|
LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR
Write to pthorp.ed@votf.org
Should any speaker
on Church property be pre-approved by that parish’s bishop in what the
La Crosse, WI diocese called a “policy of prudence”?
“One thing that might
be considered is whether the proposed speakers endorse capital punishment.
If so, would they be banned out of prudence?
The other issue is the
connection between the speakers' topics on a given night and their views
in other areas. If, for example, the speakers will be talking on racism in
our society, and are also pro-choice on abortion, might not a disclaimer
at the beginning of the talk separating the invitation to talk on racism
from the view on abortion be in order? This would have to be made known to
the speaker beforehand, of course. This would answer the objection of those
who say that the invitation itself constitutes an endorsement of the pro-choice
view.” Ed Doherty, Red Bank, NJ
“This reminds me of the ‘Index.’ As
a child growing up in pre-Vatican II, the index was a prominent presence.
I always thought it was a list of books that had not ‘theologically’ correct
or had the potential for great moral harm mostly based on the premise that
the flock didn't have the tools to read them on their own. Recently there
was a TV program on the ‘Index.’ A lot of the books ended up there on a whim. ‘The
Last Temptation of Christ,’ which I understand was on the ‘Index’ was for
me a breakthrough in grasping that the Bible was not idle tales, but of substance
and that the people in the New Testament were real people. I had to respond
to Christ and his message. I am still struggling over just who Christ is,
but I cannot dismiss him.
Anyway I wonder if Jesus
came back would he have approval to speak in La Crosse considering some of
his radical views. The action of the Bishop in La Crosse speaks to me of
fear. How difficult for the people of La Crosse. How sad for the archbishop.” Adelaide
Loges
The
Rights of the Accused and the Rights of the Innocent
VOTF member Paul Kendrick
recently challenged a remark made by William Donohue of the Catholic League
on the subject of calls for bishops to release the names of priests accused
of abuse. Excerpted from Catholic
League ,Donohue said, “Gerald Payne, Kentucky’s SNAP coordinator, wants
state authorities to warn residents when Catholic priests who have been
accused, but not convicted, of sexual abuse live in their neighborhood….It
is not everyday that a national advocacy organization, on either the right
or the left, argues that civil liberties should be suspended for one class
of citizens. Indeed, this kind of tactic is usually branded fascistic….”
Paul’s response, in part: “He
[Bishop Malone in Maine] won't tell us the names of twenty-five living priests,
religious and church workers who have been accused of abusing children, even
though most reasonable people are worried to death that these same individuals
may be raping kids as we speak.” The rest of Paul’s letter focused on the
case of a Catholic school teacher and coach against whom allegations had
been made, a settlement was reached and the man found employment elsewhere.
William Donohue’s response,
with permission:
“Gilpin looks guilty so
I wouldn't hesitate to press school officials not to hire him. Indeed, I
would organize parents to pull their kids from school until this matter was
resolved. But that is not the same as making public the names of priests
who have been accused of abuse. In this country, we are presumed innocent
until found guilty, and this standard includes priests as well. Moreover,
if we are to publish the names of priests who have been accused of a crime,
should we not treat everyone else the same way? And why target only sexual
molesters--why not include offenders in general?
The problem I have with
SNAP in this regard, and with certain bishops who publish the names of the
accused on their websites, is that often the accused are dead or enfeebled
and cannot defend themselves. How humiliating it must be for the surviving
family members to know that their late next-of-kin priest has been accused
of violating someone several decades ago and is not in a position to defend
himself today. It is precisely for reasons like this that we have statutes
of limitations--witnesses die and memories fade.
I appreciate your remarks
and I share your anger at what has happened, but it is important not to sacrifice
the rights of the innocent in the process. Bill Donohue
|
