In 2005, when Denham was aged about 62, Broken Rites ascertained that he was then working on week-days in the Sydney library of a religious order of priests. But what was he doing at weekends, when there was often a need for a relieving priest to do church services?[link here]
Despite the lack of media coverage, Broken Rites still received occasional phone calls or emails from former students or parishioners inquiring about Denham.
In November 2005, Tim (the victim from St Pius X Catholic High School in the 2000 court case) phoned Broken Rites again. He said he had learned that Denham was currently in Sydney's "supply" pool of priests who were available to do casual work as a relieving priest at weekends. Tim contacted the church's Professional Standards office in Sydney and its counterpart in Newcastle, and both these offices confirmed that Denham was working in the "supply pool". Tim told Broken Rites: "This is an alarming situation."
Certainly, Cardinal Pell wasn't on hand in the late seventies and early eighties when this homosexual was abusing adolescents in his care, but in the years after he was made Archbishop of Sydney, he did nothing to prevent this man from working in areas, like where a weekend associate Presider might have access to children. One might wonder why he was still on the rolls of the Diocese at all. Priests who've been only guilty of wanting to say the Immemorial Rite of the Mass have gotten far worse treatment than this individual did.
Considering the gravity of his crimes and the validity of the accusations against him, you'd think he could have been brought to justice sooner. Perhaps it's just as well that Cardinal Pell wasn't given the post on the Congregation of Bishops.
We'd like to think that lapses such as the above, POSSIBLE benign neglect let's call it, and his toleration for Sydney's "Gay Mass", as well as his failure to discipline Dom Alcuin Reid were factors in his non-appointment.
There seems to be a pattern involved here combined with various heterodox statements and what might be considered criminal lapses in professional and pastoral conduct.
13 comments:
Tancred,
It's obvious you don't like cardinal Pell, for you're prepared to make groundless accusations against him. Alcuin Reid is not his ecclesiastical subject to discipline, nor was this priest. Get it??
He's wrong on church and state, and no doubt like all of us has his faults (I can think of one or two traditionalist bishops that have displayed dismaying signs of human weakness over the last few years, too, for that matter) but it doesn't help things when you make such ill-advised, unjustified and possibly sinful attacks against the man.
It's not that anyone dislikes Cardinal Pell, it's just that when he has such demonstrably heterodox opinions i.e., on scriptural inerrancy, and avoids dealing with various problems which give scandal, like tolerating a Gay Mass in his Diocese, or here:
**As Melbourne archbishop in the 1990s, George Pell had ''strenuously and repeatedly'' asked Dr Reid to submit voluntarily to ''laicisation'' over serious sexual misbehaviour. The Age knows of one man who said in the 1980s he had been ''physically forced'' to comply with Dr Reid's sexual demands and that this complaint was conveyed by the victim to Dr Pell at the time. This has not been confirmed, and his office did not respond to the claim. In a statement to The Age yesterday, Cardinal Pell appeared unconcerned about appearing with Dr Reid, saying it was ''not surprising Dr Reid was also … invited … given his considerable expertise''.**
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pell-and-sex-deacon-at-conference-20100519-vf82.html
In any event, we've determined that both Denham and Dom Alcuin Reid were, point of fact, ecclesiastical subjects of Cardinal Pell. There may be some doubt about whether or not Cardinal Pell was successful in dealing with Alcuin Reid, but at least at the time of the aforementioned conference, he was willing to pass it off as if it hadn't happened without much clarification. Seems as if he were as adamant about laicizing him before, that it's strange he should now participate in a conference with the man as well and frankly scandalous.
But your point about the need of charity is well taken. You no doubt have seen how there has been some effort made to answer your concerns about Cardinal Pell, or the truth of any claims that were made about him, but the fact remains that he has quite a bit to be penitent about, not least of which is in dealing with the sin of sodomy, and those who use the clerical state as a means of corrupting boys, so his apologies, while they might cause a few to think well of him, do little to actually address the problem in the first place, which is the almost universal abeyance of Catholic belief and practice wherever there are Catholics. The Cardinal's omissions and commissions in this regard are scandalous and have no doubt haunted him on his way to Rome. It shouldn't cause anyone to lament too much that he didn't get appointed to the Congregation of Bishops.
You may have also noticed that we've taken some pains to defend Bishop Mixa? Bishop Mixa certainly has problems which are dismaying, but there's no evidence that he's been covering up for homosexual predators, or doing nothing when it's clear there's a problem.
There's something wrong with an Archbishop who allows his suffragen Bishops to employ a man in 2005 who'd been convicted for buggery back in 2000. If he didn't know about it, there's got to be something wrong with his competence to administrate, and if he did know about it... well...
Listen, Pell can't control what his suffragans do - you can thank the counter-reformation for that.
In fact, whatever other faults the cardinal may suffer from probably stemming from a presumably defective formation in the 60s, dealing with the homo-priest crisis is not one of them. The Australian church is now one of the safest places for a child to be - safer than schools, or families (in fact that was probably always the case).
As for him being in the same room as Reid in Ireland, so what? He was there as a guest, and Reid was giving a paper on a specialty of his.
What do you think he should do, hand over the assets of the archdiocese to these victims (real and bogus) so as to give them a free ticket through life on the basis they've been sexually assaulted?? The courts (at least in Australia) do not even take the view that being a tort victim entitles one to "win the lottery."
What do you think he should do, hand over the assets of the archdiocese to these victims (real and bogus) so as to give them a free ticket through life on the basis they've been sexually assaulted?? The courts (at least in Australia) do not even take the view that being a tort victim entitles one to "win the lottery."
Why would you suggest this? It's just plain he's not suitable for the post in the Congregation of Bishops.
And he wasn't merely in the same room as Reid, he was specifically asked about why he was there in the first place, and rather than disassociating himself from the non-sense, he gave this lame excuse related to Reid's alleged expertise in liturgy. What kind of a milquetoast do we have here?
Even if it were conceded that the juridical authority he possesses in one of his subject Diocese, he has an obligation to address these things. Even an ordinary layman should bring such things to the attention of someone whose responsible, but Cardinal Pell, who has no trouble commenting on Global Warming, errors in scripture and remaining largely silent on his Diocesan "Gay Mass" also has nothing to say about an egregious injustice happening in his own back yard.
Incidentally, I think it's far worse that this Cardinal is heterodox in his theological opinions. His promotion to a major See is a testimony to the infectious rot, and that alone certainly would merit him being deposed and sent to pasture.
His heterodoxy is what causes his other gaps in judgment. It's obvious that a man who's incapable of making sound judgments in the sentences touching the Faith is profoundly confused and should not be in the position he so obviously enjoys.
What do you think he should do, hand over the assets of the archdiocese to these victims (real and bogus) so as to give them a free ticket through life on the basis they've been sexually assaulted?? The courts (at least in Australia) do not even take the view that being a tort victim entitles one to "win the lottery."
Why would you suggest this? It's just plain he's not suitable for the post in the Congregation of Bishops.
And he wasn't merely in the same room as Reid, he was specifically asked about why he was there in the first place, and rather than disassociating himself from the non-sense, he gave this lame excuse related to Reid's alleged expertise in liturgy. What kind of a milquetoast do we have here?
Even if it were conceded that the juridical authority he possesses in one of his subject Diocese is nill, he has an obligation to address these things. Even an ordinary layman should bring such things to the attention of someone who's responsible, but Cardinal Pell, who has no trouble commenting on Global Warming, errors in scripture and remaining largely silent on his Diocesan "Gay Mass" also has nothing to say about an egregious injustice happening in his own back yard.
Incidentally, I think it's far worse that this Cardinal is heterodox in his theological opinions. His promotion to a major See is a testimony to the infectious rot, and that alone certainly would merit him being deposed and sent to pasture.
His heterodoxy is what causes his other gaps in judgment. It's obvious that a man who's incapable of making sound judgments in the sentences touching the Faith is profoundly confused and should not be in the position he so obviously enjoys.
I suggested it because that's what I thought you were getting at.
We've had bad bishops for a long time in Australia (and the rest of the English-speaking world) Cardinal Gilroy, one of Pell's predecessors, believed, I understand, in separation of church and state. The rot set in a long time before VII.
And, given that Pell condemns homosexual behaviour, why not find out the reason this mass is allowed to continue? Maybe the priest involved convinced him that it wasn't a "gay mass", only a mass at which some homos and dykes participate.
You're going to do much better if you're going to actually make out these accusations.
And no, it's not Pell's duty to address the delinquencies of other bishops - that's the curia's role.
Please, get a degree in common law or canon law or theology - with a concentratin on moral theology (or better still, all three) before you comment on things. At least then, you'll understand what evdidence and proof mean.
I suggested it because that's what I thought you were getting at.
I think liberals and their institutions are reaping what they've sewn since 1968, but that doesn't cloud my awareness of the fact that this is an orchestrated media campaign. If you followed the blog, you'd see the hostility we bear for the deeds of Jeffry Anderson, an activist attorney and ACLU member who desires not just that the Church pay damages, but that it changes. He's a civil rights activist and all that entails.
We've had bad bishops for a long time in Australia (and the rest of the English-speaking world) Cardinal Gilroy, one of Pell's predecessors, believed, I understand, in separation of church and state. The rot set in a long time before VII.
We've had bad Bishops in the US since its founding, so we're on the same page here.
And, given that Pell condemns homosexual behaviour, why not find out the reason this mass is allowed to continue? Maybe the priest involved convinced him that it wasn't a "gay mass", only a mass at which some homos and dykes participate.
We have similar problems in the States where such things are openly tolerated and nothing's done about them, perhaps in hopes that once the fury of the laity opposed has calmed down, that things can get back to normal, but we honestly haven't looked into it and you are certainly right, but the only reason we've discovered why such things are allowed in the first place is because of that all-around collegial sort of leadership style which punishes traditionalists (or tries to ignore them) while tolerating the radicals and progressives. The later deserves no toleration and toleration gives tacit approval, and the usual thinking which goes along with such events is that the homosexuals in question aren't going to get this kind of ministry elsewhere, or some other drivel. The fact is, they can get what they need in any orthodox parish in the world. Of course, men of Cardinal Pell's cloth often tolerate such things on their turf for reasons I am at some difficulty to ascribe positive motives to.
You're going to do much better if you're going to actually make out these accusations.
We didn't want to say anything while His Grace was in line for the promotion. It's true, no one has said why Cardinal Pell didn't get the Congregation job, but it might have something to do with his handling of Ried, and it might have something to do with his health, or a combination of the two. Or it could have been something else; so why not look at how he's handled Sex Abuse in general, we already KNOW that he's made heterodox statements in the past, shouldn't that be enough? The only thing which disturbs us about this is that this Prelate probably wasn't passed over because of his heterodoxy.
And no, it's not Pell's duty to address the delinquencies of other bishops - that's the curia's role.
There's a New South Wales Bishops' Conference, no?
It's everyone's responsibility. Had the Bishop of Newcastle been in my Archdiocese, I would have made sure the man was scrubbing floors in an AIDS hospice by the time I was done with him.
Please, get a degree in common law or canon law or theology - with a concentratin on moral theology (or better still, all three) before you comment on things. At least then, you'll understand what evdidence and proof mean.
You don't need a degree in those things to know the difference and if I've gaffed on that point, please excuse. This isn't necessarily an academic discussion, although precision and truth are extremely important values.
What we do know, and agree upon, you and I, is that Cardinal Pell is heterodox. I think we disagree when it comes to what response that requires of a layman, a priest or a bishop.
To our way of thinking, it requires increased resistance to the status quo throughout the Church which is still poor and will probably always be poor.
So, we few Orthodox must get our sacraments where we can and do our part, prayerfully, for the restoration of what's been destroyed, and the beauty of what's been obscured (sometimes whitewashed) and the clarity of what's been confused, by those teaching at pontifical institutes which offer degrees in Canon Law and Moral Theology.
I spoke to a moral theologian the other day, incidentally. He's a thoroughgoing materialist, attacks the natural law and had just said a Polka Mass, so no, there is no guarantee that an education in the Canon Law or the Moral Law, even if I were capable of such advanced and noble studies, would improve me.
I always need to work on the logic though. That has always bothered me a lot.
P.S. You may not like that people without advanced degrees in these fields comment and worry about these things, but you don't need an advanced degree to know that Bishops like Pell have been falling down on the job for years, while kicking around those who have an answer to the problems of modernity to the curb, those who like Our Lord, have no place to lay their heads.
No, the relevant problem is NOT Pell's heterodoxy - it is a problem but that particular problem is not the point of this discussion. It's his dealing - or alleged non-dealing - with sexual deviants.
And no-one, not even the SSPX can simply stop people from coming to their masses just because they're homos or lezos. Holding a "gay mass" is something altogether different.
Why would you say it isn't the issue? It's the entire issue and the root of the problem. If you know what someone believes and doesn't believe, you know how they'll behave. If a man doesn't believe in the inerrancy of Holy Writ, he's got some serious credibility issues and should find himself another job, perhaps a carnival barker, a confidence man or street hustler.
I'm not worried so much about homosexuals going to SSPX chapels. The SSPX priest will never nod and wink at their transgressions, or give mealy homilies giving a sort of tacit or not so tacit approval of the behavior.
I knew Scott Reid some time ago & remember him telling me (& anyone else who would listen) about 'George' whom he said was a friend of his since his seminary days. So it seems to me that the Cardinal has known Scott - and any foibles he may have - for many years.
Post a Comment