[american colleen]

Added Durso: ''From the start, the archdiocese has been incredibly stupid in the way they have handled this crisis. And as hard as it was to do, they have managed to make things worse.''

Does anyone still think Cardinal Law doesn't have to be replaced by a God fearing man of God?

Read "Goodbye! Good Men" by Micheal S. Rose for insight into why this situation was allowed to fester.

[livius]

Cardinal Bernard F. Law has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents...

Incredible! Just when you think it couldn't get any worse...

[Icthus]

"..has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents contributed to the alleged abuse.."

Why even use the word "alleged"? This is beyond shamefull.

[Diogenesis]

Law is free to do what he wants.

Massachusetts law officials bow and kneel to him at their Red Mass.

If it was ANYONE else --except maybe Gary Condit ....

[Lion's Cub]

Unbelievable. This cardinal is obviously unrepentant and totally oblivious to the damage he caused. He's so far off the mark that it makes me wonder if he's an abuser, too.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Cardinal Bernard F. Law has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents contributed to the alleged abuse.

This is beyond OUTRAGEOUS. Spending money on attorneys to trash 6 yr old victims and their families is perpetuating the evil-doing. The only answer is for parishioners to withold offerings until the cardinal comes clean.

[CatoRenasci]

Sipe said the message that Catholics will take from Law's claim is that ''the cardinal is saying that every Catholic child and every Catholic parent should have been watching out for every Catholic priest.''

This is precisely the message that the use of a 'contributory negligence' defense sends. And, given the Church's reaction to abuse cases and abusive priests, sad to say, it's probably the only reasonable approach a normally concerned parent can take. Never, ever, let your child be alone with any Catholic priest. Insist that there be at least three children and at least one lay heterosexual adult present at all times. The only exception is the confessional, and then only if it's fully separated.

As a lawyer, I appreciate that a 'contributory negligence' defense is normal legal maneuvering. However, in this situation, as many have pointed out, it is remarkably insensitive and in fact may verge on bad faith:

Consider that the Church encourages its members to trust the clergy and to allow priests to work closely with their children. It covers up abuse and then tells people they're negligent in not knowing Father Shanely et.al. are busy buggering little Bobby? If I were the opposing counsel or the judge, I'd come down on the Church's lawyers like a ton of bricks and tell them given the Church's 'unclean hands', the defense is unavailable.

The Church is really at crossroads here in these cases. They have to choose: defend the cases and lose the faithful or restore the trust of the faithful and essentially plead nolo contendere to the lawsuits, insisting only on some reasonable evidence that the abuse actually took place.

It's a hard choice, because the financial liability is going to be huge. Financial damage can be rectified over time, if the Church maintains the allegience of its membesr. On the other hand, if the Church continues to behave churlishly toward the victims of abuse, they will likely lose the cases anyway and lose all moral credibility. Can the Church in America really survive most Catholics believing they can't trust their kids with a priest? I don't think so. 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. What we have is a large number of men placing personal gain above the honor of the Church. The last time it was this bad, we had the Reformation. I'm not sure the American Church can survive if the people lose all trust in the priesthood.

People will argue that most priests are not homosexuals preying on kids, and that's probably true. But which ones are? How do you tell? It's like seeing a group of young black men dressed ghetto style: maybe 90% are as law abiding and hard woring as anyone, but 10% are thugs. How do you tell which is which. Even Jesse Jackson said, he was relieved when walking at night to see the people walking behind him were white, not black.

[history_matters]

THIS IS EVIL! Cardinal Law adds insult to injury. He himself is worse than a sex-offender by using attorneys who attack like this.

Cardinal Law is determined to destroy the Church along with himself. WHAT EVIL!!!

St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

From the start, the archdiocese has been incredibly stupid in the way they have handled this crisis. And as hard as it was to do, they have managed to make things worse.

Makes you wonder what Cardinal Law's attorney has that passes for a brain.

[sneakypete]

Cardinal Bernard F. Law has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents contributed to the alleged abuse.

Obviously just another case of "Catholic bashing" and entrapement. After all,how could any reasonable person blame a priest for going after a 6 year old boy who looks "hot" to him? I mean,it's not like he did anything truly evil,like have sex with a adult woman,use birth control,or get a divorce.Well,on second thought,maybe this WAS his method of birth control.

Besides,these people are "Princes" and can't be held to the same standards as us non-cult leaders.

[chatham]

Every day in every way these Clerical Windbags in our hierarchy say Dumber and Dumber things.

Their whole approach is disgusting and mean and unworthy of truly christian people much less "leaders" of the Catholic Church.

But it is good for the People watching this meltdown who had to be convinced of the Nastiness and corruptness of Law and his etherial Collegues.

Always remember that the guy who hires the Lawyers tells them what to do,or they don,t work for him anymore.

As all this Horror plays out we see the real Bernie Law, (The Man Behind The Curtain) and It Ain't a pretty sight.

Law appears to be Morally and Managerially Bankrupt and certainly undeserving of leadership or directing the once vast resources of the diocese of Boston.

Bernie Cardinal Law is a very sad old man who sold his soul for some reason he thought was worth doing so.

Not only does he have no compassion for the victims but he increases his attacks on them with all the power he can muster.

[Biblebelter]

Cardinal Law: "It all depends on what the meaning of victim is."

[mombonn]

But a lawyer familiar with the church's legal strategy said last night that the cardinal would likely not have been consulted about the negligence claim against the plaintiffs.

Let me get this straight - the cardinal doesn't even know what his attorneys are saying? Give me a break.

[tracer]

The Rev. and the Cardinal apparently both have a death wish -- in the legal sense and otherwise

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[Palladin]

Unbelievable! This Wilson Rogers is the lowest of the low, evil beyond the usual despicability of defense lawyers. But be aware that he would not use this reprehensible "defense' of blaming the victim without the full approval of the vile Bernard Law. No wonder Law is accompanied by two large bodyguards wherever he goes, and slinks about, in and out of his residence. His type of behavior could incite vigilante reactions.

[Mo1]

n his first legal response to charges that the Rev. Paul R. Shanley began molesting a Newton boy when he was 6 years old, Cardinal Bernard F. Law has asserted that ''negligence'' by the boy and his parents contributed to the alleged abuse.

OH geez ... did Law really say that ..

If so .. He has to go