Rundown here by veteran newsman, complete with details of the death of his wild-man predecessor and orders from archdiocese to keep it quiet.
Shows different strokes for different folks: cover up for sleazeball, harass the protester of same and his ilk.
And hot air at that. Tsk, tsk.
Closing of this brief 2017 description of St. Luke Institute, where Cardinal Cupich would have sent the long-ago abuse victim Fr. Paul Kalchik (by a neighbor at 11, by a priest at 19), closes with these reasonable questions:
Now, reflecting on all of the above, a few questions:
How much confidence do you have in the St. Luke Institute?
How many priests who were sent to the St. Luke Institute for counseling, and then returned to ministry, later became (further) involved in sexual abuse?
How much confidence have the American bishops shown in the Institute and its leaders? Has that changed in the past 15 years, as the above information has come to light? If not, why not?
How much confidence does Cardinal Cupich have in the institute? A lot, obviously.
via Catholic Culture
The Rev. Mark Bartosic celebrated Mass at Resurrection Catholic Church, filling in for Rev. Paul Kalchik, who was removed after burning a gay flag.
Pack up and get out, he was told as wedding party waited for him to do the honors, or police will be called, told you are trespassing and arresting you.
And more to make hair stand on end. . . .
via Chicago Priest Who Burned Gay Flag Flees After Archdiocese Threatens Forcible Removal – OnePeterFive
See also the on-site reporting on which the One Peter Five post is is based.
What on earth is going on?
Lori Lightfoot delivers “hotfoot,” reports Sun-Times item columnist Michael Sneed.
Acting like a heavy-duty mayoral candidate, Lightfoot, who is gay, recently dispatched an urgent plea to Cardinal Blase Cupich to take swift action against a Catholic priest who burned a “rainbow” flag recently to exorcise homosexuality. [Sorry, Sneed, not
homosexuality but promotion of same-sex activity.]In the letter exclusively obtained by Sneed, Lightfoot urged Cupich to take “swift action against Rev. Paul Kalchik of Resurrection parish for his hateful act and speech . . . in defiance of your direct order.”
Kalchik, along with some parishioners, led a burning of a rainbow flag that had previously hung in the parish. He claimed to be banishing evil. [Notice common enough “claimed,” when “said” would do nicely — except when you want to declare your low opinion of what was said.]
“What’s more, in the ensuing public outcry, Rev. Kalchik has gone further and described homosexuality [no] as an act against God and stated that homosexuals are to blame for the clergy sex abuse scandal. Rev. Kalchik’s ignorant and hateful speech and actions must be addressed swiftly. . . . Please take swift action to stamp out this hate.”
Stay tuned to see how Cupich responds.
If it were ignorant and hateful, Cupich would have no choice. It isn’t, so he has leeway. After all, who is he to judge?
Back in late April, when the White Sox called him up from Class AAA Charlotte to replace injured Avisail Garcia, Daniel Palka couldn’t possibly have known he’d stick around for the season, let alone that he’d lead all major-league rookies with 27 home runs heading into the final week.
Palka hit a two-run shot Friday off Cubs reliever Dillon Maples in the sixth inning of the Sox’ 10-4 victory at Guaranteed Rate Field.
A natural:
“I didn’t know what to expect [this season],” Palka said. “I just wanted to make sure I made the most of every opportunity I got and made sure I produced enough that the question was there — that maybe I’d have to stay.
“In my mind, I’m not surprised because I’m just confident in what I’m doing.”
Another thing about him:
Palka’s homer was his fourth as a pinch hitter, a Sox single-season record. It also tied him for third for homers in one season by a Sox rookie. The last one to hit 27 was Zeke Bonura in 1934 (but you knew that already).
Palka’s take on rubbing elbows with such greatness?
“I saw that, and I thought it was weird that a guy in the ’30s had the name Zeke,” he said.
Well, he did, Daniel. I know, because my brother Jake talked about him. I heard the name before I could spell it. It stuck.
Fr. Paul Kalchik has heard nothing from the archdiocese since he was “verbally threatened” by the two vicars for priests in a telephone call.
This in a rather sympathetic Chicago Tribune interview.
- Approval of the establishment of a third-party reporting system that will receive confidentially, by phone and online, complaints of sexual abuse of minors by a bishop and sexual harassment of or sexual misconduct with adults by a bishop and will direct those complaints to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority and, as required by applicable law, to civil authorities.
- Instructions to the USCCB Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance to develop proposals for policies addressing restrictions on bishops who were removed or resigned because of allegations of sexual abuse of minors or sexual harassment of or misconduct with adults, including seminarians and priests.
- Initiation of the process of developing a Code of Conduct for bishops regarding the sexual abuse of a minor; sexual harassment of or sexual misconduct with an adult; or negligence in the exercise of his office related to such cases.
- Support for a full investigation into the situation surrounding Archbishop McCarrick, including his alleged assaults on minors, priests, and seminarians, as well any responses made to those allegations. Such an investigation should rely upon lay experts in relevant fields, such as law enforcement and social services.
“Only a beginning,” they say. Consultation with laity, a “sine qua non” of investigation, will be part of it all. Nothing new there, in terms of promised strategy. But the bishops also acknowledge “a general corrosion of moral culture within the ranks of the Church’s clerical and hierarchical leadership,” which is clear enough to the public but still a lot to swallow by the leadership:
“Some bishops . . . have caused great harm to both individuals and the Church as a whole,” the Administrative Committee writes at the top of their statement. “They have used their authority and power to manipulate and sexually abuse others,” they continue. “They have allowed the fear of scandal to replace genuine concern and care for those who have been victimized by abusers.”
So forthright an admission of widespread failure and miscarriage of duty has been a long time coming. It is welcome, even though it does not satisfy.
It’s a start, says Catholic World Report.
It belongs to the faithful to hold [the bishops] to the promises they have made, and to demand a responsible part in even stronger measures — ones really apt, as the Administrative Committee says, “to repair the scandal and restore justice.” Whether this is a real beginning of that long and arduous work, or merely more empty words, remains to be seen.
To be sure.
So they are striking out with an ambitious program of their own.
- the establishment of a third-party reporting system that would receive confidential complaints about sexual misconduct by bishops, and report those complaints to ecclesiastical and/or civil authorities, as appropriate;
- a project to develop proposals for canonical restrictions on bishops who resign because of complaints involving sexual misconduct;
- another project to develop a code of conduct for bishops regarding sexual misconduct and negligence in responding to complaints; and
- support for a full investigation, supported by lay experts in law enforcement and social services, into the charges lodged against former cardinal Theodore McCarrick and the responses to those charges.
They aim to put teeth in it.
Pope’s refusal (or ignoring their request) foreclosed something else with even more teeth, Vatican clout in the matter.
Such an investigation, backed by papal authority, could require bishops’ cooperation and the release of relevant Vatican documents, and would therefore greatly increase the likelihood that the charges made by Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano would be either proven or disproven conclusively.
Ideal opportunity for the pope to defend against what he apparently considers a calumny, though he has never out-and-out denied Vigano’s allegations.
The bishops say these steps are “only a beginning.” Their statement
calls upon all bishops to make a “deep examination of conscience,” and to join in prayer and penance. “We cannot content ourselves that our response to sexual assault within the Church has been sufficient,” the bishops say.
There’s hope in this. They are promising something that would be very good.
Blithe Spirit 