I saw that too, on another site. I suppose Mr. McCarrick can live where ever he chooses, but why is a lay man allowed to live in a priest's residence? Wasn't he laicized, or was that just to placate the laity? I suppose he would rather be where he can "socialize."
Truth be told, there are probably plenty of priests who have no problem with guys like McCarrick and probably think he was "railroaded". Our problems don't exist in the Church because there are just a few bad apples. We've spent four decades ignoring the "bad apples" and letting them multiply and infect our parishes and our sense of right and wrong.
I agree that Uncle Teddy must have “friends” at that residence in the sunshine state. In some progressive states Ted now is considered to be the ruling class rather than the fringe minority.
Yes, I understand he wants to be left alone. He is free to go where he wishes, and not say anything to anyone. And whoever rents to him is also free to say nothing.
But if he is staying at any sort of Catholic facility, how can those involved think they can stonewall on this?
"Charity AND justice forbid simply telling a former priest who is in his late 80's to "take a hike, keep warm and well fed."
Excuse me, but this person is no longer a person with special status in the Church. He was, in fact, ousted in disgrace. He is free to go where he wishes, and according to reports he has plenty of money for self support, so why should he live in a facility specifically reserved for clergy? There are plenty of assisted living facilities in every state he could choose from which are fine establishments. What's wrong with those? Do other "former priests" get special consideration and retain some privilege we don't know about in the Church in the spirit of "charity and justice"?
I know a deacon of the local parish whose wife passed away a number of years ago. He is in his late 80's as well, and could use help and companionship, but is not welcome to live in a residence reserved for priests. Seems like the Church told him "keep warm and well fed, but you're on your own," when he could no longer serve.
Seems like your kind of "charity and justice" is selective to me. It also seems like Mr. McCarrick was able to pull some strings to get what he wanted, and to soften his nest, as usual.
If I were the bishop (God help me!) or whoever else, in whose lap this matter landed, here's how I would handle it:
1. Degraded-from-clerical-state McCarrick would be told he must move within 30 days. 2. He is told not to seek housing in any facility intended for clergy. 3. I would assign someone capable to assist McCarrick in finding housing and seeing if he needs any other humanitarian assistance. 4. Whoever assists him would also report back to me on how things are going, in order to head off negative repercussions (i.e., ignoring #2 or other unhelpful decisions). 5. I'd ask for a forwarding address.
What motivates the desire to keep him out of housing "intended for clergy?".
We want him to disappear, to go away, to exit, stage right. As if this is going to make any difference whatsoever in a) his past crimes, b) the nasty accusations made by some that he had "friends," or c) that those "friends" are continuing to take care of and protect him. Or does it come from some uncharitable inclination to see him suffer?
If not for the statutes of limitation, he would be in prison. Punishment for crimes and penance for sins is a part of mercy and cannot be eliminated by bleeding hearts.
"What motivates the desire to keep him out of housing "intended for clergy?".
Fairness to many others who do not get special consideration or treatment. He is a lay man now.
How nice it would be if I were able to, as a lay woman, just because I wanted to, move into a convent with religious sisters or an apartment complex reserved for women religious, to be able to enjoy their company and the protections and privileges afforded to them. Would I be permitted to move in? If not, what would motivate the desire to keep me out of housing intended for religious sisters?
And how could it happen, except for "friends" within clerical circles, that a lay man would be permitted to live in a residence reserved for clergy? Please explain.
What I wonder is what motivates persons like yourself to make exceptions for some, and permit what is normally not permissible. Why make exceptions for this man and not everyone?
Is it "just" for you to expect to be able to move into a convent, just because you wanted to?
In other words, are you owed this sort of living arrangement?
No, you are not. Having not served as a religious sister or nun, having had a salary for much of you life, or a husband or other person who supported you, having had the opportunity to save some of your income, it is not just to expect that you should be welcomed into the residence of retired women.
What keeps you out is that you are not owed this living arrangement, any more than I can say to some billionaire, "I am going to move in with you just because I want to."
Thank you for answering my question about myself. But I asked by way of analogy. You gave an economic answer, saying it is a matter of not having much money and having served as a religious.
Actually, your answer is false, because if I had little money, and given all I can show that I did do for the Church in my life in terms of volunteer time and work I have done, plus years of employment at substandard compensation, I still would not be allowed in such housing. Because I am not a religious.
I think the key criteria for being able to qualify for such housing is being a religious.
So, since Mr. McCarrick is reported to have a large sum of his own money to draw on for his housing, and since he is no longer a cleric, why is he afforded these living arrangements, that is, to live in housing reserved for priests?
He has money. He's not a priest. So, what's the justification?
"You gave an economic answer, saying it is a matter of not having much money and having served as a religious."
No, my answer was based on justice, not economics.
"Actually, your answer is false, because if I had little money, and given all I can show that I did do for the Church in my life in terms of volunteer time and work I have done, plus years of employment at substandard compensation, I still would not be allowed in such housing. Because I am not a religious."
No, my answer is not false. A religious has no choice to save from her compensation. You did/do. You have the choice.
"I think the key criteria for being able to qualify for such housing is being a religious."
No, the qualification is not one's state in life. The qualification is, again, justice.
Sorry, Anonymous, you are way off on this one (as usual).
First of all, fairness, in this case, is not subjective, but is determined by a set of criteria for admittance which I'm sure the facility has. I imagine the criteria are something like, 1) Must be a priest ordained in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, or in a Church in Communion with Rome; 2) Must be a priest in good standing; 3) Must be of a certain minimum age (maybe 60, or 65, or 68); 4) Must have limited financial resources and meet asset limits; and so on.
So a lack of fairness would be not to follow the criteria established to determine whether someone should be able to live there or not, including if they are not a priest.
I would expect at least numbers 1 & 2 are the criteria, otherwise anyone could apply, including women, or priests who left the priesthood of their own accord, and be considered. I am sure it is not the case.
And since it is specifically a residence for priests, I am sure that state in life is the first criteria. Otherwise, why call it a "priests'" residence?
As for Mr. McCarrick's financial state, I only know what was said in the media. I do not know how or if the writer verified the statement that Mr. MaCarrick was well off financially. I assume it is correct, however, in this case, since Mr. McCarrick fails to meet the first two criteria for residency in the facility, it is immaterial.
It's not justice to allow a former priest to reside in residences reserved for priests. That is called injustice.
I really question your ability to tell right from wrong. I certainly hope you are not in any kind of position of authority where you make judgements about people's lives. You seem to have a faulty judgement system.
17 comments:
I heard that, moved by the deepest fraternal charity, you have welcomed him into your palatial rectory.
And that is from a most reliable source...
Thanks for improving the graphics. My apologies for the critical tone.
Bee here:
I saw that too, on another site. I suppose Mr. McCarrick can live where ever he chooses, but why is a lay man allowed to live in a priest's residence? Wasn't he laicized, or was that just to placate the laity? I suppose he would rather be where he can "socialize."
God bless.
Bee
Truth be told, there are probably plenty of priests who have no problem with guys like McCarrick and probably think he was "railroaded". Our problems don't exist in the Church because there are just a few bad apples. We've spent four decades ignoring the "bad apples" and letting them multiply and infect our parishes and our sense of right and wrong.
I agree that Uncle Teddy must have “friends” at that residence in the sunshine state. In some progressive states Ted now is considered to be the ruling class rather than the fringe minority.
The continuing lack of candor is maddening.
Yes, I understand he wants to be left alone. He is free to go where he wishes, and not say anything to anyone. And whoever rents to him is also free to say nothing.
But if he is staying at any sort of Catholic facility, how can those involved think they can stonewall on this?
Just be candid, please?
Charity AND justice forbid simply telling a former priest who is in his late 80's to "take a hike, keep warm and well fed."
Such would be contrary to any normal sense of human dignity, not to mention Christian love, regardless of his sins.
Bee here:
"Charity AND justice forbid simply telling a former priest who is in his late 80's to "take a hike, keep warm and well fed."
Excuse me, but this person is no longer a person with special status in the Church. He was, in fact, ousted in disgrace. He is free to go where he wishes, and according to reports he has plenty of money for self support, so why should he live in a facility specifically reserved for clergy? There are plenty of assisted living facilities in every state he could choose from which are fine establishments. What's wrong with those? Do other "former priests" get special consideration and retain some privilege we don't know about in the Church in the spirit of "charity and justice"?
I know a deacon of the local parish whose wife passed away a number of years ago. He is in his late 80's as well, and could use help and companionship, but is not welcome to live in a residence reserved for priests. Seems like the Church told him "keep warm and well fed, but you're on your own," when he could no longer serve.
Seems like your kind of "charity and justice" is selective to me. It also seems like Mr. McCarrick was able to pull some strings to get what he wanted, and to soften his nest, as usual.
SOSDD (Same old stuff, different day.)
God bless,
Bee
Charity and justice apply to all, regardless of status.
Try as you might to find reason to act without charity toward and without concern for justice for Mr. McCarrick, you fail.
Anonymous @ 6:46 pm:
If I were the bishop (God help me!) or whoever else, in whose lap this matter landed, here's how I would handle it:
1. Degraded-from-clerical-state McCarrick would be told he must move within 30 days.
2. He is told not to seek housing in any facility intended for clergy.
3. I would assign someone capable to assist McCarrick in finding housing and seeing if he needs any other humanitarian assistance.
4. Whoever assists him would also report back to me on how things are going, in order to head off negative repercussions (i.e., ignoring #2 or other unhelpful decisions).
5. I'd ask for a forwarding address.
Is that OK with you?
What motivates the desire to keep him out of housing "intended for clergy?".
We want him to disappear, to go away, to exit, stage right. As if this is going to make any difference whatsoever in a) his past crimes, b) the nasty accusations made by some that he had "friends," or c) that those "friends" are continuing to take care of and protect him. Or does it come from some uncharitable inclination to see him suffer?
Asking for a friend...
If not for the statutes of limitation, he would be in prison. Punishment for crimes and penance for sins is a part of mercy and cannot be eliminated by bleeding hearts.
Bee here:
"What motivates the desire to keep him out of housing "intended for clergy?".
Fairness to many others who do not get special consideration or treatment. He is a lay man now.
How nice it would be if I were able to, as a lay woman, just because I wanted to, move into a convent with religious sisters or an apartment complex reserved for women religious, to be able to enjoy their company and the protections and privileges afforded to them. Would I be permitted to move in? If not, what would motivate the desire to keep me out of housing intended for religious sisters?
And how could it happen, except for "friends" within clerical circles, that a lay man would be permitted to live in a residence reserved for clergy? Please explain.
What I wonder is what motivates persons like yourself to make exceptions for some, and permit what is normally not permissible. Why make exceptions for this man and not everyone?
God bless.
Bee
"Fairness" is entirely subjective.
Is it "just" for you to expect to be able to move into a convent, just because you wanted to?
In other words, are you owed this sort of living arrangement?
No, you are not. Having not served as a religious sister or nun, having had a salary for much of you life, or a husband or other person who supported you, having had the opportunity to save some of your income, it is not just to expect that you should be welcomed into the residence of retired women.
What keeps you out is that you are not owed this living arrangement, any more than I can say to some billionaire, "I am going to move in with you just because I want to."
Bee here:
Thank you for answering my question about myself. But I asked by way of analogy. You gave an economic answer, saying it is a matter of not having much money and having served as a religious.
Actually, your answer is false, because if I had little money, and given all I can show that I did do for the Church in my life in terms of volunteer time and work I have done, plus years of employment at substandard compensation, I still would not be allowed in such housing. Because I am not a religious.
I think the key criteria for being able to qualify for such housing is being a religious.
So, since Mr. McCarrick is reported to have a large sum of his own money to draw on for his housing, and since he is no longer a cleric, why is he afforded these living arrangements, that is, to live in housing reserved for priests?
He has money. He's not a priest. So, what's the justification?
God bless.
Bee
"You gave an economic answer, saying it is a matter of not having much money and having served as a religious."
No, my answer was based on justice, not economics.
"Actually, your answer is false, because if I had little money, and given all I can show that I did do for the Church in my life in terms of volunteer time and work I have done, plus years of employment at substandard compensation, I still would not be allowed in such housing. Because I am not a religious."
No, my answer is not false. A religious has no choice to save from her compensation. You did/do. You have the choice.
"I think the key criteria for being able to qualify for such housing is being a religious."
No, the qualification is not one's state in life. The qualification is, again, justice.
"He has money."
Does he? And you know this how?
Bee here:
Sorry, Anonymous, you are way off on this one (as usual).
First of all, fairness, in this case, is not subjective, but is determined by a set of criteria for admittance which I'm sure the facility has. I imagine the criteria are something like, 1) Must be a priest ordained in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, or in a Church in Communion with Rome; 2) Must be a priest in good standing; 3) Must be of a certain minimum age (maybe 60, or 65, or 68); 4) Must have limited financial resources and meet asset limits; and so on.
So a lack of fairness would be not to follow the criteria established to determine whether someone should be able to live there or not, including if they are not a priest.
I would expect at least numbers 1 & 2 are the criteria, otherwise anyone could apply, including women, or priests who left the priesthood of their own accord, and be considered. I am sure it is not the case.
And since it is specifically a residence for priests, I am sure that state in life is the first criteria. Otherwise, why call it a "priests'" residence?
As for Mr. McCarrick's financial state, I only know what was said in the media. I do not know how or if the writer verified the statement that Mr. MaCarrick was well off financially. I assume it is correct, however, in this case, since Mr. McCarrick fails to meet the first two criteria for residency in the facility, it is immaterial.
It's not justice to allow a former priest to reside in residences reserved for priests. That is called injustice.
I really question your ability to tell right from wrong. I certainly hope you are not in any kind of position of authority where you make judgements about people's lives. You seem to have a faulty judgement system.
God bless.
Bee
Post a Comment