Skip to comments.CARDINAL LAW’S RESIGNATION [Rabid Bigots Falsely Accuse Pope]
Posted on 12/15/2002 8:34:40 PM PST by Notwithstanding
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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
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.
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!
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?
Okay. So, we can agree on one point, then. Cheers!
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.
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.
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.