It is eerily similar to the many times Boston Catholics tried to report factual information to Catholic journalists and found out the Chancery was running interference and putting pressure on journalists to publish a FAQ they ginned up that danced around the incriminating facts.
In fact, this is exactly one of the reasons Boston Catholics are building their own media outlets to expose episcopal corruption. As things were unraveling here under Cardinal O'Malley and we gave Catholic journalists factual information about what was going on, when Cardinal O'Malley and his staff got wind of it, they would use their influence to try to snuff out the story.
One time (I think it was over the major stockholder shares the Archdiocese took in the abortion referral business before they unloaded Catholic Healthcare all together), they scrounged up their own journalist to gin up a FAQ that was a damage control waltz to discredit Catholics distributing factual information.
I got wind of the set up from an employee at the Chancery. The FAQ deceptively tip toed around the incriminating evidence. I wrote to all involved in the deceptive FAQ initiative, restated the facts, told them I would make sure it would backfire in Christendom and they withdrew that strategy from the table. The Cardinal eventually had to admit to the sufficient findings that the Archdiocese had set up an abortion referral business and were set to receive profits which they said they intended to defer to somebody else.
Not surprisingly, Boston Catholics were not at all comforted by their solution that they would tithe any profits the abortion business brought in. It's a little like the mob skimming the top to donate to a peace and justice commission.
The influence the Cardinal and their staff uses with Catholic newspapers and media outlets, including sadly some orthodox people who blog actually has happened dozens of times. This is why we are going outside of their circle of influence to expose in detail the factual information in a way where there is no tool to apply pressure. We don't have donors who can put the squeeze on us and we are abandoned to serving Christ and His Church and truth.
Let me cut to the chase:
He takes exception. He never knew. He was never there.
At no time while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein did I receive any allegation of pedophilia or child molestation against him. I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.
He didn't know the journalist was going to write about his poor judgment and he had no opportunity to do damage control.
Further, the reporter misrepresented to the Diocese of Tucson the nature and focus of the report when he contacted the Diocese seeking to talk to me, saying only he wanted to talk about the election of the new president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. That was not what the report was about.
Here we go with the same old same old:
There are many Web sites and blogs that are vehicles for communicating outrageously inaccurate and grossly unfair assertions. I had never heard of this Web site before last week. We do respond to news media reports as we deem necessary. When an inaccurate report begins to be exploited by other legitimate news media without any effort to ascertain the accuracy of the report and without allowing us to respond, we do respond, which is why we were in contact with the Register today.It is tiring that these Bishops continually control the Catholic media and undermine legitimate concerns with this kind of behavior.
He's where I start having some trouble:
I have not read nor do I know any details about the Cardinal’s deposition....
Outside the Sacrament of Reconciliation, any sexual experience of a seminarian that the Mundelein seminary administration learned about would have been subject to evaluation and would have been a possible cause for dismissal.