It's difficult to know which account to believe.

[LiberalAndProud]

The Diocese of Palm Beach is responding to a local priest's claims he has been "frozen out" by the church.

Father John Gallagher claims he was placed on medical leave after blowing the whistle on the behavior of a visiting priest.

He says the church went as far as to change the locks on his parochial home while he was sick in the hospital.

The diocese has released a statement saying Gallagher's account is "completely inaccurate" and his reassignment was not related to the incident with the visiting priest.

http://www.wptv.com/news/region-n-palm-beach-county/palm-beach-gardens/diocese-of-palm-beach-responds-to-allegations-by-father-john-gallagher

Gallagher, however, said he had been locked out of his parochial house at Holy Name of Jesus Christ Catholic Church in West Palm Beach several months after the January 2015 incident involving Palimattom, who was convicted. He said he was passed over for promotion at Holy Name and transferred to a Stuart church after he refused to put the priest on a plane rather than report him to law enforcement. Gallagher could not be reached Thursday for comment.

Earlier this week, the diocese responded to the charges by saying that Gallagher was a liar in “need of professional assistance.”

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/disapointed-diocese-issues-lengthy-defense-to-whis/nqFJC/

It's a dilemma, except that there is a history that colors my judgment in these matters.

[Cartoonist]

1. A liar?

He told the truth about Palimattom.

[rug]

3. He is now a mandated reporter. He did not report his suspicions to the state.

Instead he called the diocese in violation of its own guidelines.

Read the articles if you wish. At the moment it's one huge pissing contest.

[LiberalAndProud]

6. I believe he did, but the father had already filed a report at the time.

At least that's how I perceive the story.

It isn't amusing to watch the church assassinate this man's character. It wouldn't surprise me to find they are lying about subsequent events and the underlying reasons for them. The church has earned an extra layer of skepticism on my part, I'm afraid.

[rug]

9. How do you know it's trying to "assassinate" his character?

[LiberalAndProud]

11. Calling him a liar and implying he has mental health problems

is character assassination. It is by definition. And oh, by the way the Father was the one who invited the guy, not us.

I have read the stories, followed the links and read the official response from the Diocese. There is one account I find more believable than the other.

[rug]

12. Not if it's true. And who is "us"?

[LiberalAndProud]

19. Who is us ... Us as in the Diocese pointing fingers and

deflecting blame. You don't recognize the pattern, I guess.

[LiberalAndProud]

20. If it's true, they're not being very pastoral, are they?

This sort of ad hominem attack would be expected from a guilty party having little to no defense.

It truly is puzzling to me why some (you?) continue to defend an institution in an area where their past actions have been proven time and time and time and time again to fall short of parishioners' expectations. It doesn't seem to me to be the best way to push for reform, if that is, in fact, their hope. Or could it be that it's simply more comfortable to turn a blind eye?

[rug]

21. If you think establishing facts is defending anything, you have trouble separating opinion from fact

There are safe havens on DU dedicated precisely to that. This isn't one of them.

Open your own eyes. Both of them.

[LiberalAndProud]

22. Funny that what you think is "establishing facts" looks very much like

pretending the problem away. As I mentioned in the OP, I am very much aware that my judgment is influenced by history. I may be mistaken, but I find it is generally a very good lens through which to view the human condition.

[rug]

23. Funny that you think establishing facts is pretending the problem away.

As it is, neither you nor I know anything about this beyond the conflicting reports.

The difference is I'm not taking a soak in a tub full of prejudgment while I'm waiting. I must be a skeptic.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. Yes, and any corner that might deflect all blame,

whether it be unindicted corrupt judges or bureaucratic institutional theocrats, the benefit of the doubt goes to the institution. Never mind the lives ruined in the wake. Since we both have our biases, I'll not call names here.

[rug]

25. And there you have it. You're not seeking truth but confirmation.

Doubt is the only safeguard against one's biases. I prefer to make determinations by resolving the former, not embracing the latter. It's more rational.

[LiberalAndProud]

26. Yes, I am familiar with your unbiased framework in this group.

(It's not unbiased.)

[rug]

27. And i yours.

[LiberalAndProud]

28. Right.

I have not yet been introduced to a god I believe in. I believe less in the institutions who sell god. That's my bias.

Yours is equally righteous, I'm sure.

[rug]

29. Who cares?

[LiberalAndProud]

30. You do.

[rug]

32. No. I don't. Truly.

It only gets my attention when that view obscures reality.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. I have the notion

that you have spent very little time actually reading about or listening to proven cases of child sexual abuse and the church's response as an institution. It's a painful topic for you, so you may be avoiding the evidence. If that is the case, it isn't my reality that is obscured.

[rug]

38. You'd be very surprised then.

That's what happens when prejudgments breed assumptions.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. One wonders if the big guns of HIPAA could be brought to bear against the employer if the public

claim of his mental health status is true.

Because that would be 7 shades of hilarious.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Well, and this is just for starters, but

my employer wouldn't be stupid enough to even consider making a public statement about my physical or mental health status.

[rug]

37. Read the statement. That's not what they're saying.

They're suggesting he needs professional help. You know, kind of how people in here routinely suggest religious believers are deluded.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Not like that at all.

And, I would not make such a statement about a co-worker/subordinate, regardless of topic.

Chalk this up to another way in which you feel they can do no wrong though. Yipee. Same shit, different day.

[rug]

41. Frankly, what you would or would not do is irrelevant.

The evidence demonstrates that is a routine slur in here.

And don't attempt to state what I do or do not feel. You're not competent to do so.

Yippee.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. And yet here you are, finding new and innovative ways to deflect.

Said organization shouldn't be making public statements about the alleged mental health status of the person in the OP.

No competent organization I know of, would. I fully expect to see a lawsuit over it at some point.

[rug]

43. Pointing out yor consistent errors is hardly deflection.

Shifting from Labor Law/HIPPA violations to they"shouldn't", is.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. When I say 'shouldn't', I mean they are exposing themselves to liability.

That's not a mistake.

"Father Gallagher has publicly stated that he contacted the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office the evening the incident occurred. The sheriff’s report indicates that Father Gallagher was not the one who made the report."

I would like to point out, even if that statement is 100% true, that doesn't mean Father Gallagher didn't contact the Palm Beach County Sherriff's office that night. As a lawyer, I'm sure you're aware of when/how things may or may not make it into the police report, and how relevant that is to whether something did or did not occur.

[rug]

2. Who knows? Right now, it's dueling press releases.

Let the court sort it out because that's where it's headed.

[trotsky]

4. Yeah, super difficult!

On the one hand, you have a centuries-old institution with a documented and proven history of covering up the sexual abuse of children, protecting its employees who engage in it, and lashing out against those who criticized it. On the other, a lone individual who blew the whistle on such activity.

Whom can we believe?

[Cartoonist]

5. Yeah, but he blew the wrong whistle

He's now a mandated reporter according to someone who knows. That makes him a Judas or some such.

[rug]

7. No, that makes him a liar.

Of course, all you had to do was reply directly.

[Cartoonist]

10. Name the lie

you can't

[rug]

13. Read the statement.

Can you?

I'm not doing your homework. Maybe trotsky will help you.

[Cartoonist]

16. He fingered a pedophile

Truth! His other statements have not been proven false.

[trotsky]

33. Oh thanks for that clarification!

Always best to assume the institution responsible centuries of child rape and protection of the rapists is telling the truth this time.

[rug]

8. It's not difficult at all for a bigot to believe anything at all about the RCC.

It confirms the bigotry.

[ucrdem]

15. Jury results:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Feb 1, 2016, 06:18 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

It's not difficult at all for a bigot to believe anything at all about the RCC.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=222453

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling another poster a bigot simply for criticizing the religious institution they favor is OTT. Instead of slinging vile personal attacks and calling people names, rug should address the topic at hand if he feels so strongly about it. This kind of behavior is what makes DU suck more.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 1, 2016, 06:22 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a good post IMO but not hide-worthy. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No name calling...inappropriate.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why would an anti-religion poster blunder into a religion thread, take a big dump, and then get all offended when someone notices the stink? Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

17. Thanks for posting, ucrdem.

That alert has familiar wording.

[Cartoonist]

18. Juror 7 doesn't get it

Has probably never been here.

I would have voted to leave it anyway.

[edhopper]

14. Oh no!

Not the Catholic Church, Surely they would never cover up a crime and go after an accuser.
I mean, that is not how a moral institution, inspired by God would act.

[bvf]

31. Hope it's not too late to rally the troops!

The Diocese of Palm Beach asks for prayers for all involved, including mercy and prayers for Father Gallagher. We greatly appreciate those who have offered their support and prayers to the diocese during this disappointing period of time.

Looks like a job for...The Prayer Circle!


ETA: Oh, and lawyers. Lots and lots of lawyers.

[Iggo]

39. Yeah, super difficult.