POPE GAVE HIS BLESSING (to transfer of pedophiles!)

NY Post ^ | 11 December 2002 | KATE SHEEHY

[Zviadist]

Boston's Bernard Cardinal Law was just following orders from his boss - Pope John Paul II - when he sent suspected pedophile priests back to work in parishes with kids, a damning church document reveals.

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."

[Zviadist]

OK, so how high does this scandal go???

[Zviadist]

Why were these things not dealt with? Why were these bastards moved around and around???

[Petronski]

I'll wait for someone besides the plaintiff's attorney to translate and illuminate what was said in this document.

[Scupoli]

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.

[Zviadist]

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?

[Scupoli]

I think you know the answer to that;-)

[Drango]

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.

[Pining_4_TX]

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".

[Cicero]

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.

[madprof98]

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.

[Zviadist]

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.

[Scupoli]

If he has been laicized, how can they control where he lives?

[madprof98]

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.

[Hank Kerchief]

not for vulgar Catholic bashing.

Vulgarity is in the eye of the beholder.

Hank

[Drango]

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.

[Steve0113]

I'll wait for someone besides the plaintiff's attorney to translate and illuminate what was said in this document.

Ditto.

[Jonathan]

All the way to the top of the organization: Satan

[Maximum Leader]

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.

[AmericaUnited]

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!