By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 05, 2007
Polish archbishop admits cooperated with communists
Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus Denies Having Worked As Communist Informer
The two stories are covering the same statement by the same bishop.
If you really work at it, you can just barely reconcile the two headlines. The archbishop did admit to some contacts with Communist officials; he denied that he had informed on his colleagues. Which is more newsworthy: the admission or the denial? Your answer will match the headline you prefer.
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 July expenses ($8,498 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: Gino -
Jan. 06, 2007 10:09 AM ET USA
This bishop definitely qualifies to belong to the USCCB and take Card. McCarrick's place on the commission examining politicians who support abortion and still receive Holy Communion. He double talks enough to be the spokesman. Speak but say nothing; that's the USCCB way!
Posted by: voxfem -
Jan. 06, 2007 12:09 AM ET USA
Or maybe it's just quibbling. You know, I didn't hit my brother (but I did push him). Did the archbishop agree to act as an informer and then make sure he never had anything to inform about, thus "not harming anyone"? Or is it all just a word game? In any case, why don't people in authority (and not just in the Church) who get in these situations resign for the good of the people they are supposed to be in charge of? Or does that take moral courage which we no longer have or think important?
Posted by: Minnesota Mary -
Jan. 06, 2007 12:08 AM ET USA
According to his remarks, his ends justified his means. This is not a man who should be given this appointment. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
Posted by: Charles134 -
Jan. 05, 2007 4:53 PM ET USA
It looks like he's been lying. Lying over the past few days. Check rorate-caeli. Will this be enough to disqualify him? If not, what would disqualify a man from being installed as an archbishop? It's one thing to talk about repentance and forgiveness, but it looks like this guy lied yesterday. maybe this morning. Where is the repentance?
Posted by: Charles134 -
Jan. 05, 2007 3:21 PM ET USA
Is this guy okay or not? Either he's innocent of being a communist informer, or he's lying, right? Which means, not just guilty of a past sin, but of a current, ongoing one. Are there that few good candidates that we need a question mark as an Archbishop?