When he was removed by the diocese in 1964 church officials wrote in a memo that if any parishioners asked about Brett’s sudden absence that “hepatitis was to be feigned” as a cover.
During his deposition Egan argued with the plaintiff’s attorneys who claimed the memo showed the church was trying to hide Brett.
“I would read it that this man is going away, and if anyone asks, say he’s not well, he has hepatitis. That’s quite a bit different than saying you are going to hide it,” Egan said.
So maybe Cardinal Egan can explain to me why, since the intentions and ideal end result is the same, why taking the Pill is “quite a bit different” than NFP.
Cuz after talking to canon lawyers and theologians and other experts (a privilege 99% of ordinary Catholics don’t enjoy) I still don’t get it. And frankly, I’m a very smart person.
Maybe that’s the trouble…
More importantly, I’d like to know exactly why I or anyone else should pay attention to his explanation, of that or anything else.
I’ll be waiting for his response, while “feigning” giving a damn.