The Rev. John McGarry, the provincial, told The Associated Press that Father Jerold Lindner, S.J. had recovered and resumed his work at the retirement home, where he helps care for 75 infirm priests. He is not allowed to leave the home unsupervised, he said. “As you can imagine, it’s very emotionally distressing to go through something like this,” Father McGarry said. “He hasn’t spoken a lot about it. He’s living a quiet life of prayer and service within our community.”
Link (here) to read the full and disgusting account Fr. Lindner's atrocities.
10 comments:
He has recovered?As you can imagine, it’s very emotionally distressing to go through something like this,” Father McGarry said?
From what planet do these Jesuits hail? Unbelievable.
Maria,
Regardless of how depraved Fr. Lindner's crimes, for which superiors who facilitated his sickness may be far more responsible than he himself, if they did, he has the right and expectation to only be punished inside the law, as long as the justice system is reliable, and he hasn't stymied its work with threats.
If you are sympathetic to criminals and miscreants being assaulted and brutalized anywhere, any time, then you are more than something that rhymes with witch.
Here's a link to a fuller account of Father Lindner's ministry: http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/2002/0502mk.htm
His ministry of rape?
I in no way advocate assault. The molestation of these children by this Jesuit exemplifies metastatic reprecussions of sin: sin breeds sin, far and wide, over time.
According to the linked report: "According to this source, Father Jerry was moved out of Loyola High School "about a year ago."
If the allegation is true, it's outrageous they allowed him there until then. If true, how do Jesuit superiors in California and Rome justify this? If true, how does the Pope justify keeping these Jesuit superiors?
Anonymous: Here is why. Fr. Hardon SJ explains it: anyone who is in a state of mortal sin is an agent of the enemy....
This man deserves severe punishment. I would welcome automatic defrocking of sex offenders in the Church, ideally on first offense, at most on something resembling a "three strikes you're out" rule. It's possible that Jerold Lindner (I can't quite make myself call him Father) is a candidate for the death penalty, if it is true, as rumored, that he was involved in the death of another Jesuit at Los Gatos. It's easy to sympathize with Lynch's actions given that Lindner was barely punished and has so many crimes to his (dis)credit, and had Lindner been killed I wouldn't think the world was missing much, let alone the majority of Jesuits at Los Gatos who have no record of sex offenses (five out of seventy-five are known offenders, a small percentage even if the total is double that).
However, I agree that even a man such as Lindner has the right and expectation to be punished inside the law and would add that Lynch's actions will not ultimately help the cause of Church accountability for clergy abuse. Vigilante justice targets more than an individual, it targets a community by showing that it can't keep its members safe and sowing the seeds of fear among all members regarding the risk of punishment by association. Under such circumstances the community is likelier to stick together and defend itself than open itself to transparency and self-scrutiny. Fr. Smolich has limited options in facing the press regarding a man who in this context was the victim of a violent crime. Today there is an assumption in some places that all Catholic clergy are guilty of sex abuse until proven innocent. Fr. Smolich would not be doing his duty to the many innocent men in his province if he made any statement excusing an illegal attack on any of them, let alone due to an presumption of sexual abuse. The evidence in Lindner's case is overwhelming, but it is still true that in the American justice system, a person is guilty until proven innocent; if Lindner is guilty and deserves to be beaten outside the law, by extension, virtually any other cleric may be treated the same way. Fr. Smolich is right not to open the door to that.
This does not excuse Fr. Smolich's own failures of transparency and accountability and the Society's mendacity and weakness in handling a supremely hideous case within its jurisdiction. It is a sad day all around. But Fr. Smolich and the Society are to be blamed for their failure to punish Lindner and men like him according to their own authority to do so, not for refusing to open the door to the public to do so.
This man deserves severe punishment. I would welcome automatic defrocking of sex offenders in the Church, ideally on first offense, at most on something resembling a "three strikes you're out" rule. It's possible that Jerold Lindner (I can't quite make myself call him Father) is a candidate for the death penalty, if it is true, as rumored, that he was involved in the death of another Jesuit at Los Gatos. It's easy to sympathize with Lynch's actions given that Lindner was barely punished and has so many crimes to his (dis)credit, and had Lindner been killed I wouldn't think the world was missing much, let alone the majority of Jesuits at Los Gatos who have no record of sex offenses (five out of seventy-five are known offenders, a small percentage even if the total is double that).
However, I agree that even a man such as Lindner has the right and expectation to be punished inside the law and would add that Lynch's actions will not ultimately help the cause of Church accountability for clergy abuse. Vigilante justice targets more than an individual, it targets a community by showing that it can't keep its members safe and sowing the seeds of fear among all members regarding the risk of punishment by association. Under such circumstances the community is likelier to stick together and defend itself than open itself to transparency and self-scrutiny.
(Continued) Fr. Smolich has limited options in facing the press regarding a man who in this context was the victim of a violent crime. Today there is an assumption in some places that all Catholic clergy are guilty of sex abuse until proven innocent. Fr. Smolich would not be doing his duty to the many innocent men in his province if he made any statement excusing an illegal attack on any of them, let alone due to an presumption of sexual abuse. The evidence in Lindner's case is overwhelming, but it is still true that in the American justice system, a person is guilty until proven innocent; if Lindner is guilty and deserves to be beaten outside the law, by extension, virtually any other cleric may be treated the same way. Fr. Smolich is right not to open the door to that.
This does not excuse Fr. Smolich's own failures of transparency and accountability and the Society's mendacity and weakness in handling a supremely hideous case within its jurisdiction. It is a sad day all around. But Fr. Smolich and the Society are to be blamed for their failure to punish Lindner and men like him according to their own authority to do so. This does not extend to opening the door to private citizens to do so, however aggravated the cause. Having failed to deal with Lindner when he had the chance to administer justice, Smolich is now faced with the unenviable task of recognizing Lynch's motives without being seen to open such doors. It appears to be his own fault.
Post a Comment