the golden years
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jul 26, 2005
Older folks often grow poor at remembering names.
Reached last week at his apartment in a Denver retirement community and told of Trask's allegation, the 72-year-old [Father Harold R.] White replied, "Aw, geez." He paused, then continued: "I sure don't recall that. I have no recollection of that person."
Asked whether he had ever been accused of child sexual abuse, White said, "That's sort of a personal question. I don't think you have the right to ask that."
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($193 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Novus744 -
Jul. 27, 2005 1:50 PM ET USA
Gil is absolutely right on this one. It's not that the EX-priest didn't answer, it's that he answered by saying, "I don't remember". Personally, I wouldn't trust a priest that had been laicized. That's a pretty big statement all on its own. Saying, "I don't remember" means that it might have happened, but he claims he doesn't remember. He is certainly capable of it. How many of us, if accused of the same thing, would say, "I WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING!!!" One of them is lying.
Posted by: -
Jul. 27, 2005 9:02 AM ET USA
Only solid evidence justifies a guilty verdict. A doorstep interview by a news vulture doesn't fall into that category. This man may be guilty, but then again, he may not. Solid evidence is what makes the difference. Where is it?
Posted by: Canismater -
Jul. 27, 2005 8:32 AM ET USA
Without council anything he says would hang him. If he had the resources to secure civil council, which he most likely does not since he’s been cut off from the diocese to whom he had worked for little for so many years however dishonorably, they would be his spokesperson. Dallas assured the diocese does not pay or provide for a priest’s civil council. Silence is not guilt, haven’t you ever seen “A Man For All Seasons”? Priests for whom damages have been paid are sitting ducks.
Posted by: murph -
Jul. 26, 2005 11:30 PM ET USA
Nonsense, Gil. Not responding to an accusation doesn't make you guilty. I know because it happened to my very honest, God fearing father. Someone accused him of terrible things and he felt everybody who knew him would know it was ridiculous so he didn't dignify the accusations with a response. People then assumed he was guilty. Even his friends. Hurt him 'till the day he died. I have no idea if this priest is guilty; just that not answering charges doesn't make him so.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Jul. 26, 2005 6:57 PM ET USA
Sorry, Canismater. If he were innocent, I think both he and the diocese would have responded differently. The diocese would have said (firmly) something like, "This is the first allegation we have ever had against this man. His record is absolutely clean." And he would have said something like, "Not no, but hell, no. It's a lie. I never touched anybody in that way." You can argue presumption of innocence and privacy all you like. The fact that nobody denied it is...a fact.
Posted by: Canismater -
Jul. 26, 2005 5:37 PM ET USA
He wants full disclosure? It sounds like a fishing expedition. Brandon could have learned that someone else got some $$ as a result of White and wanted in on the $$. This stuff is way out of control. Where's the same level of suspicion for the accuser? Read this without the newspaper's slant and "I'm leaving here with an empty heart." translates into: I'm leaving here with an empty wallet. Then this: “Trask has changed his mind about wanting an apology...file a lawsuit..." Ahhhhhh. Of course.