B
- Status
F
fix
Guest
I await the comments.
J
John_Higgins
Guest
If I were H.E. Cardinal McCarrick, I wouldn’t dignify such nonsense with a comment.
John
John
B
Brad
Guest
John Higgins:
Which is the nonsense? What happened or what was told? How would you know which is which?
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
Sounds like malicious slander that I would take to court if I were the Cardinal!
B
Brad
Guest
Rob’s Wife said:
How do you know he is lying?
J
John_Higgins
Guest
Okay, Brad, how do YOU know what to believe?
I prefer to believe in Cardinal McCarrick’s good name over Mr. Abbott’s hearsay.
John
I prefer to believe in Cardinal McCarrick’s good name over Mr. Abbott’s hearsay.
John
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
He uses the term “story” … which implies a lack of personal facts.
If he has facts - they should be presented through proper channels for investigation. The newspaper would only be a last resort if for sme reason the proper channels were turning a blind eye.
Otherwise, he’s just not being christian and this is slander.
B
banjo
Guest
“Pay no attention to an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.” 1 Tm 5:19 NAB
B
Brad
Guest
John Higgins:
Father Haley made the comments as an apparently solid witness. These were quotes from Abbot. Is there any reason to think Father Haley doesn’t have a good name?
If these charges are true, then they are very serious and need to be told.
I have not made an assessment of who is correct. You have.
Father Haley made the comments as an apparently solid witness. These were quotes from Abbot. Is there any reason to think Father Haley doesn’t have a good name?
If these charges are true, then they are very serious and need to be told.
B
Brad
Guest
Rob’s Wife said:
In no way are these quotations implying he is making it up. He is making statements of fact throughout.
I know of several priests, both documented and personally, that have had their “stories” suppressed because the “proper channels” required them to be quiet. It has been very difficult for priests to tell the truth of what happened without being severely reprimanded.
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
B
Brad
Guest
Rob's Wife:
Fact #1: “former priest of Metuchen, now a successful lawyer, and a best friend of mine from the seminary of Mt. St. Mary’s in Emmitsburg”
Fact #2: “After his sudden departure from the priesthood for impregnating a divorced Catholic school teacher in an all girls school six months after his ordination, it was McCarrick who obtained the release of Smith’s vows of celibacy despite Smith’s own reluctance to pursue the matter”
Fact #3: “Smith had been invited to the then bishop’s beach house for a seminarian get-together. After arriving, however, Smith found himself the only seminarian present in a house with only one queen sized bed. Brought there under such false pretense, he was invited to stay and share the bed.”
Fact #4: “Smith consented to sleeping in the same bed with the archbishop. He said, ‘nothing occurred.’ He never listened, however, to my argument that much had actually occurred by his easy compliance, by his lack of shock, and by his later refusal to report the incident.”
Fact #5: "Smith had been the recipient of almost weekly hand-written letters sent to him by McCarrick in the seminary, many of them speaking of the bishop’s delight in one day raising young seminarian Smith to the heights of splendor as a bishop himself. I always thought the letters were amazing, since I had never even met my bishop in the whole four years of my seminary studies, let alone was I being encouraged with intimate letters to episcopal splendor. "
This is personal recollection of facts. This isn’t telling a story.
Rob's Wife:
If it is not a story but it is a fact then there is GREAT purpose in telling the facts so that others are not similarly victimized.
I’m wondering why so many are assuming this is a fictional account. How do you know this?
Rob's Wife:
What are you reading? Father Haley is making the following statements as fact:
Fact #1: “former priest of Metuchen, now a successful lawyer, and a best friend of mine from the seminary of Mt. St. Mary’s in Emmitsburg”
Fact #2: “After his sudden departure from the priesthood for impregnating a divorced Catholic school teacher in an all girls school six months after his ordination, it was McCarrick who obtained the release of Smith’s vows of celibacy despite Smith’s own reluctance to pursue the matter”
Fact #3: “Smith had been invited to the then bishop’s beach house for a seminarian get-together. After arriving, however, Smith found himself the only seminarian present in a house with only one queen sized bed. Brought there under such false pretense, he was invited to stay and share the bed.”
Fact #4: “Smith consented to sleeping in the same bed with the archbishop. He said, ‘nothing occurred.’ He never listened, however, to my argument that much had actually occurred by his easy compliance, by his lack of shock, and by his later refusal to report the incident.”
Fact #5: "Smith had been the recipient of almost weekly hand-written letters sent to him by McCarrick in the seminary, many of them speaking of the bishop’s delight in one day raising young seminarian Smith to the heights of splendor as a bishop himself. I always thought the letters were amazing, since I had never even met my bishop in the whole four years of my seminary studies, let alone was I being encouraged with intimate letters to episcopal splendor. "
This is personal recollection of facts. This isn’t telling a story.
Rob's Wife:
I didn’t mean “story” as in fiction. I meant factual accounts of priests that have been repressed by those in charge of them - i.e. abuses of power.
If it is not a story but it is a fact then there is GREAT purpose in telling the facts so that others are not similarly victimized.
I’m wondering why so many are assuming this is a fictional account. How do you know this?
Rob's Wife:
That is the accusation being made here. So what is a good priest to do when these “other issues” come up? Be quiet?
A
AJC
Guest
While nothing would surprise me, not my real name
, the fact that this annonymous source is just that, annonymous, really shows the lack of credibility to this accusation. Now, if this annonymous ex-priest is now a married lawyer he would be doing the Church a service by coming forward with his accusations.If it smells fishy, well…
AJC
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
What are you reading? Father Haley is making the following statements as fact:
Fact #1: “former priest of Metuchen, now a successful lawyer, and a best friend of mine from the seminary of Mt. St. Mary’s in Emmitsburg”
That’s called heresay - not fact.
Fact #2: “After his sudden departure from the priesthood for impregnating a divorced Catholic school teacher in an all girls school six months after his ordination, it was McCarrick who obtained the release of Smith’s vows of celibacy despite Smith’s own reluctance to pursue the matter”
Fact #3: “Smith had been invited to the then bishop’s beach house for a seminarian get-together. After arriving, however, Smith found himself the only seminarian present in a house with only one queen sized bed. Brought there under such false pretense, he was invited to stay and share the bed.”
Fact #4: “Smith consented to sleeping in the same bed with the archbishop. He said, ‘nothing occurred.’ He never listened, however, to my argument that much had actually occurred by his easy compliance, by his lack of shock, and by his later refusal to report the incident.”
Again, heresay. Why did Smith stay? Why didn’t Smith say something? It should be noted that IF it was true - BOTH shouldn’t be reprimanded at the very least. It’s a comfort that Smith isn’t a priest any longer.
Fact #5: "Smith had been the recipient of almost weekly hand-written letters sent to him by McCarrick in the seminary, many of them speaking of the bishop’s delight in one day raising young seminarian Smith to the heights of splendor as a bishop himself. I always thought the letters were amazing, since I had never even met my bishop in the whole four years of my seminary studies, let alone was I being encouraged with intimate letters to episcopal splendor. "
Sounds like sour grapes to me and that’s if it’s true.
This is personal recollection of facts. This isn’t telling a story.
I didn’t mean “story” as in fiction. I meant factual accounts of priests that have been repressed by those in charge of them - i.e. abuses of power.
If it is not a story but it is a fact then there is GREAT purpose in telling the facts so that others are not similarly victimized.
I’m wondering why so many are assuming this is a fictional account. How do you know this?
How do you know it’s true? I go with the innocent until proven guilty theory. Nothing I’ve read so far makes me feel this is factual.
That is the accusation being made here. So what is a good priest to do when these “other issues” come up? Be quiet?
If this is indeed a case of fallen priests. There has been no civil or criminal laws broken, therefore it is a Church matter.
I would question whether or not this is an issue of the Church not handling the situation or if this particuliar priest is just ticked because it wasn’t handled the way he felt it should have been.
B
Brad
Guest
Why are some having so much trouble reading this article?While nothing would surprise me, not my real name
If it smells fishy, well…
AJC
The source is Father Haley, NOT the anonymous ex-priest. He is anonymous for obvious reasons. But Father Haley is not being anonymous. There is his name in bold.
W
Walt_Oliver
Guest
Trouble is, we don’t know which is which. Therefore, this thread is gossip of the worst sort and is now closed.
- Status