Deal Hudson. Is this as good as it gets?

What is the opinion of the forum readers on lay Catholic leaders representing the Church in the political sphere.

Deal Hudson's latest writings are all about the sexual abuse scandal in the Church.  However, given his own sordid past when it comes to such things you can see why him putting pen to paper would give the liberals ammunition to shoot back.

We are all sinners, to be sure. ( Not least Devoted Knuckles who is an enormous sinner by all accounts.  :laughing:)  And what Deal Hudson did is not as bad as clerical abuse or paedophilia, though it is in the same ball park in as much as he was married ( a vow had been made), he was 44, she was 18 and a student of his, and he did what he did when she was drunk as a skunk after he had invited her to a bar.  You can understand the Pot -Kettle-Black reaction from the liberals even if it is mixing the message up with the messenger.  Which is kinda human to be honest.

I was somewhat surprised that this guy is still director of any Catholic magazine after that incident.  I came across his article from a link off a link of Angelqueen and thought, "surely that cannot be the same Deal Hudson" so I googled him and it was.  Now I've no doubt that he has repented, but, you might think that the neo-cons would think he had crossed the Rubicon with that particular incident.  I'd figured he would have avoided the limelight like the plague and found some sort of lobbyist back-room job somewhere.  What's next I wonder?  Bud McFarlane as Director of the Catholic Family Alliance, perhaps.  I shouldn't laugh really, because nowadays is appears it might just happen.

Obviously we have to forgive these people and let them move on, but what governs whether a person is allowed a position of responsibility, trust, influence, figureheading again?  Is it merely sentiment and public acceptance or is there something more objective than that?  Not all of us want these positions of trust and responsibility.  Do we leave them therefore to those who are holier, harder working or just simply more self-promoting than the rest of us?

Or is my distaste at these something sordidly flawed Catholic spokespeople simply a poor reflection on me and my over-judgemental character?  Am I the sort of person who believes that sins are forgiven but still wants to see them have some temporal effect in proportion to their gravity?  Honestly, I'd freely admit to this having just written it, because I feel it is realistic for sins to have a temporal effect.  Ex-cons are not hired to work as bank tellers even if their conviction was not for any sort of dishonesty.  Ex-junkies are not giving jobs in pharmacies.  A world in which every sinner and criminal does their time and then comes out to a world that has completely forgiven and forgotten their past does not seem comensurate with the fallen nature of man.

Or put another way, once bitten twice shy.

We have a teflon coated politician over here called Peter Mandelson who has had to resign in disgrace from the Labour TWICE, but is still back in the cabinet again.  Years ago in politics it was one strike and you're out.

What's your opinion?  Where does one strike the balance?

Messages In This Thread
Deal Hudson. Is this as good as it gets? - by ggreg - 04-21-2010, 10:23 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)