call me irresponsible

By Diogenes (articles ) | Oct 18, 2005

Archbishop Harry Flynn of St. Paul, Minnesota, is troubled by criticism of the director of the US bishops' Office for Child and Youth Protection, Teresa Kettelkamp. He has written to all US bishops:

I wish to respond to recent public criticism of Ms. Kettelkamp in a few quarters.
He means, among others, these quarters.
As a distinguished law enforcement official, Ms. Kettelkamp was asked to lend her name to the board of advisers of the National Center for Women and Policing (NCWP). When it was being formed, the NCWP was provided funding by the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) which continues to do so.

Nice footwork there. The reason that the FMF "provided funding" for NCWP is because NCWP is a project of FMF.

Ms. Kettelkamp was never in any way associated with or active in the FMF. Reports that link her with the FMF through the NCWP are untrue and unjust...

Funny the archbishop should use that term: "link." Go to the FMF web site and see if you can find the link to NCWP. That wasn't too hard, was it? Nor should it be, since the one is a part of the other.

If you work for Chevrolet, is it "unfair and unjust" to say that you're connected with General Motors? If you're active in the Gambino crime family, is it "unfair and unjust" to say that you belong to the Mob?

...The Committee has every confidence in her fidelity to the Church teaching, and we deeply regret the damage done to her reputation by rumor, innuendo, and irresponsible reporting.
If any damage was done to Kettelkamp's reputation by rumor or innuendo, I regret it. At the same time, I regret any damage done to Uncle Di's reputation for accuracy, by duplicitous memos from irresponsible bishops.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

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!

Show 12 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Oct. 20, 2005 9:50 AM ET USA

    No disagreement there, AveMaria! I do agree that filial correction is necessary and I have been very much involved in doing just that. My not-so-ordinary ordinary, Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk, has heard from me several times. I am just saying the bishops who ARE following Christ properly need to know we appreciate them just as much as those who don't obey need our filial corrections. If it is indeed true most US bishops dissent from the Magisterium then we are in more trouble than I thought!

  • Posted by: Barb Kralis - Oct. 19, 2005 8:57 PM ET USA

    To Convert 1994: Huh? 'Good' Bishops, as you call them, need not approval ratings from us. The 'good' Bishops are actually very much in the minority and are simply doing what they are supposed to do. The majority of U.S. Bishops, however, do dissent from Magisterial teachings in their sundry ways, thus makintg the 'good' Bishops look oddly faithful. Apostolate [work] to correct [with filial love] the unfaithful Bishops is an important Spiritual Work of Mercy, which few are willing to perform.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 19, 2005 9:31 AM ET USA

    Convert 1994, I used to think like that, lived in northern Nevada, didn't hear much at the parish level from the bishop, people seemed to like him--then I took my children to the Respect Life Mass (held at a Catholic grade school) and listened to the good Bishop's homily which thoroughly covered why smoking is "not choosing life." He asked the school children why God made them. Not one of the "Catholic" school kids could answer that question, yet this bishop stays below the radar screen.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 19, 2005 8:47 AM ET USA

    Yes, this is the same bishop who denied Fr. Marx. I've noticed a running theme through many "Sound Off" postings: Bad bishops! While I'm all for calling bad bishops to task I do think we need to "Sound Off" about some bishops who ARE doing a good job or at least not doing any damage to the Church. Believe it or not, the good ones are in the majority!

  • Posted by: Barb Kralis - Oct. 18, 2005 9:38 PM ET USA

    Hmmmmm. It's déjá vu all over again.

  • Posted by: michaelwilmes - Oct. 18, 2005 8:50 PM ET USA

    .......and is not this the same archbishop who refused to allow Father Paul Marx to say Mass or speak in Minneapolis/St. Paul a few years back? Who was the mud-slinger then? The dear "arch" has a nasty case of amnesia or is simply a hypocrite. Thanks for all your insight, Uncle Di! Libera nos Dominae.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 18, 2005 6:56 PM ET USA

    Follow the links as Di suggested. The NCWP site, in plain English, states that they're a part of Feminist Majority. I'd say let's inform Bishop Flynn about this plain English, but perhaps that language is beyond his ken.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 18, 2005 6:39 PM ET USA

    Look, Uncle Di, you don't expect an important Archbishop to check all of these obscure details before smearing some pesky journalists, do you? He is way too busy protecting the children to engage in staff work. Come on.

  • Posted by: Sir William - Oct. 18, 2005 5:46 PM ET USA

    Seems there may be more of a link between Kettelkamp and these pro-abortion groups, than the USCCB has linking their leardership to traditional Catholic moral Teachings and Traditions. And that is by observing the fruit of their labors, not by rumor or innuendo.

  • Posted by: Clorox - Oct. 18, 2005 4:42 PM ET USA

    It seems that the USCCB didn't conduct a proper background check on Ms. Kettelkamp. Can we trust her to protect our unborn babies? Maybe the USCCB should devise a "Good Link/Bad Link" program.

  • Posted by: Vincit omnia amor - Oct. 18, 2005 3:44 PM ET USA

    This AB doesn't seem to be living in reality! If he's so upset that Ms. Kettelkamp is critized for lending her name to a pro-abortion group then it would seem the "defense" in accord with the example of the Saints (and common sense) would be to at LEAST publically state she is against abortion. His denial of a "linkage" is strange indeed.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 18, 2005 3:02 PM ET USA

    If they are untrue and unjust then why doesn't six gun Sally defend herself, herself? Or, at the USCCB, do they praise as well as bury their special investigators via intermediaries? I note the conspicuous absence of the phrase "Magisterium". I'm not wild about Harry.