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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301 next last
Catholic League president William Donohue addressed what Cardinal Bernard Law’s resignation means to most Catholics:

“Most Catholics are greeting the resignation of Cardinal Law with a sigh of relief and sadness. While no one blames Cardinal Law for the entire scandal in the Church, his departure nonetheless represents an important step towards recapturing the trust of the laity. Now the mending process can proceed with alacrity.

“There is a small, but vocal, minority for whom nothing will ever satisfy. SNAP president Barbara Blaine, ex-priest and psychotherapist Richard Sipe and victims’ attorney Mitchell Garabedian are already whining and making new demands. Worse, some are given to reckless charges against the Church. Take, for example, the recent remarks of a radical group called the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors. They have accused the pope of ordering a coverup of the sex-abuse allegations.

“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.

“Finally, some are already beating the war drums going after bishops of other dioceses. This is absurd: everyone knows that no other diocese in the nation was qualitatively or quantitatively comparable to Boston. To suggest otherwise is to play into the hands of Fifth-Column Catholics.”

1 posted on 12/15/2002 8:34:40 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AKA Elena; american colleen; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ArrogantBustard; Askel5; ...
Defend our pope - he is under malicious attack here at FR.
2 posted on 12/15/2002 8:35:31 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Evil, bigoted, malicious, libelous FR link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807077/posts
3 posted on 12/15/2002 8:38:55 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

The pope has nothing to fear from FR. BUT, he might take a hard look at the homosexual subculture in the Catholic Church. Apparently, he is unable or unwilling to control it...

4 posted on 12/15/2002 8:44:20 PM PST by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I suppose you could theorize that the head of Enron didn't know what was going on and shares no blame for the company's misfortune. Not many people would believe it, but you could try.
5 posted on 12/15/2002 8:45:47 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Notwithstanding
Q: How is this about "rabid bigotry"? I know you can make the case that these are highly-agendized activists, but that doesn't make them "bigots," just fanatical. And fanaticism is a staple of our modern culture--even here on FR.

I have no quibble with your rebuke of these people--I'm sure you're right; they likely won't ever be satisfied, just as the "civil rights" folks will never admit that they've won the fight because the fight becomes an end in itself, not a means to an end--but at least you can use a more accurate and less incendiary term than "bigot."

7 posted on 12/15/2002 8:47:33 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"Evil, bigoted, malicious, libelous FR link:"

Me thinks thou doest protest too much.

8 posted on 12/15/2002 8:51:40 PM PST by Ex-Wretch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
“There is a small, but vocal, minority for whom nothing will ever satisfy. SNAP president Barbara Blaine, ex-priest and psychotherapist Richard Sipe and victims’ attorney Mitchell Garabedian are already whining and making new demands. Worse, some are given to reckless charges against the Church. Take, for example, the recent remarks of a radical group called the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors. They have accused the pope of ordering a coverup of the sex-abuse allegations.

Perhaps Mr Donohue should stick to harassing some more Radio Shock Jocks...his sympathy and commitment to the victims of the abuse by Church leaders is underwhelming!

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

Mr. Donohue, and anyone else who shares his view...what side of this would Jesus be on?

Would he be defending the RCC against what they have done, or would he be on the side of the victims.

Before answering, think Gesthemmene...and remember that "Camel and Needle" thing...oh, and let's not forget "millstone"...

9 posted on 12/15/2002 8:54:44 PM PST by Itzlzha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Asking questions is not an attack. Calm down.

Isn’t this what parole boards recommend to released inmates—that they not return to the neighborhood that nurtured their maladies?

The 'neighborhood' did not nurture his maladies. Something else did. He needs to be monitored as he will certainly assault again. Sending the abuser away is either an attempt to keep him away from his victims, keep him away from authorities, or prevent news of his abuses from getting to the press.

10 posted on 12/15/2002 8:54:57 PM PST by Scupoli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I stand with the Holy Father and Catholics like you.Shame on the anti-Catholics on this site and in the media,including a certain talk show host out of Southern California who makes snide comments about the problems in our church.And what bugs me so much is that he's not even a Catholic.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.
11 posted on 12/15/2002 8:55:55 PM PST by Lady In Blue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Notwithstanding
sure.......
13 posted on 12/15/2002 8:59:12 PM PST by smoking camels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
get a life! you are protecting a corrupt man here.
14 posted on 12/15/2002 8:59:41 PM PST by smoking camels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Isn’t this what parole boards recommend to released inmates

Not really, no.

15 posted on 12/15/2002 9:01:53 PM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
you are acting in a way that makes your church look stupid. stop for your own sake.
16 posted on 12/15/2002 9:02:14 PM PST by smoking camels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Galahad2; Notwithstanding; ninenot; american colleen; Desdemona; saradippity; Siobhan; Campion; ...
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 you must demonstrate your ignorance, try not to do it under the name of a Catholic knight.

Jail Law for obstruction of justice. Jail the miscreant pedophile ex-priests. Lay off the pope.

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.

This is a species of vicarious exercise of imagined infinite earthly power backed by genuinely infinite divine power and a snug and comfy pretension of the poster but bears no relation to the day-to-day reality of the papal office and the myriad of varied responsibilities that are the burden of this or any pope.

17 posted on 12/15/2002 9:03:09 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
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.

What about the victims...and what about having the guilty held accountable under the rule of Law?

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.

Again, you confuse the situation...these Priests were never held accountable, and their crimes were hidden! Law and the RCC HID THEM from the public, the Law, and the congregations they shuffled them to and from!

Remember that Law recommended one pedophile/homo Priest to be a Chaplain in the Air Force, and stated in his letter of recommendation that there "was nothing in the Priest's background that would prevent him from working with children"?

How do you answer this, o Blinders-MK I wearer? And while you are answering that, answer this...
Would YOU let YOUR kid alone with a Priest now...especially a "new transfer"?

18 posted on 12/15/2002 9:04:02 PM PST by Itzlzha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoking camels; Notwithstanding
This post suggests that the Roman Catholic Church is not your Church. If so, it is also none of your business.
19 posted on 12/15/2002 9:04:09 PM PST by BlackElk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
He issued a decree, not a suggestion. What kind of control does he have over defrocked pedophiles? The decree shows that the Pope was involved in the issue. And why would he recommend that the man go somewhere where no one knew of the scandal? What about the children that were later molested?

No one is attacking anyone, except you. If you are to the point where you can't discuss the issue without calling people names, it would seem that YOU are the bigot.
20 posted on 12/15/2002 9:07:55 PM PST by Jael
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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