|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Ignorant Bigot
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Well, it seems that ken's completely ignorant of the whole subject because he's had to do research before he could post. Obviously, if his opinion had any validity he would just know the Truth™ without having to put in all that effort. Clearly the sign of an inferior mind.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
KK, let me mansplain it to you.
No one is arguing the sex scandals in the RC church were the church's finest moment. I find what the priest's did and what the administrators did sick and wrong.
What Ms. Shakeshaft supposedly reported was that a random child in the U.S. is about a hundred times as likely to be the target of unwanted sexual attention by a teacher as that child is by an RC priest. (The entire study sounds like an April Fools prank to me. Shakenshaft, lol)
She further stated that this was a wild ass guess because no one tracks the teachers who are molesters.
This second point was the main point I think.
Where are the studies? If this is about the children, shouldn't someone at least get some real data? Society is willing to turn a blind eye to teacher perpetrated sex abuse while holding the entire RC church responsible for the actions of a few clerics.
Is an RC priest a bigger risk than a public school teacher? On a per hour basis, probably. But if you have a child which is more likely to molest her/him? If your child is in public school (nearly mandated in the U.S.) and your not an RC, the answer is clearly the teacher. Yet we can't be bothered to even track that problem.
Those outside the church look at it and see a classic pyramid power structure. But to the average RC, Rome is at best a dream vacation. It has nothing to do with our real lives. When we look at our hierarchy it's usually because it screwed up somewhere. Real Catholicism is based on the individual and family.
So there are plenty willing to bash the RCC but ignore the same problem in secular institutions. This was true when Christ was a corporal. It hasn't changed.
Now go ahead and tell me I'm being unfair to all those upstanding teachers who never molested anyone, how I'm comparing apples to oranges, and how I must be a sick puppy because I disagree with the leftist party line.
All those things are true. Deal with it.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Oooh, I'm PSYCHIC! I wonder if I can get a fabulous turban and an infomercial.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I've three deadlines to deal with at the moment, so I will just post three short comments here:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Look, I know you are an engineer of some sort and so maybe haven't had a decent education in statistics. (I know what its like - I'm a biologist - we are crap at all maths except statistics). And maybe you are used to scholarly papers being full of deterministic equations and actual data. Unlike this one.
Thanks ken, but I'm not going to claim that excuse, though it's not wide off the mark concerning my original stats education. Yet there's nothing even remotely challenging in that article concerning stats. Rather it is as you first say, I just scanned there for a line to quote without bothering to understand it properly, Myrrh-style. The only excuse I am going to claim is that I posted this close to midnight, after trying for well over an hour to google anything resembling a hard number on the percentage of abusive priests vs. teacher. I guess my brain was on stand-by, after reading way too much crap, when I was typing that. Sorry about that, and I appreciate you catching this nonsense from me.
I'm also glad that FCB and Chesterbelloc already competently answered Justinian, whose claim about the RCC as giant pedophile ring I consider to be in quite the same league as "the Jews poisoned our wells". That opaWim then told Justinian "The facts you supply are correct as far as I know." speaks for itself. As for opaWim's request that I trounce Cardinal Law in order to gain street cred: the problem is that I've read thoughtful articles like this one in the past and do not generally trust the US MSM much. I hence don't feel competent to judge the man, rather than his actions (which clearly were often bad). And I'm frankly not interested enough to waste the little free time that I have on researching his life to the point where I could.
Finally, I think Catholics like opaWim and multipara are like a husband with a fairly normal wife trying to channel Hosea.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Bingo, would this be your take on the the Bride of Christ channeling the Scarlet Whore?
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Finally, I think Catholics like opaWim and multipara are like a husband with a fairly normal wife trying to channel Hosea.
Are you sure you want to travel this road?
Personally I'm wary of this kind of abuse of the Bible, but there are scores of unsavory characters there that you are a more than likely fit for.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Justinian, you really are a spineless, graceless, mendacious, squirmy little arsebiscuit. Yes, 5 adjectives: because you're worth it.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Justinian, you really are a spineless, graceless, mendacious, squirmy little arsebiscuit. Yes, 5 adjectives: because you're worth it.
Chesterbelloc, you challenged me to say what in the document in question lead to my beliefs or if not I should apologise. I told you what parts of it did. Were you so stupid that you thought I would not take up your challenge? And apparently you have not only discovered you have a pathetic case, you are unable to attack the opposition with more than puerile and unsubstantiated insults. You're not even worth the bytes.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Meaning that it's the investigating authorities who are banned from helping the secular authorities due to the Papal Seal. There's nothing directly preventing the victim and the victim's family doing so. There would have been Catholic priests strung up from pullpits if they'd tried that.
As it is, there are two possible cases:
1: The victim's family doesn't trust the RCC and turns things straight over to the secular authorities. The RCC can't do much about that and any attempt to directly interfere would be politically impossible at the time.
2: Despite the problems, the victim's family trusts the RCC to do something. They take it through the RCC's own chanels. Which are set up to slow things down (meaning that any secular investigation is much harder due to the ground being cold), produce the most charitable result possible for the priest, and to otherwise protect the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church. In short to cover up and throw as much of a smokescreen as possible while appearing to be doing something.
Putting the whole thing under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and under the Papal Seal is a wonderful way of doing this latter alternative. While appearing to be doing something positive so fewer people depart for category 1 or leave the RCC entirely.
You're still getting the wrong end of the stick. A Roman Catholic Bishop who is involved in a tribunal of this nature is obliged to keep the proceedings of the tribunal secret. He is not obliged to refuse to help the civil authorities by sharing any information he has gained from other sources. So if Cardinal Fang pops round to the Presbytery and catches Father Mulcahy in flagrante with the St. Winifred's School Choir he is entitled and expected to inform the civil authority. If he is required to participate in a suitable tribunal under the auspices of the secret he cannot divulge the proceedings to anyone else but he can enter the witness box and explain to the jury what he witnessed at the Presbytery. An analogy would be with the confessional. A Catholic Priest is not entitled to divulge the secrets of the confessional but if he finds out the same information by other means and if there is a clear and public benefit served by his communicating the intelligence to the relevant parties.
quote:
quote:
but, really, does anyone seriously think that in a middle of an ess-eaitch-one-tee storm of this nature the head of the CDF would forbid everyone from co-operating with the civil authority on pain of excommunication?
They'd do whatever they could to do so that wouldn't make it screamingly obvious that that was what they were doing. They couldn't gag the victim/victim's family. But effectively could anyone investigating from their side.
Again, I think that you are misunderstanding what was happening. It wasn't as if Ratzinger was seeing the headlines and thinking: "Ooh, sexual abuse. Must cover that up". The cover up had already been perpetrated in spades. One thinks of those Bishops who had persuaded judges that Fr. Slime's predilictions had been an isolated lapse when they knew (and the court didn't) of several other cases where Fr. Slime had been up to what he shouldn't.
At this point the cover up was unravelling, badly. The point of the edict, AFAICS, is to ensure that handling of the case was handled according to due process with the CDF kept in the loop rather than the offending clergyman being told not to do it again and sent off to the inner city as a punishment (which gives the term: 'The Preferential Option For the Poor and Young' an entirely new meaning). A massive and horrible cover up did take place but not at the behest of the CDF.
Now I'm not wildly disposed to cut the Catholic hierarchy a great deal of slack at the best of times and it could well be argued that this was shutting the stable door well after the horse was long gone but the operating principle does seem to be a case of 'if you want something done you have to do it yourself' and not an attempt at imposing an ecclesiastical D-Notice on the entire Catholic hierarchy on the subject of child abuse.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm also glad that FCB and Chesterbelloc already competently answered Justinian, whose claim about the RCC as giant pedophile ring I consider to be in quite the same league as "the Jews poisoned our wells". That opaWim then told Justinian "The facts you supply are correct as far as I know." speaks for itself.
Except that really didn't go well for them.
FCB provided a link to the document in question. Chesterbelloc asked me which parts of it lead to my accusations. I answered both of them using the letter itself. Neither of them apparently is able to show how my reading of it is anything other than accurate.
And of course the RCC is more than a paedophile ring. But any organisation that systematically covers up kiddy-fucking (and do you deny that e.g. Cardinal Law did so?) and then rewards and protects those behind the coverup has all the essential characteristics of one.
Of course there is much more to the RCC, both good (their charity work, going where few others dare, etc.) and ill (trying to fuck up the world further by opposing contraception, promoting homophobia, etc.). And as far as I know, no one becomes a catholic priest with the deliberate intent of screwing kids. But that does not change the fact that the cover-up gave the RCC the essential features of a paedophile ring in addition to all else it does.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thanks ken, but I'm not going to claim that excuse...Sorry about that, and I appreciate you catching this nonsense from me.
A quick ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) for a gracious apology.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Thanks. An actually useful response. Rather than just declaring victory and going home.
quote:
You're still getting the wrong end of the stick. A Roman Catholic Bishop who is involved in a tribunal of this nature is obliged to keep the proceedings of the tribunal secret.
In short, he is required to keep secret the best information he is able to gather.
quote:
He is not obliged to refuse to help the civil authorities by sharing any information he has gained from other sources. So if Cardinal Fang pops round to the Presbytery and catches Father Mulcahy in flagrante with the St. Winifred's School Choir he is entitled and expected to inform the civil authority.
And if someone doing something illicit is that careless, it's effectively a Darwin Award. Although I suppose you are right in that there is at least non-trivial evidence to suppose that a significant number of bishops would still have covered that up.
quote:
Again, I think that you are misunderstanding what was happening. It wasn't as if Ratzinger was seeing the headlines and thinking: "Ooh, sexual abuse. Must cover that up". The cover up had already been perpetrated in spades.
No. I don't think that's Ratzinger's way. I may think that the man's a petty right wing authoritarian politician with a list of sexual hangups. But he acted here as I would expect him to act. To protect the name of the Roman Catholic Church, and damn the consequences.
On reflection, I suppose paedophile ring is a bit harsh. The intent was nothing more malevolent than the institutional Roman Catholic desire for secrecy caused by the Sacrament of Confession and lack of desire for propogation of the truth. And this is hardly the first time it has crippled the possibility of the RCC to act morally; they almost certainly knew more about the Holocaust than anyone else but couldn't act based on their knowledge there. Which must have been devastating for some of the poor priests.
So after reflecting, I'll withdraw the accusation of intent to conspiracy. But will note that I have problems working out a method that could be more precisely calculated for the continuation of the coverup that would not lead to priests hanging from lamp posts.
And it's interesting that you rather than one of the Roman Catholics on the thread have lead me to a more charitable view of the actions of the Vatican.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I had a word with the angels, who said that never mind fear of treading on this thread, they would be terrified of doing so. Nevertheless I am going to venture a comment or two.
There is a great deal for which the Catholic Church needs to hang its head in shame about this whole appalling business. There is already much to convict it. It always therefore saddens me when people use nonsense arguments in an attempt to kick harder and inflict more blows. Justinian, you are a prime example. You reveal your hand by the string of non-related accusations you hurl at the Pope and the Catholic Church. You have an axe to grind and by God you will use every apparent grindstone that comes your way. What it does is not to deliver some killer blow but to reveal your own antipathy. Just saying.
Two things in this regard. Cases referred to the CDF are about how the Catholic Church herself deals with clerics guilty of such crimes. It may seem a simple thing but due process is usually far from simple. By Canon Law clerics have not only obligations but also rights. If they are guilty of delicts then there are a range of disciplines which can be imposed - after due process: suspension from the ministry; withdrawl of some (or all) faculties; deprivation from the clerical state and so on. Such disciplines depend of course on the gravity of the delict. A criminal offence is of the gravest importance.
Clerics have rights, however. Canonical incardination entitles them to be maintained and supported at Church expense for their whole life. That is the contract, as it were, that exists between a cleric and the Church. So suspension or the withdrawl of faculties does not affect that right. However, to be deprived of the clerical state does. Such an action cannot be done lightly. Usually such a case would be referred to Rome, to the Congregation for the Clergy.
The 2001 letter from the CDF indicates that some matters of the gravest import touching the faith and morals of the Church are to be referred to the CDF rather than the Congregation for the Clergy, and makes clear which matters are to be thus regarded. The sexual abuse of minors is an obvious case of extreme gravity.
What is not mentioned in this particular letter, but which subsequent rulings have made clear, is that any priest found guilty of the sexual abuse of minors was not to be disciplined with the lesser penalties of suspension or withdrawl of faculties. Those who are guilty of such criminal action are now automatically deprived of the clerical state. There is no confusion about this matter - never again will it be tolerated for a bishop to handle such cases himself. He is now compelled to refer such matters to the CDF. And you may wish to know that the penalty imposed by the CDF is automatic dismissal from the clerical state. There is no chance of someone guilty of such a crime being able to minister again. He loses all the rights of a cleric.
Please note the use of the phrase criminal action. It is not for the Catholic Church to determine what is a criminal act. Clerics who are guilty of criminal activity need to be dealt with by the civil authorities, and they need to serve any penalties imposed upon them by the civil authorities. Church procedure against them would be a subsequent action. I know of priests who have been told, while serving their prison sentences, that they have been deprived of the clerical state by the Holy See.
How this can be described as a cover-up beats me.
And while we are at it, what exactly is meant by a cover-up? Because the way Justinian has used it so as to describe the Catholic Church as a paedophile ring (albeit belatedly withdrawn) it means deliberately witholding information so as to allow perpetrators to continue their activities. Is that seriously a suggestion?
I am also often bewildered by the idea that Cardinal Law was somehow rewarded and promoted by being given a largely ceremonial job in Rome. The last Archpriest of St Mary Major was a Welshman who was a complete nutter. Law was forced to resign from a pretty important job and in effect sent into exile. Now he is in an insignificant job. I mean really, can you name the Archpriests of any of the other Roman Basilicas? I certainly couldn't. I could name a handful of people in important jobs in Rome, but not the Archpriests of the Basilicas. I couldn't even tell you who the Archpriest of St Peter's Basilica is!
Let me tell you what the clerical sex abuse scandal feels like from the inside: it causes shame. There is anger, but mostly it is shame. And shame is a decidedly debilitating feeling. At a priest's meeting a week or so ago we were talking about the issue of priests from abroad coming to work in our parishes and all the new restrictions and bureaucratic minefields through which we have to navigate. In the past you simply made arrangements with the priest concerned and he turned up. No longer. Both the state and church authorities now expect extensive checks. As one of our number mused "We have to accept that we are a high risk category". A reflective silence descended on the meeting. I personally have met priests who were subsequently convicted of sexual abuse of a minor. The effect was devastating, especially since I had thought some of them were bloody good priests. I only got to know of their actions after they were arrested. I felt as betrayed as anyone else (though I could not possibly feel the same as their victims did).
I am exhausted now because this topic always hits me deep in the gut. It is painful enough without the mendacious rubbish spouted by the chattering classes and axe-grinders.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[X-p'd with Triple Tiara, obviously.]
Justinian, sometimes the res ipse loquitur (as your namesake might have said)
so clearly that I've just got to doubt the good will of those who mistake them so badly. But lest I be thought of as fleeing from the mighty refutational force of your, er, arguments.... quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
the document makes it clear that the abused penitent was under an absolute obligation to report such attempted abuse immediately.
And report it to the Roman Catholic authorities rather than the secular ones.
No it doesn't - nowhere and no-how. As FCB has already said, the further clarification issued a few months later encourages the victims of criminal offences to report them to the civil authorities.
quote:
"Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret." Which means that those within the church who could help the civil case the most are banned from doing so.
No. It doesn't. Really, it doesn't.
quote:
I believe I have said what led me to that conclusion above.
I believe you didn't really know what the documents in question really said or meant - and when you had it pointed out to you, you hadn't got the balls to admit you'd put the worst possible spin on them and that they would not bear your "interpretation". There's a name for people who are so keen to believe the worst of another that they don't let facts get in the way - and you'll find it near the top of this very page.
[ 28. January 2010, 13:45: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
I am also often bewildered by the idea that Cardinal Law was somehow rewarded and promoted by being given a largely ceremonial job in Rome. The last Archpriest of St Mary Major was a Welshman who was a complete nutter. Law was forced to resign from a pretty important job and in effect sent into exile. Now he is in an insignificant job.
(At the risk of being even more annoying than I've apparently already been:)
Well, not exactly "somehow rewarded", but also not particularly severely punished.
It's only Wikipedia, and the list may not be up-to-date (and it certainly can't be easily verified at www.vatican.va ) but reportedly card. Law still holds quite a few other jobs in the Vatican:
quote:
He is also a member of the Congregations for the Oriental Churches, the Clergy, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Evangelisation of Peoples, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, Bishops as well as the Pontifical Council for the Family.
Being only an ordinary member of the laity, I'm quite impressed by that list, and more than a little puzzled by him (of all people) holding some of them. Or shouldn't I be because these are also largely ceremonial and/or insignificant jobs?
[ 28. January 2010, 14:53: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well let's unpack this a bit then.
Why are you impressed? What do you think being a member of those Congregations actually means?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
I'm not Justinian, but I think the fact that the asshole has any title other than ASSHOLE is evidence enough that the RCC just doesn't get it.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Put another way, the RCC does not succumb to vigilante justice.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
In any rate, Cardinal Law's offenses, as they really are, have been grossly exaggerated. The MA attorney-general found that Cardinal Law did not commit any crimes under MA law. True, Cardinal Law did not report cases of child sexual abuse to the authorities, but he was not obliged to under the law, and I have always believed that mandatory reporter requirements are, for the most part a legal abomination to begin with. (One is not required to report crimes to the authorities for virtually any other offense, including rape and murder.)
The one thing that Cardinal Law really screwed up on was his decision to return John Geoghan to St. Julia, Weston, though even that decision was based upon (flawed) medical and professional advice that it was safe for him to return ministry. The correct approach, as it turned out, was to turn over Geoghan's (and all the other child sex offender cases) to the CDF for judgment as required by "Crimen Solicitationis." But as almost no one knew that document existed due to the hidden and flawed way the document was promulgated by Bl. John XXIII, he (and virtually all other American bishops during the 70s-90s), did not do so.
The reason why Cardinal Law's personal reputation was destroyed was because he served in Boston, a major media market with a newspaper with an axe to grind which proceeded to whip up the country in an atmosphere of witchhunt hysteria. The atmosphere was so poisonous that the gay Harvard chaplain Peter Gomes wanted to publicly defend Law at the outset, but was urged not to by his friends because the lynch mob mentality would have consumed him as well. There were bishops and religious superiors that were thoroughly mendacious in the way they handled sex abuse problems (unlike Law), but got away with it because they were located in less prominent media markets. The New York Times doesn't give a shit about Collegeville, MN, for example. Law, however, was the scapegoat.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Well let's unpack this a bit then.
Why are you impressed? What do you think being a member of those Congregations actually means?
Well, all those rules, regulations, nullifications, excommunications, beatifications, appointments, foreign policies, encyclicals, exhortations, etc., etc., have to originate somewhere.
I've always understood that most of it is done by these bodies that together form "The Curia".
I expect that if a cardinal holds membership in one of these institutions it's not so he can be in charge of the photocopier.
Is it very naive of me to assume that card. Law, by being in quite a few of them, is in fact still quite a powerful man in the RCC?
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Put another way, the RCC does not succumb to vigilante justice.
Wow, what a total dick answer. I expected the RCC to defrock the son of a bitch, not give him a mouthful of honorary titles. I don't care if they are meaningless.
[ 28. January 2010, 16:09: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Put another way, the RCC does not succumb to vigilante justice.
Wow, what a total dick answer. I expected the RCC to defrock the son of a bitch, not give him a mouthful of honorary titles. I don't care if they are meaningless.
Of course, this just proves TT's point.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
In any rate, Cardinal Law's offenses, as they really are, have been grossly exaggerated
I think you're being too generous in the way you are playing down the offenses of card. Law.
How one can -for instance- "grossly exaggerate" the act of consciously providing a known pedophile with a fresh hunting-ground, is beyond my understanding.
Don't you realize that morally that was even worse than what that known pedophile did?
[ 28. January 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Golly, somewhere along the line I missed some of all those things that you seem to imagine keep pouring out of Rome!
Each congregation has a staff, which does all the work. This would include the Cardinal Prefect, the Secretary and lower grade members. These are the ones that actually do the work. They are by no means a vast body of people - the entire Curia numbers around 6000. (Pope John XXIII famously responded, when asked how many people work in the Vatican, "about half of them"!)
Every Cardinal, by virtue of his office, is a consultor to a number of Congregations. This is not some badge of distinction, not some special award. It's part of the job of being a Cardinal. A consultor is exactly that: someone who is consulted. Every Roman Congregation has a board of consultors.
Law resigned from the pastoral responsibility for the Archdiocese of Boston. He then went into virtual exile and was given a ceremonial job in Rome. Personally, I think that appointment was a bit of an insult to him, but that's just me. He did not resign from being a Cardinal. His responsibilities as a Cardinal therefore continue.
What should have happened? Should he have simply been put out to retire somewhere and not do anything productive? I would find that far worse than what has in fact happened to him. His pastoral acumen was revealed to be severely wanting and he has had all pastoral responsibility taken from him. That does not mean he is totally evil and useless. He is now far away from the situation he mishandled so badly. He is not guilty of the same in the other responsibilities he had.
Those who want to continue to hound him - including Catholics - show themselves to be guilty of witch-hunting rather than justice. If he had been publicly flogged in Boston I am sure some would still be crying "Not enough!"
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Once again, the medical and psychological advice given to Law was that Goeghan was rehabilitated and was safe to return to active parish ministry. We conveniently forget that the medical professionals in the 70s and 80s who dealt with these issues were generally far too optimistic about the ability to rehabilitate sexual offenders than they should have been. This was in keeping with the so-called "enlightened" opinion of the time which tended to favor rehabiliation over retribution for sex offenses. The climate, however, has now gone the opposite extreme by saying (incorrectly) that no pedophile can ever be rehabilitated and that all sex offenders of whatever kind should either be locked up forever or forced to live under bridges.
Thus, Law did not behave "immorally" by returning Geoghan to ministry under the circumstances that he did. It was, nonetheless, a disastrous decision that caused people harm. Not every harmful or incompetent decision is sinful and this particular one, in my opinion was not.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
I imagine that being a member of a Curial Congregation is somewhat like a Congressman being a member of a Congressional committtee. They are entitled to a vote, which can be of *some* power, but the overwhelming amount of power resides in the committee chairman and staff.
Another factor in Law's demise was that, by the time the scandal hit, he had few allies among the Catholic laity. The liberals, of course, always hated him. But the self-styled "orthodox" had begun to hate him as well. The pro-life activists never forgave Law for his call to end the sit-ins at abortuaries as a result of the Salvi murders (for which Law was right to do under the circumstances). Law supported the initial bowdlerized translation of the new Catechism (which he was wrong to do, IMO). Law also did not bring ultra-liberal priests to heel in his diocese in a way that many conservatives wanted. Thus, there were no activists who rallied around Law when the crisis hit. Law had the support, incidentally, of racial minorities during the crisis including Filipinos and Haitians among others, but no one gave a rat's ass about what they thought in Beacon Hill or Cambridge.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Law resigned from the pastoral responsibility for the Archdiocese of Boston. He then went into virtual exile and was given a ceremonial job in Rome. Personally, I think that appointment was a bit of an insult to him, but that's just me. He did not resign from being a Cardinal. His responsibilities as a Cardinal therefore continue.
What should have happened? Should he have simply been put out to retire somewhere and not do anything productive? I would find that far worse than what has in fact happened to him.
Why? I speak as someone who was has always been a Protestant (first Methodist, now Episcopalian), but was sent to Catholic schools from elementary through high school. It has been laid on my conscience for years to convert to Catholicism. But this, what you wrote right here, is a shining example why I will never answer the call. Ever. The man facilitated child molestation. Period, full stop. And was protected and not chucked out by an organization who oh-so-hypocritically pretends to care for the rights of innocents (re: fritofrancofucko's farkakted abortuary reference). I believe there are good RC men and women. I do not believe that any of them (well, men, anyway, since women are subhuman in the eyes of the Magisterium) are part of the RCC leadership. It is corrupt, power-hungry, and self-serving. It long ago gave up the claim to be the One True Church by virtue of its utter indifference to everything that Christ has taught. If I go to hell because I cannot stand up and agree to be obedient to its teachings, so be it. It's not a God I'm interested in worshiping anyway.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I believe there are good RC men and women. I do not believe that any of them are part of the RCC leadership. It is corrupt, power-hungry, and self-serving. It long ago gave up the claim to be the One True Church by virtue of its utter indifference to everything that Christ has taught.
No good Catholic leaders at all. Wow. You do realise that, with that depth of self-confessed prejudice, any Catholic would have to be an idiot to take anything you say about anything to do with the Church (let alone Cardinal Law) seriously, right?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Erin, with greatest respect, you are doing exactly what Justinian did: you are conflating all the issues you have with the Catholic Church and using a convenient target on which to unleash them. Well, not exactly like Justinian because each of the issues you raise deserve a discussion in themselves whereas he is just venomous.
I grant that the Boston sex scandals may be symptomatic of some of the issues you raise, but I think you then overload the Bernard Law case. Sift through some of the Shadowhund stuff - in fact ignore his second post above - and actually he is telling it right:
quote:
the medical professionals in the 70s and 80s who dealt with these issues were generally far too optimistic about the ability to rehabilitate sexual offenders than they should have been. This was in keeping with the so-called "enlightened" opinion of the time which tended to favor rehabiliation over retribution for sex offenses. The climate, however, has now gone the opposite extreme by saying (incorrectly) that no pedophile can ever be rehabilitated and that all sex offenders of whatever kind should either be locked up forever or forced to live under bridges.
Thus, Law did not behave "immorally" by returning Geoghan to ministry under the circumstances that he did. It was, nonetheless, a disastrous decision that caused people harm. Not every harmful or incompetent decision is sinful...
That last paragraph gets it right. I don't think there is any doubt that Law badly mishandled the situation, and his actions had disastrous results. "The man facilitated child molestation" is an over the top emotive response. It really does not achieve anything.
Make the punishment fit the crime. Law was removed from office in Boston (well, forced to resign). That's quite a major thing. From being Archbishop of one of the primary dioceses in America to being Archpriest of a Vatican Basilica. I think that speaks volumes about how his aptitude was judged in Rome. That is a HUGE demotion.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I believe there are good RC men and women. I do not believe that any of them are part of the RCC leadership. It is corrupt, power-hungry, and self-serving. It long ago gave up the claim to be the One True Church by virtue of its utter indifference to everything that Christ has taught.
No good Catholic leaders at all. Wow. You do realise that, with that depth of self-confessed prejudice, any Catholic would have to be an idiot to take anything you say about anything to do with the Church (let alone Cardinal Law) seriously, right?
Anyone who makes decisions about anything based on a single posting on the Internet, especially when it's based on a single posting on the Internet in a board that's dedicated to containing flame wars, is a feckin' idjit.
Anyone who thinks there are people out there who will be swayed in their beliefs because of a single post on the Internet, on a posting board dedicated to containing flame wars is a feckin' idjit, too.
Yes, Chester, in case you're too dense to figure it out, I'm looking right at you.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, there's a reason I'm only responding to Triple Tiara. You and francofritofucko are a couple of raging tools. As far as I can remember, you've never posted a single word to this message board that wasn't sneering at others for not being Catholic. Now fuck off back to your cave, you stupid mouthbreather.
Triple Tiara, you say I conflate this with other issues. I see this particular... issue, case, whatever as being an encapsulation of just about everything I have a problem with in the RCC. I freely admit that child abuse of any sort is one of my hot buttons, but to not show the abusers the door from the start... the explanation of "they didn't know better" does not square with how I saw the nuns and priests treating children and being treated when I was growing up. They were never sexually abusive, or at least I never knew about it, but it's this mindset that they can do no wrong. If you ever dare challenge or question, it's because you're a possessed malcontent heathen who will burn in hell. I do not forget the lessons I learned at the feet of the RCC -- priests and nuns are your betters, so shut up and take whatever they feel like dishing out.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Yup, I understand that. I would stand alongside you, not them, on that issue.
There is indeed a mindset that needs to be broken: don't ask don't tell. I suppose my experience of the Catholic Church is apres le deluge, when the 60s era of liberation had already had its effect. I have never known the Church which was rigid, rule-bound, arid and punishing. But I heard plenty of stories from my first boss, who was ordained in 1950, and they made for very sad listening. He would frequently say "Thank God things have changed". I do, however, know priests and nuns who I think are pretty vicious. They deserve any scorn they get.
To place my cards on the table: I think it was right for Law to be removed from Boston; I think it was right that the Irish Church should be exposed for what it was; I think it right that several bishops in Ireland have resigned in disgrace. I think it is right that every priest who does anything whatsoever inappropriate with children should be dealt with as severely as possible.
And then I say but.....
Don't lose perspective; don't look for bogeymen under every Vatican nook and every Papal cranny; don't undermine the very solid case for justice by employing the method of deductio ad absurdum. That's all I am trying to contribute.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Triple Tiara: To this non-Catholic non-European, it sounds like Cardinal Law got a very cushy retirement in Rome -- nice work if you can get it! That may not be the reality, but that's how it plays here for most people. Child abuse survivors were ignored and shamed for decades, but Law gets to eat authentic Italian food every day and sit around and drink espresso in a picturesque setting. I'm not one of those who thinks he ought to have been flogged on Boston Commons, but it's hard to see that he's suffering.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Erin, you bitch.
Cardinal Law wasn't promoted to cardinal in a vacuum. He risked his life to promote civil rights in the 1950s. He was a good man who followed bad advise.
Holding him morally culpable for child molesting because some of his decisions allowed molesters near kids would require thousands of people to be held so accountable.
I've seen evidence that the odds of a rehabilitated child molester reoffending are less than the odds of a combat veteran offending. Does that make the entire Veterans Administration scum in your eyes? They are currently doing the same thing Law did.
What about prison guards who feed prisoners who might reoffend? What about molesters' mothers and fathers? Their school teachers? The waitress who unknowingly server a molester lunch?
Where do you draw the line?
Cardinal Law was told, by the best advise he had, that these men were not dangerous. He should have been more cautious. But he was not deliberately trying to hurt children.
We live in a world that praises murderous scum all the time. Drug lords are elected to high office and murders sit on our economic councils. You want to condemn a man who risked his life to do what he thought was right?
Your not just a bitch, your a crazy bitch.
[ 28. January 2010, 19:41: Message edited by: Dumpling Jeff ]
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
FCB provided a link to the document in question. Chesterbelloc asked me which parts of it lead to my accusations. I answered both of them using the letter itself. Neither of them apparently is able to show how my reading of it is anything other than accurate.
Actually, I have a job and family and figured that it was not worth all that much of my limited time to try to get you to see how dumb what you wrote was. I think Fr. TT, Chesterbelloc and Gildas (God bless his fair-minded Anglican soul) have sufficiently shown that what you wrote is nonsense, which you have subsequently and oh-so-foolishly tried to defend. For, alas, anyone who is literate and not too lazy to use a dictionary can see that the documents in question do not say what you claim them to say.
As for Cardinal Law. . . well, if he gets run over by a bus I might chalk it up to divine justice. But until that happens I'll leave the final judgement to God.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Your not just a bitch, your a crazy bitch.
*sighs*
Didn't we already HAVE this discussion?
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
If Cardinal Law had in good faith gotten his predatory priests treatment, got a psychological okay, reassigned them, and then defrocked them and turned them into the authorities when they relapsed, I don't think most people would condemn him. But the evidence says otherwise. Priests were returned to the field and then molested again and again and the situation was covered up and ignored. This is what most people can't forgive. Molesters are sick, literally. They have a drive that doesn't look like it can be controlled. These men's superiors are presumably not sick, but allowed evil to happen coldly with their eyes wide open.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Why are you impressed? What do you think being a member of those Congregations actually means?
I must say, Triple Tiara, that I actually am impressed with your ability to communicate your own emotion on the situation, hear someone else's emotion, be even-handed despite that and then still say something sensible.
The question "what do you think [it] means" is incredibly pertinent. Because it is what the world thinks it means that is so important. What I think it means to me is that the RCC regretted having to pull a decent chap out of his substantive post, and is demonstrating its overall approval of him by allowing him to keep an armful of titles and responsibilities. And it strikes an unfortunate likeness to Cardinal Law moving guys in a spot of bother on rather than demonstrating disapproval.
That last bit is unfair, because I know Law didn't abuse children himself. And the whole thing is unfair that you become the focus of free-floating anger. My view of what it means might not be what it actually means to someone who knows a thing or two about the RCC. But that's how it looks from outside, and it makes it seem like an organization failing to understand the enormity of what has happened. Sorry, because I see that you do.
[ 28. January 2010, 20:17: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I've seen evidence that the odds of a rehabilitated child molester reoffending are less than the odds of a combat veteran offending.
You've seen - by your own account - some of the oddest odds known to mankind - or, rather, not known to mankind, or womankind, or any other kind. And, funnily enough, these weird statistics always support whatever strange convoluted argument you seem to be following and always turn out to show that, whatever outrageous crap you've been spouting, your [sic] standing on the moral high ground.
Though, to the rest of us, it just looks like a dung heap.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Likely he's using statistics as IngoB inadvertently had earlier and for which IngoB has politely admitted his mistake.
There are zillions of combat veterans who might commit criminal offenses of all kinds. There is a much more limited number of "rehabilitated" sex offenders who might re-offend. Therefore in flat numbers there would likely be more offenses by combat veterans. But from all evidence I've heard about, the percentages would be nowhere near as high as the recidivism of sexual predators.
[ 28. January 2010, 20:40: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Cardinal Law was told, by the best advise he had, that these men were not dangerous. He should have been more cautious. But he was not deliberately trying to hurt children.
I think he must have closed his eyes to children's pain. And I don't buy the notion that the best advice Law got was to transfer Geoghan to one parish after another, not in the 80s and 90s.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Dumpling, you little freak - let's see those numbers. I call bullshit. I've seen the recidivism numbers for both groups and it's so far in the other direction I'm completely convinced you're making that shit up.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Your not just a bitch, your a crazy bitch.
You're not just a moron, you're an illiterate moron. Didn't you also defend the crazy-ass child-molesting LDS cult out in Arizona or wherever the fuck it was?
Triple Tiara, I'm not sure whether or not I should laugh or cry at the thought of going to pre-Vatican II schools. I graduated high school in 1989. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) That said, mdijon and RuthW have both articulated my opinion on the subject, which admittedly leaves me incoherent with rage. Unless he's cleaning Vatican toilets with his own toothbrush, it's not a punishment. Honestly? The way I see it, the only reason he's not still presiding over the Archdiocese is because the press got too bad even for the Magisterium. If they could have continued to keep it quiet, he'd still be there.
ETA: I want to make it clear that my seething hatred is reserved for the Vatican and all the people who issue the edicts and such. Well, and turds like Chesterbelloc, Dumpling Jeff and Shadowhund, whose "defend even the most heinous abuses by my ideological heroes" stance leaves an unpleasant taste in any compassionate human's mouth.
[ 28. January 2010, 21:24: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose, your article dated Jan. 6, 2002 was thin on facts about the church decision process but long on speculation about a deliberate cover up. Fortunately they said: quote:
But the appeal was denied last month. The records, including depositions of bishops and personnel files, are scheduled to become public on Jan. 26
Is that information public now? Did it show Cardinal Law was indeed deliberately hurting children?
If it did I never heard of it. It seems the writings went public and were so prosaic that they were ignored.
Of course what did happen was bad enough. You are right that Geoghan should have been removed and criminal charges filed.
Yet that solution isn't as simple as it sounds. Cardinal Law had every reason to believe the criminal justice system was unfair. Charging Geoghan would have been the equivalent of killing him.
It was a tough call and there were no clear cut guidelines.
For those who doubt the justice system was unfair, when Geoghan was ultimately arrested he was placed in special custody to "protect" him. If you search the internet you can find the video of the guards cheering while they killed him. Does that make Geoghan a martyr for dying for his faith? Will he be one of your siblings in heaven?
I have long been blathering about how we need to lower the emotional level in these decisions. If there were a good civil law solution, perhaps Cardinal Law would have come to the right administrative decision. As it was, the solution we have come up with is an effective death sentence (often without trial) for the priests.
That makes it an evil decision. The lesser of two evils perhaps, but still evil.
Erin, no I did not defend the LDS. Is your sanity that far gone. The LDS is a large church. The cult you're Alzheimer's induced fog is trying to pick out is the FLDS. Or you are just being unnecessarily snarky toward the Mormons. I think we all know which witch is which o hater of other religions.
And my defense ended up being on all fours. The appeals court overturned the local courts rulings on grounds nearly identical to my reasoning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to shine my halo. (Now if I can only get my plasma cannon working.)
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post, but Erin, seriously. What do you think Law's job is? He's the caretaker for a huge church plant with no parish to help him. It's also a tourist trap.
It may not be the Vatican and he may not use a toothbrush, but otherwise what you describe is likely what he's doing. I'm sure when he was helping Martin Luther King, cleaning up tourist vomit was not his "I have a dream".
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
*steps up to the podium in a fabulous dress while wearing several million dollars in jewelery*
And the winner of the 2010 Award for Missing The Point By No Less Than A Million Miles goes to...
*opens envelope*
DumplingJeff! Congratulations! Now, remember to keep your acceptance speech to less than 30 seconds, or else the orchestra will start playing softly and they'll turn off the mike.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Make the punishment fit the crime. Law was removed from office in Boston (well, forced to resign). That's quite a major thing. From being Archbishop of one of the primary dioceses in America to being Archpriest of a Vatican Basilica. I think that speaks volumes about how his aptitude was judged in Rome. That is a HUGE demotion.
You're right, TT, that is a huge demotion. But people compare the suffering of the children who were harmed by his inept management with the demotion he has suffered, and then ask themselves, "Does the punishment fit the crime?" And the answer is no. It looks like a slap on the wrist.
You can argue, as some have, that his actions were inept, not evil, and so not really worthy of punishment. And that may well be true. Maybe punishment is entirely the wrong paradigm anyway.
The church is a hospital for souls. He was an incompetent physician, accepting bad advice and inflicting serious harm on the souls that were entrusted to his care. He's been moved from direct patient care, and now has an administrative job where he can't do any more harm. That's important. And it's a big deal.
But what about the injured souls? I think people want him to assume responsibility for them. Punishing him doesn't make them whole. He made the mess. He needs to do something to fix it.
A couple of weeks ago, it was Zacchaeus Sunday. remember Zacchaeus? The one who said that, if he took anything based on a false accusation, he would restore it four-fold.
Zacchaeus chose to make things right, even if it wasn't his fault. If someone else lied, and as a result he took more than what was owed, he'd restore what was taken, times four.
Cardinal Law can't undo what happened. But it seems to me that there must have been things he could do to make things right. If nothing else, there are monasteries where he could live, praying for the healing of the souls that were damaged.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Okay, following RuthW's post I am getting the picture, which I had honestly not considered - that being called to Rome was somehow being sent to a lovely exotic location for a nice quiet life.
But I think we should not romanticise the reality of having to live and work in Rome. That's a very different thing from going there on holiday! I would call to mind other prelates who have had a similar summons, such as Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. The message is very clear: get yourself here to Head Office, you are no longer going to have pastoral responsibility in the place where you screwed up.
But I can now see why it looks less like a punishment and more like a cushy number. Sorry I missed that.
Josephine, the usual expectation in the RC Church is that bishops clean up their own mess - unless that mess is so severe that the bishop has to be withdrawn lest more damage is done. But the clamour for Law to go was so great that his position was untenable. Imagine the outcry if he had been left in position and told to sort it out! I think what has happened, with the appointment to Boston of Cardinal O'Malley, a wise and holy man, who has been assiduous in dealing with both the victims and with future safeguarding, is a mark of the Church's real intentions in this regard.
I feel sullied whenever this subject is discussed because it deals with grotesque, evil behaviour on the part of those who are meant to be ministering holy things. That's the price those of us who continue as priests have to pay for the actions of some of our colleagues. We have the task of somehow trying to redeem and purify the Church. And ensure that nothing like it could ever happen again - primarily the sexual abuse of children, but also the crass and inappropriate manner in which the matter was handled.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Jesus H Tap Dancing CHRIST, Jeff, learn some fucking English grammar.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Of course what did happen was bad enough. You are right that Geoghan should have been removed and criminal charges filed.
Yet that solution isn't as simple as it sounds. Cardinal Law had every reason to believe the criminal justice system was unfair. Charging Geoghan would have been the equivalent of killing him.
It was a tough call and there were no clear cut guidelines.
For those who doubt the justice system was unfair, when Geoghan was ultimately arrested he was placed in special custody to "protect" him. If you search the internet you can find the video of the guards cheering while they killed him. Does that make Geoghan a martyr for dying for his faith? Will he be one of your siblings in heaven?
I have long been blathering about how we need to lower the emotional level in these decisions. If there were a good civil law solution, perhaps Cardinal Law would have come to the right administrative decision. As it was, the solution we have come up with is an effective death sentence (often without trial) for the priests.
Seriously? Are you fucking serious? The only way you can possibly equate a child fucker who is murdered in prison because he is a child fucker to being a martyr for the faith is if the faith necessarily requires one to be a child fucker. God DAMN you are dumb. Just shut up now.
By the way, I don't condone prison justice, but neither do I mourn monsters who reap what they sow.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Chesterbelloc [...] whose "defend even the most heinous abuses by my ideological heroes" stance leaves an unpleasant taste in any compassionate human's mouth.
Where, precisely, did I defend any "heinous abuses"? Corrected some heinous misrepresentations possibly, but... The truth can be a great mouthwash, Erin.
[ 28. January 2010, 23:40: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
