- Status
F
Feanor2
Guest
What can you say? There’s another one. . .
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s a sad thing, but at least they caught it before he was officially installed.
I hope they are able to find another bishop for Duluth.
I hope they are able to find another bishop for Duluth.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Will this ever stop? 
V
Victoria33
Guest
I happened to post this back in June on this appointment. It’s rather shocking to hear about!
Pope Francis Appoints Father Michel Mulloy to be Bishop of Duluth Catholic News
D
DaveBj
Guest
One allegation.
One.
Allegation.
D
One.
Allegation.
D
B
billsherman
Guest
Is your post intended to mean that one allegation is acceptable?
Guilt should never be assumed, but has he even denied the allegation?
K
KMC
Guest
This allegation fits the pattern of basically all of the news stories on allegations I have read over the last several years. From the article:Will this ever stop?
The pattern is the VAST majority of allegations have the abuse occurring pre-2002, when the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People was published by the USCCB instituting changes. If you go to the various diocesan websites and look at the published lists of those priests with credible allegations, the vast majority of priests with those allegations are older than 60 years of age…many are dead.
So to your question: Will it stop? I would say “no,” as priests are human and some will fall to sin. However, the USCCB’s audit on sexual abuse covering July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019 showed no credible allegations against 99.98% of all priests. Not sure you can find a lower rate among any other institution in the US.
My point: Even 1 credible allegation is 1 too many, however, the reforms instituted in the US have made a great difference. You won’t hear this in the media.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Nowadays we are instituting more policies and procedures to prevent priests from being alone with minors, to encourage both minors and witnesses to promptly report, and for the Diocese to immediately take action such as removing the priest from ministry or referring the case to law enforcement. When priests do offend, they are likely to be caught and removed a lot sooner than decades down the road.
S
stpurl
Guest
Not to mention the two words “Cardinal Pell.”
Here is a man who was railroaded, found guilty, spent time in prison, on ‘one allegation’, never proven, but the place and the time were such that the wolves howling would be satisfied with nothing less than a conviction.
Any sexual abuse is abhorrent and I make absolutely no excuses for any guilty persons.
But we see that even a guilty verdict from ‘the authorities’ may not necessarily indicate the person is truly guilty.
Aren’t we seeing enough evidence that, in the US for example, your race, your sex, your socioeconomic status, even your ‘politics’ can lead to you being ‘judged’ as guilty (or innocent) just on that basis?
Haven’t we seen enough cooked evidence with false news, false DNA, false (incomplete) body cams and videos, false allegations, false witnesses, crooked testimony across all spheres. . .
And because the narrative ‘is what it is’ it now means that regardless of the nature of the allegation, the time, etc., any person accused will find himself in the position of ‘guilty until proven innocent’. . .and ‘proof’ is flexible and can be constantly extended in its’ requirements to the point that even an eyewitness, sworn notarised statements etc will be inadmissible because, “Sure that’s what they SAID, but they didn’t really THINK that”.
Thought crimes R us. Can’t say we haven’t seen it coming.
I’ll pray for this bishop-elect regardless of his guilt or innocence. If he’s guilty, he’ll be another ‘nail in the coffin’. If he’s innocent, he’ll be the same because “priest sex abuse’.
Here is a man who was railroaded, found guilty, spent time in prison, on ‘one allegation’, never proven, but the place and the time were such that the wolves howling would be satisfied with nothing less than a conviction.
Any sexual abuse is abhorrent and I make absolutely no excuses for any guilty persons.
But we see that even a guilty verdict from ‘the authorities’ may not necessarily indicate the person is truly guilty.
Aren’t we seeing enough evidence that, in the US for example, your race, your sex, your socioeconomic status, even your ‘politics’ can lead to you being ‘judged’ as guilty (or innocent) just on that basis?
Haven’t we seen enough cooked evidence with false news, false DNA, false (incomplete) body cams and videos, false allegations, false witnesses, crooked testimony across all spheres. . .
And because the narrative ‘is what it is’ it now means that regardless of the nature of the allegation, the time, etc., any person accused will find himself in the position of ‘guilty until proven innocent’. . .and ‘proof’ is flexible and can be constantly extended in its’ requirements to the point that even an eyewitness, sworn notarised statements etc will be inadmissible because, “Sure that’s what they SAID, but they didn’t really THINK that”.
Thought crimes R us. Can’t say we haven’t seen it coming.
I’ll pray for this bishop-elect regardless of his guilt or innocence. If he’s guilty, he’ll be another ‘nail in the coffin’. If he’s innocent, he’ll be the same because “priest sex abuse’.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s the Church in this case that conducted the initial investigation into this complaint and found it seemed to raise questions. Not the media, not the secular authority. The statute of limitations may well have expired since 1980 was 40 years ago.
The Church isn’t going to torpedo its own bishop without good reason.
The Church isn’t going to torpedo its own bishop without good reason.
K
KMC
Guest
I would agree, the Church should not pat itself on the back. But the media should acknowledge reforms have made an impact. These news stories dribble out and are framed as if the abuse is recent. One must always dig into the article to find out the time frame in question.KMC:
It appears that this is the case, however it should be noted that it takes an average of 25 years for a victim of sexual abuse to come forward. The Church hasn’t earned the right to pat itself on the back yet.
D
DaveBj
Guest
No, exactly the opposite.
It does bring up an interesting question – why, after only one allegation, did he resign? As I see it, either 1) he’s guilty; or, 2) he’s innocent, but he doesn’t want to go thru the procedure of getting Pelled (which might happen anyway, given how these things have been running).
D
D
DaveBj
Guest
Tis_Bearself
Patron
He was the bishop-elect. He was due to be installed in early October, just a month away. The public won’t see a difference, and indeed the news media are covering this nationally just as they would if he were a bishop.
Also, they will need to get someone else to fill his position. Bishops don’t exactly grow on trees in the US lately.
Like I said, if this allegation didn’t have some substantiation to it, the Church would not be doing this. The mere fact that the allegation was forwarded by another bishop lends some credibility right there.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The KNBN story in the first post seems to be short on details. Here’s the local news story that is a bit more descriptive.
www.duluthnewstribune.com
Duluth bishop-elect resigns amid sexual abuse accusation
The Rev. Michel Mulloy was scheduled to be ordained and installed as the 10th bishop in the diocese's 130-year history on Oct. 1.
www.duluthnewstribune.com
O
OraLabora
Guest
Sadly, it sounds like the Church thinks it’s a credible allegation.
K
KMC
Guest
It would be sad. If he’s guilty, I want him out (and in jail).
S
stpurl
Guest
I wish I could believe that. But I’ve seen too many instances where individuals within the Church —particularly those within the USCCB—were, to put it charitably, mistaken. As we know, good intentions are paving stones to . . . Well. . .
In this particular climate and at this particular time, it would be extremely likely that the bishop elect would have been requested (I.e. informed) that ‘in the best interest of the Church’ he should resign. It’s a sign of good faith, doncha know. The saintly CC in the US will NOT tolerate even one allegation against a priest —he may be innocent but once he is named, there will be a huge cadre of “no smoke without fire’ no matter what he does.
If he fights, he’s grandstanding and proving the CC is a cesspool. Because as Cardinal Pell’s case showed us, no proof is even NECESSARY beyond an allegation to ruin a life.
If he resigns, as he did, the USCCB looks like they’re enforcing and white hat cowboys. The end justifies the means, and the ‘greater good’ and all that.
Nobody seems to realize that the very same supposed reason that, decades ago, the Church (and society) used to ‘bury’ charges was for exactly that—for the good APPEARANCE of the Church (and/or society).
It’s just that today, we bring any and all charges out, not to examine them and prove their truth or falsehood, but to ‘appear’, by throwing any accused under the bus, that the Church’s ‘good name’ and probity are unsullied as there is ‘zero tolerance’ etc.
Mark my words. This will keep on spreading. It is all perception today, not truth or falsehood. What a diabolical turn. We don’t even get the chance to debate or determine if something is true or false, that doesn’t even MATTER.
Move along, folks. First we taught you and your children to keep on questioning so that truth or falsehood could never have a final determination.
Now we’ll teach you that the only REAL determination is how the ones in power have determined right from wrong, and YOUR job is to accept piously any and all actions, not on whether they are true or false, right or wrong, even Catholic or non-Catholic, but on how a given group —political, religious— or a given person—IS PERCEIVED.
In this particular climate and at this particular time, it would be extremely likely that the bishop elect would have been requested (I.e. informed) that ‘in the best interest of the Church’ he should resign. It’s a sign of good faith, doncha know. The saintly CC in the US will NOT tolerate even one allegation against a priest —he may be innocent but once he is named, there will be a huge cadre of “no smoke without fire’ no matter what he does.
If he fights, he’s grandstanding and proving the CC is a cesspool. Because as Cardinal Pell’s case showed us, no proof is even NECESSARY beyond an allegation to ruin a life.
If he resigns, as he did, the USCCB looks like they’re enforcing and white hat cowboys. The end justifies the means, and the ‘greater good’ and all that.
Nobody seems to realize that the very same supposed reason that, decades ago, the Church (and society) used to ‘bury’ charges was for exactly that—for the good APPEARANCE of the Church (and/or society).
It’s just that today, we bring any and all charges out, not to examine them and prove their truth or falsehood, but to ‘appear’, by throwing any accused under the bus, that the Church’s ‘good name’ and probity are unsullied as there is ‘zero tolerance’ etc.
Mark my words. This will keep on spreading. It is all perception today, not truth or falsehood. What a diabolical turn. We don’t even get the chance to debate or determine if something is true or false, that doesn’t even MATTER.
Move along, folks. First we taught you and your children to keep on questioning so that truth or falsehood could never have a final determination.
Now we’ll teach you that the only REAL determination is how the ones in power have determined right from wrong, and YOUR job is to accept piously any and all actions, not on whether they are true or false, right or wrong, even Catholic or non-Catholic, but on how a given group —political, religious— or a given person—IS PERCEIVED.
- Status