Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 04/28/2010 8:34:27 AM PDT by marshmallow
The web site of The Washington Post has published the astounding-- and completely unsupported-- claim that Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis and current Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, was “kicked upstairs” because of improper handling of sexual abuse allegations.
“Some prelates acted in ways that constituted cover-ups,” writes Anthony Stevens-Arroyo. “Many of them have accepted blame for errors and made public statements of apology. Others, like Cardinal Law, formerly of Boston and Archbishop Burke, formerly of St. Louis, have been ‘kicked upstairs’ to the Vatican. Not only have no apologies come directly from them, one wonders if such prelates might be liable for criminal action in the USA for obstruction of justice concerning the way they handled pedophilia cases.”
Contrary to the reckless claim by Stevens-Arroyo, Cardinal Law-- who was indeed the subject of an investigation by law-enforcement officials in Massachusetts-- has apologized repeatedly for his mishandling of abuse cases. No responsible journalist or civil official has ever accused Archbishop Burke of obstruction of justice.
Washington Post article: Benedict Not to Blame
Interesting. Thanks.
I get a real kick out of FReepers, who would never trust the Washington Post on an issue of “secular politics,” swallowing whatever it says about Catholics, no questions asked.
Ditto for the NYTimes.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
It is precisely because the disobedience of the bishops was so grave that Rome was put in such a compromised situation. Young Catholics in 2010 need to put the 1970s into perspective:
In 1961, the Vatican prohibited the ordination of homosexual and even homophilic priests, even if chaste, finding that the rigors of celibacy required those in excellent psycho-sexual health. In 1965, Vatican II established Latin as the normal language of Catholic Worship and exalted classical hymns as an expression of honor to God. But it made a few concessions: the vernacular was recognized as helpful to catechesis; an exception vernacular song may have its place in mass; in “extraordinary” circumstances, when a shortage of priests necessitated it, eucharist could be distributed by the laity. A few short years later, Pope Paul VI condemned artificial birth control.
In the following years, the American Catholic church completely revolted. Pop songs replaced sacred hymns (”A Song for Parents and Children,” maybe, but “Leaving on a Jet Plane”???) Nearly all AmChurch dioceses ordained homosexuals. Communion was de-rigeur handed out by the laity, while priests sat on “thrones” where the tabernacle used to be. Priests and bishops advocated for birth control, or even abortion.
John Paul II came in, realized the grave state of the church , and launched many reforms. His one weakness may have been that he was accustomed to enemies of the Church using accusations of homosexuality as a pretext for Communist Re-education camps, and was slow to recognize this particular abuse. As he became aware of the scope, he must also have realized how gravely compromised the church as a whole was. With, as you say, 2/3rds of diocese compromised, an overt disciplinarian purge would only cause formal schism. (I’d caution, however, of equating too many of those diocese with the outright malfeasance of Mahony and Law.) So his work was quiet, and behind the scenes.
Many would prefer heads on pikes, understandably. But the effectiveness of the John Paul-Ratzinger reforms from Rome in the 1980s are gravely misunderstood. According to Hopkins University commission, chaired by Governor Keating, between 1978 and 1991, the number of abuse cases fell by over 95%, before the American press, which styles itself now as champion of the cleanup, even got wind of it. And it continued to fall after that.
It might be more gratifying to the victims of the abuse to see more abusers publicly humiliated earlier. But I doubt if it would have been so successful.
Thank you for injecting some facts into the discussion.
One thing this latest campaign by the NYTimes to link the pope and now one of the truly honest, solid, conservative Catholic bishops, to various crimes has shown me is that I cannot trust my fellow FReepers to read the news critically and honestly.
As a result, I know now, when the come to take me away on the basis of false accusations of child abuse or sexual harrassment, simply because I stood up in my classroom for traditional marriage, denounced the feminists, told the gays they are disordered
when they come to take me away based on false accusations like the ones leveled against Burke
I know that half of Freepers will be sitting there shouting, fry him, he had it coming, Scumbag.
The day is coming when Catholic bishops and those who defend them will go to prison for defending marriage, defending traditional sexuality, defending truth
and some of you Freepers will be cheering them on because you always already know that Catholics are sex abusers
because
the
Washington
Post
said
so.
Think about it.
More facts. Thank you.
>> I get a real kick out of FReepers, who would never trust the Washington Post on an issue of “secular politics,” swallowing whatever it says about Catholics, no questions asked. ... What a bunch of hypocrites. <<
Many Freepers naturally trust the conservative movement, and know the truth, so they recognize when the Post lies. But they naturally distrust the Catholic Church, and fail to recognize mainstream-media lies. It’s closer to ignorance, even if it borders on willful ignorance in some cases. But it’s not necessarily hypocrisy, and people will immediately tune out anyone who calls them a hypocrite. It’s far better to keep pointing out, over and over and over again, the deceitful nature of the Washington Post.
Then get back to me about what I actually said and tell me where you disagree with it.
L
Those are the laws in place now; I don't think they were at the time the vast bulk of the abuse took place (in the '60s and '70s). I think they may have been passed in the wake of the great day-care sex abuse scare.
These attacks having nothing to do with eliminating abuse or protecting the children. These attacks are part of a very refined battlefield prep operation.
In order for the final offensive against the Catholic faith to have credibility, they have to implant firmly in the minds of the public that Catholic bishops and the pope are enablers of child molesters.
Some Catholic bishops were. But notice that the current attacks are nearly all aimed at conservative, traditional bishops and the conservative, traditional pope. Where liberal bishops in fact did enable criminals (Weakland in Milwaukee), the NYTimes ignores Weakland and tries to make it stick to Benedict.
Burke, Castrillon-Hoyos etc. are traditionalists. They have to be discredited in order to discredit the recovery of tradition that Benedict launched in 1985 and continues to this day. It is succeeding. They’ve hated his guts ever since 1985 when he, almost single-handedly, turned the tide from post-Vatican II liberal craziness to implementing what the Council really intended.
After they have sucked all you gullible non-Catholic Freepers in, sowed doubt in your minds about Burke and Benedict etc. and after they have sucked 90 % of self-proclaimed Catholics in, making them distrust their own pope and those associated with him (Burke as head of the highest Roman court),
after they have sucked all you gullible folks in
they will turn on the rest of us. They will create Test Acts to force people to choose: is same-sex attraction disordered or totally normal? Must marriage be restricted to a man and a woman? Is sex outside marriage wrong? Is sex separated from procreation wrong?
Say yes to any of the above and you will be declared a hater, falsely accused of child abuse or some similar crime, and hauled away.
And the Evangelical defenders of traditional values on FR, where will you stand then? Will you stand with us or will you take the charges of child abuse leveled against your fellow Catholic Freepers at face value?
Think about it.
You are being set up. The battlefield is being prepared for the assault. They first have to gull you into believing that most Catholics, after all, are either abusers or enablers because of their stoooooppppidd beliefs about contraception and celibacy.
It’s becoming clearer by the day to me that we Catholics will have very few defenders outside the church, indeed, very few inside the Church, when the final push comes.
Chill yourself.
Freepers pride themselves on their ability to sniff out lies in the press, to have smoked out the Texas National Guard Dan Rather stuff etc.
It is hypocritical to abandon the same critical acumen on this one issue.
Sure it hurts. The truth hurts. It is hypocritical. All I ask is the same level of critical suspicion on this issue as on other issues. It’s not there.
From Newsweek:
Shanley first gained notoriety during 1970s as a “street priest” and icon of the Progressive movement whose writings included “Changing Norms of Sexuality”. [1] During the 1980s, Shanley served as pastor of St. John the Evangelist in Newton[,MA]. In 1990, he was transferred to St. Anne’s in San Bernardino, California. While there he and another priest, John J. White, co-owned “a bed-and-breakfast for gay customers 50 miles away in Palm Springs”.[2]
Father Shanley had earned the nickname “the hippie priest” for his long hair and outspoken views, including his public rejection of the church’s condemnation of homosexuality.[3] He attended the meeting at which NAMBLA, the male homosexual pedophile organisation, was formed.[4]
According to Leon Podles in his book Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, “In late 1993, Shanley was sent to the Institute of Living in Hartford, Connecticut, for evaluation. The Boston archdiocese has refused to release this evaluation, but other released files show that Shanley admitted to nine sexual encounters, of which four involved boys, and that he was diagnosed as ‘narcissistic’ and ‘histrionic’. Shanley admitted that he was ‘attracted to adolescents’ and on the basis of this confession, the Boston archdiocese secretly settled several lawsuits against Shanley. The archdiocese of Boston in 1993 had to admit to the diocese of San Bernardino part of the truth about Shanley, and the bishop of San Bernardino immediately dismissed him.”
Key points:
1. The outrageousness of the case against Shanley stems from behavior condoned by the media: that the Boston Archdiocese had to know he was a monster, because he ran a gay-themed bed-and-breakfast, and had attended a gay-rights meeting which led to the creation of NAMBLA.
2. The Boston Archdiocese found out what it actually did know about actual crimes, because Shanley ADMITTED IT to the Archdiocese, something he never would have done if he could have expected he would have been turned over to the police, instead of sent for treatment.
3. Shanley was convicted of a single case of sexual abuse, based on repressed memory syndrome, which came to light AFTER his admissions. My opinion is that had the highly politicized Massachusetts court NOT known about the then-public, but completely unadmissable admissions by Shanley to abuse, the case would have been thrown out.
IOW, if the Catholic Church relied on the same procedures for discovering, investigating, and punishing sex offenders that lay society now demands, he probably would never have stood accused, and might likely have been exonerated.
I;m sorry, not from Newsweek, but Wikipedia in that previous post.
This is one of the disappointments of the bishops: our shepherds are themselves but cowering lambs.
My first disappointment was the moral equivalence between the United States and the Soviet Union implicit in their call for unilateral disarmament.
Another disappointment is the prevalence of misplaced compassion- compassion for the priests in this discussion at the expense of their victims, compassion for the lives of dangerous convicted murderers at the expense of justice, compassion for illegal aliens at the expense of taxpayers, public safety, and the law.
I am afraid that with few exceptions we are being led by "men without chests".
Because you’re assuming facts not in evidence. I don’t think they are accused of covering up child sex abuse. They were accused of re-assigning priests that had had allegations made against them.
Cardinal Burke was NOT “kicked upstairs.” He was rewarded for his EXTRAORDINARY, OUTSTANDING piety, traditionalism, conservatism, and zealous defense of the Church, with an extremely important position in Rome, overseeing the Doctrine of the Faith, as His Holiness, Benedict XVI did in his former personage.
Which in my State would be a crime if they didn't immediately report those allegations to the proper authorities.
The standard here I believe is 'reasonable suspicion' that children are being abused. No one in my State is exempt from this law. Period.
If in fact they aided or abetted in any way those who abused children they need to be prosecuted and harshly. The Catholic Church does itself no favors by 'transferring' them anywhere but into the hands of law enforcement.
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.