Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CARDINAL LAW’S RESIGNATION [Rabid Bigots Falsely Accuse Pope]
CatholicLeague ^ | 12-13-2002 | Bill Donohue

Posted on 12/15/2002 8:34:40 PM PST by Notwithstanding

Their so-called smoking gun theory boils down to this: the pope in 1999 recommended that a defrocked priest ought not return to the area where he committed his offenses. They take this eminently sensible advice and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the pope. Just so everyone understands what’s going on here, what the pope did was to say that a former priest—someone who had been returned to the status of a layman—ought to start a new life in a new location. Isn’t this what parole boards recommend to released inmates—that they not return to the neighborhood that nurtured their maladies? Shame on Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly and others for disseminating this mindless charge.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301 next last
To: BlackElk
Jail Law for obstruction of justice. Jail the miscreant pedophile ex-priests. Lay off the pope.

I have disagreed with you before, but I agree with you here.

My opinion is that the JP II is basically like "John Gill" from the old Star Trek series...too old and infirm to do anything except to be a showpiece, and the "Lavender Mafia" control the info and access to him, and are the real power in the RCC hierarchy...just my take, as I have no proof that he is evil...(yet)

I honestly think that some of JP II's critics fantasize on the one hand that the pope has infinite power over anyone ever baptized Catholic and OTOH is a miserable failure precisely to the extent that he does not wave his imagined magic wand in line with the desires of the malcontent posting.

True, but one wonders just how far this all goes, when someone like Law will get a position in Rome, instead of jail.

21 posted on 12/15/2002 9:12:43 PM PST by Itzlzha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"We are taking this all down."

Why? This is America. People here don't like pedophiles and are demanding answers about the whole of the situation. You don't have a problem with that do you?

Why are you lying about people and attacking them???
22 posted on 12/15/2002 9:15:02 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Galahad2
The priest committs a sexual crime against a minor and they compare the Popes decission to relocate him

WRONG! The Pope was not "relocating" him. The Pope was formally, and permanently, removing him from the priesthood.

with that of a parole board,(A parole board comes into play after a crime has been paid for with hard time in a cell!)

RIGHT! According to my information, that is exactly where the perp in question was when the Pope wrote his decree -- doing "hard time in a cell". Burns (the molester) was convicted of child abuse in NH in 1996. The Pope's decree was written in 1999.

The parole board analogy is exactly appropriate.

23 posted on 12/15/2002 9:16:47 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
It is a fact that victims did not press charges and therefore prosecutors did not bring indictments.

The perp in question was already convicted and imprisoned when the Pope wrote his decree.

24 posted on 12/15/2002 9:18:07 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"We are taking this all down."

Why? This is America. People here don't like pedophiles and are demanding answers about the whole of the situation. You don't have a problem with that do you?

Why are you lying about people and attacking them???
25 posted on 12/15/2002 9:21:04 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Thank for clearing up the confusion with facts.
The Post story is not really interested in facts - rather in denigrating the pope.
26 posted on 12/15/2002 9:22:12 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jael
And why would he recommend that the man go somewhere where no one knew of the scandal?

That isn't what he said, and please don't repeat something like that, because before you know it, it will be treated as Gospel around here.

What the decree said was that the laicized perp should move away, but that the local bishop could exempt him from that part of the decree if, in his judgement, it would cause no scandal for him to stay.

Scandal is a technical term meaning danger to the faith and morals of innocent parties.

The Pope said nothing about sending him "where nobody knew of the scandal". Those are words you put in his mouth.

As I have now pointed out in about 6 different posts, the perp had already been convicted. Technically, his pedophile status and criminal record were a matter of public record. However, the fact that he had been a priest is not, and that is why he was ordered to move away from the areas where he had been a priest.

This is evidently customary in such decrees and has nothing to do with sexual abuse or this particular sequence of events. A priest forcibly laicized for pilfering the collection basket would also have been ordered to move away.

27 posted on 12/15/2002 9:24:23 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Lady In Blue
You're right about that. It's time some of these people got off of their judgment chairs, and take a look at their own churches. If it can happen in the RC church; it can certainly happen in any church!
29 posted on 12/15/2002 9:26:18 PM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
You have not proved that anyone is a bigot, except yourself.

Bigot:One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
30 posted on 12/15/2002 9:32:04 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Why would the Pope have any control of any man kicked out of the Priesthood?
31 posted on 12/15/2002 9:35:07 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Jael
Anti-Catholic Bigot: one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, and politics of hating Catholicism and its leaders to the core, and is intolerant of those who differ.
33 posted on 12/15/2002 9:35:51 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better
for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in
the depth of the sea.


Just a reminder of what The Master said on the subject.
Only posted for reference concerning this and similar problems that are faced
time to time by just about any religional group...
34 posted on 12/15/2002 9:38:04 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Wretch; Notwithstanding
He probably protests too little. Thank God he does protest. What is at stake is absolutely the most valuable institution on earth: The Roman Catholic Church. Those outside the fold fail to appreciate that. Their failure does not alter reality.

If you think that the existence of despicable perpetrators of despicable sins among clergy who abandon their vows for the sorry pottage of faggotry, or the cowardice of craven bishops who cover up such despicable sins and play musical chairs with the perverts, is going to affect the faith of any adequately catechized Roman Catholic, you are wrong. The Mass is still the Mass. The sacraments are still the sacraments. The truth of Catholicism still is and always will be the Truth.

Furthermore, no amount, no volume, no combination of instances of weepy, wailing emotional slop will justify the likes of Attorney Garabedian, Attorney MacLeish and many whom they represent in their riudiculous pretense that they should have some say in the governance of the Church itself. They should not. No one in the pews should. No one outside the fold should. We trust that none will. However terrible the experiences of those victimized by their perverted pastors, they have no general or special qualifications whatsoever to dictate terms of Church governance. Eventually they will return to the obscurity for which they are so much better qualified. The Roman Catholic Church is not going to degenerate into their little soap opera of victimhood. Pay them their damages to the extent of archdiocesan resources and move on to the next emotionalism of the moment: "Neighbor kills child's pussycat: details at ten!!!!! There oughta be a law!!!" It is Bernard Cardinal Law, Bishop Thomas Murphy, Bishop Banks, Bishop Thomas Daily, Bishop O'Keefe, and Bishop John McCormack who are responsible for the Boston coverups and obstructions of justice. It is the job of the government to investigate, charge, try, convict and, if appropriate as I think it is, to incarcerate each and every one for a long time, while taking careful opportunity to see to it that the miscreant lavender queens and child molesters in the priesthood also be jailed to the extent the law allows.

As a Catholic, I will applaud each and every jail sentence as one more step in purging and purifying the Roman Catholic Church in America of these liberal pests and pederasts and justice obstructors and AmChurch denizens who have done such damage to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church here which they were entrusted to lead.

There are probably others who deserve jail as well. I personally root for William Cardinal Keeler of Baltimore who threatened parents objecting to lesbian how and why to do it courses at Loyola Girls High School in Baltimore and Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles as next to go. If a thoroughgoing purge of the American Church is not possible during this papacy, I expect that such a purge will be a major part of the policy enacted by the next conclave beforee it chooses the next pope, hopefully a young and vigorous pillar of orthodoxy who can wield a flaming sword against the deep corruption here.

All that having been said, make no mistake about it, many who are non-Catholic critics on this issue go far beyond truth and justice to seek opportunistically to score points off Jesus Christ's own Church. Catholics who are Catholics recognize that agenda as the malicious bigotry that it is.

The sinner who has the Truth has more truth that the less sinful person who has not the Truth.

35 posted on 12/15/2002 9:38:58 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Yeah, it's about time some of the people on this thread, to remember what Christ said; about the one with the least sin casting the first stone! You'd think they would check their own leaders first, before throwing the first stone at Pope John Paul.

I'd always thought that Christians should look out for one another, and correct each other lovingly. But, shouldn't they look to their own behavior, and those of their own leaders, before they do? This is not only important for two or more people, but two or more church organizations!
36 posted on 12/15/2002 9:42:01 PM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
You sling around false accusations way too much to be taken seriously. Which is too bad. YOu might could of scored some points with this, by showing what was wrong in the article. Instead, you chose to attack anyone who just had a question.
37 posted on 12/15/2002 9:44:28 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Bumping!
38 posted on 12/15/2002 9:48:40 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Well, that is just fine. But only if you don't mind if some of us RCs ask questions, and demand answers from some of you (if you're not RC)and the leaders of your church! I think this is more than fair, don't you? Suppose we ask if your church leaders are doing anything about ministers and laypeople who do perverted things? People like this can get into ANY church or organization that involves children or otherwise vulnerable people! Don't kid yourselves!

Don't just presume that even if you're not a R.C., that it can't happen in other churches! Think about it. Then come and tell us about whether we cover up or not, or if we are afraid of being asked questions. You must be disconnected with reality, because you seem terribly naive to me! Or you know something happens in your church, and point to people in another church in a holier-than-thou way. That doesn't seem like terribly Christian behavior to me!
39 posted on 12/15/2002 9:58:57 PM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jael
Apparently you missed post #3, which points out and links to the inflamatory bigotry. [Maliciously edited FR headline of a generally misleading article: "POPE GAVE HIS BLESSING (to transfer of pedophiles!)"]

And your questions were not simply innocent inquiries - they were conclusory in nature and presumed the worst with out any basis to so presume other than the posts of a few rabid anti-catholic bigots.


40 posted on 12/15/2002 9:59:12 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson