www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall This Is Disgraceful !!!

No different than sending Elko to Rome.

Peter Principle!

Something nice from the Indiana List apropos this aptly nammed thread:

Yes, wise words of St. Theophan. St. Theophan, pray for us all in our passions and difficulties.

I however would ask the poster (djs), should we not be asking for accountability of our ecclesiastical leadership? We do on a regular basis of our civil leaders. Is there a dual standard ? I sincerely would like to know.

Is it too much to ask that purpetrators or accomplices of heinous public moral crimes be held to account for it? And not be given rewards of honorific positions or titles?

I think since we are considering moralizing quotes, perhaps an even more profound quote in this situation is the very strong admonition of our Lord in Matthew 18:6 regarding leading the children astray, coming directly from the mouth of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

In the end, God knows all, and will judge all, which is truly a terrible thought.

Well, look on the bright side. Now the good people of Boston will only have to kiss the cardinal's ring.

That is on the bright side. You just made my day, ByzanTN.

DJS,

Love St. Theophan - but the Desert Fathers always say it best

"Forbear to judge him who fornicates, if thou art chaste, for He who said "Thou shalt not fornicate" said also "Thou shalt not judge."


And of course there is that wonderful tale of St. Moses the Ethiopian - seems the brethren were gathered to pass judgement on one of their own caught in sin. They called Abba Moses to come join them. No sign of him. They called for him again, and yet again. Finally he appeared, walking slowly, carrying an old basket. The basket was full of holes, and there was sand running out of them at a great rate. The brothers asked him what he was doing. He replied "My own sins are running out of me as sand from this basket, and I come to judge my brother." The brothers considered what he said, and forgave the unfortunate brother.

I'm terribly grateful it's not MY job to determine Archbishop Law's future. Got enuf trouble trying to take care of me and my little family.

Sharon

At the simplest level, there is certainly a dual standard. The church is not a democracy. Some think it should be.

More important is that the effort of seeking accountability should be done with something that does not create scandal in its own right, but speaks well of our religion in its charity, belief in the transforming power of Christ, and simple avoidance of false witness. I cringe when I hear repeated comments about the Cardinal's "criminal" behavior.

What a novelty: he was not indicted because what he did is not against the law. (And was probably done with voluminous legal advice). Hardly satisfying to the lynch mob and to overzealous prosecutors who try to "find a statute under which he could be charged". This kind of talk is chilling. I recall ALCU lawyer Harvey Silverglate speaking out against this over-reaching:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003811

I have no idea what the treaty of Versailles says about Cardinals. But I do remember that the USA never ratified that treaty.
Incognitus

Deacon Lance,

Noonan needs to stick to vesture and forms of address. BTW, it was the Congress of Vienna that afforded cardinals honorific recognition status vis-a-vis precedential seating, etc at official functions and so forth.

As far back as the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, generally an absolute triumphalist work, you can read that the privilegium fori was even then maintained as a fiction by the Vatican and not upheld by the civil authority of any nation-state.

Being a bit tired of citations to Noonan, I took a few hours yesterday to do a quick review of primary British, Irish, and Canadian legal sources, as well as the US Code, and of secondary Spanish, German, Italian, and French legal sources. There is absolutely no privilege accorded to the cardinalate in any of these countries' civil or criminal legal systems, nor any reference to the princely nature of their arterial systems.

In short, my advice to those of the red hat, don't shoplift and get caught, at least in any of the above nations, although you may be able to get a parking ticket overlooked in Rome.

Many years,

Neil

DJS,

What he did was, unfortunately, not against the law. I have met Cardinal Law personally on a number of occasions during his tenure in Boston and have always found him a very likeable person, as was his predecessor, Cardinal Medieros, whom I would have also characterized as a very holy person. That said, what the two of them did, with respect to ignoring behavior by those subject to their jurisdiction that was absolutely criminal from a secular standpoint and absolutely sinful from a religious standpoint, was itself criminal and sinful. That they chose to ignore the secular implications on some premise that "we" - the Church hierarchy - know better or are better equipped to deal with this or have no obligation to concern ourselves with the secular implications (let alone the physical and psychological implications for the victims) is indicative of an arrogance that can only be seen as the sin of pride in its penultimate manifestation, putting aside the absolutely criminal (despite its not having then been codified as such) implications that attended to it.

The de facto condonation of this abusive behavior, empowering of the abusers, and enablement of them to continue in it, has brought public shame and scandal on the Church, effects which we decry if caused by laypersons and which, in such circumstances, bring about demands for such theological punishment as the withholding of sacraments, interdiction, and/or excommunication. Arguing that a desire to civilly punish such behavior represents overzealousness or a lynch mob mentality is to fail to recognize that Churches and their hierarchies, as societal entities, have both legal and moral responsibilities that are not abrogated by the independence and freedom which they rightfully enjoy in perceiving and proclaiming themselves to be representative of God's presence on earth.

We are not talking here of a religion's right to worship at its altars in the manner of its choice, but of the right of children and adolescents to be free of predatory, abhorrent, and damaging (physically, psychologically, and spiritually) behavior foisted on them (to use the term of art)"under color of authority". And the absolute gall, that the authority so misused was that of the cloth, that of God, that the trust abused was that exercised by the cloth, that accorded by reason of a relationship between the victim and God, as personified by His minister - be it priest, brother, nun, or a layperson exercising a position associated with the Church. How can we ever excuse the failure of these men to act appropriately on what they knew or expect that civil authority would not, appopriately, seek to punish them for their failure to do so.

This type of arrogance by hierarchs, this belief that the Church has no obligation to the civil society within which it exists, only to itself and God (Who is, ironically, not only absolutely unserved, but is dishonored, by it), is the kind of thing that is used to justify religious persecution and suppression by those who are just looking for an excuse to do so.

I, for one, welcome the Attorney General's courage in seeking to do the right thing.

Many years,

Neil

Neil, very well said. I also applaud the Attorney General for doing his job. In our American society so bent on the separation of Church and State, we seem to also have a separate idea of charity and justice when dealing with the hierarchy. Very un-Byzantine, I think.

Again, the question of accountability seems to be being sidestepped here. Is it unreasonable to ask for accountability of our hierarchy? I think the people deserve that in a Church which triumphs justice. And why does that seem to entail a double standard? Civil law aside (with which at least there was an attempt to hold accountability) there are clear sanctions in Canon Law. Why are these not applied in cases like this?

I cringe rather when I see someone who, in a place of authority, has had the ability to prevent the damage of souls and lives as well as the Church's reputation, and did not act to stop this. That is the far greater scandal.

I cringe when I see a Church supposedly commmitted to charity and justice reward someone who was involved, by complicity if nothing else, in the damage of so many souls and lives. I cringe when I consider the message that is being sent to the world regarding the Church's concern for her abused children.

How can we champion ourselves as a Church concerned about justice in this way? Or a Church concerned about the spiritual and physical well-being of our children? That to me is the far greater scandal in this case. What does that say to the Church's commitment to guard her children?

Do you really think that disciplining the Cardinal publicly would be scandalous?

Would not the greater act of charity and justice for the Church as a whole, including those poor lives and souls damaged by these acts under his watch (not my judgement here, established and documented fact) be the Church disciplining her children who have not kept her precepts or her Gospel teachings?

I think the greater scandal against charity and justice is the rewarding of misdeed with any honorific office. I think the greater scandal is the perceived lack of concern for the children, which has already been picked up on by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

After our Vespers and Panakhida for all the departed souls last night, no less than three different people afterwards started conversations with me or the pastor with the phrase "Don't you think it's a shame" or something similar, all related to the offering of the Cardinal with that position in Rome (he and I compared notes at the end of the evening).

You just can't fool all the people all of the time. Believe me, the people do notice these things and can sense the injustice. That to me is a far greater concern regarding public scandal in the interest of charity than those I have seen here.

When I was in Rome many years ago I saw a sign on a building that said something like "Vaticano Departmento de Sanitationi". I always thought that would be a good destination for errant bishops.

Hello Folks,

Like most of you, I, too, was appalled to hear of this news. But the more I thought about it, the more I realize that the Pope may know what he is doing that we may not know about. That we must trust the Pope for doing the right thing.

The Pope also acknowledges the great damage that Law have done to the Church of Boston. In fact, when I saw on TV, that Law met with the Pope for the first time after the news of Law's cover-ups, the Pope FROWNED at his face as I knew he wasn't happy about the situation.

Now, please do not think I'm trying to defend Law at all. That man should be punished at every way possible. But I realize that G-d and the Church have better idea than we do. After all, who are we to judge?

You must remember that the Holy Spirit is in charge of the Church. This sounds like the Pope did what is commonly called "promoting out". If you notice, Cardinal Law is now close to the Pope; kind of like a child who gets grounded. The Pope can keep a better eye on him when he is close by, keeping him on a very short leash.

That is my opinion anyway. But I do know that the Pope won't let Law get away with it easily. He (Law) knows that he's in big trouble, not only with the Law but with G-d. He will have to spend the rest of his life making reparations for the sins he committed and he will always have that burden which is heavier on a hiearch than anyone else.

G-d bless,

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Shane, bringing Law closer to the Pope can be done without bestowing additional honors and titles.

Trust in God is given. Trust in men has to be earned. Certainly in matters of faith and morals, I trust in the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.

Jurisdictional and disciplinary matters are different, as they involve the subjective decisions of men. I as a Byzantine Catholic won't take the ultramontanist approach that every single action taken by the Holy See through the many levels of consistories and dicasteries is an ex cathedra proclamation of the Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Mistakes have been made in the past dealing with jurisdictional and discliplinary actions. This in no way detracts from the indefectibility of the Church with regard to the essential teachings of the Christian faith.

And considering the fraility of the Pope, can we really say with complete assurance that his hand is firmly involved in all these disclipinary matters on a day to day basis ?

I think the Church should be very careful and concerned about the image that is portrayed to the world about her concern for her children, especially those abuse victims. A Church concerned about justice and protection of her children should deeply consider the perception and response of the world to her mission and basic credibility that are created in matters such as this.

I would be interested to hear the response of some of our abuse survivors on the Forum about this development.