tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post5558256842483094954..comments2024-03-28T03:14:51.294-05:00Comments on Dad29: Fr. Brundage WORKED for WeaklandDad29http://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-15579449961888168042010-04-03T16:53:14.041-05:002010-04-03T16:53:14.041-05:00"The central part of the letter is virtually ...<i>"The central part of the letter is virtually identical to Weakland's later letter to Bertone."</i><br /><br />I note "central part" and "virtually identical" in that quote. The implication being given is that Fr. Brundage himself suggested terminating the judicial investigation - which is the opposite of what Fr. Brundage has said. It was a draft of a 'potential' response. Weakland ultimately wrote the final version.<br /><br />As Fr. Brundage has noted, being the judicial vicar, there are some things he cannot talk about or clarify at this point due to confidentiality in the process.<br /><br />I believe him when he states that he would never have agreed to terminate the investigation. Ab. Weakland's credibility, on the other hand...<br /><br />And yes Dad, I too wondered about Fr. Brundage being in that Alaskan diocese. Some reports said that he was "on loan" - but intriguing, nevertheless.GORhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14313101159848740722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-51134675005488560892010-04-02T19:31:20.562-05:002010-04-02T19:31:20.562-05:00No kidding.
Really??
This is not 'deck chair...No kidding.<br /><br />Really??<br /><br />This is not 'deck chairs.' Someone wants to diminish what good actually WAS done, and that should be set straight.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12897315.post-70821124607841547322010-04-02T18:45:15.640-05:002010-04-02T18:45:15.640-05:00You're rearranging the deck chairs on the Tita...You're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This controversy is about what happened in 1998. Remember that the pedo priest in question started molesting the deaf boys in 1950 and this pattern of unconscionable behavior lasted until the mid-1970's. Where were all the leaders of the church between 1950 and 1975? That's the real question. How many "enabler" priests permitted this abuse to continue? That's the real scandal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com