Did you read the article?
I don’t live in Minnesota — the former Archbishop has been removed from office. Money going to that Archdiocese does not support Weakland in any ministry at all. He has been removed from ministry.
If Weakland thought it was so important to come out of retirement and speak about it right now, why or WHY didn’t he do something about Murphy when he was the ARCHBISHOP.
And it would seem that you did not read the part about the benevolence toward a dying priest either. What good would have been served if he had been imprisoned — since Father Murphy was ill and actually in failing health and if I remember died shortly after the judgments about this whole matter.
Why do you think this is being dredged up again?
In my way of thinking, it is being dredged up to discredit the Catholic Church — reason one and only one. Of course, that means also discrediting Pope Benedict.
One has to wonder then, why didn’t this whole matter get pursued while Pope John Paul II was the Pope? Why now?
Is it because Pope Benedict is German? Some people seem to think so.
There is more than meets the eye — like I said, if I didn’t know better, I would think you were a leftist in believing what the NYTimes says versus what the Catholic Church says.
But I know you are not a leftist at all. So do you just hate all Catholics?
If one Catholic priest sins does that make all Catholics bad?
Or conversely, if one Protestant sins, does that make all Protestants bad?
Wrong question...No one is suggesting all Catholics are bad...
If numerous priests molest children and the 'organization' hides the fact, covers it up and shuffles the priests around without outing them, is the organization bad??? Emphatically, YES...
How many of these protected, perverted priests become bishops, cardinals and popes???
No, it doesn't. We're all sinners, all fallen, but for the grace of God.
The problem is in the secrecy and the sheltering. That gives the appearance of impropriety, at a minimum. At the extreme, it implies complicity for the entire hierarchy.
You're making a huge mistake, with all these "see, other people do it too" efforts at deflection. It's not coming across the way you want, at all.
Or conversely, if one Protestant sins, does that make all Protestants bad?
All Protestants are sinners, too, all fallen and in need of redemption, which comes through repentance and acceptance in faith, of the gift of salvation. Those who fail to show remorse, to turn to God and to repent, and instead continue on in their sin, deflecting blame and denying any need to repent, are invited to leave any Bible-believing Christian church with which I've had the good fortune to associate. It's just common sense. You just don't accept ongoing, unrepentant sin in the congregation. Will people fail on occasion? Of course. I'll take a blubbering Jimmy Swaggart, on his knees and in tears, admitting his failure and sin any day, over arrogant denials and attempts to paint everyone else as being just as sinful in order to protect a particular church.
To make excuses, to revert to a childish "you do it, too, you started it" is not indicative of repentance. To continue to conceal, to have secrets ... well, I assume you know what is written about your secrets finding you out, in all your dark places.
Your church put itself in this position. You can choose to acknowledge the problem and rid yourselves of it, or you can continue to deflect. Both have consequences. It's not as if the problem of widespread homosexuality in your priesthood is a newly discovered phenomenon. It's not as if sexual abuse of pubescent males by these homosexual priests is a newly discovered phenomenon, either.
Deal with it. Cast these priests out of any position of authority, if not from your church as a whole. No good can come of continuing down this path. I realize this advice is coming from outside your church, and therefore you place very little value upon it. But, there it is, the answer that is obvious to those who have no vested interest in the matter.