Cecilia Chang- NY Mag

[beast of the east]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Voluntary poverty is the object of one of the evangelical counsels. The question then arises, what poverty is required by the practice of this counsel or, in other words, what poverty suffices for the state of perfection? The renunciation which is essential and strictly required is the abandonment of all that is superfluous, not that it is absolutely necessary to give up the ownership of all property, but a man must be contented with what is necessary for his own use....

The vow of poverty may generally be defined as the promise made to God of a certain constant renunciation of temporal goods, in order to follow Christ. The object of the vow of poverty is anything visible, material, appreciable at a money value"

"The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior."

"A sin against the vow of poverty is necessarily an offence against the virtue of religion, and when committed in connexion with religious profession it is even a sacrilege. It may be a grave or a slight offence. The question, what matter is grave, causes great difficulty to moral theologians; and while some regard the appropriation of one franc as a grave matter, others are more lenient. Most theologians are inclined to compare the sin against the vow of poverty with the sin of theft, and say that the same amount which would make theft a mortal sin would, if appropriated contrary to the vow, constitute a grave offence against poverty."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm


So yes, taking a vow of poverty, and owning expensive watches and a closet full of suits is in direct violation of the vows FH has taken.

 

[beast of the east]

On the subject of allegations of fornication, I think that is going too far.

HOWEVER, there is something untowards and perverse in the non-sexual sense (at least in sexual activity) that a 50-something year old priest has his judgment clouded by hiring a handsome young athlete with limited academic credentials and quickly elevating him to chief of staff, paying him a very un-St. John's salary of $550,000. Honestly, who in their right mind doesn't believe that for that kind of money, FH could have found an acedemically qualified and gifted, experienced person with the proven abilities commensurate with the title "Chief of Staff".

This is not even the first time Harrington has done this, bringing a young Jim Pellows up through the ranks quickly prior to the hire of Wile. Apparently he even owned a house in the Cape Cod area with Pellows, also a strange thing to do with a younger underling, no less also a violation of his vow of poverty.

I've been close with priests my entire adult life, including a friend who was a father figure after my own father passed away while I was in college. As close as we were (and he was godfather to my son), I'd never have entertained a beach vacation with him.

I don't think this constitues a sexual allegation on the part of FH. Given the recent horrific behavior of some very ill priests, priests under diocesan control are specifically told to keep their distance from laypeople in terms of the relationships they form. I was surprised to discover this recently after some dialogue with a newy ordained priest. FH seems to have been operating far apart form any institutional control in terms of many of his activities.

 

[Red.Fans]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm
So yes, taking a vow of poverty, and owning expensive watches and a closet full of suits is in direct violation of the vows FH has taken.

Even in this pre-Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia there is some nuance that you have left out to make your point.

Aside from that, Fr H. claims that he put the watch away and never used it. As far as the closet full of suits who knows? Do you know for example that he never discussed any of these matters with his superior? I don't know for certain and my point is not to defend the man or the situation. But rather only that the level of discourse being taken to virtue and personal holiness is something else entirely. Before I join the mob to crucify him, I'll limit my judgements away from his personal morality. Certainly there is a lot that stinks here and it is not going away. But in most of such cases the versions that float around are full of hyperbole in both directions. Even just at the local parish level, rarely are priests discussed at all without extreme opinions. They are either devils or saints.

I just don't see any point to harping on whether or not he is some mercenary fraud of a priest, thief, homosexual etc as has been plainly stated or alleged. It is one thing to feel justifiably outraged by someone who abuses or otherwise betrays the trust they have in a position within the Church but conversely it is almost comically ironic to engage in detraction or calumny (both generally fall into the category of grave sin for someone that cares about such things) in the name of that same Catholicism. So there is a very fine line here for anyone who is sincere in search of both justice and their own observation of Catholic virtue and piety. And traditionally for Catholics the line here is much finer as it pertains to priests. I'm not calling you out as a hypocrite, just giving my opinion and why. If someone cares about such things as sacrilege, being a defender of the faith etc, then that care should extend in all directions.

 

[beast of the east]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm
So yes, taking a vow of poverty, and owning expensive watches and a closet full of suits is in direct violation of the vows FH has taken.

Even in this pre-Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia there is some nuance that you have left out to make your point.

Aside from that, Fr H. claims that he put the watch away and never used it. As far as the closet full of suits who knows? Do you know for example that he never discussed any of these matters with his superior? I don't know for certain and my point is not to defend the man or the situation. But rather only that the level of discourse being taken to virtue and personal holiness is something else entirely. Before I join the mob to crucify him, I'll limit my judgements away from his personal morality. Certainly there is a lot that stinks here and it is not going away. But in most of such cases the versions that float around are full of hyperbole in both directions. Even just at the local parish level, rarely are priests discussed at all without extreme opinions. They are either devils or saints.

I just don't see any point to harping on whether or not he is some mercenary fraud of a priest, thief, homosexual etc as has been plainly stated or alleged. It is one thing to feel justifiably outraged by someone who abuses or otherwise betrays the trust they have in a position within the Church but conversely it is almost comically ironic to engage in detraction or calumny (both generally fall into the category of grave sin for someone that cares about such things) in the name of that same Catholicism. So there is a very fine line here for anyone who is sincere in search of both justice and their own observation of Catholic virtue and piety. And traditionally for Catholics the line here is much finer as it pertains to priests. I'm not calling you out as a hypocrite, just giving my opinion and why. If someone cares about such things as sacrilege, being a defender of the faith etc, then that care should extend in all directions.

Paul,

Your points are reasonable and well taken. There appears to be a preponderence of evidence that appears to indicate that there are some very questionable behaviors steering the ship here. Unlike other instituions of public trust, such as elected officials, we expect moral and spiritual guidance from Catholic leaders. When the betray that trust, it is worse than a secular leader doing the same. Why? Because we are expecting them by nature of their vocation, to lead us in faith. I've argued long and hard in other threads in since closed sections, that Catholic Universities are deliberately secualrizing, straying from teaching and preaching the Gospels. At St. John's there is no longer an attempt to vocalize the mission of St. Vincent dePaul in serving the poor as a mission that serves God and spreads the Gospels. The mission statement publicly stops short of that and deliberately communicates a secular, humanistic but worthy goal. Bu that digresses.

It is a reasonable plea not to try FH in a court of public opinion, but then again, in an era where the church has furstrated us with the lack of transparency in dealing with past scandals, this may be all that is left. You defend that FH claims he kept the watch in a drawer, yet when it needed repair, he returned it to Chang for that purpose. You mention suits, but its been raised that there were 30 such suits - an extravagance for all but the wealthiest among us. Do you know of any Catholic University granting interest free loans to key staff members for the purpose of private enterprise - no less an enterprise that the loaner is participating in?

It sounds like a broken record, but when is too much evidence enough to raise serious questions. If not for public forums like this and other places, there is no pressure on those who might not act properly in dealing with indiscretions to do just that.

Again, your point is well taken about reserving final judgment. As for stopping short of calling my opinions hypocritical, I think you can be 100% pro-Catholic Church and still be outraged when improprieties surface in Catholic insitutions. There is mercy, and then there is reasonable outrage. Did Jesus not rage "Depart from me sinner" to the same man he later instructed to "Feed my sheep, tend my sheep"?

 

[fun]

So yes, taking a vow of poverty, and owning expensive watches and a closet full of suits is in direct violation of the vows FH has taken.

Unfortunately you left a bit out. Those darned ellipses .... they're always hiding something.

"A person who has made this vow [poverty] gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior."

How is the will of the superior known?

"Submission to a superior (as we call the person whose permission, by the terms of the vow, is required for all acts disposing of temporal goods) does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission. A tacit permission which may be inferred from some act or attitude and the expression of some other wish, or even a reasonable presumption of permission, will be sufficient. There is no violation of the vow, when the religious can say to himself, "the superior, who is acquainted with the facts, will approve of my acting in this way without being informed of my intention".

According to that - your own authoritative source - FH can own as many watches as he likes, of whatever sort, no matter how much they cost, and how ever many suits, as long as tacit permission from his superior can be inferred. As long as he is behaving "in accordance with the will of his superior" he can evidently do whatever he wants. Go figure.

See also petard, hoisted on your own.

 

[fun]

Before I join the mob to crucify him, I'll limit my judgements away from his personal morality. Certainly there is a lot that stinks here and it is not going away. But in most of such cases the versions that float around are full of hyperbole in both directions. Even just at the local parish level, rarely are priests discussed at all without extreme opinions. They are either devils or saints.

[...]

I just don't see any point to harping on whether or not he is some mercenary fraud of a priest, thief, homosexual etc as has been plainly stated or alleged. It is one thing to feel justifiably outraged by someone who abuses or otherwise betrays the trust they have in a position within the Church but conversely it is almost comically ironic to engage in detraction or calumny (both generally fall into the category of grave sin for someone that cares about such things) in the name of that same Catholicism. .

This gets to the heart of it. If FH mismanaged and betrayed the university in the manner in which it is alleged, he needs to go. The watch doesn't enter into it, because what he has done is egregious. If OTOH he did not do the things of which he is accused, the watch and the suits and his "untoward" and "perverse" relationship with his "handsome" young associate is merely slander.

 

[mjmaherjr]

To me the biggest issue is how did Fr Harrington get the watches and what it seems is the lack of due diligence on where they came from because gifts of that size should raise red flags all over the place.

There are so many red flags all over the place that whether he is a priest or not anyone who is in a leadership position should have their leadership position questioned. The fact that he is a priest at least in my opinion means he should be held to an even higher standard.

Taking cash in envelopes without proper accounting is just plain ridiculous. What he was paying Wile again in my opinion should be questioned. The loans again that's another thing.

When you add all these things up there is a lot of accounting that needs to be done ( pun intended )

 

[Red.Fans]

Your points are reasonable and well taken. There appears to be a preponderence of evidence that appears to indicate that there are some very questionable behaviors steering the ship here. Unlike other instituions of public trust, such as elected officials, we expect moral and spiritual guidance from Catholic leaders. When the betray that trust, it is worse than a secular leader doing the same. Why? Because we are expecting them by nature of their vocation, to lead us in faith. I've argued long and hard in other threads in since closed sections, that Catholic Universities are deliberately secualrizing, straying from teaching and preaching the Gospels. At St. John's there is no longer an attempt to vocalize the mission of St. Vincent dePaul in serving the poor as a mission that serves God and spreads the Gospels. The mission statement publicly stops short of that and deliberately communicates a secular, humanistic but worthy goal. Bu that digresses.

It is a reasonable plea not to try FH in a court of public opinion, but then again, in an era where the church has furstrated us with the lack of transparency in dealing with past scandals, this may be all that is left. You defend that FH claims he kept the watch in a drawer, yet when it needed repair, he returned it to Chang for that purpose. You mention suits, but its been raised that there were 30 such suits - an extravagance for all but the wealthiest among us. Do you know of any Catholic University granting interest free loans to key staff members for the purpose of private enterprise - no less an enterprise that the loaner is participating in?

It sounds like a broken record, but when is too much evidence enough to raise serious questions. If not for public forums like this and other places, there is no pressure on those who might not act properly in dealing with indiscretions to do just that.

Again, your point is well taken about reserving final judgment. As for stopping short of calling my opinions hypocritical, I think you can be 100% pro-Catholic Church and still be outraged when improprieties surface in Catholic insitutions. There is mercy, and then there is reasonable outrage. Did Jesus not rage "Depart from me sinner" to the same man he later instructed to "Feed my sheep, tend my sheep"?

Jesus threw the money changers tables over in an apparent (out)rage. Jesus was harsh with Peter. Jesus also said in reference to what was probably a guilty sinner, - he who is without sin cast the first stone. The former examples are actions of Jesus. The latter is an instruction for others who are not Jesus. Jesus is Jesus, you and I are not.

As far as the watch etc I was not defending. I simply repeated what he said. I did not say that I believe him or not. I was pointing out that in the reference you made regarding his priestly vows, a key distinction was that the value judgement to be made was based upon his superior as per your reference. We do not know what went down. In other words it seems imprudent to make a very serious moral judgment based upon assumptions from stuff that is read online and without any first hand knowledge. The real point being that it is a slippery slope to pursue on these lines in the name of being Catholic and I don't see why it is necessary. If things have been mismanaged as badly or even close to how badly is alleged then the stakeholders have plenty to move forward for change.

So yeah we can and should be outraged at injustice. But outrage is not equivalent to any actions that you take in response to that outrage. So your outrage might be licit while your response(s) is not.

And yes I would generally agree with you that there is a greater degree of betrayal and severity of injustice when say a priest at the head of a Catholic University betrays a trust than when say the head of Syracuse University (Private secular school) or Uconn (Public school) does the same. :huh:

 

[beast of the east]

Your points are reasonable and well taken. There appears to be a preponderence of evidence that appears to indicate that there are some very questionable behaviors steering the ship here. Unlike other instituions of public trust, such as elected officials, we expect moral and spiritual guidance from Catholic leaders. When the betray that trust, it is worse than a secular leader doing the same. Why? Because we are expecting them by nature of their vocation, to lead us in faith. I've argued long and hard in other threads in since closed sections, that Catholic Universities are deliberately secualrizing, straying from teaching and preaching the Gospels. At St. John's there is no longer an attempt to vocalize the mission of St. Vincent dePaul in serving the poor as a mission that serves God and spreads the Gospels. The mission statement publicly stops short of that and deliberately communicates a secular, humanistic but worthy goal. Bu that digresses.

It is a reasonable plea not to try FH in a court of public opinion, but then again, in an era where the church has furstrated us with the lack of transparency in dealing with past scandals, this may be all that is left. You defend that FH claims he kept the watch in a drawer, yet when it needed repair, he returned it to Chang for that purpose. You mention suits, but its been raised that there were 30 such suits - an extravagance for all but the wealthiest among us. Do you know of any Catholic University granting interest free loans to key staff members for the purpose of private enterprise - no less an enterprise that the loaner is participating in?

It sounds like a broken record, but when is too much evidence enough to raise serious questions. If not for public forums like this and other places, there is no pressure on those who might not act properly in dealing with indiscretions to do just that.

Again, your point is well taken about reserving final judgment. As for stopping short of calling my opinions hypocritical, I think you can be 100% pro-Catholic Church and still be outraged when improprieties surface in Catholic insitutions. There is mercy, and then there is reasonable outrage. Did Jesus not rage "Depart from me sinner" to the same man he later instructed to "Feed my sheep, tend my sheep"?

Jesus threw the money changers tables over in an apparent (out)rage. Jesus was harsh with Peter. Jesus also said in reference to what was probably a guilty sinner, - he who is without sin cast the first stone. The former examples are actions of Jesus. The latter is an instruction for others who are not Jesus. Jesus is Jesus, you and I are not.

As far as the watch etc I was not defending. I simply repeated what he said. I did not say that I believe him or not. I was pointing out that in the reference you made regarding his priestly vows, a key distinction was that the value judgement to be made was based upon his superior as per your reference. We do not know what went down. In other words it seems imprudent to make a very serious moral judgment based upon assumptions from stuff that is read online and without any first hand knowledge. The real point being that it is a slippery slope to pursue on these lines in the name of being Catholic and I don't see why it is necessary. If things have been mismanaged as badly or even close to how badly is alleged then the stakeholders have plenty to move forward for change.

So yeah we can and should be outraged at injustice. But outrage is not equivalent to any actions that you take in response to that outrage. So your outrage might be licit while your response(s) is not.

And yes I would generally agree with you that there is a greater degree of betrayal and severity of injustice when say a priest at the head of a Catholic University betrays a trust than when say the head of Syracuse University (Private secular school) or Uconn (Public school) does the same. :huh:

Paul,
Certainly it is 100% within Christian values to remind us of the mandate "He who is without sin cast the first stone". Of course, in that reference, when Jesus approached the woman at the well, his mandate to her after telling her that neither the crowd nor he had condemned her was "Go and sin no more." Certainly in the extreme if all concerned applied this parable, the BOT would not condemn, the Vincentian leadership would not condemn, and FH would remain in place.

We don't know what went down, but nearly all of what I've repeated here is not speculative, but actions drawn from court testimony and investigative articles.

It is a fair assessment to call for restraint in rushing to judgment, but within the church, there is much recent history to suggest that heads rarely roll at the highest levels. What church hierarchy has never quite understood that the trust that was broken was not just limited to the actions of sexual predators, but the consistent efforts of bishops to hide these events from the public for decades, keeping these men in ministry. Why did this occur? We can speculate of course, but it's a fiar guess that money had a lot to do with it. Money from donors, money to settle claims, etc. I know a lot of formerly very faithful Catholics who either departed for other churches, or are no longer active because of this. When the laity called for reform in an organized, respectful way via Voice of The Faithful, that movement was silenced by bishops and participating priests ordered to disassociate themselves with that group.

If not for this thread, most Redmen.com'ers would not even be aware of these events. Without the Torch, most students would not be aware. Without outrage expressed by our community, the BOT may feel inclined to engage in moral relativism, and ignore transgressions in light of a greater good, as been suggested notably by others in this thread.

 

[beast of the east]

So yes, taking a vow of poverty, and owning expensive watches and a closet full of suits is in direct violation of the vows FH has taken.

Unfortunately you left a bit out. Those darned ellipses .... they're always hiding something.

"A person who has made this vow [poverty] gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior."

How is the will of the superior known?

"Submission to a superior (as we call the person whose permission, by the terms of the vow, is required for all acts disposing of temporal goods) does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission. A tacit permission which may be inferred from some act or attitude and the expression of some other wish, or even a reasonable presumption of permission, will be sufficient. There is no violation of the vow, when the religious can say to himself, "the superior, who is acquainted with the facts, will approve of my acting in this way without being informed of my intention".

According to that - your own authoritative source - FH can own as many watches as he likes, of whatever sort, no matter how much they cost, and how ever many suits, as long as tacit permission from his superior can be inferred. As long as he is behaving "in accordance with the will of his superior" he can evidently do whatever he wants. Go figure.

See also petard, hoisted on your own.

What you are suggesting is that it is possible that Vincentian authority was aware of and approved:

1) the receipt of expensive gifts to FH (watches and suits)
2) the taking of undocumented cash in envelopes to be kept in FH's locked drawer with no accounting of its use
3) the formation of a for profit corporation in which FH was a principal
4) the use of University funds to grant interest free loans to Rob Wile for the purpose of fund the above corporation
5) the use of university credit cards to purchase wine, clothing for Rob Wile's wife, and other items.

Now, whereas the above is possible, it is also likely implausible. I would understand the Vincentian's approving stopovers in Hawaii on the way to Asia, but as to the other items on this list, would not.

If vincentian superiors were aware of the above and approved them, then the allegations would be that not only is FH corrupt, but the entire order as well.

 

[fun]

What you are suggesting is that it is possible that Vincentian authority was aware of and approved:

I'm going to stop you right here. I know what I'm suggesting. And I know that when you start restating my suggestions, they will be misstated. I'm perfectly capable of saying my piece - and quite eloquently I've been told - without your help. So let me tell you what I'm suggesting, so you don't get it wrong:

What I am suggesting is that the Vincentian order knew that FH was the university president, and they knew that along with his work came certain responsibilities, including fund raising at the highest levels, which would entail perhaps wearing nice clothes and a watch. Because you can't go funding raising at fortune 500 companies dressed like a mendicant with a sun dial strapped to your back.

Now, according to your very own source, it is not a violation of the vow of poverty if FH acted under the belief that his superior tacitly - tacit means unspoken - approved of his behavior, a belief that can be inferred from the fact that he was not disciplined:

"Submission to a superior .... does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission .. There is no violation of the vow, when the religious can say to himself, "the superior, who is acquainted with the facts, will approve of my acting in this way".

This does not mean that I am suggesting that every behavior of of FH was appropriate. What I am suggesting is that your insinuations about FH are vulgar and that they reveal more about you than they do about him. You are not content that he may have acted unethically or that he exercised poor judgment, you want to demonstrate that he is evil and that his vows and his vocation are a sham. That is why you portray him as pernicious: he is a thief; he is a sodomite. I suspect the only reason you want to do that - the reason you hate FH - is because he hired Norm Roberts. It has nothing to do with his watch, or his suits, or his peculiar vacations with the "handsome athlete." It's because he mismanaged the BB team. And you cannot convince me otherwise.

1) the receipt of expensive gifts to FH (watches and suits)

Asked an answered. FH is a fund raiser. Fundraiser needs suits. Fundraiser needs a watch. You want to argue how nice his suits should be, maybe that he should have bought them off the rack, knock yourself out. You sound a bit jealous if you ask me, especially about that watch you keep bring up. But there's a reasonable explanation for the suits and there's "a reasonable presumption of permission."

2) the taking of undocumented cash in envelopes to be kept in FH's locked drawer with no accounting of its use

If you have proof that FH took envelopes full of cash and kept them for his personal use, please present it. That would show that FH violated his vow of poverty. FH says he took the money and gave it to the poor. That would not be a violation of his vow of poverty. That would tend to prove that he took it seriously.

3) the formation of a for profit corporation in which FH was a principal

I do not know whether forming a corporation is a violation of the vow of poverty. If it is it is. In any case if the facts are as they are presented this is the deal that does him in.

4) the use of University funds to grant interest free loans to Rob Wile for the purpose of fund the above corporation

Is this the same Rob Wile you find so beguiling that you wouldn't trust yourself on vacation with him at the seashore? Anyway, how does the university granting a loan to Rob Wile implicate FH's vow of poverty? Answer: it does not.

5) the use of university credit cards to purchase wine, clothing for Rob Wile's wife, and other items.

Wait. The same Rob Wile you find so beguiling that you wouldn't trust yourself on vacation with him has a wife? I thought you said he was a pederast. Anyway, how does the use of university credit cards implicate FH's vow of poverty? Answer: it does not.

If vincentian superiors were aware of the above and approved them, then the allegations would be that not only is FH corrupt, but the entire order as well.

Yes well perhaps the whole Vincentian order will someday live up to your high ethical standards. Good grief.

Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.

 

[Red.Fans]

Paul,
Certainly it is 100% within Christian values to remind us of the mandate "He who is without sin cast the first stone". Of course, in that reference, when Jesus approached the woman at the well, his mandate to her after telling her that neither the crowd nor he had condemned her was "Go and sin no more." Certainly in the extreme if all concerned applied this parable, the BOT would not condemn, the Vincentian leadership would not condemn, and FH would remain in place.

We don't know what went down, but nearly all of what I've repeated here is not speculative, but actions drawn from court testimony and investigative articles.

It is a fair assessment to call for restraint in rushing to judgment, but within the church, there is much recent history to suggest that heads rarely roll at the highest levels. What church hierarchy has never quite understood that the trust that was broken was not just limited to the actions of sexual predators, but the consistent efforts of bishops to hide these events from the public for decades, keeping these men in ministry. Why did this occur? We can speculate of course, but it's a fiar guess that money had a lot to do with it. Money from donors, money to settle claims, etc. I know a lot of formerly very faithful Catholics who either departed for other churches, or are no longer active because of this. When the laity called for reform in an organized, respectful way via Voice of The Faithful, that movement was silenced by bishops and participating priests ordered to disassociate themselves with that group.

If not for this thread, most Redmen.com'ers would not even be aware of these events. Without the Torch, most students would not be aware. Without outrage expressed by our community, the BOT may feel inclined to engage in moral relativism, and ignore transgressions in light of a greater good, as been suggested notably by others in this thread.

In struggling with such issues I believe that the Catholic ideal is to look to the example of the saints. Pretty much every single one of them were challenged with what were impossible seeming injustices. How they dealt with such things defined them. I am not disagreeing with you that there is injustice or that there have been many failures where people in the Church failed to properly address them. Although I would stop short of making categorical characterizations that make it sound like all bishops etc conspire to hide or failed to do this or that and it was based upon money. I would also approach the need for heads to roll, with less enthusiasm. Rarely in this world do the most deserving heads roll but if I had such responsibility I sure would want to know that I only approached it in a sober manner with all of the possible facts presented in an objective way rather than it being the culmination of a passionate crusade.

 

[beast of the east]

Paul,
Certainly it is 100% within Christian values to remind us of the mandate "He who is without sin cast the first stone". Of course, in that reference, when Jesus approached the woman at the well, his mandate to her after telling her that neither the crowd nor he had condemned her was "Go and sin no more." Certainly in the extreme if all concerned applied this parable, the BOT would not condemn, the Vincentian leadership would not condemn, and FH would remain in place.

We don't know what went down, but nearly all of what I've repeated here is not speculative, but actions drawn from court testimony and investigative articles.

It is a fair assessment to call for restraint in rushing to judgment, but within the church, there is much recent history to suggest that heads rarely roll at the highest levels. What church hierarchy has never quite understood that the trust that was broken was not just limited to the actions of sexual predators, but the consistent efforts of bishops to hide these events from the public for decades, keeping these men in ministry. Why did this occur? We can speculate of course, but it's a fiar guess that money had a lot to do with it. Money from donors, money to settle claims, etc. I know a lot of formerly very faithful Catholics who either departed for other churches, or are no longer active because of this. When the laity called for reform in an organized, respectful way via Voice of The Faithful, that movement was silenced by bishops and participating priests ordered to disassociate themselves with that group.

If not for this thread, most Redmen.com'ers would not even be aware of these events. Without the Torch, most students would not be aware. Without outrage expressed by our community, the BOT may feel inclined to engage in moral relativism, and ignore transgressions in light of a greater good, as been suggested notably by others in this thread.

In struggling with such issues I believe that the Catholic ideal is to look to the example of the saints. Pretty much every single one of them were challenged with what were impossible seeming injustices. How they dealt with such things defined them. I am not disagreeing with you that there is injustice or that there have been many failures where people in the Church failed to properly address them. Although I would stop short of making categorical characterizations that make it sound like all bishops etc conspire to hide or failed to do this or that and it was based upon money. I would also approach the need for heads to roll, with less enthusiasm. Rarely in this world do the most deserving heads roll but if I had such responsibility I sure would want to know that I only approached it in a sober manner with all of the possible facts presented in an objective way rather than it being the culmination of a passionate crusade.

Thanks for presenting a contrasting view without the need to attack. I know we have more we would agree on than disagree.

 

[beast of the east]

What you are suggesting is that it is possible that Vincentian authority was aware of and approved:

I'm going to stop you right here. I know what I'm suggesting. And I know that when you start restating my suggestions, they will be misstated. I'm perfectly capable of saying my piece - and quite eloquently I've been told - without your help. So let me tell you what I'm suggesting, so you don't get it wrong:

What I am suggesting is that the Vincentian order knew that FH was the university president, and they knew that along with his work came certain responsibilities, including fund raising at the highest levels, which would entail perhaps wearing nice clothes and a watch. Because you can't go funding raising at fortune 500 companies dressed like a mendicant with a sun dial strapped to your back.

Now, according to your very own source, it is not a violation of the vow of poverty if FH acted under the belief that his superior tacitly - tacit means unspoken - approved of his behavior, a belief that can be inferred from the fact that he was not disciplined:

"Submission to a superior .... does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission .. There is no violation of the vow, when the religious can say to himself, "the superior, who is acquainted with the facts, will approve of my acting in this way".

This does not mean that I am suggesting that every behavior of of FH was appropriate. What I am suggesting is that your insinuations about FH are vulgar and that they reveal more about you than they do about him. You are not content that he may have acted unethically or that he exercised poor judgment, you want to demonstrate that he is evil and that his vows and his vocation are a sham. That is why you portray him as pernicious: he is a thief; he is a sodomite. I suspect the only reason you want to do that - the reason you hate FH - is because he hired Norm Roberts. It has nothing to do with his watch, or his suits, or his peculiar vacations with the "handsome athlete." It's because he mismanaged the BB team. And you cannot convince me otherwise.

1) the receipt of expensive gifts to FH (watches and suits)

Asked an answered. FH is a fund raiser. Fundraiser needs suits. Fundraiser needs a watch. You want to argue how nice his suits should be, maybe that he should have bought them off the rack, knock yourself out. You sound a bit jealous if you ask me, especially about that watch you keep bring up. But there's a reasonable explanation for the suits and there's "a reasonable presumption of permission."

2) the taking of undocumented cash in envelopes to be kept in FH's locked drawer with no accounting of its use

If you have proof that FH took envelopes full of cash and kept them for his personal use, please present it. That would show that FH violated his vow of poverty. FH says he took the money and gave it to the poor. That would not be a violation of his vow of poverty. That would tend to prove that he took it seriously.

3) the formation of a for profit corporation in which FH was a principal

I do not know whether forming a corporation is a violation of the vow of poverty. If it is it is. In any case if the facts are as they are presented this is the deal that does him in.

4) the use of University funds to grant interest free loans to Rob Wile for the purpose of fund the above corporation

Is this the same Rob Wile you find so beguiling that you wouldn't trust yourself on vacation with him at the seashore? Anyway, how does the university granting a loan to Rob Wile implicate FH's vow of poverty? Answer: it does not.

5) the use of university credit cards to purchase wine, clothing for Rob Wile's wife, and other items.

Wait. The same Rob Wile you find so beguiling that you wouldn't trust yourself on vacation with him has a wife? I thought you said he was a pederast. Anyway, how does the use of university credit cards implicate FH's vow of poverty? Answer: it does not.

If vincentian superiors were aware of the above and approved them, then the allegations would be that not only is FH corrupt, but the entire order as well.

Yes well perhaps the whole Vincentian order will someday live up to your high ethical standards. Good grief.

Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.

I am not going to respond point for point, but I'll tell you a couple of things:

1) my disdain for FH has nothing to do with the NR hire - nothing. The only problem with the NR involvement is that he gave the task to a BOT member as a bone for large donations, and didn't properly communicate the authority that person had. As University President he had a right to approve all hires, and he just made a bad choice.

2) I'm not jealous at all. I do quite well for myself, far more than I ever would have expected. Thanks for trying though.

3) Regarding your comments about how fundraisers should be attired, I'm pretty sure you are ignorant of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They call their nuns who fundraise "beggars" and wear neither expensive clothing nor jewelry. I don't think in any event that fundraising requires 30 suits, and certainly not from the finest tailors in the world. 3) Don't you think lawyers should be excluded from any serious discussion about morality or ethics?

 

[fuchsia]

This edifying thread is much appreciated.

 

[fun]

I am not going to respond point for point, but I'll tell you a couple of things:

I notice that first you said you were not going to respond and and then you later amended your response to respond. Your first impulse was correct. You should have just let it lie. Having cited chapter and verse and been hoisted on your own petard you're left to whine again about suits and watches.

2) I'm not jealous at all. I do quite well for myself, far more than I ever would have expected. Thanks for trying though.

I didn't say anything about how much money you make or don't. I don't care and doubt anyone else does either. Although I find it interesting that you feel the need to mention it. I said you sounded covetous of FH's watch. If you think that the size of your bank account insulates you from sin and human nature, that's a strange sentiment coming from a Catholic, and especially one who holds others to such high standards. I am wealthy and therefore cannot sin. Whereas Father Harrington's trappings of wealth are themselves sin. That's quite the double standard.

3) Regarding your comments about how fundraisers should be attired, I'm pretty sure you are ignorant of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They call their nuns who fundraise "beggars" and wear neither expensive clothing nor jewelry. I don't think in any event that fundraising requires 30 suits, and certainly not from the finest tailors in the world. I know bishops and have met the Pope, and neither attire themselves in such a manner.

Let me see if I can follow your reasoning here. There is an organization called the Little Sisters of the Poor, of whom I have never heard. They are beggars who do not wear expensive clothing. Therefore no one needs to wear expensive clothing. Also, you think FH has too many suits, of too high quality. Also, you have met the pope and approve of how he dresses. The latter no doubt is of great comfort to the Holy See.

3) Don't you think lawyers should be excluded from any serious discussion about morality or ethics?

No. Various saints were lawyers: eg Thomas More, and Yves and Theophilus. As are any number of your fellow posters. I think all of them have opinions as worthy of consideration as those of, say, a sales manager. I take people as I find them here. They type, I read and respond, applying logic and rhetoric to their arguments. I don't recall ever mentioning my education or profession and certainly not as evidence that my arguments are correct; that would be fallacious: argumentum ad verecundiam. Whereas you can't go two posts without bringing it up, which is fallacious as well: argumentum ad hominem. Of course I don't doubt that you wish a certain lawyer would absent himself from such discussions, that way your prejudices and vanities and sanctimony wouldn't be held up to ridicule. Feel free to hold your breath, starting ... now.

 

[Red.Fans]

I said you sounded covetous of FH's watch.

I have to say that I AM. When I read that the watch was valued at $5k I was a little bit disappointed and even surprised (or maybe I just found the valuation dubious and actually valuing luxury custom tailored suits at $600 seemed like a low figure too). I always thought of Patek Philippe watches starting at around $30k and going into 6 figures+ ... Although I have not taken a vow of poverty, this is sadly out of my price range. But sort of like a Ferrari, I'm not sure I'd want to own one anyway. Taking on the responsibility to care for it and worrying about some gravel chipping a $40,000 paint job...; $2000 tune-ups... Wearing a $50k+ watch - what if I scratch the crystal while under the sink repairing my leaking kitchen faucet?

Cheapest one on "SPECIAL" here is $25khttp://www.luxurybazaar.com/subcategories/subid_1378_SPECIALS.html

 

[beast of the east]

I am not going to respond point for point, but I'll tell you a couple of things:

I notice that first you said you were not going to respond and and then you later amended your response to respond. Your first impulse was correct. You should have just let it lie. Having cited chapter and verse and been hoisted on your own petard you're left to whine again about suits and watches.

2) I'm not jealous at all. I do quite well for myself, far more than I ever would have expected. Thanks for trying though.

I didn't say anything about how much money you make or don't. I don't care and doubt anyone else does either. Although I find it interesting that you feel the need to mention it. I said you sounded covetous of FH's watch. If you think that the size of your bank account insulates you from sin and human nature, that's a strange sentiment coming from a Catholic, and especially one who holds others to such high standards. I am wealthy and therefore cannot sin. Whereas Father Harrington's trappings of wealth are themselves sin. That's quite the double standard.

3) Regarding your comments about how fundraisers should be attired, I'm pretty sure you are ignorant of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They call their nuns who fundraise "beggars" and wear neither expensive clothing nor jewelry. I don't think in any event that fundraising requires 30 suits, and certainly not from the finest tailors in the world. I know bishops and have met the Pope, and neither attire themselves in such a manner.

Let me see if I can follow your reasoning here. There is an organization called the Little Sisters of the Poor, of whom I have never heard. They are beggars who do not wear expensive clothing. Therefore no one needs to wear expensive clothing. Also, you think FH has too many suits, of too high quality. Also, you have met the pope and approve of how he dresses. The latter no doubt is of great comfort to the Holy See.

3) Don't you think lawyers should be excluded from any serious discussion about morality or ethics?

No. Various saints were lawyers: eg Thomas More, and Yves and Theophilus. As are any number of your fellow posters. I think all of them have opinions as worthy of consideration as those of, say, a sales manager. I take people as I find them here. They type, I read and respond, applying logic and rhetoric to their arguments. I don't recall ever mentioning my education or profession and certainly not as evidence that my arguments are correct; that would be fallacious: argumentum ad verecundiam. Whereas you can't go two posts without bringing it up, which is fallacious as well: argumentum ad hominem. Of course I don't doubt that you wish a certain lawyer would absent himself from such discussions, that way your prejudices and vanities and sanctimony wouldn't be held up to ridicule. Feel free to hold your breath, starting ... now.

For an attorney with an expansive vocabulary, your writings are pretty sloppy. You've probably been forced to your early returement because of it. First you said I was jealous of FH's watch, and then switched to say I was covetous. My response is that I am comfortable with the success I have had. Your attempt to speculate as to what kind of wealth I possess is, well, sloppy. Priests should not possess $50,000 watches, period, no less priests who publicly profess that they have taken a vow of poverty.

I bring up your profession, because you take nearly every chance to attack posts by copying snippets out of context, then attack the snippet. It's what a defense lawyer does to a credible witness, to try to tie them into knots, and unsettle them on the stand. Maybe it's your training that causes you to do that, but I suspect you jsut attack every disagreable post to try to prove your superiority.

 

[fun]

I have to say that I AM. When I read that the watch was valued at $5k I was a little bit disappointed and even surprised (or maybe I just found the valuation dubious and actually valuing luxury custom tailored suits at $600 seemed like a low figure too). I always thought of Patek Philippe watches starting at around $30k and going into 6 figures+ ... Although I have not taken a vow of poverty, this is sadly out of my price range. But sort of like a Ferrari, I'm not sure I'd want to own one anyway. Taking on the responsibility to care for it and worrying about some gravel chipping a $40,000 paint job...; $2000 tune-ups... Wearing a $50k+ watch - what if I scratch the crystal while under the sink repairing my leaking kitchen faucet?

I don't wear a watch, so maybe I just don't get the attraction or social significance. It's understandable though that you were surprised by the cost. The article says that "Harrington chose a Patek Philippe estimated to be worth around $5,000." Whereas here the watch was first called a "$15,000 Rolex" then that later was revised to "Philippe Patek ... worth something like $40,000" and finally the "watch that could have cost as much as $80,000."

The suits get the same treatment:

"According to a bill provided by Modestos Limited, Wile and the priests accounted for $50,503 over the twenty years the group had been 8visiting—roughly $13,000 of it for Harrington."

The article says Harrington's suits cost about half of what the ones the handsome former athlete Wile wore, $ 900. That means FH suits cost $ 450. 13K / $450 is (carry the one) 30, so if FH got no other clothing - socks shirts ties - he got 30 suits, or 1.5 new suits a year for 20 years. I was surprised - I thought suits from the finest tailors in the world that only the wealthy could afford would cost more than $450 but I guess not.

Fortunately "[Harrington] testified that he reported gifts to his local religious superior in accordance with his vow of poverty," so there's comfort in that. Unless he perjured himself obviously.

 

[beast of the east]

I am not going to respond point for point, but I'll tell you a couple of things:

I notice that first you said you were not going to respond and and then you later amended your response to respond. Your first impulse was correct. You should have just let it lie. Having cited chapter and verse and been hoisted on your own petard you're left to whine again about suits and watches.

2) I'm not jealous at all. I do quite well for myself, far more than I ever would have expected. Thanks for trying though.

I didn't say anything about how much money you make or don't. I don't care and doubt anyone else does either. Although I find it interesting that you feel the need to mention it. I said you sounded covetous of FH's watch. If you think that the size of your bank account insulates you from sin and human nature, that's a strange sentiment coming from a Catholic, and especially one who holds others to such high standards. I am wealthy and therefore cannot sin. Whereas Father Harrington's trappings of wealth are themselves sin. That's quite the double standard.

3) Regarding your comments about how fundraisers should be attired, I'm pretty sure you are ignorant of the Little Sisters of the Poor. They call their nuns who fundraise "beggars" and wear neither expensive clothing nor jewelry. I don't think in any event that fundraising requires 30 suits, and certainly not from the finest tailors in the world. I know bishops and have met the Pope, and neither attire themselves in such a manner.

Let me see if I can follow your reasoning here. There is an organization called the Little Sisters of the Poor, of whom I have never heard. They are beggars who do not wear expensive clothing. Therefore no one needs to wear expensive clothing. Also, you think FH has too many suits, of too high quality. Also, you have met the pope and approve of how he dresses. The latter no doubt is of great comfort to the Holy See.

3) Don't you think lawyers should be excluded from any serious discussion about morality or ethics?

No. Various saints were lawyers: eg Thomas More, and Yves and Theophilus. As are any number of your fellow posters. I think all of them have opinions as worthy of consideration as those of, say, a sales manager. I take people as I find them here. They type, I read and respond, applying logic and rhetoric to their arguments. I don't recall ever mentioning my education or profession and certainly not as evidence that my arguments are correct; that would be fallacious: argumentum ad verecundiam. Whereas you can't go two posts without bringing it up, which is fallacious as well: argumentum ad hominem. Of course I don't doubt that you wish a certain lawyer would absent himself from such discussions, that way your prejudices and vanities and sanctimony wouldn't be held up to ridicule. Feel free to hold your breath, starting ... now.

For an attorney with an expansive vocabulary, your writings are pretty sloppy. You've probably been forced to your early returement because of it. First you said I was jealous of FH's watch, and then switched to say I was covetous. My response is that I am comfortable with the success I have had. Your attempt to speculate as to what kind of wealth I possess is, well, sloppy. Priests should not possess $50,000 watches, period, no less priests who publicly profess that they have taken a vow of poverty.

I bring up your profession, because you take nearly every chance to attack posts by copying snippets out of context, then attack the snippet. It's what a defense lawyer does to a credible witness, to try to tie them into knots, and unsettle them on the stand. Maybe it's your training that causes you to do that, but I suspect you jsut attack every disagreable post to try to prove your superiority.

Even as a "lapsed Catholic" as you describe youself, I'm surprised you've never heard of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Perhaps you are lapsed for a very long time.

The Little of Sisters of the Poor are a large order of Catholic nuns, serving in over 30 countries around the world, including a strong presence in the NYC area. They care for the elderly as a mission, and run several nursing homes notably in Queens and Staten Island. They call their fundraisers beggars, because in doing so they have to humble themselves as beggars due, to plead for help.

Their mission figues into this discussion in the following description of themselves, from their website:

By our profession of the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience we offer God our heart and affections, our personal talents and gifts, our possessions and our will—all that we are and have—for his glory and the salvation of souls. In this way we live out St. Paul’s challenge to the early Christians to offer their whole being as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.

I think even you would be challenged to describe how FH's material excesses fit the above description.

For anyone interested, their website is:

http://littlesistersofthepoor.org/