A priest lied about having prostate cancer to get his parishioners to send him to Lourdes for a miracle.
Commentary from a priest colleague:
All he did was to lie and that’s not a good thing. He was very, very repentant of that and, being as repentant as he was, he is not going to reoffend again.
Commentary from his bishop, who suspended him from priestly duties at his parish:
He’s delusional.
Commentary from a reader of the news site:
It’s a wonder he wasn’t made a bishop!
What about his seminary? The Priestly Fraternity of St Peter Seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska once sent him home when he lied about his health.
My commentary: If he actually got money from parishioners, then he did more than lie. He perpetrated a fraud.
The diocese transferred him to a city 3,000 miles away. What would you have done? Before clicking the link, care to offer any guesses as to where this guy was serving?
9 February 2010 at 9:21 am
So he attended the seminary in Lincoln, NE. Oh Lord! Anyway, was he a priest of the diocese of Lincoln? What diocese can send a diocesan priest 3,000 miles away on assignment? My guess he is serving in the Curia in Rome.
9 February 2010 at 11:04 am
Now you have to really really really promise not to lie a third time. I mean really really. This is serious. No crosssing fingers this time. Really really really promise.
9 February 2010 at 3:33 pm
I think there is enough joking about the Bishops or priests or Church, etc. – the man needs long term spiritual and psychological commitment and help – not an Ecclesiastical Dust Off and Transfer – not a condescending ” Oh, it’s Lincoln!”, or he’s going to serve in the Curia – that does not help anyone except the cynics in the Church. All of us live in our own glass houses and should not cast stones – unless they are intellectual ones with facts backing them up. As The late, and I say great Senator Moynahan said – we are all entitled to our own opinions, but nor our own facts. There are some good men in Lincoln and on the Curia – and some would disparage them all.
9 February 2010 at 4:30 pm
But, tom Kolar, who needs advice from you when we have an obvious ideological axe to grind? We can obviously impugn Cardinal Pell with extremely remote and tenuous connections to scandal; he’s one of the Big Bad Catholics in Power that disagree with His Eminence, Todd Flowerday, remember?
9 February 2010 at 4:41 pm
Don’t forget the little bow when you speak of me in that way, Andy. ;)
10 February 2010 at 3:20 pm
Some relevant points about this priest:
He was suspended by Cardinal Pell when his fraud was revealed – precisely as he should have been.
That suspension has NOT been lifted. He may be residing in Perth, but he is not (or at least should not be) serving as a priest.
The story reads that he “has been moved to Perth”. That is very vague. I note that it doesn’t say “Cardinal Pell moved him…” or “The Archdiocese of Sydney moved him…” Perhaps because there is nothing to support such a claim?
As to criminal charges, which may be deserved in this case, that is matter for the civil authorities. Cardinal Pell has no more authority to bring criminal charges than you or I.
12 February 2010 at 12:29 pm
Gee, a traditional priest commits a sin/crime. How long were you scouring the newspapers to find this one?
Would you like me to play that game too. I’d imagine it could be fun.
12 February 2010 at 12:59 pm
Not long. It was the most-commented-upon story on the CathNews site I visit every day or two.
For the record, I don’t think conservative priests are a problem in the Church, only the ones too immature to serve.
13 February 2010 at 11:22 am
Was the Priest that was stalking Conan O’Brien a conservative or liberal…?