Outing Cardinal Egan (priest now outing the bishops)

I'm no moral theologian, but considering the definition above regarding the station of the accused and the criminality of the accusation (which ranks up there among the most heinous sins that can be committed), it seems very likely to me that it would be a mortal sin to publicly accuse a bishop of sodomy in order to damage his reputation, even if he is in fact guilty.

Fair enough, but here's the dilemma. We have a Church in this country that is shot-through with homosexuals in priests' clothing. Many of these individuals have engaged in sexual depredation and are protected by hierarchs. We know these things to be facts, depressing though they are. In order to address and eliminate this scandal, it is necessary to identify those who are perpetuating it. How do you propose that we do that without "naming names"?

It seems obvious that this priest has gone overboard anbd most likely making charges he cannot substantiate. The suit may. however, serve the purpose of clearing the air. What has puzzled me is the invisibility of Eagan as a leader of the nation's most prominent archdiocese.

And who oh why would any right thinking person reward Law with such prestige after all the harm he brought on the Roman Catholic church and innocent children?

Too bad you can't ask John Pual II why he made that decision, but Cardinal Law didn't molest anyone. He made mistakes, which he admitted, in his treatment of the molesters, after they'd committed their crimes.

People seem to forget that he didn't allow these men to return to positions in their parishes on a whim. He, as happened with many Bishops and heads of Personnel offices in Dioceses throughout the country, relied on the professional assessment of psychiatrists and therapists who were dealing with these men using the attitude of the day, that they could be 'cured' of their molesting ways. No one seems to be holding any of these professionals accountable for THEIR actions, yet everyone seems to be saying that the Cardinal and the other Bishops should have known better than to accept their decisions. Why do people hire professionals in the first place? Because they trust that they'll be given the information they need to make proper decisions.

I, for one, think that any priest who is accused of molesting anyone should be investigated by the police, because a crime may have been committed. If the evidence is credible, he should be arrested and given his day in court. If he's found guilty, he needs to be put in jail so he can't hurt anyone else. That's what SHOULD have been done, but the Church, like many other institutions in the world who care for their reputations, tended toward the cover-up, which is NEVER good for anyone.

something called a conflict of interest, perhaps...

I'm no moral theologian, but considering the definition above regarding the station of the accused and the criminality of the accusation (which ranks up there among the most heinous sins that can be committed), it seems very likely to me that it would be a mortal sin to publicly accuse a bishop of sodomy in order to damage his reputation, even if he is in fact guilty.

I'm no moral theologian either but any public accusation of sodomy will inevitably result in damage to reputation, even if that was not the initial intent of the accuser.

In a situation where for instance, I reveal that X is a drunkard-and he indeed is- then I'm guilty of detraction. I understand that. For no purpose or greater good is served by this revelation other than to damage the name of X, who may be striving to overcome his problem and the act is malicious.

In the case of homosexual bishops, on the other hand, the situation seems a little more complex. The damage done to reputation needs to be balanced against the possible damage which the bishop himself has done or may be doing to souls as a result of his homosexuality. This is not the same as a private drunkard, sitting on his sofa getting sozzled. My public revelation has a purpose as I have a duty to those souls who may be damaged by the bishop's sexual proclivities and which I may be able to curtail or prevent.

I could be wrong here, but I think that an actively homosexual bishop; i.e. a shepherd of souls, needs to be pointed out to the sheep, with whose pastoral care he is entrusted, so that those sheep do not innocently wander into the clutches of a wolf.

Naturally, damage to reputation will ensue but if sheep are to be saved, then I think that is unavoidable.

I could imagine you remaining silent. You have defended Bernard Law on this thread, as if the man was a paragon of virtue and the whole world knows he is wicked.

For one thing, you do not know me, so you have no idea what I would or would not do.
I never said that Cardinal Law was a paragon of virtue. I said that he had admitted making mistakes. You, on the other hand, have made the statement that he is a wicked man. Do you know him, personally? Do you have any idea of what he believes is right and wrong? Is everyone who makes mistakes in judgement a wicked person?

Statements like yours are PRECISELY what I mean about people going off the deep end. I have made no apologies for the priests who abused their vows and took advantage of the helpless among them. If it had been up to me, these men would be rotting in jail. Unfortunately, the kids who were abused were not well served by the Church or the justice system in this country. I just try not to denigrate the entire Church because of the criminal behavior of a relatively small number of priests or the Bishops who sheltered them.

If they were only a few. If only the talk of a lavender Mafia were an exaggeration.

So you assume that MOSTS priests are homosexual, or are tolerant of such behavior? I've lived in 5 states, been a member of 7 different parishes, and I can honestly say that there has only been ONE priest who I have ever known about which I had any feelings of unease. I have known MANY priests, having grown up one block from the Parish church and having one or more Pastors or Associates at our house for dinner, then marrying a man whose brother is a priest, and knowing many of the priests in HIS diocese. So, though I read about, and have heard about this problem from my b-i-l, I don't think it is NEARLY as widespread as many seem to believe.

I never liked Cardinal Egan from the first time I heard him speak, but I'm not going to accept accusations against him at face value.

People seem to forget that he didn't allow these men to return to positions in their parishes on a whim. He, as happened with many Bishops and heads of Personnel offices in Dioceses throughout the country, relied on the professional assessment of psychiatrists and therapists who were dealing with these men using the attitude of the day, that they could be 'cured' of their molesting ways. No one seems to be holding any of these professionals accountable for THEIR actions, yet everyone seems to be saying that the Cardinal and the other Bishops should have known better than to accept their decisions. Why do people hire professionals in the first place? Because they trust that they'll be given the information they need to make proper decisions.

No. Some demons don't come out except with prayer and fasting.

Law (and many others) made a big mistake in consulting secular headshrinks about a spiritual problem. A sin, in other words.

Modern pschoanalysis disagrees with Catholic teaching on just about every issue of significance. So why would the Church run to its practitioners seeking a solution for its problems?

Utter madness.

What do quacks full of psychobabble know of man's susceptibility to temptation, sin and Satan? Nothing. They think if you sit on a sofa for X number of sessions, listen attentively and get your ticket punched then you're cured and can be released never to sin again.

Baloney. Satan laughs at Ph.Ds and M.Ds. He has no fear of college transcripts. It's holy water and penance which terrify him.

In the case of homosexual bishops, on the other hand, the situation seems a little more complex. The damage done to reputation needs to be balanced against the possible damage which the bishop himself has done or may be doing to souls as a result of his homosexuality. This is not the same as a private drunkard, sitting on his sofa getting sozzled. My public revelation has a purpose as I have a duty to those souls who may be damaged by the bishop's sexual proclivities and which I may be able to curtail or prevent.

That's got it. While we must be careful not to make such accusations with any sense of frivolity, lacking significant evidence, or with any malevolent purpose, to remain silent in the face of such evidence would, in my opinion, be morally culpable. It's like purposely neglecting to put a "bridge out" sign in front of a busted bridge.

Dear Dionysiusdecordealcis,

In that he's filed a lawsuit and made these claims in his official filing, if the claims can be borne out in court, it will have to be without the use of hearsay. Thus, I'm making a certain leap of logic here, I admit. I'm willing to give Fr. Hoatson, and his lawyer, the benefit of the doubt that they would not make potentially libelous charges without evidence that can be presented in a court of law. That'd generally exclude hearsay, and require that Fr. Hoatson was either a direct victim of these actions, a physical witness to them, or had hard evidence of their occurence (i.e., incriminating photographs, tape recordings, etc.).

However, all that that benefit of the doubt gets him, in my view, is serious consideration of his allegations. Certainly, to judge any of these bishops guilty of the accusations, there must be real, persuasive evidence that the allegations are true. I agree 100% that we must, MUST withhold judgment, or be guilty of rash judgment.

I guess I'm coming at this from a somewhat different direction. In the past, when allegations have been made that were clearly hearsay, or from anonymous sources, or where folks weren't willing to put their money where their mouth is, and say it under oath, I've considered the allegations little more than gossip. And pointed that out on these threads. And been subject to significant amounts of criticism for that view.

So, I think we're in full agreement.

I only point out that this priest's allegations are actually worthy of serious consideration, in contrast to allegations made by others previously, which were not worthy of any consideration, as they rose only to the level of gossip.

sitetest

Dear Claud,

The allegations go beyond the orientation of the accused bishops, but rather to their behavior. The behavior in question is at least extremely immoral and inconsistent with their office, and perhaps also constitutes a serious abuse of their office and power. Thus, I think that revealing that one or more of these bishops has engaged in sodomy, for the purpose of trying to see them removed from office, is not sinful.

If Fr. Hoatson really has the goods, if his accusations are true, and he has real evidence or first-hand, under oath testimony to present, it seems to me appropriate for him to come forward. Cleaning out abusive, homosexually-active and therefore compromised bishops has little long-term downside for the Catholic Church, and a whole lot of upside.

sitetest

So, though I read about, and have heard about this problem from my b-i-l, I don't think it is NEARLY as widespread as many seem to believe.

Actually, you're both right, funny though that may seem.

The situation in the Church is a little like that in wider society. Gays tend to congregate in certain areas.

If you're in a certain area of San Francisco you might not see any homosexuals and say to yourself "who says this is the gay capital of the world? I don't see any gays." Go a few more blocks into the Castro and nearly everyone is gay.

It's like that in the Church too. Certain dioceses have a high prevalence of homosexuals. Others have a much lower prevalence. There are "hot spots", in other words. Now depending on where you are, in relation to those hot spots, your view of the Church will vary. To one person, the Church is overrun with homos. To another, the whole thing is wildly exaggerated.

Homos like to go where other homos are. The Church is no different.

Two things concern me. First of all, the number of priests involved in incidents, Second the relative lack of participation by the Church in the political efforts to limit marriage to men and women. Now comes a brouhaha about a mild instruction about homosexuality from the Vatican. But, as they say, time will tell. It will be interesting to see what results from the investigation of the archdiocese of Los Angeles.

I give the Cardinal the benefit of the doubt, like any man against whom accuusations are made. Priests who claim special authority from God are suspect.

Law (and many others) made a big mistake in consulting secular headshrinks about a spiritual problem. A sin, in other words.

Yes, it was a mistake, but hindsight is 20/20. Even the shrinks now admit that true pedophiles and child molesters cannot be 'rehabilitated'. But, at that time, every institution dealing with this problem, including the Catholic Church, all other churches in this country, and schools, turned to them because they were deemed professionals and experienced in dealing with the molesters.

And thus it is proven I'm not a moral theologian. :)

Of course, you all are correct in so far as protecting people and redressing wrong. Whatever is done for the sake of justice and not principally to harm or lower someone's reputation seems morally justified.

It is not clear to me, however, that most of us here on FR calling particular bishops homosexuals, even under the banner of discussing the news, falls under that heading of justice. I know myself I take a rather sick, perverse pleasure in ascribing that sin to some bishops and others I don't particularly care for, which is surely contrary to charity and perhaps mortally so.

So what should the proper reaction be to a story like this? Any thoughts?

Thus, I think that revealing that one or more of these bishops has engaged in sodomy, for the purpose of trying to see them removed from office, is not sinful.

Perhaps you're right, but in stating "for the purpose of tying to see them removed from office" you have necessarily taken it out of the public debate sphere and into the ecclesiastical/secular courts, who are the only ones who can effect that outcome.

We Freepers (darnit) can't remove them from office, therefore what purpose does our debating the accusation serve? I'm not trying to be contentious or derogatory of our discussing this on FR, I'm simply pondering the morality of this as it's an issue I'm struggling with.

What responsibilities do we have, in charity, on a board like this? I'm not entirely sure.

Dear Claud,

"It is not clear to me, however, that most of us here on FR calling particular bishops homosexuals, even under the banner of discussing the news, falls under that heading of justice."

With this, I wholeheartedly agree.

In the past, when this sort of thing has come up, I've suggested to folks that we may be committing sins of rash judgment or detraction in how we're discussing this topic. However, for the most part, that hasn't seemed to resonate with many Catholic posters.

sitetest

We Freepers (darnit) can't remove them from office, therefore what purpose does our debating the accusation serve? I'm not trying to be contentious or derogatory of our discussing this on FR, I'm simply pondering the morality of this as it's an issue I'm struggling with.

I understand your concern, however, I completely and totally disagree with you. If we the laity don't worry about these things, it is quite clear that the hierarchy will not. If you have not lost faith in the men that make up Christ's Church you are hopelessly naive.

The laity can now rightfully hope that predatory chickenhawking priests will be removed from the priesthood thanks to websites like FR. If we left this stuff to the hierarchy they'd still be enjoying their chicken dinners, Lincoln Continentals, satellite TV, and transferring these monsters from parish to parish.

If there are active homosexuals in the hierarchy, they are intrinsically disordered and they should be gone. We cannot trust these men to police themselves. For many years, they enjoyed the privilege of the laity's trust and look what they did with it. Those days are over.