Church Official Who Is Now a Bishop Says He Knew of Priest's Support of Man-Boy Sex

Yahoo News ^ | October 28, 2002 | Denise Lavoie

[ultima ratio]

Church official who is now a bishop says he knew of priest's support of man-boy sex Mon Oct 28, 3:10 PM ET By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - The man who is now the bishop of New York's Brooklyn Diocese said in a sworn statement made public Monday that he knew the Rev. Paul Shanley endorsed sex between men and boys when he promoted him two decades ago to head a Boston-area parish.

At the time, Thomas V. Daily was chancellor, vicar general and auxiliary bishop in the Boston Archdiocese. Daily promoted Shanley to administrator and acting pastor at St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts.

Shanley, 71, is one of the priests at the center of the sex scandal engulfing the archdiocese. He was indicted in June charges of raping or otherwise molesting boys while he was at St. Jean's from 1979 to 1989.

In the deposition, Daily said he considered Shanley a "troubled priest" who needed help. He also said he knew Shanley had attended a meeting of the North American Man-Boy Love Association and had spoken in favor of the group.

But under questioning, Daily said he had not received any reports of Shanley engaging in abuse himself.

Daily, who served in the Boston post from 1977 to 1984, gave the testimony in August for lawsuits filed by three men who claim they were sexually abused by Shanley at St. Jean's.

Daily said there was no indication Shanley was promoting sexual relationships between men and boys while he was at St. Jean's.

"But having said that, I would have very great regrets," Daily said.

"You have regrets you made the appointment?" asked plaintiffs' lawyer Roderick MacLeish Jr.

"I think I would have done much better if I hadn't made the appointment," Daily replied.

Frank DeRosa, a spokesman for the Brooklyn Diocese, had no immediate comment on the deposition Monday.

[ultima ratio]

Just a routine deposition these days.

[drstevej]

The man who is now the bishop...

No effort at reform has any credibility while this man holds the office of bishop. [BTW, I would feel the same way if he were a Protestant.] If the only one who can remove him is the Pope, then his continued service is at the pleasure of the Pope which brings immense shame upon the office of the papacy.

[narses]

This isn't about Vatican II, it isn't about thise Rite or that Rite, it is about Satan inside the Church. The Evil One has gone so far in his fight against God as to subvert His priests. Pray.

[Palladin]

I hate to say it, but you're right. The buck stops with the Pope. He has done nothing to rid the Church of this hideous scourge of pedophile priests and their high-up enablers.

[Cicero]

For what it's worth, I think Daley is just being more honest than some of his fellow bishops. It was naive, but I believe him when he says he didn't know this guy was actually abusing boys.

Daley had a good reputation in Brooklyn as a strong pro-lifer. I think that's one reason why the press has gone after him. I don't fault him the way I fault Cardinal Law.

[ultima ratio]

He knew Shanley supported man-boy sex yet he appointed him to a parish. That says it all. He is just another corrupt bishop. There can't be any excuse for that. Are these men running the Catholic Church or a charity for unemployed gays?

[drstevej]

*** I think Daley is just being more honest than some of his fellow bishops.***

If he is he's an admitted pedophile enabler and they are deceitful pedophile enablers. Either way the guy is reprehensible.

*** It was naive, but I believe him when he says he didn't know this guy was actually abusing boys.***

You are naive.

***I think that's one reason why the press has gone after him.***

You don't think his knowing appointment of a man who advocated men having sex with boys AND who was a priest isn't basis enough for the press to hound this bishop.

Being pro-life is commendable. Maybe it's too much to expect that the babies who are allowed to be born can afterwards avoid a priest/clergy man seeking to rape them.

Wake up, Cicero.

[ultima ratio]

Great post.

[Telit Likitis]

His sense of humor isn't bad either! See reply 2 to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/777363/posts

-Telit

[fatima]

Very sorry to hear this.

[BlackElk]

Fault Bishop Daily. Don't be so easy on him. The Vatican had demanded of Cardinal Madeiros that an explanation be made of what the Boston Archdiocese intended to do about Shanley and the inquiry was never answered. Madeiros died not long thereafter and Cardinal Law was appointed to Boston and continued the stonewalling. This entire disgrace is one more proof that the AmChurch is in disobedient schism.

That Daily is a pro-lifer (which is beyond question) or that he is Supreme Chaplain of the socially conservative Knights of Columbus Supreme Council does not sanitize his abysmal performance in the matter of Fr. Shanley's support for anal and oral rape of children or Daily's approval of Shanley to be entrusted with the responsibilities of pastor. p> Daily's belated apologies do not refute the fact that he acted in Boston as a careerist and was rewarded with Brooklyn (the American diocese with the greatest population of Catholics, nominal or otherwise).

Daily is in his 70s and it is time for him to go along with Mahoney, Law, Pilarczyk, Pilla, Adamec, Murphy and a very long list of others.

We cannot, as Catholics, defend this sort of behavior (Dailey's enabling or Shanley's advocacy and action). We also cannot delegate the attack on them to those outside our Church or to the pseudo-Catholic AmChurch termite liberal groups like the "Voice of the Faithful" and "Call to Action" and/or such outfits as "Survivors Network."

We need figuratively to shoot our own dogs, starting with Dailey as an otherwise conservative example. Then we can move on to the rest of the usual gang of ecclesiastical revolutionary bishops who have been defending homosexuality for years.

Drstevej and ultima ratio are right on this one. Neither is in a position to DO anything about it other than calling attention to the problem in expressions of honesty. We are in a position to act from within the Church and we must do so.

Nothing less than a thoroughgoing and bloodletting purge STARTING at the level of the guilty bishops, archbishops and cardinals here will suffice. Let the scuppers be choked with the gore and may the American Church return to Catholicism.

[Dajjal]

That Daily is a pro-lifer (which is beyond question) or that he is Supreme Chaplain of the socially conservative Knights of Columbus Supreme Council does not sanitize his abysmal performance in the matter of Fr. Shanley's support for anal and oral rape of children or Daily's approval of Shanley to be entrusted with the responsibilities of pastor.

Dittoes. There is no excuse.

[Aquinasfan]

The man who is now the bishop of New York's Brooklyn Diocese said in a sworn statement made public Monday that he knew the Rev. Paul Shanley endorsed sex between men and boys when he promoted him two decades ago to head a Boston-area parish.

WUHUT?!

Bishop Daily is also the national chaplain for the K of C

[ninenot]

Yup. Only defense for the Pope is the one most likely: he is/was kept ignorant of the players in the scandal by subordinates who were 'in on the game.' His (to date seeming inaction is a concern. But a lot goes on in Rome that's not reported by the Associated Press or Time magazine...

[Catholicguy]

<> I disagree. The one's responsible are Shanley himself and those with immediate authority above him. It seems to me you are making the assumption the Pope knew this information and had only one course of action. It appears to me there are some who argue the Pope does not have authority to act when he acts against their desires yet they want to hold him responsible for the actions of others and they expect him to act as they would or else he is guilty.

The way things work within a Diocese are not like that. A Bishop in one Diocese likely does not know what is going on in his own Diocese, say nothing about what is going on in the Diocese adjacent to him - to say nothing about expecting the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, to know everything happening in every Diocese in the world.

The Bishop has the duties to Teach, Rule, Sanctify. Those guilty for these crimes are being punished and will be punished - both prior to and after death. Removing them from their posts immediately presents a myriad of problems that few are aware of, not the least of which is it be better all this come to light in depositions etc.

I find the desire to blame the Pope bizarre. Keep the blame focused on those responsible. Why take this opportunity to join in on an attack on the Papacy?<>

[american colleen]

Yeah, where else can they get easy access to little boys? Your defense of these monsters is pathetic an un-Catholic.

Bud, "A passage taken out of context is a pretext."

CG was talking about the Bishops, not the abusing priests.

[ultima ratio]

According to Father Shaughnessy (see excerpts posted above), a healthy institution is comprised of a few scoundrels, a few morally heroic people, and a vast majority of go-alongs who are not morally brave, but who generally follow the leadership of the heroic few who keep the institution on even keel. When this majority begins to tilt in favor of the few scoundrels who are corrupt, the whole institution is thereby corrupted. That is what has happened in the American Church. Bishop Daily is just another go-along type who follows the leadership of scoundrels. In doing so, he has himself become corrupt.