I miss church. I can not go to church. It is a dirty place to me. Corrupt and guilty of inflicting pain on innocents. I miss going to church and receiving my spiritual vitamin pill. My soul is lonely for Christ and his followers who would sacrifice themselves for the good of others, to save their souls.

My church should be a leader. Leading people to abandon commercialism and selfish self gratifying ways. The church should be standing up for abused and battered people from governments our own government is supporting. I miss belonging to a church with credibility.

Christ sacrificed his life for us. How can this man, who claims to a man of Jesus, not sacrifice his career for the good of the children. I am truly disgusted. It is not a matter of who comes after him, it is a matter of consequences. Someone must take the blame and shoulder the burden of repentance. Especially that someone should be the person who made it all possible by either not paying enough attention to know it was going on and stopping it, or for allowing to happen when he knew. It makes no difference which it was, in the end, Cardinal Law must shoulder the blame and pay the consequences. He is no longer a leader. He will never be again.

Tomorrow my children and I will visit a Protestant Church. Next Sunday we will visit a Greek Orthodox Church. We miss Jesus. We haven't seen or felt him in the Catholic Church for a long time. So we must go. But we do so with heavy hearts.

Pray Cardinal Law will resign, and give the Catholic Church a chance to cleanse itself and give my children a chance to enjoy growing up as Catholics.

-- (), December 08, 2002

Answers

You will find sinners and poor leaders in every church. But you will find the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist only in a Catholic Church. If you don't know that, you never were Catholic in the first place.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

Stay in the boat.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

Don't leave the church for jesus misses you too.And he intended us to be as one with the catholic church. we all have an opinion on this whole thing but you are catholic, And going to another church to worship will not full fill you in the way only a catholic mass can.Stop missing out on the gifts of the catholic mass and go tommorrow.Immaculate conception of mary.. PAX

-- Andrew m Tillcock (Drewmeister7@aol.com), December 09, 2002.

Why is our holy mother Church supposed to ''cleanse'' herself? Is she soiled? Are you too pure for her?

The Catholic Church is NOT impure, not dirty and certainly doesn't need you to decide who should or shouldn't resign from the prelature.

Bishops don't receive their office from the laity. Bishops are chosen in and from the holy priesthood, annointed by the Holy Spirit; in the ritual laying on of hands. Only another bishop can consecrate a bishop. If a bishop ever proves himself unworthy of his office, the Church has her appointed ways of disciplining him. You and I and the faithful have a duty and obligation to respect and OBEY all bishops. No other option!

If you'll get a better shake with protestants, or orthodox, or anybody; just get out. The Church will take you back someday, when you find yourself on your deathbed. For now, go ahead and betray her. You couldn't have had any faith to start with if it's this easy to undermine. --Pretend Catholics!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

"Spiritual Vitamin Pill"

This sounds like anti-Catholic stuff. I wouldn't take it seriously.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

"Cardinal Law was framed by a bunch of rotten kids, just greedy to grab the Church's bankroll. This whole pedophile thing, is a plot to destroy the Catholic church. " by ed.

You got it a bit mixed up ed. Law is in the trenches because he shuffled known hetero and homo sex offenders around to different parishes during his time as personel supervisor and Cardinal in Boston. Nobody has accused him of having inappropriate sex with anybody.

Now in relation to the pedophile charges ("thing")against scores of priests under Law's watch, you are already trying to rewrite history. You are likely the only one in the world who would deny these acts. Good luck to you. You'll need it to convince anybody that this is a plot to destroy the church.

Take it from one who knows. It happened and your perception, your foolishness, your denial makes people like me only more attentive to see that justice is served.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), December 09, 2002.

It is mind-boggling that people will defend corrupt leaders. The truth is the truth and we cannot escape that.

The church itself is certainly not dirty. It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. But, let us face the truth - because one is annointed does not mean he cannot be corrupt or abuse his power. These men (bishops) are human beings and just as capable of sinning as we are.

Why, in God's name, is everyone so willing to put the blame on innocent children whose lives have been damaged forever. I just don't get it.

If we accept the truth, as horrible and sad as it is, that does not mean we are anti-catholic, it does not mean that we do not love our church, not at all. People have been excommunicated for a lot less than what the Bishops have allowed to happen in our church to our children..but when it comes to their misbehavior, catholics just will continue to protect their leaders. I don't understand, really I don't. Yes, there are corrupt leaders in every religion, does that lessen the seriousness of what has happened in our church?

I am not going to get into another disccusion on this issue, but I wish I could understand your loyalty to men who are corrupt and have ruined so many lives.

Mark 10:14 "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

I pray for our Catholic Church and its leaders. I pray that St. Michael watch over our church, protect it from the tactics of Satan who is trying to destroy it. Amen

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 09, 2002.

How can people be so ignorant to the plight of these innocent children who have been abused? And these are the ones that we know about. Ed Richards comments were that of a person who is, in my opinion, a bigot. He hasn't got his facts right at all and thanks Chris for putting him right on that. Eugene, everybody is entitled to their opinions, as you obviously are to yours, I personally think he should be defrocked. We are talking about a Cardinal who knew that one of his priests was engaging in paedophile activities and did nothing about it. I for one am surely not going to obey him. Pretend Catholics - Grow up Eugene.

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Actually, MaryLu, I would not be opposed to the idea of the Church appointing someone else to replace Cardinal Law. Look, he's orthodox as nothing else, writes beautifully, and is a leader and a Defender of the Faith, but if the allegations are true, then orthodoxy is no excuse for incompetence.

Keeping that in mind, the original poster, if she is in earnest, appears to hold a number of material heresies - actually, you can look them up in my other post, "Only Two heresies..." Things like:

-Denying the holiness of the Mass because of the character of the priest

-Reducing the Mass to individualistic sanctification (instead of the holy Communion of Saints all over the World to be One with Christ)

-Calling the episcopacy a "career,"

-Equating "credibility" with Truth

-The preposterous notion that Law isn't already shouldering the burden of repentance (OK, not really a heresy, but definitely an error)

-Formal Modernism, which is to say, a disproportionate, myopic focus on personal individual experience ("We haven't seen or felt [Jesus]...") at the exclusion of the deeper underlying ecstasy that comes with the free openness to the shepherding of the Catholic Church

-A reduction of the liturgy to a grocery store mentality. "Hm, the potatoes aren't on sale here. Time to go to Albertsons!" The Mass is the work of the people, the heartbeat of faith, a making present of the eternal Sacrifice of Christ and his Last Supper. Even though you don't see or feel Christ, he is watching you walk out the door.

But the phrase "spiritual vitamin pill" strikes me as so ridiculous that I suspect this is nothing more than an anti-Catholic post written by a pretender.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Michael, with all due respect,
I must repeat: --The Catholic Church is NOT impure, not dirty. --What part of this did you construe as indifference to the innocent children? No matter if twenty Cardinals sinned grievously there is no stain attaching to the Church; only to the offender. Hatred for the offender is not Christian in any case.

Here we have a mother (?) saying the Church is guilty. The Church is dirty; and ''We miss Jesus. We haven't seen or felt him in the Catholic Church.''

You have my response down as shocking? Why don't you realise the above mean-spirited words are shocking to me, and to other faithful Catholics? ''Cleanse'' the Church? By demanding a resignation; so she can ''feel Jesus'' again, at her church? What about her? May I suggest she get her mind ''cleansed'' and then judge another Christian?

I have no interest in ''defending'' pedophiles their or enablers. I only hope to speak in defense of Catholics at large, and the Church to whom we're faithful. If ignorant folks come on this forum and wish to vent their anger, fine-- But they must be told the facts. There are no canonical grounds for the lay person to strike out at a prelate with hatred and force him to resign an office God placed him in. --Did you get that part, Michael: God placed him in that office. This is not talking about your PTA. --One other (not so important) fact, which is repeatedly misconstrued: ''Innocent children'' may have been preyed on, a very few. That's a tragedy, and it must be stopped.

However, many predators acted with young boys and young men, whom they ''scouted out'' by abusing the sacrament of penance. They heard the confessions of homosexual young men. These men were also abused, I'm not in any way exonerating the priests. But the acts that took place had no pedophiliac substance to them. They were gay boys and homosexually attracted priests. Certainly sinful enough; but not like the heart-breaking matter of ''innocent kids''. Get the facts straight.

The original poster wants to leave her Church. Do you feel she should? I'm not leaving. I just happen to have faith; and with faith anything can be survived. I speak from personal experience.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

I don't think Cardinal Law should resign.

If that were the case then all the hierarchy would be obliged to do so.

A problem exists, it is a very sad one,but now it is out in the open, now the truth is out there. We should not be afraid of the truth, rather we should accept it and react accordingly.

We are now aware of the problem and we need to work on it never happening again. I think Card. Law is more that capable of helping resolve this whole issue.

It is also up to each of us Roman Catholics to ensure that this behaviour is not and will never be accepted in the Church.

God Bless!

-- james Xwing (James_xwing@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Eugene

Thank you for your comments. I think you are somewhat confused. You mention that "The Church is not impure and not dirty." However, further on you state that "God placed the Cardinal in that office". This is a contradiction in terms. It suggests that if God, through his Church, appoints his Cardinals and others, thus it is infallable and cannot be challenged. I do not accept that despite Catholic doctrinology. I believe areas of the Church are dirty and impure and I also believe that some of the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests should be defrocked - It is so easy, Eugene, to hide behind the Church and state that that is God's will when indeed it isn't. You cannot and should not hurt anyone. The God I love would never want me or anyone I know or trust to hurt anyone else intentionally. This is not intended to sound in anyway self-righteous but balanced and I hope prayerfully fair. The whole issue of paedophilia; that includes your rather weak attempt to suggest that young gay boys and susceptable homosexual priests are not included in this scenario - which I must state I do not agree with you Eugene. The reality in all this is that the Church is not infallable. The poor children, regardless of age or sexual orientation, if that can be evaluated at such a tender age, should not be at any risk by the Catholic Church, and it's priests from Pope down to Deacon. However, we must be kind. "He who is sinless casts the first stone". We are all sinfull creatures of varying kinds. Prayer, love, forgiveness and generosity must be exercised in equal measures. The Church faces a new phase in the 21st Century. People are far more aware and educated in life around them and overseas and they will not tolerate violations to the young anymore. Our Church, possibly when the present Pope dies, will have to face a big shake up of it's hierarchy and accountability to all. God Bless. Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

BOSTON (AP) - Pressure on Cardinal Bernard Law to resign increased Sunday with a large protest planned at Holy Cross Cathedral and the circulation among Boston priests of a letter calling on their boss to step down.

Reuters Slideshow: Catholic Church Abuse Scandal Sunday morning protests have become commonplace, but six organizations and their supporters were expected to demonstrate and hold a news conference outside the cathedral. Law was scheduled to celebrate Mass inside, but a spokeswoman said late Saturday he would be unable to attend.

Meanwhile, Boston-area priests are circulating a draft statement calling for Law's resignation. They plan to deliver it to Law if they get 50 signatures. It praises his work helping the homeless and building relations with the Jewish community.

"However," continues the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Boston Globe, "the events of recent months and, in particular, of these last few days, make it clear to us that your position as our bishop is so compromised that it is no longer possible for you to exercise the spiritual leadership required for the church of Boston."

The renewed activism comes after a fresh wave of scandal hit the Boston Archdiocese. Personnel files made public Tuesday contained some of the most spectacular allegations yet, suggesting church officials tolerated priests with a range of aberrant behaviors — not just sexual abuse of young boys.

On Wednesday, the finance panel of the archdiocese gave Law the authority to seek a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing — a move that may prove financially necessary but would infuriate abuse victims seeking damages.

The Boston Priests Forum, a group of about 250 priests, also plans to discuss calling on Law to resign next week.

An archdiocese spokeswoman refused to say where Law would be Sunday, only that he had no public schedule.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 09, 2002.

Michael,

the Church is not infallable

The "Church" is meant what when you speak of it? The Pope or the teaching authority of the Church. I get the sense that your idea of infallibility and the teaching (definition) of infallibility are vastly different. In fact, when something is declared infallible it is either through the means of an ordinary or a universal Magisterium. Both of which, presuppose the bishop's union with the Pope, either physically together or scattered about the country.

However, if your concept of the "Church" is merely the persons that inhabit it, then infallibility is not even an issue in that case, unless those persons happen to be the bishops and the Pope.

God Bless

-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 09, 2002.

I am not trying to play the Devil's advocate here, God knows Satan has no trouble working on his own, and has certainly entered the Catholic Church and won many to His side, as evidenced by the recent scandal.

Through the power of prayer, continued devotion to Our Lady, mass attendance, we can pray to have Satan removed from the Church he is trying to destroy.

However, in reply to a poster who "blames" the children for tempting the priests, there is much more involved than just children. Very sick priests were allowed to stay in the church, say the mass, hear confessions, and administer the Sacraments.

Some of you may want to say let this go already and move on. We cannot move foward until this situation is dealt with 'properly.' It must be dealt with.

I wonder what all of you said when another former leader committed adultrey, and then lied under oath? Did you think he should stay in office? Did you think it was okay what he did? Did you think a President of the USA who lies under oath (and a lawyer at that) should have stayed in office? I wonder what all of you had to say about that? But, a Cardinal, and Bishops, spiritual leaders of our church allowed the most offensive of sins and crimes take place in our sacred institution and you defend these leaders...

May God's justice prevail, not mine, not yours, not the people of Boston...God's justice. I am not judging the sin of the leaders or of the priests...that is between them and God. However, we are talking about leadership - spiritual leadership. Should these men continue to lead our church? There is a cancer in our church that has spread rapidly and destroyed. What is the treatment to remove this cancer? May God make that decision.

For example:

By Greg Frost and Kathie O'Donnell

BOSTON (Reuters) - Nearly a decade ago, the Archdiocese of Boston discovered a "potential scandal" unlike any it had seen before -- a long-lost tale of love and death involving one of its active priests, according to internal church documents made public on Thursday.

Reuters Slideshow: Catholic Church Abuse Scandal

The case of the Rev. James D. Foley contained enough shocking details that Cardinal Bernard Law remarked the priest should spend the rest of his life in a monastery doing penance for his actions, according to the cleric's personnel file.

Foley had fathered at least two children with a young married woman in the 1960s. When the woman took a fatal overdose of an unknown substance, Foley did not immediately seek emergency help, the archdiocese discovered.

This was clearly of concern to the Roman Catholic archdiocese official who, charged with the task of investigating the matter, scrawled the words "criminal activity?" in Foley's file next to the word "overdosed."

Today, Foley serves as an associate pastor at a parish in Salem, Massachusetts. He was not immediately available for comment on the release of his file.

The disclosure was the latest to stem from roughly 11,000 pages of internal church documents that a judge ordered the Archdiocese of Boston to turn over to lawyers for alleged victims of the Rev. Paul Shanley, an accused child rapist.

The lawyers on Tuesday made public the first of those files, which they said tended to support their claim that the archdiocese routinely reassigned priests accused of sexual misconduct.

The lawyers said in a statement issued earlier on Thursday that Foley had fathered three children. However, the documents appeared to show that the priest had only sired two.

'UGLIEST THING YET'

Rodney Ford, who says his son was molested by Shanley, said law enforcement authorities should investigate the reference to "criminal activity" in Foley's file.

"The archdiocese knew about this. What is their role? Has there been a crime here? It needs to be explored," Ford told reporters at a news conference. "We're not now just talking about sexual abuse and molestation, we are talking about a dead woman's body."

For U.S. Catholics, the disclosure came toward the end of a week that has tested their faith in the church. Release of the files prompted what may be the strongest wave of anger since the clergy sexual abuse scandal first erupted in January.

James Post, president of Voice of the Faithful, a Catholic lay group seeking church reforms in the wake of the scandal, said he was sickened by the latest revelations.

"This may be the ugliest thing yet. That just makes me sick. You get this ache in the pit of your stomach, and you wonder when it's going to stop. When are we going to hit bottom?" Post said in an interview with Reuters.

As its legal adversaries released files this week, the Boston archdiocese triggered further uproar by announcing it may seek bankruptcy as a way of dealing with an estimated 450 lawsuits it faces from people who charge they were sexually abused by clergymen.

An archdiocese spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment.

'DOUBLE LIFE'

The archdiocese stumbled on the details of Foley's "double life" in 1993 when the priest requested an extension of his posting at a parish in Sudbury, Massachusetts.

Looking back into his past, church leaders discovered not only that Foley had fathered two children with a Massachusetts woman, but that he had been involved in the circumstances surrounding her death -- abandoning her when she overdosed, and then returning to call the 911 emergency hotline.

Handwritten notes from the cleric's file indicate that the archdiocese learned the woman's sister had threatened Foley that if he ever bothered the family, she would reopen the investigation into the cause of her sister's death.

Having gathered Foley's history, which included affairs with at least two other women, the church faced a difficult choice. On the one hand, the priest was well liked by parishioners and held in high regard by his colleagues.

But at the same time, the Boston church was trying to enforce a tougher sexual abuse policy initiated after a 1992 scandal involving the Rev. James R. Porter, a convicted child molester.

"Cardinal Law thinks that this man should not be in pastoral ministry due to potential scandal. His remark is that this man should spend his life in a monastery," the Rev. John McCormack, a former top official in the Boston archdiocese, wrote in a letter to a doctor in 1994.

McCormack, now bishop of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, asked the doctor for his advice, clearly fearing the possible fallout if Foley's story ever came to light.

"If anything did break out about him, particularly that he fathered two children, do you think people would feel that we had put them at risk and that it would be a source of scandal?" McCormack asked.

The church decided Foley should be treated at a center for troubled priests and nuns in Canada. He later returned to the Boston area and took up work at a parish in Salem,

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 09, 2002.

Please go back to church and pray, pray and pray...do not stop praying, do not stop receiving the Eucharist, do not stop going to confession - this is what Satan wants you to do.

If you stop going to the Catholic Church, you will be hurting Jesus, Mary, and the Holy Spirit of God. God died for our sins. Don't hurt Him again. We must fight Satan not give in to Him.

Do not let the sins of the father take you away from the Church, please.

I will pray for you and for our church and all those who are letting this scandal affect their faith. IT MUST NOT CHANGE YOUR FAITH!

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 09, 2002.

Ironically, Michael thinks I'm ''confused''.

You're entitled to your opinion, Michael. When you speak in ignorance, you will have an opinion I don't agree with; so let's see if you did:

''It is so easy, Eugene, to hide behind the Church and state that that is God's will when indeed it isn't. I guess when YOU state emphatically the Church has many areas which are dirty and impure, God lets YOU say something infallible?

But God has no power to make His own Church infallible? You don't make sense, but anyway; don't accuse Catholics of ''hiding behind the Church.'' I am not hiding, nor are the other faithful ones in our forum. You say all you can; and you'll have the truth from us. Every DAY!

Your smarmy remark here: ''regardless of age or sexual orientation, if that can be evaluated at such a tender age, should not be at any risk by the Catholic Church, and it's priests from Pope down to Deacon.'' --betrays the hidden contempt you feel for the Catholic Church. Not only are vicitms of ''tender age'' at risk, not from evil men, but all Catholic clergy from the Pope on down. You haven't even any qualms about saying ''risk by the Catholic Church; you tar the whole body with one brush. Typical of anti-Catholics.

And any notion that we Catholics might somehow demand our children be safe and untouchable, in or out of Church; well-- you dismiss that as not worth mentioning. We're all monsters, because we're Catholics!

Why do you say ''our Church'', Michael? ''Our Church, possibly when the present Pope dies, will have to face a big shake up of it's hierarchy and accountability to all. God Bless.''

This isn't your Church, very obviously. ''After the present Pope dies?'' That means, he's in the dirty part of our Church? He has to die, to change our Church? Do you realise how awful you sound? You really seem to be an atheist!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

One has to look beyond the surface in the church abuse scandle. Your faith in God and Jesus should not be dismembered. Furthermore Cardnal Law resigning does not adress any problem that may exist.

Remember there are political and financial motivations here.

Visiting another church of attending another mass for the belief in Jesus Christ is vary sad. I pray for you that you faith is not based on politics or civil laws and government funded special interest groups that are dependent the destruction of the following:

Abortion. Billions of our US tax dollars are given to abortion advocate groups in this country and abroad for the encouragement and murder of unborn children.

WOmens rights: Under the guise of helping women Billions in funding is given to zsero tolerance based domestic violence laws. On the surface no resonable person wants to see another be harmed, but ,politically correct policies that destroy good families for no other reason but to promote and encourage family destruction is just wrong. Zreo Tollerance in practice means a legal way of financially extorting a familiy by forced divorse. Thousands of cases are created each day out of nothing in order to line the pockets of special interest groups.

Gay/Lesbian/transgender movement: Get billions in funding for their cause under harrassment laws and for the promotion of gender equality. It your tax dollars going to these causes.

Sexual abuse, sexual harrassment, rape industry are all empowered to destroy others in order to promote themselves. THis in not intended to minimise anothers pain and suffering , but , our society has become too politiclly correct and the demise of its people.

All the above terms sound horrable on the surface and only the sensationalized cases are constantly repeated in the meadia to create an illusion that the problems are bigger then life.

Its to attain money.. Understand this....People make big big money on these issues. Try to take a deeper look at each industry and follow the money trail. Exploytation of race issues and abuse issues are a way for radical special interest groups make money.

Pray for them that Jesus will be welcome to their hearts.

government ha

-- Michael A (mg_comm@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Eugene I'm an atheist??? You constantly give people anti-catholic remarks... Your'e humility is uplifting... What an absolutely stupid, arrogant and bigoted man you are.....I don't make out for one second that I'm perfect but you do...Show some humility...I dread to think what you are like in rea life...lighten up....It's only a forum....Wer'e all entitled to our opinions Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Eugene, even your own friendsare aainst you on this one. Reminds me of the story.

Frustated District Attorney to jury; "How could you people acquit this obviously guilty man". "Insanity".. "All 12 of you?. Were you on that jury Eugene?

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.

Et tu, Ed?
Are you in the wings, hoping Michael gets me into Big Trouble ? Is he a friend of mine? Look again.

He asks: ''I'm an atheist??? You constantly give people anti-Catholic remarks'' What is an anti-Catholic remark? Is it saying, ''Let the present Pope die, then clean up the dirty Church?'' (Seems very anti-Catholic to me; even atheistic.) I never said it, YOU did.

Michael says: ''. . . I don't make out for one second that I'm perfect but you do.'' However, I never claimed to be perfect in any thread recently. Where did you see that, Michael?

''I dread to think what you are like in real life.'' (Oh, I'm not so hot, Michael. Just look; I'm wasting my time here giving a lame-brain attention, when I could be doing yard work. Just lazy, you know.

I think I can picture what you're about, in ''real life.'' You cry when you lose the match. Can't take correction. But oh, can you dish it out!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

I know your'e not so hot Eugene. I'm very happy with my life though. I have a beautiful wife, 2 gorgeous girls, another on the way, what do you have? truthfully? You reply to just about every question posted here. You obviously live life to the very full. Oh yeah...just to put you right...I haven't lost any match...It's your friends that are disagreeing with you. stop clutching at straws, wasting your time, and mine, with your stupidity and show some humility. Admit defeat Eugine...It's not a sin too??? Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

OK, Michael; first you should ''defeat'' me, though. ''Oh yeah...just to put you right...I haven't lost any match...It's your friends that are disagreeing with you.''

You lost every one, Michael. You can't buy a win. You also cried murder after losing each one. ''Freak of nature!!!'' Lol!

You were supported here by the false Catholics, not my friends. But, then I wouldn't expect you to know the difference. Your candle- power being what it is.

As for humility-- I am humble, before God. Everything I have He's given me. It's not my fault you weren't given grace. Ed and Regina had much grace given them. But in the pursuit of their personal pride, they've let it go to waste. We'll pray for them to answer God's grace once more. Soon.

We'll pray for you, Michael. And there you are; that will be an act of humility!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Oh and Eugine. Stop misconstruing my words for your own gain....When did I say let the present Pope die and clean up the dirty church. I didn't say it like that at all. You sound like the media trying to misconstrue words for your own use. Stop living in your own little world and wise up. Wise up or shut up Eugene. The reason I think that you think that you are perfect is that you keep telling people to get out of the Catholic Church, that they are anti-catholics, protestants, whatever. At the end of the day everybody worships who they want to worship. Who are you to judge and decide what people should do? And I can take correction. I did point out that I apologised to anybody in advance for what I was saying. Have you ever apologised or do you just like to judge? Go and do some yardwork and make everybody happy. You also keep making a point in quoting and putting things into pointers. are you a control freak? Have you always needed a routine like this? Do you have a list of things to do at this party or on this forum? Pray tell. Understand....I have read certain comments about you which you will have read also. You are not liked...not because you speak the truth, because you are very knowledgable, no doubt, but because of your bigoted, arrogant sweeping statements. I hope we can get along one day without you taking everything so personal with your schoolteacher attitude. You don't need to preach to me...Preach to someone who wants to listen to your constant ramblings. Stop fighting everything that you misconstrue as anti- catholic. God Bless Michael Michael

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

So tell me Eugine

What is a false Catholic. Just so everyone will know. What makes you a proper catholic and everybody else whose contributed to this discussion "false catholics?" Please elaborate on this

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

What grace were you given ahead of myself, ed and regina? Elaborate please and why were you given this grace ahead of us?

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Michael:
I'm very capable of justifying my description of Regina and Ed. When I say they're ''false'', it means they don't KNOW the Catholic Church. You know her even LESS. But you can be excused.

I haven't the inclination to tell you the whole truth, because you aren't at all interested; you just want something new to attack. So, I won't waste my time.

Wise up or shut up Eugene. --A direct command? If I weren't wise enough for you, I would have shut up, naturally. However, you're a lightweight. Setting you straight is as easy as pie. Too bad nothing can silence you; except your lack of material. But you make do with silly invective. Poor Michael.

''Are you a control freak?'' No, I'm a Chavez. And you're no psychologist.

''You are not liked.'' (Hahaha! My dog likes me!)

''Your bigoted, arrogant sweeping statements.'' Show us ONE, Michael. Show, don't tell.

''With your schoolteacher attitude.'' My attitude? I'm laughing! That's a great attitude, you can't laugh at yourself at all! You are just a PRIG! Come here to belittle the stupid Catholics. But you didn't expect competition. You wanted lightweights and got the school teacher. You don't care for school teachers, do you? They are heavyweights. Too heavy for you, Michael.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Oops. You did screw up, Eugene... there's no such thing as a false Catholic, unless you can prove they haven't been baptised when they claim to have been.

Such is the danger of checklist orthodoxy! =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 09, 2002.

Stay close to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist and pray for those who do not - there has never been a time when the Church was NOT filled with sinners, and never will be till the Lord sends His angels to "separate the wheat from the tares" - we're all in the boat together! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

But, Christine;
I AM one of those angels here to separate the chaff from the wheat. (OK, I'm a Wannabe angel.)

Every other post here wants to separate the Cardinal from the wheat; and so far very few Catholics have been too worried. I guess he's chaff; expendable now. --According to Catholics like Ed Richards and others. Christ was right when He prophesied, In those days charity will have grown cold.'' Stone cold.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 09, 2002.

Eugene, that Cardinal of yours is on his way out. Today's news report, says even a lot of his own priests are jumping ship.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.

Eugene,

I can't say I know enough to judge the man, but that aside IF he knew that there were priests who were committing grave sins against children and kept putting them back into situations where they could commit more crime, he is morally guilty IMO. The shepherd is more responsible than the sheep. What I think needs to be done is to have a *real* inquiry into his behavior to either A) prove he's innocent and restore Bostonians' faith in the Church, or B) if guilty, remove him from further damaging the church.

Strange as it may seem, while I would lock up the criminals themselves forever to keep them from further abuse, I'd have an easier time *forgiving* them, as I figure they have to have some internal defect that may be organic or otherwise not fully their fault. OTOH while a Cardinal again, this is hypothetically assuming he's done something wrong may not be legally liable to a great extent, we'd have to assume he was NOT insane, but was looking out for something other than the best interests of his flock. I find this LESS forgiveable.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 10, 2002.

Frank,

No further inquiry is necessary. The Cardinal has admitted his mistakes to the extent that he can without causing further uproar from the victims and the courts, he thinks.

As more information is revealed, the roar is becoming loud enough so that he can even hear it from his bunker. His continued presence is allowing the wound to remain open and fester.

Forgiveness will come from most much quicker if Law is at work in a different capacity.

I've got an idea we shall be hearing more very soon. He must be very weary.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), December 10, 2002.

Friends,
If the Cardinal willingly resigns, the Church should thank him. Thanks for letting go of an untenable postion; and accepting the Will of God. If he doesn't, then his penance will be the memory of his great lapses; not in caring about the vicitims (children), but the ineptness of his pastoral work.

I've never made excuses for his past record, other than the simple truth. He erred in extending charity to vile men. In my very first post after his disgrace, I made some assumptions and observations. None were intended to whitewash his office, as more than one accused me of doing.

I thought he was forgiving them as a confessor first. If a penitent makes a perfectly contritious confession with penance; takes counselling, reaffirms his vows and promises to change, he usually gets the benefit of the doubt. Clearly the guilty ones didn't have the goods. But they sold Cardinal Law a bill of goods.

But then, the surreptitious manner in which he worked. He reassigns the offenders by stealth? This is a worldly sin. Respect of perons, and in this case, respect for what the world will say. Cardinal Law was afraid of scandal. Instead of taking risks, he brought unlimited shame and scandal on himself and the Church.

He also believed the offenders were rehabilitated. Why? He relied on false experts. Now he realises it; but in hindsight, maybe he was duped. This is always going to remain with him.

It's a pity, because he's the only known scapegoat, and everybody hates him. I still feel sorry for him. And, I'm sad when good and saintly folks like Mary Lu, and David Sullivan, etc., accuse me of forgetting the ''children''. I haven't forgotten. But in many ways my own experience tells me their lives aren't as *ruined* as you believe they might be. Sure, they deserve justice. But there isn't much they can do with a pound of flesh. And I don't know what a gang of protesting priests are going to do with a pound of flesh, either. They demand his resignation. Does that mean if he goes, it will ''cleanse'' the Church?

Sorry, but I'm skeptical. Once Law resigns, the next round will start. Priests everywhere will be constantly reminded: ''You are the enemies of little children. Just like Cardinal Law, the other priests and bishops and your Church.'' No one's going to turn the page because a Cardinal resigns. It's human nature to point the finger, and once Law steps down, the Church is convicted with him. He represents the Catholic faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 10, 2002.

Dear Eugene,

Thank you for calling me 'saintly.' I certainly don't see myself as saintly..far from it. I try, but have a very long way to go - if ever.

Did I accuse you of "forgetting the children?" I apologize for hurting your feelings, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

I don't mean to sound like I am judging Cardinal Law personally - as I said, that is not my job - that is God's job. God knows I have enough of my own sins and cannot judge someone else's.

There are times when I look at Cardinal Law and do feel sorry for him. He looks like a 'beaten' man. He must be a tortured man and that is very, very sad. I do wonder at times what was he thinking, what were all of the Bishops and Cardinals thinking when they allowed this to go on. Maybe they did think they were handling it the right way, I don't know. Only God knows what was in their hearts and minds.

Did they allow it to go on to protect the church? Did the Pope know about it and give them orders to follow? After all billions of dollars were spent on law suits, so I assume the Pope knew about it.

They don't live in 'our' world - I don't know how they think.

I know when we sin, or hurt others by our bad decisions, we pay the price for it - our consciences won't let us rest and I'm sure Cardinal Law is dealing with that now. However, what he let happen really is a horrible thing and it hurt the Church, the Catholic people, the priests, families of the victims, and the victims themselves. All the money in the world will never erase the pain for them.

But, we do have to look at this situation for what it is and so much damage has been done because of bad judgements. It is very sad, indeed, to see men of the cloth in such circumstances. The people of Boston may never forgive Cardinal Law, but I am sure that God will.

Let's look at the CEO's of Enron...because of selfish greed, hardworking people lost their life-savings, their jobs. A crime was committed and these men responsible for it have to pay for the crime they did, that is the way it is. We all pay for our wrongdoings sooner or later.

Unfortunately, and sad as it is, a crime was committed in our church and justice has to be served somehow. Yes, there are probably many false accusations, so-called victims looking to make an easy buck. But, there were 150 priests in Boston who admitted to what they did...

Very, very, sad...You are very charitable, Eugene, but what do you think should be done?

ML

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 10, 2002.

How terribly tragic this whole scene is. The sins, the cover-ups, the victims, the scandal. It is sad beyond words.

The Cardinal should leave for his own sake, for the Church's sake, but most importantly for the victims' sake. Only God knows how culpable he really is in this, but the sad fact is that his face represents pain and misery for so many people. His staying only scandalizes the victims (all of them) over and over again.

Can he be forgiven? Of course, but there are consequences to our actions. He was negligent, irresponsible, and possibly criminal in his actions. These priests (the guilty ones) conducted themselves in blasphemous conduct, only to be patted on the back and told they could go back to work if "they promise not to do it again." Not just once, but on and on and on.

The Old Boys Club protecting the Old Boys. That's it, plain and simple.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 10, 2002.

Gail - Don't feel wrong because you are stating your own opinions as they appear to be true. Good Bless you for having the presence of mind to bring these concerns to the fore. I hope not, but it may be the first of many scandals to HIT the Church in a big way. Michael

All for jesus

-- Michael (michael_safc@hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.

You got your wish. But if the Vatican truly wants to make a stance for justice then they should ask many, many other priests, bishops and Cardinals to resign all around the world not just in the US, these problems have been withnessed worldwide.

I can't help but think that Cardinal law is a scape coat for the Vatican.

By the same Token the Vatican should get Fr. Marcel Maciel to resign as he has moved priests involved in sex abuse scandal for years. Of course if the Church won't investigate the allegations against him then they will hardly investigate how Maciel has hanlded the many sex abuse cases involing legionary Priests.

This problem extends throughout the whole Global Church not just America.

-- James Xwing (james_xwing@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Your opinion is worth NOTHING young man. You are a sick fellow. If you hang around here, don't bad-mouth the Pope, the Vatican, the bishops or priests at large. You have become more and more insulting.

It's getting harder every day to keep from verbally assaulting you. Give us a break, already!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.

The following letter by a Protestant clergyman was published in the Boston newspaper:

The spirit of Advent and Cardinal Law

By Peter J. Gomes, 12/13/2002

FOR A YEAR NOW, we Bostonians have been treated to an almost daily account of the scandal within the Archdiocese of Boston. Quickly we moved from scandal to crisis, and the crisis has been sustained by a remorseless cycle of disclosures, reactions, legal maneuvers, and media frenzy.

Consistent throughout all of this has been the call, at first muted but now in full cry, for Cardinal Law's resignation. This, it seems, would make everybody happy.

The victims would have themselves a victim; the lawyers would be able to proceed without credible opposition in the search for compensation; liberal voices for reform in the church would see a nemesis removed; and the press would have brought down a mighty figure in a near-Watergate victory with Pulitzers all around.

Some time ago, it seems, this case ceased to be about what should have been done with abusive priests and what should be done to prevent such abuses in the future. Nor was it really about the legitimacy of the claims of the victims, the appropriate size of their compensation, or the legal tactics and compensation of their lawyers. Increasingly, the case comes down to one person: the cardinal.

While the cardinal has been for some time the emotional center of this crisis, I have waited in vain to see if any of his good works would generate some supporting words from anyone in the Commonwealth who since 1984 has observed Boston's Roman Catholic archbishop as a public and consistent force for good.

Not summoned in his defense has been the fact that he has ordained many good men to the priesthood, that he has been a consistent foe of both abortion and capital punishment, that he has been a fearless advocate for the poor and the homeless, that he has lent the prestige of his office, often denied by his predecessors, to significant ecumenical efforts, particularly between Catholics and Jews, and that he has worked hard to improve race relations in a city where racism and Catholicism were too often seen as synonymous.

When I told some colleagues that I, a conspicuous Protestant, thought I should say a word in this sulfurous climate on behalf of a brother cleric, I was advised against it and told that every angry Catholic and militant secularist in town, not to mention the unbridled forces of the city media, would be against me.

The question was sharply put: ''Why would you support a man who has lost all support?'' The answer is simple, at least in my profession: ''Because he needs it.''

I cannot imagine what breakfast at the cardinal's residence on Lake Street must be like, with the table laid with the morning edition of the local papers. The news is bad enough, but when columnists and editorial writers weigh in with their shrill characterizations and cries for arch-episcopal blood, one cannot help but empathize just a bit with the Nixon-like figure who is damned at every turn.

Those who not long ago were pleased to be pictured with the cardinal, kissing his ring and attending his charitable events and proud to be known as archdiocesan insiders, now, like the disciples on Maunday Thursday, have forsaken him and fled. If a public figure is treated like Nixon, we shouldn't be surprised if he behaves like Nixon, to whom Norman Cousins, in The Daily Telegraph of July 17, 1979, ascribed the motto: ''If two wrongs don't make a right, try a third.''

It is not for me to second-guess the proceedings now wending their way through the courts. It does not, however, seem likely that the remarkably impatient Judge Constance Sweeney will be the most sympathetic justice before whom the case against the archdiocese can be heard, and that is a lamentable commentary on the judiciary.

It is equally difficult to imagine that a jury of impartial citizens can be empaneled within the jurisdiction in which the cardinal resides. Certainly the cardinal and the powers that be within the church have made a terrible mess of things, but the civil adjudication of this mess has not been helped by a climate of hysteria and manipulation that has been created and sustained now for nearly a year.

Where we might have hoped for a level of calm analysis and civic, even civil, discussion of the case in all of its humanity and complexity, we have been given little more than banner headlines, orchestrated press conferences, serial fascination with priestly deviancy, and plaintiff strategy. At the risk of an even further trivialization of everybody's pain, the whole thing begins to sound like Gilbert and Sullivan's ''Trial by Jury,'' where it is clear that poor Edmund the defendant hasn't a chance. What is funny in ''Trial by Jury'' is tragic in Boston.

''Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?'' (Who guards the guardians?) This is the question posed long ago by Juvenal, which to this day is often asked in cases of public trust. Surely such a question could be put to those in the archdiocese who were charged with guarding the souls of the young faithful and who so wickedly abused that trust. We know that. The question now is about who will protect us from those people who fail to use their powers wisely in the maintenance of a free and rational climate for discourse and debate.

When lawyers, the courts, and the media all seem complicit in the cycle of vengeance and blood and no closure short of decapitation seems acceptable, then we have reason to worry about the climate for justice, mercy, and charity, and Salem in 1692 seems not so far removed in moral climate from Boston in 2002.

Advent in the Christian calendar is the season of justice, mercy, and charity. Is it too much to wish for a little more of each as this sordid story with its lay and clerical victims makes its way to its conclusion? In what surely must be the antepenultimate phase of the cardinal's reign, can we not extend to him the remembrance of his good deeds, the dignity of his own amply expressed contrition, and the charity that allows him, like every sinner, the opportunity for amendment of life in the discharge of his pastoral office as long as it is his?

This is not a matter of clerical deference but of human decency. The cardinal, when all is said and done, is one of us, a fellow citizen from whom we have received much, and for his sake and ours we cannot simply sacrifice him upon the altar of expediency.

What is at stake here is not simply the future of one man, or of the whole church, or of pending legal matters. What is at stake is how we create and sustain a climate within which moral outrage and humane discourse can coexist in a civil society.

So far, we have not done very well. My Advent hope for the cardinal, and for the rest of us, is that we keep on trying, and this time hope to get it right.

(The Rev. Peter J. Gomes is Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University.)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 17, 2002.