- The Archdiocese did not have the event videotaped for use against Sr. Lears; or,
- The Archdiocese did have the event videotaped-- which it had every legal and moral right to do-- because it was advertised by the ladies themselves and according to Lears' groupies themselves was not a secret.
There is no evidence that the Archdiocese ordered the video taken. In fact all the evidence and all of the information I have gathered supports the Archdiocesan denial. Either way, however, no moral dilemma, no PR dilemma, no legal problem, no canonical problem.
About the only thing this story really constitutes is a means for bashing Archbishop Burke and a forum for St. Cronan's sympathizers to get quoted in the media.
Anyway, excerpts from the full article:
The St. Louis archdiocese has denied it authorized anyone to attend a women’s ordination ceremony to make a video recording of it.
That the “archdiocese of St. Louis authorized the video recording of a Catholic women’s ordination’ is untrue,” the archdiocese said in a letter to NCR.
Citing sources familiar with the archdiocese’s case against St. Louis Sister of Charity Louise Lears, the NCR Web site published a story July 10 saying that the archdiocese had authorized someone to attend the ceremony for the purpose of video recording it.
In the July 10 story, sources said that an affidavit exists in the Acta, or files, on Lears, sanctioning someone to attend to record the ceremony.
The archdiocese’s letter to NCR, signed by St. Louis Bishop Robert Hermann , archdiocesan administrator, and Msgr. John Shamleffer, judicial vicar, stated: “The ‘affidavit giving permission to an individual to attend the ceremony in order to record it’ does not exist.”
Shamleffer is out of town this week and Hermann declined to be interviewed for this story, according to Anne Steffens, chief communications officer for the archdiocese.
Steffens, however, was quoted in a news article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, following the NCR story, saying that the archdiocese “had, indeed, sent a witness to the ordinations,” adding that that witness “did not tape the event.”
[...]
The archdiocese’s letter to NCR stated that it “never videotaped nor requested any videotaping of the event.” It added that the “attempted ordination was public, recorded by local and statewide media and placed on the Internet. The video was easily accessible from a variety of mediums without us having to record it ourselves.”
It is unknown in what form the archdiocese obtained any video, although in its letter to NCR, the archdiocese said it “was obliged to use the footage in order to disprove Sister Lears’ advocate’s initial denial of Sister’s presence at the ceremony.”
Sources had told NCR that Lears’ files also contain photographs of her taken at the ceremony, including at least one of a close up of her lapel identification tag.
[...]
.JPG)
Posts
12 comments:
It's certainly interesting that you left so much of the actual article out of your blog.
How does this even approach the threshold of "newsworthy?" Who honestly cares anymore. Timman, you must have an iron stomach.
anon, I am trying to abide by the fair use provisions of copyright laws-- the link to the full article is there whenever you need it.
Unfortunately this story "has legs" if only because there's now a counter slander on Sr. Lears with respect to whether her lawyer actually was so bold as to claim she never attended the ceremony.
That's a detail which will have to get straightened out. So now there are two things to tease the NCR readership.
Thus the story,unfortunately, "has legs".
If Sr. Lear's through her canon lawyer really tried to argue that she did not attend the "service" that would go a long way toward explaining and justifying the charge of contumacy against Sr. Lears. It would also go a long way towards explaining why His Grace didn't "dialogue" with Sr. Lears. How can you dialogue with someone who begins her argument with such a wild defense.
Again, that's something that will only be known if the file is published. And I doubt if it will.
The reason they will never release the file is because Louise Lears does not lie. If the Archdiocese is claiming that Louise Lears is lying, then they're the ones who are lying.They've made it very clear to me that I will have to question everything that they say from now on. I simply can not believe that this is the Church that I belong to. It breaks my heart.
If you are serious, then you are not viewing this the right way. Sr. Lears' rejection of the Church's infallible teaching on priestly ordination, and her support of those women under her spiritual influence, is a lie. The fact that the just punishment she earned causes you to "question everything" the Church says is proof of the damage her actions have caused.
The reason the Archdiocese cannot and will not make the file public is to protect Sr. Lears, and to protect her from further scrutiny should she repent and be reconciled. They are protecting her rights. You see, the Archbishop has the care of her soul in mind, too. Making elements of the legal file public, and being disingenuous about it, is what some people close to her have done. I am glad that the Archdiocese will not stoop to that level, but it amazes me that you will still blame them.
The dissident crowd are acting in ways to bring the Catholic faith, and the Catholic Church, into disrepute. They want to "deconstruct" the Church. Destroy it--as if that were possible in the end-- to rebuild it to their liking. Such a faith is completely arbitrary. And they lead souls away from Christ. This has to stop, don't you think?
I will keep you, and her, in my prayers.
Timman, a note of personal appreciation for your continued (and very well done) defense of the faith. Bravo.
Dear Anon above,
Regarding the truthfulness of Sr. Lears.
The article says NOT that Sr. Lears lied but that her advocate initially denied her presence at the ceremony. That's a far piece from saying she lied. So take a deep breath and try not to be depressed.
Here's my point.
Her attorney may have said to His Grace, "You say she supports women's ordination. What's your proof?" His Grace may hae said, "She attended a recent fake ordination."
Then Sr. Lears' lawyer may have said, "Well we'll insist that such be put into evidence." And then His Grace says, "We have a witness." To which Sister's lawyer says, "We'll want to issue him an Interrogatory and we'll want to depose him." At which point His Grace may have said, "Oh, my don't even bother we can find a tape if we have to."
My imaginary scenario makes just one point. I imagine Canon law is like regular law in that lawyers will insist on "discovery" and the examination of evidence.
So we don't know if it is is even an issue of lying. Law is funny and I suspect Canon law is funnier. You're wrong to think anyone is even saying that Sr. Lears was lying.
Sister Louise never claimed that she was not at the ordination. Therefore, you think that LYING to the press about this is an acceptable behavior by the Archdiocese in order to save the faith. I thought lying was a sin in all cases.
Another thought, if it is impossible to bring the true Church down, why do they feel they must lie to protect it? By the way, I also believe the TRUE Church can not be destroyed.
last two anon posts, I believe the explanation by the anon immediately above you is well said and to the point.
Post a Comment