Another Bishop is removed

  • Thread starter Thread starter bullish1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bullish1

Guest

Another “prince of the church” is disgraced. I am aware that the use of “Prince” is not normally associated with Cardinals these days but the definition still states “Cardinal or Bishop”. I used small “p” to make this point. Of course it is just pure coincidence that Bransfield is closely associated with McCarrick. Just like the majority problem facing the church abuse problem is clerical and not homosexual in nature.

And what is with all these bishops and their Jersey shore houses used for their immoral purposes? Maybe a good 1st step would be to find out who else has them?
 
Last edited:
bullish1 said:
And what is with all these bishops and their Jersey shore houses used for their immoral purposes? Maybe a good 1st step would be to find out who else has them?
Click to expand...
Maybe a better first step would to be to pray for victim, perpetrators, and the Church! Just saying.
 
Isn’t he being accused based on the transcripts from a trial where the main witness was a proven liar?
 
You did not cite any source and I have not been able to find that information at all. What I have seen is there are at least 3 different accusations that have been leveled against him. One from 2007, another 2012 trial trial that was about 70’s & 80’s cases and a more recent one involving adults, maybe seminarians. The information is a bit confusing. Hopefully the investigation will sort this out.
 
Last edited:
I may have found what your are referring to. The Bishop was implicated in a trial for 2 other priest accused of other incidents. In that trial and subsequent trial, the boy’s story changed from rape to simple assault. The priest was a Father Brennen, :Father James J. Brennan Sex Abuse Case Ends With A Whimper | Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog
“It happened in the priest’s apartment, on a night when the priest admitted he showed the boy pornography and then got into bed with him.”
Still very confusing but this does not sound like priestly behavior. The Bishop is not guilty by the company he keeps. This deserves an investigation.
 
Last edited:
The allegations were that the priest abused the boy at a house owned by the bishop. The bishop owned the property and lent it out to various fellow priests for them to get away. The victim said that he talked to the bishop (I think this was while he was still a priest) and the bishop allegedly said that he would like to meet him. I am all for punishing the guilty but this particular affair reeked of perjury.
 
Not sure that I understand your point. I acknowledged that the boy’s story changed. But is my point, that the Priest admitted he showed the boy pornography and then got into bed with him, of any concern to you? You seem to be more concerned with the testimony of the boy than the actions of the Priest! None of this is pertinent to the Bishop as you tried to allude. The boy did not make an accusation against the bishop and did not lie about the Bishop. There are several other accusations that were leveled against the Bishop however and those need to be investigated. I am also troubled about the company that this Bishop keeps but that does not convict him of any wrong doing.
 
Last edited:
All homosexual priests and bishops should resign. Why do they continue to lead double lives?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top