www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Governor Keating Resigns From National Review Board

My aunt is a parish secretary. The place would close without her, as there is no full time priest. She pays the bills, cleans the building, schedules activities. Her husband, my uncle, mows the lawn, painted the activity center, and tarred the roof. The priest also stays with them when he is up on the weekend (He is a hospital chaplain during the week) and my aunt feeds him, houses him, and does his laundry.

All the bishop does is call once a month to check on the collection totals. I wonder who actually makes the greater contribution?

Neil

Dear Neil,

Do you really want an answer to that one?

Give the dear lady all our best!!

Alex

Personally, I find this story more troubling than the Phoenix story because it seems like Keating was forced out because of his views -- views which, it seems to me, were grounded in his own experience with the Bishops. If someone sitting on this advisory board is not entitled to hold these views, what value is the board in any case, and isn't it just a rubber stamp with a nice name?

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

As it says in Robert Bolt's Play about Thomas More, when King Henry comes to visit him:

Margaret More: Why is he here, Your Grace?

Duke of Norfolk: To talk about the divorce - he wants an answer (from Thomas More).

Margaret More: But he's had his answer!

Duke of Norfolk: He wants another . . .

Have a great day, Pillar of Orthodoxy!

Alex

I respect Governor Keating and he hasn't said anything that, to my view, isn't obvious - too many in the Church hierarchy have behaved like they are running a crime syndicate. Indeed, I'd favor RICO-type statutes being applied to them where a legal argument could be made. Sin is between man and God; but crime remains between man and the State.

Govenor Keating, ISTM, was not forced to resign for "holding" views, but for not "holding" them - for speaking them with rather careless language. The connection to organized crime is injudicious to say the least. The comparison would require a great deal of qualification - unless one wishes to suggest the the Catholic Church is founded and organized for the purpose of crime. If a more limited comparison is intended, then better language is easily found.

I find the idea of applying RICO statutes dangerously unwise: do you also advocate RICO prosecutions against pro-life organizations.

As such, I hope that the government restricts itself to the prosecution of crimes, not sins, and that the public endeavors to maintain some sense of the (jurisdiction-dependent) difference between the two.

Governor Keating was, after all, speaking by way of comparison to situations he had encountered in his career in law enforcement. Coming from a similar background, I'd say that the public record supports the Governor's opinion. Clearly, he was frustrated where he didn't expect to be. Indeed, it is only his opinion, but I do share it. And I don't think it was inappropriate for him to say what he said.

With regard to your other question, if groups organize for the purpose of committing crimes - and in particular, violent crimes - regardless of the alleged and stated cause, then I can see applying RICO statutes to them. I'd prefer more specific laws, but, I think you take what you can successfully prosecute under.

For the record, I am a pro-life person. I peacefully attend pro-life events (including of course the annual March), I peacefully write letters, and I peacefully pray. I act well within my rights and in accordance with the law. If everyone who claimed to be pro-life would do that, which isn't asking all that much, then we'd be doing better in our efforts to promote respect for life.

I disagree about the propriety of Keating's remarks. While the context is fairly evident, and his qualifying comments are part of the whole record, he should have understood - particularly from his public life - that his remarks would have been widely broadcast in an edited form: The Catholic Church is like the Cosa Nostra. And that's what happened. (No doubt this one-liner will enjoy a lot of use among the opponts of the Church.) This was foolish behavior.

I agree, and therefore suggest that it is a great stretch, and it is, IMO, prosecutorial misconduct to apply such statutes to get at organizations who are manifestly not created for the purpose of committing crimes, but which have members who do commit crimes. ISTM, that when prosecutors seek to expand the law into realms of novel application they are often prosecuting sins and not crimes.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

I don't particularly fear the criticism of the opponents of the Church. The Church still stands for the same immutable truths it always has - and we know that. And our opponents have always been there and probably will be for a very long time.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by djs:
[QB] (No doubt this one-liner will enjoy a lot of use among the opponts of the Church.)