I said years ago that NY cardinal Richard Egan, an anti-gay hypocrite who had been involved in sheltering pedophiles, was homosexual, but according to a lawsuit filed by a Roman Catholic priest, Bob Hoatson, who's been very active in clergy abuse circles, Egan is "actively homosexual", as is the archbishop of Newark, Richard Myers. Another individual outed, bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, has repeatedly been alleged not only to have sheltered or condoned pedophiles, but of having had gay relationships as well as a liaison with a teenage male prostitute.

Now, admittedly the article is in the Village Voice, which, as Gmg has pointed out, has for many years had a leftist slant (though it's now the lead publication of a moderate-leaning corporate behemoth), but it's not the Voice that's outing Egan, it's the statements in a 45-page lawsuit by Hoatson. Egan's, Myers's, and Hubbard's spokespeople deny everything, so it'll be interesting to see if they countersue for libel or some other charge. Or if Hoatson produces proof, though some people have come forward about Hubbard.

I also just heard that Chicago's cardinal Francis George had allowed a pedophile priest, Kenneth Martin, to live in the cardinal's residence and work next to an elementary school! He's rightly come under severe criticism. I had to ask, WHY on earth would he have done this given the scandals that have wracked Chicago and other dioceses?

To quote:

[Corrected grammar!]

<small>[ February 07, 2006, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]</small>

</strong>
Now FT, stop dangling your clauses before me trying to get a rise! I've made the same argument you started to here, i.e., that where the facts are otherwise trustworthy, the credibility of the journal reporting them need not be accepted by all. The last time I made this argument, I believe I did it in reference to FNC.

Speaking of which, I must fess up to an assumption I had made about others' dim view of FNC. I don't watch much TV during the day, unless I'm off from work and it's an old movie on TCM or some History or Discovery channel rerun that catches my eye. Nor do I watch Oprah, Jerry or any of that other crap. On the other hand, I try to catch Brit Hume on FNC's "Special Report" each night and Chris Wallace on FNSunday for their panel discussions at the end of each show, just as I do "Meet the Press," "Face the Nation," and other such programs on other networks. So you will understand my surprise when tuning in to some of FNC's daytime news programming over the holidays how disappointed I was that it didn't carry the gravitas of its other programming, or even of some other networks' daytime programming, like MSNBC. Now I understand what people are saying when they criticize FNC, if all they watch is its weekday daytime programming. But I must ask: is CNN all that much better?

So kudos to those who are outing these hypocritical clericals, whoever they are and whoever accurately reports them! My only lingering question is whether the complaint in which these allegations are made was verified by the plaintiff, i.e., were the truth of its contents sworn to under penalty of perjury?

<small>[ February 07, 2006, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]</small>

Actually, GMG, I was typing so fast I left out a clause (!). The article actually does pose some serious questions about Hoaston's lawyer, Aretakis, which I think is a good thing, as it's not just an anti-clerical tirade. I also wonder if this Aretakis has iron-clad proof, or if he's just bluffing. I mean, I have known some gay priests in my day, none of whom were banging on the anti-gay pulpit, but Egan, to give one has example, has behaved shamefully towards out Catholic homosexuals as well as towards the abuse victims (some of whom have had gotten their abusers to admit the harm they did).

As for cardinal George, I just keep asking myself, what on earth was he thinking? I mean, why don't he, Egan, Law and others take the abuse of children and young people as seriously as they do the consensual relationships between adults?

CNN really is a shell of itself. It's a joke. You can get snippets of the news there, but unless you're talking about a major tragedy that allows all its anchors to preen before the camera (cf. Hurricane Katrina, where, in spite of themselves, CNN and FNC actually did a pretty good job, in part by just letting the cameras run and not editorializing, which I think did more damage to W than any Democrats or even Republican criticism could have), they just go for the fluff. Gravitas shmavitas!

[ February 07, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The situation with Cardinal George is doubly painful to me, mainly because George has not been considered ignorant and arrogant in this whole abuse mess, unlike those shameful people like Cardinal Law and others. As much as George is to blame in several respects, I am pleased to see that he acknowledges his blunders. At a press conference last week he admitted he made mistakes and should have handled things differently. Had that been Law, his comments would have been completely different.

It is utterly unsurprising that there are gay bishops, but it just ticks me off that they are breaking their vows of celibacy and then getting on their damn high horses (and Egan is clearly the worst of this lot on that account). I mean, it is hypocrisy enough to maintain any sexual relationships as a Catholic priest, but to then dare to judge others - it's just pathetic.

But it never occurred to me that their activity could be used as a means of blackmail - as is being alleged in the snippets of the lawsuit quoted. Seems like that also makes the "no new gay priests" policy even more of a problem - presumably today's seminarians are tomorrow's bishops, and we know that there will still be gay priests, who may very well achieve success in the church. Their positions will be even more precarious than these guys, because the very basis of the sexuality, even if not acted on, has to be hidden.

The Roman Catholic Church could solve this priest sex and pedophilia scandal, or at least diminish it tremendously, if it took three steps:

1) allow the ordination of women (sex abuse among women is very low)
2) allow the ordination of married heterosexual men (which is allowed if they convert from the Episcopalian/Anglican, Lutheran and other Christian churches)
3) drop celibacy and chastity for homosexual priests

This would draw a wider pool of people, and I would venture far fewer sexually and emotionally immature men with pedophilic and even ephebophilic tendencies would be drawn to the priesthood. It is unfortunately not going happen under the current pope, who issued a fascinating encyclical on the theme of "eros" and "agape" a few weeks ago, I believe. Uh huh.

Hell will freeze over before the Catholic Church allows gay men to both be priests and involved in relationships. I agree that married and women should be ordained, however.

But the main way the Church can stop the pedophile problem is simple: when a priest abuses a kid, the local bishop should call the local police. He should turn over evidence. He should cooperate with the investigation. If found guilty, the priest should serve his time, but should know that when he gets out of jail, he'll need to find a new job because he'll never be a priest again. That's the way to stop it.

I reviewed both versions of the complaint - original and first amended - on PACER* online yesterday and confirmed that it was not verified and that many of its allegations were made "on information and belief," which is lawspeak for "I don't know to a certainty, but I'm pretty damn sure and am willing to sue to prove it." So, while I also understand the concerns over Plaintiff's counsel, the allegations are specifically detailed enough to at least survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the overall context of the suit, relevant enough to survive any motion to strike as "impertinent or scandalous."
_____
*The federal courts' online docket directory, which allows users to view the docket entries and, increasingly, the actual contents of all papers filed in an action. A really neat tool! Anyone else with access to it can access this docket by searching under "Hoatson" in the "party" box on the US District Court for the Southern District of NY's site.