Fr. Mark Goring cease and desist

  • Thread starter Thread starter JHC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to throw in one more idea for consideration. We do not know the reason or the details in this conflict. Reading Fr. Goring’s pages on the internet, specifically the comments of his followers, the problem might be with them. A cult of personality seems to surround him to some extent, and Fr. Goring laying low might be beneficial for their souls as well as the health of the Church.

The Church is not like the political arena. We are not helped by individuals who attract like-minded followers and get them all frothy with anger by the ditto-ing rhetoric. Fr. Goring is hardly the worst offender, but he is a priest, unlike others, and needs to be understand the authority of that position.

Obviously, I don’t think the political arena is helped by this either.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Max, I would think if someone’s life is in immediate danger, maybe the priest could follow his conscience and disobey to save a life, but he’d likely have to face the consequences of his disobedience.

I’m not seeing a life in danger here. Wuerl already resigned and enough other people are protesting his involvement in Mass for Life that this priest continuing to make videos about it is not adding anything new except drawing attention to himself. He furthermore has now gotten so much attention from this whole incident that he’s accomplished his goal of raising awareness in a big way. He’s not being a big whistleblower here, this is a publicly known situation. If Wuerl and the Pope aren’t interested in doing anything about it, it’s on them.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you have stated here. The priest did what he thought he had to do, and from what I have seen has done the right thing in the end and is obeying his superiors. There might be some situations where a priest or bishop, or whoever might have to legitimately disobey his superior even at the risk of severe consequences (for example, if a bishop or superior ordered a subordinate to do something illegal). This is clearly not that kind of situation though.

As for Cardinal Wuerl and the March for Life, it probably would be prudent for him to step down from presiding there given the hit his reputation has taken in Washington and the controversy surrounding his position. He supposedly won’t be in charge there for too much longer anyway so it wouldn’t be nearly as big of a deal as if he was still the permanent archbishop there.
 
In related news, this story was released today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.b9489c8a4702

So despite his previous public statements to the contrary, Cardinal Wuerl did know about McCarrick’s activities. This also confirms Archbishop Vigano’s testimony that Wuerl was indeed lying about his knowledge of McCarrick’s history of abuse. This is just one more reason why it would perhaps be prudent of Wuerl to step down from presiding at the March for Life…it would just be an even bigger distraction at this point with more news such as this coming out.
 
I do not know of this priest or the whole story. I do know that the largest part of the entire clergy abuse scandal was made possible by priests keeping quiet about other priests being sexually active and bishops being quiet about the abuse. This priest seems to believe this as well and doesn’t want to be a part of the problem but of the solution. I do not believe that he should be disobedient but he should push hard, right up to the edge in speaking out about bishops and priests that were part of the cover up problem. All good priests should be doing this and then the secrets and cover ups will end.

Cardinal Wuerl is deep enough in knowing about and keeping predatory clergy secret that he only does damage when he appears in an official capacity in public. It is insane to have him speak at the March for Life.
 
To be fair, it seems most likely that the accusations that Wuerl was aware of were from an adult seminarian and did not involve sex acts per se but more along the lines of sharing beds at the beach house and exchanging back rubs. Not that those things are acceptable. They certainly are not.

So, Wuerl was technically correct in his earlier statements. He wasn’t aware of any previous accusations against a minor. And he did not receive any allegations in Washington D.C..

Grant it, his statements were pretty misleading, but I can see how they would be true in the most technical sense. It certainly doesn’t reflect well on him, though, since we are looking for our leaders to be transparent rather than obfuscating things. Of course, the story does say that the victim had previously requested complete confidentiality. So perhaps Wuerl was merely trying to be respectful of his wishes by not drawing attention to this story.
 
I am sure that whatever statement Wuerl made was crafted by attorneys for his Diocese and took all the things you mention, and more, into account.

Saying publicly that one is aware of an accusation that hasn’t been proved could open one up to a lawsuit.

Disclosing anything about a case that has settled could violate the terms of a settlement and give rise to legal action.

Details such as “a minor” and “Washington, DC” are important qualifiers from a legal standpoint.

I can even picture a situation where there is some kind of investigation going on and those who are making it do not want their cover blown to the public.
 
May I suggest that this thread be allowed to die?

The offending posts by the thread-starter have been removed and he’s suspended until Feb 9, so he’s not going to be here to respond to other’s comments to him.

The video he posted is no longer available for viewing, so those of us who didn’t watch it yet can’t even see what he was talking about.

And the significant development re Wuerl/McCarrick news certainly deserves its own thread in the correct sub-forum so people can see it. I’ve started a new thread for that in Catholic News at:
40.png
Despite denials, D.C. Cardinal Donald Wuerl knew of sexual misconduct allegations against Theodore McCarrick and reported them to Vatican Catholic News
This Wuerl/McCarrick news was buried in another thread in a different sub-forum. IMO, this is a significant development and deserves a thread in Catholic News. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...42cbba-1513-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html "Robert Ciolek, a former priest who reached a settlement with the church in 2005 after accusing clerics including McCarrick, told The Post he recently learned that the Pittsburgh Diocese has a file that shows that Wuerl was awa…
Click to expand...
 
Weserthy said:
So despite his previous public statements to the contrary, Cardinal Wuerl did know about McCarrick’s activities. This also confirms Archbishop Vigano’s testimony…
Click to expand...
That is what the WP says in its headline, but this confirms nothing, except the WP writes headlines to grab attention, not to accurately report news. If you read the article:
Robert Ciolek, a former priest who reached a settlement with the church in 2005 after accusing clerics including McCarrick, told The Post he recently learned that the Pittsburgh Diocese has a file that shows that Wuerl was aware of his allegations against McCarrick.
Click to expand...
This is only evidence, not any sort of confirmation, and only evidence of Cardinal Wuerl’s actions. As there is nothing specific about which statement or what actions he knew about would represent Cardinal Wuerl as dishonest, it is uncharitable to go there at this time.
 
Well, we know there exists a document about a settlement involving McCarrick with Wuerl’s signature. According to the Post, the dioceses of Washington and Pittsburgh both confirmed it. Last September, the Washington Archdiocese claimed that Wuerl did not know about it. In any event, Ciolek testified before the Pittsburgh Diocese review board back in 2004 about McCarrick when Wuerl was bishop there, so there is no way he did not know about it. Fast forward to 2018, and he’s talking about how he had no idea and was “shocked and saddened” when he learned of the allegations against minors. Like, he really wants us to believe that he had no idea this could have happened? True, there is no evidence that he knew about the underage victims, but his playing it off like he had no idea that McCarrick was capable of such things comes off as very disingenuous at best. Maybe he really didn’t know about the newest allegations. But it is very apparent that he knows more than he’s letting on.

I don’t mean to pile on Cardinal Wuerl here, and I actually think he’s getting more flak in the press than he deserves for all of the recent allegations in the PA grand jury report, and other allegations that have come out recently. I think he probably could have done more to curtail McCarrick’s actions in his own diocese, but It’s really the people up in the Vatican, who actually had the authority to deal with this McCarrick situation before it got out of hand, who bear the brunt of the blame in allowing this to continue.
 
Last edited:
This is a disgrace. Father Mark Goring gets a cease and desist and Father James Martin never even gets questioned about his blatant disrespect for Church teachings (especially on Homosexuality).

For the first time ever, I actually understand why the Protestants broke away from the Church.

What’s even more disappointing are the comments in this thread (from people who never even watched his videos) basically staying that it’s “best for everyone that he just keep quiet and “obey”).

Father Mark Goring was speaking truth to power. His approach was honest and backed up with evidence and scripture. He has the carisma to bring men of all ages back into the Church.

I’m a devout Catholic, but I’m quickly loosing faith in an institution that goes to great lengths to silence people who speak honesty about the fact that homosexuality is the leading cause of the sex abuse crisis that has crippled and discredited the one true Church built by Jesus Christ…and those who call out the leaders who have been complicit in the infestation of this subculture in to the clergy.

The complicit will have to answer for their cowardly stance.
 
FWIW, I went to see Fr. Martin speak a few months ago.
He said nothing that conflicted with Church teaching.
I believe he even made a point of stating that Church teaching said homosexual sex was wrong.

I have not kept up with every comment Fr. Martin makes on Youtube, his blog etc but my impression is that he does not say anything publicly that conflicts with the Church teaching because he knows that is disobedient and he will be shut down.

Fr. Martin is also not rallying large groups of people to protest anything, to my knowledge.
 
Even_Keal said:
For the first time ever, I actually understand why the Protestants broke away from the Church.
Click to expand...
I have always understood. There have always been those who do not understand the role of authority and the virtue of obedience. Surely, those who are the ones you call complicit will have to answer for their silence, as we all will, for what we have said, done, failed to say, failed to do, and posted. But it will be to God we will answer, not each other.
 
Last edited:
I am Johnnie Come Lately to this conversation but will put my oar into the stream for whatever it is worth.

My source is Bill Donohue, of Catalyst, and you can decide for yourself what it is worth.

In the September 2018 issue, he defends Cardinal Wuerl with some interesting points.

“It is being said that Cardinal Wuerl must have known all about what McCarrick allegedly did and chose to do nothing about it. Aside from rumors, which are a staple in every workplace, Wuerl was in no position to know anything bout McCarrick’s alleged sexual behavior with seminarians, and he certainly was in no position to know anything about more recent allegations involving minors.”

He then goes on to detail where McCarrick was in the 1980’s on the Jersey Shore.

McCarrick was installed as Bishop of Metuchen New Jersey in 1982 when Wuerl was in Burlington, Vermont. In 1986 when McCarrick was Archbishop of Newark, Wuerl was Auxiliary Bishop in Seattle. In 1988 he became Bishop of Pittsburgh, and in 2006 Archbishop of Washington. Further, Wuerl had noting to do with the financial settlements of Metuchen (2005) and Newark (2007).

I have no dog in this one. I have not watched the YouTube video of Fr. Goring, nor anything he may have written. Nor do I follow the McCarrick matter other than when it may pop up on its own.

What has appeared to happen is that there is something approaching mass hysteria, and at least part of that is due to public news media, a source notorious for its biases. It appears that a complete s*&t storm has taken over, and we are practicing “Ready! Fire! Aim!” with abandon.

I am not a fan of Donohue, as he comes across as a junkyard dog; but his iteration of where Wuerl was re; McCarrick would leave me with “show me factual evidence that Wuerl knew” rather than booting to the “he must have known”.

When it seems as of everybody - right, left and center - are foaming at the mouth, facts tend to be in extremely short supply, if any there be at all. I don’t care to get into Fr. Goring as it is none of my business; I am not his superior. The same applies to Fr. Martin, to Archbishop Wuerl or to Archbishop McCarrick.

I am not by any stretch of the imagination naive as to sexual abuse in the Church nor have I crawled out from under some rock recently. Nor have I been abused. But constant discussion of the matters will not do anything more than titillate, as most of us have no viable (name removed by moderator)ut into the matters, and most of it ends up either as gossip, or something so close to gossip it can’t be distinguished. I firmly believe the Holy Spirit protects the Church, is spite of the best efforts of some of its members and the work of the devil. Should anyone be concerned about these matters or these individuals, I would recommend spending an hour in adoration, turning it over to Christ, and then going about one’s business of growing closer to Him.
 
My response to this is

1 ) “Obviously a supporter of his” because I went to a talk to see exactly what the fuss was all about? More like, I’m an American and don’t think anything’s so awful that it can’t be talked about. I did not buy his book as I didn’t think I needed one.
  1. I presume you have sources for everything you posted. I would encourage you to list them so others can check them out and see the context, if any.
  2. However, giving this more thought, I’m not really sure what Fr. Martin has to do with the Goring discussion and if you want to discuss Fr. Martin you should probably start a new thread. Arguing every time a priest’s superior shuts him down that, “Well Fr. Martin is allowed to say this or that on a completely different topic!” doesn’t seem to be a good counter argumen unless Fr. Martin is under the same superior, which it does not appear is the case given that Fr. Goring is not even a Jesuit.
Anyway, I think I’ll mute the thread now as your post suggests to me this thread has the potential to go down a contentious track. If you have sources for your Fr. Martin stuff maybe I’ll return quietly some other time and read them. God bless.
 
Last edited:
.You have the link to the supporting evidence I posted. Have an open mind and read through it. All the points I made are all well documented with sources. I trust that the Holy Spirit will bring you to the truth.

The laity who want back the one true Church Jesus created, are speaking out and will NOT be silenced by the those who prefer the status quo.

Viva Christo Rey!
 
Even_Keal said:
Cool…I’m glad I (…or was it the Holy Spirit?)
Click to expand...
I recognizes parroting when I see it, and I like to backtrack sources. I have had an open mind about Life Site News. With that open mind, I have concluded that they are completely unreliable for anything even tangentially related to the Catholic Church. They are incredibly biased.
Even_Keal said:
…by the those who prefer the status quo.
Click to expand...
I support truth, honesty, and justice. You think you are on the side of truth. Therefore, you have no problem accusing anyone that is different as being heretical. Yet it should be noted that no one of us is the Pillar of Truth. That would be the Church, thus the virtue of obedience.
 
Last edited:
There are also articles in The NY Times (Ross Douthat), EWTN, National Catholic Register, Crisis magazine, First Things, etc pointing out the problematic positions of Fr James Martin. You can find them online.
 
Last edited:
Even_Keal said:
.You have the link to the supporting evidence I posted. Have an open mind and read through it. All the points I made are all well documented
Click to expand...
I must have missed the sources—except one from LifeSiteNews, which is obviously not credible. Can you relink credible sources?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top