Repeat after me: bishops never get fired. If they are so inclined, they can even outlast the co-adjutor who’s been appointed as a strong hint to retire ASAP.
But removal? Not gonna happen.
Don’t forget who appointed Abp. Pilarczyk to his see, either:
Hint: it’s the same fellow who appointed the late Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago to his see.
Tell us! Tell us!
Hm: is the LA religious-ed conference on this week? A Call To Action confab? Is Dom moonlighting at the VOTF office?
Jim Post’s office?
The NCR’s publisher has apparently admitted that it was on the story. Apparently Joe Feurhard was the dirt digger on a sexual harassment allegation at Fordham in the early 90s.
Nice to know that the NCR can get as down and dirty as any supermarket tabloid.
Inside the Cambodian border?
Dale,
I went to the site you gave, but cannot figure out who appointed both Bernardin and Pilarczyk—can you just tell us? Thanks.
Yes, but JPII, new to the job, was certainly relying upon the advice of his nuncio. Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.
Margaret,
Who was Pope in 1982? That’s who appointed them.
“Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.”
Such things I learn here! That is a quotable quote.
“Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.”
Such things I learn here! That is a quotable quote.
BC, you know Dom could be court-martialed for that…
BC, you know Dom could be court-martialed for that…
Yankee Stadium?
Yankee Stadium?
John Kerry’s campaign wagon?
John Kerry’s campaign wagon?
I think Dom mentioned something recently about wireless Internet access. So given a laptop and a wireless connectionomment_author> dom@bettnet.com https://www.bettnet.com 192.168.1.1 2004-08-19 12:47:53 2004-08-19 16:47:53 Margaret,
Who was Pope in 1982? That’s who appointed them.
I think Dom mentioned something recently about wireless Internet access. So given a laptop and a wireless connection/wp:comment_date> 2004-08-19 15:57:33 Inside the Cambodian border?
Since when did this turn into a slam on Archbishop Pilarczyk?
What does he have to do with any of Hudson’s past indiscretions? While Hudson may have had an illicit affair, it most certainly doesn’t have Archbihshop Pilarczyk’s name on it.
If there is a beef with Archbishop Pilarczyk take it to the forum. I am certainly no fan, but he is an apostlic successor and he was appointed by the current Holy Father (not the nuncio, btw), so there is a good reason that he is where he is. Unless of course, the Holy Father is wrong about his appointment.
So, let’s see, Deal Hudson participated in an indiscretion in the past. He is an important Catholic voice. We forgive him for that indiscretion. Shouldn’t we do the same for our priests and religious?
I think that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, how about some comments on Deal Hudson stepping back from the campaign?
Cam
Since when did this turn into a slam on Archbishop Pilarczyk?
What does he have to do with any of Hudson’s past indiscretions? While Hudson may have had an illicit affair, it most certainly doesn’t have Archbihshop Pilarczyk’s name on it.
If there is a beef with Archbishop Pilarczyk take it to the forum. I am certainly no fan, but he is an apostlic successor and he was appointed by the current Holy Father (not the nuncio, btw), so there is a good reason that he is where he is. Unless of course, the Holy Father is wrong about his appointment.
So, let’s see, Deal Hudson participated in an indiscretion in the past. He is an important Catholic voice. We forgive him for that indiscretion. Shouldn’t we do the same for our priests and religious?
I think that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, how about some comments on Deal Hudson stepping back from the campaign?
Cam
How ‘bout calling on him to step in again? Any theories as to why he’s explained everything, yet feels the need to still step down? He’d be brilliant, in my opinion for the Campaign.
Well-maybe only because we all agree wtih him, unbelievable how many church going people still “vote Democrat” and will vote any Democrat in to any office.
How ‘bout calling on him to step in again? Any theories as to why he’s explained everything, yet feels the need to still step down? He’d be brilliant, in my opinion for the Campaign.
Well-maybe only because we all agree wtih him, unbelievable how many church going people still “vote Democrat” and will vote any Democrat in to any office.
No offense to Hudson, but I don’t think it’s going to make one iota of difference to the Bush campaign. “Crucial Catholic vote?” What’s that? Crushing as it may be to Catholic journalists: most Catholics have no idea who you are. Hudson actually came to my parish during the height of the crisis and I can name probably two parishioners who even remember his name. Them’s the facts. His bowing out is, in my opinion, a non-story. That said, I wish he hadn’t done it. But it’s not going to effect the election. Real Catholics I know will vote for Bush on the pro-life issue, more than likely. CINO will vote for Kerry, probably on the same basis.
(I admire Hudson for several reasons. His conversion is certainly one. His frankness about his past is another. And, of course, the fact that he uses his real name is, especially these days, is a major plus.)
Okay maybe there is a glimmer of a story here. But basically it’s about various Catholic journalists and their publications talking to, and about, each other.
No offense to Hudson, but I don’t think it’s going to make one iota of difference to the Bush campaign. “Crucial Catholic vote?” What’s that? Crushing as it may be to Catholic journalists: most Catholics have no idea who you are. Hudson actually came to my parish during the height of the crisis and I can name probably two parishioners who even remember his name. Them’s the facts. His bowing out is, in my opinion, a non-story. That said, I wish he hadn’t done it. But it’s not going to effect the election. Real Catholics I know will vote for Bush on the pro-life issue, more than likely. CINO will vote for Kerry, probably on the same basis.
(I admire Hudson for several reasons. His conversion is certainly one. His frankness about his past is another. And, of course, the fact that he uses his real name is, especially these days, is a major plus.)
Okay maybe there is a glimmer of a story here. But basically it’s about various Catholic journalists and their publications talking to, and about, each other.
Dom, you said:
“It looks like the idea is to discredit Hudson so that he caney!
Dom, you said:
“It looks like the idea is to discredit Hudson so that he canomment_content>
Fr. Elijah:
Repeat after me: bishops never get fired. If they are so inclined, they can even outlast the co-adjutor who’s been appointed as a strong hint to retire ASAP.
But removal? Not gonna happen.
Don’t forget who appointed Abp. Pilarczyk to his see, either:
Hint: it’s the same fellow who appointed the late Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago to his see.
Kelly,
I don’t think this is just an internecine squabble between Catholic journalists, but a proxy fight between Kerry and Bush supporters among Catholics. Whether you or I think there is such a thing as “the Catholic vote”, the presidential campaigns do and because Hudson was an influential adviser on Catholic issues to Bush, it makes this a big story.
And I wish I could be as confident as you that “real” Catholics will vote for Bush. But when Phil Lawler ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, he got fewer votes than even all the self-declared pro-lifers in the state. There are even “real” Catholic readers of this blog who have openly said they will not vote for Bush. This is a voting bloc still in play and Hudson, whether wisely or not, was part of the strategy.
Kelly’s right: Deal Hudson’s “endorsement” of GWB certainly will not have an effect on THIS Catholic—and I think Deal may be kidding himself.
Frankly I think that the NCR ‘investigation’ has TWO purposes—and the FIRST of those is to discredit Deal for the benefit of certain Bishops and Cardinals. The Bush campaign stuff comes in handy as a smokescreen.
Thes guys are out there but they’ll receive little recognition for their efforts. Most of these good priests would shun the recognition anyway. It’s refreshing to read of these occurences. Sounds like there are some Fulton Sheen’s emerging from the ashes of the scandal.
*Disclaimer * Disclaimer * Disclaimer*
When I mentioned “real Catholics,” I wasn’t talking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My fault…I shoulda made that clear but frankly it never even occured to me to do so. I’ve lived in this state since almost 30 years and still can’t fathom it. I don’t know. The water, maybe?
You might have a point, Dom, but gee. I just googled the news on it and got 4 hits. Of course, the major one is today’s Washington Post story, picked up the Boston Globe, but the others were brief mentions in gossipy “inside politics” types of columns where the McGreevey story still rules.
Fr. Elijah:
Repeat after me: bishops never get fired. If they are so inclined, they can even outlast the co-adjutor who’s been appointed as a strong hint to retire ASAP.
But removal? Not gonna happen.
Don’t forget who appointed Abp. Pilarczyk to his see, either:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpilarczyk.html
Hint: it’s the same fellow who appointed the late Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago to his see.
Tell us! Tell us!
Hm: is the LA religious-ed conference on this week? A Call To Action confab? Is Dom moonlighting at the VOTF office?
Jim Post’s office?
The NCR’s publisher has apparently admitted that it was on the story. Apparently Joe Feurhard was the dirt digger on a sexual harassment allegation at Fordham in the early 90s.
Nice to know that the NCR can get as down and dirty as any supermarket tabloid.
Inside the Cambodian border?
Dale,
I went to the site you gave, but cannot figure out who appointed both Bernardin and Pilarczyk—can you just tell us? Thanks.
Yes, but JPII, new to the job, was certainly relying upon the advice of his nuncio. Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.
Margaret,
Who was Pope in 1982? That’s who appointed them.
“Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.”
Such things I learn here! That is a quotable quote.
“Never forget, the diplomatic corps is the gayest of all the sinecures.”
Such things I learn here! That is a quotable quote.
BC, you know Dom could be court-martialed for that…
BC, you know Dom could be court-martialed for that…
Yankee Stadium?
Yankee Stadium?
John Kerry’s campaign wagon?
John Kerry’s campaign wagon?
I think Dom mentioned something recently about wireless Internet access. So given a laptop and a wireless connectionomment_author>
dom@bettnet.com
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-08-19 12:47:53
2004-08-19 16:47:53
Margaret,
Who was Pope in 1982? That’s who appointed them.
I think Dom mentioned something recently about wireless Internet access. So given a laptop and a wireless connection/wp:comment_date>
2004-08-19 15:57:33
Inside the Cambodian border?
Since when did this turn into a slam on Archbishop Pilarczyk?
What does he have to do with any of Hudson’s past indiscretions? While Hudson may have had an illicit affair, it most certainly doesn’t have Archbihshop Pilarczyk’s name on it.
If there is a beef with Archbishop Pilarczyk take it to the forum. I am certainly no fan, but he is an apostlic successor and he was appointed by the current Holy Father (not the nuncio, btw), so there is a good reason that he is where he is. Unless of course, the Holy Father is wrong about his appointment.
So, let’s see, Deal Hudson participated in an indiscretion in the past. He is an important Catholic voice. We forgive him for that indiscretion. Shouldn’t we do the same for our priests and religious?
I think that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, how about some comments on Deal Hudson stepping back from the campaign?
Cam
Since when did this turn into a slam on Archbishop Pilarczyk?
What does he have to do with any of Hudson’s past indiscretions? While Hudson may have had an illicit affair, it most certainly doesn’t have Archbihshop Pilarczyk’s name on it.
If there is a beef with Archbishop Pilarczyk take it to the forum. I am certainly no fan, but he is an apostlic successor and he was appointed by the current Holy Father (not the nuncio, btw), so there is a good reason that he is where he is. Unless of course, the Holy Father is wrong about his appointment.
So, let’s see, Deal Hudson participated in an indiscretion in the past. He is an important Catholic voice. We forgive him for that indiscretion. Shouldn’t we do the same for our priests and religious?
I think that what is good for the gander is good for the goose. So, how about some comments on Deal Hudson stepping back from the campaign?
Cam
How ‘bout calling on him to step in again? Any theories as to why he’s explained everything, yet feels the need to still step down? He’d be brilliant, in my opinion for the Campaign.
Well-maybe only because we all agree wtih him, unbelievable how many church going people still “vote Democrat” and will vote any Democrat in to any office.
How ‘bout calling on him to step in again? Any theories as to why he’s explained everything, yet feels the need to still step down? He’d be brilliant, in my opinion for the Campaign.
Well-maybe only because we all agree wtih him, unbelievable how many church going people still “vote Democrat” and will vote any Democrat in to any office.
No offense to Hudson, but I don’t think it’s going to make one iota of difference to the Bush campaign. “Crucial Catholic vote?” What’s that? Crushing as it may be to Catholic journalists: most Catholics have no idea who you are. Hudson actually came to my parish during the height of the crisis and I can name probably two parishioners who even remember his name. Them’s the facts. His bowing out is, in my opinion, a non-story. That said, I wish he hadn’t done it. But it’s not going to effect the election. Real Catholics I know will vote for Bush on the pro-life issue, more than likely. CINO will vote for Kerry, probably on the same basis.
(I admire Hudson for several reasons. His conversion is certainly one. His frankness about his past is another. And, of course, the fact that he uses his real name is, especially these days, is a major plus.)
Okay maybe there is a glimmer of a story here. But basically it’s about various Catholic journalists and their publications talking to, and about, each other.
No offense to Hudson, but I don’t think it’s going to make one iota of difference to the Bush campaign. “Crucial Catholic vote?” What’s that? Crushing as it may be to Catholic journalists: most Catholics have no idea who you are. Hudson actually came to my parish during the height of the crisis and I can name probably two parishioners who even remember his name. Them’s the facts. His bowing out is, in my opinion, a non-story. That said, I wish he hadn’t done it. But it’s not going to effect the election. Real Catholics I know will vote for Bush on the pro-life issue, more than likely. CINO will vote for Kerry, probably on the same basis.
(I admire Hudson for several reasons. His conversion is certainly one. His frankness about his past is another. And, of course, the fact that he uses his real name is, especially these days, is a major plus.)
Okay maybe there is a glimmer of a story here. But basically it’s about various Catholic journalists and their publications talking to, and about, each other.
Dom, you said:
“It looks like the idea is to discredit Hudson so that he caney!
Dom, you said:
“It looks like the idea is to discredit Hudson so that he canomment_content>
Fr. Elijah:
Repeat after me: bishops never get fired. If they are so inclined, they can even outlast the co-adjutor who’s been appointed as a strong hint to retire ASAP.
But removal? Not gonna happen.
Don’t forget who appointed Abp. Pilarczyk to his see, either:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpilarczyk.html
Hint: it’s the same fellow who appointed the late Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago to his see.
Kelly,
I don’t think this is just an internecine squabble between Catholic journalists, but a proxy fight between Kerry and Bush supporters among Catholics. Whether you or I think there is such a thing as “the Catholic vote”, the presidential campaigns do and because Hudson was an influential adviser on Catholic issues to Bush, it makes this a big story.
And I wish I could be as confident as you that “real” Catholics will vote for Bush. But when Phil Lawler ran for Senate against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, he got fewer votes than even all the self-declared pro-lifers in the state. There are even “real” Catholic readers of this blog who have openly said they will not vote for Bush. This is a voting bloc still in play and Hudson, whether wisely or not, was part of the strategy.
Kelly’s right: Deal Hudson’s “endorsement” of GWB certainly will not have an effect on THIS Catholic—and I think Deal may be kidding himself.
Frankly I think that the NCR ‘investigation’ has TWO purposes—and the FIRST of those is to discredit Deal for the benefit of certain Bishops and Cardinals. The Bush campaign stuff comes in handy as a smokescreen.
Thes guys are out there but they’ll receive little recognition for their efforts. Most of these good priests would shun the recognition anyway. It’s refreshing to read of these occurences. Sounds like there are some Fulton Sheen’s emerging from the ashes of the scandal.
*Disclaimer * Disclaimer * Disclaimer*
When I mentioned “real Catholics,” I wasn’t talking about the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My fault…I shoulda made that clear but frankly it never even occured to me to do so. I’ve lived in this state since almost 30 years and still can’t fathom it. I don’t know. The water, maybe?
You might have a point, Dom, but gee. I just googled the news on it and got 4 hits. Of course, the major one is today’s Washington Post story, picked up the Boston Globe, but the others were brief mentions in gossipy “inside politics” types of columns where the McGreevey story still rules.
The other was a press release from Fran Kissling.