I found your article most interesting about Cardinal Mahony being attacked by a man who was “enraged” by Mahony’s behavior during the sexual abuse trials. I almost feel guilty saying this, but there is a huge amount of doubt in my mind that this incident actually took place. It is difficult to admit that I cannot believe the word of a cardinal, but Mahony certainly has not proved himself to be trustworthy. In addition, he is a man who treated sexual abuse victims with such coldness and deceit that it is hard to believe that he would learn, as he said, the depth of our suffering from his experience. I really would like to believe him, but it just seems strange that he said nothing for all this time (when we could have actually seen some bruises, maybe?) but now that the archdiocese is back in the news because of the settlements he is announcing it. What would have been his purpose for not reporting this, and for “suffering in silence” except to elicit the public’s sympathy, and to, once again, say that he is the good guy and those who have been sexually abused by priests or who support them are the bad guys. It just seems like another of his carefully crafted public relations ploys. Even the picture used with the articles shows him as a sympathetic man, and he was anything but that during these public trials and before that, even, in his private meetings with victims, and in his previous court appearances. (Watch the movie, “Deliver Us From Evil” and see his actions in that trial!) It would seem as if he is making himself the one to be believed and to receive our sympathy instead of the victims. Believe me, I don’t condone violence in any form, and I would never say that Mahony deserved this, but I cannot feel sorry for him There is something to believing that “what goes around comes around,” if his story is true.

No matter what, though, Mahony will have to answer for his actions to his God at some point. He’ll certainly need our sympathy then!

I suppose you could argue that the cardinal didn’t make the allegation public–that, after all, is precisely what his paid mouthpiece claims. So you’ve got that going for you. Which is nice. But if you wanted to keep something quiet and asked me for advice, I’d tell you not to announce that something in a speech to a group of “hundreds,” no matter how confidential you felt that group likely to be.

And weirdness piled atop weirdness: why did the several priests who spoke to the Daily News not understand (as you seem to understand) that the cardinal’s story of personal pain was for their ears only? Did the cardinal fail to explain that the meeting was confidential? If he did tell them to keep their traps shut, did the priests–bound in other circumstances to maintain confidentiality–spill the story anyway?

Or is it at least conceivable that–on the very day the archdiocese was funding its settlement with abuse victims–the cardinal (who has shown a taste for public relations tactics) tried to bump from the front pages what could have been a top news story: “Archdiocese pays out hundreds of millions to victims of priestly abuse”?

There’s also an error in the story: “Mahony waited months to make public the allegation.” Mahony has never made the allegation public! He told the story in a private meeting with priests, and some of these priests at the meeting have relayed it.

I found your article most interesting about Cardinal Mahony being attacked by a man who was “enraged” by Mahony’s behavior during the sexual abuse trials. I almost feel guilty saying this, but there is a huge amount of doubt in my mind that this incident actually took place. It is difficult to admit that I cannot believe the word of a cardinal, but Mahony certainly has not proved himself to be trustworthy. In addition, he is a man who treated sexual abuse victims with such coldness and deceit that it is hard to believe that he would learn, as he said, the depth of our suffering from his experience. I really would like to believe him, but it just seems strange that he said nothing for all this time (when we could have actually seen some bruises, maybe?) but now that the archdiocese is back in the news because of the settlements he is announcing it. What would have been his purpose for not reporting this, and for “suffering in silence” except to elicit the public’s sympathy, and to, once again, say that he is the good guy and those who have been sexually abused by priests or who support them are the bad guys. It just seems like another of his carefully crafted public relations ploys. Even the picture used with the articles shows him as a sympathetic man, and he was anything but that during these public trials and before that, even, in his private meetings with victims, and in his previous court appearances. (Watch the movie, “Deliver Us From Evil” and see his actions in that trial!) It would seem as if he is making himself the one to be believed and to receive our sympathy instead of the victims. Believe me, I don’t condone violence in any form, and I would never say that Mahony deserved this, but I cannot feel sorry for him There is something to believing that “what goes around comes around,” if his story is true.

No matter what, though, Mahony will have to answer for his actions to his God at some point. He’ll certainly need our sympathy then!

I suppose you could argue that the cardinal didn’t make the allegation public–that, after all, is precisely what his paid mouthpiece claims. So you’ve got that going for you. Which is nice. But if you wanted to keep something quiet and asked me for advice, I’d tell you not to announce that something in a speech to a group of “hundreds,” no matter how confidential you felt that group likely to be.

And weirdness piled atop weirdness: why did the several priests who spoke to the Daily News not understand (as you seem to understand) that the cardinal’s story of personal pain was for their ears only? Did the cardinal fail to explain that the meeting was confidential? If he did tell them to keep their traps shut, did the priests–bound in other circumstances to maintain confidentiality–spill the story anyway?

Or is it at least conceivable that–on the very day the archdiocese was funding its settlement with abuse victims–the cardinal (who has shown a taste for public relations tactics) tried to bump from the front pages what could have been a top news story: “Archdiocese pays out hundreds of millions to victims of priestly abuse”?

There’s also an error in the story: “Mahony waited months to make public the allegation.” Mahony has never made the allegation public! He told the story in a private meeting with priests, and some of these priests at the meeting have relayed it.