Replies

This is not stupidity on Cardinal Laws part it is gross dereliction of his duty to be a shepherd and protect the little ones from the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Fr. Shanley and Geohgen were priest perverts and Law knew it. The buck stopped with him. You are taking a very worldy view on this. Jesus said, "If anyone harms one of these little ones it would be better that he have a millstone tied round his neck and caste into the sea." This was a form of capital punishment in Christ's time. Little ones mean those in the flock of Christ and children.

You are minimizing what Law did. Just look at this http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/courtdocs/LawDeposition-2002-06-07.htm. The Court transcript of Law who was really Lawless in God's eyes because he let children be victimized. Law promoted Shanley even after he heard of gross complaints about him. Cardinal Law covered dirty things up and he was promoted for his efforts. Law has plenty of money and he doesn’t need anymore from the Vatican.

You let Cardinal Law off the hook when you say he was hoodwinked by shrinks everyone who is a Christian should know that God's law is above the Law of the human science psychology which is extremely flawed at best in understanding fallen man.

At the press conference the Cardinal Prefect did inform the journalists about the canonical procedure that is based on the canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law represented in the Code of 1983 and in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Already in the Code of Canon Law of 1917, Canon 2359 § 2, stated. "If they were to admit an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue with minors under 16 years of age ... they must be suspended, be declared infamous, be deprived of any office, benefice, dignity or function that they might hold, and, in more serious cases, be deposed". The canon 1395 § 2 of the 1983 revised Code: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years, must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state, when the case requires it" and the same is said in canon 1435 § 1 of the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO). see http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PRSHLYTH.HTM. When you compare the two codes the Newer Code is more vague. See below

Substantively, canon law has, of course, always considered the sexual abuse of a minor to be a grave crime and grievous sin. Canon 1395 of the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici (the “1983 Code”) establishes that sexual contact with a minor qualifies as one of four classifications of sexual offenses for which a man may be permanently removed from the clerical state.14 The other three grounds include any form of coerced sex, a public offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, and continued open concubinage with a woman after an official warning. Permanent removal from the clerical state constitutes one of the most serious penalties contemplated by canon law.15 Canon 2359 of the 1917 Codex Iuris Canonici (the “1917 Code”) contained provisions similar to those stipulated in the present statute.16 The substantive provisions of canon law also envision penalties for ecclesiastical authorities who fail to apply canon law. Canon 1389 of the 1983 Code provides for a penalty, including deprivation of ecclesiastical office, for an official who abuses ecclesiastical power or who omits—through culpable negligence—to perform an act of ecclesiastical governance.17 A bishop who fails to employ the appropriate provisions of canon law in a case of sexual abuse of a minor is liable to penal sanctions imposed by the Holy See. See.http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/44_4/03_TXT.htm. "THE CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE CRISIS AND THE SPIRIT OF CANON LAW" Rev. John J. Coughlin, O.F.M.

"The code's canon 1395:2 specifies that sex between priests and minors is an ecclesiastical crime. Yet the 1985 code see alterboys.tripod.com/Faith/Priests_protex.html - 19k (for below) “commentary stated that an initial charge of molesting "is not viewed as seriously" as "concubinage" (cohabiting with a woman) or "attempted marriage" (a priest's civil marriage, which the church does not recognize). The distinction is apparent because a priest involved with an adult woman is penalized with suspension, while one who molests a minor faces lesser and undefined "just penalties," the commentary says. The Canon Law Society produced a revised commentary in 2000 that says this about molestation: "Somewhat surprisingly, the code does not seem to view such delicts (offenses) as seriously as other violations of clerical continence."

“The Rev. Thomas J. Green of the Catholic University of America wrote the commentary on sex abuse for the 1985 and 2000 editions. He thinks the canon seems to distinguish between a priest's "ongoing relationship" with a woman and "what could be an individual act. The seriousness of the breach might be more clear."The Rev. Thomas Doyle, a canonist who has advised hundreds of Catholics taking molestation claims to civil court, says that canonical thinking on sex abuse is misguided. "Even occasional acts of sex with a minor are far more devastating than habitual sexual contact with a consenting adult of either gender," he says. Canon law thinking shows "more concern for the clerical establishment than for the victim." Monsignor Kenneth Lasch, a canon lawyer for the Paterson, N.J., Diocese, agrees. He believes the commentary downplays
the damage clergy abuse does to the Catholic community." see alterboys.tripod.com/Faith/Priests_protex.html - 19k Catholic Church Law Gives Abusive Priests More Protection Than Their Victims, Some Specialists Complain
By Richard N. Ostling The Associated Press
Published: Apr 18, 2002

Cardinal Law clearly violated the moral, civil (even though the state won't touch him) and Church law and it seems that in today's Church too many clerics are a law unto themselves.