Posted on 05/27/2004 8:50:34 AM PDT by ZULU
Vatican Appoints Cardinal Law Head of Rome Basilica
Thursday, May 27, 2004
VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II (search) on Thursday gave Cardinal Bernard F. Law (search) an official position in Rome, naming the former Boston archbishop who resigned in the sex abuse scandal as head of a basilica.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't believe they were because of the statute of limitations. But it wasn't for lack of trying.
I notice you ignored my documentation of the real facts about your buddy Cardinal Law. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
I notice you ignored my documentation of the real facts about your buddy Cardinal Law. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Speaking of relics, I will be in Illinois this weekend for a family gathering. On Sunday I will be attending the Tridentine High Mass at St. John Cantius in Chicago. I found out on their Web site that they have many relics (not as many as SMM, I'm certain) including a first class relic of St. Padre Pio.
I missed this!
The press has even stopped using that term because even the press,in it's eagerness to destroy Christianity knew that the data did not support their original claim. They knew it was false to begin with but they used it because they knew it would incite the public.
The data show that less than 1% of the abusive priests were pedophiles. The real problem is that the abusers were homosexual priests and homosexuality is a precious and protected condition in this country and in many Euroopean nations. They downplayed this aspect of the scandal due to the peculiar proclivities of many persons in the major media,which they share with the predator priests.
No,the problem is that almost to a priest,the abusers were just run of the mill homosexuals doing what most of them do,troll for youth and beauty. And when they found a young man and seduced him they were able to accomplish two objectives. Satisfy their longings and recruit more young men to the ranks.
You can criticize Cardinal Law all you want,and granted he was too easy on them. But think about this country right now,today;all of the professional,upstanding,intelligent men and women who absolutely know how deadly and dangerous and pervasive homosexuality is and yet the country is being steamrolled by the movement. Think about how overwhelmed Cardinal Law must have been and say a prayer for him,and then say a prayer for America and lets figure out how to proceed to deal with the problem because the outcome is up to us,they are not going to let up.
You said you are not a Catholic basher and I believe that to be true but if you wish to see the survival of Christioanity,and western civilization,for that matter,please don't even suggest anything other for the Church than cleaning house and getting back to Truth. Thanks.
Have a wonderful trip. I'm sorry to say I'm going to miss Mass altogether this weekend, as I'll be backpacking on the Appalachian Trail in the NE corner of Tennessee. And Pentecost is one of my favorites, too -- so remember this poor sinner in the Southern highlands. Next week I'll attend, but it'll be at the Confirmation of my god daughter in Little Rock -- a stripped-down and sentimentalised NO affair, I fear. A whole lot of traveling recently. This month has been a blur.
Many people in Boston were incensed by the Cardinal's pressure on them to cover up the crimes. He spoke privately with probably every Catholic politician, judge and media person in Massachusets with the same strong message: "As a good Catholic you have a responsibility to cover all of this up." Face it, he wanted to be the first Harvard Pope - and he felt the only way to do it was to cover up the miasma.
I still maintain that allowing priests to marry wouldn't necessarily reduce the instances of molestation. Child molesters look for opportunities to be with children. Whether the molester is married or not is not an issue, it's whether he has access to children in his daily routine and can arrange time to be alone with them.
There are just too many instances of married men being child molesters to say that a married priesthood would alleviate the situation. A molester will do the deed, no matter his marital situation.
In ALL of the situations of the molesters, they were sent away to 'clinics' which claimed to have 'cured' them. The Church's problem was in accepting the recommendations that it would be 'safe' to return them to the ministry. Law and his Bishops made the mistake of not booting the guys the minute they molested after having returned supposedly 'cured'. I have no idea what it takes to de-frock a priest. It may take quite a long time, I don't know.
As far as the letter of recommendation for Shanley, I don't know what it said, but he sure couldn't have written that Shanley was a suspected molester without being charged with libel. There was no criminal record, and not even an investigation at that point.
It's easy for us to sit here and say what should have been done, but none of us knows the situations. I'm curious as to why none of the psycholigists and psychiatrists are not being held responsible for their recommendations that it was OK to return these men to the ministry.
Just saw it, see my post, above. The Boston Globe printed a LOT of crap about Cardinal Law. They were salivating at the chance to get this thorn out of their sides. They'd been trying to smear him for years, and unfortunately, he gave them the chance.
They wanted the way clear to push their NAMBLA attitudes and same sex marriage without any interference from the Church. I think, when they saw Sean O'Malley, that they thought they had a kindred spirit. It's the old saw about "be careful what you wish for."
The church found "experts" that told them what they wanted to hear. Not to mention that they knew Shanley, for one, was openly gay, but they still didn't boot him.
As far as the letter of recommendation for Shanley, I don't know what it said, but he sure couldn't have written that Shanley was a suspected molester without being charged with libel. There was no criminal record, and not even an investigation at that point.
Shanley was quoted publicly as early as 1977 advocating pedophilia. The church knew this, yet they kept him as a priest. You can't libel someone by writing the truth.
It's easy for us to sit here and say what should have been done, but none of us knows the situations. I'm curious as to why none of the psycholigists and psychiatrists are not being held responsible for their recommendations that it was OK to return these men to the ministry.
Law had 20 years to clean up this mess, and he did nothing. He can't claim he didn't know, as he was repeatedly informed about these priests. As for listening to what the shrinks told them, they told him what he wanted to hear, and were on the payroll for that purpose.
The Boston Globe took their information from letters, depositions, interviews with victims, and church documents. Everything I'm quoting is from those items. Please give me some examples of the "crap" that they've written about Cardinal Law -- I wasn't able to find any information that they wrote that wasn't backed up by documents. Heck, they have all these documents on their website so you can see for yourself how they got the information!
They wanted the way clear to push their NAMBLA attitudes and same sex marriage without any interference from the Church. I think, when they saw Sean O'Malley, that they thought they had a kindred spirit. It's the old saw about "be careful what you wish for."
Source, please. The only people I could find advocating NAMBLA on the Globe's website were priests, who got to keep their jobs despite doing so. Oh, and Cardinal Law, who turned a blind eye to priests buggering young boys.
Just one... Whats HOLY about it..?
The only priest I knew of who had anything to do with NAMBLA was Paul Shanley, who the Globe praised back in the day for being so 'relevant' for the times and young people. As for their being on the side of NAMBLA, check out the stories surrounding the kidnap and murder of Jeffrey Curley. One of the murderers had NAMBLA information in his car and home and on his home computer. The Globe didn't want to attach anything homosexual to that crime for the obvious reasons.
Did they praise him before or after he spoke at a NAMBLA conference? The church was still recommending him for jobs 20 years after he "came out" as a pedophile.
As for their being on the side of NAMBLA, check out the stories surrounding the kidnap and murder of Jeffrey Curley. One of the murderers had NAMBLA information in his car and home and on his home computer. The Globe didn't want to attach anything homosexual to that crime for the obvious reasons.
Really, the Globe didn't want to attach anything homosexual to that murder? Then what about this story:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/16/curley_suit.htm
BOSTON -- The parents of murder victim Jeffrey Curley filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the North American Man/Boy Love Association, claiming one of the men convicted of killing the 10-year-old Cambridge boy was incited by the group.
Or this Boston Globe story:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/23/us_mulls_seeking_death_of_convict/
Jaynes, 28, and Salvatore Sicari were convicted in 1998 in separate trials in Curley's death. Sicari, who received a sentence of life without parole for first-degree murder, confessed to police and testified that Jaynes killed the boy by sticking a gas-soaked rag in his mouth after he refused the man's sexual advances.
Doesn't look to me, in the quick google search I did, that the Globe "didn't want to attach anything homosexual to the murder."
Did they mention NAMBLA in the article? I know that Jeffrey's parents were going after NAMBLA after the murder because they believed that one of the murderers had been influenced by the group to kidnap and sexually molest her son and which in the process, caused his death.
They did mention NAMBLA -- see my post above.
Just for the record - the fox news story is misleading. See Fr. Johansen's blog below
Subject: Cardinal Law's New Job
Cardinal Law
Cardinal Law Gets "Promoted"
Or so some would think, based on this article which proclaims that Cardinal
Law has been made "head" of Saint Mary Major Basilica in Rome.
Now that article is an object lesson in lazy/bad journalism. Upon reading it,
you might be led to think that Cardinal Law is "running" or "in charge of
administration" of the basilica.
Well, he's not. He's been given the honorary title of "archpriest". It's an
obsolete honorific going back to the Middle Ages, when cathedrals had
"chapters" that made major decisions and wielded considerable power. They don't and
they haven't anymore.
All the title "archpriest" gives him is the right (if he so chooses) to sit
all dressed up in choro at major events.
Based on the term "position", and the comment of Mitchell Garabedian that the
"position" is "comfortable", you might think this job is a well-paid
sinecure.
In fact, some people came to that conclusion, for in the comments boxes on
Amy Welborn's and Mark Shea's blogs, people got upset that Law was being given a
"sinecure".
Now, the word "sinecure" comes from the Latin sine cura, meaning "without
care". The term denotes a position from which one derives an income, but having
no real responsibilities.
In fact, based on some of the comments, it seemed to me that some people
imagine that this appointment will allow Law to "hang out" in Rome, where he will
be wined and dined and live in a luxurious palazzo, while being waited on by
nubian chamberlains in a modern-day recreation of the Borgia Papal Court.
That would make an entertaining scene in a movie, but it's not reality.
Cardinal Law isn't being given "a cushy job at the Vatican". It's not even a
job, much less at the Vatican. For being an archpriest of the basilica, Cdl.
Law will receive precisely no (that's $0.00) remuneration. It's not a real job.
He will receive no stipend, salary, or honorarium of any kind (no archpriest
of a Roman basilica does, as an archpriest per se) from the basilica.
But, as cardinal archpriest of the Roman basilica, he will be expected to give
substantially to the Basilica, and raise money for its maintenance and
support. So this move will likely cost the cardinal.
So whatever this appointment is, it's not a sinecure. It gives him no income,
and certianly no power. As a lowly parochial vicar of my parish, I have more
power than Cardinal Law does as Archpriest of St. Mary Major.
Furthermore, as an archpriest of the basilica he has no regular duties or
responsibilities. He will not be given a place to live there, nor is it customary
for the cardinal archpriests of Roman basilicas to reside in Rome, unless
they also have full-time Vatican appointments - which Law has not been given. It
is unlikely that Law will live in Rome as a result of this appointment, as
he'd be on his own to support himself there. And Rome is an expensive place to
live (I know, as I've lived there). So wipe away any images of Law lolling about
in Rome in some luxurious palazzo enjoying his "sinecure".
He won't be hanging around in the basilica. Given that cardinal archpriests
of Roman basilicas aren't provided with lodging, receive no remuneration, and
that Law would have no means of support in Rome, that's extremely unlikely. If
he were to "hang around" in Rome in the manner some envision, he'd almost
certainly make a pest of himself and quietly be told to go find something to do.
Because the bishop(s) who really run Santa Maria Maggiore won't stand for some
nosy American interloper to be underfoot for very long.
As I've written in those comment boxes, I do think this was a dumb move on
Rome's part. If anyone in Rome had bothered to consult with me (not that they
should) or any other moderately culture-savvy American, we might have said:
Your Excellencies, please do not give Cardinal Law an honorary appointment of
any kind, not even the most trivial. Do not make him even the "Prefect of
Papal Stamp-Licking". Because such a move will be misunderstood by many
Americans, even Catholics. The headlines will read "Cardinal Who Shuffled Abusers Given
Top Vatican Post", or "Law Given Cushy Roman Job" even "Protector of
Pedophile Priests Promoted". Regardless of what you may intend, regardless of what
subtle statement you are making in Romanitas, you will be perceived as giving
Cardinal Law, and everything he did, the Papal Seal of Approval. Cardinal Law is,
whether deservedly or not, perhaps only slightly less reviled than the
priest-abusers themselves. He has become a symbol, a talisman of evil. American
Catholics are still largely incapable of seeing how they are complicit in creating
the environment of moral laissez-faire which gave rise to the Shanley's and
the Cardinals who protected them, so they have not yet moved from blame to
self-examination. Cardinal Law and his episcopal brethren are largely responsible
for that as well. This is the reality which you must face and take into
account for at least the next decade. Cardinal Law and those like him must pay a
price for their failure to exercise their office, and it must be clear to all
that they are paying a price. Giving Cardinal Law any kind of appointment sends
the opposite message.
I'd like to think that someone would say that to the Holy Father and the
Curia. But in spite of the apprearance of this move, I think it's an example of
Vatican un-savvyness, and little else. Cardinal Law has been "put on the shelf"
in a pretty typically Roman way.
From Fr., Rob Johansen
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.