Monday, August 29, 2011

Cardinal O'Malley Lumps Innocent Men in With Pedophiles

Our friends and colleagues at BCI have charitably covered the latest on Cardinal O'Malley's earning trust and respect campaign: Archdiocese airs list of priest accused of sexual abuse.

At one time, they were threatening to put the names of dead men on the list but I see they did not.

Tell me something. How did this slander pan out for them? Whom did they please? Whose trust did they earn?

If the people around the Cardinal were deliberately trying to sabotage his reputation, they couldn't do a better job.

Breathtaking stupidity.


Joseph D'Hippolito said...

This is what happens when people are consumed with power and no internal mechanisms exist to keep them accountable. In this whole tragedy, innocent priests are now experiencing what victims and their relatives experienced: They are expendible when Church leaders have to protect their power, privledges, finances and temporal reputation.

This is no different than the Pharisees, Sadducees and Romans conspiring to crucify Christ. These prelates would do the same if given the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

"Tell me something.... Whom did they please? Whose trust did they earn?"


Do I win a prize?


susan said...


Maria said...

Isn't this sort of like being found not guilty of murder or beating your wife? Where is the Shepard's concern for the souls and repuation of his priests?

A little Fr. Hardon--

Commandments of God - Detraction and Calumny
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

The immediate focus of the Eighth Commandment is falsehood that does injury to one's neighbor. Harm to another person's reputation, therefore, is the special prohibition of this divine mandate.

A person's reputation may be injured in various ways, notably by detraction and calumny or slander. Detraction is the unjust violation of the good reputation of another by revealing something true about him...

What needs to be stressed, however, is that a person's good name is something he cherishes even though we may not think he deserves it. No matter; it is his good name, not ours. We may, if we wish, forfeit our good name provided no harm is done to others. But another person's good reputation belongs to him, and we may not do it injury by revealing, without proportionately grave reason, what we know is true about him...

Detraction is consequently a sin against justice because it deprives a man or woman of what they ordinarily value more than riches. Socrates' statement that the way to gain a good reputation is to endeavour to be what you desire to appear highlights the effort required to acquire a good name. All of this, more even than accumulated wealth, can be destroyed by a single criminal act of detraction.

The seriousness of the sin committed will mainly derive from the gravity of the fault or limitation disclosed. But it will also depend on the dignity of the person detracted and the harm done to him and others by revealing something that is hidden and whose disclosure lowers (if it does not ruin) his standing in the public eye.

Not unlike the restitution called for in stealing, detraction demands reparation as far as possible to the injured person's reputation. Often such reparation is next to impossible to make, either because of the number of people informed or the complexity of the situation. But this merely emphasizes the warning of Scripture to "Be careful of your reputation, for it will last you longer than a thousand hoards of gold. A good life lasts a certain number of days, but a good reputation lasts forever" (Si. 41:12-16).

The essence of detraction is the unwarranted disclosure of a hidden failing, which implies that there are occasions when the disclosure can and even should be made".

What is ironic here is that O'Malley seems to have implied "hidden failing" in publishing the name of men found innocent where there is no "hidden failing". It is outrageous. These men do not get their reputation back. They are destroyed. There can be no reparation. Shame on the Cardinal.

Anonymous said...

There are dead men on that list.

Tancred said...

As long as +Sean tolerates the heresy, the Modernism, the lax discipline and all that, this is going to be a football he's going to kick around as well, because he gives every indication that this scandal is something useful to him.

Gerry said...

email addressed to:
Jay Crowley
Delegate for Investigations

"How is it not hypocrisy to “emphasize(d) that there has been no final determination of guilt or innocence in these cases” when “notifications (to law enforcement) are made whether or not the person reporting the abuse is still a minor, whether or not the accused cleric is still alive, and whether or not the allegations have been evaluated to have even the semblance of truth” and when, “the Archdiocese publicly discloses when a member of its clergy is removed from active ministry pending an investigation into an allegation of child abuse.” Is it fair not to disclose the name of their accuser and the date of the alleged misconduct?

Of the 22 priests listed in Category C, 17 have been removed from ministry for over 7 years. Fourteen are over 70 years of age. Why are these cases not turned over to law enforcement for adjudication. If there is no substantive evidence to make a determination, why are these priests not cleared? Is it diocesan due process to allow them to die with the accusations hanging over them?"

The release of this information is Detraction, provided the sinner knows, and goes ahead anyway. However, no sin is too great when it comes to the protection of children. (Oh by the way, Jay Crowley has been "out of the office" since Aug 26.)

Gerry Zeller