On Tuesday, Oct. 10th, a "blog" in Philadelphia that specializes in Church gossip published a letter attacking my pastoral service to the Archdiocese of New York. The letter was unsigned and alleged to be the product of a "committee" of clergy. In point of fact, it may have been written by a member of the clergy, a member of the laity or even a group of clergy and/or laity. Curiously, there are several indications that argue against clerical authorship. It is unlikely, forexample, that any of the clergy would be unaware of my pastoral involvement after the tragedy of September 11th, 2001; and one hopes that most priests would know that the word "disinterested," is a positive rather than negative quality. Nothing, however, can be concluded with certainty about the authorship of the letter. It remains a secret, a secret of cowards.
Whatever of this, the press, television and radio had a field day attributing the letter to "key members of the New York clergy," "leaders among New York priests" and such. And tragically, most of the faithful will in all likelihood believe these unsubstantiated attributions of the media. Thus the damage is done.
Yes, those key members of anonymous priests.
There's nothing like invisible priests when you're looking for leaders on key issues.
These are the same invisible priests who have been sitting in the Confessional boxes and leading New York priests in the teachings of Humanae Vitae for the last 40 years.
It's kind of a tragic thing to watch so many people lack the discretion so essential for distinguishing BS from the truth....
"anonymous" and "key leaders" in relation to the authentic teachings of the Church is paridoxical. Even Rocco had to backtrack the spin when it became clear this was a couple of renegades caught up in trying to duplicate what happened in Boston.