Posted on 04/29/2002 5:00:20 AM PDT by american colleen
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:44 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The cardinal's claim, filed in court by his attorneys, is boilerplate legal defense language. But a lawyer who is not involved in the case and has handled other cases involving allegations of clergy sex abuse said last night that the decision to use such a claim in so sensitive a case showed poor judgment.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Well, I think he is probably gone in June, before the Cardinal's meeting - I just wish he'd go quietly.
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot, than to open it, and remove all doubt..."
Mark Twain
I do,because most won't allow themselves to believe this. We are talking about issues of faith here,not reality. Most people are brainwashed into religion when they are very young,and these are hard chains to break. Especially when you are told over and over that if you break these chains you will spend eternity being tortured in fire by your "benelovent God".
Mounting a significan defense to liability only reinforces the perception that the Catholic hierarchy is out of touch with the laity and interested only in personal power.
That IS all organized religions are about,and they have never really tried to make this a secret. There is not only the personal power acquired by the leaders,there is also the power and wealth acquired by the sect/cult itself. The Vatican is a prime example of this.
What we have is a large number of men placing personal gain above the honor of the Church.
It doesn't matter because it will end up being ignored and forgotten. Most Catholics will never even hear of it,and this is especially true of all the illegal alien Mexicans who are coming into the country now.
My father says the very same. I think he sold his soul for power and prestige in the secular world. Well, he's got the prestige, but not in the way he thought. He now represents each and every evil priest in the Catholic Church.
The clergy may have to wear I.D. Badges which react to good or evil so we can know the good guys from the bad.
Seriously? Is it supposed to somehow absolve them of all the legal and moral wrongdoing they have done all year?
If I am correct that this will turn into a real crisis of faith, where parents simply don't trust priests with their kids, it will be the end of the Church in its present form in the US. If you can't trust a priest to be alone with your kid, why would you ever give money to the church (which supports said priest) or trust him or those who back him about anything?
Ralph McInerny had an article in Crisis that touches on this theme: The Shame of the Shepherds. (They don't put current articles on their website, so I had to type it in; I probably should have tried a ping list, but I didn't.)
Let me get this straight - the cardinal doesn't even know what his attorneys are saying? Give me a break.
I'm with you on this. In fact, yesterday my parish priest actually talked about the "Real Presence" yesterday during his Homily. It was a first for him in my memory, and I think that quite a few priests are starting to figure out that we have to get back to the basics of Catholicism as a start to rooting out the evil.
I've worked for years as a legal secretary and paralegal in litigation. The only clients who ever wanted to see or have input into court filings were attorneys themselves. (Obviously, for affidavits, answers to interrogatories, client input is essential; but this was apparently an answer to a complaint.) Some attorneys send copies to the client of anything filed; some don't.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I would hope the cardinal would take the attorney to task, but I don't hold out much hope.
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.