I blogged the other day about the efforts of the anti-Catholic shake-downers at SNAP to resist a Court order to turn over records they may have that are relevant to a plaintiff suit out in Kansas City.
In that story, David Clohessy (SNAP's very own Al Sharpton), called for a different standard of transparency for his crowd than for the Catholic Church. That is, of course, very convenient for him. I can only suppose he would be begging for TV time if any diocese defied a similar Court order.
Then, in a bizarre move, Clohessy impugned Archbishop Carlson: “Archbishop Carlson and his brother Catholic bishops have hired, hidden, transferred, defended and enabled child molesters. SNAP hasn’t. Carlson and his colleagues have ignored and concealed their crimes. SNAP hasn’t.”
Huh, you may ask? What does Archbishop Carlson have to do with any of this? This is a suit against the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph about a priest from that diocese. Though it isn't clear from the press accounts, I think that lawyers in a similar suit in St. Louis are also seeking production of this evidence. But in any event, the allegations, if true, pre-date the last few Archbishops of Saint Louis.
As it happens, this mini-snit prompted a response by the irrepressible Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League. His provocative headline:
SNAP Protects Child Molesters
Read it. It says it like only Donohue could.
In a sign of the state of news coverage today, the Riverfront Times blog has published this, along with a reply by Clohessy, here. In an improvement over its usual reporting, the RFT blog asks a lot of the right questions, and although it is clearly sympathetic to SNAP, it does acknowledge that defendants in lawsuits have the right to subpoena this type of information.
In a nutshell, Clohessy's response is the same as the one in my past post: You see, it's OK to smear the Catholic Church because it's the Catholic Church. We all know they're evil. We are merely the helpless victims. To apply rules of evidence, fundamental principles of justice, or even due process of law to us would be to endanger our crusade to
Good luck with that strategy, David. When even the RFT acknowledges that you're in the wrong, the Court might find you less than persuasive.