Alright. This is getting to be a little much. Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. led Congress in taking a few moments to honor the passing of Michael Jackson with moments of silence.Hot Air writes:
What’s more irritating here, that the House would interrupt national business for this or that JJJ would have the stones to pay tribute to the “grace” and “mercy” of a guy who was accused of child molestation more than once and was known to pay $20+ million settlements in hush money to his accusers?
Now, could you just imagine if the Pope said some kind words or asked for a moment of silence for a priest who’d been accused of similar outrages.
Something tells me, it wouldn’t go too well.
June 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm
By your own reasoning, Congress shouldn't acknowledge anything good the Catholic Church has done because of its sordid past with children and paying hush money…
June 26, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Craig your analogy is way off; MJ is a man, an individual. He personally was accused not once, not twice, but several times of molestation of children. Regardless of the good that he personally has done (and aside from his music, his "make a wish" foundation and other charity work IS, without a doubt, praiseworthy) he is individually responsible for his own misdeeds, which while "unproven" in a court of law (like OJ's accusations of murder), carry a huge amount of gravity and probability that the actually did happen.
The Catholic church has far too many individual pedophiles who have infiltrated the priesthood and used the virtues of faith and obedience against innocent children. If there were ANY church dogma or doctrine which allowed, supported or even tolerated it, I would have high-tailed it out of the church faster than you can say "anathema est". But the fact is Christianity and Catholicism opposes ANY sex outside the confines of marriage; full stop. No exceptions. Add to this Jesus was VERY specific on what would happen to ANY individual who wouldd harm a child. So, these animals in priests' clothing did so against the church, and you cannot blame anyone in the church who was not directly involved in these hideous crimes.
In sum; individual vs organization. Pretty clear concepts.
June 26, 2009 at 10:55 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 27, 2009 at 12:13 am
May Michael Jackson, poor sad lost soul, rest in peace. But he was a billboard for so much that is degenerate and infantile about this society, now evidenced in petty con artists from Congressman Jesse Jackson, jr. and his hustler dad to Pelosi and the Commissar at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and all the media hype and rodent morality of what passes now for the mainstream.
June 27, 2009 at 1:27 am
John – so true. When we look at pictures of MJ when he was a child on stage at 5, we must remember he was born into a cult (Jehova's Witnesses) and physically and mentally abused throughout his childhood. I have never met a JW (or recovering JW) that didn't come from a dysfunctional family. Not saying this is an excuse for his behavior, but he really never had a chance to grow up and be normal. Superstar or not.
June 27, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Not to troll, but I have to ask the question: is it an honor to be a member of the Roman Curia, archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, and titular Cardinal Priest of Santa Susanna, the American Catholic church in Rome? If so, then the Catholic Church has honored Cardinal Bernard Law, responsible for shuffling around molesters like Frs. Paul Shanley and John Geoghan.
Charity begins at home.
June 27, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Well. two TV personalities and a singer have died. Why is the singer the one chosen to be lauded?
I do not see what great good he did on this earth.. (nor the other two celebrities for that matter).
Once again we can see that God's ways and man's ways are clearly at odds.
what confused times we live in.
June 27, 2009 at 10:03 pm
When I think of how many of my brother priests have been accused, I can't help but be angered by the blatant judgment of guilt that this post displays. If one accepts the logic of your judgment, then any accused priest is also worthy of the same contempt apparent in the article you've reposted here.
The key word here is 'accused'. It doesn't matter how many times Jackson or anyone is accused – what matters is what is proven.
Jackson was a great and beloved entertainer. Jackson was a conflicted and probably unwell person. None of us, including HotAir.com, is qualified to judge his sins – whatever they may be.
As Neal posted above, charity begins at home. Why not start now, especially in how we remember and pray for our dead?
– Father Maurer
June 27, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I must agree with Neal and Fr. Maurer above. This post seems ugly and unnecessary to me, especially since MJ knows better than any of us whether there is an afterlife, and about God's mercy (or judgment).
The argument or complaint, such as I see it, seems rather churlish and niggling to me as well, if not paranoid and misguided by persecution angle. I didn't know that JPII idea of a ""creative minority" meant being reactionary and uncharitable.
June 27, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Given the iconic celebrity status of our late brother, Michael, I don't think that any of the posts here are mean spirited with the exception of those that cast strangely mean aspersions on a rather civil discussion. No one judging his soul, so please come down from the dizzying heights of such pseudo-compassion.
June 28, 2009 at 2:28 am
Fr Jacob no disrespect but I'd be very interested to know how many of those accused 'brother priests' also settled with their accusers. Being accused of something and then settling "just so it will be over" are two different things. The sad fact is in this country the justice system is so perverted by the wealthy that if enough money is thrown around for a defense or payout, the guilty party can get off no matter how heinous the crime (MJ, OJ, Woody Allen, Bill O'Reily and many MANY pedophiles in priests clothing).
I was the anonymous who posted @ 4:45pm and acknowledged the good that MJ did through his make a wish foundation and other charities. But by all signs and accounts, MJ was a very disturbed individual who was fully aware of his actions and made many attempts to cover his tracks and stay in the spotlight through tactical damage control. I don't think he merrited a "moment of silence" anymore than Farrah Fawcet (requiescat in pacem).
Also, considering MJ changed religions as often as he changed his face (JW, Evangelical, Kabbalah, Scientology and finally Nation of Islam) it will be interesting to see the parasites come out and claim a piece of his estate.
June 28, 2009 at 5:09 am
Hi John-No mean aspersions or compassion (or pseudo-compassion, as you chose to..charitably?…accuse some here), but rather, just wondering what function the post really serves in the larger scheme, and what point its really trying to make. Its certainly not meant to be humorous, like other posts.
I have no concerns regarding the civility of the comments after the post itself.
But hey, its not my blog! I'm merely the peanut gallery, as are you.
June 28, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Frankly, I'm more concerned that they took the time for even a moment of silence when apparently no one even bothered to read a 300 page addedum to a rushed piece of legislation!
June 28, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I am no fan of Michael Jackson and found most of his public persona to be disturbing at best. But he was never convicted. Even if he was guilty, we are called to pray for his soul rather than to condemn him. I seem to remember a few verses here and there that cautioned us against judging others.
June 28, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I am no fan of Michael Jackson and found most of his public persona to be disturbing at best. But he was never convicted. Even if he was guilty, we are called to pray for his soul rather than to condemn him. I seem to remember a few verses here and there that cautioned us against judging others.
June 28, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Neal, Fr. Jacob, et al.,
With all due respect: perhaps you have missed the possibility that this post is mainly a commentary on the hypocrisy and bias of the mainstream media and of the current liberal regime? Anyone at least passingly familiar with Matthew's writing knows how commonly he explores that idea, yes? And given that even the "Hot Air" article set up its own commentary with a comparison to the near-silence of the media re: the death of Neda (and many others) in Iran, don't you find this suggestion at least plausible?
Again: with all due respect, some people here (clergy or otherwise) need to take a few steps back, and calm down. Nowhere did Matthew suggest that priests accused of sexual crimes be demonized; but can you not see the contrast between "lack of demonization" and "being honoured by a moment of silence" in the US Congress? How many priests (even saintly ones who've never had an accusation levelled against them) have been honoured thusly? Is it not possible that the point of the article (which seemed rather clear to me) was the extent to which our culture worships the "cult of entertainment and self-gratification" and denigrates those who have dedicated their lives to God?
June 28, 2009 at 11:43 pm
thank you paladin. I've been out of it all day with sick children so this is the first chance I got to look at the combox.
Anything I would say Paladin said better.
June 29, 2009 at 2:35 am
Whoops… caught a typo in your comment, Matthew:
Anything I would say Paladin said more long-winded-ly.
There: fixed! 🙂 (And you're welcome–all in the service of truth!)