Posted on 04/07/2005 4:09:47 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
VATICAN CITY - Cardinal Bernard Law, who resigned in disgrace as archbishop of Boston over his role in the clergy sex abuse crisis, has been given a role of honor in the mourning for Pope John Paul II.
The Vatican announced Thursday he will lead one of the daily Masses celebrated in the pope's memory during the nine-day period that follows the funeral, called Novemdiales. The service will be held Monday at St. Mary Major Basilica, where Law was appointed archpriest after leaving Boston.
Some Catholics in his former archdiocese immediately protested.
Suzanne Morse, spokeswoman for Voice of the Faithful, a Newton, Mass.-based reform group that emerged from the abuse scandal, said Law's visibility since the pope's death has been ``extremely painful'' both for abuse survivors and rank-and-file Catholics.
``It certainly shows and puts a spotlight on the lack of accountability in the Catholic Church, that the most visible bishop in the clergy sexual abuse crisis has been given these honorary opportunities,'' she said.
John King, 40, of Metheun, Mass., was a victim of the Rev. Ronald H. Paquin, a convicted rapist who was defrocked by the Vatican.
``It's a sad state of affairs,'' he said. ``They're just trying to make this go away, but I don't see how there's going to be any change now.''
David Clohessy, national director for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, called it ``terribly insensitive.''
``It rubs salt into the already deep wounds of victims and it allows the best-documented complicit bishop to exploit the pope's death for his own selfish purposes,'' Clohessy said.
Law did not respond to a phone message left at the basilica.
He stepped down as archbishop 11 months after a judge unsealed court records in January 2002 that showed he had allowed priests with confirmed histories of molesting children to continue working in parishes.
Among the records were letters Law had written to some of the predators expressing support and thanks for their service to the church.
Many Boston Catholics already were upset about the pope's decision to appoint him to the basilica. The post is ceremonial but highly visible; the church is one of four basilicas under direct Vatican jurisdiction.
``I don't know what right he has saying a Mass of any kind, never mind for the pope,'' said Alexa McPherson, 30, who settled a lawsuit against the archdiocese alleging she was molested by the Rev. Peter Kanchong at St. Margaret's church in Dorchester. ``He shouldn't even be there. He should be in Boston behind bars.''
Chester Gillis, an expert in Catholicism at Georgetown University, said celebrating a Mass during the mourning period is not only an honor, but a position of influence.
In their homilies, cardinals usually indicate what they think are the key issues for the church ahead. Observers scour the speeches for clues to how a cardinal will vote.
``This is an ability to express oneself to one's colleagues all at one time,'' Gillis said.
Mitchell Garabedian, a Boston attorney who has represented more than 200 people who sued the church over alleged sexual abuse by priests, said Law's resurfacing has brought a new round of pain to victims.
``It clearly is an insult and a slap in the face,'' he said. ``Apparently the Vatican has taken the position that the clergy sexual abuse scandal must be swept under the rug.''
Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick said he did not know why Law was chosen, but said it was likely because the basilica is one of the great churches of Rome.
``It would be a natural selection,'' McCarrick said. ``The choice was certainly not made for any reason except to honor St. Mary Major.''
Asked if it was a Vatican signal that Law should be forgiven, McCarrick said, ``I think we feel we are all Easter people ... We look at the light rather than the darkness.''
The fourth-largest U.S. diocese has been shaken not only by Law's resignation after 18 years, but also by settlements of more than $85 million with more than 550 victims.
Law's successor, Archbishop Sean O'Malley, has also had to oversee a series of painful parish closures as the archdiocese adjusts to a shortage of priests and drop in collections.
O'Malley, in Rome for the pope's funeral, declined to comment on Law.
``We're here to talk about the pope,'' he said. In Boston, Ronald Lacey, 35, was among those who said Law's resignation as archbishop was irrelevant to his role in memorializing the pope.
``I think it was right for him to leave the Archdiocese of Boston,'' said Lacey, who was attending midday Mass at a downtown chapel. ``But if he grieves the death of the Holy Father, I think that's right, too.''
Did not one of these victims have any parents to whom they could complain when these abuses commenced?
*************
Let me preface my response by saying that I am no authority on this subject.
That being said, it is my understanding that a number of children did tell their parents years before this scandal broke, and many of them accepted financial settlements from the Church.
However, and this seems important to me, many accusations were made many years after the alleged events. One recent case involved a recovered memory, which I believe resulted in a conviction.
Certainly the Father Shanley case was well documented, as I believe was the Geoghan case. Both also resulted in convictions.
I am also no legal authority, but in cases where there was no accusation at the time, no physical evidence or other documentation, it seems grossly unfair to me to allow a prosecution. The ability of the accused to mount a defense years after the alleged offense seems unlikely and would preclude any possibility of justice.
I hope you realize there's a difference between studying natural, physical law, and the miraculous. Just because scientists think the Big Bang Theory implies God didn't create the world doesn't mean they're right, about the BBT or about God. The fact is we know God created the world, we just don't know how -- unless you buy the world is 5000 years old malarky -- and we use science to learn more about it. If you don't understand that then you have a poor understanding of Christianity or evolution or both. It's not an either/or, you can have both.
Hope you enjoy the "J*sus Seminar," cause it's what you deserve.
Oh please, Cardinal Law never went along with any of that crap and neither do believing Catholics. Although I wouldn't put it past some of the parishes in your neck of the woods -- I do sympathize on that point, as there are certain parts of the country where it's difficult to find a Catholic church that is truly Catholic. Like I said, Law should have laid down the Law and that's where he went wrong.
They delicately avoided (or denied) any reference to homosexuality, which distorted the story considerably.
And the timing is suspicious. It also has always seemed odd to me that the reporters praising Shanley, "The Street Priest" through the 70s never cottoned to anything.
They delicately avoided (or denied) any reference to homosexuality, which distorted the story considerably.
And the timing is suspicious. It also has always seemed odd to me that the reporters praising Shanley, "The Street Priest" through the 70s never cottoned to anything.
It could be because your point is moot -Cardinal Law is in Rome the homosexual problem remains...
Your interpretation of my comments is badly off. I'd suggest that you try to read more carefully.
My gripe is that our culture of victimology, especially virulent in America, makes it hard for many people to acknowledge something larger than themselves. Now, immediately after the death of a great pope, is not the time to be whining about one's victimhood. These people should focus on something else for a change, just for this short time. They have gotten tons of publicity over the years. I, for one, am a little tired of it. And in any case, revenge against Cardinal Law, if it is justified, can and should wait.
In the 70s in Boston, busing was the big issue (started in '73 or '74), and Medeiros was a stalwart supporter. He went so far as to make it clear there was no possible reason for anyone to be against busing unless he was a racist and he forbade Boston Catholic schools to accept any transfer students from the public schools.
Granted, he was anti-abortion, but the 70s were the transition time -- the shift of pro-life Dems to the pro-abort position took a few years.
There was no way the Globe would embarrass Medeiros at that time.
Why? Other than the fact that you want to turn the "old testament" into mythology and accept the "new" as "the word of G-d," that is. Hypocrite.
Just because scientists think the Big Bang Theory implies God didn't create the world doesn't mean they're right, about the BBT or about God. The fact is we know God created the world, we just don't know how
Since the Bible is the primitive mythology of a primitive people who only "thought" that G-d ordered them to exterminate the Canaanites and have animal sacrifices. But of course we moderns know better . . . don't we?
-- unless you buy the world is 5000 years old malarky -- and we use science to learn more about it.
Since "science" is knowledge of the world and its laws and phenomena as they exist today, what can it tell us about how the universe and all its laws came into being?
If you don't understand that then you have a poor understanding of Christianity or evolution or both. It's not an either/or, you can have both.
I don't want either one of them. Since they both require a belief that G-d is a liar (chas vechalilah!), they can both stuff themselves as far as I'm concerned.
BTW, why don't you go and comfort AAABEST in his fear that the big bad Jews are going to rebuild the Temple and reinstitute the Sacrifices? Wouldn't that be a tragedy for the modern, sophisticated, higher critical world?
It would be better, I think, for the Pope to lead a Mass of mourning for the former Archbishop of Boston.
Mrs. Don-o
{Sigh} I believe that the OT is God's Truth. I don't believe it is a science text or completely literal. I shudder to think how confused people would be if they thought the NT was literal! Lol! Like the parables of spreading seeds are instructions on how to run a farm. "Scatter seeds .... fertile ground ... but I'm not a farmer and I'm not a plant!"
Not literal truth of course, but an allegorical, parabolic truth. I believe the nominalists of the late middle ages referred to their (and your) position as "double truth." Something could be "religously" true without being "historically" or "scientifically" true. Enjoy the company you keep.
I don't believe it is a science text or completely literal. I shudder to think how confused people would be if they thought the NT was literal! Lol! Like the parables of spreading seeds are instructions on how to run a farm. "Scatter seeds .... fertile ground ... but I'm not a farmer and I'm not a plant!"
Why are you people not capable of making an honest argument? If the "new testament" identifies something as a parable, then the literal sense is to take it as a parable. Or if not, only to accept as literally true the claim that your Nazarene prophet spoke those words. I suppose you also claim a literal interpretation of Shir HaShirim would require one to believe that G-d has a beard of sheep?
As a matter of fact, you do intepret the "new testament" literally, because you believe it and not the "old" is a product of the "true gxd." You believe the "old testament" is the primitive creation of primitive people. In other words, you're a simple chauvinist who thinks your "gxd" is better simply because it is yours, and I doubt you've ever tested your theory against the actual Torah. I'll take the Biblically-mandated sacrifices over your miraculous wafer any day and look forward to the day when they displace it. But why is the science that is so offended by the miraculous element of the creation of the universe so untroubled by your "transubstantiation?"
Funny. I was just looking at some writings by the notorious American Nazi-sympathizer William Dudley Pelley (yimach shemo vezikhro!) and his deconstruction of the Bible comes right out of the textbook of your church and your university departments.
What ARE you talking about? I don't know anyone who believes this, much less Catholics.
Funny. I was just looking at some writings by the notorious American Nazi-sympathizer William Dudley Pelley
So you're saying I'm a Nazi because I'm Catholic. Great. Let's just say you're a bigot because you're a bigot!
Oh great scott. You practically admit as much with your nonsense about "truth" not being "literal truth" and now you want to back away from it?
You people brought the "J*sus Seminar" on yourselves. It's Divine punishment for your attacks on the Word of G-d. Enjoy your just desserts.
Massnews.com has done a good job in keeping tabs on the MA judges & Boston Globe's involvement in moving forward the pro-Homosexuality and pro- Sex Education agendas in Boston and all of MA...both agendas clearly in opposition with the Church's teaching on human sexuality.
The title of the thread refers to the Herald. On this topic they apparently are marching in step.
You're right, they aggressively pursued a hatchet job on Catholicism. No different than hammering the hammer Tom Delay, or CBS & Dan Rather working the W's military service to destroy W and treasonously working the Abu Ghraib hazing story to defeat our middle east war.
So what's new? It's all part of the same parcel. It's very sad that so many bought the notion that Catholicism as it stands was and is the biggest enemy of the 'people'. When the truth is the opposite.
*************
I agree.
How'd you know I was Scots?
Anyway we believe the OT is the Word of God, just like the NT. I don't know why you persist in repeating "primitive, primitive"? You're the first person I've ever hear spin things like that. It seems you have some sort of victim complex. If you want to stretch a point you could call parts of Genesis "myths" -- myths being stories meant to communicate essential truths (quite the opposite of a common usage of myth meaning something false). Genesis is inarguably a story, and in my belief communicates essential religious truths. (Obvious a "myth" given by God to the Jews is not quite the same as a pagan "myth" about Athena springing from Zeus's head fully formed.) Now, if you believe the OT is literal and the earth is 5000 or so years old and the dino bones were put there to fool us, I can't argue with you 'cause you're a crackpot.
As for the "Jesus Seminar" -- it's not a Catholic thing, so I don't quite see how it "punishes" me? It's just a bunch of crackpot liberals -- maybe crackpot friends of yours?
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.