Posted on 04/25/2002 9:18:29 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
Church uncovers file on Shanley NAMBLA activity
<!CAT-LONW!>
<!SUMM!> In the latest example of the Boston archdiocese's chaotic record-keeping on problem priests, church officials acknowledged yesterday their discovery of new records detailing allegations of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley's involvement in NAMBLA - the North American Man-Boy Love Association.<!ENDSUMM!> The documents, part of a larger group a judge earlier this month ordered turned over to Roderick MacLeish, a lawyer representing several alleged victims of Shanley, were located late last week by an unnamed archdiocesean staff member, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, said an archdiocesan spokesman. ``It's terribly embarrassing at this late date to come out and say this,'' Coyne said in addressing reporters on the lawn of the Brighton Chancery. ``No one knew that the files were around,'' Coyne said. ``It wasn't just one letter that was overlooked. It's another bad thing. It makes us look like we are not being honest. It's just awful.'' The Shanley file released to date - more than 800 pages of secret records - detailed the priest's long history of alleged sexual misconduct, and, on some pages, his admissions of the actions. But more damning were numerous documents revealing that Bernard Cardinal Law, his predecessor, Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, and other archdiocesean officials were aware of Shanley's behavior as far back as 1967, but continued to assign him to posts that put him in direct contact with children. Coyne appeared visibly angry as he revealed the discovery of the documents, saying there is no question now that there had been numerous written complaints made in past years to chancery officials about Shanley's behavior. MacLeish, who will receive the papers today, said he was furious with the discovery. ``If they're NAMBLA materials, as they say they are, then it's absolutely appalling. I can't believe it,'' he said, adding that he intends to investigate how the documents were missed. ``We are taking the deposition of (the church officials) involved in this document retrieval. The truth will have to come out,'' he said. In the initial document release three weeks ago, records showed that Shanley spoke in favor of sex between men and boys at a December 1978 Boston convention that led to the founding of the intergenerational sex advocacy organization. But a Shanley supporter who organized the meeting and later co-founded NAMBLA insists that it has been mischaracterized, and that many different points of view on the subject were presented. ``It certainly was not some kind of a man-boy group,'' said the man, who goes by the pseudonym of Socrates. ``There were social workers, psychiatrists, ministers and even law enforcement personnel. At that time, these issues could be discussed in an objective forum. You can't do that now.'' More germane to the accusations of MacLeish's clients is Socrates' contention that it would have been totally out of character for Shanley to have had violent sex with a 6-year-old. In his suit and in a criminal complaint to Newton police, Gregory Ford, 24, claims that Shanley yanked him out of CCD classes and repeatedly fondled and raped him as a child in the rectory of Newton's St. Jean's Parish for six years beginning in 1984. ``I don't believe it, based on what I know of him,'' Socrates said, insisting that the priest would never have had sex with a pre-pubescent boy. ``I don't believe he ever did anything by force.'' MacLeish vehemently disputed that, saying, ``They say he wasn't violent. That's absolute total nonsense.'' ``I have a forcible rape case against Paul Shanley from 1990 involving a 13-year-old. This notion that you're either interested in pedophilia or ephebophilia (sex with teens) is absolute nonsense,'' MacLeish charged. MacLeish also said Ford and a second alleged victim, Paul Busa, who attended the classes with Ford but hasn't seen him in years, could not have collaborated to fabricate their allegations. ``NAMBLA has as much credibility on this as Ken Lay does on suggestions to reform Enron,'' MacLeish said.
by Maggie Mulvihill and Robin Washington
Thursday, April 25, 2002
That's all I need to know. The heirarchy MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!! This is sooo infuriating. From what I read in the paper this morning, the Cardinals are rolling over.
His first followers did not obtain power or riches or anything of wordly value upon deciding to follow Him.
After He died, His followers were actually ridiculed severely and had zero status in their community - especially those who maintained that they had seen the risen Lord.
In the end all of his closest followers - the Apostles - were killed - martyred - because they refused to deny the Resurrection.
And by the way, the historical facts of His life do coincide with the Old Testament prophecy - somtimes in ways that were not recognized until centuries later but now seem so obvious.
Every virtue taught by Jesus requires great selflessness - and this contradicts the world's view of power and dominion and selfishness.
His way is so counterintuitive and contrary to cultural norms - and yet people were willing to sacrifice for it and over the centuries it remains intact - despite man's tendency to abandon institutions after a half dozen centuries.
Objectively speaking there is reason not to dismiss the Gospel without further study.
Largely the same way that you know that you exist.
Pity that we can't all display the sort of tolerant, egalitarian, and loving attitude displayed by high priest of zarfism!
Only in the sense that every sin is judged as such and any sin merits damnation. But consider,
But if that servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion with the unfaithful. And that servant, who knew his lord’s will, and made not ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they commit much, of him will they ask the more. (Luke 12:45-48 ASV)
...and have been forgiven through the work of Jesus.
Better, all sin "can be" forgiven through the work of Jesus (except "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"). Jesus said that many people would end up in hell. How would this be, if their sins had all been forgiven? Did all these "blaspheme" against the Holy Spirit? Or was it that the work of Jesus did not apply to their sins because of their unbelief? (I lean towards the latter explanation.)
I did a search and couldn't find it. Has it been posted and yanked? Yes/ no? If so, why?
Correct, given repentence. No repentence = no forgiveness.
jesus, buddah, vishnu, krishna, mohammed.....can you you xplain the real differences besides the mythology associated with these ideas(l)s????
It's all the same.....human interpretations of the same thing.
There are concepts known as just forgiveness and just punishments. First, priests in their final judgements are held to a much higher standard than the rest of us and are judged much more harshly. Perhaps you have heard of an angry God? If you think a "Bless me Father, for I have sinned..." is going to absolve this beast of his abominations, perhaps you need to think about the enormity of his crimes and his position where he masqueraded as alter Christus while committing these acts. I think this NAMBLA freak has a surprise coming when it comes to the concept of forgiveness. And so, I think, do those who covered-up and aided him.
so was jim jones
Murderer rapist who truly repents = Priest who lives a life of sacrifice and charity
NO WAY JOSE!!
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.