tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34239589.post3490993379325642406..comments2024-03-27T11:00:44.652-05:00Comments on Michael-In-Norfolk - Coming Out in Mid-Life: More Catholic Church Hypocrisy - Prominent Jesuit Is Target of New Federal ChargesMichael-in-Norfolkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06330888799107186550noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34239589.post-19453475094118766422007-12-14T08:53:00.000-05:002007-12-14T08:53:00.000-05:00I posted Ecce Quam Bonam's comment because - in my...I posted Ecce Quam Bonam's comment because - in my view - it typifies the mindset of the Catholic laity that in part has enabled the Catholic hierarchy to avoid punishing the host of bishops and cardinals that engaged in cover ups. <BR/><BR/>Ecce Quam Bonam makes the remark that "While some church leaders clearly protected predators and hindered the process of protecting children, their number is so few as to not even register." I am not sure by what definition she defines "so few." The Daillas Morning News had a special report on the cover up by U. S. Bishops and found as follows:<BR/><BR/>"Roughly two-thirds of top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working, a systematic practice that spans decades and continues today, a three-month Dallas Morning News review shows. The study - the first of its kind - looked at the records of the top leaders of the nation�s 178 mainstream Roman Catholic dioceses, including acting administrators in cases where the top job is vacant.<BR/><BR/>Excluded from the study were auxiliary bishops who, in larger dioceses, serve in subordinate roles but still can vote on many matters before the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the 17 bishops who lead eparchies, which are diocese-like entities that worship according to the Eastern rite."<BR/><BR/>The full story can be found here: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/dallas/2002/priests.cgi Of course, this story only looks at the U. S. Bishops and equates to 117 bishops. When one looks at the picture world wide, the total number becomes huge.<BR/><BR/>Ecce Quam Bonam needs to do her homework better before she tries to reprimand me for not knowing my facts. I'd say it is the other way around.Michael-in-Norfolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06330888799107186550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34239589.post-30642770281339865652007-12-14T06:58:00.000-05:002007-12-14T06:58:00.000-05:00It's just too bad you don't have more information,...It's just too bad you don't have more information, Michael. As awful as this situation was and is-- and I've watched most of the boys (now young men)grow up who were were with Fr. McGuire grow up, and, indeed, know Fr. McGuire himself-- you are painting the whole church with entirely too broad a brush, quite unjustly. We had absolutely no idea McGuire was doing this kind of stuff to our boys, and if you knew him you would understand how hard it was to believe such reports. But we knew our boys even better. <BR/><BR/>Until one finds out what really is going on in such a situation, it's not prudent or responsible to vomit out one's suspicions publically. While some church leaders clearly protected predators and hindered the process of protecting children, their number is so few as to not even register except by the impact of their obstruction and omissions. To suggest otherwise, as you do so vehemently, is to mislead and even slander/libel.<BR/><BR/>Bishop Boland did exactly what he should have done, in exactly the right order. As gratifying as it might have been for you and so many others who hate what has happened or who merely hate the Church, going first to the media with his information and suspicions before contacting McGuire's superiors would not have been the appropriate way to handle my friends' pleas for help.Ecce Quam Bonumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667249873535099192noreply@blogger.com