I'm going to make this pretty short, but I do want to say a few things.
First, I'm truly humbled by the letters of support I've gotten. It's more than I expected, and so very much more than I deserve. Thank you for your forgiveness. Thank you for your generosity. And thank you for your faith in me. I have a long way to go to live up to it.
Next week, I'll be returning to the regular e-letter format. I will continue to promote and defend orthodox, faithful Catholicism, though I've sometimes been a very poor example of it. But truth is truth, whether it's spoken by a sinner or a saint.
But, I hope to do so with a new approach. In the past few days, I've been told by several people -- individuals who actually agree with me on most things -- that I can come across as arrogant and self-righteous. And if I'm honest with myself, I know that they're right. So I'm going to address that, and will try to exhibit humility and charity, even in disagreement.
The final thing I want to mention is that the September issue of CRISIS should be arriving in homes any day now. CRISIS readers will see an immediate improvement... You see, our editorial department has worked hard the past three months redesigning the magazine, and they're debuting it this month. It now has an entirely new, updated look. And it's also full-color from front to back. We think it's a much cleaner, more attractive, and more readable magazine now. But let us know what you think.
Again, my deepest thanks for your support and friendship.I'll talk to you next week,
Arrogant and self-righteous?
Isn't that the same thing they said about Cardinal Arinze when they walked out at Georgetown University when he gave his speech?
I'm pretty sure they said that about Cardinal Ratzinger in his defense of the Eucharist.
Deal is one of hte most humble people I have ever met. His approach is kind, gentle.
When he was here in Boston, with all the scuffles that were going on out in front of the Cathedral- - he walked out there, had gentle conversations with Jan Leary and others and ended up speaking in peace...helping them to see some common ground in our complaints about how the Church was handling things.
What we are doing to this man just makes me profoundly sad.
You know something though?
In the long run, I think the Bishops who used to see him as monument to their failings - now recognize he has failings of his own...and they don't have to feel such shame.
Quite frankly, a lot of people are relieved to see he isn't holier than though after all.
As predictable as this was, and is for the future, we are all going to find our way through it.
I sent back to our shepherd, the following:
Not to worry, today's scripture reading belongs to you...
Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel,and not with the wisdom of human eloquence,so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written:I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,and the learning of the learned I will set aside.
Where is the wise one?
Where is the scribe?
Where is the debater of this age?
Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom,it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,but we proclaim Christ crucified,a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike,Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom,and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Voice of the Faithful says that parishes are not connected to Rome or the Archdiocese, they belong to the people and court appointed the Archbishop as a "trustee." In fact, they say, Oregon itself said that the parishes don't belong to them.
Talk about taking things out of context!
The problem is, with the corruption of the judges & courts, we just don't know what will happen. Menino and Reilly might make their phone calls, somebody might come along and pay somebody off, and Ronnie and the nice people who want to be part of the solution - might just succeed.
We were in a state where the SJC pretended that the constitution was written to protect people's rights to sexual perversions and that they had the power to create law.
They are trying to get a grand jury to come up with a RICO charge based upon the fact that Cardinal Law and Bishop Murphy transferred a priest whose record has no sexual allegation in them whatsoever but they are twisting words to make him look like a pervert, taking things out of context.
If they listened, I would bother to make a phone call and tell them they can't just let the lawyers handle it. They have to take the two key points in their legal argument, dismantle it in the Pilot.
Get a couple of sound bytes from the lawyers....you know..Here is the context...here is where it is taken out of context..here is why it doesn't fly legally.
Because if they don't - the other parishes might give it a whirl.
You have to publicly put it to bed.
Then let the lawyers handle it.
What was that Kreuger said in the article? Something like...there is a running joke over there that if there is a hidden agenda, point it out.
The problem wasn't that nobody's been pointing it out.
The problem was and remains that the people pointing it out are dismissed and assaulted - and for two years, the Bishops pretended they 'didn't know'.
Just a group of people who were being misled, don't you know.
"No", I would say, "these are your people who are doing the misleading. It's a Catholics for Free Choice de facto schism you are letting operate as legitimate."
Crazy talk! Hysterical! We don't see anything divisive! Conspiracy theories!!
"It's sad that it's gotten to this point," said the Rev. Christopher Coyne, a spokesman for the archdiocese. "It's gotten to the point where we'll have to let our lawyers handle it." He had not seen the lawsuit and did not comment on it.
They never have and from what I see, they never will heed the warnings. Even when the people have been able to give them the evidence and tell them where it is going with flawless accuracy.
It goes a lot smoother for them to see the people bringing them the evidence as the enemy.
Come on Virginia, show me a sign, send up a signal - I'll throw you a line.
That stained glass curtain you're hiding behind, never let's in the sun. You know that only the good die young! Come on, come on, come on Virginia don't let me wait.. You Catholic girls start much too late. Sooner or later it comes down to fate. The sinners are much more fun.. ...you know that only the good die young.
You got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation - you got a brand new soul and a cross of Gold...but Virginia they didn't give you quite enough information... ... they didn't count on me, when they were counting on their Rosary.
Sofia News Agency reports that "Italian authorities have received a tip-off that a group of Islamists were planning a bomb attack on the seat of Roman Catholicism, according to reports. The Corriere newspaper carried an unsourced report on Friday that a group of Islamists from Bosnia were planning a bomb attack on the Vatican.
According to the report the group, made up of seven men and three women, has already arrived in Rome. Checks have been launched along the border with Slovenia and security at airports has been tightened, the Corriere newspaper wrote.
St. John Bosco's Dream?
In any event, I'm not feeling very optomistic that our enemies are going to let Christianity flourish openly.
I was speaking to Fr. Carr yesterday about the only comment Jay Linsay put into the VOTF story, saying he felt VOTF was going to unravel.
"Where'd you get that from?" I asked (with that sarcastic, zealous attitude that amuses him)
"Well, we are all covered with blood, there are bodies everwhere, nations leveled..."
"You have a point there!"
Since we did not heed this appeal of the Message, we see that it has been fulfilled, Russia has invaded the world with her errors. And if we have not yet seen the complete fulfilment of the final part of this prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides. If we do not reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge, injustice, violations of the rights of the human person, immorality and violence, etc.
And let us not say that it is God who is punishing us in this way; on the contrary it is people themselves who are preparing their own punishment. In his kindness God warns us and calls us to the right path, while respecting the freedom he has given us; hence people are responsible”.(5)
The decision of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to make public the third part of the “secret” of Fatima brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil, yet pervaded by the merciful love of God and the watchful care of the Mother of Jesus and of the Church.
The action of God, the Lord of history, and the co-responsibility of man in the drama of his creative freedom, are the two pillars upon which human history is built.
Our Lady, who appeared at Fatima, recalls these forgotten values. She reminds us that man's future is in God, and that we are active and responsible partners in creating that future.
Tarcisio Bertone, SDBArchbishop Emeritus of VercelliSecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
The people didn't reject the path of sin, hatred, injustice, respect for human persons. They didn't pray. The people didn't do penance. The people were not obedient to God. Whatever is left of the vision is moving forward. This brings us to the end. Let's not call it punishment from God but the people punishing themselves.
I don't see the part where the people who reject their paths fade away, do you?
NEW YORK - Vietnam-era controversies continue to dog John Kerry, and define the combustible race for president, helping give President Bush,a new head of steam as his renominating convention opens here Monday.
More traction given to his purple heart for the self-inflicted wound.
``I think Sen. Kerry should be proud of his record,'' Bush told the New York Times. ``No, I don't think he lied (about his service record).''
Couldn't slow the reaction which is igniting fires in veteran camps.
``John Kerry claims that he spent Christmas in 1968 in Cambodia and that is categorically a lie,'' Stephen Gardner, who served under Kerry, says in the ad.
``We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever.''
Kerry wrote in a letter to the Herald in 1979 that he was five miles across the border in Cambodia at a time when the U.S. denied there was any military presence in the country.
Friday, August 27, 2004 :::
Judge revokes partial-birth abortion ban
By Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer August 27, 2004
NEW YORK -- A federal judge declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect a woman's health, something ...
If you think this is a coincidence - you are kidding yourselves.
But the Gallup report makes this distinction: "Among practicing Catholics – those who attend church on a weekly basis – Bush leads Kerry." Several influential and faithful Catholics are responsible for Catholic support of George W. Bush. One of them was the target of a Kerry-Katholic mud-ball last week.
Isn't the irony of all this - while they had hoped to scatter, the crucifixion has raised the level of zeal for our shepherd?
Now, Hudson is rubbing his jaw. After penning a preemptive confession for National Review Online, Hudson resigned from his unpaid position for the Bush campaign before his rival publisher could expose Hudson's decade-old extramarital activity with a student in hopes of wilting the president's appeal to Catholic voters.
Which could well be quite succesful if the logic & dialogue of the leadership which takes over the helm.
We are in chaos.
Hudson's personal struggle with moral absolutes does not invalidate the conservative values he espouses. Think of it this way: Is the health advice "don't smoke" invalidated because the cigarette-puffing adviser has lung cancer? On the contrary, the advice is all the more urgent.
Which is the point of the American Cancer Society asking people who have had their voice boxes removed to testify to it...Alcoholics to bear their souls and move people struggling to redemption....
But even Hudson would say that his public embarrassment is not the point of the Kerry-Katholic attack. The real target is the conservative Catholic voice. Kerry-Katholics have sent an intimidating "shut-up" message to anyone who is not immaculately conceived. Kerry-Katholics are attempting a coup – their goal is to "own" the Catholic voice for the election of 2004.
"At some point, the bishops will realize that Voice of the Faithful are the best friends that they have," he said
Especially if we hold up what they did to Deal Hudson, his wife, his family and say ...."This is how far you are going let it get."
You are going to continue to place proaborts in teaching positions and in positions of authority and let our children see this as Catholic leadership - and make the rest of us out to be judgmental and extremists, zealots.
While running their programs in full force and with the full support of our Bishops - who neither affirm or deny, who neither support or condemn Voice of the Faithful - - they just run their ads in the Pilot and put them in charge of teaching a SEICUS program.
The mission of the Church is no longer admitting our sins, going to confession, repairing our relationships, amending our lives, using our experience to teach the difference between right and wrong, journeying on the road of obedience, inviting others to come with us...pointing out when proaborts are leading Catholics astray?
That is not Catholic leadership?
I know a lot of people are struggling with my surrender - - asking the Bishop to lift the ban on VOTF, leaving my parish and diocesan worship for a refuge with my children with the Oblates of the Virgin Mary.
The objective of appointing proaborts, bringing in their sex ed programs - - and telling those of us in the truth to "opt out" is to make it look like they are tolerating us, but when the day is over, our children are sitting in the hallways opting out like freaks.
They come home and say "Mom, you are the only one".
"Dad, if you are right - then how come you had to resign...how come when we sin and confess it and then teach truth - Phil Lawler and the Catholic Exchange are telling us to stay out of politics and don't teach theology, don't be a witness to conversion.....how come John Kerry and Bill Clinton are the heros of our country, leading speakers at the DNC....
.....how come with all the work President Bush has accomplished for prolife and the RNC platform came out against abortion - came out for the sanctity of marriage - Ray Flynn is man who has nobody to vote for as a Roman Catholic?
Because some of the faithful asked me to help clarify what Ray Flynn is trying to lead people to do - conversations took place...and clarifications were made that I think are dead on...sadly they can't even see what their own misguidance will bring about:
"I'm reminded of the same group who worked against Ray's election to Congress because he wasn't pro life enough and so we ended up with Mike Capuano instead of Ray Flynn."
While his own group is saying Bush isn't prolife enough....how do you think that is going to play out?
We are going to end up with John Kerry.
If they know that's how it played out between Mike Capuano and Ray Flynn - - well then they must know that is how it is going to play out between John Kerry and George W., right?
I'm not playing baloney games anymore about who I think my children should look to as leaders.
Some of us have been saddled with the cup of having to unravel the logic and testify to the truth.
The real truth, the whole truth - and nothing but the truth, so help us God.
Its slogan -- "Keep the faith, change the Church" -- has long raised concerns among church leaders, says the Rev. Christopher Coyne, spokesman for the archdiocese.
From its beginning, Coyne said, the group has associated with people who want to "change the Church" by altering its teachings on issues like abortion and gay rights. For instance, Debra Haffner, a well-known pro-choice activist, spoke at its first summer convention.
Coyne also noted a May incident in which Voice of the Faithful president Jim Post publicly scolded archbishop Sean O'Malley for what he called a "divisive" stand against gay marriage. O'Malley was simply articulating the church's view that marriage is between one man and one woman, Coyne said.
"It doesn't quite jibe with them saying, 'We believe what the church believes,'" Coyne said.
...the Kerry's and the Post's and the Voice of the Faithful's and the Fran Kisslings have been doing to us what they did to Deal for years and years and the Bishops have let them.
While they had hoped to remove him as our leader, Deal's subscriptions have gone up.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. Feurhard.
...and you know what?
Maybe they are starting to realize that keeping the Kerry/VOTF/Fran Kisslings was all about converting our children to their end.
Maybe if I stand up and say, we are out of here with our children..... the Bishops are looking out to see that Voice of the Faithful and Joe Feurhard are going to end up being their best friends...and their mission of the Church has all along been throwing out mothers and fathers who have amended their lives....and our children will finally start picking up the Boston Globe and reading that their mothers and fathers were right all along.
Parishioners have filed a canon appeal, hired a law firm to sue the archdiocese, and are seeking an injunction through the attorney general's office. This week the church's pastoral council asked the archdiocese for an extension pending appeals.
Knock yourself out.
The pastoral council has hired the law firm of Galvin & Ames, which plans to file a lawsuit against the archdiocese on several grounds -- including the argument that the church belongs to parishioners and not to the archdiocese.
Let me ask this question:
If the parish has formally filed a lawsuit to separate themselves from the Archdiocese - what makes that different from a schism? Wouldn't that be the start of it?
Four years ago, St. Albert's commissioned 56 stained glass windows of the saints, with parishioners buying them for between $2,500 and $3,000 each. The Hajjars bought St. Bartholomew.
Gives you a sickening feeling, doesn't it?
You wonder what pillage will the Holy Relics, statues undergo. They are holding auctions and grabbing things to take home.
But at a meeting with chancery officials this week, Coyne got the word: The windows are considered "a completed gift" and won't be returned to the givers. The donors can designate where the windows go -- as long as the destination is Catholic-related.
Give credit where credit is due - they are trying to control it as much as they can.
Coyne is trying to tend to business as usual. "I'm not angry," he said. "My concept of God has given me so much peace with myself. I know God's spirit is definitely sustaining us all."
Fr. Ronnie is a monument to the flawed administrative and pastoral concept that no intervention need take place with priests who teach their 'concepts'.
Peace, peace when there is no peace.
At Mass over the weekend, he described how his view of God has changed from that of his strict Catholic upbringing.
Where do you suppose they will put this man?
On a college campus to poison the children?
How many of you are afraid of God?" he asked the packed sanctuary. Perhaps 10 -- out of 450 -- raised their hands.
"How many of you were afraid of God?" At least half the members of the congregation raised their hands.
A proud day for the Bishops of Boston.
"our experience of God might be different from our ancestors'."
Put any word you like on it.
It's a schism.
"Once you open up your heart and broaden your mind and look into your soul, you begin to look at things differently," he said. "You can . . . continue to believe everything you were taught, or you can develop an adult relationship with God. It can turn your life upside down, but it can make all the difference in your life. It has for me."
I think before the final day is over - they ought to drive the Archbishop over, stand with Ronnie, bring in the press and announce that Fr. Ronnie has served his church well - like our children were all treated to a few short months ago.
Let's get it over with.
Coyne took over at St. Albert's 2 1/2 years ago, during the sex abuse scandal, and inherited a parish with dwindling attendance and increasing debt. Today the pews overflow and the debt is gone.
Christ's debt compounded. His suffering intensified. His people ripped from the Mystical Body of Christ - but they love Ronnie and they hap-hap happy.
"She would just as soon go to a Protestant church in Weymouth," said Rizzo. "Because of the way I was brought up, I would find it difficult to leave my Catholic faith, but I'm open-minded to it. Primarily I would like to see where Father Coyne is going to be reassigned, and if that were a reasonable commute for us, I would definitely follow him."
Me too. In fact, we are all waiting to see if Fr. Ronnie will be reassigned and what he will be reassigned to. The way things are going around here, he may end up the Director of the Religious Ed Office.
The VOTFers think the RCAB will assign him to the 'boonies'.
"I have not heard one iota from Father Coyne questioning the [Catholic] orthodoxy," he said. "And yet I really believe that place is closing because Bishop [Sean] O'Malley wants to solidify his conservative right-wing base. What I worry about is that he has lost these people at St. Albert's forever."
No worries! He lost those of us loyal to the authentic Roman Catholic Church back when he set up the democratic structure when we pointed out SEICUS/Planned Parenthood and so he could have a piece of paper in his hand to overrule the Pope.
Meanwhile, life continues at St. Albert's, at least for the next few days. Tomorrow's Comedy Night fund-raiser for the girls' color guard is sold out, and parishioners are busy baking bread for 2,000 that will be used in what are scheduled to be the church's last offerings of Communion.
No need for valid matter - Coyne is the alpha and the omega.
Oddly, the Crisis magazine site remains silent on this story.
Posted by:Phil LawlerAug. 25, 2004 9:53 AM EST
Add A Comment Deal Hudson has not remained silent. Christ's Church provides we sinners with the ability to repent and be forgiven. Deal Hudson has done this. God has forgiven him. We do not need anyone else. We should pray that he will continue his work which has been for the common good.
Posted by:VAConvertToday 7:42 AM EST
There is a huge difference between sodomite facilitating clerics and Mr. Hudson: he knows he did wrong and publicly admitted it. For that I will forgive him - not just once, but seventy x seven times. For the princes of the pink palace (and those who defend them) who deny and obfuscate and rationalize away their perversity I offer scorn and contempt - all forms of "tough love" meant to shame them into doing what common decency would require.
Posted by:MinidocToday 4:55 AM EST
I forgive you, Deal.
Posted by:alexxfalconAug. 25, 2004 1:52 PM EST
Keep on going Phil - your own people are beginning to get the message.
I got a boatload who have written telling me they are canceling subscriptions to CWN.
In the editorial "Dealing Fairly With a Sad Event" you begged your fellow Catholics to regard the National Catholic Reporter's story on Deal as a cautionary tale.
You suggested that we, as Catholics, ought to deal with this tragic revelation in the following way:
"If you are a Catholic who is vetting someone for a position of trust, especially in the public eye, have the prudence to ask him or her: “Is there anything in your past that might disqualify you? Is there anything that might come to light and create a scandal?”
I don't think you're getting it.
If they want you out of the way, they're going to find something to exploit.
A few months back, after reading some of the files of falsely accused priests, seeing how the ambiguity and "zero tolerance" of "Dallas Charter" was facilitating the removal of our priests without any evidence whatsoever, I sarcastically exaggerated the plausibility that someone could accuse a priest of looking at them the wrong way and we are going to watch him being hauled out.
Well, it's happened. A few days ago, I picked up the newspaper to read that an individual has come forward to say that twenty-five years ago, a priest was "peeping" at her while she was showering, a charge which he denies. He has been suspended while an investigation takes place.
Don't get me wrong, I believe voyeurism is sexually abusive and criminal, and I am not arguing the merits of this case because I don't know them. I am simply telling you that any reasonably prudent person knows that going back to the scene of the crime isn't going to yield any evidence.
I'm not going to pretend I am unbiased. Deal Hudson is a friend I love and admire. His departure will be injurious to many of families on the grassroots level being trampled by Planned Parenthood, SEICUS and Catholics for Free Choice.
I just want to make sure I have your suggested hypothesis straight.
A month after watching an ex-President who is known to have exposed himself to a woman, sexually exploit a young intern at the White House and then make her out to be a liar give a heroic speech at the DNC, a woman by the name of Lee Whitnum announced she has penned a story on her 20 month love affair with John Kerry when she was a college student and he was in between marriages.
Reading her story as a Roman Catholic woman, her sad chronicle isn't just about their sins of fornication. She describes Kerry's conduct as telling her he would never marry her because she was unattractive and she had a meaningless occupation. He told her he didn't want to be seen with her in public and while she was providing him sexually in his apartment in the Back Bay, he invited her to a party where he showed up with another woman.
Even if we were to presume that every detail in the NCR story is true, what you are suggesting is, that a man who realizes his wrongdoing, confesses it, apologizes, makes amends, works to repair the damages from his betrayal with his wife and family, serves Christ's Church for ten years teaching fidelity and journeying with us on the on the road to obedience - this isn't the kind of leadership you are seeking. You feel scandalized by his conduct and witness, you believe the remedy is for Church and political authorities to ask what sins have been dispensed of in the Sacrament of Confession to look for triggers that may not hold up to public scrutiny.
As a woman and a feminist, I am deeply offended that you regard how he handled his circumstances as scandalous when compared to the degredation of our fearless heroic politicians of note. As a Roman Catholic Catholic, I am mystified and ashamed of how we have treated Deal and his family.
"If you are a Catholic seeking to serve the Church or your country and you have a scandalizing secret that you never want your children to read in the papers or on the web, keep a low profile. There is much to be done — in fact most of the work of building God’s Kingdom is being done — in the background, out of the public eye, and you are indispensable in only two positions: being a husband or wife to your spouse and a father or mother to your children."
You want those of us who are obedient to the teachings of the Church and live this out in practice through surrendering our spirit doing the will of Our Father, judge our conduct in accordance with the Catechism, identify our failings, confess them and make a firm commitment to amend our lives, to stay out of the public defense of faith, and service to our Church and our Country.
I didn't seek to serve my Church or my country, but a funny thing happened on my way to being indispensable as a mother to my children. Ten years ago, I got a hold of the seventh grade sexual education program our local school was planning to unleash on my daughter. I couldn't believe my eyes. You would think that every parent aware of what is going on in our public schools would be crusading to protect their children and their communities. I learned pretty quickly why there are so few of us in the battle. They have lawyers, judges, politicians, bullies and newspapers, and they are not afraid to use them against anyone who exposing the demoralization, the engineers and architects.
I met Deal Hudson when he called me out of the blue. The Boston Globe and Herald did some stories on my apologetics and defense of the deposit of faith. I am not going to elaborate on the critical nature of Deal's work in the Church and in our country. The National Catholic Reporter lays it all out on the table for us.
The sad irony of this whole thing is, when our children needed to be protected from the theologians and think tanks spinning Church crisis remedies selling their logic that sexual impulses may be acted upon as long as check it out with your conscience and can come up with an excuse to disobey the Catechism, it is Deal who has been in the trenches with us helping to mobilize and execute strategy to stall and dismantle their projects and you find his conduct unbecoming and unacceptable as a leader.
I don't get it.
One of the usual suspects who thwarts the true mission of the Church came to my blog yesterday to post the glee. We are defending the wrong people, don't you know, and they have been trying to 'get this stink out of the Church". They have finally "pointed out evil masquerading as Christ's truth. And being joyful when the Truth is exposed."
I can't tell the difference between Fran Kissling's Press Release, the poster's comments and your editorial. They all come to the same end, John 16.
I am a sinner and I suspect they'll find something to exploit, exaggerate and attempt to humiliate me with, rendering my voice ineffective. I stand in their way in Boston, the eye of the storm in our Church and home to four Supreme Court Justices who have redefined the sanctity of the holy family. Their objective really wasn't Deal. It was moving Deal to trample those of us in the grassroots and trenches. He was simply the sacrificial lamb.
If this is the Church you want, then so be it. We have spoken to anyone who would listen. We have always done what we do when we know truth because it would be a sin of omission if we did not. My duty to respond to my baptismal call.
We are released from that duty when it is clear it is an exercise in futility.
I have better things to do, like wipe the sweat and tears off the faces of the humiliated and vilified. That always has been a woman's role in Christ's Church.
A friend of mine called and asked me what on earth they would ever do that for, since most of the reaction is pretty incriminating against Feurhard and NCR.
"Don't you get it?"
There's been considerable reaction -- much of it on Internet "blogs" -- to my story on Deal Hudson, the Crisis magazine publisher who last week resigned his post as Chairman of Catholic Outreach for the Republican National Committee. The opinions are, to say the least, varied.
Let me translate:
It didn't get the reaction we thought it would. However, Catholic bloggers loyal to the Magisterium are assasinating each other. Check it out!! Join the frey!! Get dialogin' and setting them at each others throats!!
Joe, I am not one to deny defeat. Wormwood never had it so good.
I have a highly gifted sense of intiution - and my money was on Planned Parenthood being the ones to threaten and bully when you pulled out the shepherd and scattered the flock.
Who needs Planned Parenthood....Phil Lawler is going to sue me!!
Cathedral outside Washington as part of his campaign. Kerry's campaign manager made a visit to the Cardinal and said to him, "We've been getting a lot of bad publicity among Catholics because of Kerry's position on abortion and the like. We'd gladly make a contribution to the church of $100,000 if during your sermon you'd say John Kerry is a saint."
The Cardinal thinks it over for a moment and agrees. Kerry shows up, and as the Mass progresses the Cardinal begins his homily.
"John Kerry is petty, a self absorbed hypocrite and a nit-wit. He is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. He is the worst example of a Catholic I've ever personally known. But, compared to Ted Kennedy, John Kerry is a saint!"
Carol, send them a bucket of stones, it might help their perforated consciences and work out their anger.
I have no problem with your column but I do have admiration. I personally find you a little short on long suffering but as it is not on your own behalf I can readily accept it.
Ouch, that hurts!
It's a piece of cake when they are doing it to me, but when they do it to somebody I love and admire - I struggle with the Cross. It has crossed my mind that I am not being very helpful to Deal to be kicking the Romans while I wipe his face of sweat and tears, but I just can't help wanting to kick the Romans. Character flaw? Spiritual flaw?
You are good company Jesus waxed indignant at sin. I recommend for them all and you to a much lesser extent and for a different reading St. Jean Vianney on Rash Judgment. Try Seattle catholic News Archives.
Will do! I cancelled my subscription with CWN, too many dogs with pet names barked upon the screen.
(He is speaking of their blog with anonymous names)
I think Deal may end up with a boatload of defecters. I have read over and over, that people wanting to sign up for his magazine.
....At least you take the arrows of your outrageous fortune and publish them.
I thought long and hard, sought advice and counsel before I posted the exchange between Phil and I.
I figured if he was doing this to me, what's he doing to weaker Catholics who stand up and speak the truth.
It needed to fly.
I agree, it is a fortune and a blessing too.
If only I could learn to watch them scourge the people I love and think it was a fortune and a blessing - I would make some real spiritual progress.
Keep praying Mike - nice to hear from you again and thanks as always for your support and kinds words. I have thought and prayed for you and your family from time to time since your last letter. Don't wait so long next time.
This is a step in the right direction and it looks like it was handled beautifully.
Two of the most noticeable changes with the Life Teen Mass are the cessation of a period during the Mass when teens would normally enter the sanctuary and gather around the altar during the eucharistic prayer. Life Teen also is asking its participating parishes to stop the practice of saying, "The Mass never ends. It must be lived," at the conclusion of the liturgy.
The changes are due to take place October 1st, at the start of our year dedicated to the Eucharist.
It also was in contact with Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix, who consulted with Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments at the Vatican.
This was something I learned the hard way - when you break the rules for one thing, you lose your hypothesis for it all.
What you actually are teaching the children is, we know the rules but we are making up excuses on why to break them.
Not only does this play out in liturgical anarchy - they apply it when they want to be sexually active, drink - etc.
Either the rules are the rules, we read them and obey them - or sit around and read the rules, share opinions and come to consensus and develop an excuse to bend or break the rules.
If you bring in teenagers and you want to give them a hypothesis to live by - this isn't it.
I hate to admit this, but I bought into the logic of gathering inside of the Sanctuary and it really took me several years of people pointing out errors and consequences before I realized what was happening.
I knew there were problems with the program but there was a foundation that if I thought if we could gradually modify and tweak it towards obedience and a family focus - then it was a great program.
It just kept spinning the other way - one rule being broken after another. We don't want to get uptight about the rules and all - the teens are here - that kind of logic.
"But isn't the reason we are bringing them here is to tell them we have respect for the rules and our goal is not to break them?" I would ask.
That's for later on, they would argue.
It doesn't quite work that way does it.
Either we seek a priest who tells us what the rules are and why we don't break them and absolves us when we do - or we go to the places that have structures in place that assemble committees to come with excuses to break the rules - and patronize us when we do.
That is a lifesytle you are teaching them at a crucial stage in their formation.
The next thing you know they grow up to be Bishops and apply the hypothesis.
But Father (Timothy) Vowels, our pastor here, said if anyone is going to miss it, he's going to miss it more. He just really enjoyed it as a priest to have the teens up there around the altar."
Doesn't that strike you as odd?
A good half of the time when I am tapped to help out to be an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, I get so immersed in preparing my soul, praying the prayers, concentrating on what is going on at Golgotha - that I completely forget I was asked to get off my knees and help out. Sometimes - I just happen to lift my eyes towards the Sanctuary and I look to see my fellow parishioners who volunteered looking and beckoning me with that look on their face like they had been trying to get my attention.
Shouldn't the priest be totally immersed?
He is going to miss the kiddos?
Yeah, there he will be with Jesus, Mary and the Archangels, taking the Sacrifice from his hands, bringing it to the Altar in Heaven for the Father's Blessing - changing the bread and wine to Christ's Body and Blood. .and everyone in the Church will have to pay attention to what is going on, instead of watching the teens saying to themselves, isn't that cute!!
Tuesday, August 24, 2004 ::: Moving right along - I have had phone calls and letters asking me to reconsider withdrawing my objections to VOTF, asking the Archbishop to lift the ban..and leaving the Cathedral for the Oblates of the Virgin Mary.
(If I haven't returned your email on other matters - I am sorry - hold on, I am working through them.)
I neglected to remind you all that I had asked the Bishop to sit down and put the points of disagreement regarding Talking about Touching in a dubium and take it to Rome and was refused.
A crucial and key point regarding the article in the Boston Globe yesterday which states that the child abuse program that abuses children was trumped by not only taking the dubium about foot washing to Rome, but now we find he is going to ask to change the deposit of faith to please the feminists.
I sat in a meeting at the Chancery and was told that Archbishop O'Malley disagrees that the program is contrary to the directives of the Holy See in Familiaris Consortio and Truth and Meaning on Human Sexuality.
My response, was to say - well, I suppose this isn't the first time that the faithful and their Bishop disagree on something - isn't the proper protocol to now write up each side and take it to Rome for clarification? If I am confident they have seen my writings and heard my pleas and reject my arguments, then I will withdraw.
What instead happened was that the Archbishop had Bishop Malone 'sift' the arguments, give the matter to a group of people which Sheila Horan of the USCCB told me were selected with the help of the Committee for Children who is selling the program to give the Bishop their "recommendations" on whether it is "in line" with the teachings of the Church. When we asked the idendity so that we may know their prior judgement on matters of doctrine, they hid their identities.
Now they appear to be taking this phoney baloney report with ommissions and distortions of fact to the Vatican to say what a swell job they are doing and may they keep on doing it.
Balance that with their conduct on the foot washing and we have one major problem with corruption.
Whether Bishop O'Malley is part of it or he isn't doesn't matter.
I guess it's time to out an ugly little piece of the puzzle that I had hoped I wouldn't have to reveal. I am keeping a few pieces private to protect innocent third parties to the circumstances.
I got a letter yesterday from Phil Lawler and there has been some back and forth exchange.This is not a resolved situation
Having read the tirade that you posted on your blog, I confess that I still don't know exactly what it was in my Weekly News Summary that prompted your outrage. You do not have the courtesy to quote my comments, so your readers are left with your own wildly inaccurate interpretation.
The crux of your complaint seems to be this:
"Then as his story goes, he says, just the same - it looks like there was a sin committed and even if we "admire CRISIS" and "support the Bush administration" - if the people in the pews find out the details of your sins - the new thing to do is to stampede against you.
We are now prohibited from advising what is faithful and what isn't after after we learn the hard way?
The "new church" takes the allegations and holds a kangaroo court of their own once they find out?
Even if you have admitted the wrongdoing, confessed, amended your ways and defended with flawless fidelity the teachings of the Church....the new church sees those acts as some kind of a "hidden cover up" which they were entitled to know, says Phil."
I said nothing of the sort. No reasonable reader could possibly have interpreted my comments in that way.
And lest you mistake my meaning, this is a proposition that could be tested in court.
If I understand you correctly-- and again, I have trouble following your logic-- you believe that it is wrong to make judgments of Deal Hudson on the basis of unconfirmed accusations. Yet on your blog you encourage people to make judgments of me, based on your accusations which are completely in error. If you can point to any statement in my Weekly News Summary which is inaccurate, I will immediately send a message to all of the people who received that message, correcting the error. Will you do the same?-- Philip F. LawlerEditor,Catholic World Report andCatholic World News
I did not quote your comments because I felt they were unfair to Dr. Hudson, hurtful to the protection of children and confusing to people who uncatechized and don't understand the smaller picture, nevermind the bigger picture... and the less people reading them, the better.
I would like nothing more than to resolve the conflict and correct the public info and am open to doing so.
I am deeply disappointed that you imply that if I do not reverse how I defined your statement about the situation then I could find myself in court.
I could respond by escalating the situation, but I won't. I will say that your response could drive someone who is weaker and has less courage to retreat from speaking the truth...and that is tragic.
As it is - if I had ten dollars for every time somebody came along and used the tactic - I could purchase the Residence back from B.C. with enough money left over to put the statue of the Blessed Virgin back on the grounds. (Were you aware the Archbishop had her hauled off?). I am going to trust in the Lord. Anything I own or posses was never mine to begin with. I suspect that my courage to turn and blow the raspberry in the faces of Planned Parenthood's, Call to Action, VOTF, The Committee for Children, the Children's Trust Fund attorneys when they threaten comes from such surrender.
I would be very grateful if we could talk the situation through - and see if we can correct the record for the sake of Christ's Church and our country.
You do not understand the crux of my complaints at all.
The crux of my complaints is that you feel entitlement to examine the one-sided accusations and declare that those of us who may be guilty as charged, confess their culpability in the sin, amend their lives and use it to teach others the difference between right and wrong should refrain from taking advisory positions.
You further articulate that the fact he considered the sin to have been forgiven and his soul resurrected and restored is something we can no longer tolerate in Christ's Church.
I do not even care to discuss your example that his conduct was no different than Paul Shanley.
I will say two things which I expect will remain in your confidence.
Having had a childhood which includes pretty rough circumstances - I still knew the difference between right and wrong.
Reading the article - I can say with shameless conviction that it all sounds hauntingly familiar. Not only do I not consider myself a 'victim' - at times, I consider myself 'the predator'.
Women can and do pursue. We do "seduce". I frequented a few nightclubs myself and did that thing with the tequila. Believe me when I tell you, I was not looking for a father figure.
What I am trying to convey to you is, the time has come when the members in the pews feel they are entitled to restrict St. Augustine and St. Paul, Mary Magdalene.
That being the case, I need to own up to fact that I am a sinner. If the President is going to keep his distance from Deal Hudson - then no Catholics need apply. That is where we are.
What I said on my site is true. Without Deal's back up, there are no obstacles with Fran Kissling. It makes no difference to me who is in the White House if Fran Kissling has control of CCD. If you read the Globe today, the Archbishop didn't waste any time.
Deal has always spoken very respectfully of your work. I want to thank you personally for all you have done to protect the unborn. I had hoped to continue to contribute myself - but it is clear the time has come that the Bishop, the public and the White House know what they do and what they say and what they do fail to do and say have made the defense of faith impossible.
Asking God to bless your work and your wonderful family,
I truly admire your loyalty to Deal Hudson. And I appreciate the confidence that you shared in your message to me.
But to be candid, I don't understand why you would show such confidence, since-- both in your blog and in your reply to my complaint-- you implicitly challenge my integrity. That is the basis for my complaint.
I have no desire for a fight with you or with Deal-- with whom my relations have always been cordial and respectful.
I do demand-- I repeat, demand-- respect for the truth.
Carol, don't you understand what you are doing? You say that you don't want your readers to know what I said, because my remarks "were unfair to Dr. Hudson." So you provide your readers with your own totally inaccurate second-hand report of what I said, and ask readers to base their judgment on that report. How is that different from what you think the National Catholic Reporter did to Deal?
You say: I would be very grateful if we could talk the situation through - and see if we can correct the record for the sake of Christ's Church and our country.
I proposed a way to do this. I will propose it again. Point to anything that is inaccurate in my Weekly News Summary, and I shall correct it.
You say: The crux of my complaints is that you feel entitlement to examine the one-sided accusations and declare that those of us who may be guilty as charged, confess their culpability in the sin, amend their lives and use it to teach others the difference between right and wrong should refrain from taking advisory positions.
You further articulate that the fact he considered the sin to have been forgiven and his soul resurrected and restored is something we can no longer tolerate in Christ's Church.
I do not even care to discuss your example that his conduct was no different than Paul Shanley
In those two paragraphs, you make several statements of fact about what I said. All of them are wrong.
There is absolutely nothing in my Weekly News Summary that could form the rational basis for any one of your charges.
Again, if I'm wrong, point out my error, and I'll correct it.
If you cannot point to something in my remarks that forms a basis for your comments, I expect a retraction.
Right now I am interesting in dealing with facts. You have questioned my integrity. I have challenged you to justify that attack. If you can reply by defending your interpretation of the facts or questioning mine, I'll be happy to continue the conversation. Otherwise don't bother to reply.
First and foremost - your tone has twice now taken on a disrespectful, offensive tone which conveys an attempt to intimidate me. I assure you, an exercise in futility. I have gone up against the big buckeroo PP lawyers and some pretty crazy Bishops, passive/aggressive priests.... I have been long in this demonic battle.
Please soften your tone. If it is your opinion that I am not entitled to an opinion of your opinion of how the Church is to operate and the "truth" about Deal - I don't have to agree.
I do not know you at all - and my trust was based upon _____'s respect for you and your fidelity to the sanctity of life.
"Carol, don't you understand what you are doing? You say that you don't want your readers to know what I said, because my remarks "were unfair to Dr. Hudson." So you provide your readers with your own totally inaccurate second-hand report of what I said, and ask readers to base their judgment on that report. How is that different from what you think the National Catholic Reporter did to Deal?"
Phil, Don't you understand what you are doing? You provided your readers with a third hand report from a newspaper which is a weekly screed of lies...of what a woman said while Deal is tied to a Confidentiality agreement. You asked them to base their judgment upon your judgment that the newspaper printed "facts".
I am telling you there are some "facts" missing. What is published in this story, in other stories from the Boston Globe in some cases of clergy are presented with intentional omissions. Journalists are drawing conclusions based upon the "facts" provided, and some of these priests have been told not to divulge the facts that clear them of their charges. When they do divulge them, the media refuses to report it. I have seen the files, read the letters from their "advocates" at the Tribunals and have first hand knowledge of the corruption and injustices.
Read the story again Phil. The woman did not say that she had a problem with the sex. He dumped her. That was the problem. He woke up in the morning and wanted to confess it, went back to his wife and family and church to make amends - and that was another rejection for her. He made the atmosphere after the sex uncomfortable for her.
This isn't rocket science - the convictions come from her own mouth.
She doesn't regret the sin in her story. She says it was what happened afterwards that made her uncomfortable...it was "harassment".
I am further telling you that you have confused the Church with the criminal and civil justice, you misunderstand your authority, have discredited redemption.
There are two priests that I know of that have lost their priesthood due to adult, consensual relationships with grown women. These are matters for confession, spiritual renewal, pastoral guidance and counseling. Fr. Toomey was well on his way to complete conversion and had set up perpetual adoration. Let's have the decency not to confuse him with a pedophile, shall we? Quite frankly, I would like to know why the Chancery does, don't you?
At CWN we have made an editorial commitment to pursue the truth without blinking, to publish the facts as we know them, and to let the chips fall where they may. There have been many times when I've wished that we could ignore the facts, many times when I've wished we could avoid mentioning another aspect of the scandal that has troubled our Church. But if we did that, we would betray our own principles, and I firmly believe that in doing so we would damage the cause of Catholicism. How often have Catholic leaders ignored or even actively concealed wrongdoing, explaining that this was "for the good of the Church?" And how often has their silence created a far greater scandal?
You are mixing apples and oranges. You use the example that Bishops concealed "wrongdoing" and make application that therefore, Dr. Hudson "concealed wrongdoing" and that his "silence created a far greater scandal".
You have no authority nor right to the information. There was nothing criminal. The matter had been handled civilly, each agreeing that they did not want the facts to be disclosed at any future date.
Deal confessed the sin and it was completely within his right, as it is the rest of us to 'conceal' our 'wrongdoing'. This is Jesus Christ's Church. Not Phil Lawlers and last I knew - in absolution, Christ remembers no more. How dare you use your newspaper to give yourself license and authority to tell your readers not to "dismiss" what Christ has "dismissed".
You have discredited every saint, prophet, apostle and disciple who turned their life around and embarked on a crusade to convert others and you have implied to the Bush Administration that they should embrace no individual who has a past history of admission of sin. No Catholics need apply.
If you go to my site - you will see that our enemies posted on my website - "you are next". I have never backed down from such a threat. But when it comes to the point where our own people feel entitled to sit in the confession box with me and come out to tell the faithful not to dismiss my sins - I think the mission of the Church is over. Quite frankly - you have done more damage to the mission of the Church than you accuse Dr. Hudson.
If Phil has told Dom that I did not email him, show him the VOTF website with the message board, say it is the de facto schism rising within and we need help....if he says he did not go to the website, read the information, express conviction that this indeed looks very troubling and then ignore followup emails when I asked him for help - - then he is being untruthful and that is all I am going to say on that subject.
"Incredibly she also claims that it was Deal who came to the Church?s rescue when Phil would not:
It was Deal who came to our rescue to protect our children from harm...when VOTF - the people who use their conscience to decide whether to sexually act upon impulses.
It is Deal who tried to protect our children when they put the sexual anarchists into CCD.
No, I was not. I was referring to Voice of the Faithful with specific reference to the above quote.
Furthermore, when I am speaking that Deal is the person who came to our rescue, I am not talking about reporting the story. I am talking about getting on the plane, coming to Boston, meeting with us, strategizing with us, connecting us to powerful resources and people...etc.
Reporting the story vs. physically helping to fix the problem.
And CWR published my story first.
This is just profoundly sad.
I have been involved in outing sex ed programs since my daughter was in the fifth grade. Long, long before "Talking about Touching". So what.
A month ago, I met with a group who was telling me of their history of taking on Planned Parenthood in the early 90's, waging the war for us up at the State House.
I was compelled to thank them - to be grateful for their work. Why does he resent the work of others?
It is like some kind of a territorial warfare. If Dom is working on the case - we all better back off?
Is this some kind of a contest where we covet "a story" and take credit for who divulged what first and who worked first in the trenches...?
Is Mass Citizens for Life about "doing stuff", posting it and then when Fr. Pavone's work gets recognized, post about how their work is more important or has more efficacy or was done prior to Fr. Pavone's work?
When someone finally publishes something you are working on, you tend to remember who relieved your burden and how it made an impact.
It looks like I remembered correctly - - but who cares? The first shall be last and the last shall be first.
This is interesting:
Of course, this is the same Carol McKinley who earlier dismissed the woman's accusations of being taken advantage of by Hudson with a shocking callousness.
Wait a minute now - didn't Phil ask his readers not to 'dismiss' the arguments of the woman's case and draw a conclusion?
Otherwise, wouldn't you just say - the man confessed it and it is none of my business?
What's Dom's motive for then saying that reading the story and stating some flaws should be off limits?
My motive was twofold:
1. I would like women, as a race to fess up that we execute seductive conduct. Let's stop pretending that we act the same way to the man selling stamps at the post office than we do to the man we are attracted to. Let's stop pretending that we don't know that when we know we are going to be in the presence of a man we are attracted to, that we don't make a conscious effort to make sure our hair looks great and that we are dressed in a way that is attractive. Attractive, meaning we want to attract.
I am not talking about the daily routine of hygiene, preparing ourselves to look presentable and respectable.
I am talking about the truthfulness that we, as a race, take certain actions that are perfectly normal, perfectly healthy..and ones that God sanctions when they are used in the right circumstances....and that sometimes we have misused that gift.
2. I would like men, particularly married men, single men, celibate men - to be more conscious that a woman's seduction starts well before the fire that arouses him sexually. Here are some signs.
Maybe some man who is reading it will see something dangerous in his own environment and retreat.
Maybe I can spare one woman the pain and suffering that Theresa Hudson has undergone not once now, but twice.
I would like to know why Phil Lawler and Dom Bettinelli, et. al, are throwing fuel on their fire.
The reason why the NCR went after Deal, and Phil admits this, is because he has been an effective, powerful voice for Roman Catholics.
Why are they helping to snuff out Deal Hudson's voice?
They are cooperating and helping Catholics for Free Choice.
They didn't go after Phil and Dom, did they.
They went after Deal - - and the reason for that is because when the proaborts are working within the USCCB - when they show up in Boston as VOTF and bring in Talking about Touching - the Bishops feared Deal. The NCR feared Deal. Catholics for Free Choice feared Dal. He was effective.
We had and continue to have two choices as Roman Catholic leaders.
We can send out e-letters and post messages telling people not to dismiss the prior sins of others and reject their voice in the public square or we can get to the real problem....The tactics of the National Catholic Reporter and Fran Kissling's advance after striking our shepherd.
Because that was the point of the whole thing.
I am going to continue to listen to Deal Hudson and rely upon his leadership.
As my poster said - somebody is going to be next.
Who will it be?
George Weigel? Michael Novak? Rod Dreher? Ray Flynn?
I am writing to let you know that I am surrendering in the struggle against Voice of the Faithful.
I read the story in the Boston Globe and I am aware of its implications to those of us who have been appealing for you to defend the Magisterium and the children.
For a year, you have ignored the appeals of women, mothers and priests who have sought your intervention on the assignment of individuals who believe that we should all be able to act upon our sexual impulses as we see fit as dangerous to children. You have seen the blueprints of Voice of the Faithful to change the sexual teachings of the church and authorized Deacon Rizzutto to execute the plans through CCD.
When we resisted, you had your Bishop pull together a team of individuals to thwart Familiaris Consortio and Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, hid, twist and distort the facts to come up with a 'recommendation' on whether the program is in line with the teachings of the Church while using the media to undermine and diminish the reputations of mothers loyal to Rome.
When priests pleaded our case, you had them called into the Chancery and silenced and had Bishop Lennon tell the priests that the mothers giving them the information were being untruthful. When they proceeded to inform the faithful - you had them called in again and disciplinary notes have been placed in their folders for future persecution from within.
While sending out statements that you are in support of the teachings that the sanctity marriage should be protected, you assigned Dorothea Masuret who worked against us up at the state house with Larry Kessler and whose infidelity to the teachings of the Church are well known to those of us protecting our children from harm.
You have refused to hear the evidence that the program you are employing is psychologically damaging to children despite the fact that the authors admit that the children need psychological help due to symptoms which display themselves after hearing the sexually violent verbal pornography and told the church had to intervene because their parents were unsafe.
When the publicity came out that your program is operating and finding lay perverts - we have spent a year asking what parishes they are located in so that we can protect our children from them, and you have refused to answer our queries.
I have done what I can to warn parents and priests in the Archdiocese and as soon as you release the charade of a report in public, I will send the paper trail of truth certified mail to attorneys who act for the Archdiocese.
Please remove my children from the list of Altar Servers at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross and our family's name from the parish roster. I am seeking shelter with my children at the Oblates of the Virgin Mary.
Sunday, August 22, 2004 ::: A reader sent me an email that originated from Phil Lawler and expressed confusion and outrage.
The reader is a convert and is justifiably alarmed at her own fate should she sin and Phil find out about it.
Lawler first says that is crystal clear the NCR was malicious and charted a course to destroy a prominent Roman Catholic who is faithful to the Magisterium (which he labels "conservative").
Then as his story goes, he says, just the same - it looks like there was a sin committed and even if we "admire CRISIS" and "support the Bush administration" - if the people in the pews find out the details of your sins - the new thing to do is to stampede against you.
We are now prohibited from advising what is faithful and what isn't after after we learn the hard way?
The "new church" takes the allegations and holds a kangaroo court of their own once they find out?
Even if you have admitted the wrongdoing, confessed, amended your ways and defended with flawless fidelity the teachings of the Church....the new church sees those acts as some kind of a "hidden cover up" which they were entitled to know, says Phil.
I don't know about you - but I am beginning to wonder if insanity is contagious.
The secular newspaper, he says is guided by anti-Catholic sentiments, but he concludes they are telling the truth and all the oustings, although they "hurt", are for the best.
In the days when people were acting with justice and with logic - I agree.
They suspended this priest because somebody said that he was looking at them and it is time to go back 25 years and get the evidence.
How does one do that?
Oh well. Doesn't matter does it.
We all know we will never see him again.
If it was not so tragic it would be comical.
My reader and friend in Christ asks questions that I am afraid she already knows the answers to....what's going to happen to the rest of us...how far is this going to go..
The irony of it all - is that Phil Lawler was the first journalist I spoke to way back when Call to Action put up their VOTF website. I was the one who alerted him to it, sent him the link, spoke to him, told him the consequences, asked him for help.
He got back to me and agreed that it looked like an internal de facto schism was rising.
That was the last I heard from Phil Lawler.
As VOTF gained momentum, started sucking people in...building traction - I kept going back to Phil asking for help ...which he refused.
It was Deal who came to our rescue to protect our children from harm...when VOTF - the people who use their conscience to decide whether to sexually act upon impulses.
It is Deal who tried to protect our children when they put the sexual anarchists into CCD.
Phil was nowhere in sight.
Deal listened, asked us what we needed, flew to Boston, gave us resources, got the information out to parents and priests and Bishops, made phone calls, helped us get the word to the Vatican. When other parents saw it rising and called him for help, he put us all in contact with each other to share resources and strategy.
That is what the article is about in the NCR. That is why the feminists and Bishops are afraid of him.
I sent the folllowing out to somebody who I wanted to help understand why it is so crucial for proaborts and sexual freedom fighting people to move Deal out of the way.
"My main role here in Boston has been prying out Catholics for Free Choice and Planned Parenthood out of CCD.
When I make phone calls to Bishops, Presidents/CEO's of companies - they take my calls...hear me out and if they are acting in good faith - they fix the problem. If they are acting in bad faith, and I expose it - and they dare to bully, threaten...I have the mechanism and power to fax the paper trail of the proaborts that are acting in their name - and it stamps out their momentum...sometimes even paralyzing their ability to proceed.
The reason why they do, isn't because of me. It is because they know I am protected and supported by Deal Hudson...and they know by experience that when I expose something on my blog - through emails - - our warriors riot.
In other words, the part of that National Catholic Reporter article that said proaborts get thrown out and replaced with people with fidelity is right on target - I couldn't begin to tell you what his support, resources and networking in his 'camp' has helped us to dismantle."
Fran Kissling can. The National Catholic Reporter can. Bishop O'Malley can. They are all taking their balls now and moving them forward.
Statement of Frances Kissling on the resignation of Deal Hudson as adviser to the Republican National Committee on Catholic outreach and advisor to Bush Campaign on Catholic issues
For Immediate ReleaseAugust 19, 2004Media Contact: Michelle Ringuette: +1 (202) 986 6093; +1 (202) 550 1321
WASHINGTON DC—The devastating revelations disclosed today by the National Catholic Reporter regarding past sexual harassment of a young student by Deal Hudson while he was her professor at Fordham University are deeply disturbing. Equally disturbing is Hudson’s inadequate response to these events, which focused on the claim that these matters were long ago satisfactorily concluded.
It is entirely appropriate that Hudson resign his position with the Bush Campaign and the Republican Party based on this event. It is equally important that this be more than a resignation in name only, and that the Republican National Committee and the White House distance themselves from Hudson and other conservative Catholics who have been disrespectful of women and have engaged in a politics of personal destruction for some time.
The record of the Republican Party and President Bush regarding sensitivity to women’s rights is at best spotty. The remarks made by Hudson regarding this event as well as others on the Catholic right who have already sought to blame the young woman who was sexually abused by Hudson are sufficient cause for Hudson’s political supporters to take a second look at who in the Catholic community best represents moral values and decency.
One certainly hopes that this current crisis provides Hudson with an opportunity for reflection and change. Public exposure of the personal lives and mistakes of high profile people is not pleasant, and it should not be a source of satisfaction for those who disagree with the policies of those exposed. But matters of character are appropriate issues when evaluating fitness for public service, and Hudson’s past is relevant even now.
Hudson and his colleagues on the right have conducted a particularly ugly style of politics. They have shown no regard for civility or respect in their encounters, articles, and other commentary on those who disagree with them. Perhaps they will learn something as they experience a small taste of what they have dished out for so long
Catholics for Free Choice (CFFC) shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well being, and respect and affirm the moral capacity of women and men to make sound decisions about their lives. Through discourse, education, and advocacy, CFFC works in the US and internationally to infuse these values into public policy, community life, feminist analysis, and Catholic social thinking and teaching.