Beast obviously you are referring to the lay members on the BOT do you think the clergy members could be the voice of reason and less concerned about their status as bot members and more concerned about the integrity and future of St.John's? Additinally by keeping Father Harrington around for a few more years SJU has created a moral hazard that he can get away with anything he wants, he can skim or redirect funds as he see fits without proper checks and balances.
Cecilia Chang- NY Mag
- Thread starter Moose
- Start date
Right, because that's how justice is meted out. Someone makes an allegation that is "without merit" and then the accused must refute each and every meritless allegation with offers of proof.
In half a dozen posts you've reported that "the BOT ... know the facts"; that "[the BOT] don't have all the facts"'; that "the facts [have] already [been] presented" ; and that the BOT "would look very foolish if the investigation turned up nothing improper." That's quite the smorgasbord of opinion.
beast of the east
Active member
There is some very murky public offerings of the goings on, and I am relying on the best information I have at every point, and trying my best, sometimes unsuccessfully not to let too much emotion guide my posts. What I just posted is my best knowledge of what is going on today.
Thanks for you weighing in - devoid of the usual wit and condescending sarcasm, at times you offer clarity to certain situations.
beast of the east
Active member
Sometimes even a former attorney must read full sentences before responding. Offering proof WHEN REASONABLE
You flatter your command of English.
It is never reasonable to require proof from someone who is falsely accused. Proof is required of those who make accusations.
If the allegations against FH are "without merit," then FH is falsely accused. If FH is falsely accused, it cannot be reasonable to require FH to "offer proof."
The correct formulation would be: if the allegations have merit, then FH should be offered the opportunity to refute them. If the reported allegations are without merit, FH should be prepared to forgive those who have slandered him.
STJ FinLaw
New member
This is not a court of law. We are not talking about putting Fr. Harrington or Rob Wile into prison.
A reputable news publication has set forth a set of facts. An important group of alumni are concerned about those alleged facts. If Harrington and Wile believe those facts to be untrue, they absolutely should provide the alumni with their responses to the facts stated in the news publication. Unless of course that Harrington and Wile do not care about alumni concerns.
A reputable news publication has set forth a set of facts. An important group of alumni are concerned about those alleged facts. If Harrington and Wile believe those facts to be untrue, they absolutely should provide the alumni with their responses to the facts stated in the news publication. Unless of course that Harrington and Wile do not care about alumni concerns.
beast of the east
Active member
If the allegations are with merit, he couldn't refute them with evidence , could he? Of course I am certain you were a trial lawyer, unless of course you made a career settling accident claims.
No kidding. Must have been all the wigs that fooled me.
I assume by important group of alumni you don't mean you and the rest of the A listers here.
I agree that FH owes a responsibility to the university, to the BOT, and even to the alumni. Whether NY magazine is reputable is anyone's guess and I don't know that NY Mag has set forth "facts." From reading this thread it seems that the "facts" have not yet been discovered, as the investigation, which might show facts "without merit" is not yet complete. I disagree that FH need respond to gossip. I disagree that he is only deserving of a semblance of due process in a court of law. I question the relevance of how much his "luxurious" wrist watch cost and whether he vacationed at a "5 star resort," as to a 4 star one. I wonder whether those who question his vow of poverty have given as much time and effort as he has ministering to the poor and wonder whether they similarly question the motives of the Pope and their church, worth billions. I wonder whether they've read that passage about being without sin and casting stones and if so if they understood it.
Actually I don't wonder any of that. Those were rhetorical questions. You seem to be new, so fact: many of the same people gossiping on this thread wanted Harrington fired for his mismanagement of the basketball program. They thought his hiring of Norm Roberts outweighed the good SJ has done for the community at large during his tenure. (Being the charitable sort I assume that the reason alumni donate to the university is because it does good for the community. I donate to charity for a tax dodge, but I'm pretty much a scoundrel.) Now they want him fired for something else. The fact is, they just want him fired and are happy for any excuse to slander him.
STJ FinLaw
New member
There is a difference between conjecture, opinions and facts. You seem to be saying that anything written in the articles are conjecture. Not so. The articles have stated quite a number of facts, including statements that were made during court testimony and other facts determined from interviews or other sources. Now someone may question the accuracy of those facts, but you seem to want to entirely disregard them because they are communicated through a NY Magazine article.
You have no idea who I am, so you have no basis to judge my level of alumni involvement. Statements like those severely diminish your credibility.
Please tell all this "community good" attributable to Fr. Harrington. And why it is relevant if he oversaw, participated in and encouraged corrupt practices at the University, assuming the facts in the article are true.
You have no idea who I am, so you have no basis to judge my level of alumni involvement. Statements like those severely diminish your credibility.
Please tell all this "community good" attributable to Fr. Harrington. And why it is relevant if he oversaw, participated in and encouraged corrupt practices at the University, assuming the facts in the article are true.
That's not really so. In court the plaintiff (or the state) presents a case in chief in which he alleges facts and attempts to adduce proof of those facts. If the case in chief fails the action is dismissed and no defense is necessary. If the case in chief is successful, ie if the plaintiff makes - wait for it - a prima facie case, the defense is given the opportunity to refute the plaintiff's evidence with other facts or to establish circumstances that disprove guilt or liability. After that 12 dopes get to decide who lied best.
In any event at no time is anyone required to disprove meritless allegations, which is what you thought FH should be prepared to do.
STJ FinLaw
New member
Oxford Dictionary Definition of "Fact", second bullet: a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
Your view that no one is justified in questioning Harrington's activities as described in the articles and that it should be perfectly acceptable to all that Harrington not respond to all this information about corrupt activity is just silly.
Your view that no one is justified in questioning Harrington's activities as described in the articles and that it should be perfectly acceptable to all that Harrington not respond to all this information about corrupt activity is just silly.
beast of the east
Active member
Please don't engage him. Even when given a compliment he gets off on this type of bickering. In fact, I am pretty certain if you keep it up, his legal briefs will be stained.
beast of the east
Active member
Actually, I prefer the scriptural passage that reads in part, do not attempt to remove the speck from someone's eye when you have a log in your own. I also like "Doctor, heal thyself". The Pharisees had a curious history of telling others how to act, but thought it didn't apply to them. What you are engaging in with your meager spiritual training, is moral relativism, something the Cathechisms of the Catholic Church warn against.
Since you are an authority on everything, answer this: If Judas did much more good than bad, then would he have a place in heaven? Which is worse, Judas' betrayal, or PEter's denial. Try to do answer this without consulting your trusted internet. I am confident you cannot.
Just a clarification on a repeated misconception on this thread...Vincentians do NOT take a vow of poverty (such vows are taken by Dominicans, Jesuits and Benedictine priests).
Having clarified his not taking a vow of poverty, I still think that Father Harrington's actions (if the stories are true) are unethical and should not be tolerated.
Having clarified his not taking a vow of poverty, I still think that Father Harrington's actions (if the stories are true) are unethical and should not be tolerated.
beast of the east
Active member
I am responding only because I believe that this is a significant revelation, because if FH entered into a for profit venture, it is against a vow.
However, I believe you are incorrect. The following is from the SJU website:
Do Vincentians take ‘vows’ and if so, what are they?
Yes, Vincentians take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and stability. They are first taken at the end of the novitiate year, and then finalized after a three-year period of formation. The vows help focus our lives individually and communally so we may use our time, talent, and energy for the spread of the Gospel.
http://www.stjohns.edu/about/vincentian/vincentians/faqs/general.stj
That's not my view and in fact I said nothing of the kind. Rather, I acknowledged that FH owes a responsibility to the university and the alumni. My comments were directed to certain biddies gossiping on this thread, and in particular the gaseous BOTE, who believes that the facts of the matter are both known and not known and that therefore FH should be prepared to defend himself with proof against every meritless allegation because he has a very expensive and luxurious wrist watch and moreover that a failure to act now - during an investigation that "is not yet completed' and might "turn up nothing" - would "compound the damages" to the church of christ caused by a half century of child buggery.
Well. Those must be some pretty nice watches. (I notice he keeps mentioning the wrist watch: "Where are those expensive watches that he and Rob Wile received?; "Luxurious gifts including watches that only the richest can afford." I do not see the signiificance of the wrist watch. But then being a gentleman farmer I tell time by the sun.) So I call horse-spit. As I said they've been calling for FH's head for years and it has nothing to do with his watch, or his personal chef, or his vacations to the shore that he takes with his 20 something year old assistant (wink wink) or any of the rest of it.
My own view of the good father, since you ask, is best expressed by an old Polish proverb: This German, a good fellow perhaps, but better off to hang him.
You have long demonstrated a misplaced confidence, which is why you so often end with my boot lodged in your lower intestine.
I'm something of a fallen away Catholic but I vaguely remember my catechism. Having hung himself Judas was on the fast track to hell, do not pass go, do not collect 30 pieces of silver. On the other hand he self snuffed as an act of contrititon, which remorse for his sins might well have been credited by a merciful god, should there have been one, which there isn't. So the answer is no, he didnt go to heaven because there's no such thing, but if there were, maybe.
The second one is a no brainer. As the decendant of sicilian grandfather I can tell you that Judas ratting out the baby Jesus to the authorities was much worse than Peter denying everything, Peter having learn two great things in life: Never rat on your friends and always keep you mouth shut.