Quotes Suitable for Framing: David Brady

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

More to explorer

Saint of the Day Quote: Blessed Peter Wright

Gentlemen, this is a short passage to eternity; my time is now short, and I have not much to speak. I was

Unicorn Sighting

A pro-life Democrat who is the real deal: Nearly three decades ago, when Democratic Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards’ wife was 20

The Anti-American Dream

  My favorite internet atheist Pat Condell describes how the Tech Lords are paving the way for a softer, gentler police state,

15 Comments

  1. “Backyard chickens are easy to manage as a flock because of the pecking order.”
    And to the devil, so is the USCCB.

  2. Solution to the priest-prelate-pervert-predator problems? Have the laity take courses and attend seminars so the laity can be certified in “safe environment” and put up signs re no boys allowed in bathrooms with laity; and yes-get all those laity fingerprinted and do extensive background checks. Voila! Problem Sol-ved.

    Name game: fill in the blank

    US C______________of Catholic B__________.

    Guy McClung, Texas

  3. What’s the practice in the US regarding working with children? Here in Australia if you are a teacher, coach, parent volunteer or occupy any role which entails you to work with a minor then you need to do a “Working with Children” check which reviews a person criminal history, to make sure they don’t have a history of abusing- you can’t occupy a position unless you have one, even a volunteer position. The certification clears you for 5 years. After then you renew it. It’s been around now for a good number of years.

    I think the Catholic Church- laity, priests and bishops should be governed by a similar certification. Just because you wear a collar, doesn’t make you above the law. If they know that the law applies to them, then I think they will think twice about their actions. I understand it’s not full proof but any deterrence is good.

  4. Ezabelle: When I was a catechist for our parish, I had to watch a video regarding Sex Environments, but did not need to be fingerprinted. At least at the time, each State had their own laws dealing with children and safe environments, and the dioceses generally followed whatever law was in place. Such is my understanding.
    .
    Now, when the boys were little, depending on the program or camp, we had to do the BSA safe environment training, and for formal Boy Scout Camp (one week long) we had to have a back ground check through the State Central Registry System (to see if our name was on it as someone who had abused children.). My homeschool co-op also requires the back ground check. I think Preschools in our State are also required to do this for employees and volunteers.
    .
    When I was going to be a substitute teacher for our private school, I had to be fingerprinted. I did not go through the application, though, for other reasons, so ultimately, I didn’t get finger printed.
    .
    Basically: I think we had a patchwork system here in the States.
    .
    But the problem is not just with children. Bishop McCarrick seems to have preferred legal adult males.

  5. KJG. Thank you that is very informative. So in the US, each state has its own laws regarding checks?

    I know McCarrick preferred adults but as an adult you have a choice to give in to behaviour or not because you are physically and emotionally strong enough. A child isn’t as physically strong, isn’t emotionally equipped and needs the law to protect them.

    I don’t know the circumstances behind each of McCarricks victims, but surely they had the choice whether to put up with it or not. Punch him or walk out. Even if it means walking away from the priesthood. Anyway, I feel for his victims. What a horrible creature he is. The USCCB comes across a as an organisation of dirty old men. Not men of God.

  6. For the latest details on McCarrick’s misdeeds read Rod Dreher’s article for The American Conservative, “Cardinal McCarrick’s Network.” It’s long, and sickening:

  7. Ack!! I meant “Safe Environments” not “Sex Environments,” but I think all may have figured that out. I assume Mr. McClarey may be better versed it what is actual law on the issue of who needs to report and how, but if it truly is individual state by state, then I think he would not know all the details. States do tend to be similar, and may follow “model legislation,” but of course, things get hashed around and so the individual states would not necessarily have the exact same law. I do not know if there is a Federal Law (that would come from Washington DC) on reporting of sex crimes and abuse, but there are some Federal laws (or regulations) against harassment and discrimination.
    .
    As to McCarrick and his victims: based on what I have read (in various books, articles, comments on articles, etc), I am thinking that McCarrick may have preyed on “damaged” seminarians–young men who had been abused as teenagers or very young children. If so, then it is not quite as easy for them to forcefully turn down McCarrick’s advances. And if someone did bloody his nose, it is very possible that the person (seminarian) in question would have been hauled up on charges.
    .
    I would guess that McCarrick was abused in some fashion as a child himself.
    .
    The USCCB does seem a pack of Dirty ol Men, but honestly, Damaged Ol’ Men may be the more accurate description. It is rare I come across a priest who does not seem a bit . . . “off” . . . in some fashion. Something just isn’t quite right.

  8. Ezabelle wrote, “as an adult you have a choice to give in to behaviour or not because you are physically and emotionally strong enough.”

    There is still such a thing as facility and circumvention. A contract or disposition will be reduced on the grounds of “persuasion and untrue representations, acting on a mind facile, or nervously anxious.” Indeed, taking advantage “even by way of pressure or importunity” could be taken to amount to circumvention if the granter was facile enough.”

    There is also a presumption of undue influence, when parties stand in a confidential relationship, of which pastor and parishioner is one.

  9. Thanks Michael. There is no doubt he was sneaky with his behaviour. Those men went into the seminary with complete trust of the process and people, believing they have a vocation from God. Which makes McCarricks actions all the more despicable. Sick. Who knows what domino effect it had on the priests who stuck it out. Let’s hope and pray they aren’t left with the impression that McCarricks behaviour was acceptable and don’t go on to be offenders themselves.

  10. Mill Stones are being substituted for large gold crucifixes on many a Catholic necklace. Lord have mercy.

  11. I read an interesting article recently by Fr. John Hunwicke, the Anglican vicar turned Catholic priest, which I can dig up and link to if anybody’s interested. Basically, his thesis was that a lot of the problems faced by the Catholic Church currently are caused by diocesan over-centralisation. Parishes of the Catholic Church in England — and from what I gather, the situation is the same in the USA — are basically under the control of the bishop, who can assign and reassign priests as he sees fit. In the Anglican Church, on the other hand, once a bishop had granted a parson the freehold of a parish, it was considered as belonging to that particular parson, and it was generally pretty difficult for a bishop to remove a clergyman from his place. (Traditionally, that is; I’m not sure what the situation’s like now.) This, of course, made it much easier for Anglican clergy to risk incurring their bishop’s displeasure: whilst the bishop could still try and bribe them with the offer of preferment, he couldn’t generally threaten to take away their livelihoods, as Catholic bishops can do to their priests. (Something like the Oxford Movement, for example, which in many cases was carried out in the face of episcopal objections, would be virtually unthinkable in the Catholic Church.)

    Which is to say that maybe making it more difficult for bishops to remove or reassign clergy would be a step in the right direction. If priests who resisted their superiors’ advances or acted as whistleblowers didn’t have to worry about losing their livelihoods or being reassigned to a total hell-hole, they might find it easier to stand up and do the right thing.

  12. I don’t understand it. Why is this being allowed to continue? What is the bottom line here? Will it never end. Maybe in time the church will have to declare bankruptcy over the costs of payouts over these crimes. It seems, if I post anything on line or on social media about Catholicism, that all non-Catholics can talk about or think about or post about is these evil priests molesting children. It is a stain that a millennia will not remove.

  13. The Original Mr X wrote, ” maybe making it more difficult for bishops to remove or reassign clergy would be a step in the right direction.”

    Indeed. Bear in mind, too, the existence of patronage in the Church of England, meaning that the right of nominating a rector or vicar is often vested in a lay patron, an Oxford or Cambridge college, a City Livery Company or a Cathedral Chapter. The Crown, too, has a large patronage. The bishop’s powers of rejection are pretty well limited to want of learning or immorality.

    This means the clergy are not dependent on the bishop for preferment.

Comments are closed.