Posted on 07/19/2007 8:51:17 AM PDT by NYer
...but it's not gonna happen. Why not? Two reasons: First, from all appearances, the standing policy of Rome is not to micromanage particular Churches (meaning "local dioceses and archdioceses") unless the bishop is directly involved in the abuse of victims. That's why O'Connell was removed but bishops who merely shuffled or covered up abusers are still there. This would appear to be partly due to Ut Unum Sint, which goes a long way toward articulating a role for the Pope as "first among equals" and not as an Innocent III Christian Caesar who treats all other bishops as flunkey and middle management. Rod Dreher's fantasy that the Pope could remove the American Episcopacy with "the stroke of a pen" was always fantasy.
The Pope can remove bishops for malfeasance, but this leads to the second point, namely that if we laypeople (who do after all own all the guns, run all the courts, and hold the keys to all the jails) do not see fit to, you know, convict Mahony of anything, then it becomes sort of problematic for the Pope (who is supposed be even more merciful than the courts) to just kick him out.
So, self-serving yutz though he is, Mahony will not be going anywhere, I'm afraid. I don't like that too much. But I'm not especially surprised. But since, on the whole, I prefer my Church merciful rather than vengeful, I'll live with it.
... /sigh/
Re "Cardinal goal was protecting Mahony," column, July 17It is a mistake to think that Cardinal Roger M. Mahony is trying to protect himself. He is trying to protect his flock. If you are a Roman Catholic, you believe that the church is essential for salvation. Over the years, it has been clear to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that anything that undermines the confidence of the faithful in the church risks driving people away, thereby dooming them to hell. Therefore, the best thing to do about the misdeeds of priests is to cover them up. As the reasoning goes, the harm done to boys through molestation is far less than that through eternal damnation.
This runs entirely counter to the views of our modern secular society. Protestants don't have this problem because they do not believe that the church is essential for salvation. Roman Catholics are going to have to find a way out.
RORY JOHNSTON
Hollywood
BTTT!
There were some evil men in the Church who simply sought to cover up their own misdeeds and those of their friends. Their sins are on their heads.
There are others who mistakenly believed in the "therapeutic model" so beloved of the shrinks in the 70s . . . instead of the clear teachings of the Church, which has always instructed that these priests should be removed, isolated, and/or laicized immediately. They were foolish to believe the vain promises of the psychiatric profession over the tradition and teaching of their own faith. Some of them, of course didn't really believe in them -- again, a product of the 60s and 70s. Lack of faith -- trust in "science" -- but not evil intent.
But this convoluted theory . . . !?!?!
Who was in charge over Mahony?
...the clear teachings of the Church, which has always instructed that these priests should be removed, isolated, and/or laicized immediately.
I completely agree with that policy, but obviously that didn't happen in the LA archdiocese. How else do you explain Mahony's continued position with the Church - and Mahony's superior's continued position with the Church?
Until it becomes obvious from sworn testimony that he colluded . . . at THAT point the Vatican will take action, as it has in other cases. Which is exactly why Mahony fixed this settlement so that he does not have to testify.
There has been considerable talk of removing and replacing him, but after decades in his job he is so entrenched that it would probably take longer to remove him by extraordinary means than it would just to accept his retirement in five years.
If all this can be laid at the door of one man, it was Archbishop Jadot. He appointed all these men in a misguided attempt to "modernize" the Church.
But my question is - Why has Cardinal Mahoney not been indicted as an accessory before and after the fact?
That does not appear to be the case in Los Angeles, unless there's a lot more they're not telling us about Mahony.
The Vatican is in complete control. From today's "Los Angeles Times"...
The Vatican requires such permission for any transfer of goods -- real estate, cash, investments or loans -- worth more than $10 million, said Mahony's spokesman, Tod M. Tamberg...""In late May, as settlement talks between the archdiocese and plaintiffs' attorneys accelerated, Mahony traveled to Rome to consult with Vatican officials on financial aspects of the settlement and to receive required approvals for the loans and property sales under consideration, officials said.
My View is that, should the “Vatican” do nothing they would leave Mahoney in place, a manager, who couldn’t or wouldn’t see the sinful and Evil damage being done to the most vulnerable in his care.
They would be leaving in place a manager responsible for the Biggest Scandal in the Catholic Church, who by his inept approach is responsible for the loss of thousands of children and many more thousands of souls leaving the Catholic Church.
The Pope (JPII) got rid of cdl. Law by promoting him to a plush job, and at the same time leaving Law as a Neon Light advertising how Little the Vatican really cares for the Children or the souls of the Faithful leaving the Catholic Church in droves.
However the Vatican would never miss the opportunity to Pounce of some the poor divorced Catholics who had to get out of a bad marriage, to possibly save their lives.
Their Christian treatment was to deny them the Sacraments.
Cool! Can we get one for Hubbard?
Isn’t Pilla’s retirement quite soon? (Cleveland, I believe.)
If not there — somewhere in Ohio.
He was replaced as of January 2006 by Richard Lennon.
*************
I hope Pope Benedict can find a way to be merciful to all, including Mahony. An example of one option would be Cardinal Law.
Thank you! (stfassisi - check out post #14 :-)
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -- Matthew 7:16-20"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.