Gumbleton: Nothing but the truth

I felt the same way exactly (as the above poster, Marie,) until I saw the film "The Hand of God", about a family in the Boston Archdiocese, whose son was abused by a priest who abused quite a few others, not only in his Parish, but also throughout the Diocese, and was repeatedly transferred.

In the film (which may still be available--I am not certain---though computer, on Frontline.com) the victim finally decides to "come forward" years later, after moving away, going though a divorce (he had never even told his wife about the 2 years of abuse). So on a visit to his home in the Boston area, he drops in at the office the Diocese has set up for just that purpose. He is amazed to discover that the priest who heads the office is another priest who was also assigned to his home parish at the same time as the abusive priest, and, in fact, shared the rectory (where at times he was actually abused) with him. So when the "victim" made his report, this priest disclaimed any knowledge of the abuse, or that he had any prior knowledge of the abuse. Of course the victime believed the priest, why not? But later, he discovered this was not the case, and that, not only had the Diocese been aware before the abusive priest had been trasfered to the victim's Parish, but yes, that the other priest had been aware that things had been happening. Furthermore, as later "personnel director" of the Diocese, with full knowledge of his colleague's repeated history, he passed him along to other parishes where he repeated the abuse. yet, when he was asked, he denied the entire thing. repeatedly.

This was the "sympathetic personal representative" the Church had designated for this victim. One has to see the film, I suppose, to fully understand why this approach does not work. This representative, who was once this boy's trusted priest, (and whom later he had every reason to trust and to believe, only to discover he was being betrayed once again) was later made a Bishop. One really has to see this excellent documentary, made by the victim's brother, to truly "get it" intimately from the victims' and the victims' Families' points of view.

Clearly the terms still need to be set by the victims. The solution offered by the diocese in the situation depicted in this documentary may have conformed in letter to the desires of victims but hardly did so in spirit. I have not seen this film. You do not say whether the subject of the film feels more satisfied by legal action against the Church than by this public confrontation in the form of a documentary.

Being from New England, I am aware that the history of Catholicism in that area includes a culture of obedience to the representatives of the Church, as if the laity were the lowest rank in the heirarchy. Part of this was the result of the Church trying to prevent the absorption of large numbers of immigrants into the dominant Protestant culture with threats of excommunication and extended suffering in purgatory. It set a tone for the relationship between clergy and laity.

As I have posted elsewhere, I believe it necessary for the laity to reconsider its status relative to the clergy. While clergy take vows of obedience up the heirarchy, they exist to serve the spiritual needs of the laity not to direct their behavior. There should never be unquestioning obedience to a priest. That kind of trusting is never appropriate and no priest should feel entitled to it.

Starlight and MarieR. ~ Starlight your summary of "The Hand of God" was excellent and objectively expressed. Starlight might even understate the callousness of the clergy and hierarchy involved and the degree to which the scandal was systematic and systemic.

One, at least I, have difficulty in accepting that the continuation of a system of exclusively male, power, secrecy, and status can adequately protect our children from this kind of thing happening again and again.

When I see statistics about the absolute predominance of sexual abusers (95% or more) being male (and 100% among RC clergy- duh!) in the general population I cannot but reflect on what the impact a representative participation by women would make towards the safety of our children in the future and reconciliation with the past.

Dennis, Thanks. Marie, it is impossible to do justice, I think, to this multiply-award-winning documentary (it has been featured at several festivals, particularly in your New England Area, but also in other parts of the Country) without seeing it. Your description of the culture of the Parents (not the young children) was right on the mark. They were from an a culture socialized to be extremely respectful and trusting of the Church. Of course, sadly,most of the Church Officials took complete advantage of these older people's trust and faith. The documentary is easy to see on Frontline (I have since looked it up on google._ Sinple Google "Frontline", NOT Front;ine.com) It will take you straight to the site where the doumentary is available, in several segments. I would hope that it is easy for most computers to play.

It seems to me that this type of "truth-telling" is so important, if change, especially the type of change you alluded to, is going to take place. People need to be moved to their hearts and souls for this to happen. While members of the Church are angry that child abuse has taken place, I think they see it as "a thing of the past" that "has been dealt with". Yet, there are some "red flags" that would indicate that true "purpose of amendment" on the part of the Church has not yet taken place. Some Dioceses have been "slow" getting their "compliance" and agreed-upon prevention planning done.

A Bishop or two appear to have jumped all over members of the Lay Comissions who have asked them about previously-agreed-upon compliance. Bishops have lobbied cynically to prevent statutes of limitations windows so that abused victims could sue. (Surely in a spirit of true Christian reconciliation. this would not be an "issue" would it, really?)

There is "due diligence and stewardship" to protect the finances of one's Diocese, and there is the true desire to offer comford and retribution to those truly and desperately harmed in a terrible way, perhaps for life. I question if some Dioceses are really practicing the latter in the Spirit of Christ. And if the "long term loss", in terms of disgust, is not going to be greater---what's the saying? "Short-term gain; long-term pain?" or vice -versa; "Short-term pain for long-term gain"?

The morally right thing is always the right thing is the long haul, but some of these "administrators" with their outward trappings of "power" don't appear to get that.

Was Jesus an "Administrator"? How would He have handled this terrible Crisis?

I will make every effort to watch the documentary. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some who truly perceive themselves to have power, but I see this as their misinterpretation of the respect and admiration they receive from the people they serve, which is accorded to them because of the role they play in society and people's lives.

What happens if we look at the priests and bishops not as smitten with their power, but at odds with it? Imagine them as a collection of insecure individuals made even more insecure by the fact that they are required to submit their will to those who rank higher even when those who rank higher do not personally demand it. It is almost as though they never develop the capacity to make right judgments based on circumstances, but only learn to follow the course of action least likely to meet disapproval from those higher up.

One might see how evil is able to manifest itself in their midst even though only the occasional one is truly intent on committing evil. Remember, they, too, not just the parents of those who were molested were brought up in the culture that blindly trusted and obeyed the Church. However, when they became part of this institution, they had to face the reality that the institution is as human as they are, and what that means to each one personally is still a mystery, though one might guess that a pedophile might feel quite unrestricted as a result.

Your question as to how Jesus would have handled this would have to be rhetorical since Jesus quite clearly stated what was to happen to anyone who harmed a child.

These are very fascinating observations, Marie. As I read them, I think you are saying two things, that those in the Hierarchy (particularly right at the moment) have been socialized very much "as the parents we were describing", in other words, "to go along". Qualities such as those manifested in Bishop Gumbleton, where principles would triumph over politics and personal convenience, I guess are quite rare among this particular group of "Organization Men". After all, they were not "picked" for their ability to "stand up and be counted". "Controversy" is not considered a "leadership trait" in the Catholic Church.

Thus that statement about "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" is being fulfilled. We have many "good men" willing to stand by and "do nothing" because there are too few Gunbletons who will speak for the marginalized People of God.

I do agree with you that they appear to be a bit wedded to their "power" and they certainly appear to be unwilling to risk losing it. Bureaucrats? Or Leaders? The People of God need Men of God who are Holy and Unselfish Leaders. Like Bernardin. Like Gumbleton.

The hallmark of Jesus was that He was willing to risk everything for Principle.

Today I received a shocking commentary about a series of very "liberal" figures within the Church, starting with Pope Paul VI (whom I must admit I never considered very "liberal", but I guess others considered very faithful in carrying out most of the reforms of VII.) There were about 8 or 9 men, all of whom died very suspicious or mysterious deaths. These were considered very powerful figures in support of V-II. Almost all the "major" powerful support of Vatican II was "wiped out" by these very mysterious deaths within a few short years. Apparently a recent book has been written about this. A carefully-documented website does exist (which I received, and it was hard to ignore.) Unfortunately, the link is difficult to reach from Google, but the book title (and author) I will post here shortly.

There are a number of sites that come up when one googles Catholic Arrogance. Could you be more specific? It was very difficult to sift through all the examples of Catholic Church arrogance in the first site listed. Nevertheless, with or without powerful support, Vatican II reforms have taken hold and those who objected strongly are off on their own erroneously claiming that they are the "true" church and that the Tridentine Mass is the only "true" Mass--an extreme case of Catholic Fundamentalism.

Dear Marie, Like me, you are not accepting e-mails, so I cannot "send you the link" by e-mail, or I would. (I no longer do this, because my computer experienced trouble, and I am wary about giving out my e-mail addy on this site anymore.) However, because this site requires slightly more extensive knowledge of HTML "tags" than I have at the moment, here is what I can tell you: Send "yourself" an e-mail with the following: CatholicArrogance.Org/murderedpope and underline it. THEN click on the link. You will go to a very interesting and well-documented site concerning the 7 or 8 or 9 highly-placed liberal Church leaders (all great associates of Pope John XXIII) who died very suspiciously around the year 1978. Most (not all) were quite healthy and in the prime of life, but none were in "critical condition". The book which details this, is "Murder in the Vatican (now in paperback), available from Amazon and Barnes and Noble. I have often wondered WHY there was such a "backlash" concerning V-II. I had no idea there was a possible campaign that might even involve the destruction of adult and creative living human beings... Talk about "ends" and "means"!!!

Dear Marie and Starlight,
If you should return, I want to thank you for bringing our site to the attention of the readers here. Since I have made many improvements to the http://CatholicArrogance.Org/murderedpope page, also known as http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/murderedpope , I invite you to return. I hope that you'll come back after reading the book to share your opinion.

If your Conservative friend ("HereNow") had a hard time with Gregoire's book, Murder in the Vatican, wait until he hears about the new book by David Yallop (who wrote the first best-selling book about Pope John Paul's murder). That book is called "The Power and the Glory : Inside the dark heart of John Paul II's Vatican". If /murderedpope wants documentation he'll more than he bardained for in this 500 page book. It shows how JP II protected and defended the most corrupt of clergy on the one hand, while punishing clergy (the best known of whom was Archbishop Romero) who identified with the poor and the oppressed and were often tortured and/or killed for doing so.

Ray Dubuque, creator of http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/ which challenges the Catholic Church to stop claiming the represent Jesus if it isn't going to teach what he taught and follow the example he set for us.

Your list of "conservatives" is hardly convincing. Cardinal Confalonieri was 85, not gaining much power whatever his politics; Bishop Magee is a hard sell as a conservative, as seen in his planned "renovation" of Cobh Catherdral; Marcinkus is not known for his politics, but his part in the bank scandal; Cardinal Casaroli rose under both the "murdered" popes and their successors (John XXIII and John Paul II); Cardinal Siri denounced the claims made in his name, accepted the reforms of Vatican II, and did not support the Traditionalist movement.

If you are looking for truly conservative Bishops and Cardinals, where is Ratziner's role? or Lefebvre's? de Castro Myer's? Fellay? Williamson? The fact is that "right wing extremists" have faired poorly since the alleged murders. You probably could convice me that there were high level murders of some of these men in connection to the mafia and/or the Vatican Bank scandal, but there is not tie to real conservatives. (JPII was a moderate, he managed to keep just enough peace to hold the Church together, he did not advance conservative causes, nor did he lay more than the barest of groundwork for the Traditional movement).

On a side note, Archbishop Romero was in trouble with the Vatican for denying the faithful the sacraments by forbidding all Masses except his (done as a secular political tool) and his connections with troubled liberation theology (note Sobrino affair, this friend of Romero's claims salvation is from the poor, not God.)

It seems that this calls for a comment by John Allen. This is my first encounter with this information.

The authors of the website seem to be gathering evidence to support their belief that conservatives stop at nothing, but conservatives might tend to think that God has stopped these liberals from destroying the Church--a series of miraculous coincidences. No matter which side one takes, however, it seems that dramatic, premature deaths of people with liberal point-of-view make them more visible and likely more influential than they would be otherwise--perhaps an argument against conservative conspiracies. I'll be looking for the book.

Well documented? I don't see a single citation of evidence, just an elaborate conspiracy theory that would put the writers of LOST to shame. This site is one man's conjecture, which he emphasized as being non-fiction (but opinions are not fictional).

Then there is this little gem, as proof that the ultra conservatives killed those nine: "4. Pope John Paul II, (Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow). He became the third man to be pope during the year 1978. An ultraconservative, he brought an end to change in the Church that had been begun by John XXIII in 1959."

JPII ultraconservative? Conservative, perhaps. Ultraconservative no. One needs only look at the liturgical excesses tolerated, the Assisi conferences, and the failure to proclaim the universal indult. If he were truly "ultraconservative" then how do you explain the above?

Of course the site is hardly credible on anything, (they pad their list of Democratic congressmen by adding governors from various states), particularly Catholicism (they are objective as Jack Chick, that is to say, not at all).

Well, Chris, one has to "consider the source" here. We all have our points of view. In 1960, I was considered a "highly conservative and religious young Catholic bride." I attended The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, often daily. And considering that I worked full time, and lived in a highly urban area, that was not always easy. I attended all my pre-Cana classes individually with a very knowledgable priest. But four years and four children later, I had a few questions! Nonetheless I remained a very faithful Catholic, teaching CCD, wondering why the wealthy and so conservative Catholic men in Church wouldn't give up their seats in Church to very pregnant women and cut people off in the crowded Church parking lots, and why the people in the parish were 1) so racist about Black people 2) always judging and talking nastily about Jews 3) very narrow-minded about so many things. Yet they were so pompous about religion? This was Christ's religion? His "One. True" Religion?

This was not what I had experienced living on military bases as a child growing up, or (believe it or not)living in Europe after World War II, where people did not "take their religion" like sheep. Like it was only a "bunch of rules to follow" instead of something like Good news that Christ came to bring to our hearts and that martyrs thought was so important they were willing to DIE for its very PRINCIPLES! Sometimes I don't think you "get it", Chris. Christ came for ALL men and women, not just for Catholics.

What the site was trying to say was that when (sigh of relief--I don't think you were born yet so you might not relize the climate) the Gentle John XXIII came along to "open the windows" (which badly needed opening--we had all felt oppressed for years--you were not here so you cannot know) and the work got underway, of course there were others who had held power who did not like to see so much "power" slipping away and going toward the laity. Of course, some people were a bit "overboard" and irresponsible with the changes and some were absolutely terrified and reactionary--I saw both reactions; they still happen to some degree. But one would NEVER expect that foul play would be involved.

Yet, how can you DENY this SO QUICKLY without even CAREFULLY examining the real source, the book? Mine is waiting at the bookstore. Something about your reaction implies an unwillingness to even look. 8 deaths in one year invites examination, especially when some people involved had motives,and evident strange "connections". It is very sad, but it HAS happened before in the history of the Church. One would have hoped we were "past all this", but the lying and the cover-ups and the rewarding of Cardinal Law in the Sexual Abuse Scandal here IN OUR OWN COUNTRY, PROVES that incredible corruption is alive and well, even if it is "truly beyond belief". Why do you think I left? And it's not just me, it is many, many others, I'm afraid. I'm in awe of those who stay, but I truly cannot understand how so many people can remain in such complacency.

Star, I finally made it to the website you wrote about, and I too found it somewhat interesting. I think in some respects it makes more sense to me because I too was around for the opening of VII, but more importantly have distinct memories of the Vatican Bank scandal and Archbishop Marcinkus.

What always fascinated me about the scandal was the fact the media seemed to downplay the mafia connections, pretending no one in the Vatican could have had any idea Marcinkus was dealing with mafia front men. A great deal of money was involved in this scandal in that it almost brought down the Italian banking structure. There's always smoke when one gets in financial bed with the fire of the mafia.

Heretoday might do well to do some research on this scandal before accusing anyone of inventifacting based on personal opinion.

A Mafia plot is much more feasible then a hidden conservative "illuminati". Not that the Mafia would explain all of these deaths, but it could be a factor. I honestly don't think that the author is presenting any new theories except the "evil conservative" angle, which I concretely disagree with as JPII is much more moderate than many here recognize.

How can I deny this so quickly?

The website, as a whole, is filled with factual errors and is an attempt to disprove Catholicism (by a laicised priest, no less). I pointed out some of the obvious errors above.

The writer of the book, the 'prime source' here, is stating little new as regards JPI's death. These theories have been advanced from time to time over the past thirty years. They are typical conspiracy theories, raging from a CIA or KGB plot (depending on which side you think he favored in the Cold War), to Opus Dei or the Masons. A number of these deaths can easily be explained as they have been for thirty years: heart attacks or similar natural killers (pulmonary embolism for example).

Then there is the issue of the author of the book's perspective. He considers JPII an "ultraconservative". If we look honestly at the broad spectrum of Catholicism (including, for the sake of the argument, those who claim the name Catholic without being united to the Pope) we see that JPII was not at all "ultraconservative". In over twenty-five years as Pope: 1)JPII did not liberalize the Tridentine Mass, 2)act decisively to curtail liturgical abuses, 3) seek to repudiate Vatican II (particularly the emphasis on religious freedom and ecumenism). These are the demands of the "ultraconservatives", consistent since the 'implementation' of the Council.

This belies a liberal to "ultraliberal" bias on the behalf of Mr Gregoire. His research abilities are also suspect, as he set out to write about the "only Pope to have been born into dire poverty". I guess he doesn't count a fisherman in Galilee, or the probability that at least one of the early popes was formerly a slave. There is also the question of when the book was written (2005), why so long, after so many theories and so many years have been allowed to muddy the water?

I am a firm believer in Ockham's Razor (All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one), and apply it here, as to all conspiracy theories: Is it simpler that a there exists such a powerful and infulential force that they can carry out high profile murders with impunity? Or is it simpler that a number of men, none of them extraordinarily young, died from natural causes (and one or two freak accidents)? The second seems simpler to me.

Another thing, HT. You airily dismiss CIA, FBI and other "plots" and "conspiracy theories" as if they were all the detritus of some demented paranoid minds. You cite "Ockham's Razor" as a valid argument (i.e. "the unknown should first be explained in terms of the known, and the simplest of two competing theories is reasonable".) Good. But proceeding, how would any crimes be solved without the process of marshalling evidence (a process that sometimes takes years) and the use of deductive reasoning? Where the Church is concerned, if YOU had "power" it almost appears as if the hoi polloi would not "have the right" to point fingers in any directions at all. And you ridicule the questions about Pope JPI's death as "that old story". Remember "errors in logic" class! Reducing something to an absurdity does not keep it from being true. You say you are "devoted to truth", then stay on the path of Truth, my Friend.

Yes, it's true, many "rave" about the CIA, the FBI, Opus Dei, the KGB, etc. and see conspiacies everywhere, when often there are none. Oh. Did I forget La Cosa Nostra?
But then, don't forget Robert Hansen, the spy, the unravelling of various "secrets" regarding CIA involvement in Iran Contra, the murder of the Russian by Thallium in London recently, and now the disclosure (they come fast and furious, don't they?) that the FBI Chief may have "misused his discretion" when requesting documents or was it searches, recently (so many "disclosures" I can hardly keep up with them.) A couple of sayings come to mind: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "Where there's smoke there's fire." With that I suggest that Ockham's argument (just for the moment, in this case) doen't YET wash. Not until I have read the book, anyhow, and see for myself. "God gave us brains to use."

Here is another saying for you, as well:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer

If you genuinely care about "Truth", I don't think you can argue with Mr. Spencer.

What about the people who "disconnected" the one Bishop or Cardinal from his IVs (when it was expected he would recover as long as he had them) and insisted on "taking him home" against doctor's orders? What about the "near misses" of cornices falling on Cardinal Suenens and a fellow Bishop from his residence and another Bishop (who looked much like him) being killed in a similar manner a few days later? These seem rather "deliberate" and you seem to "brush them off" rather carelessly, Chris! I am not saying they WERE deliberate; I am saying they SEEM deliberate, and at least a reading of the entire book would be in order. Pope John Paul II was not exactly born into dire poverty, as I recall from reading his life story, but his family was far from wealthy. They certainly endured difficulties, as did nearly everyone in their village, due to the War. His Family was very devout.

When I have READ THE BOOK I'll let you know what I think of the man's research; it would seem to me that that would be a fair way to do it.

As to the Catholic Arrogance site, I received the impression from glancing through the site that there was more than one contributor to the site, but perhaps I am mistaken? I was notified of the site by a priest who (to my knowledge) is NOT laicized.

Bureaucrats? Or Leaders?

Mostly bureaucrats. However, being a leader involves taking into account the realities of one's situation, which sometimes results in choosing a less confrontational approach than Bishop Gumbleton did when he claimed that he had been removed from his position as bishop because he spoke out on behalf of the victims.

I think it is entirely possible that there is sufficient bureaucracy involved in accepting a bishop's retirement request that his activities were not even considered. It is almost as though we assume that this action was meant to silence Bishop Gumbleton because of our own fears of having been too bold.

I think those who say that his removal as bishop had nothing to do with his activities should be taken at their word, and that Bishop Gumbleton should continue to speak for and with victims. However, my opinion regarding monetary awards is that those which are intended to punish the Church for its failure to get control of this problem before being forced to do so makes victims of innocent people.

I keep looking for new words from Bishop Gumbleton. He was not only important to the sex abuse victims, but also to all of us who oppose war.

WOW... What an awesome story! Wish I could meet him... to thank him for all that he stands for.

Hi there! Glad you are still around, and welcome to the site. Didn't really mean to start such a ruckus around your post; just prefer we welcome people.

Those that agree with the consensus are welcome. Those that don't are ravaged until they leave.

I'm not sure that "anne" is me, but am guessing so? I guess you are assuming the Jesus would intervene? And by "above" you mean "below"?

I guess you are assuming Jesus would intervene? I don't think I assume that at all; in fact, I don't really have a sense from the gospels that Jesus was that much an interventionist. If you're asking if I think that Jesus would mind that I called someone's behavior into question, I can't see that Jesus would mind that. That the other person thinks I should look at my own behavior, and I said I would, I don't think Jesus would mind that. So what's up?

The problem is Gumbleton is a dissenter. Are we to have all bishops going into the media with their private views to discuss this? HereToday makes a perfect analogy. Gumbleton is acting as if he is in charge.

I find that your comment has a lot of substance and have had the same thoughts about whether or not the Church is being just when retiring a priest because of age. I would think that since age discrimination is an issue looming in our culture,that our Church would also be helping Christians to form a right opinion about it.

jayne

We all know that age wasn't the reason Bishop Gumbleton was removed, it was the excuse. Many bishops are not retired when they first submit their letter, those letters that are immediately accepted are usually due to other circumstances. Really, do any of you think you could have a management position in a major corporation, publicly bash the corporation, and retain your job? Why do you expect the Church to support and give a platform to those that oppose Her? (Although, I believe Bishop Gumbleton is still supported by the Church.)

Actually, most of them are accepted. Not being accepted may be due to some particular circumstance.

I believe I said many. The letter's that are accepted immediately manage to make Rome move quickly (something that almost never happens), most letters take a little while before they are accepted.

Well, anyhow, we agree that age was just an excuse.

I would reflect that the use of age is beneficial and polite to Gumbleton, rather than to adversely comment on his record.

Wow, absolutely no substance to your comment. I guess you don't have any real objection.

Were you like the schoolyard bully?

AnnieO, if you read my comment, I didn't name-call anyone, yet you did me, calling me a bully. I made a comment on the idea -- found it without substance. You can disagree, as you have. I think what you objected to is what my opinion was. A bully for doing that? Seems like you need self-reflection. So the Pope can't find statements as substanitive or not either? Your limits seem extremely unnatural. I am sincerely at a loss as to what you found so out of bounds and objectionable about my observation.

I get that impression about those that like bullying the Pope here. Sorry if you consider standing up for someone and some things here again obvious reckless personal liberal biases is 'bullying'. How wonderful that you cut yourself slack to be derogatory what you oppose, but should someone actually gainsay your perspective....

I would think that if you really had any admiration for the Pope at all, you would try to emulate him to some extent.

jayne

Can't say I can even read your second sentence for meaning, but would suggest that you pull out all your comments since you've been online and see how you sound to other people. I'm not worried about doing that with mine. You'll notice that I am not often in response to folks who are mostly name-calling others anyhow, but you've been called out a lot by people for your personal attacks, and I think perhaps you should give that some thought. Although I have never claimed to keep up on all the conversations on here, the person you said that to seemed a newcomer to me (perhaps I'm wrong), and perhaps it would be nice to welcome a new voice rather than push him/her away. Again, just a thought for consideration.

AnnieO, you may agree with the sentiment that I disputed. That is not the issue. The statement made was derogatory. If you find my objection to this to be name-calling, I find you to be far less than objective or honest in your assessment of me. I have heard Rudy Giuliani called the anti-Christ here, and all other manner of absurdities. If you discover me taking task with these characterizations as 'name-calling' your problem lies with you. That is what I ask you to consider.

Newcomer or not, I don't know which, this should not be a place of comfort for those that want to insult the Pope. I ask you to consider: why do they believe this is a place of comfort to express such sentiments?

I think that there would be some assumption that "NCRCafe" would be open to multiple voices, particularly since they said just that in their opening of the cafe. And, so many interesting people come here, assuming they can talk. I guess that's the "place of comfort" you talk about?

Some people come here because they've heard that they can "take on" the liberals, the feminists, etc. etc. etc. And so be it. The more interesting issue is that they come to a place where they can speak relatively freely even if only here to take on others. And then, frequently, tell others that they should leave, not just the website, but the Church itself. It's an amazing thing to see--to benefit from a situation that people feel free to talk somewhere while attacking those most likely to give them that relative freedom. Hmmmmmmmmm.

I didn't write because of agreement or disagreement with the issue. I wrote because I thought something needed to be said about your PATTERN of response. The last time I did this--quite awhile back--the other person hit the road, so I'm glad that you didn't. I don't even know where you stand on most things because I usually don't keep reading posts that are seeming to be more about disrespecting the writer than anything else, which, again, is what a number of people have said to you.

Fortunately, popes and the Church don't need so much protection, or this Church would not still be here as we know it. In any case, some people change as a result of being pulled into conversation with others. I'd say I've changed. I had no idea that traditionalists or whatever name is appropriate were so critical of the magisterium that they complain other people are so critical of. I do understand how much more a question of politics is in all this. I've also learned that I can come here to talk about things that I might not do in my home parish because it allows a chance for a form of communication that is relatively free of consequences from those who disagree. People of all stripes have said that that has been helpful to them in their own real life in some way. In any case, I hope the writer--who may be long gone or may be still writing or may be still reading--doesn't give up so quickly on the possibilities of making this site work for people.

But in any case, I will certainly consider that you find me to be "less than objective or honest in my assessment of you." I don't remember that the writer said anything about Rudy Giulliani (?), so if you were taking the writer to task on that issue and I missed it, I guess the "problem" does lie with me.

In regard to how you yourself say you are likely to be 'taking on women' in another post, I say, pull it back in, brother.

And, pull it back in, brother? I can't oppose feminism or liberalism? Are there any other rules herein for that 'free speech' you talk of that I am not aware of? AnnieO, there is no substance to any of your comments to me.

Okay, then I gather that you are NOT going to consider an ongoing number of complaints about your attitude toward others. We don't need to go on with this; in fact, I'm about off the scene for now, and truly have better communications with others in mind for my time. Just count me among those who have suggested that you think about your responses.

AnnieO, I have ongoing complaints against the language against many here THAT THEY DO NOT ADDRESS, except to excuse their statements. And you did not answer my proposition how you find it okay to question the competency of the Pope, yet I'm a bully for saying someone's comment was within substance. The excuse another wrote is that the Catholic Church survives through history despite the insults!?! Huh? I think that's precious -- and, oh, how it makes my point about the definition of 'offensive' here. I can thank you for further making my point, too, before you skadattle. In if you find this line of discussion less than redeeming, why did you start it without full consideration of the apt comparison. Read that few here believe insulting the Pope is in any way controversial.

There was an Old Man with a gong,
Who bumped at it all day long;
But they called out, 'O law!
You're a horrid old bore!'
So they smashed that Old Man with a gong.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)

Guess you are enjoying the company, so I will give you a bit more. Just a bit at a time though, since there's quite a lot in there. I'm not a "skadattler" by reputation, although I really don't always have a lot of time, and have acknowledged skipping in and out sometimes. I also am not always able to stay up with people, then lose the place...and sorely wish there was a better way to keep my places...but I think that you are actually very busy today anyway!

So why don't you tell me how I "find it okay to question the competency of the Pope"? Why don't you slow down and find those words for me? When you do, let's talk.

ReyHinckley original statement that I said lacked substance. He stated John Paul was no longer a competent Pope. Such a comment is denigrating and not substantive, in my opinion. I realize such a statement doesn't hit target with many here who probably daily degrade the Pope. Sorry, I will not abide it.