I just received Deal Hudson’s latest e-letter, and it’s basically what he wrote in National Review Online, with some notable expansions:
Yesterday, the article was published. In it, they dug up a truly embarrassing event from my past. Ten years ago, I committed a serious sin with an undergraduate student of mine while teaching at Fordham University. For this I am truly and deeply sorry. I have confessed this and asked for forgiveness, my family has worked through it, and time has passed. But I know this is news to you, and so I offer my sincerest apologies. I recognize that I have let countless people down and have brought scandal to myself, my family, and my Faith. For this, I beg your forgiveness.
Some may wonder why I speak of the event in a way that seems vague or abstract. Please don’t mistake this for lack of shame, regret, or repentance. The simple fact is, I can’t say any more about it. Ten years ago, I signed a confidentiality agreement, and so I’m seriously constrained in what I can say. I know this is frustrating for you, and so that’s one more thing I apologize for.
We learn a couple of important things. First, in the NRO piece he identified his shameful episode as “allegations from over a decade ago involving a female student at the college where I then taught.” But now he comes right out and says what it is. He also says that he has confessed his sin, has sought forgiveness, and worked through this with his family.
He doesn’t give any details and so we can’t know that the story the woman in the case presented to NCR is true or not. And that brings up another point: Deal says he signed a confidentiality agreement. Do not such agreements usually apply to all parties in a dispute? Would not this young woman be violating this agreement? Wouldn’t this taint her reliability if she was indeed violating it?
The letter writer wasn’t from San Francisco, but a nearby diocese. He doesn’t specify who the bishop or the diocese is.
Perhaps the letter writer is referring to Bishop McGrath of San Jose. http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2004/0404sf.htm
Yes, yes, and I’m not so sure.
There’s no way that the agreement was one-way in its confidentiality provisions. That would make absolutely no sense, especially since Hudson was the one paying the money and more likely to be scandalized by disclosure. (If anything, if the confidentiality agreement were one-way, it would logically have gagged the plaintiff, not the defendant.)
As for tainting her credibility, I don’t think so. Hudson admits to serious sin. I think that’s all we need to know. A very sad scandal.
There’s a wide difference between, dare I say it, “just plain” adultery and date rape, which is what her story amounts to. If her credibility is tainted then it might not be as bad as it could be while still remaining very serious sin. I guess it might just be splitting hairs, but for Deal, I think those minute differences are big ones.
Obviously sodomy is not a mortal sin but the Traditional Mass is.
Now this bishop would say that the Tradtional Mass isn’t in it’s self a sin but a vestige of a prior modle of the church. As Vatican 2 has stated that the Pope is only one among the bishops, this Mass must have approval of the local bishop. Those attending it would be “outside of the Church.” And after all, the Pope really didn’t mean what he said in Ecclesia Dei. It really is only for old people.
Now gay marriage is a subject about which the Church must have sensitivity. After all, God gave gay people their orientation and these couples have a right to live in the love of God and of the Church.
Previous admonitions against sodomy were only reflex opinions of a homophobic Church. Now, in this post Vatican Two era, we know that gay people, being also part of the “People of God”, have a right to express their sexuality in the direction that HE/SHE has given them.
Politics. Attacks against the Catholic Church and the Republican party all in one swoop. Shall we remind the liberals of the little blue dress and the excapades Boston? How about the Dallas follies? Give me a break.
He sinned, it’s confessed and over. The rest is ad hominem.
Sarcasm will get you nowhere, Brian. I have to assume that’s what all that crap above is, because you couldn’t possibly be serious. Or at least I hope not.
The views above pretty much would put a person outside the Catholic Church if they were serious.
Meanwhile, Catholics are working hard to make the church look like a den of criminals. We’re getting good at this—practice makes perfect.
We see the inside of the Catholic world, such as it is. There are really only 2 parts of this story:
1) the general impression visible to everybody, 90% of whom don’t know Deal Hudson from Bulwinkle and could care less. They think we’re all pedophiles and idiots nowdays, so…..I don’t think this is going to make any difference here at all. Bush will distance himself and the election will go on.
2) the loss of Deal’s ability to make the USCCB squirm. Now, that’s regrettable. But we’ll recover. Time and the game are on our side now.
Correction:
1) the general impression visible to everybody, 90% of whom don4-08-20 19:05:01
I take it the letter refers to Archbishop Levada in San Fran. I live across the Bay from his diocese and I will add that the Archbishop had spoken out against gay marriage and I believe even participated in an outdoor public protest.
I don’t have anything to add about the abortion and Passion of Christ topics.
Personally, I’m not one who subscribes to the concept of “date rape.” Either it’s rape or it isn’t (leaving aside statutory rape). I don’t see the NCR story describing something that sounds like rape to me. A professor abusing his position of trust to take advantage of a teenaged student who was vulnerable psychologically, not to mention drunk? Sure. Disgusting, appalling and shameful, and beyond plain ol’ adultery, but I don’t think it’s criminal.
I’ve gotta subscribe to the Reprter….just so I can cancel the subscription and write an angry letter….they are the real sinners in all this.
I’ve gotta subscribe to the Reprter….just so I can cancel the subscription and write an angry letter….they are the real sinners in all this.
I think Deal’s claiming he can’t speak about this because he signed a confidentiality agreement is entirely disingenuous. The girl’s story is out there now. We don’t know who provided the statement she made to Fordham to NCR, but it doesn’t matter, the story is public. The reason for the confidentiality agreement doesn’t exist any longer. Events have abrogated the agreement. I think he doesn’t want to talk about it because there’s no way he can defend his actions, and he doesn’t want to be drawn into a detailed discussion of a matter he forthrightly admits was shameful. I don’t blame him one bit. But I do wish he wouldn’t say he can’t talk about it because of this agreement, because that begs the question, “What’s the point of observing an agreement that is now meaningless?” And it begs the further question: “If you’ve said you can’t talk about it because of this agreement, but events have rendered the agreement meaningless, what reason do you have now for not talking about it?” He could say, “I just don’t want to discuss my past in public,” which I suspect is the truth (and it’s a valid reason, at least to me), but it makes him look bad for having claimed he was gagged solely by the agreement in the first place.
I think Deal’s claiming he can’t speak about this because he signed a confidentiality agreement is entirely disingenuous. The girl’s story is out there now. We don’t know who provided the statement she made to Fordham to NCR, but it doesn’t matter, the story is public. The reason for the confidentiality agreement doesn’t exist any longer. Events have abrogated the agreement. I think he doesn’t want to talk about it because there’s no way he can defend his actions, and he doesn’t want to be drawn into a detailed discussion of a matter he forthrightly admits was shameful. I don’t blame him one bit. But I do wish he wouldn’t say he can’t talk about it because of this agreement, because that begs the question, “What’s the point of observing an agreement that is now meaningless?” And it begs the further question: “If you’ve said you can’t talk about it because of this agreement, but events have rendered the agreement meaningless, what reason do you have now for not talking about it?” He could say, “I just don’t want to discuss my past in public,” which I suspect is the truth (and it’s a valid reason, at least to me), but it makes him look bad for having claimed he was gagged solely by the agreement in the first place.
There may be details that would put the student in a bad light and therefore Deal should not discuss the details.
He admitted to living a non-Christian sinful life, but has become a Christian, a Catholic, and has repented his ways, and made restitution. I can accept this change as sincere—who is more fervent than a former sinner? Remember St. Paul.
What I can’t abide is someone who won’t admit serious sins even while currently indulging in them and lying to pretend to be “religious.”
There may be details that would put the student in a bad light and therefore Deal should not discuss the details.
He admitted to living a non-Christian sinful life, but has become a Christian, a Catholic, and has repented his ways, and made restitution. I can accept this change as sincere—who is more fervent than a former sinner? Remember St. Paul.
What I can’t abide is someone who won’t admit serious sins even while currently indulging in them and lying to pretend to be “religious.”
Brian’s view matches almost all the Catholics I know.
Yawn…another apostate American Bishop.
Michigan:
He sinned, it) working for the USCCB and Catholic for Kerry. Could the graphic detail of this girls’ story prove my point? Why the salacious details?
The fact is he admitted to all that he is in good conscience able to admit under our laws. Whatever this girl says may release him, but til his lawyer gives the thumbs up, I’m guessing he’s holding onto the facts.
Which brings me to the biggest point, in my mind: Do we need the salcious details? Isn’t it enough for him to say that he did sin, that he DID repent and that he has turned from our sin? Hello class-did we miss that in our studies on the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
Because I’m in a position of say, some recognition here at the parish, do you think that they need to hear the details of a grave sin in my life? Is it not really enough that I have confessed my sin, found the help I needed and do not sin this way again? Why? And if the parish bulletin writer came around sniffing for details, just because there are details out there, does this mean, as a journalist that they need to make it public?
The difference with Enkh and Deal is that Enkh persists in his inconsistancy. Clinton, Kerry, them too. They all make it public, so they open themselves up to scandal and ridicule. Deal however does not seem to be persisting in sin and we cannot say if he is for we have no evidence as the other three have given us so much of.
I for one, a grave sinner cannot believe folks will continue to hold his feet to the fire. I’m an idiot sinner, I cannot and I won’t be casting the first stone. Not when I see that he’s repented and sinned no more.
Michigan:
He sinned, itp:comment_author>
dom@bettnet.com
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-08-22 09:36:13
2004-08-22 13:36:13
I was imprecise. I meant human law and assumed people would understand my point.
Rod:
Oh, I’m sure you are right that the confidentiality agreement isn’t the only (or main) reason why he doesn’t want to talk about it. Maybe it is me just being a lawyer and generally thinking people have a moral obligation to live up to their contractual obligations, but why does everyone assume that because the story is out there he is free now to ignore the confidentiality agreement? There’s no guarantee that public knowledge of the events is a release condition. And there is no agree that breach by one party (assuming there was a breach, which is unclear in this case) would automatically free the other. Not to mention who knows if they agreed on any financial penalties that would apply in the case of breach.
What I meant was that if she’s not telling the truth or is telling only half-truths, then he may not be guilty of date rape or some similar crime. He’s admitted to sin, but not all sin is a crime and who among us is not a sinner? I’m just a little surprised at the zeal and conviction with which some people (not necessarily here) have assumed that everything in the NCR article is true, that Deal is guilty of date rape and worse. I’m advising caution.
Good point Kelly…..
Okay. Let
isabelkilian@hotmail.com
69.73.61.33
2004-08-22 15:16:42
2004-08-22 19:16:42
When we confess our sins in a spirit of true repentance, God not only forgives, but chooses to forget. What kind of Catholic would recall what God has already forgotten? They are making a mockery of His grace.
For Mr. Hudson:
You must know you will be persecuted as a faithful member of Our Lord’s Church and sometimes that will mean even by members of our own family. Do not be afraid. Rejoice knowing Jesus went before you. You are in the prayers of many.
God Bless,
Isabel
I was imprecise. I meant human law and assumed people would understand my point.
Turn on EWTN now to see Deal Hudson talk about sex, marriage and contraception from several years ago.
Turn on EWTN now to see Deal Hudson talk about sex, marriage and contraception from several years ago.
It seems to me that if St. Paul’s and St. Augustine’s contemporaries had reacted as many here and elsewhere are, we would have had neither of them to revere, nor the bulk of the Epistles, nor the “City of God”, nor the “Confessions”. I think it the height of presumption and a sin against Charity to contend insincerity on Mr. Hudson’s part. We all claim to be sinners (which we don’t really believe), as if that gets us off the hook for reveling in this situation. I’d like to see who among us could look the world in the eye if some shameful episode from our pasts should come to light. In addition to truly remembering our own sinfulness, we need also to remember that other adage: “There but for the grace of God…..”
Signe
It seems to me that if St. Paul’s and St. Augustine’s contemporaries had reacted as many here and elsewhere are, we would have had neither of them to revere, nor the bulk of the Epistles, nor the “City of God”, nor the “Confessions”. I think it the height of presumption and a sin against Charity to contend insincerity on Mr. Hudson’s part. We all claim to be sinners (which we don’t really believe), as if that gets us off the hook for reveling in this situation. I’d like to see who among us could look the world in the eye if some shameful episode from our pasts should come to light. In addition to truly remembering our own sinfulness, we need also to remember that other adage: “There but for the grace of God…..”
Signe
Signe,
Whatever occurred, if properly confessed and lawfully absolved, has been not merely forgiven but FORGOTTEN by God. May He blot out our memories as well!
But my human memory is not yet blotted out, and until it is, I would prefer that Dr. Hudson avoid being an occasion for sin in me by staying off the public radar. I don’t want to remember the “episode” over and over again.
This current scandal is a result of Dr. Hudson’s work in public life AFTER God’s forgiveness was granted him, after he suffered professionally, and after he paid ample reparation. There would be no scandal if he had never gone to Washington! He is thus suffering solely for picking up his cross again after his fall.
But Dr. Hudson no doubt wants his apostolates to not suffer in spite of his past failings. He has already resigned from the Bush Campaign. [I]Crisis, too, should not be allowed to suffer. And they will suffer so long as Dr. Hudson, as a public figure, is primarily newsworthy for this “episode”.
P.S. I believe fully in ignoring the sins of those who have undergone conversions. I believe also that the public will forgive past sins confessed publicly, even in general terms. But that doesn’t apply in this case: Hudson converted in 1982, married in 1987 and got into trouble in 1994. To my knowledge, there has been no further public conversion or confession. St. Paul and St. Augustine were not notorious sinners after their conversions and ordinations.
Signe,
Whatever occurred, if properly confessed and lawfully absolved, has been not merely forgiven but FORGOTTEN by God. May He blot out our memories as well!
But my human memory is not yet blotted out, and until it is, I would prefer that Dr. Hudson avoid being an occasion for sin in me by staying off the public radar. I don’t want to remember the “episode” over and over again.
This current scandal is a result of Dr. Hudson’s work in public life AFTER God’s forgiveness was granted him, after he suffered professionally, and after he paid ample reparation. There would be no scandal if he had never gone to Washington! He is thus suffering solely for picking up his cross again after his fall.
But Dr. Hudson no doubt wants his apostolates to not suffer in spite of his past failings. He has already resigned from the Bush Campaign. [I]Crisis, too, should not be allowed to suffer. And they will suffer so long as Dr. Hudson, as a public figure, is primarily newsworthy for this “episode”.
P.S. I believe fully in ignoring the sins of those who have undergone conversions. I believe also that the public will forgive past sins confessed publicly, even in general terms. But that doesn’t apply in this case: Hudson converted in 1982, married in 1987 and got into trouble in 1994. To my knowledge, there has been no further public conversion or confession. St. Paul and St. Augustine were not notorious sinners after their conversions and ordinations.
When we confess our sins in a spirit of true repentance, God not only forgives, but chooses to forget. What kind of Catholic would recall what God has already forgotten? They are making a mockery of His grace.
For Mr. Hudson:
You must know you will be persecuted as a faithful member of Our Lord’s Church and sometimes that will mean even by members of our own family. Do not be afraid. Rejoice knowing Jesus went before you. You are in the prayers of many.
God Bless,
Isabel
When we confess our sins in a spirit of true repentance, God not only forgives, but chooses to forget. What kind of Catholic would recall what God has already forgotten? They are making a mockery of His grace.
For Mr. Hudson:
You must know you will be persecuted as a faithful member of Our Lord’s Church and sometimes that will mean even by members of our own family. Do not be afraid. Rejoice knowing Jesus went before you. You are in the prayers of many.
God Bless,
Isabel
Kelly: The e-letter shows that there are some points the gag order didn’t cover. I disagree with Rod that “not wanting to discuss my past in public” is a “valid reason” for not doing so, but again, let’s remember this opinion.
It shouldn’t amaze me, but it does: the circles people are running around trying to soften this whole sorry episode are incredible.
Kelly, I’m not trying to “soften” this episode. I think what he did was contemptible, and I think he was foolish to involve himself in the Bush campaign knowing he had this in his past, and knowing what a blood sport secular politics are. I agree with you that there are far too many people wanting to dismiss the seriousness of this thing out of hand because Deal Hudson is “one of ours.” I don’t think the NCR piece was an unfair hit job. I’m just trying to think as clearly about this as I can, and being as fair to him as I can. While I think he’s being disingenuous in his claim that a confidentiality agreement gags him now, I do believe that there’s a qualitative difference between the actions of a person who committed a grave sin and breach of professional ethics, paid his temporal punishment, and (presumably) repented and sinned no more in that way, and a priest who abused kids and was never made to pay for it or own up to it in any serious way. Greg Popcak has made this point.
Kelly: The e-letter shows that there are some points the gag order didn’t cover. I disagree with Rod that “not wanting to discuss my past in public” is a “valid reason” for not doing so, but again, let’s remember this opinion.
It shouldn’t amaze me, but it does: the circles people are running around trying to soften this whole sorry episode are incredible.
Kelly, I’m not trying to “soften” this episode. I think what he did was contemptible, and I think he was foolish to involve himself in the Bush campaign knowing he had this in his past, and knowing what a blood sport secular politics are. I agree with you that there are far too many people wanting to dismiss the seriousness of this thing out of hand because Deal Hudson is “one of ours.” I don’t think the NCR piece was an unfair hit job. I’m just trying to think as clearly about this as I can, and being as fair to him as I can. While I think he’s being disingenuous in his claim that a confidentiality agreement gags him now, I do believe that there’s a qualitative difference between the actions of a person who committed a grave sin and breach of professional ethics, paid his temporal punishment, and (presumably) repented and sinned no more in that way, and a priest who abused kids and was never made to pay for it or own up to it in any serious way. Greg Popcak has made this point.
Seamole,
Your first sentence makes my point precisely. I am not about to question the sincerity of someone’s conversion and repentence. Beyond that, it’s really none of our business. As for your P.S. I don’t believe he’s obliged to have a public conversion and confession. He’s already done (in my belief) what God requires of any of us. Just because he committed a grave sin (confesssed and repented) does not mean he should give up his right to try to effect change through the political process. Perhaps this was one of the ways of his working out his repentence. The article itself (which I refuse to stoop to read – I wouldn’t let that rag cross my threshold) is another venture in “gotcha” journalism. It serves no purpose other than to throw dirt on a man and his family. It comes under the definition of detraction and is in itself a matter for Confession under the 8th Commandment. Yes, Hudson should not have done what he did, but last time I checked, concupiscence had not been eradicated in the human soul. As I said that’s why we have Confession. Indeed, there are no reports of sinfulness after Paul’s and Augustine’s conversions, but we have none beyond this for Hudson. Paul definitely struggled with temptation, however, (I know – temptation is not sin). I would hardly call Hudson a “notorious” sinner – except that we know what he (presumably) did, thanks to the “Distorter”. Rather than chortle at his discomfiture and play the Publican, we’d be better off praying for him and his family (and ourselves).
Isabel,
Thank you. I could not have said it better (and obviously did not). God forgives and forgets – we like to continue to twist the knife. Your position reflects mine exactly.
Signe
Seamole,
Your first sentence makes my point precisely. I am not about to question the sincerity of someone’s conversion and repentence. Beyond that, it’s really none of our business. As for your P.S. I don’t believe he’s obliged to have a public conversion and confession. He’s already done (in my belief) what God requires of any of us. Just because he committed a grave sin (confesssed and repented) does not mean he should give up his right to try to effect change through the political process. Perhaps this was one of the ways of his working out his repentence. The article itself (which I refuse to stoop to read – I wouldn’t let that rag cross my threshold) is another venture in “gotcha” journalism. It serves no purpose other than to throw dirt on a man and his family. It comes under the definition of detraction and is in itself a matter for Confession under the 8th Commandment. Yes, Hudson should not have done what he did, but last time I checked, concupiscence had not been eradicated in the human soul. As I said that’s why we have Confession. Indeed, there are no reports of sinfulness after Paul’s and Augustine’s conversions, but we have none beyond this for Hudson. Paul definitely struggled with temptation, however, (I know – temptation is not sin). I would hardly call Hudson a “notorious” sinner – except that we know what he (presumably) did, thanks to the “Distorter”. Rather than chortle at his discomfiture and play the Publican, we’d be better off praying for him and his family (and ourselves).
Isabel,
Thank you. I could not have said it better (and obviously did not). God forgives and forgets – we like to continue to twist the knife. Your position reflects mine exactly.
Signe
Rod,
As far as I can see, my only disagreement with you is in the “valid reason” aspect. Others may disagree with me and others may be right. I’ve been known to be wrong before.
Frankly, I don’t really consider it my business anymore. Via his e-letter, he asked for forgiveness. Again, he’s already received mine.
The second paragraph you quoted wasn’t directed at you at all—in fact, it indicates that here we’re actually in agreement.
I also empathize with Dom, when he expresses surprise at:
the zeal and conviction with which some people (not necessarily here) have assumed that everything in the NCR article is true…
I emphathize with him, but am not really surprised. Remember back in mid-June when we got a “teaser” (and please, everybody…this isn’t an attack on Rod or anybody else) about the DMN explosive expose etc.? Nobody knew anything—Rod not only wasn’t at liberty to say, but wasn’t privy at the time to the details anyway—but that thread was filled with megatons of speculation. Some of which turned out to be good guesses…much of which were ‘way out in space somewhere.
I can understand why people tend to believe the worst, I guess. What I can’t understand is why so many seem to want to believe the worst.
Rod,
As far as I can see, my only disagreement with you is in the “valid reason” aspect. Others may disagree with me and others may be right. I’ve been known to be wrong before.
Frankly, I don’t really consider it my business anymore. Via his e-letter, he asked for forgiveness. Again, he’s already received mine.
The second paragraph you quoted wasn’t directed at you at all—in fact, it indicates that here we’re actually in agreement.
I also empathize with Dom, when he expresses surprise at:
the zeal and conviction with which some people (not necessarily here) have assumed that everything in the NCR article is true…
I emphathize with him, but am not really surprised. Remember back in mid-June when we got a “teaser” (and please, everybody…this isn’t an attack on Rod or anybody else) about the DMN explosive expose etc.? Nobody knew anything—Rod not only wasn’t at liberty to say, but wasn’t privy at the time to the details anyway—but that thread was filled with megatons of speculation. Some of which turned out to be good guesses…much of which were ‘way out in space somewhere.
I can understand why people tend to believe the worst, I guess. What I can’t understand is why so many seem to want to believe the worst.
Rod,
Sorry to disagree with your journalistic thoughts, but I sense you fall into much the same trap that many do: Let’s be 100% “objective” even if it means not giving voice to truth.
I think NCR DID want to do a hit job. They are notorious in their hits against the Church, though they hide it under the banner of “Catholic”. The continuously uphold liberal causes and are loathe to say that they are pro-Pope, pro teachings of the Faith. They are getting their jabs in for Deal pointing out the inconsistancy of Oko Enkh (whatever his name is) working for the USCCB and Catholic for Kerry. Could the graphic detail of this girls’ story prove my point? Why the salacious details?
The fact is he admitted to all that he is in good conscience able to admit under our laws. Whatever this girl says may release him, but til his lawyer gives the thumbs up, I’m guessing he’s holding onto the facts.
Which brings me to the biggest point, in my mind: Do we need the salcious details? Isn’t it enough for him to say that he did sin, that he DID repent and that he has turned from our sin? Hello class-did we miss that in our studies on the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
Because I’m in a position of say, some recognition here at the parish, do you think that they need to hear the details of a grave sin in my life? Is it not really enough that I have confessed my sin, found the help I needed and do not sin this way again? Why? And if the parish bulletin writer came around sniffing for details, just because there are details out there, does this mean, as a journalist that they need to make it public?
The difference with Enkh and Deal is that Enkh persists in his inconsistancy. Clinton, Kerry, them too. They all make it public, so they open themselves up to scandal and ridicule. Deal however does not seem to be persisting in sin and we cannot say if he is for we have no evidence as the other three have given us so much of.
I for one, a grave sinner cannot believe folks will continue to hold his feet to the fire. I’m an idiot sinner, I cannot and I won’t be casting the first stone. Not when I see that he’s repented and sinned no more.
Rod,
Sorry to disagree with your journalistic thoughts, but I sense you fall into much the same trap that many do: Let’s be 100% “objective” even if it means not giving voice to truth.
I think NCR DID want to do a hit job. They are notorious in their hits against the Church, though they hide it under the banner of “Catholic”. The continuously uphold liberal causes and are loathe to say that they are pro-Pope, pro teachings of the Faith. They are getting their jabs in for Deal pointing out the inconsistancy of Oko Enkh (whatever his name is) working for the USCCB and Catholic for Kerry. Could the graphic detail of this girls’ story prove my point? Why the salacious details?
The fact is he admitted to all that he is in good conscience able to admit under our laws. Whatever this girl says may release him, but til his lawyer gives the thumbs up, I’m guessing he’s holding onto the facts.
Which brings me to the biggest point, in my mind: Do we need the salcious details? Isn’t it enough for him to say that he did sin, that he DID repent and that he has turned from our sin? Hello class-did we miss that in our studies on the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
Because I’m in a position of say, some recognition here at the parish, do you think that they need to hear the details of a grave sin in my life? Is it not really enough that I have confessed my sin, found the help I needed and do not sin this way again? Why? And if the parish bulletin writer came around sniffing for details, just because there are details out there, does this mean, as a journalist that they need to make it public?
The difference with Enkh and Deal is that Enkh persists in his inconsistancy. Clinton, Kerry, them too. They all make it public, so they open themselves up to scandal and ridicule. Deal however does not seem to be persisting in sin and we cannot say if he is for we have no evidence as the other three have given us so much of.
I for one, a grave sinner cannot believe folks will continue to hold his feet to the fire. I’m an idiot sinner, I cannot and I won’t be casting the first stone. Not when I see that he’s repented and sinned no more.
Many Catholic Bishops are in a difficult spot—the ORDAINED homosexual-termite infestation in Chanceries and Dioceses can be a large number.
Naturally, this means that if there are any skeletons, they can be brought out of the closets.
The fact is he admitted to all that he is in good conscience able to admit under our laws.url>
147.136.249.101
2004-08-23 18:35:28
2004-08-23 22:35:28
Well, I agree that it’s of no concern of mine whether or not Deal Hudson stays on at Crisis. I also found silly all the yakkety-yak over the weekend on the blogs about what DH “owes” the public. You’re right: it’s not like he’s a priest or a bishop or a politician.
However, I want to make a distinction here. Deal is not like a plumber or a lawyer. Because he chose to work in an area—Catholic publishing and polemics—in which good moral character is integral to one’s professional credibility, it is only natural that he will be held to a higher standard. Same goes for those who work at National Catholic Reporter, Catholic World Report, and so forth.
The fact is he admitted to all that he is in good conscience able to admit under our laws.comment_date>
2004-08-23 01:04:05
It strikes me as unfair to speculate that Deal is being “disingenuous” by citing the confidentiality agreement, on the ground that part of the story is out there because the victim cooperated with the NCR’s hit piece. (And we do know that the victim cooperated because in his NCR column on the matter Joe Feuerherd says he met w/her in Portland, so it doesn’t take a private eye to figure out where NCR got a copy of her Fordham complaint.)
JACK’s got it right and, as Dom restates above, we don’t know all the details of the settlement nor the terms of the agreement. One party’s presumed breach of the agreement may not give the other party carte blanche to likewise breach. Only a couple of lawyers know whether events have truly abrogated the agreement.
I do wonder why so many people want more details from Deal, though. What more does he owe to us Catholics than what he wrote already? His greatest debts are to the victim and his family, not to me. I’ve heard enough (and I believe the facts as reported by NCR, btw); I don’t need every tawdry tidbit.
The fact is he admitted to all that he is in good conscience able to admit under our laws.17;s done anything unseemly with them?). He’s explained, he’s confessed, he’s done what he can do.
What else can we even have an opinion about? Would we have done any different? Really? Hasn’t he done everything he should?
(and this isn’t in regard to his leaving CRISIS, just working for the Bush Campaign)
I’ve heard enough, too, PMC.
And I’ve changed my mind, at least about the confidentiality agreement. If I did a “public confession,” other folks would pay. Without even given a chance to make the choice. I’d “feel better.” ‘Course it might totally screw up other people and their relationships, and their families, but hey, I’d feel better and what the heck, I’d be able to work for a political party, edit a magazine, face a hostile media…well, you know.
Odd but true. He isn’t guilty of anything I haven’t done, in one way or another, myself.
I’ve been thinking about this today. If anybody did an investigation on me? I’d be screwed.
One thing. Should this fact—and indeed it is a fact—prevent me from pointing out what’s right and what’s wrong? To me that’s the big question.
I’m sick and tired of this Gotcha Politics!! This is about a liberal media outlet making ad hominem attacks against a conservative media personality, in order to attack the Bush Administration.
I don’t know what exactly happened 10 years ago, and neither does anyone here. Furthermore, I don’t particularly care what happened 10 years ago between Mr. Hudson and a this woman. Mr. Hudson confessed and paid reparations. That ends it. Why should he have bared his soul about every sordid event from his past just to talk to the Bush Administration about the Catholic Vote? What does the former have to do with the latter?
It now seems that some demand not just perfection from conservative politicians, but also perfection from anyone who trys to make a conservative argument on social positions.
This is just ridiculous.
Kelly Clark makes a great point when writing, “If anybody did an investigation on me? Iminem.
Okay. Let’s remember that for the future. In fact, let’s rewind the tape and apply this to past incidents. I can only think of about one zillion and two at the moment, but give me time.
Rod:
He could say, all at our side, ten thousand at our right hand.
Rod’s absolutely correct that if public knowledge of Deal’s alleged actions hampers his ability to lead Crisis, then he should go. But that’s not our decision; it’s the Crisis board’s decision to make. Personally, I have no opinion on whether Crisis should or shouldn’t keep him.
But I disagree with Rod’s comparison of the actions of a prominent layman and private citizen (which Deal now is since he’s resigned his RNC post), to the actions of an apostolic successor or a public official. I think there’s an obvious and important distinction to be made. A layman doesn’t owe me an explanation (unless perhaps I’m a piqued Crisis subscriber, and then I can always unsubscribe). A bishop, by virtue of his holy office, and a politician, by virtue of his elected or appointed office, might owe me an explanation.
It has nothing to do with wanting a spotless hero. If the editor of the NatCathReporter were exposed as a harasser in the early 90s, I also wouldn’t be screaming for his scalp. Let his subscribers carp if they wish.
Well, I agree that it’s of no concern of mine whether or not Deal Hudson stays on at Crisis. I also found silly all the yakkety-yak over the weekend on the blogs about what DH “owes” the public. You’re right: it’s not like he’s a priest or a bishop or a politician.
However, I want to make a distinction here. Deal is not like a plumber or a lawyer. Because he chose to work in an area—Catholic publishing and polemics—in which good moral character is integral to one’s professional credibility, it is only natural that he will be held to a higher standard. Same goes for those who work at National Catholic Reporter, Catholic World Report, and so forth.
Why do Catholics have this need for a spotless hero?
Because we have them!
Rod, I agree, and “prominent layman” was, I guess, sort of my shorthand for one of the laity who chooses to engage the world on behalf of or in service to the Church and the Truth. So good moral character is indeed integral to his professional credibility, which is precisely why the Crisis board may not stick with him. But I guess I’m just tired of all the poring over and parsing of his apology, etc., ‘round St. Blog’s. It’s gotten a little unseemly.
But, Dom, that’s my whole point: We don’t know, so how can we judge?
He has said he confessed and has not persisted in this sin. We have no evidence that says he HAS so how can we speculate that he has? Unlike the others I listed, they have PUBLICLY persisted in sin, therefore we CAN judge say, Kerry going to Communion, for example. That’s all I’m saying.
And when people say that they have sought Reconciliation, who are we to say he did not? Do we need a public flogging so that each of us are assured he has repented? Shouldn’t we all be publically flogged then? No that’s not the nature of the Sacrament.
If he has done as he says we can choose to believe him, since we have no evidence to the contrary (has anyone heard of any other women coming forward to say he’s done anything unseemly with them?). He’s explained, he’s confessed, he’s done what he can do.
What else can we even have an opinion about? Would we have done any different? Really? Hasn’t he done everything he should?
(and this isn’t in regard to his leaving CRISIS, just working for the Bush Campaign)
Jen,
That’s what I’m saying, but you, too, drew a conclusion when you say: “Not when I see that hestory and I’m somewhat dismayed at the turn it’s taking. As seems to so often be the case with accusations made in the media that people are assuming that the allegations are true. Apparently, something happened between Deal Hudson and a student, but what it is we just don’t know.
What we have is one side of the story. We have no corroborating witnesses, no evidence, just a tale from a young woman who’s had a difficult life and a settlement paid. Yet, a lot of people are quick to jump to the conclusion that Deal Hudson is guilty of date rape and more. Okay, it’s one thing to be wary. You can’t help but hear the story and wonder if it’s true. Yet it’s so outlandish, so seemingly out of character, you also wonder if it could possibly be true.
Nevertheless, the reality is that there’s not enough information out there for us to know for sure, we’re not likely to get more information, and it does us, the Church, the young woman, and Deal andh is family no good to jump to conclusions about this.
]]>
3837
2004-08-20 19:45:16
2004-08-20 23:45:16
open
open
jumping_to_conclusions
publish
0
0
post
Thank you for making me laugh.
Jen,
That’s what I’m saying, but you, too, drew a conclusion when you say: “Not when I see that he
16141
shuodebuhao@earthlink.net
165.247.44.244
2004-08-21 00:45:08
2004-08-21 04:45:08
Personally, I’m not one who subscribes to the concept of “date rape.” Either it’s rape or it isn’t (leaving aside statutory rape). I don’t see the NCR story describing something that sounds like rape to me. A professor abusing his position of trust to take advantage of a teenaged student who was vulnerable psychologically, not to mention drunk? Sure. Disgusting, appalling and shameful, and beyond plain ol’ adultery, but I don’t think it’s criminal.