Memo to Bishop Wilton Gregory from 2002

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnykins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That was simply an amazing piece of writing. Here’s the accompanying story: stlbeacon.org/content/view/102010/143/

While much good was mentioned in the story, there was a portion that was disappointing
The “Dallas” charter required bishops to invite any victims of clerical abuse to identify their abusers and report them to the church and to civil authorities. Over the next year, steeled by Gregory’s lay advisers, thousands of abused victims came forward, and in accordance with the charter, many bishops flushed out abusive priests, brothers and deacons from the ministry. Under the policy, they were never allowed to be called Father, to wear a clerical collar, say Mass, preside over other sacraments or have other church ministries again.
Click to expand...
The system has flaws. For the past eight years, at least one bishop – Lincoln, Neb., Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz – has refused to cooperate with the independent investigators assigned to his diocese.
Click to expand...
It was the 2nd paragraph that was disappointing, not the 1st. 😦

This should provide a catalyst for those concerned about abuse to hold high expectations for cleanup and not compromise them.
 
This memo should be read along with a recent interview with Justice Anne Burke of the Illinois Supreme Court.
Code: 
[www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2191828,CST-NWS-SNEED23A.article](www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2191828,CST-NWS-SNEED23A.article)
Justice Burke for a time headed the committee designated by the USCCB to look into the abuse issue. One of her comments - my phrasing - was especially striking:
Code: 
    Any Bishop  who presided over the transfer of a pervert priest should be 
    removed from office.  All the trappings of the office, the right to say mass, 
    the right to wear a collar, ... should be taken from the Bishop, who should
    no longer be able to use that title.
In my opinion, the same actions should be taken against any Pastor who allowed such a priest

I do not want to say much more here, except to encourage you to read the article.
 
He had no right to talk to a bishop that way. And the audacity of addressing that bishop by his first name. :mad:

Who the heck does he think he is?
 
markomalley said:
He had no right to talk to a bishop that way. And the audacity of addressing that bishop by his first name. :mad:

Who the heck does he think he is?
Click to expand...
Mark, I think you are referring to the memo, which was personally handed (and then read) to Bishop Gregory by his assistant. It was written in 2002, and presumably not intended for publication since the exchange took place in Bishop Gregory’s office and is only coming to light eight years later.

Naturally, Bishop Gregory and his assistant were on first name terms. This is what Bishop Gregory had to say about his assistant:
The memo “served as a very important touchstone for me,” Gregory, 62, now the archbishop of Atlanta’s archdiocese, told the Beacon Monday in a phone interview. “I learned from David. I have had a world of respect for David Spotanski from the day we started working together. I think he is a great man with a great heart. He spoke to me on two different levels: as someone on my staff that I depended on but also as a father.”
Click to expand...
stlbeacon.org/content/view/102010/143/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top