edward Egan, while bishop of the Connecticut diocese, characterized the number of alleged abuse victims as insignificant when seen in the context of a diocese of 360,000 Catholics.
“Bishop Egan, the fact that 19 individuals have come forward and made claims: you don’t consider that to be a significant number of individuals?” an attorney asked.
“I do not consider that a significant segment or factor,” Cardinal Egan answered.
“Would you agree with me, Bishop Egan,” the lawyer continued, “that if one person, one individual, has been affected by the sexual abuse of a clergy member, when that person was a child, that that’s far too much to accept in any diocese?”
“It would not be a significant portion of the diocese,” Cardinal Egan answered. “Your question was ‘a significant portion of the diocese.’ ”
“However, were even one person to have been abused sexually, while that one person could not numerically be categorized as a significant portion,” Cardinal Egan added, “the activity would be significant and more.”
But draw your own conclusions.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
11:43 AM
9 Comments:
And don't forget our dearly beloved Rembert Weakland who not only was sexually active, but corrupt in spending $400 or $450K in hush money. He claimed it was his money earned from speaking engagements. His money? He's a Benedictine monk! His vow of celibacy meant nothing. It seems the same is true of his vow of poverty. Now he's come out in his published memoirs in opposition to the CC's teaching on sexual morality.
What a wonderful magisterial teaching moment from one of our premier Archbishops of AmChurch.
I agree with Fr. Hoatson that closeted gay bishops have, "compromised [their] ability to supervise and control predators..." But not just "closeted" bishops. You also have bishops involved in various types of illicit activities that compromise their authority once a crafty priest finds out. My family has personal experience with this.
Even though we presented a bishop with a recording of a priest who admitted to raping a relative, and fisticuffs he's had with brother priests, among other things [I guess the need to confess was just too great for this creep], His Grace didn't kick the offending priest out. According to His Grace, "It's basically a he said/he said" situation. I see no good cause to defrock this priest." It was obvious that the rapist priest was/is a dog with a lot of fleas. And nobody wanted to see the dog shake those fleas loose!
From that sad experience, I can wholeheartedly agree with Fr. Hoatson when he said that, "The only thing the church responds to is negative publicity or a lawsuit. If I kept trying to do this within the system, I would be gone." Yup, sad but true. Look what it took to move that rock inside HizEminence Cardinal Mahony's chest. Not the recognition of wrong-doing, but an embarrassing lawsuit that was settled out of court to the tune of a billion dollar$!!!!
If it takes a lawsuit for the truth to out, then so be it! After all, the Word of God was preached in tents, town squares, and anywhere else, to anyone who would listen! We'll survive. Maybe it'll be like then Cardinal Ratzinger said about the church having to be a more faithful "creative minority" and not some lukewarm behemoth.
"to the tune of a billion dollars": Wow. Has anybody calculated how much money and how many bishops ardently acting it would take to stop legal abortion?
I've read a lot of prolife stuff, but do not recall ever seeing a study on what it would take to stop legal abortion.
If such a study has not been made, then consider me outraged and the failure. Isn't that one of the purposes of Catholic universities? But instead they train lawyers to cover the bishops' malfeasance. What have the bishops been spending money and energy on instead of stopping legal abortion, the most intrinsic evil of our day?
But it looks as though the answer is that so many bishops are more concerned about carrying on homosexual sex lives in secret.
The quote from Cdl Egan sounds exactly like the way a sodomite would speak when his stiff wax statue face had klieg lights pummeling it for the whole world to watch and hear.
I remember the TV appearance of Cardinal Bernardin almost twenty years ago, in which he denied the accusations of having engaged in homosexual activity.
While watching it, my thoughts became: "If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it is a duck". Bernardin sure looked, talked and walked like the character he was accused of being.
Notice that his case was buried under suspicion? Was there a payoff, or not? Didn't the accuser later commit suicide? After all, Bernardin was at the pinnacle of the Chicago political machine ... what kinds of strings would such a machine pull?
It was Bernardin who put forth the "Seamless Garment Theory", and look what we've got today in the White House ... none other than a seamless garment of corrupt commie characters from the nebulous corners of Chicago, pushing abortion, sodomy, carefree sex, buying and selling of living human embryos. What are they missing? Anything at all? Or have they got it all up and running? The pinnacle of corruption now seated in the White House, not just a man but a machine with tentacles everywhere.
Just because some "Fr. Robert M. Hoatson" has made a claim does not mean it is true. Beware of calumny! It is still a sin. (Incidentally, the NYS court (not known for its kindness to the Church) recently dismissed his case.)
That said, the equally hostile laywers of Connecticut are grilling the Cardinal hoping to get him to say something that they can use against the DIOCESE of Bridgeport. The Cardinal, however, is using precise legal language to answer precise questions and this is appropriate to the context of a legal deposition. [Such language is non-evaluative and detached so, of course, it sounds cold and calculating, but so are the questions being posed to him.]
Catholic Culture has done a poor job of reporting. The original NY Times article while certainly not perfect gives more context.
VC,
You're right. An accusation is just an accusation.
And with that said, where there's smoke, there's fire. Anyone willing to put himself on the line is either monumentally stupid, or telling the truth.
And I believe that the good Cardinal's own words (like those in this posting) say a lot more than any news organ could ever report.
Re: Cardinal Bernardin
Notice that his case was buried under suspicion? Was there a payoff, or not? Didn't the accuser later commit suicide? After all, Bernardin was at the pinnacle of the Chicago political machine ... what kinds of strings would such a machine pull?
It should be noted that Cardinal Bernardin's accuser recanted his accusation and the Cardinal had forgiven him.
Re: the seamless garment bit.
This was about life being sacred from conception to natural death. Cardinal Bernardin was a pacifist and a public opponent of the death penalty as is his right as a Catholic. The Church has never required her children to oppose the death penalty because she has recognized its legitimacy of use (under the appropriate circumstances) for centuries. Similarly, one is not a bad Catholic for taking a stand against it, even an absolute stand of condemnation over same.
Once someone used Cardinal Bernardin's seamless garment theory to say that even convicted willful murders had the same right to life that the unborn had. In effect, this view was morally equating willful murderers with innocent unborn children. The Cardinal, to his credit, publicly denounced this by saying that convicted murderers and unborn children are not morally equivalent.
I was not a fan of Cardinal Bernardin's policies. He put a lot of liberal bishops into dioceses due to his great influence on Church affairs, especially AmChurch. But I have seen no evidence yet that he was a moral reprobate. Having not seen any evidence, I am morally obliged to uphold his character as a Catholic bishop and therefore resist any efforts to impugn his memory.
Again, this does NOT constitute agreement with his policies as a Cardinal/Archbishop of the Catholic Church. May he R.I.P.
What I have against the late Cdl Bernardin is that he frustrated the prolife effort, and in the same way the liberal bishops do today, by throwing all they've got into "feeding the poor" (which seems to include feeding the voting machines).
His accuser committed suicide as I recall. The whole story was never pursued or written about, and looks to have been ended with a lot of questions unanswered.
According to much that I've read, Bernardin was big on Saul Alinsky socialism, and that seems to be part and parcel of the Chicago political machine and now the national political machine.
No one so far on several blogs has come up with why the bishops don't stop legal abortion ... they put almost no money and almost no effort towards this goal. Instead they put it towards Alinskism, which does not feed poor people but "empowers" them. And the way it empowers them is to employ them in the chanceries, political lobbies, federal and state bureaucracies, politicians' staffs, and media offices.
Take away most of the bishops' interest in socialism, and put it into stopping abortion, and it would stop overnight.
Jesus informs us that the poor will always be with us; He does not tell us that abortion will always be with us. Since the popes keep saying that abortion is the gravest danger to civilization today, and stats show that the same number of babies die daily in the womb in this nation as die daily in the world from starvation.
So if the bishops are concerned with saving souls, then why don't they focus on that sector which needs it most and which can be drastically reduced in number? But they don't. I think they don't because it is so much easier to bend to the voices of adults than it is to those cries of unborn babies. Secondly it is easier for the bishops to manipulate the money flow to various organizations that ultimately nuzzle up to the government, than it is to oppose them by funneling the money to stop abortion.
I view Bernardin as having been a leader in formenting the system that maintains this incredible imbalance in episcopal works.
I apologize on the dollar settlement quote in the archdiocese of LA sexual abuse scandal. It was more than 1/2 billion dollar$. Actually $660 million. This doesn't include cases that Cdl. Mahony has settled outside the class action suit.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home