 |
| After today's testimony I doubt there were any smiles around the defense table, on certainly not on Msgr Lynn's face. |
The following is an excerpt from the most recent post by Ralph Cipriano's coverage of the clerical abuse trial still underway in Philadelphia. It's powerful because it carries foundational truths. It involves the testimony of a nun who was sexually abused by one Father Cudemo, her uncle, who not only abused her, but other of her cousins and ten other female victims. The Archdiocese was first made aware of Cudemo's problems in 1966, but he was allowed to prey on children for another 25 years until something was finally done. As far as defendant Msgr Lynn is concerned, her testimony probably put the dagger in Lynn's Nuremberg style defense.
All along, the defense mantra has been that the monsignor was just a cog in the wheel down at archdiocese headquarters on 222 N. 17th St., and that the ultimate villain in the case was the guy who wielded the ultimate power in the archdiocese, the conveniently dead Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua.
But the nun on the witness stand refused to play along.
It started when Thomas Bergstrom, a defense lawyer for Msgr. Lynn, tried to get the nun on cross-examination to agree that Msgr. Lynn did not have the power to remove from ministry a pastor who had sexually abused her and at least 10 other women.
"He [Lynn] had the power to suggest it," she said, referring to the removal of the pastor. And then on redirect, when the prosecutor asked her about the power Lynn had as the archdiocese's secretary for clergy, the nun said that Lynn had the simple power of just saying no.
Instead of going along with the power structure, the nun said, "You can also say, I cannot do this."
It was a simple, but powerful declaration coming from a nun who herself was an administrator down at archdiocese HQ, and also as a young woman, a victim of sex abuse from a pervert priest.
The nun, who did not want to be identified, wasn't finished.
"I would think that his [Lynn's] recommendation would be heard,"she told Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington. And if it wasn't, Lynn could have told the cardinal, "I cannot go on; if it isn't done that way, I can quit."
The nun's firm but understated conviction about the need to simply do what was right sent a ripple of excitement through courtroom spectators, which included victims of sex abuse, and activists hoping for the impossible, reform in the Roman Catholic Church. It also raised an age-old question, namely why do the women in the Catholic church usually have more balls than the men?
****************************************
"why do the women in the Catholic Church usually have more balls than the men?" Maybe because it's been that way since Mary said yes, and Jesus looked down from His Cross and only one of his male 'apostles' could be found, and when He rose from the dead, there were only women. It's always been this way, but it can no longer stay this way. It's time more men found their balls---even the one's with collars.
Women in the Church have more balls then men because they were metaphorically castrated at the time they were born XX. They have nothing to loose in terms of the power structure because they are at the bottom of a structure that does not respect their opinions and will not let them grow and develop in responsibilities of the Church. These women are brave because at the twilight of their carriers, the misogynist bishops are even threatening them with lose of the meager resources of their orders to take care of them in "old age." How many of these women were given social security wages? I think the nuns should, if they have not already, gotten a group of attorneys to look after their legal rights. My feeling are piss on the Bishops because of their many dastardly deeds and total lack of integrity. I bet there will be no lack of attorneys that feel exactly the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe more truthful elements in the Church come from these women of integrity. Any organization that has integrity in the RCC will back these nuns as most of the laity will. Rome is simply imploding and destroying its better parts before the stench itself explodes.
dennis
This is a good point Dennis, the nuns don't have anything to lose in terms of status or power with in the clerical system. Maybe it was to foster this kind of freedom to act that Jesus insists His followers be unburdened with the things of this world and leaders to be servants to the servants.
DeleteYes!!! "It's time more men found their balls--even the one's with collars" !!! A big pain in the balls..... if I had them!
ReplyDeleteButterfly
Among other things, Sister's testimony is a striking commentary on the state of Msgr. Lynn's conscience during the years of the cover-up.
ReplyDeleteSo we need more John the Apostles among the Church. Somewhat related ,Fr. Richard Rohr remarked that the Catholic Church names a lot of parishes Christ the King but never one with the title of Christ the Prophet. Prophets are never respected in their own times since they call out injustices occuring within their societies.
ReplyDeleteAs ever, I don't really go along with the anticlericalism, and as ever your archaic sexism is pretty grotesque...
ReplyDelete...but, nonetheless, that shouldn't be allowed to detract from the good work of this courageous nun, or the obvious good that these cases are being examined in courts of law in which evidence can be weighed and balanced, and criminals held to account.
That's fine Invictus, the criminals are the RCC Bishops all of them-- the most aggressive of the bunch from Ratizinger on down, but also the passive ones that know that the Ratzinger JPII appointees are misogynists and authoritarian. They are ethical criminals in their lack of integrity that keeps them from speaking out. There are a few exceptions and this list will grow a little, but it will not be enough to prevent the implosion of the RCC and its anti Christ anti christian leadership. The laity must take control to save the Chruch because the Irish and Austiran and South American priests that disagree with Benedict will not be enough.
DeleteAgreed. Though I am currently clinging to any pro- clerical evidance I can grasp.
DeleteAll bishops are criminals? RCC is the antichrist?
DeleteAnd 'Erin' agrees?
Such love on this blog, such charity! XD
Invictus, you insist on everyone else having charity except those in the leadership of the Church who are enabling hypocrites when it comes to charity. Since when is pedophilia & the enabling of them charitable, or misogyny, or gay-bashing, or economic greed or the enabling of such wilful ignorance, charitable?
DeleteThe very idea of charity from what I can see of your writings is frozen in a snowball of enabling concoctions from any snowflake of an excuse and it is spinning out of control. The uncharitable snowballs of enabling & hypocrite bishops has been falling down the Vatican palace mountain of enabling hypocrites of all sorts of abuse and it really has nowhere else to go but downhill at ever increasing speed. As this enabling snowball gathers speed from the weight of gravity pulling it down, it is also ever more speedily getting larger and larger for all to see the path of destruction from the Church's leaders of uncharitable enablers of abuses against their neighbors.
Butterfly
I'm not defending paedophiles. I've only been defending the doctrines of the Church, and supporting a reasoned and coherent response to such abuses.
DeleteIn my posts, that is what you will always tend to find. I expect charity from everyone, and it is always sad when one finds so little as one does here.
Then there is something about the interpretation and/or meaning of the doctrines that you are stuck in and defending which is causing you great confusion and a clinging to doctrine alone, where you will never find the answer. It seems that when reason goes astray into a personal narcissism and defense of the unreasonable against the witness of truth that one cannot come up with a coherent response to such clerical abuses. The fruit of the hierarchy's response to all kinds of abuse is to ignore the truth that others bear witness to, deny the truth, defend dogma over that which is love and that continues the cycle of abuse.
DeleteI've witnessed many responses to yours Invictus and they have not all been charitable. Perhaps to yourself they have been most charitable. I can't really say that all of your comments have been charitable. If we contemplate on what the Church should be for, the ultimate goal is to find that charity from our most loving Christ. We are not perfect and neither is our neighbor. Is the answer then to bear false witness against our neighbor? Or is the answer in dogma? Or is the answer in asking God for charity?
If dogma itself does not contain charity, how can one find charity in it?
Also, if one expects charity from everyone, when most are lacking it, and all expect charity that is the exact same as your notion is of charity within the confines of logic or dogma, it sounds to me an unreasonable & selfish form of charity.
Butterfly
I don't necessarily have to contemplate the purpose of the Church to discern what it is for, because it's establishment is scripturally very explicit and is live-out in the world in a very obvious way.
DeleteJuxtaposing the virtue of charity with the existence of doctrine is not only fallacious, but damaging.
Invictus said "I'm not defending paedophiles. I've only been defending the doctrines of the Church, and supporting a reasoned and coherent response to such abuses.
DeleteIn my posts, that is what you will always tend to find. I expect charity from everyone, and it is always sad when one finds so little as one does here."
If you are "supporting a reasoned and coherent response to such abuses" such as pedophile priests, Invictus, what is the "reasoned and coherent response" that you can offer from dogma alone?
Also, if you do not contemplate the "purpose of the Church to discern what it is for" how is it that you seem to believe that charity is fallacious and damaging if you separate charity from the Church's establishment?
Butterfly
Invictus,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect what example(s) can u give of "archaic sexism", quoting from the content of this article?
Searcher
Of course.
Delete""why do the women in the Catholic Church usually have more balls than the men?" Maybe because it's been that way since Mary said yes, and Jesus looked down from His Cross and only one of his male 'apostles' could be found, and when He rose from the dead, there were only women. It's always been this way, but it can no longer stay this way. It's time more men found their balls"
Archaic misandry.
So Invictus where are your balls? you speak the words of the enabler just like the bishops who did not actually pass priests from place to place who refuse to criticize a Vatican that harbors such criminals as Cardinal Law and continues to give him power over the investigation of nuns when it is the Bishops themselves that should be investigated. Most of the Bishops have indeed been ethical criminals either engaged in enabling the rape of fellow priests or not speaking out against it.
DeleteTo critique the radical injustice of woman haters and enablers of rape is actually justified anger and it is in fact loving for those that the Bishops are intentionally ignoring, putting down and treating as if they and not the bishops are the ethical criminals. No balls for that type of critique Inviticus? Those in greedy organizations such as Opus Dei have no ball but they do have a lot of hate.
Interesting. Invictus calls facts restated from the New Testament 'archaic misandry'. Maybe because it portrays the women as having more strength than men? But he thinks it is just fine and dandy and not misogyny when women are excluded from the leadership of the church for a lack of physical 'balls'. And yet he/she/it calls me archaically sexist...
DeleteVeronica
"The clergy have no balls" is a "fact related from the New Testament?
DeleteNice one, V. Smooth logic.
Jesus had quite nice things to say about eunuchs and I bet some of them went on to be leaders in the nascent Christian community. They may not have had physical balls, but they did have courage.
DeleteBesides, T'Pel is referring to the fact it was a woman who had the courage to say yes to a birth which could easily have resulted in her stoning, and it was women who had the courage to witness the crucifixion and resurrection--and women were most certainly recorded as being present at Pentecost, which is the real starting point for the Church. Our male leadership tends to overlook that point. The Holy Spirit does not seem to require male genitalia for her work.
One interesting fact that we can be fairly certain of is that great triune God neither has human emotions not human genitalia. Since men of the church continue to express our God as if he were Male, It really seems that the wisdom to keep these men if they really were like humans, together would be the breath of the woman, The Holy Spirit. dennis
DeleteThank you, Colleen. It appears that Invictus overlooks those facts related from the New Testament in his/her/its too eager defense of clericalism and male chauvinism.
DeleteVeronica
You seem to be collectively missing the point.
DeleteDerogatory language toward men is no more progressive than derogatory language about women.
Blog posts along the lines of "Christian men have no balls. They never have done. That sucks, and they ought to man up and grow a set." shouldn't really be created by people who are so quick to perceive slights against women.
You're right Invictus, the language is derogatory, but it does describe a fact about a problem with kind of obedience demanded of our hierarchy. This kind of obedience mitigates against personal courage.
DeleteAnyway, it was Aquinas who determined women were misbegotten males so that should excuse my misbegotten emphasis of a line in an article written about clerical men by a man.
Invictus,
DeleteI would hardly call women's disgust, which should not be confused with bitterness, with how the all-male hierarchy has & is treating women in general and women religious currently being inquisitioned as "so quick to perceive slights against women." The entire liturgy excludes women. There is no perception of slights against women, especially in that regard. It is not a perception. It is a reality we experience. We do not exist to the hierarchy in power now. Our voice does not count at all. That sucks. It sucks for the men too that this is going on.
Maybe you just need a sense of humor to be able to laugh at the absurdness and the outright hostility towards women from the hierarchy that has a deleterious affect in the Church and in the world. Try walking a mile in our shoes and then get back to us women and tell us about your real life experience.
Butterfly
The technique, Invictus, is to set the bait with a question, probe a bit, find a soft spot or an area of sensitivity, and provoke a response (a little hurried, quick, cutting, or flippant). Then you turn that on the person, talking about impropriety or insensitivity or lack of knowledge. You see it all the time in political campaigns. It's nearly constant in blog response queues. It's a technique used to gain the upper hand , and it's a hallmark of dysfunctional families, especially when someone actually names the elephant in the room. Not dialogue, not the way of Jesus, not what Paul employed.
DeleteWe see you.
Matt Connolly
Matt, That is exactly what Invictus does. I have been witnessing this type of thing way too much lately. I agree that it is not the way of Jesus.
DeleteButterfly
It seems that a blogger like invictus has a lot of time on his hands. Where does he earn his living? Could it be in an Opus Dei seminary? He has never denied his connections to this hate filled institution.
DeleteConnolly,
DeleteBeing so clearly up on your debating skills, you'll surely know that ad hominem is off the cards. So, perhaps less conjecture about my dysfunctional family? ;-)
Dennis,
I'm not a seminarian or a member of Opus Dei.
The dysfunctional family is our family, the Church. I hope you and yours are doing well. Sorry for any confusion.
DeleteSo, you mark out my comments as bearing the hallmarks of 'those within the Church'. Why don't yours bear those same hallmarks?
DeletePretty much proves my point, doesn't it?
DeleteGoing back to not feeding the troll.
Yes, proves your point, again, Matt. And also about my point too about charity. Invictus expects it, but can't fathom giving some of it away to the rest of us "doomed" people.
DeleteButterfly
Thanks, Butterfly. I agree.
DeleteMatt
Who said anyone here is "doomed"? The idea is ridiculous.
DeleteAnd congrats Colkoch! Your defence of derogatory misandric language because it 'describes a real problem' gave me a good giggle! Very liberal of you. ;-)
Join the club Invictus, women have been exposed to derogatory language from male Doctors of the Church for two millennium, or is that OK because it was men derogatorily describing women and Vatican men pronouncing their derogatory observations as Catholic belief?
DeleteOh give it up, Colkoch. Last time I rebutted that one with quotes from Augustine and the Catechism, you stopped replying!
DeleteIt isn't that simple Invictus. The Fathers of the Church have uniformly described women in vicious terms, slightly above Satan, but not much above Satan. Augustine had nice words to say about his mother. He failed to even give his concubine and mother of his son any name recognition. Do me a favor and research this issue, substitute male or men for all the statements about women, to help you identify a little better, and then come back and tell me all of this is not derogatory to women.
DeleteYes, indeed: if Mary hadn't started the ball rolling with her courageous yes, where would the whole shebang be?
ReplyDelete