"Perhaps..." - Again, the language of speculation. In this case, since you're speculating about the moral character of an individual who may actually be reading this thread--hey, you never know--and since your speculation may possibly bring this person's character into disrepute, I find your speculation quite vain and even libelous. If you don't have verifiable facts to back up your damaging speculation, then keep your speculation to yourself.
I apologize in advance for the length of this message because there are a few related items going on at the same time.
I wish this person was a member of this board to provide her 2 cents in this context or any other pertinent context.
My reference to the Bada Bing came strictly from The Sopranos
and was intended to be humorous rather than libelous. The comment was not to bring her character into disrepute. Replace Bada Bing with the New Jersey State Police:
Perhaps she was a New Jersey State Police Employee
Would that comment remain vain and libelous? Is it libel to say that someone works for the NJ State Police whether such a statement is true or not. The definition of libel is:A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
From the 2007 Boston Globe about a successful legal upholding of a libel claim:Successful Libel Article from Boston Globe
First two paragraphs:
The state's highest court upheld a $2.01 million libel verdict against the Boston Herald yesterday in a sharply worded decision calling the newspaper's 2002 articles about Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy "defamatory and false."
The stories portrayed Murphy as soft on crime and generated widespread outrage by quoting anonymous sources as saying that the New Bedford jurist had declared of a 14-year-old rape victim, "Tell her to get over it." Hate mail deluged Murphy's office, causing him considerable emotional and physical distress, his lawyers said.
The Priest allowed The Sopranos
to be recorded in the sanctuary which was a fact mentioned in the New York Times article. We live in the digital age. If a former priest wishes to brag about his second marriage to the New York Times, who speaks for his first wife who was married to such an individual
? I know of female EO friends and relatives who were humiliated in both Civil and Spiritual Court and their husbands were the "more" guilty party. Like I heard
, Priests are cunning and have the influence in both Civil and Spiritual Courts to destroy
spouses who don't play along, so to speak.
I have a raw nerve when it comes to Greek American elitism when I perceive that Priests are out to serve themselves rather than Christ. Seeing such elitism in the New York Times irritates that raw nerve further because there are multiple sides to one story. Again, my intent was not to bring anyone's character into disrepute and one sentence of thinking speculation comes nowhere near the Libel case cited above.
I will conclude with a section from the St. George Home Page
about the former Father George leading Marriage Counseling classes: With divorce rates now reaching 60%, our Saint George community is also trying to create a ministry to respond. We have established “IT TAKES TWO” pre-marital classes. Led by Father George, all of the engaged couples in our community come together for a frank discussion on what they should expect in marriage. A highlight of the evening is the presence of several couples in our Parish who have been married fifty or more years. After a time of open sharing and discussion, the men and women are separated into homogeneous groups led by these more experienced husbands and wives. They shared openly and nothing is out of bounds. A special bond has been made during these classes and we are seeing our Church overflowing with young married couples taking their first steps in their new life together.Edited to keep constant that I heard vs. I believe or I said that Priests are cunning.