David B:
Just in case anyone who thinks David is a religion basher missed him riding to the rescue of a Priest whom he suspects might have been wrongly accused.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Manhattan, I am not sure that your logic here is correct. I think David as a sceptic would have attacked “repressed memories” if the accused had been a step-father or uncle or whatever. Note: I am NOT saying or implying that David is a religion basher, I just don’t think religion was relevant in his actions.
A hat with bells on is not funny, it is the jester underneath.
Manny, you know I love you and hate to argue with you, but I agree with Court Jester that the one does not flow from the other.
Also, it sounds to me like David didn’t become interested until after the repressed memories thing was shown to have been false – thus the article on the dangers of such things.
IIRC, this happened to Cardinal Bernardin, too – someone came forward and accused the Cardinal of having molested him as a youth. Ultimately it was proven to be either an out-and-out fraudulent accusation, or else an induced-suppressed-fake memories case, I forget which.
-Melin
You’re right, of course, Jester. I have no illusions that our Moderator pores over the newspapers looking for Priests to save like some kind of Father Dowling meets the Equalizer. But a true anti-religion bigot (or a person who asked the Monsignor question in bad faith, for that matter) might have been tempted to let a case such as this one slide, skepticism or not. That’s all I’m pointing out.
-manhattan (Who’d star in that…)
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Oh, and it stuck out to me particularly because the whole repressed memory thing is to me one of the gravest injustices in late-20th century jurisprudence. How the courts ever allowed the first one is baffling to me.
Sorry, Pundit, I have of late increasing indications that someone else may be working his way around to asking that question. If he doesn’t, however, I’ll get back to you. 
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Yeah, Melin, I also don’t recall offhand whether the Bernadin case was “recovered memory” or fabrication. Either way, in that case the guy recanted before either of them died, and the justice system was kept out of it.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Woohoo! Though I guess this means you don’t want a job in California . . . .
-Melin
jodih wrote:
Does that mean you can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a French tickler?
(Sorry, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity.)
Boy, I don’t get too confused on these boards, usually, but I am totally mystified by about the last dozen or so posts. :::shrug:::
Now that I’ve read it, I’ll throw in some comments even though the subject matter has been covered pretty well.
First off, as noted earlier, but apparently ignored, bishops do not walk around with relics to be kissed. The kissing is done to the ring as a badge of office and is a holdover from Mediaeval and Renaissance customs regarding respect for authority. I have met dozens of bishops and have never kissed a ring (or had a hand extended for me to bother with the question). I suspect that if you tried to kiss Ken Untener’s ring, he’d smack you upside the head with his hockey stick.
NO Relics!
There is actually no “office” of monsignor. There are a number of honorary offices in the church (roughly analogous to a Knight or a Knight of the Garter or a Knight of the Bath or a Member of the British Empire). They have no positions, as such, and are handed out in recognition of other accomplishments or offices held (rector of a seminary, for example). The form of address used for all these honorary offices happens to be “monsignor” but there is no actual office of the monsignorship. (Interestingly, some of the honorifics are attached specifically to the pope so that if he dies, the honorific (and the address “monsignor”) both die with him and the priest is no longer considered “monsignor.”) I don’t know which titles those are. I suppose that if you were so well known that the bishop had to give you some title but you had really been bugging him, he might ask for one of these less permanent titles and hope that the pope died, soon. 
While I have seen priests in affluent parishes get the title for no apparent reason than the size of their parish, I would challenge Melin on the bestowing of honorifics in the inner city. In Detroit, several of the “monsignoris” that have been handed out went to guys in the inner city. (For example, Bill Cunningham, of Focus Hope declined to accept the honor, but they definitely tried to bestow the honor on him.) I have trouble believing that Detroit is the only diocese that operates that way.
Rastahomie? Where in the world did you encounter a priest that called you “child”? Was he 106 years old? I’m sure it goes on somewhere, but I can’t imagine any of the priests I know saying it. I’m not doubting your word, just wondering about the circumstances.
Tom~
I recall this incident and I think this is how it concluded: the young man, I think he was gay, recanted his story and admitted he was doing it for the money. Hope I have that correct.
Y2K, BFD
I just have to say, that there was a Monsignor Brady (now deceased) in Dallas. He served St. Edward’s church for many years. It happens to be in a very poor area of town. Fr. Brady was well-loved and respected by many people, Catholic and non-Catholic. The old parish school building is now known as The Brady Center, and is used as a place to distribute food, etc. to the poor. The school (alas!) was closed several years ago.
As an Episcopalian, I can tell you that we address our priests as “Father”. Also our bishops, when we are speaking about them, and frequently when addressing them. It is also quite appropriate to address a bishop as “your grace”. When I met the Archbishop of Canterbury (he rode in my limo), I addressed him as “your grace”, until he told me he didn’t much like it. In some very low-church parishes, the priest may be addressed as “mister”. And of course, people who are quite familiar with a particular priest may use his first name. I’m sure that a priest who didn’t want to be addressed by his first name could say so. It is NEVER appropriate to address ANY minister, Catholic or Protestant, as “reverend”. That word is part of his title, not part of his name… if you can see the difference. For instance, if one were writing a letter to a priest, the envelope would properly be addressed as to “The Reverend Robert Smith”. If the priest is the dean of a cathedral, then he’s “The Very Reverend”… a bishop is “The Right Reverend”. And I think you’d address a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury as “The Most Reverend” – but all of these are TITLES, not names. They are used in formal correspondence, or if you want to list the various persons of the church hierarchy, like in a church bulletin or newsletter or something. I am, of course, speaking primarily from the point of view of an Episcopalian (Catholic Lite). You know, all of the glory and none of the guilt…
Dick Macy
I couldn’t care less about apathy.
Dick! It’s good to see you here!
I do have to take exception to your statement
Some people, including the OP, apparently, have a problem with addressing a Catholic (lite or otherwise ;)) priest as “Father.” However, they may not be chummy enough with the person in question to call him “John.” I checked with hubby-the-ex-Roman-priest before I posted, and he confirmed that an acceptable substitute was “Reverend.” Admittedly, it is true, that is part of a title, but it will work to cover that awkward social moment of trying to decide what to call the man.
I met a female Episcopal priest a couple of weeks ago. For the life of me I did not know waht to call her, and she was introduced as “the Reverend Jane Jones.” It would not have been appropriate, in the setting we were in and having just been introduced, to call her “Joan.” I “solved” the problem by not calling her anything, although if I had been forced to it I would have called her “Reverend”. What would have been the proper address?
-Melin
Virago Jones?
g d&r
You know I’m glad to see you over here & that I like you, but… I have to take issue with:
I grew up in Oklahoma & met a few graduates of Billy Bob’s College of Ministry & Auto Maintenance. They were all Reverend Bubba or whatever. The minister of the Disciples of Christ Church I attended was Reverend Gilbert. He was always addressed as Reverend Gilbert, even by his wife (I suspect in the throes of passion – I think I may be sick here – she yelled out "OH REVEREND GILBERT!!) It is true that when you were talking to another parishioner, you spoke of “The Reverend” with no last name since he was the only minister that counted.
So I think calling a priest Reverend would be appropriate except maybe in your high falutin Episcopal world (We didn’t call them Catholic lites, we called em Catholics with Cash.)
“You can be smart or pleasant. For years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.”
Elwood P. Dowd
Tom . . . .
Reverend. I’ve never figured out if the message is HE can be a parent figure, you can’t or By the time it was legal for you to become a priest, gender-neutral was more socially acceptable, and since ordaining you was radical anyway…
I used to be a Catholic, then over-reacted and went with the United Church of Christ, figured I over-reacted a little, and am currently a Lutheran.
I don’t have a problem with calling a Catholic priest “Father.” I don’t think it’s just my Catholic upbringing – I was never in the Army, but I don’t have a problem calling military officers by their rank.
In the UCC, “Reverend” is an appropriate term for an ordained minister, but the ones I met prefer to be called Mr./Mrs./Ms. or Dr., if they have the degree.
I don’t know what to do with the Lutherans. In some churches they have “priests” in others they have “ministers.” However, in the two ELCA churches I’ve been at (the ELCA is quite a bit more liberal than the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods) they seem to have gotten around the issue by calling all the ordained ministers at the church “Pastor John” or whatever.
When I attended Loyola Marymount in the '70’s, the secretary of the music department was a very nice non-Catholic woman, who, for the reasons cited by rastahomie, considered herself forbidden to address the Jesuit priests as “Father.” Her form of address for the priests was a quite respectful “Pastor.” She also referred to any specific priest, when speaking of him out of his presence, as “Pastor.” e.g. “Pastor Trame is out of the department right now, but I’ll be sure he gets your message.” The high regard in which everyone, including Richard Trame, S.J., held her, and treated her, left me with no doubts that the title was completely acceptable.
Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
Mark Twain
FYI: The Bernardin thing did involve false memories, though no money was involved. The guy who accused the Cardinal was led by an untrained therapist into believing Bernardin had abused him. He later realized that these were false memories and recanted. Here’s a summary of what happened from an article I wrote at the time:
As most of you have probably heard by now, the charges of sexual abuse brought against Chicago’s Cardinal Bernardin have been dropped by his accuser, Steven Cook. In Cook’s motion to dismiss the charges, he said, “The memories of sexual abuse by Cardinal Bernardin which arose during and after hypnosis are unreliable.” At a news conference, Cook added that, since filing the suit, he had obtained information which convinced him that his memories were unreliable. He further stated, “If I knew at the time I filed the lawsuit what I know now, I would never have sued Cardinal Bernardin.”
What does he know now? Well, it might have something to do with some information mentioned in the Chicago Tribune (March 1) or Newsweek (March 14) articles on the dismissal. They point out that Cook had been hypnotized in the late 1970s until 1980 by therapist William Wester, Jr., regarded as an expert on hypnotism who worked for the FBI and other agencies, and who has written a book on how to properly hypnotize a patient and make sure the testimony is untainted. No memory of abuse by Bernardin was recalled during these sessions, according to Wester.
However, when Cook went to Michele Moul, a Philadelphia therapist who is unlicensed and runs a graphic arts business, he recalled “memories” of sexual abuse during his second hypnotic session. Moul did not document his memories before, during, or after the session, and she did not tape the sessions either. According to the Tribune, she “would testify that she followed none of Wester’s safeguards.” Readers may also be interested to note that Moul got her master’s degree in applied psychology from, according to Newsweek, “a school founded by a New Age guru, John-Roger, who claims to be the embodiment of a divine spirit.”
With all of these problems stacking up, and the fact that there appear to be no independent confirming witnesses or other evidence, it seems that Cook had to take a look at his own memories and decide what to do. I wish that more apparent sufferers of false memory syndrome (FMS) would do the same. Perhaps then there wouldn’t be as many problems like the one below. [“The one below” discussed another false memory case that has nothing to do with Bernardin.]
Regarding some of the other posts since I mentioned it – I became interested as soon as I saw in the paper that the suit had been filed and was relying on “recently recovered memories.” To this day, I don’t know, with absolute certainty, whether the Monsignor was innocent or guilty – only he knows that, though I strongly suspect he is innocent (the Church settled out of court, against his wishes; the judge threw out all the cases involving repressed memories; one remained, which involved a younger plaintiff who didn’t quite claim the same thing, but he dropped it shortly after all the other ones were dismissed). All I know is that he was accused using unscientific and very risky methods, and I don’t care if he was a priest, a rabbi, an atheist, or a shaman – I will do whatever I can to point out the problems in such unscientific practices. So Court Jester is correct that the religion of the accused had nothing to do with the way I handled (or would handle in the future) the situation. But as Manhattan noted:
Yes, an actual anti-Christian bigot might indeed do that.
As far as Manhattan’s question about how the courts ever allowed it to happen, well, there’s plenty of blame to go around (one of the most famous cases involves Janet Reno, in fact). We’ve probably sent this one tumbling off on enough of a tangent, though. I’ll start a new thread on it, though, and you can pop in if you’re interested.