Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 ...

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: smoking camels
This looks like your own stupidity is showing!
41 posted on 12/15/2002 9:59:57 PM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
"Once the priest had been laicized, John Paul II, as pope, had no more authority over him than he had over Frank Sinatra or Madonna Louise Ciccone or a prior pope had over Martin Luther, or a near infinite number of other cases. The pope had far less power over this miscreant than did his parole board, namely none."

If the Pope didn't have any power over this individual, how was it possible for him to to recommend that this person be moved to a new location? Obviously he had enough power to have that done.

And? That particular actions fits a pattern exhibited by the Church at large concerning this very issue. After all, the way in which they've dealt with this problem in the past is exactly the same way in which the Pope himself chose to deal with the particular person. The pattern is well established at this point.

I don't want to see any more harm come to the Church, but this this is bad news indeed.

42 posted on 12/15/2002 10:00:46 PM PST by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I am sick of reading about scores of Priests who have sex with young boys.Its an epedemic thats been hidden by the heirachy of the Catholic Church for eons. Common sense tells me that they help hide what they or more than they can control have participated in. SICK, SICK ,SICK ...
End the defense and cover up. Convict the rapists and replace them with servants of Jesus,not servants of self.
43 posted on 12/15/2002 10:01:38 PM PST by liberty or death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
What evidence do you have that Law will get a position in Rome? He is on his way back to Boston as former archbishop where he will be available to further face the music. Go get him. Take every document and publish it in the Boston Globe. Sue him personally and strip him of his assets. Jail the sorry excuse for a bishop for the rest of his life in the general population of Walpole State Prison along with his fellow miscreants. I certainly think he should turn in his credentials as a cardinal before that becomes irrelevant with his incarceration, but you can bet that Law does not get appointed to a Vatican position.

If you look at the pope's job as pope and the jurisdictions that are his within the Church, it is an awesome job if we were to elect a 58-year-old cross country skier, hiker and former soccer goalie in superb health as we did with his election in 1978. The Church, like many major institutions, has found it necessary to create bureaucracies, curial and otherwise, to govern in his name at lower levels and to divide this worldwide Church into many local jurisdictions known as dioceses, each with its own bishop or archbishop or patriarch who governs locally in the absence of extraordinary situations.

The principle of subsidiarity (local governance where possible) is a very old and Catholic tradition not just a good idea of Lincoln's. The principle is neutral and works well in most circumstances. Whenm however, your archdiocese is Milwaukee and you have Rembert Weakland as your archbishop who maintains a sideline of diddling or being diddled by (we are not so specifically informed) an ex-seminarian, local authority can be a bit of a problem. Rembert dahling directly defied and disobeyed the orders of Church courts not to wreckovate the Cathedral of St. John in Milwaukee including the installation of a statue of his heretical and despicable self in the vicinity of the altar.

The Church also has Canon Law and an elaborate structure of due process of law. Just because the application of due process thwarts some desired breakneck speed in bringing miscreants to justice does not mean that due process itself is a bad idea or that it should be riddled like swiss cheese with exceptions to satisfy the savage mob (of which I am personally a proud member in good standing).

We Catholics mark history by centuries and millenia and not by newspaper headline.

Thank you for a generally civil response. I think you will find, however, that while some lavender mafia may exist at the Vatican, it hardly controls the flow of information to this pope in such a way as to protect the queens. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has the pope's ear as much as any man on earth and is no protector of lavender queens or miscreant bishops. Many, many others in curial leadership share his commitments and practices. One difficult thing for non-Catholics and many Catholics here to understand is that the American church (AmChurch) is effectively in disobedience and schism and has constantly to be brought to heel on matters of little interest to non-Catholics like the specific words used in the Mass to keep the orthodoxy of it intact.

The youngest but most capable of popes would be severely challenged as an administrator in such times as these. This Polish fellow of ours has done a remarkably good job on the apparent policy for which he was chosen: damaging what was in 1978 perceived as a very vulnerable Soviet Union. He has done a very good job in other respects like many of his encyclicals and particularly Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of the Truth) and Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). He is now the third longest reigning pope in the long history of the Roman Catholic Church and it is very evident that his race will soon be run.

A real danger is that he will become very incapacitated and no longer able to rule. There is no provision for deposing a pope and he is apparently committed not to resign. The Church, BTW, is not about to recognize secular things like "brain death" as indicative of an opportunity for a new conclave. If such an interregnum (effectively) should occur and last for a few years, the world as a whole will suffer and not just Catholics. JP II is one of the few counterweights to the ongoing dissolution of Western Civilization itself. As one example, no secular leader in the West has the ability to recruit Moslems and Islamic nations or enjoy their trust in common cause as he does on matters like abortion in United Nations gatherings.

44 posted on 12/15/2002 10:14:22 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Good points, and good going! I'm reminded about an article a few years ago in either the "Ligorian"(sp?), or the "Catholic Digest"; I think it was the former. Anyway, the article was titled, "The Protestant Nose Against The Catholic Windowpane". The author had the view that some Protestant leaders actually wished they'd had a type of Inquisition.

They found a lot to admire in the system, in spite of some of the abuses that came later. The person/persons that had this view, said that if they had something like a Inquisition system long ago; they could've prevented Jim Jones from getting away with what he did.

A lot of them don't have a central figure (a Pope)to govern them, but some have bishops and/or a governing board or committee, don't they?
45 posted on 12/15/2002 10:17:40 PM PST by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
No, you are wrong. And you are slanderously maligning people who asked questions on this thread.

It might be a free country, but I doubt that your actions will be looked kindly upon.

Not only that, but you lost a chance to support your argument by becoming a bigot and attacking other people.
46 posted on 12/15/2002 10:18:32 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
If the bishops had known about and obeyed that canon from 1961 and not ordained homosexual priests, an awful lot of
this could have been avoided (unless that was an obscure opinion piece that wasn't binding). I had this thing about obedience but I guess it doesn't matter much any more.
47 posted on 12/15/2002 10:21:29 PM PST by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Defend our pope - he is under malicious attack here at FR.

He most certainly is, and we must stand firm and united during this time of darkness. THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL ... but they are sure knocking hard!

Those who hate the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, most of them because we uphold the moral truths they can not accept, are revelling in this scandal. We must double our efforts in defense of the faith as well as to spread the Good News.

48 posted on 12/15/2002 10:24:43 PM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue
He's a "evangelical".He always seems to think he has some right to comment on the Church.I think,if I'm not mistaken,that his program on the Salem broadcasting network(?)is run by evangelicals which would explain why he is allowed to get away with it.

Damn! Just HATE that First Amendment, when it is applied to Evangelicals criticizing the Roman Catholic Church, huh, Ms. Blue Lady?

It's called Freedom of Speech. THAT'S why he is "allowed" to get away with it.

Get over it. If you don't like it, consider moving to Canada -- or, perhaps, to Vatican City (where the Roman Catholic Church reigns supreme).

49 posted on 12/15/2002 10:26:33 PM PST by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenR2
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


LENGTH: 451 words

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

BYLINE: By John Ellement, Globe Staff


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.

50 posted on 12/15/2002 10:27:46 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Defend our pope - he is under malicious attack here at FR.

Defend away. Makes for a lively discussion. Besides, that's what freedom of speech is all about.

However, please don't be alarmed that some of us "departed brethren" don't tow the party line!

51 posted on 12/15/2002 10:28:31 PM PST by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jael
The whole story here is premised on a slanderous lie used to generate buzz at the pope's expense.

See #50.

The story is a lie from beginning to end as far as implicating the pope in anyting sinister, and you fell for it - eagerly fell for it, I might ad.
52 posted on 12/15/2002 10:32:08 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dsutah
** You'd think they would check their own leaders first, before throwing the first stone at Pope John Paul.**

Well said!
53 posted on 12/15/2002 10:32:55 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dsutah
Don't just presume that even if you're not a R.C., that it can't happen in other churches! Think about it.

True enough. You have a valid point

And we have a valid debating point, also: Lithuanians COULD fly highjacked 757s into NYC skyscrapers -- they just haven't, yet. That is why we talk about Arab terrorists in this forum.

Get the analogy?

54 posted on 12/15/2002 10:33:23 PM PST by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lady In Blue
**Shame on the anti-Catholics on this site and in the media**

You will know them by their deeds. Indeed we can always tell who the Catholic bashers are, can't we?
55 posted on 12/15/2002 10:36:40 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenR2
"Defend our pope" speaks for itself. If you do not claim him, then you have not been asked to defend him.

56 posted on 12/15/2002 10:38:46 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"Defend our pope" speaks for itself. If you do not claim him, then you have not been asked to defend him.

Okay. So, we can agree on one point, then. Cheers!

57 posted on 12/15/2002 10:39:45 PM PST by BenR2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
First, the percentage of criminal priests is lower than that of the population at large. Virtually all of the cases were HOMOSEXUAL in nature, not child molestation. This in NO WAY condones the behavior and crimes of the offending priests. They should be defrocked and prosecuted. But the fact remains that the priests who are sinned so badly are a small percentage of the total priests in America.

There have been many, many mistakes by some church leaders in this tragic affair. All the mistakes were made by men, all of whom are sinners no matter how devout. Protestant churches, public schools, and the government routinely operate in the same manner. This is NOT to condone the behavior; it's to show that it happens everywhere. People like to attack the Catholic Church more because it's "fun" ... they point out what "hypocrites" we are, being morally conservative and having a bunch of homosexual priests having sex with young boys.

The Catholic Church's teachings are solid. There is nothing wrong with the faith. There are many things wrong with some of the priests and leaders, and those are, thank the Holy Spirit, being corrected. It is our lot to be humilated and humbled out of this tragedy, and we should suffer, all Catholics, out of penance for the victims and sorrow for those in the church who commit such heinous acts.

But the Church and the fallen within the church can and should be separated.

God bless.

58 posted on 12/15/2002 10:42:24 PM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
But, isn't it interesting that he is in that "it's only a SMALL number of Priests offending" crowd...

Yes, isn't it? He happens to be right. The total number of priests involved in these horrible crimes is miniscule compared to the other priests who are serving their Parishes faithfully. He presses the point that the overwhelming majority of these cases involved homosexual activity with young people who were past puberty. For this he has been howled down by homosexual activists. The actions of those priests are not pedophilia, the more heinous of the crimes.

I have heard Mr. Donahue speak about this. He abhors what this VERY SMALL number of priests has done to the children and young people that they abused. I have heard him say NOTHING that would infer he does not care what happened to the victims. When I have seen him talk, he is simply looking for their to be some proportionality about the whole subject; something that is sorely lacking right now because peoples' feelings are way too raw for that.

59 posted on 12/15/2002 10:44:16 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I'm not convinced, but lets say open minded. Please forward examples of where the who "defrocked" pedofiles were and under what examples they were relocated or not relocated. I still don't understand the authority of the church to make that determination about "defrocked" priests if they are no longer "employed" and under the jurisdiction of the church. Are you sure we are talking about defrocked priests resulting from the child abuse???? Please offer examples.
60 posted on 12/15/2002 10:53:44 PM PST by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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
Topics · Post Article

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