Deal Hudson. Is this as good as it gets?
#1
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dea...ottom-deck

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.  LOL)  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?
Reply
#2
I'd say Hudson has been a little too effective lately at exposing the enemies of the Church at places like the USCCB and CCHD.  Time for the likes of NCR to take him down a peg if they can.
Reply
#3
I thought Deal had a nearly Gnostic or typically Southern Baptist preacherman disregard and literary contempt for the virtue of chastity.

I agree with the above poster there that Deal's enemies in the USCCB have every reason to dredge this incident up and use it to bludgeon the man's resolve into silence.

Deal's been exposing all kinds of these monsters.  I support him in this, not in what he did some 20 years ago at Fordham University.

It's also interesting that  that article in the NCR doesn't exhonerate Carr at all, and in fact cites an article at Nathional Catholic Register which basically supports the claims against Carr, while making  unrelated claims about Deal's character.

The editors at NCR are scum.  If I ran the American Church, they'd all be "held responsible for what they say" and be running another confessional denomination into the ground by respresenting them, like the Unitarians or the Church of Satan or something, because I'd make sure they and everyone who works for them weren't Catholic [solemnly excommunicated] and that everyone knew about it.  They'd also have to take the word "Catholic" out of their title.  They could call themselves something like the "Irrelevant National Liberal Oldsters' Reporter or something like that.
Reply
#4
ggreg Wrote: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.

Eh, having sex with a women. Unfortunate given the circumstances, but hardly "sordid."
Reply
#5
(04-21-2010, 07:28 PM)Credo Wrote:
ggreg Wrote: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.

Eh, having sex with a women. Unfortunate given the circumstances, but hardly "sordid."

There was much more to it than that. Yes, it was sordid.
Reply
#6
Well though i am a sinner, and  was a horrible sinner. i have never cheated on me wife. never. pinching cute lassies bums in a pub to get served isnt cheating. so while true im no saint. im no devils backbone either
sip sip
Reply
#7
I was just kidding DK.  That was what the smiley was for.

The devil's liver perhaps?
Reply
#8
LOL i believe its the devils pinchies.
and i knew you joking lad all fun
sip
Reply
#9
(04-21-2010, 10:23 AM)ggreg Wrote: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/dea...ottom-deck

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

Deal Hudson's latest writings...
.
.
.
.
.
.What's your opinion?  Where does one strike the balance?

My balance is struck by avoiding anyone's latest writings.  As far as I'm concerned, it's all been written already... there is nothing new under the sun (nothing significant, anyway).

I don't "get" the appeal.  I don't feel the compulsion.  Is it mere supply & demand for entertainment?; i.e., self-appointed theologian/apologist/whatever supplies entertainment for those who subscribe to the "new is better...old stuff is outdated" point of view?


Why the urge to read these folks' writings?  Heck, I have yet to even see anything on ETWN (never having/desiring cable/satellite TV), so I am always  Huh?  when folks start talking about this Catholic celebrity or that.  My lack of familiarity leads to looks of astonishment that are quite amusing to me.  "WhatHuh? You don't know Fr. So-and-So?"

Of course, this is followed by:  "He looks just like Yoda." 

OK, whatever...   Rolling eyes



But back to these authors... This year's poster boy of convert-to-Traditionalism becomes next year's pariah because he has "gone sede."  Or some other fellow is described to me as a "moonbat" for his promoting of geocentrism; but then said-moonbat suddenly becomes the hero of the anti-Trad camp because he was critical of the SSPX.  And then another seems to have cornered a certain sizeable segment of this (seemingly) entertainment-seeking crowd... but can wield enough influence to lead the groupies astray with new and/or weird/wrong notions (How'za'bout a feminine component to the Holy Trinity, eh?), presumably to continue hocking his wares?

Again... I don't get it.



The only authors I read are "dead guys."  If I'm going to read something, it'll be the writings of a Church Doctor, one of the Saints (or the lives thereof), an encyclical or other papal document, the Bible, an older-than-me Catechism, etc.  YMMV...




So this guy's first name is... Deal?  Really?   Huh?

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)