« Maybe...silence | Main | Ora et labora »

November 03, 2006




What's the email address you used?


Fr. John Pecoraro

I just wrote the station, I plan to call later.


Nice to know that hypocrisy is a non-sectarian affliction.

Philip Howard

I just sent them a chastising e-mail. What a joke. - PH


I just shipped off my e-mail.


Nevermind...I see the email address at the end of the post. This brings back horrible memories of those trick "tests" given in class where you are instructed to read through the one page test and then proceed. Of course, when you get to the bottom, you are instructed that you are to do nothing as it was only a test of ability to follow instructions. Guess I still haven't learned:)

Michael in ArchDen

It appears to have been changed...finally. Not that the new graphic of 3 crosses is much better, but at least it doesn't play on people's antipathy of Catholic priests.

BTW, for my fellow Coloradoans...Yes on 43, No on I


My email has been sent also.


I send an email and got a reply that the image had been changed. I had the same thought about the replacement image. Why not a picture of the individual involved?

I did notice that the image didn't change in their listing of Most Popular stories at the bottom of every news page and sent a reply to Theresa Moore the Executive Producer Online to point out that issue. Her address is TCMoore@tampabays10.com.


Re: "But KKTV reported late Thursday that acting senior pastor Ross Parsley said Haggard has admitted to some of the indiscretions..."

I don't know. I have a general problem with clergymen making statements to the press regarding someone who has confided in them. It seems to me that that conversation should have been between Haggard and Parsley. And that's it. Let the lawyers do the talking. I remember when Jane Fonda was said to be taking religous instruction several years back and the minister who was counseling her made a statement to the press about that. Isn't there an expection of privacy about that kind of thing? A priest-penitent relationship? Not legally, but ethically. That kind of grandstanding rubs me the wrong way.


No, both graphics are up on the page. One at the top and the other on the lower right hand side.

Sherry Weddell

Just FYI:

Haggard's accuser failed a lie detector test on a live Denver radio show this morning. The administrator said his results showed some kind of deception.

How being on live radio affected it is unclear but the accuser says he'll try a second time. Said he had a migraine.


I will contradict myself in the doing, as it were, but my own reaction is...patience. There are simply insufficient objective facts to comment on at this point.

Kevin Jones

Technically speaking, the hypocrisy here would only be present if Haggard, married father of five, were crusading against bisexual marriages.

I'm in Colorado, but Haggard's activism has flown under my radar. I believe he helped write the marriage amendment up for a vote next week.


Kevin Jones wrote:

"Technically speaking, the hypocrisy here would only be present if Haggard, married father of five, were crusading against bisexual marriages."

Technically speaking, that's missing the point, but it is an unimpressive display of scholastic reasoning.

Patrick Rothwell

Denoucing homosexual sex while having homosexual sex at the same time is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is pretending to have certain qualities, like virtue or religion, that one does not possess. If the hustler's story is 100 percent accurate, that would not prove that Haggard is a hypocrite. It would, however, prove that Haggard acted contrary to his moral conscience, which can be described as many different things, but not hypocrisy.


Did he do it? Hire a male prostitute? Probably (but not certainly, of course).

Is it "political"? Well yes of course, the whole thing is political, and that's not a bad word when we're talking about election time campaigning, aren't we supposed to be engaged in political activity?

If, as now appears likely, Mr. Haggard, the married father of five and crusader against homosexual marriage, did in fact virtually keep a male prostitute on retainer for three years, is he a hypocrite?

Ya think?


Oh Patrick, that's a very attenuated definition of hypocrisy. Too subtle for me and I hope too subtle for most voters.

Sherry Weddell

From the Rocky Mountain News re: the failed polygraph: Kresnik administered the polygraph.

"Kresnik said he asked six questions on the polygraph test and there were two relevant questions — both involving sexual contact with Haggard. Kresnik said those were the ones Jones failed.

"All I can do is call them as I see them," Kresnik said."

Joe G

I think Haggard may have been allied with whomever drafted the amendment, but in general, these things are now written by lawyers who have seen/can predict the legal minefields due to poor wording.

Note that many of the marriage amendments this year are very similar in language, for purposes of getting through the courts.

Colorado, by the way, only has the "union of one man and woman" clause, and not an additional clause preventing marriage-like relationships.

Tim J.

An old political tactic - instead of addressing the merits or effects of a ballot issue or what-have-you, come up with a personal attack against a prominent opponent.

Truthfully, pastor Whatsit's personal life should have nothing to do with how anyone votes.

I, too, was a bit shocked to see Mr. Acting Senior Pastor talking to the press. Does he have an axe to grind?

Courage Man

It's possible that Haggard OK'd a little bit of leaking in the listserv and by the pastor, just to climb down from the branches of his earlier flat denial. But unless that is the case, those statements are both Grade-A B.S.

One of the (many) advantages of being a Papist ... the man who knows the details about me takes a vow of silence he must obey unto death.

Patrick Rothwell

Adam, it's not attenuated...it's the standard textbook definition of hypocrisy. It is the popular understanding of "hypocrisy" that is incorrect.


Ya know, Amy, some Protestant pastors, even (gasp) female ones, do wear collars. Like sexual sin, it's not something R.C. priests have a monopoly on.



Do evangelical pastors of charismatic megachurches?



Mmm, Patrick, not quite. The popular understanding merely implies that a pattern of actions over time that appears to contradict the professed values is commonsense evidence that the values are not bona fide professed. Which is the lexical definition of hypocrisy.

The time that I think your nuance comes in handy is when there the pattern is not necessarily a pattern, as it were.

So ultimately, it's a matter of degree.

And, in any event, as we all know one can be gravely sinful without being a hypocrite.

Philip Howard

I just received the note below from the tv station's webmaster. - PH

"We pulled the graphic shortly after the story went on the website. As a Catholic
myself, I agree the graphic was misleading. It was included accidentally -- we
have edited the story to note our error, and the story has been pulled from the
listing until we can get a good photo of Haggard himself.

(It was certainly not due to malice; the graphic was inadvertently tagged in our
system as a generic religion graphic instead of a Catholic-specific graphic.)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Eric Brown
Web Producer
Tampa Bay's 10 News"


So...why can't they just put a photo of Haggard up there?

According to their webmaster, the image of the collar was tagged as a "generic religion graphic", not a specifically Catholic one. If true, the goof was there.

It says something when journalists can't recognize the collar... probably several things.

Eric the Read

I've had this saying for quite some time:

If you're not a hypocrite, it means your standards are too low.

It's a bit pithy, but to me it's not meant to say that hypocrisy is okay, just that if you find it easy to live within your moral boundaries, maybe you need to raise your sights a little higher.

Patrick Rothwell

I can't agree, Liam. A pattern of actions contrary to one's professed beliefs could mean that one in fact does not believe, as you say. On the other hand, it could easily mean that the person is weak, or has tendencies to do what they deplore. It is in fact possible that Ted Haggerty's denunciations of homosexuality as a monstrous thing may very well be keyed off of the fact that his own tendencies in that regard may be something that he has trouble keeping in control, thereby making them, in his own mind, all that more monstrous. Or, as the surprisingly good wikipedia article on the subject says, that it may reflect the belief that the rules that bind others do not apply to oneself. That indeed may not be hypocrisy. We simply do not know enough about Haggarty to charge him with the much bandied-about bogeyman of hypocrisy.

The misuse of the hypocrisy charge happens to be one of my pet peeves, because (a) it encourages a moral race to the bottom, (b) it is irrelevant to the issue of whether said offense is indeed wicked - or not wicked as the case may be - (homosexuality or gay marriage being the relevant examples here) and (c) it makes it impossible for parents to raise their children to avoid the moral pitfalls that they themselves indulge in. For instance, punishing children for smoking pot when the parents did it in their youth, or when the parents abuse, say, oxycontin, vicoden, or alcohol, at the same time.

Mike Petrik

I agree with Patrick. And Eric. Hypocricy is nothing more than the preferred charge of moral relativists directed against the good but imperfect. These relativists are immune from counter-charges given that they conform their conscience and their beliefs to their actions rather than imperfectly attempting to do the reverse.
I profess my views against sin. I sin. This proves that I'm really in favor of sin? I don't think so.

James Shaw

"Oh Patrick, that's a very attenuated definition of hypocrisy. Too subtle for me and I hope too subtle for most voters."

What have "voters" got to do with this sad story? Pastor Haggard's moral failings, whatever they are, aren't relevant to anything on the ballot in Colorado, and they certainly do not vitiate the obligation of human governments to recognise marriage and to outlaw homosexual pseudo-marriage.


Yes, but anyone who notes the persistent, pervasive anti-Catholic bias in the American mass media is just covering up for child molesters ...


FYI, there is now this line at the bottom:

"WTSP apologizes for our earlier inclusion of a photograph of a Roman Catholic priest's collar. The inclusion of the photo was not intentional."

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)