Vatican's muffled voice

Boston Globe ^ | April 25, 2002

[My Identity]

HE STATEMENTS issued yesterday at the Vatican provided incomplete advice to US bishops as they devise a policy regarding sexually abusive priests. These were very much documents written within the clerical culture, and they failed to address the crisis of confidence among the laity that is most acutely expressed in the Boston Archdiocese.

[HiTech RedNeck]

How many bad apples does it take to ruin a barrel?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Is the Globe beguinning to see that all this may backfire on their gay/liberal allies in the Church?

To be sure, the Globe is focusing on the "pedophilia" issue. Whereas the actual problem is mostly that of homosexual activity with teens. The Vatican hinted as much.

[ikanakattara]

Here is the story from CNN on Cardinal Law's reassignment to the Vatican.

[Unam Sanctam]

No, I think I'll stay and try to rid the Church of people like you, who think everything that has to do with the Catholic Church is a matter of faith, or that "apostolic succession" has anything to do with who handles administrative duties in a chancery office.

First of all, the chancery offices are notorious for being run by laity that do not assent to the entirety of Catholic doctrine, particularly on matters of sexual morality. You basically want to change the Church into a democracy. You call for the laity to take over the Church and change doctrine by popular vote. I'm sorry, but that would change the religion into another one that is merely another Protestant sect, and society does not need the another Protestant sect as there are any number of them already suiting all predilections. The Church is not a democracy because its mission is to preserve whole and entire the teachings on faith and morals handed down from the apostles. As such, the hierarchy and the priesthood, as successors of the apostles, have a special role in the Church, one of service to be sure, but still one that deserves more respect than one gets from your anti-clerical rants. Finally, I think it is the height of arrogance for someone in a free society to say, "I don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, but I'm going to call myself a Catholic Church anyway and insist that the Church must change its doctrines and structure to comply with my own subjective likes and desires, and anyone who believes fully in what the Church teaches or sees the value of the virtue of chastity be damned".

It took a secular institution like the Boston Globe to finally blow the whistle on the insular Boston Archdiocese to flush out the massive corruption there.

The Boston Globe has daily been calling for the Catholic Church to change itself into a new religion, i.e., make itself a clone of the Unitarian Church. You are now associating yourself with this call for the Catholic Church to become a new religion. As such, you are not respecting the rights of freedom of religion of traditional Catholic believers. Thus you most certainly are demonstrating "hatred" of the Catholic Church as it has always taught and been structured throughout time. Those of us who believe in the special graces that a celibate priesthood brings to the Church also have a right to practice the religion that we have always done. Of course the episcopacy needs some constructive criticism for its management failings in this mess. I would have preferred a stronger statement endorsing a one strike policy in the wake of the Pope's excellent statement about not tolerating child abuse in the priesthood. We at least can hope that the USCCB in July will adopt a stronger policy. However, we have to not allow just criticism to become anti-clerical hatred which simply lashes out against everything the Church has always stood for. There are plenty of good and holy priests. Your demonization of the priesthood tout court is an injustice and basicly indistinguishable from Call to Action and other dissident groups that want to demonize and deny religious freedom to traditional Catholic believers.

[grania]

With regard to the Boston Herald article..Egan/Browdie on Boston talk radio (96.9 FM) are saying that the reason Cardinal Law is being reassigned June 1 is to avoid being deposed in the case against Father Shandley (ie: what did Cardinal Law cover up concerning NAMBLA associations for this perv)

They're saying it would bring up issues of immunity and it would have to go through Geneva, world court, to make him testify. I don't know if their take is correct, but if that's the case...that Cardinal Law will not be deposed...it's pretty arrogant on the Church's part, and it might be the last straw.

Another story Marjorie Egan had is that collections by Catholic charities is down over a million dollars. She is advocating giving money directly to the charities instead of donating through the church.

[sinkspur]

You call for the laity to take over the Church and change doctrine by popular vote.

That, of course, is an assertion you made up. But, hey, when smearing, smear with a very broad brush.

Now, if your addled mind is trying to equate the election of bishops (something which was done for 1800 years in the Catholic Church) and changing doctrine by popular vote (something which has never been done), then, well, I can see why you're confused.

Anti-clerical? What could BE more anti-clerical than a clergy which covers up for criminals in its midst?

You mischaracterize my positions, of course, but it suits your purpose, so, what the hell?

[AlGone2001]

The laity has no right to rule. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Christ instituted the sacred priesthood to do that. The media, particularly the Boston Glob, and the laity have no right to tell the Church how it should handle this problem before us. We do not need a return to Trusteeism.

---

Well, we don't want to get in the way of a sacred priesthood that seems to be protecting the children, do we?

I can see the real concern, as manifested by the Pope's and Cardinal Law's actions.

All that really matters is that the Catholic church functions according to its by-laws, and this will all be repaired.

</ extreme anger at religious ideology over what is right>

[AlGone2001]

Reassigned to Rome by June 1st

I will not be surprised to see the Vatican move him to sweep it under the rug.

Why not, they've been reassigning hom-sexual pedophiles.

Christian principles we can all be proud to use a guide for own lives!

[sinkspur]

The Boston Globe has daily been calling for the Catholic Church to change itself into a new religion, i.e., make itself a clone of the Unitarian Church. You are now associating yourself with this call for the Catholic Church to become a new religion. As such, you are not respecting the rights of freedom of religion of traditional Catholic believers. Thus you most certainly are demonstrating "hatred" of the Catholic Church as it has always taught and been structured throughout time.

What a convenient straw man.

Lying is a sin, pal. Check your conscience.

Your demonization of the priesthood tout court is an injustice and basicly indistinguishable from Call to Action and other dissident groups that want to demonize and deny religious freedom to traditional Catholic believers.

Calling for a dialogue about married priests is not a "demonization of the priesthood."

I can see that you WANDERERites are going to conduct your own little Inquisition, trying to twist the very weak statement issued by the American cardinals into some kind of decree of jihad against anyone who disagrees with you on any matter, including those of mere discipline.

This is going to be a hoot to watch.

[AlGone2001]

The Boston Globe has daily been calling for the Catholic Church to change itself into a new religion, i.e., make itself a clone of the Unitarian Church.

Where did you ever read that? This is about creating an accountability to protect children.

Get over the traditions for a second, and consider the children. What are we going to do to see that the Pope and the Cardinals act to prevent theses incidents, and punish those who do? Moving pedohpiles from parish to parish is not exactly what I call protecting kids. Nor do I call that Godly leadership.

[sinkspur]

There will be no zero tolerance for any of the past pederasts, and no bishop will suffer so much as a slap on the wrist for, essentially, criminal conspiracy.

All is forgiven for past iniquities; henceforth, heads will roll (or so we are told).

Smart Catholics whose teenagers are approached by pederasts will go directly to the authorities if they want satisfaction, at least until this current generation of bishops are dead.

[Renatus]

Suppose you heard by now that Cardinal Law is not leaving. He denied that he was being moved to Rome. Heard in on NPR about an hour ago.

[Unam Sanctam]

Where did you ever read that? This is about creating an accountability to protect children. Get over the traditions for a second, and consider the children. What are we going to do to see that the Pope and the Cardinals act to prevent theses incidents, and punish those who do? Moving pedohpiles from parish to parish is not exactly what I call protecting kids. Nor do I call that Godly leadership.

Mr. Sinkspur praised the Boston Globe. I have the misfortune to see that rag every single day. If it were focussed on protecting the children, then that's fine. However, they are focussed on everything but. They are focussed on changing the discipline of the Church by trashing celibacy, changing the teaching of the church to allow homosexuality, abortion and women priests. Liberals couldn't care less about children. They just want to exploit this scandal for all it's worth to damage the Church in order to damage its authority to teach about sexual morality. I have not heard a single liberal voice speak out against Judith Levine's recent book promoting pedophilia. I have not said I am against measures to ensure protection against the abuse of children. In fact I am strongly in favor of very strict measures, including one strike for those against whom an accurate allegation is made. But no, I will never agree that in order to protect children we have to trash and vilify all priests trash celibacy, overthrow the entire Catholic concept of the priesthood, change priests into Protestant ministers and make the laity decide points of doctrine by democratic vote. Strict clerical discipline and the protection of children can be accomplished without doing such. And doing such would be to change the Catholic religion into a different religion, and it is unfair to insist that a religion must change to suit one's subjective predilictions. I think I am probably more concerned about resolving the issue of child abuse than you or Sinkspur, who seems to want to exploit this crisis to promote his own vision of the Church under a new Protestant reformation.

[Unam Sanctam]

I have not lied. My conscience is perfectly clear. Please check yours.

[sinkspur]

Suppose you heard by now that Cardinal Law is not leaving. He denied that he was being moved to Rome. Heard in on NPR about an hour ago.

He'd rather stay and be regarded as the Don Corleone of the pederast crisis. Maybe he was left in place so, like a carcass, he could twist in the wind for the remainder of his episcopate.

Law's handshake with Shanley, "the man from NAMBLA", will haunt him the rest of his life.

[Unam Sanctam]

You mischaracterize my positions, of course, but it suits your purpose, so, what the hell?

No, you sir are mischaracterizing my positions. I converted from Protestantism to the Catholic Church because I believed the fullness of truth in faith and morals subsists in it. I did not convert only to have it be turned into another Protestant church by people who don't even value the Church, don't believe in her teachings and want to change it into a liberal AmChurch.

[Renatus]

Liberals couldn't care less about children

Thank you for this post. You said it all. Keep up the good work. God bless you.

[sinkspur]

I have not lied. My conscience is perfectly clear. Please check yours.

Sure you've lied. You said I "hate the priesthood." What a stupid and erroneous thing to say, even for you.

You brook no disagreement, even on non-essentials.

I'd hate to be one of your kids.

[sinkspur]

No, you sir are mischaracterizing my positions.

Your problem is not your religous beliefs, but your anally-retentive personality.

Have you not, mr. convert, yet been able to distinguish between matters of faith, and matters of discipline?

Or, do you think everything in the Catholic Church is of the same import?

Read some of Cardinal Dulles' early works in which he posits a "hierarchy of beliefs"; some matters of faith are more important than other matters of faith.

At bottom, your ire with me is my objection to mandatory celibacy. A discipline. A discipline which is not absolute, even today.

Your antipathy toward Protestantism wants to wipe any evidence of your former denomination from your present denomination. I'm a convenient whipping boy because I question some non-essentials.

Now that I understand your background a little better, I won't be so hard on you. Your reaction is totally in character with many Protestant converts I know.

I've been here since sun-up. You came at 3:00, but I'm glad to be in the vineyard with you, nonethless.

[Unam Sanctam]

It is a discipline that has tremendous value as a sign of contradiction to the values of the world. It is an ideal and I believe the Church should hold onto its ideals rather than water them down to the least common denominator as so many other societal organizations have done in these days. Thank you for your note of fellowship, and I'm sorry if I have been overly harsh and uncharitable.