Tuesday, July 19, 2011

some 'fair and balanced' on lennonism

To-day in Cleveland's daily there appeared a letter in defense of lennonism. The writer* was a senior partner in a big law firm [i need be careful that i am not sued, but for a big time lawyer he presents a weak case: ad hominem arguments, and false premises]. The law firm has had a business relationship with the diocese. The writer sits on boards and committees of the diocese, and of the bishop's. Of course, this was not noted. It is not the first he, and other people with connections to the bishop, to have had letters printed in support of lennonism. This is part of a dis-information campaign.

Part of the programme is to attack anyone who criticises lennonism. Another part is to give unsubstantiated, and broad generalities [without corroborating factual details] of support of lennonism. Remember, when the Plain Dealer has someone saying positive things about Richard Lennon, there is a good probability there is a dependent relationship to Richard Lennon and the diocese he controls.

: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHFYwp6FW-U&feature=youtu.be
a parishioner of the last parish (St. Emeric) closed under lennonism speaks. He also has several more segments filmed on the evening of 30 June 2011. He has a table of segments:

Also, a young film documentarian has a film posted:
Some of this footage will be used in an upcoming documentary looking at the growing number of closed churches.
*postcriptum I 5.45pm 19 July: In a few recent communications, i have been told that i should give the writer's name [Patrick F. McCartan], and his parish [St. Joan of Arc, Chagrin Falls], and his residence [it is not in Cleveland, not in Cuyahoga County, but in Geauga], he is identified as being from Cleveland. His business office is on East 9th and Lakeside. It is doubtful that he resides in the nearby Holiday Inn, or the cathedral rectory.

*postcriptum II 5.43 p.m. 21 July:
Bishop Lennon's prudence
Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 4:01 AM Updated: Thursday, July 21, 2011, 12:08 PM

This letter, and its replies were absent from the internet for sometime. The individual who edits letters to the editor was surprised, and perplexed at its absence. Apparently, she did not think it possible. Someone wanted to comment on McCartan's letter. It is back on line now. It has four (4) replies, all in disagreement.

bene note: the local daily, is the Cleveland Plain Dealer, it is called the peedee, one or two words, by many.
*postcriptum III 24 July: McCartan's letter has 6 replies on line. Sunday 24 July he has four separate letters replying: a, b, c, d.

1 comment:

  1. The Plain Dealer should have more sense than to publish a letter that had such a blatant conflict of interest between the Diocese and the writer without a postscript reminding the readers of the relationship. Unbelievable. More unbelievable is that an attorney would be commenting on a client in such a sanctimonious manner. Where are ethics???????? The Bishop from Trenton should be made aware of this!!!!