Will firing Cardinal Law solve the problem?

You've been reading too many Mario Puzo novels.

[ December 12, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I felt sure I posted a reply to this and it disappeared - it included a link to a baptist sex case.

Don't you think hiding Baptist scandals under the carpet is exactly the same as Cardinal Law?

Think about it.

The "light" , in some senses, means to expose.
Some "light" just vanished off this thread.

Net.

 

You can only look at one denomination by comparing it to another.

To make a realistic case you have to hi-light Bapitst sex scandals and then compare them to RC ones and then draw a "sex comparision".
No one is justifying perverts, but the answer is not simply to change denomination WITHOUT first doing some detailed sex analysis.

I'd say sex scandals are part of being human - what we don't want to see is it brushed under the carpet. The press is doing a good job.

Net

[ December 12, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

Your article doesn't support your accusation.

Let's look at it.

So far, I see the words "alleged" and "claim".

Defrocked? That sounds a little different than transferring to another church were he can offend again, don't you think. Defrocked means he was kicked out and no longer serves a church. Hardly support for your accusation.

The Pope ordered an offending priest to be removed. That is proof that Law was obeying orders to move other offending priests around?

I'm not defending Cardinal Law, but you really do need a better basis than you have laid out in order to make the claim that "Law was only following the orders of his Church or Pope".

Ron

[ December 13, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

The entire premise of this post is false. Law was not fired. He resigned. I wonder if Catholics will still pay for his retirement or any other benifits. Will he now face prosecution for covering up crimes? Who knows.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Try reposting your link. It was more likely a glitch in the system or in your server or our's that made the post not show. The moderator's of this forum are very slow to delete things. Take a look at the forum and the many debates in which we engage and you will see that if we were not, there would be very few Catholic posts at all left standing.

It is far more likely that a Baptist congregation would demand justice against a pedophile than a cover up so I would be interested in seeing whatever link you may have found. If the offense was not pedophilia but rather sexual immorality, it is likely that a removal from the pulpit was enacted.

Hopefully now that Laws is not under the protection of the RCC and his resignation has been accepted, Boston officials will move in and charge him with being an accessory to multiple felonies.

If you still can't get your link to show in a post, send it to me and I will post it for you. You will find my email address at the top of this post.

Clint Kritzer
Administrator

 

Although Law, 71, has lost his post, he remains a cardinal and could be appointed to another position in the church hierarchy. He will be eligible to vote in papal elections until he turns 80.

http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72900,00.html

[ December 13, 2002, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

That was an interesting and informative article.

 

Hi Moderator,
Sorry - I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I posted my message - it got stuck - I went away to get a bacon sandwich and that was it. I'm glad it disappeared, I don't want to get bought into this sex thing too much. The "Nolan Report" in the UK seems good to me. The recommendations are if anyone reports a sex case to the clergy the clergy MUST tell the police. If a cleric is PROVED to be a sex pervert once then thats him for the chop.

I guess bishops are a bit like Headmasters at schools - they do feel protective of teachers who get wrongly accused by parents. Headmasters and Bishops, by ALWAYS reporting to the police will stop loads of spurious claims so IMHO it will actually help the clergy. To be honest I cannot understand the mentality of people parents who have had a child abused by a priest or a teacher but don't go to the police. Surely they want justice? If a parent is not willing to go to the police then its a bit difficult for a bishop or a head master to know if the claim has any substance. The whole area is a mess.

The Nolan Report - look it up in google

[ December 13, 2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

This whole thing is pretty sad to me, and I don't really feel like discussing it at length right now.

I will say that any priest who is proven to have sexually abused or misconducted himself sexually, in light of his vow of celibacy/chastity, should be severely repremanded or removed from the priesthood, depending on the degree of the act (if it was consensual with another person, that is different than abusing). Considering I myself am called to the priesthood, I would want the same for me if I failed in this manner. These men have scarred Holy Mother Church, and the Church should act on this, and yet, be merciful as God is merciful.

I know with all of my heart that in the coming years, this scar will heal, and just as many people who have turned away from the Church now will come back to her again; the Church's history is full of such events. God takes care of His flock, without fail.

However, these law suits disturb me. In fact, most all lawsuits sicken me. The fact that one thinks he can settle grievances with money is a pretty sick. Two wrongs don't make a right, and greed and unforgiveness is no way to deal with problems. If I were ever sexually abused in even a horrible way, I would like to think that my heart would forgive, and that while the law should prevail, I would not seek personal gain for that. That angers me greatly.

God bless you all,

Grant

 

Not having anymore information on that than you do I am not willing to say either way.

That's my point. Thus far there is no evidence to say the he was acting on any orders.

From what I saw in the article that you posted, I would think such orders to be unlikely. It was stated (as opposed to alledged) that the Pope defrocked another priest. That is not consistent with ordering any sort of cover up. And again, not having hard information, thats just a hunch.

Knowing other things about this Pope, his actions and statements on other areas of morals, I personally do not believe that he would even consider anything like a cover up. And of course that is also just my opinion.

Ron

[ December 13, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Why was Law's offer to resign turned down by the Pope 9 months ago ?

 

To the extent that it is the result of decisions that he made - yes.

Does that make his guilty of a cover up - I'm not sure.

I say not sure, because it would depend on his intent and the circumstances. One thing to keep in mind is that many of the allegations of abuse go back several years. Back to a period of time when the psychological community thought that sex offenders could be reformed.

If Cardinal Law relied upon the advice of such professionals that an offending priest could be reformed, and that priest repented, and that priest also went through some sort of therapy, and a mental health professional declared him to be cured, would allowing that priest to return to his position in a parish constitute a cover up or some other sort of criminal action?

Like I said, I'm not sure.

Ron

 

From your answer, I can only guess that you have information as to what the Pope knew and when he knew it.

I don't have such information, so I reserve judgement.

I know that is not a popular thing to do.

Ron