Posted on 04/25/2002 4:43:48 PM PDT by history_matters
On February 26, 2001 RCF sent the following to Cardinal George of Chicago.
On March 1, 2001 the Cardinal answered RCF’s letter.Your Eminence,
I recently received a letter from a Mr. Matt Abbott regarding his Feb. 24, 2001 conversation with you at St. Rita High School during Parish Leadership Day. According to Mr. Abbott:
‘..he [Cardinal George] doesn’t like the fact that you make accusations with no evidence to back them up. He used the [Bishop] Ryan case as an example: He claims that there as no evidence of wrongdoing, other than Ryan’s “imprudent” association with certain individuals’Surely Mr. Abbott misunderstood your comments, to assume otherwise would suggest you are a liar who has some reason to protect a pervert bishop.The lawsuit filed against Bishop Ryan one week after his resignation mentions Ryan’s homosexual activity with clergy and male prostitutes. Are you suggesting the attorneys who filed the lawsuit had no affidavits to back up their statements? Are you calling them liars as well? How about the statement from the ex-wife of Ryan’s former lover? What about the statements from 3 priests and 2 former male prostitutes?
It seems everybody is lying except you and bishop Ryan – and General Absolution doesn’t happen in Chicago and there has never been a child sexually abused by a Catholic priest.
Maybe RCF’s work in Springfield is not complete. In an effort to defend RCF’s reputation and my good name, we might need to present to the public all the evidence including the size and shape of Bishop Ryan’s penis along with statements and copies of cancelled checks. One wonders what bishop Ryan must know that would cause other bishops to lie for him. Maybe we should take a closer look at others who protect the wolf. RCF has credibility and speaks the truth Cardinal – you do not.
Sincerely,
Stephen Brady, President
Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc.
Dear Mr. Brady:On March 6, 2001 Roman Catholic Faithful responded to the Cardinal’s letterThis is in response to your faxed letter of February 26. I’ll attempt to clarify the report which Matt Abbott gave you of our short conversation in the corridor of St. Rita High School. I had not realized that, in speaking with him, I was speaking with you; but it is good to take the occasion to raise with you the distinction between an accusation and an accusation accompanied by proof.
Let me use a fictitious example. Suppose that, last week, a woman who has been in prison for drug dealing off and on over the years came to me and told me you had committed adultery with her four times last year. She gave me the times and places, describing your physical characteristics in some detail. She also showed me copies of checks you had written to her. Is any of this evidence that you are an adulterer? Since I have no knowledge of your physical characteristics and the checks didn’t say “payment in service for sexual favors”, am I free to assume she has verified her story? Am I morally justified in concluding that her story is true? Am I then free to write and tell anyone willing to listen that Stephen Brady is an adulterer?
The answer, of course, is no. You have a right to your good public reputation which, like anyone’s, can be easily destroyed. In talking to Matt, I did not say that you or anyone else is lying. I said there has been no conclusive evidence given to prove the accusations you’ve made against Bishop Ryan, who also has a right to his good reputation without conclusive proof against him. I had assumed that the lawsuit filed against the diocese might clarify some of the accusations, but I have not heard anything about the case since it was filed. Filling a suit isn’t proof of anything, except of the intent of the one who files. Filling an affidavit isn’t proof of anything until it is contested and adjudicated. I have not seen any the “evidence” you have accumulated. Interviews by Mr. Lago with some of the parties concerned left the accusations unresolved. Bishop Ryan befriended some individuals whom, he explains, he was trying to help. At this point, I am in no position to say anything more: nor have you given me any proof which would justify saying anything more.
You know that your remark about a child never having been sexually abused by a Catholic priest is merely sarcasm, the kind of sarcasm often used by enemies of the Catholic faith who hate bishops and priests.
What does it say when you and Call to Action adopt the same tone? In the Archdiocese of Chicago, at least, every accusation by someone who claims to be a victim of sexual abuse by a priest is carefully investigated. Not every accusation is true, but some are. If there is something I need to know about sexual abuse of a child by one of the priests of the Archdiocese, I ask you to have the victim contact me. You know, as well, that priests have been permanently removed from ministry and their victims helped, to the extent possible, to overcome the effects of such terrible sin committed against them. Also, you may or may not know that the practice of giving general absolution, an abuse which began years ago in the Archdiocese of Chicago, has begun to be addressed.
Finally, I am sorry that you believe you have to make personal innuendoes and threats to get attention, even for causes you believe in sincerely. This is Lent, a time when Christ, through the Church, calls us all to conversion. You are in my prayers; please keep me in yours.
Yours in Christ,
Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago
Francis Cardinal George
Archdiocese of Chicago
Office of the Archbishop
Post Office Box 1979
Chicago, Illinois 60690Your Eminence,
Let me begin my response to your March 1 letter by first commenting upon your remark that the practice of your diocesan priests giving general absolution has begun to be addressed. In this remark, your cowardice and insincerity are laid bare. You have been bishop of Chicago since May 7, 1997, a total of more than three years. At any time you could have ordered this practice stopped by simply commanding your priests to obey, under penalty of discipline. The expression “has begun to be addressed,” is more appropriate for problems like termite control or poor grades in children’s math scores. Such subtle problems are often not subject to readily recognizable remedies. You like to give examples. Let me give you an example. Suppose these priests practicing general absolution were instead handing out pamphlets stating black people do not have souls and cannot go to heaven. Do you have any doubt that you would instantly order this practice ceased? Do you think you would wait four years before “beginning to ad- dress” the problem? Of course not. General absolution places the eternal souls of your flock in eternal jeopardy. Your failure to come to their rescue is a disgrace and a betrayal of your office.
With regard to Bishop Ryan, you know fully well that Fr. Hardon flew to Rome with statements from priests and personally vouched for the accuracy of the charges. This is in addition to the sworn statements that I referred to previously. To respond to your analogy, if in addition to the sworn statements from these drug addicts, Fr. Hardon flew to Rome with two women who claimed to have committed adultery with me, and he vouched for their accuracy, I would consider this a sufficient basis in which to conclude that the adultery had occurred. When combining this information with the affidavits filed with a civil lawsuit, for which attorneys can be disbarred for unfounded allegations, any possible doubt would be removed from my mind. It therefore appears that the only way you would acknowledge that a priest or bishop was engaged in sexual misconduct is if we sent you photos of the priest performing these acts. However, when we attempted to provide you with photos of clergy misconduct last year in connection with the St. Sebastian Website, you faxed me a letter in which you said that you would not look at these homosexual photos because they could be a near occasion of sin for you. You have thus built a wall around yourself which guarantees plausible deniability on your part for any sexual misconduct on the part of your clergy. Although this is shameful and cowardly, we must at least congratulate you on the genius of this scheme.
Yes, Cardinal George, we will continue to pray for you. It is clear we have not been praying hard enough.
In Jesus’ Name, The Way, The Truth, and the Life,
Stephen Brady
When RCF first came out I fully supported the approach. The lay faithful gathering evidence on bad bishops and priests, and using it to remove the wolves. That is still a good idea, but the hatred and vitriol here show that RCF is not the group to do it. I can't support a man who acts like that. Challenge Cardinal George yes, call him names? Why?
patent
No need to get ugly about it.
It is not uncommon for a bishop to have important details kept from him. When you have Sister Femi-Nazi running the chancery and only allowing certain people to see the bishop, I can see how some bishops could become essentially clueless in some important matters. I know in our own diocese of Dallas we had a nun who brought in a sex ed program WITHOUT the bishop's knowledge and only by a miracle were we able to undermine her effort.
Bishops need to be extremely vigilant as to who is feeding them information. They need to be on top of everything. They need to listen closely and follow JPII. They need to know about every new seminarian and every priest serving in his diocese. To not be vigilant is to court disaster.
Our Pope is kicking butt, in case anyone has not caught it. It will be interesting to see how the Cardinals act when they come back home. Father Rueda set it all out in detail just as the homo's were pushing for welcoming arms in the seminaries. Let us pray that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and put Sister Femi-Nazi in her place.
Well, thank God he is. I noticed the letter to Cardinal George is dated March of 2001 and the general absolution problem seems to date back quite a while before that - I cannot fathom why there has been such a delay in implementing the teachings of the Church.
That said, I cannot condome Mr. Brady's language and treatment of Cardinal George. I completely understand his frustration, as I think most of us share it, but Mr. Brady needs to temper his language and approach.
In a way, I am afraid we will start to demand changes on the orthodox side just like the unorthodox side is doing. Whatever transgressions we encounter in the Cardinals, automatically we assume the worst of them - they must be in the "lavender mafia" or someone has compromising pictures of them, or they are practicing homosexuals. Personally, I don't want to get caught up in painting all of them with the same brush - I don't want to be naive, but I don't want to be an automatic accuser, either. We need not get shrill and loud and nasty about things. The first change should be in the child protection area - that needs to be settled right away ("one strike and you are out") and then, once that is settled, we should start to ask for changes from the clergy - Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. It is easy to use the Catachism as back up and sent the relevant passages with a nice but firm letter to the higher ups. Enough paper and they'll have to listen.
I cannot fathom why there has been such a delay in implementing the teachings of the Church.Chicago is still in a big mess. Cardinal George is a holy man and an EXCELLENT Bishop. Give him some time. In the meantime you may learn some details about the "welcome" he received from Chicago priests.
According to the facts presented in this exchange of letters, the Cardinal of Chicago has been sorely lax in his duties for his flock, with potentially tragic consequences.
It's precisely this kind of indifference to Catholic teaching (i.e., that not stopping General Absolution is no big deal and "has begun to be addressed") that has characterized the teaching arm of the Catholic Church in America since Vatican II, with a de-emphasis on the reality of faith and morals, particularly sexual morality, and IMO, has led to the current state of weakened belief in the eucharist, the Sacraments in general, the role of the pope, etc.
Charity should be bestowed only where it is due. Jesus Himself, on occasion, used far stronger words than Brady does. "Generation of vipers" comes to mind.
A GROUP OF PROMINENT Chicago priests has requested a meeting with Archbishop Francis George, telling the Roman Catholic leader that criticisms he has made during parish visits in his first few months on the job "left damage in your wake.''
George, according to their report, has been tagged by some with the unfortunate nickname "Francis the Corrector.'' The sobriquet refers to the archbishop's reported disapproval of some practices he has encountered, from the order in which lay ministers received communion at one parish to the absence of kneelers in a seminary chapel....
In addition to the communion practice and kneelers, specific concerns listed in the report include George's intervention in the debate in Oak Park over gay rights, his insistence that priests wear gray vestments at funerals and comments he supposedly made regarding foreign priests -- comments the archdiocese has since asserted were misreported....
"We will resist being treated as branch managers for some huge international corporation who simply take orders from headquarters, be that at the Vatican or at the Pastoral Center (which serves as archdiocesan headquarters),'' the report asserts.
I disagree totally with Brady's tactic. Cardinal George is a good man. He inherited tremendous problems created by Bernadin. The radical 'so-called' Catholics hate his guts and have worked intensely to ignore everything he says.Words of wisdom, brother :-)
He could stop general absolution in one day.He would if he could without creating greater damage. One of the reasons why so many Catholics left the Church after Vat.2 was the abruptness of the liturgical "changes" - things were done overnight and without concern for people's pace of adjustment. Cardinal George is wonderful Bishop and a true blessing for Chicago.
After such a calm response from the Cardinal, to speak like this to him "In this remark, your cowardice and insincerity are laid bare" is not the mark of a man with Christ's charity in him.This Brady fellow sounds like a lunatic in both letters, he must have been in the trenches for too long.
Boy, these are some serious issues the Cardinal should be commended for taking a firm stand on. I can't imagine how many souls must have been endangered by Mary Smith getting her eucharist before Bob Williams. :-)
George's intervention in the debate in Oak Park over gay rights, his insistence that priests wear gray vestments at funerals and comments he supposedly made regarding foreign priests -- comments the archdiocese has since asserted were misreported....
And on the one issue which was actually WORTH a hoot, the archdiocese backpedals from the statements -- the issue over Oak Park "gay rights." I'm sorry, this doesn't sound like a hard-core faithful Cardinal; it sounds more like the wishy-washy bishop depicted in the letters that started this thread. I went to the link you provided, and read it; and then it occurred to me that the one thing on there that was of substance that he had allegedly taken a firm stand on (earning himself what has become a desirable nickname from the perspective of orthodox Catholics) -- the school textbook -- he pleaded innocence and said that he was merely critical of it. It doesn't sound to me like he deserves his nickname.
Can you tell me some things that he has actually done that are meritorious, in your opinion, for holding firm to the faith? He obviously failed on protecting the souls of his flock, with regard to the General Absolution. And neither of the articles you posted really present anything of real weighty substance that he's had to take a firm stand on. What gives you the opinion of his greatness? (BTW - I know that my post has had some sarcasm in it, certainly not directed at you, but I'm asking this question in sincerity -- I would really like my opinion of the Cardinal to be corrected by facts that you can provide)
We need to get a big broom and clean out the stables, big time.
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.