CathInfo.com

Quote from: SeanJohnson on Today at 06:35:43 AM

Quote

Now, apparently, it comes to light there are two independent "Bishop Adamsons."
Is there some reason this new "priest" is content not to prove his "ordination" and set the record straight?

There are not two Bishop Adamson's.  [not two Bishop Adamson's what? Cassocks? Records? Phone numbers?]
.
Someone in the anonymous forum posted a link to a Reverend Thomas Anderson, who is a disagraced child-molesting priest who resides in south-east Minnesota.  https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/rev-thomas-adamson/msg579054/?topicseen#msg579054
.
Reverend THOMAS Anderson doesn't even claim to be a bishop, has not had an active ministry in years, and is probably at least ten if not twenty years senior of Bishop Merrill Anderson.
.
It is beyond me how the OP in that thread could have confused the two, except and unless he just wanted to find the most salacious information that could be found and then pull out an enormously broad brush soaked in mud to smear all those involved.
.
There's not a care in the world for truth when doing that type of thing.  Someone can be a priest, not a priest, a priest not worth going to, a bishop, not a bishop, a "bad" bishop, or whatever else without needing to bring child rape into the equation.  
.
This is a confusion that should never have happened.  Even a modicuм of honest research would have very clearly distinguished a Reverend from a Bishop, a Thomas from a Merrill, a midwesterner from a wanderer, a child-molester from a non-child molester, an eighty-something year old man from a sixty-something year old man, etc.  The OP in that thread just wanted to throw a grenade and run.  Shame on them.

There are not two Bishop Adamson's.  [not two Bishop Adamson's what? Cassocks? Records? Phone numbers?]
.
Someone in the anonymous forum posted a link to a Reverend Thomas Anderson, who is a disagraced child-molesting priest who resides in south-east Minnesota.  https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/rev-thomas-adamson/msg579054/?topicseen#msg579054
.
Reverend THOMAS Anderson doesn't even claim to be a bishop, has not had an active ministry in years, and is probably at least ten if not twenty years senior of Bishop Merrill Anderson.
.
It is beyond me how the OP in that thread could have confused the two, except and unless he just wanted to find the most salacious information that could be found and then pull out an enormously broad brush soaked in mud to smear all those involved.
.
There's not a care in the world for truth when doing that type of thing.  Someone can be a priest, not a priest, a priest not worth going to, a bishop, not a bishop, a "bad" bishop, or whatever else without needing to bring child rape into the equation.  
.
This is a confusion that should never have happened.  Even a modicuм of honest research would have very clearly distinguished a Reverend from a Bishop, a Thomas from a Merrill, a midwesterner from a wanderer, a child-molester from a non-child molester, an eighty-something year old man from a sixty-something year old man, etc.  The OP in that thread just wanted to throw a grenade and run.  Shame on them.

.
Does everyone simply ignore the fact that Anderson and Adamson are not the same names?
.
Or are which letters to use in spelling a name as unimportant as whether to use a possessive case apostrophe or not?
.

Neil, that's my bad.  Have Scandanavia on the brain.  [Do you drive a Volvo? HAHAHA]

There is no Anderson in the equation.  Thomas Adamson is the name of the child molesting priest who has nothing to do with the Thuc bishop Merrill Adamson.

I am surprised at how consistently I gave the name Anderson.