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
Bishops and Cardinals (a Cardinal is nothing more than a bishop with a red hat) serve where and when the Pope tells them to. No voting involved. If the Pope decided to ask for Law's resignation, Law would have to tender it. If the Pope decides to transfer Law to Siberia, Law would say "yes, thank you."
SD
It's very simple. All the Pope has to do is reassign him to one of the so-called "titular" sees. These are "dioceses on paper" that are located mostly in places like Northern Africa or in Arabian countries - places that *used* to be Catholic dioceses before the Muslims invaded. The ex-cardinal of wherever doesn't really go there, of course, but he's taken out of circulation, so to speak.
But in general the Pope can move a bishop or cardinal anywhere he likes. Another option would be to call an erring cardinal to Rome, or to tell him to go live in a monastery somewhere and hoe the cabbages. Of course the cardinal doesn't "have" to do this - no one is holding a gun to his head - but if he still wants to be part of Catholicism he will comply.
Captiol punshment damm sure will work...
Anyone, including Cardinals or Bishops, who has enabled a fellow priest, passively or actively, to molest a child, must resign.
God will forgive them if they are repentant; but maintaining these people in positions of authority within the Church is no longer an option, if the Church is truly desirous of recovering its credibility.
Ask yourself: how can any lay person ever trust these clergy, such as Law, again? Christ called us to be faithful to his doctrines, and not to a person who has corrupted his doctrine. I'm not suggesting vengeance -- I'm urging that the Church must stop the bleeding, before it dies. Remember Christ's anger with the moneychangers in the Temple? I think most Catholics can relate to that state of mind today.
I'm at a loss for words.
It is my understanding that if you confess to killing your neighbor in confession, it will be suggested that you come back for absolution after you have confessed to the police.
Of course I've never killed my neighbor, so I don't know for sure. Perhaps there is a liberal democrat out there who could give us a difinative answer.
I'm at a loss for words.
Try this one:
``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.''
Ah, the good old days.
SD
The church is good, some members of the church are evil. We need to keep that in mind. And we must do what we can to remove the evil members. They can, and should, seek repentance, and be sorrowful and repentant in their heart for their sins against God, and crimes against children. But because of the trust issue, while some may be truly repentant, they can not be put in a position of temptation again.
God bless.
It is not a moral compass diamond is talking about. It is whether you will go to heaven or hell when you die.
Christ's sacrifice allows those who accept Him to be forgiven and go to heaven. We can't do it ourselves.
I don't mean to be argumentaive either, but God is not "within." That is as old as the Garden of Eden. We are not God. When we try to be, evil results.
Englightenment is what it is....it's eternal, and regardless of the cultural myths we associate with it, it simply is.
Actually it's North American Man/Boy Love Association. Here's an actual NAMBLA Brochure:
Got a nice ring to it too. Just don't accept any other members.
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.
