Skip to comments.
POPE GAVE HIS BLESSING (to transfer of pedophiles!)
NY Post ^
| 11 December 2002
| KATE SHEEHY
Posted on 12/15/2002 7:21:29 PM PST by Zviadist
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:10:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-138 next last
OK, so how high does this scandal go???
1
posted on
12/15/2002 7:21:29 PM PST
by
Zviadist
To: ultima ratio; RobbyS; St.Chuck; Scupoli; HDMZ; Loyalist; sitetest; smevin; Land of the Irish
Why were these things not dealt with? Why were these bastards moved around and around???
2
posted on
12/15/2002 7:24:28 PM PST
by
Zviadist
To: Zviadist; *Catholic_list
I'll wait for someone besides the plaintiff's attorney to translate and illuminate what was said in this document.
3
posted on
12/15/2002 7:25:40 PM PST
by
Petronski
To: Zviadist
The pope, in a 1999 order defrocking a Boston priest with a history of molesting boys, acknowledged that the man "ought to live away from the place where his previous condition is known." "The local [superior] . . . is able to dispense from this clause of the decree if it is foreseen that the presence of the suppliant will cause no scandal," the pope wrote.
This is unclear to me. Is his defrocking at the discretion of the bishop or his residence after the defrocking? It seems to me if he is cut loose from the priesthood then the Diocese has no control over where he lives. The only way they maintain control is if the abuser remains in the system.
4
posted on
12/15/2002 7:28:36 PM PST
by
Scupoli
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: Scupoli
It seems to me if he is cut loose from the priesthood then the Diocese has no control over where he lives. The only way they maintain control is if the abuser remains in the system.That is how it appeared to me as well. Raises the question: just what does it take to get kicked out of the priesthood?
6
posted on
12/15/2002 7:31:10 PM PST
by
Zviadist
To: Zviadist
I think you know the answer to that;-)
7
posted on
12/15/2002 7:32:41 PM PST
by
Scupoli
To: Zviadist
I doubt that we will ever know if his Popeness was involved with the cover-ups of the scandals. But it does appear, that with the exception of Cardinal Law, he has tended to place the comfort of the Church over the comfort of the victims.
8
posted on
12/15/2002 7:32:42 PM PST
by
Drango
To: Zviadist
All the way to the top. The pope had to know about it, if for no other reason than he'd want to know why million of dollars were being paid out. Maybe he should change his title to "Pope Pontius Pilate".
To: Zviadist
This story was sorted out days ago here in FreeRepublic. I don't know why the New York Post is guilty of misrepresenting it.
Once again: They are talking about a DEFROCKED PRIEST. He has been relieved of his duties--laicized, no longer authorized to perform his priestly functions.
This is NOT the same thing as transferring pedophile priests from one parish to another. Cardinal Law appears to have been guilty of doing that. This story does not show that the Pope assented to anything of the kind.
It's shoddy journalism of the worst sort.
10
posted on
12/15/2002 7:34:42 PM PST
by
Cicero
To: Zviadist
I'm amazed this got as far as the NY Post (not that the Post is a great paper, but it's a step above the scandal rags). The questionable statements appear in a document ordering the pedophile priest to be removed from the Catholic clergy ("laicized"). I assume the phrase "his previous condition" refers to the man having been a cleric. As best I can tell, the pope is saying that he should not live in a place where knowledge of his having at one time been a priest would cause a scandal. The pope is obviously not saying the guy should be transfered to a parish where it isn't known that he is a pedophile because the document itself makes it impossible for him to function as a Catholic priest anywhere at all.
To: American For Life; Admin Moderator
This cartoon is completely inappropriate and I think it should be pulled. This thread is for serious discussion of the scandal, not for vulgar Catholic bashing.
12
posted on
12/15/2002 7:38:49 PM PST
by
Zviadist
To: madprof98; Cicero
If he has been laicized, how can they control where he lives?
13
posted on
12/15/2002 7:39:37 PM PST
by
Scupoli
To: Scupoli
They can't "control" where he lives, but if he wanted to regain the favor of the Church, he would do what he was asked. Why would a pedophile want to regain favor with the Church? Since the man had chosen to become a priest, it's possible he actually saw the Church as something more than a cover for his sexual adventures.
To: Zviadist
not for vulgar Catholic bashing. Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder.
Hank
To: Zviadist
not for vulgar Catholic bashing. What's vulgar is the homosexual subculture in the Catholic priesthood and the enablers who not only let the sick wackos in, but to this day resist cleaning it up...
That's vulgar.
16
posted on
12/15/2002 7:58:38 PM PST
by
Drango
To: Petronski
I'll wait for someone besides the plaintiff's attorney to translate and illuminate what was said in this document.Ditto.
To: Zviadist
All the way to the top of the organization: Satan
18
posted on
12/15/2002 8:03:20 PM PST
by
Jonathan
To: Cicero
Even if the purpose of the memo is to get the laicized priest out of town (and not necessarily to another parish), this is still aiding and abetting a felon. If you helped a rapist skip town, you'd be arrested even if you were confident that the rapist wasn't going to repeat his crime.
Massachussetts doesn't have a misprison of a felony law (which means that if you're aware of a felony and you don't report it, you yourself are guilty of a crime). However, it is a crime in every state to aid and abet a felon. Helping him escape justice (moving him out of town or for that, matter paying off victims in exchange for their silence) certainly qualifies.
To: Zviadist
This thread is for serious discussion of the scandal, not for vulgar Catholic bashing. This entire topic of homos and pediphiles in the preisthood is utterly vulgar and makes we want to puke! Imagine if most of the Baptist seminary schools had live-in hookers in them and Jimmy Swaggart was a prominent leader? So much for the Infallible Church!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-138 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson