Bernard Law and Fr Marcial Maciel

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

By the assignment of both Law and Maciel to the Vatican, did the Vatican do institutional damage control for financial and legal reasons?

There is a school of thought that if Law had not resigned when he did, he would have been indicted and possibly the Church as an institution under corporate liability statutes?

Does anyone understand the international ramifications?

Was the institutional church (and I intentionally seperate it from the spiritual chruch) protecting itself?

I know this question will be controversial, but what do you think?

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 16, 2004

Answers

I wish I knew what was going on in our church. The church really needs prayers.

My cousin called me from Boston the other day and she was so upset. They were going to close the school and church where all of her children were baptized, made communion and confirmed. Her husband was baptized there too and his whole family graduated from the school.

When the parishioners heard they wanted to close the school, they got together, had a fundraiser and collected over $200,000 to keep the school open - the powers to be told them if they collected the money, the school would stay open. They worked hard, very hard, to get that money and now the Cardinal told them that the school will close anyway and they have yet to see their money.

The parishioners got a lawyer and are now fighting to get their money back unless they keep the school open - which is unlikely.

I truly wish I knew what is going on. I don't understand.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 16, 2004.


By the assignment of both Law and Maciel to the Vatican, did the Vatican do institutional damage control for financial and legal reasons?

No, they were:
1) Taken away from the areas where they caused problems so that their replacements would have a little breathing room.
2) Given 'busy work' jobs to keep them out of trouble.

You wouldn't want any previous manager around as you tried to clean up their mess, would you?



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), June 16, 2004.


I always brag on our diocese: Galveston/Houston. But, we also have a school in Galveston that is near closing. I don't get it. Vocations come from piety. Piety comes from catholic education.

Bill, My question is what are the legal ramifications. Did the Vatican protect itself by moving these men to the Vatican state?

Bernard Law, having any position, even if it is ceremonial hurts the Church.

The perspective of someone, especially someone who is non-catholic is that the man now lives in a virtual palace, even though he has done wrong. (Which he has).

This gives someone who is already critical of the Church more ammunition.

Look at the cost of trying to avoid public scandal.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 17, 2004.


I was talking with someone else about this and they were very upset that Cardinal Law was drawing like a $10,000-12,000 salary per month in this new job.....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 17, 2004.

Cd Law didn't rape anyone. He wasn't archbishop while most of the abuse was actually going on. Boston isn't some tiny little diocese where an Archbishop personally knows all his priests...so the idea that he fully knew each pedophile and each crime and looked the other way is wrong.

He wasn't perfect but neither is he personally to blame for the crimes actually committed. Catholic morality holds that you can't impute MORAL culpability to someone based solely on his known actions: intent and circumstances have to be taken into account.

We know he never intended to hide pedophiles from the law. We also know he DIDN'T know the full extent of the problem, that he didn't personally sign all those glowing letters of praise (they were FORM letters, his signature a stamp). We know that the lavender mafia helped hide its own and gloss over their problems - silencing their faults, getting sympathetic therapists and psychologists to give positive reviews, etc.

Surely then we can't just scape-goat the man on top, heap all blame and all angst and all sin on him, scourge his reputation and then crucify him! Or is that what you desire? Kill the man as "an example"?

He's already exiled far from family, friends, and home. There aren't a whole lot of Americans living in Rome, and those who are...probably aren't too happy with him anyway. As for salary... if he lives outside the walls of the Vatican (which is likely, as most curial officials do), he'll need to pay rent. He'll also need living expenses - probably also a body guard who'll need to be paid.

Why the insistance that his reputation not just be destroyed but his name vilified? Does his ruin somehow magically restore the victims? Does annihilating an old man's whole career forever improve the situation? If he were sent to jail...or to a cave...what point would that serve?

He's a scape goat. People always need a scape goat - preferably an authority figure actually removed from the situation who has little media followers and sympathizers. The rest of us will of course forgive ourselves for not being omniscient while holding him to that higher standard.

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 17, 2004.



Dear concerned ...

Superb post! Thank-you!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 17, 2004.


Dear Concerned Catholic,

I disagree with your entire post. I know what I have to say will not be appreciated here.

I love my church, but it is absolutely absurd to say that Cardinal Law is being used as a scapegoat. I doubt very much that the people in Boston will agree with you on that. What happened here is the "Enron" of the Catholic Church. People have been excommunicated for less.

Why, oh, why, do you people fail to see what this man did. No, he personally did not rape anyone - but the man at the time knew what was going on. And, it was his responsiblity to know everything that was going on with all of his priests under his jurisdiction that is why he had the job... Again, all I ever hear is to protect the Cardinal. I never hear about the victims and where are they now? What are they doing with their lives? Where are they in their faith? Who is journeying with them on their path to reovery? Who has empathy for them - the true victims - not the alleged victims.

It is very, very sad indeed. Cardinal Law is away from all of his friends now - that is very sad. He can't play golf with Ted Kennedy or John Kerry any more. He can't dine in the elite restaurants or party in the prestigious homes of Boston. He is living in Rome with fellow priests. I am sorry but I cannot tolerate this kind of protection - he was used as a scapegoat??? Please.

When he was dining with the rich and famous in Boston, golfing with the rich and famous in Boston, he didn't give a dam about the kids who were being abused. How do I know this? Because I know a lot of people in Boston who are heartbroken over this whole situation, that's how. They are paying the price because their churches and schools are being sold - historical churches, to pay the lawsuits. I know people who were very good friends with Cardinal Law and he had a very nice life in Boston and he has a nice life in Rome - it could have been a lot worse.

The Pope could have sent him to India to help Mother Teresa's sisters take care of the poor of the poorest. The world is in desperate need of priests with his experience - places that could use his help a lot more than Rome.

I'm sorry because I know that most of you will not like to hear what I have to say but this issue makes my blood boil. I do not believe that Cardinal Law is the only Cardinal involved in this scandal and others should be held accountable as well.

I wish I would see more efforts put towards the spiritual and emotional healing of those souls who have been so badly wounded and I have yet to see it. Protect the church at all costs, that is what it comes down to and it makes me very, very sad.

God bless the wounded.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 17, 2004.


Marylu get a grip. A whole archdiocese, an army of trial lawyers, several non-profit support groups, hundreds of families and circles of friends are all working for the healing and care of the victims! The Pope himself has weighed in, all American bishops have apologized (including Law)... In typical "yeah but" style you miss the ENTIRE point of my post.

PRECISELY because Law didn't KNOW the full extent of the problem (and just your or the Boston Globe's claim that he did doesn't prove it) didn't know the gruesome details of who, what, where, how, and how often...means that he can't be held personally guilty of all the crimes men did under his watch.

There is a colossal difference between having oversight - and having personal culpability. From the old testament to the new, children are not to be held accountable for the crimes of their parents...and vice versa. If your child robs a bank, the police aren't going to come and arrest you, Marylu! If you "didn't know" that your child abused drugs, stole the car keys from you, drove out and robbed the bank... wouldn't we all be in a position - using your own measure - to claim "you COULD HAVE KNOWN...SO IF YOU DIDN'T, THEN THE ROBBERY WAS ACTUALLY YOUR FAULT?" and if you aren't sent to prison along with your son...wouldn't this - according to your moral reasoning - be an injustice???

You are judging his performance with 20/20 hindsight, accusing him of not connecting dots that no one else at the time connected! How does crucifying him and ruining his reputation "help the poor victims"?

That's why he's a scape goat: WHEN HAVE YOU OR THE BOSTON GLOBE OR ALL THE OTHER OUTRAGED PEOPLE OUT THERE LEVELED YOUR GUNS AT THE ACTUAL PRIESTS???? WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES, WHO ARE THEIR FRIENDS? WHAT SEMINARY DID THEY ATTEND, WHO WAS THEIR SPIRITUAL DIRECTOR, WHO WAS THEIR RECRUITER, WHAT BOOKS DID THEY READ, WHO TAUGHT THEM, WHO CARRIED WATER FOR THEIR CAUSES. ETC ETC.???

Silence. This is proof positive for me that we are dealing with scapegoats: those who actually had a hand in the abuse are NOT routinely savaged online or on the air. Their seminaries and theologians...are not questioned. Instead Peter is blamed for Judas' crimes.

Where is the witch hunt to track down all the people DIRECTLY involved in these guys' formation, ordination, and abuse? Everyone knows "Cd Law" is somehow involved. He resigned and was exiled to Rome. His reputation in tatters.

But notice how those DIRECTLY involved get a complete pass. Sure the priests in question went to jail...but how many of THEIR names are daily, obsessively getting rehashed and re-broadcast with their crimes? How many can you list off the top of your head?

2? 3? why not more?

NONE of their fellow travellers, none of their hip theologian and friendly chancery pals have had to suffer for their involvement in this scandal.

NONE of the causes they were involved with, none of the ideologies and parties, none of the activites and practices, are called to task for their involvement in the culture of abuse.

Yeah, let's blame "the institutional church", let's find the highest official "who should have known" (minus an inquisition, minus a loyal cadre of chancery officials, minus a friendly media) and have him hung, drawn and quartered. Oh, and when the exhaustive John Jay study comes out proving that 85% of all abuse occured between priests and teenage boys (i.e. homosexuality) let's drop the whole topic altogether and direct all our righteous anger and hatred on some old bishop and get all mad that he still has a pension and hasn't been summarily executed.

And then, sitting on our high emotional horse, let's claim that it is "concern for the poor victims that makes me mad". SURE it is.

If you cared one wit for the victims you'd be directing your anger and wrath AT THE ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO DID THE ABUSE, WHO TRAINED THE ABUSERS, WHO COVERED THEM, WHO AGREED WITH THEM, WHO GAVE THEM A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH IN PSYCH EXAMS, ETC.

You'd be angry with the Psychological community, with the liberal theologians, with the low standards of formation in the 1960's and 1970's...you'd be angry with the bishops who governed the Archdiocese of Boston WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY DOING MOST OF THEIR ABUSE!

Just because you're angry doesn't give you or me or anyone a blank check to throw out Catholic moral law, canon law, or common sense. But sadly, this is PRECISELY what scape-goating does.

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 17, 2004.


Oh I see... if only we just haul Law off and shoot him, then drag his corpse behind an SUV, burn it and then have it fed to the birds...miraculously all those churches in Boston won't have to be sold to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars (more than half of which will go to line the pockets of the trial lawyers and not pay for on-going therapy and care of the victims).

And naturally it was the Cardinal who personally recruited, trained, taught, ordained, and walked the pedophile priests into each parish, then personally drove them from psychological clinic to secular psychological clinic, personally heard their confessions, personally interviewed their victims, and personally transferred them to new parishes after personally erasing their records, right?

Yes, and all this wickedness of the cardinal will be annihilated and Boston will once more be made holy if only we all get in the habit of daily recalling the cardinal's name in order to condemn it and spit on his memory! Yes, the victims will magically forget their hurts and be restored to health and happiness, once his name forever becomes a slur and curse word.

And only if those "meanspirited" institutional church defenders would cease claiming the absurd theory that the actual abusers and their enablers are guilty rather than some churchman who happened to be in the same time zone!

Don't they realize that TRUE therapy for victims requires more than friends, family, lawyers and support groups of every type and stripe? True therapy requires more than long prison sentences or execution for the actual abusers... true justice and therapy requires that half the bishops and all the cardinals within 10,000 miles of Boston get summarily executed and their names forever destroyed. Then, magically, all will be right again, right?

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 17, 2004.


John, I am not a lawyer. I honestly think that they moved them out of pastural reasons, not legal reasons though. The reason why I think that is because they were left in office for a long period because of pastural reasons, not legal ones (i.e., they were to clean up their own messes). I think the Vatican is primarily motivated by pastural motivations.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 17, 2004.


Concerned Catholic,

While I agree with you that there are many people who bear responsibility for the abuse scandals that are likely to escape earthly punishment. I will point out that Cardinal Law was the leader of the Boston Archdiocese and of course, to be a leader means to be a servant. Was he an effective servant for the people of Boston, in my opinion no. He should have resigned long before he was pushed to resign, because if he had a servants heart he would have realized that he was not being effective.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), June 17, 2004.


Hey Bill, I agree with you. Your spelling of "pastoral" gives me the giggles, just a thought :)

James, if memory serves me right the Pope rejected the cardinal's first attempt to resign. The point is, the church is not a democracy. Had the cardinal resigned earlier and the Pope accepted, churches and schools would still be closing.

Marylu, there are several ways of "punishing" the cardinal some of which would fit the "crime" and none of which would include sending him to work with the sisters of calcutta. First, he's not a nun or a woman, so he can't join the order. Second, he's still a cardinal. Finally, their work is a labor of love, not a punishment and it should always be done voluntarily. I accept that you can be angry. I am, too. I want you to know that I am not anger by what you wrote but by the whole thing. However, I still love my church very much.

Recently, about 3 weeks ago, I received an email from my aunt in Vietnam that the pastor had been reassigned due to scandal. The same took over pastorship when the former pastor an, elder priest, his godfather and who has passed away, was taken by communists in 1975 for "reeducation". He has been constantly mired in sexual scandal. Years ago, accusations were going around that he had an affair with another aunt of mine and also the same aunt who emailed, before they were married. The rumors were always unfounded and the aunt who emailed me now has 7 kids. The latest scandal revolves around a family who said that their daughter who is married was raped by the priest. The woman has children and has come forward and apologized for the accusations which were unfounded. Her father has also publicly apologized in church. I guess it the bishop was just being cautious and figured there was enough friction between the pastor and parishioners. It's kinda sad considering all the love he put into the church. He actually raised the funds for a new church after it was found out that the old one had a faulty foundation and was leaning (it was a beautiful thing, stone and marble construction, round and split-leveled). Being the only priest in town, he has baptized and given first communion to many including myself and a younger sister of mine(though the elder priest was still around when I was baptized).

Well, I don't know what else to say. There are such wonderful priests around. It is frustrating being through the media blizt and knowing that some priests have been victimized who have done nothing wrong...and perhaps as far away as Vietnam, though again, that could be just a cautious bishop. Thought, I should share that if it's any comfort to you.

God Bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 18, 2004.


"If you "didn't know" that your child abused drugs, stole the car keys from you, drove out and robbed the bank... wouldn't we all be in a position - using your own measure - to claim "you COULD HAVE KNOWN...SO IF YOU DIDN'T, THEN THE ROBBERY WAS ACTUALLY YOUR FAULT?" and if you aren't sent to prison along with your son...wouldn't this - according to your moral reasoning - be an injustice???"

Only a really clueless or bad parent wouldn't know what was going on with their own kids who are living under their roof. REALLY bad analogy here. And actually, if the child is a minor, you will definitely be held accountable, at least in civil court. Also, I have heard that even with older children--say college age, but you're still carrying them as a dependent for tax/insurance purposes because you're providing them support--you can still be held civilly responsible because you are supporting them.

Italy is hardly punishment for anyone. We're not talking some third or fourth world country, or even Rural Appalachia (sp?) in this country.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 18, 2004.


Thank you, GT.

As for Cardinal Law not knowing about it, didn't the Cardinal have staff meetings with his Bishops? He knew, they knew, everyone in the church knew - they didn't care.

Also, I read a book about ten years ago (or more) called "Lead Us Not Into Temptation) written by a very devout Catholic journalist - so, if he knew about it that means that the Cardinal knew about it. Every priest, every bishop and every Cardinal knew what was going on but chose to ignore it, chose to shove it under the rug and maybe it will go away. They practiced the "code of silence" then, and practice it still.

Also, how did the Cardinals account to Rome for all the hus money that was spent.

I don't mean to be disrespectful here in any way. I love my Lord Jesus, and I am devoted to Mary. However, we cannot stay silent when we see wrongs done - even if it does involve our church - or I should say those who run the church. We must accept the hurtful truth that there is corruption in the Catholic Church and we must pray, pray, pray..I don't think God wants us to remain silent when we see wrongs that are committed - just because it involves his holy priests.

Recently, I went to confession and talked to the priest about my feelings on this. He said, don't worry about it you are not the only one coming in here and talking about this. I didn't even get to finish my confession, was given absolution, not asked to say the Act of Contrition....he couldn't wait to get me out of there.

I think it is pretty sad when we cannot even confess our anger to a priest - they just do not want to discuss it.

It is the little people we must fight for - those who do not have a voice - or whose voices are not heard. I bring up Enron again. Can you imagine having worked your entire life and have nothing to show for it when you retire? All the CEO's of that company should pool their monies (hidden in Swiss bank acounts) and do right by those employees who are suffering now because of their greed.

Can you imagine having to go through the rest of your life fighting depression, low self-esteem, trust issues, shame, etc....because of what happened to you as a child and no one cared?

By transferring Cardinal Law to Rome, the Vatican is showing these adult-survivors that they don't really care - they care about their own and that, indeed, is very, very sad.

Enough on this subject matter - Cardinal Law and "all" the others have to stand before our God one day just like we do.

As for me, I will always fight for those on the outside looking in - always. As for getting a grip, don't worry about me, I am quite fine thank you.

-- MaryLu (mlc3272@juno.com), June 18, 2004.


Marylu, I'm not trying to insult you.

I agree that Law could be better, could have acted differently, could have governed with a different style. But unlike you, I know that the actual facts are far more complex than the way most angry Catholics want them to be. This urgent desire to oversimplify something and then heap all blame on ONE MAN... proves to me that this is scapegoating and won't solve anything. It certainly won't help the victims heal.

You exhibit a common reaction: you're disgusted with X and want something done...anything to make you feel better. The trouble comes from the particular "thing" you think will solve the problem and make you "feel better". It won't.

It's like gardening with nuclear weapons - you kill the weeds, and everything else for miles around. Anger with some 3rd party also isn't necessarily matter for confession either. Catholics don't go to confession to "vent" we go there to confess OUR sins! We're not there to gossip on and on about how mad we are that someone ELSE's (sins in our humble opinion) but to ask pardon for OUR sins against God and others.

I know this sounds harsh but... the Pharisee in Jesus' parable also prayed thanking the Lord he wasn't a sinner like the tax collector...I imagine the priest probably was thinking something along these lines..."ok so the cardinal is stupid, bad, awful and should be shot...what has this to do with YOUR confession?"

You mention 1 author who by the way is hardly "a very devout Catholic". He wasn't then, and he's not now a "devout" Catholic. He believes in all sorts of heterodox things. He's also not even the last word in journalism when it comes to this issue. Even the Wanderer newspaper was yelling about isolated scandals and bad seminaries and bad dioceses and the lavender mafia since the 1980s! Did secular newspapers like the Globe pick up on their scoops? NO. I wonder why? I also wonder why Jake didn't quote ALL the available source material in his book... if it was so exhaustive.

Now that the scandal blew up and it's been exhaustively revealed that this was a crisis of holiness caused by a culture of theological dissent and moral depravity (i.e. homosexuality) the mainstream press has again dropped the whole story. I wonder why?

Throughout it all, the constant Media theme has been to attack "the institution" and bishops. 20/20 hindsight is always used on them for failing to connect dots. But neither you nor most "angry" Catholics (except this angry Catholic) has asked for the names of the actual priests involved, their seminaries, their recruiters, their teachers and professional therapists, the magazines and books they read, the clubs and parties they belonged to, the circles they hung out at... in short, the ACTUAL people involved!

Why do you continue to stress that all these awful crimes could have been a) known by Cardinal Law before the scandal forced it into the daylight, b) before veritable armies of professional investigators poured through diocesan files, c) before the priests in question confessed under pressure d) before the psychological profession itself confessed that pedophilia cannot be cured e) before there was any legal and canonical mechanism giving bishops dictatorial power over their priests?

Yes, surprised about e)? In the 1980's the Pope himself took heat for trying to reign in liberal theologians! If the Pope himself couldn't sack some wayward priest without the knee-jerk anti-Catholic Boston Globe turning the lib into a martyr...what do you suppose would have happened to Cd Law had he tried to quietly sack 80 priests of the archdiocese?

Maybe you think the Media would have gotten the story right and been on his side "to protect the children". But ask yourself, when was the LAST TIME the "Media" went out of its way to support a bishop's disciplinary action on men BEFORE a major scandal has erupted? It would have been spun as "yet another heavy handed, meanspirited, patriarchically blinkered attempt of evil small minded bishops to enforce medieval morality on a hip, cool, happy, popular diocese stunned by Institutional allegations of wrong doing".

And, chances are, had he even tried to do something in the 1990's against these guys the reining Psychological profession would have slapped him down with "studies" claiming that those priests were healed and thus shouldn't be removed from office. The Media would have howled about homophobic witchhunts while the US Church was being scared by the "priest-shortage" crisis.

This is why forgetfulness of past history and ignorance of the actual situation of a given circumstance makes for DISASTEROUS AND INJUST moral judgments....i.e. blaming the wrong guy or punishing a minor player for the crimes of a major player or group of people.

Scapegoaters condense 20 years of slow revelations and discovery into 1 day, imagine the last man in charge knew "it all from the beginning", imagine that he had total control of his own diocese, and then fault him for not doing enough!

You keep insisting that the only way to heal the victims is for the cardinal to be sent to prison or sent to a gulag, and at the very least having his reputation constantly destroyed is somehow therapuetic! How so???

Instead of focusing on the real victims and real therapy and acknowledging that for every victim there exists a hundred or more friendly people to care for them: family, friends, therapists, lawyers, judges, police, and non-profit organizations, as well as a sympathetic media...you are angry that Law hasn't been hurt more????

Answer my question: name more than 3 of the actual pedophiles please. Name the seminaries they went to, name the bishops who ordained them and Law's predecessors in Boston (he wasn't there during the 1960's and 1970's when the lion's share of abuse happened).

Realise that you are judging people with 20/20 hindsight by insisting "that they knew, everyone knew..." Knew WHAT? Did Law have a master list of priests who had been PROVEN child abusers? no. Did he have even a clear list to separate those accused from those convicted, to distinguish between those who supposedly were sent for healing and given a clean bill of health by MEDICAL professionals as opposed to those who hadn't? NO.

Was his chancery filled with highly professional people with the time and skills and awareness needed to systematically review all priest's files from the preceeding 50 years to root out the bad apples? NO. (Remember the Church gave up the Inquisition long ago...)

By simplifying the hugely complex situation into a simple "he knew and didn't do anything, let's execute or exile him" you do real INJUSTICE to the situation and perpetuate the scape-goat mentality which DOESN'T GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

Just because you're mad doesn't give you the charism of infallibility or a Solomon's wisdom in judging people's moral guilt.

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 18, 2004.



Dear Concerned Catholic,

I do not go to confession to 'gossip.' I do not need you to analyze me and do not appreciate it. I find that extremely insulting.

The situation is not as complex as you may have it - don't forget that many of our Catholic priests called for Cardinal Law's resignation. I am not judging his sins, but judging his crime - he, and others in the hierachy committed a crime - covering up sexual abuse and not reporting them is a crime - no matter who committed the crime - even a priest.

I did not initiate this thread, I just responded to it. Who are you to say someone is not a devout Catholic.

We go to confession to confess our sins - yes, not to gossip. If we are feeling angry about something we have every right to bring that up in the confessional. A priest has no right to absolve one's sins before a confession is completed. Talking about one's feelings on such a serious issue as this is gossiping??? I say not.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 18, 2004.


MaryLu,

Don't ask, don't tell. You've told so much. Ah, but what's done is done. 5-10 minutes is the usual. More time should be given to the young and converts - those who are still unsure. In the interests of time and to know your contrition, evaluate your conscience ahead. The confessional is for those contrite with sins to confess, not a place to air gripes or have conversations. That's what we're taught, right? The best thing to do is call the priest, or come in for consultation. That's what I do :)

The parish I was in when the scandal broke was very open about it. There were lots of homilies on the vocation even when it was not vocation week. Often after mass, the priests would also stop and talk about the scandal, and you could tell there was alot of communication going on because he would say he talked to some and they would nod their heads in acknowledgement. Priests at my home parish also had no problems talking about it. I used to work in the rectory when I was in high school, so I've stopped by to visit and talked about it on at least one occasion. There's also been alot of talk about it when I was attending RCIA with my fiance this past year. No one I know seems to be afraid to approach the priests about it.

Honestly, I don't think your situation was about rubbing the priest a wrong way or him not wanting to talk about it. It was not the proper time. The priest was wrong to give you absolution. He should have yelled at you for not following the rules and told you to come back when you're ready to make proper penance. But then, that could have caused a scandal :) So you may be right, there's a coverup going on here. Shame on him!

God Bless you MaryLu,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 18, 2004.


We had one of Law's shuffle boys in our Pre-Vat II parish. This foul priest went on to some even more unbelieveable positions with boys and young men before he was allowed to retire to Florida in 1991 on a medical leave.

Since the story broke and the victims have been talking some it is unreal what the guy got away with after he had been outed to Law. Don't be confused, Law isn't taking all the wrath. These individual priests get the blame but you can't help but look to Law as well. He clearly and consienceously let the matter slide, rather that work it out while predators like Rozenkranz had their way with the altar boys.

Law is at least disgraced. His Boston kingdom is in real trouble and those are some of the more obvious results of his inepitude. The bell will resound for a long time on this very dark period.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 19, 2004.


MaryLu, I agree Cd Law made a lot of mistakes and it was right that he left, but your comparison with Enron is unfair. The Enron directors deliberately did something they knew was wrong and would harm the company for the motive of pure greed. Cd Law and others who "hushed up" these crimes, thought, in the vast majority of cases, that they were doing the right thing for the good of the (real or alleged) victims and for the Church as a whole (i.e. you and me and everyone else). They wanted to prevent "scandal" - which does NOT mean the tabloid meaning of scandal - "bad PR". It means they didn't want to "scandalize" ordinary people (i.e. make them more prone to sin) by publicizing heinous sins committed by someone like a priest who should set an example of morality. We see today now that these offenses have been publicized, many people HAVE indeed been scandalized - they say "I'm not going to follow the Church's teachings on sexual morality, because (some) priests themselves don't follow it". This is what those who "hushed up" things wanted to avoid.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 20, 2004.

So, Steve, you are saying that the Enron scandal happened because of greed (true) but the church scandal was kept quiet all those years because the Cardinals wanted to save souls. If that is what you really think, so be it...

Either way you look at it, innocent people were hurt - whether we are talking about Enron employees or innocent children. Lives were damaged and some souls lost - children committed suicide and so did some employees of Enron as a result of depression.

It is very sad. I will leave the judging up to God himself; after all, it is only God that truly knows the hearts of man and what makes man commit the evils they do. None of us really know.

I do apologize for my severe reaction to this particular topic. This topic just happens to bring out the worst in me. May God forgive me, once again for judging the sins of man and may His justice prevail in the end, not mine.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 20, 2004.


Steve,

Cardinal Law was a terrible leader to his flock! Its sad that you would say he did what he did, so people wouldn't think, " I'm not going to follow the Churches teaching on sexual morality." Worry about what people think (think) and throw the dog[s] another bone????????

Its ludicrous to think this way. You're the same guy "spouting" off to Eugene about the war for months now. How in the world do you think the Vatican knows everything about the war when they didn't even know what was going on under their own roof? How many millions and millions were paid out in damages and settlements because they didn't want to go to trial?

I doubt any of this pathetic garbage would of went on if President Bush was Cardinal of Boston.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 20, 2004.


Steve,

If you compare dollar amounts than the emron scandal and the other scandal are probably close.

You said," CD. Law and others who"hushed up" these crimes...."

This shows you right here that this is the actions of a man that isn't a good leader of his flock and their children. Who "hushes" something this evil? When good men do nothing than evil thrives, as evident by the failure of this man letting evil be moved around.[ Note how President Bush stepped up and apologised when he found out about the prison scandal you always complain about. He worked on the problem by attacking the cancer right away]

It is a infalliable teaching of the Church that a gay man can't be ordained as a Catholic priest. Why did he shuffle people around and put them in a postion to harm other kids and young adults.

"...vast majority of cases, that they were doing the right thing..."

Steve vast majority is not good enough when it comes to children! If he wasn't sure in 100% of them than he put kids in grave danger! Putting one child in danger "in harms way"(where a pervert will lust after them and try and have sex)is so WRONG!

I have read some stuff that would "blow your mind" on some of the priests that were shuffled around.

May God bless our Holy Catholic Church and provide us with leaders that will look out for our children,our future leaders.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 20, 2004.


Olly,

Talk about "kicking someone to the curb?" Check out this thread./ I'm sorry to see you so abused M.L when you answer a question to a thread.

Vincent,

You said to M.L. " ...the priest was wrong to give you absolution..."

This is NOT a call you should make.Please break this bad habit right NOW! You are wrong to say this to try and put this youg lady down because you don't agree with her. Please don't start questioning the Sacrament.

"..He should have yelled at you for not following the rules..."

How dare you speak to my friend this way. She doesn't deserve to be "yelled" at by any one. What are your "rules"?

-- - (David@excite.com), June 20, 2004.


Vincent,

I too must say that I am surprised at your comments. Normally I think I agree with everything you say. Mary Lu did not say there was a coverup or some concerted effort. She merely said that this priest did not want to talk about it. She did not say she wanted to gripe, she said she wanted to confess her anger. She should be commended for this. There can be a dialogue in the confessional. And furthermore, she received absolution without an Act of Contrition. What's up with that.

Concerned Catholic,

You make some good points about the actual abusers in the Boston archdiocese receiving less publicity than Cardinal Law, but so what. The doesn't change the fact that a tremendous amount of horrible abuses happened on his watch. You seem to say that many of these abuses were unbeknownst to him. You're entitled to that opinion but I disagree. Knowingly or unknowingly his lack of pastoral care caused a tremendous amount of harm to the Church's reputation, and has caused some Catholics to question or leave the faith and has caused some non-Catholics to look askance at the faith.

Either way his "exile" to Rome can hardly be considered harsh penance. It could be thought of as being treated with kid gloves.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 21, 2004.


Quit going after MaryLu. She didn't cause this problem. She has every right to discuss this anywhere (even in the confessional). It's about the only time you can talk to a real priest these days.

By the way, the reason many of the pedophiles haven't been in court, is because they are either dead, or too infirm due to age. Which wouldn't have happened if people in charge had done their jobs....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 21, 2004.


Hi!

I realize I have added to the excessive hyperbole in this thread. That realization gives me no comfort. I apologize if MaryLu's feelings have been hurt by my actions.

Let's back up a bit here. I go back to Concerned Catholic's first post.

Catholic morality holds that you can't impute MORAL culpability to someone based solely on his known actions: intent and circumstances have to be taken into account

Therein lies the heart of the matter and is the crux of all arguments that one should hold judgement against Cardinal Law. This is the truth.

It's inarguable that the extent of His Eminence Cardinal Law culpability has not been ascertained in this case. It's non-sequitor and a slippery slope to suggest that Law who has exhibited no affinity for pedophilia somehow purposely allowed John Geoghan or anyone else to continue to molest children. There would be no word foul enough in english to describe him in such a case because one with episcopal authority, with papal potential and at the very least, the ability to vote in papal elections should have known better. However, if one argues for that case, then one calls into question the Holy See's moral authority.

Next, there is the issue of culpability based on negligence. Again, this has not been ascertained. There was recently some talk of a lawsuit to this effect. So to answer John Placette's original question, I'm not sure exactly how the legal system would work if Law is now in Rome. As the lawsuit would be based on events that happened in the US, pertains to when he was Cardinal of Boston, and considering that the Cardinal has not renounced citizenship yet, I do not believe the fact that he now resides in Rome prevents the lawsuit from being filed - and it would be filed against the Archidiocese of Boston by default. As an example, though John Geoghan was defrocked, the Archdiocese still had to settle the lawsuit with the victims.

Regarding the Sacrament of Penance, I'm not a legalist or a priest. However, I do have the CCC and a pamphlet by the Bishops of Pennsylvannia. The priest has authority to give the penitent advice and reassurance. However, GT, you are wrong. It is not the penitent's right to demand conversation. Also, I did not suggest that MaryLu was "airing her gripe" with the priest, so be careful how you judge. I made a statement as to how I was taught and I assume since I am speaking to catholics, you all would have been taught the same way. Am I old-school? I have been yelled at in the confessional. It's not a big deal and can be a very good thing. I have found out along the way, most recently during Catechism class, that most people have some experience with this. Though I must admit, I was somewhat facetious when I made the statement.

Brian, saying the Act of Contrition is not de facto the only way to end a confession. My pamphlet says so. What is needed is a show of contrition.

Regarding the sin of anger. IMHO, outrage and anger is justified and is a means to an end when a moral evil is seen perpetrated. What is wrong with being angry that some priests actions hew at the moral sanctity of the priesthood...and threaten the salvation of those under their care by creating separation between them and the mother church? These priests are the ones responsible. Nevertheless, extra care must be taken that WE do not attack the sanctity of the priesthood so that WE are also not culpable. In such a way, we should avoid criticism of ecclesiastical norms, especially the sacraments, until we have a fuller understanding of the personal situations that we meet. Is this wrong to say?

Further, let us realize that if we should meet Cardinal Law in person, he is deserving of utmost respect as a one of the pontiff's chief helpers. He is still his Eminence, correct me if I'm wrong. To do otherwise colludes that we do not agree with the Pope's moral authority on who should or should not be Cardinal, correct me if I'm wrong again. One who is cardinal should not be subject to any punitive action short of excommunication...or defrocking? To do anything else is demeaning to the apostolic seat. This argument cannot be subjective.

Now, comparisons of this scandal with Enron is apt to the degree that the priests are likened to Enron execs. However, to apply the same example to Cardinal Law is absurd and smacks of relativism. I should like to point out again as Concerned Catholic has, that "leading the flock astray" involves moral culpability. Bishops don't amble through life listlessly ignorant of the teachings of the church. That is the truth.

Finally, if you hold that I should reserve judgement, how much more should that stay your criticisms of Cardinal Law?

Again, I am sorry that I did not take personal sensitivities into account. I will try harder.

God Bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 21, 2004.


"It's non-sequitor and a slippery slope to suggest that Law who has exhibited no affinity for pedophilia somehow purposely allowed John Geoghan or anyone else to continue to molest children."

The certain evidence was on his desk for many years and in multiple forms. Victims were hollering it out. He ignored them. He closed the door in their faces while many named priests bent little boys over in the vestry. It is fact. What'd he think? They were all making it up?

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 22, 2004.


First, I don't claim Law to be perfect or to be the best archbishop Boston has ever had. Nor do I claim to feel good about his past performance or governing style.

Second, I have been hopping mad about these pedophile, homosexual priests for YEARS, wondering when in the world the mainstream press was going to DO something...I know what bureaucracy in the church is like - I've met the terroristic DRE's and the so- called "liberal" "open-minded" pastors who are more clerical than the supposed "bad old days"...more concerned with changing the carpet than actually preaching about moral issues!

I have had my share of grief and frustration with chanceries and bishops who for mysterious reasons don't seem to "get it" with respect to basic Catholic moral and theological teaching and how both are connected.

But rather than stereotype ALL bishops, priests, DRE's etc. as some big-bad "institutional" church, I see them for the frail and fallible human beings we all are, and realize that while all Catholics strive to "be perfect as Our heavenly Father is perfect" we're all still works in progress...AND I fully realize that in the last 20 years there has been a schism brewing in the Church in the West thanks in part to stupid theologians and their mindless minions, as well as blindsided bishops who trained to be administrators rather than heroic pastors.

So I understand that "the church" isn't some homogenous monolith composed of the same type and sort of people - not at all! Because of this realistic view of things I know full well that "Boston" isn't some simple backwater diocese easy to break and easy to put together again.

Because of the sheer complexity of the actual situation, quick judgments about who's to blame and who should be hung, drawn and quartered and then vilified forever strikes me as simplistic at best and seriously unjust at worse.

My sole place here is this: your vitriolic, angry posts against Cd Law strikes me as extremely odd given the FACTS (not myths) of the situation. By aiming all the guns on HIM rather than the guys who actually did the crimes...and all their allies in the Boston area...what could be going on besides scape-goating?

You, Chris, know for sure, that Law KNEW exactly what was going on? You know for SURE that he had nothing else to do in the Archdiocese of Boston than look through his personnel files and analyse who was accused of sexual abuse...and there was NO other personnel in the Chancery who got in the way or distracted him?

In short, you KNOW FOR SURE that HE and He ALONE is the sole moral responsibility for all the mess, and if only the US legal system could first sue, then execute him, and the US Media system could launch an eternal smear campaign against his reputation...all would be restored to harmony and joy?

Scape-goating is an age-old human temptation. You in fact, DON'T KNOW what you "believe" to be true. But you're willing to smear his reputation ANYWAY!

You don't know - but you believe - what his involvement, and knowledge and thus, moral culpability is...

Tell me, what else about Cardinal Law do you know? Anything? What else about his governance do you understand? When was he ordained and for which diocese? When was he ordained a bishop and where did he first serve? When was he placed in charge of Boston? What sorts of things occupy a Cardinal's time and how much exactly must he delegate? I don't suppose there are auxilliary bishops there huh? I don't suppose the complaints and accusations and police reports pass through some secretary's desk either huh?

Of course, you - in your imagination - believe that not only is he morally guilty for the free acts committed by anyone within the same time zone, but that he should also be omniscient and omnipotent - despite all defects of personnel beneath him, despite all other demands made on him... no, he and he alone shall pay the price for sin while the rest of Boston gets off scott free - and that's called Justice?

What opposition groups and theologians and pressure groups confronted him daily there? What dynamics within the Chancery kept his pro-life activities to a minimum? What local priest-senates and lay groups constantly demanded his attention and were lighting rods for lay complaints? How many FALSE accusations do you suppose he dealt with?

Have you ever heard him speak? Have you met him in person? What is the source of your information (and if this source happens to also be anti-Catholic how accurate do you suppose it to be? 100%?)

In short, alot of you who are dumping on Law don't know much about anything to do with Cardinal Law himself....but you believe 100% what you read in the paper and you IMAGINE alot more than what has actually been printed. Then, based on the high summit of your imagination and outrage you cast infallible moral judgments on his culpability - certain that HE AND HE ALONE is the effective cause of the corruption.

And you admit that neither the actual pedophiles nor their seminaries, nor their ideological pals, nor all the host of social and theological allies they had, should bear equal responsibility and should receive the same vitriolic and undying hatred and wrath that Law must endure.

Somewhere along the line the american principle of innocent until PROVEN GUILTY has been lost. Now we have trials by a hostile media, which doesn't allow the defendant equal time and certainly doesn't allow a defendant or his "legal team" opportunity to defend their honor. Canon law too has been jettisoned - and the accused can be completely destroyed instantly by a single accusation - which DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PROVEN to annihilate 50 years of work.

And you imagine this new regime is just and "catholic"?

I tell you all - precisely because you are SO QUICK to pile on Law, and so IGNORANT of the actual names and parties and allies of the REAL PEDOPHILES, that you are unjustly making a scape-goat out of this man - (who, by the by, since he is a cardinal, IS a citizen of the Vatican city-state).

Let's all pretend that this attitude of yours is "catholic". Let's try using it on every OTHER situation and group, starting with you guys.

-- Concerned Catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 22, 2004.


"..Furthur, let us realize that if we would meet Cardinal Law in person, he is deserving the utmost respect as one of the Pontiff's chief helpers."

And children deserve the "utmost respect" as children of God. No man should ever turn his head when a innocent child is sexually abused. Cardinal Law did a terrible job! Stop trying to make excuses for this guy. Men like you would rather scold M.L than admit this guy is one of the worst leaders we have ever seen in the Catholic Church.

"..Bishops don't ambe through life listessly ignorant of the teaching of the Church. This is the truth."

Somebody was ignorant of one infalliable teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Gay men can't be ordaned as priests. If the rules would of been followed this wouldn't of happened.

The Church will never error on faith and morals. But there will always be sinners around. Don't ever be afraid to step up and complain out loud when children are WRONGED! I'm sure the devil loved having a man like him in charge. The devil would love to see all children raped and thrown in dumpsters.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 22, 2004.


Hi Vincent, I did not of course mean "demand" conversation in the sense of holding up other people wishing to go to confession. But if you're the last one there, why not? As I said, it is very difficult to talk to any priest outside of Mass--even for the sacraments, let alone conversation about important issues such as this one.

However, some here seem to think that being interested in seeing that those who had some part in this, whether through direct guilt or through perhaps "benign neglect" get some sort of punishment are themselves in a state of sin for feeling that way, and I disagree with that. But, if some DO feel that way, then the confessional is the best place to bring it up, don't you think?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 22, 2004.


David, for pete's sake just because you're outraged doesn't make you infallible, doesn't make your moral judgments right! Yes children (and teenage boys) were raped. Yes, homosexual priests are the problem...but neither you nor the Boston Globe, nor anyone else has PROVEN that Law KNEW all the details that only after an exhaustive investigation came to light...and then sat on them.

We know for a FACT that his signature was a stamp - those glowing letters to the priests were form letters. Surprise surprise. Well, who is his secretary? Bet you don't know.

We know for a FACT that Cd Law offered to resign but that the Pope told him to stay for awhile.

We know for a FACT that cd Law WASN'T in charge of Boston while most of the crimes occured and when most of the parents complained, or when most of the settlements occured.

We know for a FACT that Cd Law hasn't been charged by US courts or proven guilty...so all your anger and desire to see blood notwithstanding... you are barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, let's see people punished. But Law? Of all the bishops in the USA he's one of the LEAST responsible for the rot and corruption that festered and produced this scandal. Yet you are all piling on HIM.

Yet you refuse to accept your moral responsibility in this scape- goating. You think you're really on the moral high ground here, because anger justifies it?!

This is a Catholic site...name the canon, name the CCC, name the gospel verse wherein cd Law has no rights, ought to be held guilty until proven innocent, and ought to be blamed as the culprit for the crimes of those who were disobedient to him and to the faith?

You might as well blame the Pope and then God for "allowing evil"...it's like blaming Pius XII for Hitler or the holocaust - begging the question as to who knew what, when, and who had the power to do what, when.

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 22, 2004.


Of all the bishops in the USA he's one of the LEAST responsible for the rot and corruption that festered and produced this scandal. Yet you are all piling on HIM.

That is quite a statement. Again, your point that we should try and resist scapegoating Cardinal Law completely and place more blame on the actual abusers like Geoghan is well taken. But you are going waaaay overboard defending Cardinal Law when you make statements like the one above. This sounds personal. Is it?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 22, 2004.


I know that most people zing off posts with sloppy thinking. I know I make grammatical errors at times. However my arguments aren't so. Key word is "one"... Cardinal Law is "ONE of the Least responsible for the rot and corruption..."

In other words, I'm sure many other bishops have had less of a hand in the current situation than he. My whole posting is to say, look, he's not perfect but he's not the evil monster many of you are claiming he is.

Sure I think he could have done a better job...but, and this is the big BUT, hindsight is ALWAYS clearer than the view of things from within the scrum and while he had some information I seriously doubt he had all that was available.

We know that the professionals (lawyers and psychologists and "child therapists" and other wonks) were saying one thing throughout the 1990's and that was that "families wanted this kept quiet" and "offenders have been treated and are cured". Sure we can now all claim that this is stupid and bad and dumb and horrible....but how many can honestly claim to routinely go against "the professional world's opinion" about other matters?

It's the short memory syndrome of American pop culture that feeds this time-warp idea that just because we know something today with clarity, everyone knew it back in the day with equal clarity.... thus "failure to connect the dots" is damnable.

Trouble is... TODAY's problems are opaque to most of us...

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 22, 2004.


Concerned Catholic

You have a style very similiar to Joe's. Not saying its Joe, but I have wondered. If you are that concerned and believe what you say why hide behind your alias?

"..you might as well blame the pope and God for allowing evil.."

I'm not blaming God for anything. He gave man his own free will to do as he chooses. But, I'm saying Cd. Law was a very sad leader who didn't look out for children as best he could.

Maybe you should send him a few lines and tell him how great you think he is, or how great he handled the situation[s]? You arn't convincing anyone in this thread what a great holy man he is, and its like were "accusing God". LOL Gimme me a break!!

It not that hard to use your common sense bud. Rule# 1- After a homosexual has been accused of mollesting a child don't ever give him a job aroung children again and make sure you tell the proper authorities and parents. Don't play musical chairs. Children need adults to look out for them not put them in with "chicken hawks" that will lust after their innocence.

I don't think I'm infalliable. This is called using "COMMOM SENSE" and not keep my head burried in the sand like you do. He has a great track record doesn't he?

-- - (David@excite.com), June 22, 2004.


[quote]"You, Chris, know for sure, that Law KNEW exactly what was going on?"[/quote] Yep. Two of my classmates wrote in detail the goings on of a priest named Rozencranz to Law, while Rozencranz was running a program for boys in Salem MA. They had been molested by Rozencranz a few years before the letters went out. They followed up the letters with requests for interviews with Law, which he ignored. One of these victims had some of his accounts published in the Boston Globe after the fan got hit. I'll see if I can summon up these accounts and paste them here.

Law actively ignored the victims pleas to eliminate the risk and molestation of more boys in Salem.

Rozencranz finally departed the priesthood, under what circumstances I do not know, but I'll bet you a nickel that it was not pretty.

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 22, 2004.


David and Chris... apparently neither of you are capable of anything but extreme positions: either Cd Law is lily innocent or he's the devil incarnate and should be executed. Well, I beg to differ. Over and over I've said that I think he WASN'T the best archbishop, that he could have been better etc etc etc. All I'm saying is that these problems of his don't make him the monster you in your anger are claiming him to be.

Case in point: you REALLY think a letter sent to a huge archdiocese like Boston comes in and goes straight to the top? You REALLY think he saw that letter and intentionally ignored it? See? You are ASSUMING way too much in making your moral judgments.

I point this out to you... maybe like Joe does... and suddenly I'm the great defender, the great "blind guide" of Law???

Oh I see. If only I would just jump on the bandwagon with the rest of us anonymous "catholics" here (*unlike this Joe guy) and cast stones at someone who we've all placed the chief moral blame on...things would be much better. Well count me out. I'm through will bully tactics.

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.


See you Joe!

I can't keep up with the stuff you come up with ie, executing Cd. Law, accusing Jesus, Cd. Law is the least Cd to blame for this raping boys...etc.....

You go to extremes(making stuff up, hiding behind aliases) to act like your a "concerned Catholic".

If you think you were bullied then imagine how Marylu felt when you were ganging up on her because you didn't agree with her opinion on this terrible leader? Imagine how those boys felt??

As someone told you a few weeks ago. I'll repeat it because its true: Your kind of Catholicism scares me.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 23, 2004.


"See you Joe!"

David, if you want to drag me into this 'argument' then you'd better be prepared to back up each of your statements. Maybe Concerned Catholic will pull punches but I won't.

"I can't keep up with the stuff you come up with ie, executing Cd. Law, accusing Jesus, Cd. Law is the least Cd to blame for this raping boys...etc....."

Um... I've read the whole thread. Where did Concerned accuse Jesus of anything? When did he/she accuse you guys of accusing Jesus?

Last I checked it was PRIESTS who did the raping of boys...and most of the "boys" were young men. And most of the rapes occured in the 1970's and 1980's BEFORE Law became archbishop. So why this constant harping on Law as if he's especially evil, as if he caused the problem or somehow especially kept it going? I agree with concerned...this looks like scapegoating.

But rather than tone it down, admit to hyperbole, admit to going over the top, being a bit uncorked due to anger, you guys ratchet it up! When above have any of you admitted mistakes or being wrong? David, frankly it is this inability of yours to admit mistakes and inability to argue based on evidence which is scary.

"You go to extremes(making stuff up, hiding behind aliases) to act like your a "concerned Catholic"."

Pretty nifty for an anonymous guy like you, DAVID. see above. MOST of you guys on this site use "aliases". Not I. Maybe I should, given the almost rabid responses Concerned Catholic is getting. He/she dares suggest that Law isn't the worst Cd, isn't the primary evildoer here...and is instantly branded a defender???

"If you think you were bullied then imagine how Marylu felt when you were ganging up on her because you didn't agree with her opinion on this terrible leader? Imagine how those boys felt?? "

1) One guy or gal doesn't make a "gang". Concerned Catholic is getting hammered by you, Chris, Marylu, and CT. Since you are going to base your "argument" on feelings, what about Concerned Catholics' FEELINGS? You really want to go the squishy moral relativism route here?

2) Reading that paragraph of CC I took it to mean he/she didn't want to pile on Law the way you guys do.

3) What connection is there between a post on greenspun to an anonymous person like Marylu and "the kids"? What connection is there between Law's status (legal and otherwise) and "healing" for the kids????? How does over-the-top charges against a cardinal, burning his reputation, demanding he be either imprisoned or exiled to slums...going to make a victim FEEL better? Vengance makes people FEEL better? Given all that we know each victim has received in the way of counseling, family, friend, and legal support... how would knowing that Law was utterly destroyed, left without family, friend, and even stranger, his name forever ruined...make it all better?

If anything people like you are training those kids to HATE not to FORGIVE. Some "catholics" you are! Speaking of Jesus, when he saved the woman from stoning was his healing message "go and from now on know that they're all evil doers and will go to hell"?

4) "As someone told you a few weeks ago. I'll repeat it because its true: Your kind of Catholicism scares me."

Since you, anonymous David are going to claim that MY "kind of Catholicism" is scary... let me inform you that MY Catholicism is more grounded in logic and theology than yours. You again go the emotional route - which won't work. Cause two can play that game: you scare me too. There, we're even (emotionally) But who's right (objectively)?

I don't surf the web trying to go ad hominem. I go to the argument and take it on - you seem to always go against the person. If your ARGUMENT or lack thereof reeks of stupidity well, I'll let you know. But that doesn't make YOU stupid. You on the other hand don't seem capable of making the distinction between argument and person.



-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.


David...your email doesn't seem to work...so I can't email this to you personally. I'd prefer NOT to carry on an argument with you on greenspun. If you have serious issues with ME, as opposed to an opinion of mine...let me know. I'm never afraid to speak or meet anyone on the phone or in person. If this is just a pass time and it's all about opinions pro/con, then fine. Best of friends can disagree vociferously yet still be friends. I've avoided the whole thread until now because until now it looked like just differences of opinion about an issue none of us have any control over. My being hopping mad (or not) about Law isn't going to change the sad facts or help the "kids" (most who are now in their 20's and 30's.). Let me know where I can reach you so we can tone this whole debate down (or at least leave me out of it). Peace Joe

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.

Thanks Joe,

I sent you a private email.

Here's something I saw today on the web about arguing and how it's a lost art.

www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo

Nowadays we're not supposed to offer reasons, counterreasons and better reasons. There's not supposed to be any resolution - no debate, no conversion. Just everyone lashing out. Venting.

We're supposed to just emote, feel, or be offended. Then, either enraged or blaise, we can make judgments about other people. Heaven forbid someone disagree with our judgments! Only evil people disagree. And so they SHOULD be shouted down, bullied into summission without reference to facts, reasons, arguments...

I admire your courage and style but I can't follow your lead. Real names...very risky on the internet. You don't know who reads this stuff.

I imagine you're one of the old school types Leo writes about who actually believes there are rules and that words can actually change people's judgments from opinion to belief.

On other threads I have seen you actually defend people - the way I'm NOT defending Law. And you, your motives, your employer, your family...get trashed. Seeing that happen is enough to convince people like me (and everyone else here I suppose) that anonymity isn't cowardly...it's prudent.

I don't know Marylu or David or anyone else. I won't be coming back here. My feelings are hurt and I have reason to fear for my safety too. I think you do too, even if you won't admit it. Like the old TV show says "run Joe, run".

-- concerned catholic (anonymous@yahoo.com), June 23, 2004.


Joe,

You have my address now and I will respect your wishes.

Concerned Catholic,

"...my feelings are hurt and I have reason to fear for my saftey.."

LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff from?? You try and jamb your opinion down everyones throat and when people don't agree you fear for your saftey even when you are hiding behind your alias? :-)

Yesterday you say its the same as blaming God? Did you feel for your saftey when it was three of four of you gang[ing] up on one Lady?

If you can't handle the heat than get out of the kitchen and don't correct people, and don't make crazy statements like C.D. Law is one of the Cardinals least responsible for this and its the same as if were blaming God.

This man didn't look out for his children. He turned his back on them and let some of them get raped. Shame on him!!

-- - (David@excite.com), June 23, 2004.


To get back to the ORIGINAL question, I know each parish is separately incorporated, and also each diocese. I do not know about the entire Catholic Church per se, but thought that in the states the Diocese is the highest level.

Is there an office of the Vatican in the states as in Catholic Church, inc.?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 23, 2004.


Is there an office of the Vatican in the states as in Catholic Church, inc.?

No. The diocese is the highest level in the US, and a diocese can cross state boundries. The bishop of the diocese is in charge of the diocese and he reports to the bishop of Rome (the Pope). In fact, all members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy are answerable to the Pope, in his capacity as Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church, and his Roman Curia. The Pope with his Curia are known collectively as the Holy See.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 23, 2004.


David, the continued allusion to rape is unbecoming especially considering how the subject revolves around sex crimes. Also, if you will continue your pure pathos at least count correctly. I've already addressed this before. Why are you still waving? Depending on how you count Concerned Catholic, you can either not count or count to one. See that was easy. Please give readers and yourself a little more credit.

..Thanks

and may God bless you!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), June 23, 2004.


This has turned into a real soap opera of a thread. David, I didn't get where you thought that Concerned Catholic was Joe. I didn't see the connection at all. Then Joe comes in with a much different take than I would have expected. Then Concerned talks about how the art of arguing is lost, and makes sense, until she says her feelings are hurt, she's afraid and she's not coming back anymore. Good grief, the sensitivity! I'm no techie, but how can someone with an alias and a fake e-mail address be afraid? Concerned, I sincerely hope you re-think your decision and stick around. But if not, take care, God Bless, and be safe.

Brian Crane (my real name)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 23, 2004.


"Steve, Cardinal Law was a terrible leader to his flock! Its sad that you would say he did what he did, so people wouldn't think, " I'm not going to follow the Churches teaching on sexual morality." Worry about what people think (think) and throw the dog[s] another bone????????" (David)

What's "sad" about it? It's a very good reason. It would be wrong if he did it because of worrying about what people would think of him for reasons of personal vanity. If this is what you accuse him of, how can you see into his soul to be able to say this?

"Its ludicrous to think this way. You're the same guy "spouting" off to Eugene about the war for months now.

I think it's actually less than one month that Eugene and I have been discussing the war. You find it inconceivable that I take a so- called "left-wing" view on war and a so-called "right-wing" view on the sexual abuse problem. On the contrary, they both spring in part from my Catholic understanding of the role of bishops. Christ gave us the bishops to lead and guide us. Sometimes bishops make mistakes. Very rarely, the Pope and many bishops all make the same mistake (a tiny needle's eye loophole which Eugene et al try to drive a camel through). But I believe the Pope and bishops are right that the Iraq war was unjust. Until about 10 years ago it was pretty well universally accepted among Catholics that all bishops would quietly move a priest accused of sexual sin to another parish, if the allegation seemed vexatious or if the priest confessed and showed a firm purpose of amendment. Now we have changed the rules and some vilify the bishops of last century for not using this century's rules.

"How in the world do you think the Vatican knows everything about the war when they didn't even know what was going on under their own roof?

Pres Bush and his representatives had several meetings with the Pope and we can be certain they spared no effort in presenting any possible evidence to support their case for the war. The pope condemned it anyway. If he was lacking "intelligence", you can only blame Mr Bush. (Also of course the Pope had sources of intelligence from Catholic sources in Iraq, which the USA did not have access to.) As it has turned out, the Pope was remarkably prescient, as ALL of the supposed reasons for the war have now been demolished. Sexual abusers go to extraordinary lengths to keep it secret. Usually the victim's own family don't find out about it for decades, if at all. How is the Vatican thousands of miles away (not "under its own roof") supposed to know about it?

"How many millions and millions were paid out in damages and settlements because they didn't want to go to trial?"

Well I disagree with the principle of a diocese being sued for the actions of one of its priests, causing the loss of churches that generations have built through the nickels and dimes they contributed faithfully every week even when they couldn't afford it. But hey, that's America.

"I doubt any of this pathetic garbage would of went on if President Bush was Cardinal of Boston."

No, we would probably see a Grand Inquisitor of Massachusetts burning Protestants at the stake. "Steve, If you compare dollar amounts than the emron scandal and the other scandal are probably close." (David)

So what? The point is that the Enron execs deliberately did wrong for foul reasons. AFAIK no-one (besides perhaps you) has seriously accused Cd Law of DELIBERATELY causing children to be harmed.

"Who "hushes" something this evil?"

Someone who wants to prevent millions of further sins caused by scandalizing others and leading them to sin also.

"When good men do nothing than evil thrives"

True, but neither you nor anyone else has shown that Cd Law did NOTHING.

President Bush stepped up and apologised when he found out about the prison scandal you always complain about. He worked on the problem by attacking the cancer right away"

I don't recall "complaining" about the prison abuse even once, let alone "always". You have a strange concept of "right away". The abuse was reported to the top from at least last October. Rumsfeld stated that he ordered at least some of it before the war began. Bush did nothing until the photos cropped up on the evening news and he thought it might affect his election prospects. And don't you think the bishops have apologised, attacked and worked on the problem of sexual abuse by clergy? "It is a infalliable teaching of the Church that a gay man can't be ordained as a Catholic priest....Somebody was ignorant of one infalliable teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Gay men can't be ordaned as priests."

Really, David? Please show us this "infalliable teaching". Or did you dream this up like your claim that the church infallibly teaches that capital punishment is always an option? "...vast majority of cases, that they were doing the right thing..." Steve vast majority is not good enough when it comes to children! If he wasn't sure in 100% of them than he put kids in grave danger!"

It is impossible to ever be 100% sure that someone will not sin. No- one could be 100% sure that even you or I would harm children if left in charge of them.

"May God bless our Holy Catholic Church and provide us with leaders that will look out for our children,our future leaders."

Amen.

"Rule# 1- After a homosexual has been accused of mollesting a child don't ever give him a job aroung children again and make sure you tell the proper authorities and parents. Don't play musical chairs."

What? Even if the accusation is clearly false?

Yes, with hindsight, Cd Law and others should have decided differently in many cases. They decided to give a man another chance where there was doubt about the alleged offense, or where they believed there was genuine remorse and a determination not to sin again. We NOW know that nearly all pedophiles and ephebophiles are recidivists, but we know both from Catholic moral principles and the science of human behavior that people CAN change their habitual behavior, even late in life. Yes, there was not enough recognition of the danger of recidivism before, but now we have gone to the opposite extreme. A good and holy priest who has served selflessly for half a century can be thrown out in disgrace, merely because of one unsubstantiated allegation of one minor offense against the sixth commandment involving a minor. Even if the alleged victim refuses to tell police anything. Even if the police say it is a ludicrous allegation. The only requirement is that the local bishop believes it is probably true.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 24, 2004.




-- (italics@off.com), June 24, 2004.

"Steve, Cardinal Law was a terrible leader to his flock! Its sad that you would say he did what he did, so people wouldn't think, " I'm not going to follow the Churches teaching on sexual morality." Worry about what people think (think) and throw the dog[s] another bone????????" (David)

What's "sad" about it? It's a very good reason. It would be wrong if he did it because of worrying about what people would think of him for reasons of personal vanity. If this is what you accuse him of, how can you see into his soul to be able to say this?

"Its ludicrous to think this way. You're the same guy "spouting" off to Eugene about the war for months now.

I think it's actually less than one month that Eugene and I have been discussing the war. You find it inconceivable that I take a so- called "left-wing" view on war and a so-called "right-wing" view on the sexual abuse problem. On the contrary, they both spring in part from my Catholic understanding of the role of bishops. Christ gave us the bishops to lead and guide us. Sometimes bishops make mistakes. Very rarely, the Pope and many bishops all make the same mistake (a tiny needle's eye loophole which Eugene et al try to drive a camel through). But I believe the Pope and bishops are right that the Iraq war was unjust. Until about 10 years ago it was pretty well universally accepted among Catholics that all bishops would quietly move a priest accused of sexual sin to another parish, if the allegation seemed vexatious or if the priest confessed and showed a firm purpose of amendment. Now we have changed the rules and some vilify the bishops of last century for not using this century's rules.

"How in the world do you think the Vatican knows everything about the war when they didn't even know what was going on under their own roof?

Pres Bush and his representatives had several meetings with the Pope and we can be certain they spared no effort in presenting any possible evidence to support their case for the war. The pope condemned it anyway. If he was lacking "intelligence", you can only blame Mr Bush. (Also of course the Pope had sources of intelligence from Catholic sources in Iraq, which the USA did not have access to.) As it has turned out, the Pope was remarkably prescient, as ALL of the supposed reasons for the war have now been demolished. Sexual abusers go to extraordinary lengths to keep it secret. Usually the victim's own family don't find out about it for decades, if at all. How is the Vatican thousands of miles away (not "under its own roof") supposed to know about it?

"How many millions and millions were paid out in damages and settlements because they didn't want to go to trial?"

Well I disagree with the principle of a diocese being sued for the actions of one of its priests, causing the loss of churches that generations have built through the nickels and dimes they contributed faithfully every week even when they couldn't afford it. But hey, that's America.

"I doubt any of this pathetic garbage would of went on if President Bush was Cardinal of Boston."

No, we would probably see a Grand Inquisitor of Massachusetts burning Protestants at the stake. "Steve, If you compare dollar amounts than the emron scandal and the other scandal are probably close." (David)

So what? The point is that the Enron execs deliberately did wrong for foul reasons. AFAIK no-one (besides perhaps you) has seriously accused Cd Law of DELIBERATELY causing children to be harmed.

"Who "hushes" something this evil?"

Someone who wants to prevent millions of further sins caused by scandalizing others and leading them to sin also.

"When good men do nothing than evil thrives"

True, but neither you nor anyone else has shown that Cd Law did NOTHING.

President Bush stepped up and apologised when he found out about the prison scandal you always complain about. He worked on the problem by attacking the cancer right away"

I don't recall "complaining" about the prison abuse even once, let alone "always". You have a strange concept of "right away". The abuse was reported to the top from at least last October. Rumsfeld stated that he ordered at least some of it before the war began. Bush did nothing until the photos cropped up on the evening news and he thought it might affect his election prospects. And don't you think the bishops have apologised, attacked and worked on the problem of sexual abuse by clergy? "It is a infalliable teaching of the Church that a gay man can't be ordained as a Catholic priest....Somebody was ignorant of one infalliable teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. Gay men can't be ordaned as priests."

Really, David? Please show us this "infalliable teaching". Or did you dream this up like your claim that the church infallibly teaches that capital punishment is always an option? "...vast majority of cases, that they were doing the right thing..." Steve vast majority is not good enough when it comes to children! If he wasn't sure in 100% of them than he put kids in grave danger!"

It is impossible to ever be 100% sure that someone will not sin. No- one could be 100% sure that even you or I would harm children if left in charge of them.

"May God bless our Holy Catholic Church and provide us with leaders that will look out for our children,our future leaders."

Amen.

"Rule# 1- After a homosexual has been accused of mollesting a child don't ever give him a job aroung children again and make sure you tell the proper authorities and parents. Don't play musical chairs."

What? Even if the accusation is clearly false?

Yes, with hindsight, Cd Law and others should have decided differently in many cases. They decided to give a man another chance where there was doubt about the alleged offense, or where they believed there was genuine remorse and a determination not to sin again. We NOW know that nearly all pedophiles and ephebophiles are recidivists, but we know both from Catholic moral principles and the science of human behavior that people CAN change their habitual behavior, even late in life. Yes, there was not enough recognition of the danger of recidivism before, but now we have gone to the opposite extreme. A good and holy priest who has served selflessly for half a century can be thrown out in disgrace, merely because of one unsubstantiated allegation of one minor offense against the sixth commandment involving a minor. Even if the alleged victim refuses to tell police anything. Even if the police say it is a ludicrous allegation. The only requirement is that the local bishop believes it is probably true.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 24, 2004.


Hi, Steve

"..I think its actually less then one month that Eugene and I have been discussing the war."

You're correct! Three weeks less than one month. So its only been a week.

"..Christ gave us the bishops to lead and guide us."

Agreed! And Cardinal Law was a terrible leader and guided children right for the "chicken hawks".

"..Until about 10 years ago it was pretty well universally accepted among Catholics that [all] Bishops would quitley move a priest accused of sexual sin to another parish."

Can you show me a link that [all] bishops would put priests accused of raping kids to another parish up until 10 years ago 1994? This is B.Hockey!

Because someone did something before does it make it right today? Abortion is legal does this make it right?

"..well I disagree with the Principle of a diocese being sued for the actions of its priest, causing the loss of Churches that generations have built through nickels and dimes they contributed faithfully every week."

And a mother gives her life to her child minute at a time. It doesn't matter if the pot is built up by nickels its still money.Who else will pay for the damages? Obviously when you hit the pocketbook it hurts and this is what it took to stop this abuse. When money is paid out it turns heads and gets result[s].

Obviously if the great lawyers that worked for Boston would of thought that it wasn't a good finacial move to settle the cases than, they would of proceded to trial and lost millions more.

The Cd. wasn't prosecuted in cival court because of the millions and millions and millions paid out to stop this.

"..But, hey, this is America."

If it took the American Judicial system to stop this "music chair" game of child abuser priests than, God bless America.

"..No one could be 100% sure that even you or I would harm children If left in charge of them."

Hello Steve??? Are you there??? I am not a homosexual and I have never been accused of raping a young boy! People that were accused multiple times were moved around to do it again. This is basic common sense. Do you ever pet a dog that "bites" or if the dog was accused of "biting" would you put him around kids? This is a no brainer.

"..Cardinal Law should have decided different in many cases..."

Yes he should of!

"..They decided to give a man another chance where there was doubt.."

One should never put a child in "harms way". There is no excuse. Would he of put himself in "harms way" if it was a chance of someone raping him?

"..Realy David"?

Yes technically a gay man can't be ordanied to be a priest.

"..Please show us this "infalliable teaching." Or did you dream this up like you claim that the Church teaches capital punishment is always an option?"

I don't "dream up anything". You were very close to equating abortion and the death penalty and I corrected you and showed you what the Catchesim says. Thats up to you if you want to call it "my dream" But I thank you for that equation.

And about a gay man being ordained. It is known from a document in the early 1960's (from Blessed Pope John XXIII's Curia to the worlds Bishops) that the Catholic Church does not want gay men to be ordaned or live in relegious communities.

Unfortunatley(it seems) this document was misunderstood by Bishops or lost over the years until it was found and made public in 2002. I invite you to read it.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 24, 2004.


You’re a very funny guy David. With your unremitting flow of non- sequiturs, personal abuse, contradictions, selective misquotes, and false but saxous declarations about Catholic teachings, you are shaping up as a junior Eugene. So it’s probably just as useless confronting either of you with factual arguments. But I’ll have one more try.

“"..Until about 10 years ago it was pretty well universally accepted among Catholics that [all] Bishops would quitley move a priest accused of sexual sin to another parish." Can you show me a link that [all] bishops would put priests accused of raping kids to another parish up until 10 years ago 1994? This is B.Hockey! “

The only “B.Hockey” is your selective and deliberately highly misleading quote, leaving out my words, “if the allegation seemed vexatious or if the priest confessed and showed a firm purpose of amendment”.

“Because someone did something before does it make it right today? Abortion is legal does this make it right?”

No and I never said it did. On the contrary, that was the very point I made: you can’t claim that something people did last century is wrong merely because if it was done today it wouldn’t comply with this century’s new rules.

“If it took the American Judicial system to stop this "music chair" game of child abuser priests than, God bless America. “

Other countries have successfully dealt with this problem without shaking down millions (most of which went to lining lawyers’ pockets) from the supposedly rich Church. God bless those countries.

"..No one could be 100% sure that even you or I would harm children If left in charge of them." Hello Steve??? Are you there??? I am not a homosexual and I have never been accused of raping a young boy! People that were accused multiple times were moved around to do it again. This is basic common sense. Do you ever pet a dog that "bites" or if the dog was accused of "biting" would you put him around kids? This is a no brainer. “

On another thread today you damned John for making the “assine statement” that 99.9% of sexual abuse allegations are true. Yet here you are saying that 100% are true! You should take your own advice to John, “Please think about what you say before you say it”. And not ALL sexual abuse is done by homosexuals.

“Yes technically a gay man can't be ordanied to be a priest….. It is known from a document in the early 1960's (from Blessed Pope John XXIII's Curia to the worlds Bishops) that the Catholic Church does not want gay men to be ordaned or live in relegious communities. Unfortunatley(it seems) this document was misunderstood by Bishops or lost over the years until it was found and made public in 2002. “

Curiouser and curiouser. You claim that Blessed John XXIII formally proclaimed ex cathedra to the world that “It is a infalliable teaching of the Church that a gay man can't be ordained as a Catholic priest.” Yet this sensational epoch-making statement was somehow misunderstood or lost for 40 years?? I don’t doubt that “the Catholic Church does not want gay men to be ordaned or live in relegious communities”. This is common sense. (I assume by “gay” you mean “inclined to homosexuality”) . But saying the church “doesn’t want” something is not necessarily making an infallible statement. In any case such a statement COULD NOT possibly be infallible because it concerns the discipline of the church, not a matter of faith or morals. And you contradict your bald declaration “The Pope is not infalliable” on the capital punishment/communion thread.

“You were very close to equating abortion and the death penalty and I corrected you and showed you what the Catchesim says.”

LOL! You still don’t get it. I repeat, in the circumstances in modern states where effective alternatives to capital punishment exist, the “Catchesim” makes it clear that to commit capital punishment is, like abortion, a sinful deprivation of a human being’s right to life. You better read that thread again if you’re under the impression that you somehow “corrected” me, rather than vice versa!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 24, 2004.


Steve,

To me you said," ..the Catchesim makes it clear that to commit capital punishmement is, like abortion..."

Look I don't mind "teaching" you, but you can't make up baloney like you did above. For instance show me were the CCC says what you said above?

Hint- you can't.

May God bless you.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 24, 2004.


David, you seem like you are being deliberately obtuse. Please read my WHOLE sentence above, instead of quoting one phrase of it in isolation to make it seem like I said something which is "baloney".

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.

Hi, Steve

I found that document for you in case you wanted to read in on line. The document title is " Careful selection and training of candidates for the States of perfection and Sacred orders"

Its a very long and complicated document to read(at least for me) but if you go to sect-30 the key statment is #4

" advancement to relegious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasity, since ministry would constitute serious danger."

You can find it at www.rcf.org/docs1961text.html

Take care.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 25, 2004.


David, I didn’t doubt that there is such statement in a Church document. My point is that it is not, and by its very nature cannot be, infallible.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.

Forgetting Maciel? i see posters have sidestepped the whole Maciel piece which is in the title to this thread. Is it safer for RC members to talk about Card Law than Fr. Maciel? I know they have been told by Fr. Bannon not to read 'Vows of Silence' and to avoid discussion of this issue even among themselves

-- thorn Intheside (thorintheside@yahoo.com), July 22, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ