Posted on 06/16/2003 2:12:52 PM PDT by sinkspur
Only THEIR guy can do it. Now, that THE VERY SAME folks are OUTRAGED at what klintoon did, regarding coverups, rogering young honeys, will EXCUSE behavior far worse, in that it involved children and coverups SHOWS the operation of hypocrisy.
First, you need to possess tribal identity...this is MY gang. Second, you defer your morality or principle to the tribe. Third, you polarize the group to an outside force to induce cohesion of the group, and ensure conformity....
Like limbaugh yesterday. He had several callers who said they would not vote for bush due to his socialist policies. Limbaugh, tribalist extraordinaire, replied in kind saying, "well, who ELSE are you gonna vote for...the dems will ruin the country (sic)"...
Polarity. Keep the tribe in line by threating an outside adversary. Never mind that your tribe has done the very things that they threaten the OTHER tribe may do. The OTHER guys are the reason why you have to sell your principles down the river, why you have to accept socialism...cause it is better than...? This is called FRAMING A PARADIGM. You set the parameters. People then take on the perspective that serves those who install the perspective. The tribalist, polarity perspective of political parties serves BOTH parties, OBVIOUSLY. As long as the people have little choice between alternatives, BOTH groups ensure employment. As long as problems don't ever get fixed, you are guaranteed a polarity issue to exploit every four years. If both SOLVE problems, they lose power, money, and relevance.
An ounce of poison or a pound, we are only arguing about degree. Coke or Pepsi.
He didn't try to have the windshield fixed on Sunday, by the way...it was Monday morning. He told his secretary to inquire about it. He obviously wasn't hiding the condition of the car, either, as you would expect if he knew he had killed a man in a hit-and-run accident. He drove it to church so he could say Mass on Sunday and then to visit his sister in Scottsdale. Hardly the actions of a criminal trying to cover his tracks, I'd say.
I just wish someone had managed to get the license plate number of the other car that hit the victim...you know, the one who not only ran him over with his car but then dragged him 40 feet.
As a lifelong Catholic, I was raised to think highly of priests. If I had to take the word of a priest over a regular old Joe, the priest would win. I believe the Bishop when he says he thought he hit an animal, and I will continue to believe him until it is proven otherwise.
It's called a witch hunt, and it's all the rage. Didn't you get the memo?
Yeah, I know. With some people, it's absolutely pointless....
Ah, but you're wrong. What I object to is the lack of due process in this situation. As far as the charges of abuse by homosexual priests, many of these accusations are 20 or 30 years old. It's hard to prove a negative -- when did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Blumenthal? Didn't Drudge get sued for that remark? Yet when it's a Catholic priest being accused, everyone just assumes that it's true. Later, if the charges are dropped, mainly due to lack of evidence, it's just a blurb on page 22 of the local paper -- nobody cares if he's found innocent.
Also, look at the money involved in these massive cases, such as in Boston. At stake in one settlement is 85 million dollars, with approximately 300 "victims" sharing in it. After the lawyers get their share -- you didn't think they were doing this cause they "care so much" for the victims, did you? -- that's about 200,000 for each of them. Needless to say, people were coming out of the woodwork claiming they had suddenly regained their long-repressed memories of abuse at the hands of Father Joe. Some of these same people "couldn't bear to tell anybody about it" when it happened because they were too ashamed, but they can get on the stand and tell a courtroom full of strangers all the sordid details. Hmmm, sounds slightly suspect to me.
Don't get me wrong, some of these people have legitimate claims. If they can back up their accusations and a jury believes the evidence, then lock them up and throw away the key. On the other hand, don't convict possibly innocent "men of the cloth" based on faint recollections. Remember, this supposed "crisis" has spawned a cottage industry (Voice of the Faithful, SNAP) not to mention lined the pockets of a good many people, including attorneys. Follow the money, and remember these men are innocent until PR0VEN guilty.
Frankly, no, I don't think this preternatural lynch mob would have organized itself so completely and so quickly if it were someone less cowed, both psychologically and legally. That goes for O'Brien and the church. And I haven't asked for a special break for O'Brien, just common, ordinary due process of law. I think Thomas Sowell was talking about people like you when he wrote 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice', and it wasn't an endorsement, either.
Frankly, no, I don't think this preternatural lynch mob would have organized itself so completely and so quickly if it were someone less cowed, both psychologically and legally. That goes for O'Brien and the church. And I haven't asked for a special break for O'Brien, just common, ordinary due process of law. I think Thomas Sowell was talking about people like you when he wrote 'The Quest for Cosmic Justice', and it wasn't an endorsement, either.
I don't really care if it would be an endorsement or not --I think we really need to hold our moral leaders to a very high standard. If they can't live up to doing what is right, let them step down, we don't need that kind. I don't feel like following priests and bishops into Hell, if they don't chose the way of God, get them out of the way --and now I see the Vatican has also accepted his resignation ---are they guilty of expecting too much also?
Same here ---and as an American I was raised to think highly of presidents ----but then we had Clinton. I believe someone has to earn respect, you can't just give it to them.
Well, in his mind it was an animal. Maybe a pink elephant.
I see the distinct possibility that O'Brien has wanted to step down for some time and that Holy Father finally agreed that it should take place now. Resigning is one thing but should the bishop go further and plead guilty if he's actually innocent? Wouldn't good catholics regret our part in such an injustice and ashamed of our haste to push him down the stairs on his way out, so to speak?
Okay, this is what I mean. He didn't harbor abusive priests. He did what the clergy and the schools DID in the 60s and 70s. They listened to the mental health "experts" who felt homosexuality and pedophilia could be "cured" via therapy. Now we know differently but at that time it was the accepted treatment. 150 years ago doctors didn't sterilize surgical instruments and guess what? People got massive infections and died. Oops. Should we call those people monsters? Of course not. They did what they did in good faith, thinking they were actually helping people.
Same here. Show me one shred of evidence that Bishop O'Brien didn't think he was doing the right thing, and that he KNOWINGLY put children into the hands of these predators. I don't think you can because you can't actually get into another person's mind to determine what they were thinking.
In retrospect, should he have handled this situation differently? Certainly, as should hundreds of other clergy members, doctors, educators, and Scout leaders. However, at the time they were doing what they felt was best, which is the best we can hope for.
And what predisposes you to think that "the Bishop knew he hit a human being and intentionally left him to die?" Certainly not the facts, since they have not been ascertained yet. You know, in a trial, where we get to hear both sides of the story, see the evidence, etc., and then make up our minds.
Have you ever met the Bishop? Ever talked to him? Ever seen him preside over a Mass? You know, if he was truly evil, I doubt God would have allowed him to continue as a priest for so long. So I think your characterization of him as evil is a bit extreme, to say the least.
I think it is safe to say that this gentle, shy, good man has been feeling a bit beleaguered lately, what with the daily assaults upon his character and reputation such as evidenced here, let alone in the media. Coupled with his elderly age and his deteriorating physical condition, I think the burden of being the Bishop of Phoenix is too much for him at this time, so retirement is probably a good idea.
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.