[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.

[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.

[Jonathan]

All the way to the top of the organization: Satan

[Jael]

To infinity! And Beyond!

[Notwithstanding]

As the article and document point out, the pope did not order or suggest the tranfer of a pedophile priest - he ordered the priest defrocked and within that very order of defrocking he suggested the man make a fresh start elswhere for his own good and the good of those (individuals and the parish) whom he injured. He merely added that if those whom he injured would not be scandalized, then the man need not be sent elsewhere to begin his new life as a defrocked priest.

Nothing new or notable here, move along.

[Loyalist]

Parole boards advise released offenders not to go back to their old haunts after they're let out.

Unless these perverts can be declared outlaws in the true sense of the word--meaning that they can be killed with impunity--what more can be done once they're registered and released?

[Illbay]

My wife, an ex-Catholic whose family are still "occasional" Catholics, says that in her experience the insulation of the R/C priesthood from the realities of family life lends itself to this kind of thinking.

The priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, pope, etc., live in a sort of "altered" reality where the notion of protecting children, and the protective instincts that people have toward children, are secondary to the protection of their insular society.

In effect, the supposed "benefit" of a celibate clergy--which actually has its roots in the Platonian ideal of the corruption of the physical world and the absolute baseness of carnality even in the bonds of matrimony--of the objectivity they allegedly bring to their vocation is a liability when it comes to truly understanding intimate issues of family and children.

N.B.: I know I'm going to be flamed big-time for this, but please, reasoning and thinking Catholics, understand I'm simply putting forth a point of view from the outside looking in.

I hope that your Church is able to heal this terrible wound.

[Campion]

Burns eventually pleaded guilty to criminal charges of sexually assaulting two boys in New Hampshire, and was sentenced to two consecutive four- to eight-year terms in jail.

This statement is really, practically speaking and in the context of the article, a lie, because it seems to imply that Burns was convicted "eventually" sometime well after the Papal decree in question.

In fact, he had been convicted three years before the decree.

[Salvation]

**Post Wire Services**

Valid Source?

[tiki]

I think you need to do some research on what the pope really said.

For whatever reason, God is allowing His Church to be tested but it will come through fine because God promised and God doesn't lie.

[Arthur McGowan]

Wow! What a scandal! The Pope sent "defrocked" priests to work in parishes!?!?!?!?!

[Notwithstanding]

The NY Post's nasty slanderous article carefully omits facts that make it obvious that the pope was not involved in any cover up:

"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."

But the leader of the Catholic Church also gave pedophile priest Robert Burns' superior one way to get around the order.

"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.

Burns eventually pleaded guilty to criminal charges of sexually assaulting two boys in New Hampshire, and was sentenced to two consecutive four- to eight-year terms in jail.

It is inexusable that the "reporter" forgot to do the smallest bit of research before writing his inflammatory screed - research taht would show the priest in question had already plead guilty to the sex abuse charges in 1996 - three years prior to the pope's decision:

Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company The Boston Globe

September 12, 1998, Saturday, City Edition

SECTION: METRO/REGION; Pg. B2

LENGTH: 451 words

HEADLINE: Former priest facing abuse lawsuit serving time for molesting boy

BYLINE: By John Ellement, Globe Staff

BODY:

A former priest who has been sued by a Charlestown man for allegedly molesting him during a five-year period while training him as an altar boy is serving time in a Vermont prison for molesting a young boy in his apartment.

Robert M. Burns, who is no longer a priest, pleaded guilty in March 1996 to two counts of molesting a boy he lured into his Salem, N.H., apartment. Authorities said he promised to show him computer images of women in swimsuits. On Tuesday, Brian Lacey, 21, of Charlestown, and his mother, Annemarie Vesey, sued Burns, the Archdiocese of Boston and church officials in Ohio alleging that the church knew Burns had been an active pedophile for decades, yet still allowed him to work with children in two Boston parishes during the 1980s.

[Petronski]

So, will you call on FR administrators to amend your title, now that the lie of the accusers in this post has been exposed?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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

Funny you should ask.

I was thinking just the other day...

Have you ever heard of the three secrets that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave to the little kids at Lourdes?

The first two were predictions that have already come true and the third is closely guarded by the Pope himself. Every Pope since then has been apprised of it and has declined to reveal what it is.

I am now guessing that the third secret, or prediction has to do with the downfall of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and this pedophilia scandal is it and was revealed by Mary at Lourdes those many years ago.

Just a guess.

[Capt. Tom]

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

I hope it doesn't go any higher than the Pope. - tom