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

The Roman Catholic Church continues to bring disgrace upon itself http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121069,00.html

I believe that Santa Maria Maggiore is the same church where Bishop Roman Danylak is a "Canon." Make of that what you will.

What a surprise! :rolleyes:


Sam

Well, if I were in charge, I would have told His Eminence to go live as a hermit in a desert somewhere for the rest of his life.

Maybe they are trying to keep an eye on him.

Jason

Were I Pope, I would have deposed His Eminence (along with a few other bishops) without giving him a chance even to resign. But that is me.

I think the top of a pillar in a desert would be the ideal place to put some of these bishops.


Oh my!

Is this the Jesus Prayer in Church Slavonic, or some other similar language? I would have expected Gospodi to be Hospodi, but my knowledge of Church Slavonic is virtually non-existant.

Hospodi pomiluj,
Jason

Lawrence,

I would not judge so quickly. In effect, Cardinal Law has been confined to Rome. As archpriest of one of the major basilica he is required to preside over liturgical celebrations in that basilica.

Nor is this a move to protect Cardinal Law from prosecution because he has had that since the day he was made a cardinal. Cardinals are accorded the diplomatic status of princes of the royal blood, i.e they have diplomatic immunity and can't be tried or imprisoned by anyone other than the Pope according to international law ratified by the Versailles Treaty.

Fr. Deacon Lance

First a question:

Fr. Deacon Lance, I am curious about this diplomatic immunity. Is this in effect for Cardinal Law because he is now "part of the Vatican community" (for lack of better terminology)?

It was my (very limited) understanding that no such immunity from civil law exists for American clergy, but such provisions do exist between various European countries and the Vatican. It is not universal. Would like to know more regarding this caveat/condition in the Treaty of Versailles.

Second a comment...

If you are on good, honest terms with any of the in the know clergy of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, ask them who was one of the Roman hierarchy in the U.S. that in the 1990s was influential in kiboshing the Ruthenian Church's "new" particular law to allow for the ordaining of married men, having it "changed" so that we have to get Rome's permission to do such on a case-by-case basis.

Deacon Lance,

Cardinals, other than any who are formally members of the Vatican's Diplomatic Corps, are accorded no diplomatic status or immunity under US Federal or state statutes (nor for that matter under the laws of any modern nation). They may be charged, indicted, and tried for any criminal offense and, if convicted, are subject to the appropriate penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The privilegium fori (or "privilege of forum"), which extended the rights you describe has been abrogated in practical usage since the late 1800s.

Cardinals who are resident in Rome, inside or outside the Vatican City-State, enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship of the Vatican, which accords them no immunity. They are Princes of the Church, which is an institution; it is the Vatican which is a state and their princely roles and titles do not accrue to the Vatican State.

Article 21 of the Lateran Treaty accorded cardinals the status of princes of the blood and assured the freedom of the conclave. However, the Lateran Treaty solely regularizes relations between the Vatican and Italian governments.

Cardinal Law only escaped a grand jury indictment because the Massachusetts Attorney General was unable to find a statute under which he could be charged, given the law as it was at the time of the cover-up of the alleged offenses.

Many years,

Neil

Any prelate who has caused or been complicit in the kind of shame, injury, spiritual and physical damage as he has should be relegated to a Carthusian monastery in a life of silence and repentance for the rest of his days, and not given an honorary position in Rome, regardless of its overall signficance.

BTW, Benedictus, that is the Jesus Prayer in Slavonic with Russian Old Believer consonant pronunciation.

Ya know, I've always wondered what the Carthusians had done to deserve being stuck with all the malefactors folks have wished on them over the years. The imposed presence of a "prisoner" is more likely to harm a community than to provide "rehabilitation" for a sinner.

I fail to see the harm in Cardinal Law's appointment to this largely titular post. It takes him out of any position of real power or command, and puts him where the Vatican can keep an eye on him - while allowing him to retain some vestige of dignity. None of these are Bad Things.

10 years ago there would have been much less of a flap, because there wasn't such instantaneous distribution of any and all info worldwide - so the appointment would have been buried amongst the dozen or so similar appointments made that day. They had to do SOMETHING with him.

Yes, he presided over a huge mess in Boston. (and I dunno if he will eventually face secular legal sanction) What the Vatican has done here looks a lot like what the military does - when a general is implicated in Bad Things (like the Abu Gharaib fiasco) he or she is less likely to face prosecution than demotion, removal from meaningful command, and derailment of their career.

Jus' my two cents.

Sharon

Moncobyz,

The immunity does not derive from the fact that he is a cleric but because international law recognizes cardinals as princes of the royal blood, and they are accorded that status. The Treaty of Versailles does not contain this language itself but reratifies those previous diplomatic congresses and treaties that decided this.

As to your second question, none that I am aware. One of our own leaked the news quite confrontationally before the official promulgation, EWTN got ahold of it made it appear even more confrontational and the Pope of his own accord placed promulgation on hold and called our Canon Law commission to Rome, who fought to retain the right to ordain married men even though they must be approved by Rome. My feeling is Rome wants to prevent migration of men from the Latin Church to ours for ordination and then subsequent requests to return to the Latin Church. How valid of afear this is I do not know.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Ya know, Sharon, I disagree. Monastic penance has worked in the Church for centuries. Rather "byzantine", I know, but I don't see a lot of other punitive options.

And the higher the level of position or office, the higher the level of responsibility for actions that should be assumed.

Rewarding someone an honorific title (that's what an honorific title is, after all, a reward) after completely disgracing the Church by their actions, as well as the physical, spiritual, and economic cost caused by that, is not acceptable at least to me.

When someone commits a crime, they may be very sorry. As a civil society, we generally don't say "we see how sorry you are for commiting a terrible crime, so we have a nice job in Rome for you".

But hey, this is only my two drachmas worth. The Church has apparently already decided.

Diak

I totally agree with your assessment of the situation. Unfortunately now, those who oppose the recent stand by some American Bishops against abortion and homosexual marriage, will surely point fingers at the Church and call it a den of hypocrites.

Perhaps hypocritical is too strong a word, but many (including two Catholic scholars I heard on NPR yesterday) would agree that the Church is indeed tending to "pick and choose" which moral absolutes it would like to champion.

Be that as it may, IMHO, Sharon brings up a good point in that Cardinal Law's appointment seems to be what we in Halychyna might say is "niby czos', niby nicz." Loose translation - kind of something, but not really.

Finally, does the immunity of what you all speak extend to civil actions as well?

Yours,

hal

Neil,

According to James Noonan their privileged status is still accorded them. The status of princes of royal blood was accorded to them long before the Lateran Treaty and was sanctioned by subsequent congresses, treaties and concordats. Of course any country is free to charge, imprison, and try anyone they wish. Communist Yugoslavia certainly did not recognize immunity for Blessed Aloysius.

Fr. Deacon Lance

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.

Randy, not sure if you meant me, but here goes. Let me begin by saying that I knew Cardinal Law from his years in Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO. He was appointed bishop there shortly before my baptism at the age of 14. I met him many times, spoke with him at length, went to confession to him and respected him greatly. Once, at his request, I sang all the verses of Amazing Grace for him in a public restaurant. I liked him and highly respected him for many years. But after reading his depostion concerning what he knew about the clerical sexual abuse in the Boston Archdiocese, how priests would be reported, moved, reported again, and then moved again ad nauseum, I quickly lost any respect I had for the man. I just recently read one deposition he gave and discovered that even while he was in Springfield-Cape Girardeau this was going on. One of the two priests who instructed me in the faith was reported to him as having molested a 12 year old boy and he did nothing! This was in a different parish and a few years after this man had instructed me, but it could have easily been me. (If anyone is interested I can provide a link to this deposition.) Even the National Review Board appointed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declared in February that the Archdiocese of Boston appeared to be "a diocese with a cadre of predator priests and a hierarchy
that simply refused to confront them and stop them." I was very disappointed that he was not held legally responible for what he allowed to happen in Boston and cannot believe Rome would reward him in such a way. They should have allowed him to remain in quiet retirement at a monastery or appoint him to be chaplain to nuns. He should never have been appointed to oversee one of the major shrines in the Church. I cannot help but think that the powers that be (whether JPII himself or, more likely, someone who is acting in his name)is not convinced that Cardinal Law has done anything wrong, but that he is a victim of anti-Catholic sentiments and a scapegoat for the sins of a few predator priests.

I believe that Law does have to accept responsibility for the continuing abuse of those priests he knowingly reassigned after their abusive behavior was reported to him. All bishops who do not respond to reports of abuse in a proactive manner are as guilty as the abuser him/herself. My abuser worked started out in one diocese, was reported to the bishop there and nothing was done. He then moved to another diocese, was reported there and nothing was done. He continued to move to another and yet another diocese, all with the blessings of the bishops involved. It was only over 30 years later when legal action was finally taken that the man was stripped of his status of religious brother and the community he founded disbanded. I am told this sort of thing was not uncommon. All of those bishops were responsible for evil this man did, by the very fact that they did nothing to stop him. And Rome always supports the bishops in these cases.

Don

Dear Irish Melkite:

I am not sure of course exactly what you are including in "what". On the issue of reporting to the police, I am against it for reasons including those outlined by Silverglate. If accusers want to go to the police, that is their right; if they don't want to make their accusation so publically, that position should be respected. If the church were obligated by the state to report, then victims in the later category would be left without any recourse at all. A bad, presumably unintended, consequence.

If you mean "criminal" figuratively" fine, but in the context of judicial remedies its hard to avoid inferring a literal meaning. The literal meaning makes your remark a falsehood. Why do that?

Ignore? Is this again an exagerrated rhetorical flourish meant only to be symptomatic of how angry you are, or is it a decision to make a statement that is a untrue. Your conclusions about motivations, if based on fact-challenged rhetoric are pointless.

More still. Fine. You resist Theophan and decide to make a judgement. I am with Sharon; it is so enormously difficult to cogently support these conclusions, that I am glad that I don't have to.

I don't think, however, that Law ever, in fact, condoned abuse. It may be stated, however, those guilty of this sin were, absent summary dismissal were, in some stretched sense, "enabled". On this point too, I agree with Silverglate. As I suggested in our own appraisal of Law, so also in Law's decision-making on these priests I would expect not only rigor in discerning the truth, but a pastoral quality - an adherance to belief in the transforming power of Christ. I would be scandalized if such an approach were abandoned in favor of bureaucratic principle: first let's cover our butts; or the business principle: first let's cover our assets.

The process used to discern who, among the accused, would be re-assigned and who was dismissed was obviously far from perfect. But it can hardly be said to have entailed ignore the victims, condoning abuse, etc. Indeed, the hardest part was to identify the sociopaths who no doubt were convincing in professions of remorse and repentence and intent to adhere to the faith, were able to dupe professional secular consultants, and who were loved by their flocks. Of course it was easy to identify those two or three in hindsight.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind for the majority of accused priests, there was only one accusation against them in their career. Statistically, the risk that a priest accused once will have another complaint lodged against him, is not that much greater than for a priest with no offences. In this light, the laudable goal of a risk-free environment for children is simply unobtainable.

"such behavior" as what - abuse? Of course. Extra-legal ideas about "criminality" "ignoring" "condoning" etc. Chilling. It is not unknown in Mass. and elsewhere to have judicial juggernauts based on the horror of the abuse rather than the merts of the specific charges - yes that is lynch mob mentality. It's what had kept the Amiraults in Massachusetts prisons.


Diak:

I think the accountabiliuty issue is interesting. And would be curious to hear how you might go about it, while avoiding arguably worse abuses that might follow.

I don't think cringing is a zer-sum enterprise, so for the most part I am in accord with your cringe-sensibilites. And I hope that you share some of mine.

I am convinced that Law had to go, but am not conviced that he is guilty of malfeasance. On his watch the incidences of abuse dropped substantially, repeat offenders like Geoghan were defrocked, a more rigorous procedure for fact-finding and evaluation was instituted, etc.

Not if it were demonstrably merited. But as a scapegoat for a bad outcome - yes.

Because it is manifestly the truth. Notwithstanding ours sins, but because of our faith and everythind that we do that is good.

A nice line from a court ruling quoted in the Silverglate article:

I won't give an inch of ground to the those who argue otherwise.

Thanks, Don. This has to be very painful for anyone who has gone through that nightmare to see Rome awarding those who had authority and power to stop it with anything honorific. I hope talking about it helps somehow.

Hmmm, from the poster who was previously admonishing about others passing judgement, about others needing to consider "charity" in this situation.

Now, that's a spirit of Christian dialogue. Law's past "performance" is adequately documented for the entire world to see. He was in multiple offices of authority while these abominations occurred, which is now well documented and part of public record.

He only enacted corrective measures upon public disclosures of some of the abuse victims. That is also well documented.

Don brings up an excellent point. The volumnous depositions speak to his complicity, by his own admission the knowledge he had of the abuses going on in two dioceses under his watch.

When a battle ends in failure, that bodes poorly for the commanding general most of all.

No. This is not justice nor charity nor manifestly the truth. The truth is, many of the Church's children were abused under the watch of this prelate. That is truth, that is fact, that is documented.

He could have deposed many of those prior to the public disclosure, as he had admittedly knowledge of them. At best, complicity with numerous crimes which cries out for justice.

djs, have you been abused? Do you have friends who are abused? Have you ever counseled someone who has been abused? I can say yes to the last two questions. Why in this case do you overlook the accountability and responsibility of Law and defend his being rewarded?

This sends quite a serious message about the Church's concern for justice and her abused children to the rest of the world when someone with the history of Law is rewarded with any honorific title. And it has been noticed.

The Church could have chosen to (1) not reward him and (2) enact canonical sanctions which are already in canon law, which supposedly exists for justice to be served within the Church. Not talking about lynch mobs, but canonical justice which the Church seems to be able to dole out to some but not others.

It is indeed a perverse sense of "charity" when the rewarding of someone with the career of Law with anything other than the justice due to him is defended.

The Church of justice and truth, who supposedly loves her children, should be conscious of the message that she is sending to the world when situations like this occur. This has been noticed across the world already. If the Church wants her message of charity and justice to be taken seriously, she herself needs to manifest it with applying justice internally.

Passing judgment? Huh? I mean no disrespect, and am not making a judgment about Neil's conduct or character at all. As I stated, I can readily understand the anger that leads to hyperbole.

But, Law did not ignore victims, he did not ignore the problems among the clergy. He did not condone abuse... The procedures and remedies were clearly lacking; he lost the confidence of the faithful and had to go. ("When a battle ends in failure, that bodes poorly for the commanding general most of all" - indeed.) So are the ideas about justice for Law based on the facts or on an anger-inspired exagerration of the facts of the case? When the rhetoric gets cranked up to an hyperbolic level, then are we still alking about justice or is it Fells Acres alll over again?

My comment of standing my ground was in support of this proposition:
"[We] must be wary of a claim that the true color of a forest is better revealed by reptiles hidden in the weeds than by the foliage of countless freestanding trees." If someone says the bishops should keep quiet about abortion, the war, capital punishment, communion, because of the abuse crisis, I impolitely disagree. I do disagree with the communion issue (as other might the war). But my reasons are unrelated to the unfair connection to the sex abuse crisis. To link the two would amount to judging a forest by its reptiles. I oppose such a unfair judgment against my church in any aspect unyieldingly.

These truths are not mutually exclusive. It is true that many of the Church's children were abused under the watch of this prelate. It is also true that "we [are] a Church concerned about justice ... [and] a Church concerned about the spiritual and physical well-being of our children"
Reptiles and Forests.


No, No, and No. I don't overlook the responsibility of Law, nor do I wish to overlook the pain and suffering of the victims. I stipulate that Law had to go. I agree that he failed.

But I do not see him as a nefarious evil-doer, who acted with arrogant pride and disregard for his flock. Very nearly all of the abuse documented by Riley occured befor Law's tenure. Law's revised practices came after the exposure of the Porter case, not one from Law's tenure. There was consultation with outside expertise. Priests were deposed but obviously not enough.

Setting up a system that optimizes justice and safety for all - with a Christian perspective - is not an obvious or easy thing to do. Law, like others, did not solve this tough problem. Not a good thing, but not, AFAIK, evidence of inherent evil.

Randy and others,

I sincerely apologize for saying what I said before since many of you made good points.

I have to say that I agree that the least Law should have gone to some kind of hermitage or something.

I hope what I said before didn't offend anyone, especially those who may have been abused or those who knew someone who was abused.

It's indeed a tragic...an evil one.

It's just hard to imagine ANYONE with good conscience allow priests to roam around after the abuses (moving them around).....and I'd expect a lot more from a Bishop who should have had GOOD CONSCIENCE to resolve the problems rather than running away from it.

YEAH DUH!!

G-d bless,


SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

djs,

What he did was to fail to take timely and definitive action with respect to investigating and acting upon allegations of abuse of children and adolescents by clergy who were subject to him.

Unfortunately, as has been testified to on any number of occasions and repeated in interviews, etc., many did not choose to go public because

• they were ashamed (a typical reaction of abuse victims)
• they felt that they were somehow responsible for the abuse (similarly, a typical reaction of abuse victims)
• they believed that the Church, through its hierarchy, would act appropriately to stop the abuser from doing such harm to others (they didn't question how that would be done, they just naively believed, in their faith, that the Church and its leaders would do the right thing, whatever that was)
• they did not want to expose the Church to public scandal (a theme reiterated again and again, as so many of the victims came from truly devoted Catholic families)

djs, you demean yourself by playing semantic games here (although you also have misread and consequently taken out of context - completely - the point of the sentence - I'll readdress my original point in the next paragraph - but, I want to make a point first about what you thought I said and how you reacted to it, because I think there's a point to be made here also.)

That something is not "criminal", because it has not been codified as such, but a reasonable man would infer it to violate accepted standards of acceptable behavior as they relate to conduct - in this instance an act of ommission by which a person in a position of trust and authority with knowledge that allegations exist of criminal behavior fails to take affirmative action to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations, and if found true, to take appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of that behavior, - by any standard of moral culpability has committed a criminal act, codified as such or not. That there were repeated instances of such takes the scenario to an extreme - suggesting an absolutely wilful disregard for the victims on the premise that the public image of the Church was more important than what had been done - an attitude that, ironically, brought greater shame on the Church than would ever have resulted from publically dealing with the issues as they arose - a process that might also have had the beneficial effect of deterring other miscreants from perpetrating their wrongs on more victims.

The above sentence is the one you misread. Let me try again:

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.

Note that the phrase "absolutely criminal from a a secular standpoint" refers to the behavior by those subject to the jurisdiction of Cardinals Medeiros and Law - not to what the Cardinals did. On the other hand, the phrase "itself criminal and sinful" applied to what the Cardinals did.

Again, you are being disingenuous. They ignored by failing to act timely and definitively and they compounded that by doing it again and again with additional victims and additional perpetrators - and, sometimes, with the same recurrent perpetrators.

Angry? Me? I have no grounds to be angry - I never suffered abuse and I do not personally know anyone who did. I did know several priests who perpetrated one or more instances of abuse, including one who was a high school classmate of mine. What I feel is not anger but an enormous sense of disappointment, a sense that persons in whom I placed trust and faith lacked both the moral sense of responsibility and the plain damn common sense to exercise their authority in a way that would have protected those to whom they had an obligation. As someone who has held positions of significant authority, I always believed that I did so as a trust and that it was incumbent on me to appropriately fulfill that trust - I expected no less of Cardinal Law and his auxiliaries, most of whom I have had occasion to met over the years.

It isn't necessary to make a judgement in this instance. The facts speak for themselves. Condonation need not be active or overt; the failure to act in circumstances that merit action is, in and of itself, a condonation - the failure to exercise one's moral responsibility gives scandal only slightly less in degree than the overt act of permissiveness. Perception is reality and reality, in this instance, is in the eyes of both the victims and the beholder.

How about, let's protect those of whom our Lord said, "Suffer the little children to come onto Me"? He did not say, "Suffer the little children to come unto My priests, that they might service them."

The Boston Archdiocese (and others also), in the person of its hierarchy and their administrative minions, has shown a remarkable proclivity to pick and choose its experts from among those who speak and say the words that it most wants to hear and to ignore and abandon use of those who have said otherwise.

Am I to understand then that predators in clerical garb who abuse only once deserve a pass for that? Funny, that doesn't seem to be the standard we apply to the plumber, the bartender, or any other citizen who does so - even though, for many of them, the opportunity to abuse again will not be as easily had as it will be for the one-time offending cleric who goes back into ministry - especially if he is transferred to another canonical jurisdiction, where no one is the wiser and, consequently, will not be watching.

You will get no argument from me about the Fells Acre Day Care-Amirault case in Massachusetts, the Wenatchee case in Washington State, or the McMartin Day Care case in California. All were miscarriages of justice that can only be described as witch-hunts fueled by mass hysteria and, in some instances, accompanied by prosecutorial, police, and/or social welfare agency misconduct. However, an important distinction to be made is that all of these involved very young children who were able to be manipulated by those who were hell-bent on proving what they had already decided to have happened. The priest sex-abuse cases in the Boston Archdiocese (and most other jurisdictions) have overwhelmingly involved adolescents or late pre-adolescents - not toddlers - and the recurrent instances, with similar modus operandi, at different times and places, cast an entirely different light on these.

Randy's point is absolutely valid. Silverglate's quotation from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court notwithstanding, the average person does not analyze events unfurled before it with the fine eye that is typically accorded to them by appellate justices convened en banc and examining them in the light of law and precedent. The average person looks at facts from the standpoint of what a reasonable man might perceive and mitigates that perception by the prejudices that he or she has acquired in the course of life, based on their own experiences, learning, and observation. It is that mitigation of perception, with its inherent risk of erroneous conclusions and the subsequent potential for errors in judgement, that cause there to be appellate judicial bodies and that such bodies make their decisions without juries. Yet, in almost all instances, appellate courts are enjoined from reconsideration of the facts determined by the jury - because the law puts fact-finding into the hands and minds of those 12 reasonable men and women. They are the finders of fact and unless they find in complete contravention to the evidence presented, their decisions as to the facts will be sustained without review.

Thus, we cannot rely on manifest truth to be the sole basis on which persons, viewing the circumstances of these events, will conclude that we are champions of justice who are concerned for the spiritual and physical and psychological well-being of the children entrusted to our care - we must manifest that championship by acting to assure that those who would use the facade of clerical garb to abuse and those who would fail to act responsibly in the face of such are dealt with timely and appropriately. My God, do you realize that some of this was done in the churches itself, in the confessionals, the sacristies, everywhere but on the altar. Talk about hearkening back to the rightly condemned slanderous material that commonly circulated prior to the 20th century, alleging all sorts of heinous activity in churches, rectories, convents. That fiction has become truth and given succor to those who are enemies of Catholicism (as well as having made enemies of persons who previously would not have given credence to such scurrilous materials).

Are you serious? Geoghan abused children (often while having them pray aloud or while he did so) and was shuffled from Medeiros' time through Law's tenure. He was not defrocked until 1998 - 2 years after his retirement, 14 years after Law became Archbishop of Boston, and 30 years after the first allegations against him were made to archdiocesan officials.

Think what you will. I am done debating this.

Don,

My deep and honest admiration for you as a survivor who has dealt with the trauma of what occurred and been able to move on into a productive life and also to maintain your faith. You have my prayers.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks Neil and Randy. Don

Don, don't know if you saw the NCR article about this: http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/todaystake/

Thanks Randy, saw it yesterday and thought it made some very good points. Ultimately the buck stops in Rome. Don