your suspicious nature
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jun 01, 2006
When you heard about the arrest of the man doing background checks on employees for the Cincinnati archdiocese, I bet you jumped to a conclusion, didn't you. You just assumed that he had been arrested for...
Drug possession? No? Admit it, then; you were wrong. You're getting paranoid, and we really have to do something about all your silly suspicions.
But now it turns out that the man had a string of previous arrests. So now the archdiocesan personnel department looks bad. They must have been asleep at the switch, if they didn't do a criminal background check on the criminal-background checker. Don't you think?
Wrong again. The archdiocesan personnel director had known the young man for 20 years. His criminal record did not come as a surprise.
So why would someone knowingly hire an ex-con to do background checks? Admit it: You're getting suspicious again, aren't you?
Well waddaya know, the ex-con says that the personnel director had abused him over a period of years. The personnel director denies the charges. But don't worry; he has resigned now, and the police are investigating. You can relax; everything will turn out all right.
Now, about those crazy suspicions you keep having...
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!
Our Spring Challenge Grant
Progress toward our Spring Challenge Grant goal ($17,958 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: -
Jun. 01, 2006 8:06 PM ET USA
Hate to burst any bubbles about who and what might seem squeaky-clean when viewed from Rome, but in San Francisco under C. Levada (now head of Benedict XVI's former office), a priest who turned in a sexually abusive pastor was relegated to a life of non-existence, non-assigned - still in effect long after pastor was charged and removed. (Priest-reporter called in the law, a no-no.) C. Levada also continued to approrve gay adoptions - hey, "only a few". How do such keep moving up and up?
Posted by: -
Jun. 01, 2006 12:08 PM ET USA
Unfortunately, special ops, Pilarczyk, Trautman, Mahony and McCarrick are only the vanguard of the forces of liberalism. The USCCB is rotten with the likes of these four and the few truly good shepherds are relegated to obscurity. That is why so-called traditionalists (like me) have little regard for the Church of the New Order. Neo-modernism is responsible, and unless leadership changes dramatically, good priests like you will be forced to accept this corrupted Catholicism as the “new normal.”
Posted by: Fr. William -
Jun. 01, 2006 11:27 AM ET USA
Yes, Diogenes, such crazy suspicions about certain bishops and how they "shepherd" their dioceseses, especially about such bishops as Pilarczyk & Trautman, & such cardinals as Mahoney & McCarrick. I mean, all they do is openly challenge/question the authority of the Holy Father, the Magisterium, Congregation for Divine Worship... I can't relax, though. I am fervently praying for bishops & for us priests, that we live the call to holy boldness. Saint Justin, martyr, pray for us...
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jun. 01, 2006 10:23 AM ET USA
Who hired the personnel director? Or did he just show up one day, walk into the Chancery office, sit down and start making phone calls? Odd that there's no calls for the Archbishop's head on a stick, whereas the protests were deafening in Chicago.
Posted by: -
Jun. 01, 2006 10:07 AM ET USA
Maybe this explains why some volunteer catechists have been reluctant to give their SSNs and submit to fingerprinting as part of diocesan background checks. Could it be a case of the wolf guarding the hen house?