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
I mistook you at first for someone with whom a conversation was possible. I was mistaken.
His comparing of Brady's tone to that of "Call to Action" stinks of hubris and hate.Askel, Which of these statements stinks of hate more:
What does it say when you and Call to Action adopt the same tone?Or
In this remark, your cowardice and insincerity are laid bare.Your indignation seems to be rather narrowly focused.
patent +AMDG
Re full chapels, they have been out in force recruiting. They know opportunities when they see them. Nothing drives away Catholics like either their own inability to be chaste or their priest's inability to be chaste.
patent
I just want to know the level of honesty around this place .... did the RCF have any evidence?
Arne, were you to read this thread you would see that HM and I have disagreed about RCF and their tactics. I am not his PR rep. Just like I criticize Brady for his intemperate language, I criticize you for yours. Just like I said that he would get ignored, I suggest that unless you knock off the personal attacks you will be ignored as well. I'm not saying a single thing to you I hadn't said on this thread before you got here.
patent
Yes or no Mensa. This forum is a bastion of deceit.
Could you summarize that in a one page press release please?Well, it was much less then one page the way it was, but if that will help you, sure, I will blow it up to reach a page in length:
Arne, calm
down
and
stop
the
personal
attacks.
Fr. Hardon was a saint. Despite his heavy involvement in these things he acted like one.We should seek his intercession and model ourselves on his faithfulness, conduct, and demeanor.
You OWE this forum an honest presentation. YOU HEAR?You have not identified a single statement that I have made that you question. I do not agree with everything said and done on this thread. If you want me to defend something that I have written please feel free to quote from one of my posts and ask me about it. So far, however, you are only questioning the comments by Mr. Brady, which I do not agree with or defend, as I have made clear on this thread.
patent +AMDG
Comment by George stirs anger
April 26, 2002
BY ART GOLAB STAFF REPORTER
At the historic Vatican meetings earlier this week, Cardinal Francis George emerged as a spokesman for the American cardinals and bishops discussing the crisis of sexual abuse of minors by priests.
But one of his comments has a local feminist group and a sexual abuse survivors group seeing red.
While talking to reporters, George drew a distinction between serial pedophiles, such as defrocked Boston priest John Geoghan, and a priest who has sex with an underage girl.
''There is a difference between a moral monster like Geoghan, who preys upon little children and does so in a serial fashion, and to someone who, perhaps under the influence of alcohol, engages in an action with a 17- or 16-year-old young woman who returns his affection,'' George said Tuesday.
''That is still a crime in every instance, and so the civil law doesn't distinguish. In terms of the culpability and in terms of the possibility to reform one's life, they are two very different sets of circumstances.''
That prompted a call for his resignation from Catherine Caporusso Hartman, vice president of the Chicago chapter of the National Organization for Women.
"He's saying that there's a difference between sexual abuse of a young child and a priest getting a little drunk and having sex with a 16- or 17-year-old girl," Hartman said. "He's trying to minimize things when he should be showing that he takes all of this seriously. Now he's trying to make a subset of sexual abuse not as serious as another."
Hartman acknowledged she hadn't heard the second part of George's comment--where he noted that both acts are still a crime.
"I didn't get that part of the statement," she said. "But he still doesn't seem to understand the reason why there are stiffer penalties [for statutory rape] in the case of a person in authority like a priest."
On Thursday, George said he thought he made it plain that both types of behavior are bad.
"I can understand why they're upset with me. If I really did think that it didn't matter about abusing young women, I should resign. I don't think I said that, I know I didn't mean it,'' he told NBC-Channel 5 in a telephone interview from Philadelphia.
George told Channel 5 he'd like to meet with NOW and his other critics. He will be in Philadelphia with the other American cardinals until Saturday. Before leaving for the Vatican last week, George told Chicago reporters that while a pedophile cannot be reformed and should not be allowed to minister again, whether to forever bar a priest who had sex with a teenage girl is ''a somewhat open question.''
His comments at the Vatican also drew fire from the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests.
''It's ludicrous to think that a teenager has the freedom to make a choice,'' said Barbara Blaine, the group's Chicago-based president and founder, who was herself abused by a priest.
Contributing: AP
''There is a difference between a moral monster like Geoghan, who preys upon little children and does so in a serial fashion, and to someone who, perhaps under the influence of alcohol, engages in an action with a 17- or 16-year-old young woman who returns his affection,'' George said Tuesday.
Didn't Jesus teach that ALL sin is equally deadly? Isn't sex of any type outside of the bounds of Marrige a sin?
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.