Still thinking about ...
UPDATED - I've added this link (thanks to Carolyn Disco) - Why Bishop Finn deserves indictment, Rod Dreher, The American Conservative
Bishop Finn covering up child porn on a priest's computer. My friend Todd at Catholic Sensibility has been persoally affected by what's happened, and the post at dotCommonweal keeps generating comments, some of them very informative, some of them hair-raising. Here's a time-line of the events.
Bishop Finn covering up child porn on a priest's computer. My friend Todd at Catholic Sensibility has been persoally affected by what's happened, and the post at dotCommonweal keeps generating comments, some of them very informative, some of them hair-raising. Here's a time-line of the events.
posted by crystal | 9:21 PM
6 Comments:
Crystal, thank you for linking to the timeline, which I hadn't seen--and which is a valuable resource.
I also read Todd's posting. It's painful to hear the quandary that what has happened now poses for him with his daughter--and to think how he's one of many Catholics in his diocese who have to have the same quandary now.
I liked very much how he frames the calling to all of us: either bend the ears of our heart to the voice of God, or do it our own way--as Bishop Finn chose to do.
And then we suffer the consequences for dulling the ears of our heart to the divine voice . . . .
I'm uncomfortable with the imprecise language used here. "Disturbing" -- what does that mean? Not "obscene," not "salacious," not "horrendous." Without specifics, I'd almost equate the word "disturbing" with "suspicious." This is not a good thing, of course, but it sure falls short of a discription of porn. If I had been either a Church official or a police officer, I'd have wanted more specific information. Did Finn ask what "disturbing" meant? If not, why not? Did he not want to know?
But Murphy is the one who seems to have had the most relevant information at the earliest time. I'd love to see his explanation of his roundabout conversation with the police office about the picture(s).
Murphy in a well run corporation wold be gone by now.
How is a picture of a child's sexual members something you have to ask a policeman about while lying that it's a priest's relative. The policeman was later schocked to find that she was not a relative and that there were numerous pictures. It's good though that Benedict has time to write three books while Rome burns. We actually need future popes to have no talent because those are the only Popes who will actually love administration from dawn to dusk.
Hi William,
Thanks - I found that timeline link in the comments at the dotCommonweal post.
Hi Denny,
Yes, what does "disturbing"mean? That link to a story at the top of my post - Why Bishop Finn deserves indictment - has the actual details of what's in some of the photos - really icky stuff.
Hi Bill,
Yes, it does sound like Murphy should have been indicted too. Interestingly, the recent news says the Vatican has said they'll not get involved in the case - I guess they want to distance themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home