My two cents
.. on the whole sordid Deal Hudson and National Catholic Reporter story.
Deal should have come out and said he was a "Gay American." (or does that only work for liberals?)
It is nice to know that the NCR finally recognizes a sexual sin to condemn.
Seriously though, I don't understand why Deal Hudson could write a full length book on his conversion recently and then leave out this incident. I know that talking about old sins is hard but as a very public Catholic it was something that should have happened and his book would have been a good vehicle for this. I am sorry that I read the NCR article, though I did stop reading it after a bit. I was not prepared for it's contents after reading Deal's piece at NRO yesterday where he referred to this event as only an allegation in the past by a female student. There is a difference between reporting on someone's' past sin and writing a story like it was part of the Starr Report. Similarly in confession between detailing one's sins and bragging about them and the NCR piece seemed to revel in the steamy revelations.
When the story first broke yesterday even though Deal Hudson never mentioned what newspaper this was for, everybody who is even partially familiar with the National Catholic Reporter knew that it was them being referred to. As Dom posted yesterday
Gee, what national liberal Catholic publication with reporters on staff would be interested in using dirty tactics against a conservative Catholic friend of the president? I’m not naming any names, but it is a short list.
Dom also links today to a very sympathetic piece from NCR on Archbishop Weakland after it was found out that he had paid his homosexual lover off with diocesan funds. "The Weakland case: an invitation to cast the first stone."
Update: From Deal's latest e-letter.
Yesterday, the article was published. In it, they dug up a truly embarrassing event from my past. Ten years ago, I committed a serious sin with an undergraduate student of mine while teaching at Fordham University. For this I am truly and deeply sorry. I have confessed this and asked for forgiveness, my family has worked through it, and time has passed. But I know this is news to you, and so I offer my sincerest apologies. I recognize that I have let countless people down and have brought scandal to myself, my family, and my Faith. For this, I beg your forgiveness.
Some may wonder why I speak of the event in a way that seems vague or abstract. Please don't mistake this for lack of shame, regret, or repentance. The simple fact is, I can't say any more about it. Ten years ago, I signed a confidentiality agreement, and so I'm seriously constrained in what I can say. I know this is frustrating for you, and so that's one more thing I apologize for.
I need to make one final point. There's much deserved condemnation coming down upon me right now, and I expect it will continue. But I do hope that this just anger will not spill over onto CRISIS Magazine.
Known as 
I think the reason that incident didn't make it into his recent conversion book is because the conversion took place long before.
I never got the whole National Catholic Reporter thing. I've heard from many people that the publiciation puts forth a whole bunch of liberal nonsense (hence I never found the time to read it). I wonder why they even wish to label themselves as a Catholic periodical if they don't fully embrace Catholicism.
I used to be a big reader of National Catholic Register. That was a good one.
Now, I don't know much about this Deal guy, and I don't think I want to know. I hope we don't lose a conservative Catholic advisor to the president.
There are good reasons not to include confessions of such sins in a book - such as protecting others. I am sure that I am not the only person out there who has sins that cannot be publicly confessed because they are not 'solo sins'. There are reasons why the Confessional has a seal. If the sin is not mine alone, do I have the right to make the sins of another public just to save myself? If I choose to forgive another who has sinned against me, must I make the sins of that other public, thereby creating havoc in that other person's life?
The so-called priest abuse scandal has gotten some tough raps about confidentiality agreements, but the reality is that many kinds of less than savory activities are handled confidentially, from sexual sins to professional errors in judgement (medical, legal, etc) with the idea that the injured party doesn't have to reveal that they were stupid, foolish, or misled, and the offending party gets a good chastisement, financial damage, and a chance to repent and rehabilitate.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
—Matthew 7:15-20
It might be interesting to take the Sandra Schneiders piece on Abp. Weakland, substitute "Hudson" and adjust the facts where appropriate, and submit it to the NCR for publication.
Think they'd print it? Or anything remotely like it?