 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Another lying cardinal gone?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 02 May 12 - 08:25 AM Not necessarily. These guys have phenomenal chutzpah, and how they love to cling to the Power and the Glory, and all that fabulous costumery! But here's the story: Cardinal Brady failed to act In fairness I'd better link to his response as well. As he points out, this scandal occurred before guidelines had been introduced, so why on earth would he have bothered to flag up child-rape? No need to resign then... And in case anyone thinks things have changed, Priests to stand by the abusers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Penny S. Date: 02 May 12 - 04:25 PM A play on the subject yesterday. What the Bishops Knew I'm watching the TV programme on BBC 2 now. Terrible. On the radio yesterday, they had a bishop explaining that they could not warn new parishes of the history of an abusing priest because it would be defamation. In canon law, this applies not only to telling false things which harm someone's reputation, but also telling truth which would harm in the same way. This was felt to be a greater bond on them than protecting children. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Rapparee Date: 02 May 12 - 04:30 PM So hindering the canonization of Blessed Pope John XXIII because he used to eat a midnight snack of pasta by calling it "gluttony" isn't defamation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 02 May 12 - 07:32 PM According to BBC News tonight, Brady has now considered resigning as the Primate of all Ireland, but has ruled it out. And the Vatican will not be trying to force him out. After tonight's documentary, his days are surely numbered, but it beggars belief that the church should try to brazen this one out. HERE's how Brady explains himself. Among other things, he says this: "I had absolutely no authority over Brendan Smyth. Even my Bishop had limited authority over him. The only people who had authority within the Church to stop Brendan Smyth from having contact with children were his Abbot in the Monastery in Kilnacrott and his Religious Superiors in the Norbertine Order." Even now, neither he nor his church can see that the simple way to have stopped Brendan Smyth from "having contact with children" (ie persistently raping them) would have been to have had him arrested and jailed. This eventually did happen, when - despite the best efforts of the church and even the Irish government - he was at last extradited from Ireland to Northern Ireland. (The Irish Government paid the price for its collusion with the church in protecting Smyth, and collapsed.) In the UK - and maybe elsewhere? - the BBC programme will remain available on the internet for seven days: This World: The Shame of the Catholic Church |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Leadfingers Date: 02 May 12 - 10:00 PM Peter - We ALL know that there are bad apples in every barrel , but the majority of Clergy (wether R C or Anglican) are good guys . There is good cause to get the churches sorted out , but the tone of your post seems (At least to me) as the start of a witch hunt than can NOT do a lot of good ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Beer Date: 02 May 12 - 10:08 PM I am with you Leadfingers. As in all vocations there are the bad apples that make the rest look small. So sad. Here is my brother's take on the situation that you should agree with Peter. Adrien http://youtu.be/Dz5aW6wV0Pk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: banjoman Date: 03 May 12 - 07:28 AM Please dont make the mistake of tarring the whole Catholic Clergy with the same brush. Any abuse by clerics (or anyone else)must be reported and stopped. However, the majority of clergy are honest hard working people who abhor the actions of the few as much as I do and are not slow to publicly voice their opinions. I have realised recently that my personal faith is not in the catholic church but in the person of Jesus Christ. The church lost its way a long time ago and should devote its efforts to listening to the voices being raised both within and outside the church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 May 12 - 10:24 AM Greetings Terry! I know the problem is with "bad apples" and I am not tarring all Catholic religious with one brush (if it's me that banjoman is addressing). But who are the bad apples? Until a few days ago, Brady was claiming he had been no more than the "note taker" in the investigation of an appalling case of serial, criminal abuse of children. He also claimed the father of a boy witness/victim had been present during the investigation. The BBC has unearthed documentary evidence that both claims were lies. Brady had been deputed to investigate the allegations, not just to take notes, and the boy's father was kept outside the room while the boy was interrogated (with questions which included whether he masturbated and engaged in sex acts with others). Moreover the boy was then solemnly sworn to discuss the case with no-one outside the hierarchy. That boy provided Brady with the names and addresses of others who were either at risk of abuse by Brendan Smyth or who had already been abused. None of those people or their families was ever warned about Smyth. All indeed were duly abused by Smyth - repeatedly, as a result of which some lives were completely destroyed. As is by now well known, Smyth was enabled to continue raping children, over several decades, by many in the church who facilitated his transfers from parish to parish, without ever flagging up to the receiving parishes why he was being moved on. Brady himself is now the cardinal primate of all Ireland and according to the Vatican his position is secure. Are Smyth and Brady the only bad apples in all this? The Irish government is introducing legislation requiring any priest hearing a confession about child abuse to report the matter to police. I provided a link above to a report that Catholic priests have said they will defy the legislation. I know the confessional is hard territory to police, but how can it be right in any circumstances to withhold evidence of child rape? If we count all those who collude among the bad apples, it starts to become quite a big number. But surely it goes farther. Surely the institution of the Catholic church itself carries some responsibility in all this? It is certainly doing itself no favours in standing by one of its own, who is now held in contempt throughout once-Catholic Ireland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 12 - 11:03 AM The bad apples are all of us who have not spoken out..and that includes me. The sorriest of the lot are peple ?? like Brady who covered up with insane excuses for doing so. I would not mind seeing him in prison for life. Other bad apples: nuns who suspected but said nothing. Mothers and fathers who let their boys go on "overnights" with the priest..although they were brainwashed too. We all were brainwashed. My parish had a monster priest that I just this year found out about..Longview Washington in the 50s..Edmond Boyle I believe..I was too young to remember him but I have a brother who would have been old enough to have been abused by him. I actually have quite a lot of sympathy for the priests..arrested development does not begin to cover it. A fear of women, a belief that avoiding women is the true holy way and raping boys is a byproduct of that virtue... it is sick to the core. I think I will record my Boston Grandmother song and put it on you tube. We all need a public way of expressing regret for our own blind eyes and participation. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 May 12 - 01:15 PM The Irish Times has carried an amplification of the Vatican's support for Brady. As it makes a point in Brady's defence of which I was unaware, I should in fairness give the link: Holy See rejects calls for Brady's resignation It will be seen here that a Vatican official told the BBC, long before the programme went to air, that Brady had acted promptly and determinedly to ensure that his superiors believed and acted upon allegations he had heard from a victim. This was not included in the broadcast. Notwithstanding this, I still fail to see how anyone could have believed such allegations, as Brady clearly did, without regarding them as a matter for the police. I accept that Brady's thinking would have been influenced by a belief in the Catholic hierarchy of 37 years ago that it didn't need to be concerned with trivia such as the temporal laws of Ireland, but my sympathy is wholly with one of Smyth's victims who was quoted in the Irish Times: "This is a man that is supposed to be the telephone line to God and people are relying on their eternal salvation on him, and this man hasn't even got the moral courage to report child rape...." In response to the Vatican's defence of Brady, Ireland's deputy PM has added his voice to demands that Brady must go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 12 - 03:45 PM I find it perplexing that he has apparently described himself in the investigation as a "stenographer" and a "notary." Would not a professional secretary been better in that role? He did have a doctorate in canon law at the time I have read. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Penny S. Date: 03 May 12 - 05:58 PM Wouldn't a professional secretary have been outside the ordained and not bound by the ties which silenced the priests? I was listening to Melvyn Bragg's programme on the radio this morning, on Voltaire, in which his, and his predecessor Rabalais's writings attacked the failings of the clergy. Every now and then, the issue of those failings, of one sort or another, comes up and is publicised, bu the church goes on. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 12 - 06:08 PM The ties that silenced the priests were not those of the confessional, which they are bound to..these were ties of culture, of obedience to authority, of protecting the Church over little boys..but the bound of confession would be quite different. This was not material that was brought forth via someone's confession. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Penny S. Date: 03 May 12 - 06:45 PM I agree that the bonds wre not those of the confessional, but a secretary from outside all those that you gave would not, perhaps have been trusted. I assume they might have been able, at that time, to have found a secretary who was not a woman. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 12 - 06:53 PM They probably would have had to to avoid any hint of scandal. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 03 May 12 - 11:47 PM The end is nigh for Brady... Ireland's prime minister Enda Kenny believes that as PM he is precluded from calling for Brady's resignation. But that didn't stop him saying he thought the cardinal should consider his position. (Incidentally Kenny lashed out at the hierarchy in unprecedented terms last year, and withdrew Ireland's ambassador to the Vatican.) The foreign and education ministers have been more forthright, as has been Northern Ireland's deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness. They all think Brady should go. So does the chief executive of leading children's charity Barnardo's. But the killer punch could be THIS article in the Dublin Evening Herald by Garry O'Sullivan, not only because of its telling insights, but because O'Sullivan is the editor of a highly influential magazine, The Irish Catholic. He acknowledged that Brady was thought by some to be a man of prayer, but added: "He was also ambitious, and ambitious within a system that rewarded blind obedience." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Musket Date: 04 May 12 - 04:32 AM Ireland has its own laws, and it is up to the Irish government to formulate and enforce them. However, in The UK, (this priest claims jurisdiction in Northern Ireland which is subject to UK laws) it has been the law for most of modern times that if you are privy to a crime, you have a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. Regarding child abuse, this has been strengthened by more recent laws. I accept that each case is unique, and that's why we have courts rather than the prosecutor deeming the sentence, but I honestly fail to see how covering up appalling crimes is anything other than a crime itself. We jail people who look at child porn and call them paedophiles even though they have not themselves abused children. It is perhaps a moral debate as to whether covering up knowledge of paedophilia is as bad as watching it on the internet... Again, people who claim a faith are being let down dramatically by those entrusted with leadership. It is as if organised religion is on a self harm kick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Les in Chorlton Date: 04 May 12 - 06:17 AM Don't trust faith, trust trust L in C# |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: CET Date: 04 May 12 - 06:58 AM "However, in The UK, (this priest claims jurisdiction in Northern Ireland which is subject to UK laws) it has been the law for most of modern times that if you are privy to a crime, you have a duty to report it to the appropriate authorities. Regarding child abuse, this has been strengthened by more recent laws." Are you sure about that? In Ontario there is specific legislation about reporting child abuse. It's not my area of practice, so, without doing the research,, I have to admit that I'm not sure if it applies to the general population as well as to professions like teachers, doctors and social workers. However, I am not aware of any general obligation in common law to report crimes. Richard: am I right on this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Musket Date: 04 May 12 - 07:45 AM There are various charges under UK law. From perverting the course of justice to accessory after the fact, if you are "in the loop" to failure to report a crime when you are just a third party. Note the difference between seeing something and putting two and two together and being told by the perpetrator that they have carried out crime. I have experience of somebody confessing a crime to me when I was the responsible person for that organisation. I was advised that I had no option but to report it by our legal advisors. (who were then themselves privy, albeit second hand.) If you notice a crime, or if you are the victim and you do not wish to come forward, it may not be in the public interest to prosecute you. But if you become privy, that is the tipping point.. Interestingly, many solicitors will give conflicting advice. I work as a regulator and am often in the situation of people saying "I was told not to report it..." Many of these people had been given such advice by solicitors, which is sad because my experience is that courts don't take bad advice in mitigation and the government body I work for applies the law where we have to, not where we want to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Jack Campin Date: 04 May 12 - 07:52 AM In this case the murder of Joe Cinque the judge ruled that people have no duty to do anything about it even when they are in the same house as somebody who has declared their intention to kill someone - the law says they can just go ahead and let the murderer do it without interruption. That was in Australia, but the book on that case suggests it's standard legal thinking in the English-speaking world. So it seems Brady would have been perfectly within his (secular) legal rights to just stand and watch while his fellow clerics raped kids on the altar. And the implication of what he's saying seems to be that canon law sees it the same way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 May 12 - 08:43 AM There is no general duty to report a crime of which one is aware, in English Law. There are some specific duties but no general one. https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q514.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 04 May 12 - 09:51 AM Richard, is there general scope to prosecute "aiding and abetting"? I'm not suggesting it would be applicable to Brady, and I don't think the criminal law is the way to deal with this particular, wretched individual, but any bishop who moved paedos like Smyth around in knowledge of the likely consequences must surely be running some kind of risk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Musket Date: 04 May 12 - 09:51 AM Yes, and the cardinal was not just aware, but had knowledge of as part of his position. Hence I made the difference above. Mind you, I note the link Bridge gave mentioned the moral duty. After all, why would a Cardinal feel he has a moral duty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: mg Date: 04 May 12 - 10:37 AM I think I read, although it could be another of many of these situations, that the creep was moved by the bishop or cardinal to Ireland out of Northern Ireland just as the law was making moves to arrest him..mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: BrendanB Date: 04 May 12 - 02:32 PM Speaking as a Catholic I would be saddened to see Brady arrested but I would support such a move because I believe that he was an accessory after the fact of a criminal (and unspeakable) series of acts. My sadness would not be for him but for the victims - and I include the church in that. A greater sadness is Brady's refusal to accept responsibility for his actions and, in so doing, to trivialise the suffering of the young boys who were taught to trust the church and were so cruelly betrayed by it. Brady is knowingly harming the church to which he claims allegiance. It makes me despair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 04 May 12 - 06:06 PM No need to despair except about the harm done to innocents. We need to take blinders off our eyes, which were carefully soldered on, and see that people in the heirarchy of the church are not only human, but apparnetly quite often mentally ill and can rise through the ranks and knock healthier people out of the way. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: JohnInKansas Date: 04 May 12 - 07:26 PM Progress in Philadelphia? 26 suspended? 6 booted? (sort of ...) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: ollaimh Date: 04 May 12 - 08:39 PM the ontario legal requirement to report child abuse is binding on doctors and social workers, i don't know of it covers priests. however it doesn't cover the general population, and couldn't and pass a constitutional challenge. however the interference that senior church officials have doen in canada dand th usa has reached the level of obstruction and there are some investigations on going |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: ollaimh Date: 04 May 12 - 09:00 PM on addition, the ontario legislation is provincial so if one were to violate it one would be charged with an offence under the ontario provincial offences act. this is a crimina charge but the penalties would be significantly less than if charged under the criminal code. there is on e american jurisdiction that has charged a bishop with obstruction of justice in boston and the bishop fled the jurisdiction to refuge in vatican city, there is also a grand jury in the midwest examining such charges. finally there are no innocent catholics in these matters. nor innoicent anglicand amd other denominations. they openly and now admittedly committed genocide against the native children of canada and to say you don't know or have no responsibility has less creedence than a german claiming he didn't know or was following orders in the holocoust. no one can jails or kill you if as a catholic or other genocidal denomination you fight for justice for the many raped and and killed children. i do believe these churches can make atonement but i see no such process at present. it is my opinion that any one particvipating in genocidal churches withoiut making signifigant actions of redress and atonement to the raped and killed( and yes roughly half the children in the native resicential schools as wards of these churches dies there, from neglect abuse and yes murder). this is noit a few bad apples , these churches have hierarchies that openly obstructed justice and hid the truth while knowing of the abuses, and they have done this for at least a century, this is corruption , dare i say it, on a biblical scale. for those with some conscious look at kevin annetts web page "hidden from history". kevin has suffered the worst abuse and slans]der for his decades long campaign for sracial amnd social justice but now moct of his allegations are now the established facts from canadian royal commissions amnd courts. at every stage of the way the churches obstructed and destroyed ecidence and intimidated people, and they still are by the way. that's not bad apples, thats a corrupt and wicked organization that has put it's private interests above the law and every decent standard of morality |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,ollaimh Date: 13 May 12 - 01:43 AM i want to make clear that the idea that the abuse in the catjolic church--and many other denominations, but specifically the catholic church IS NOT ABOUT A FEW BAD APPLES. the church hierarchy from top tp bottom has systemically protected abusers from the law. the vaticcan gave legal refuge to cardinal bernard law for obstruction of justice in america. that means that right up to the pope they are subverting the course of justice to protect their most evil members of the churh. this is clearly systemic evil. systemic evil. if they serve any spiritual being it is a devil not god. this is cirruption and abuse of the highest order. they are so agressive and shameless that the catholic church is presently suing a volunteer organization of survivors of church abuse to get their records . the peer support group, with little or no resources is being forced to disclose the private healing statements of the victums of abuse. again this is syatemic evil of the highest order right up to the top. it really in time to stop pretending that the abuse cases from all corners of the globe are about a few bad apples. it is time to stop pretending that the churches defence of the worst criminals, and the use of diplomatic imunity to sheild those \criminals from justice is anything other than systemic evil , right to the top. the catholic chuirch had a golden opportunity to use these abuse cases to clean house and insure the best ate running the show. instead they have chosen to protect the worst possible criminals. i again especially invite people to look at the many christian churches and their involvement in the genocide against natives in canada and the united states. the chairman of the canadian truth and reconcilliation commission has recently said this was genocide according to establish international standards. this is a superior court justice saying this. this is not a few bad apples. the bad apples have long know they will rarely or never pay for their crimes against children and crimes against humanity. the church hierarcharchies could have cleaned house and made genuine atonement. instead they have demonized and attacked the victums time and time again and sheiled their priests from the law at every opportunity. this is evil. systemic evil, from top to bottom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: mg Date: 13 May 12 - 02:02 AM You are right and I will not make excuses for them. They routed out a priest who admitted he was married..quite easily done because oh the scandal...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 May 12 - 03:03 AM Click here for an article on the subject by Thomas Reese, S.J., former editor of the Jesuit America Magazine. Excerpts: First, I think the church—and by church I mean both the clergy and the people of God—needs to re-envision its attitude toward the survivors of sexual abuse. In Latin America, liberation theologians developed the concept of the preferential option for the poor. The American Catholic Church needs to embrace a preferential option for the survivors of sexual abuse. Nor should we look at the victims of abuse simply as clients or problems to be dealt with. Just as people in the church have learned not to look on the poor as a problem to be solved, but to recognize their contribution to the church, so too we need to see the survivors of abuse as persons who can teach us what it means to be Christians, what it means to be church. No one who listens to their stories can fail to be touched by them. This means that we cannot respond to every new victim who comes forward with "O God, not another one." Rather we have to see them as integral to our community, persons who must be welcomed. Such an attitude would encourage the church to reach out to the thousands of victims of sexual abuse who have not come forward. We want them to come forward; the church needs them. Second, we need a better system for investigating accusations of sexual abuse. Obviously, all accusations must be reported to the police, but if the statute of limitations precludes prosecution, the police will not investigate. Or the prosecutor may judge there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Under these circumstances, the church still has an obligation to investigate and determine whether a priest is guilty or innocent, whether he must be permanently removed from ministry or returned to ministry. The charter calls for an investigation of the allegations, but there is no standard operating procedure. Each diocese is on its own, with the result that some do better than others. The American criminal justice system sometimes fails even though it has police, prosecutors, grand juries, judges and juries. The church has not had anything like this since the inquisition. Not surprisingly, the church has a hard time getting this right. It is essential that the church get this right. The victims deserve justice and children must be protected from future abuse. Innocent priests also deserve justice and a way to clear their names. And the process must have credibility to the public at large. We need more research on this topic. We need to find out what are best practices and help dioceses to adopt them. We don't even know how many priests are suspended or how long their suspensions last. Many priests fear that if they are falsely accused they will be suspended indefinitely because the bishop is afraid to return them to ministry. In too many instances the investigative process appears suspect because it is under the control of the bishop. Episcopal credibility here is nil. The process will only have credibility to the extent that it is seen as truly independent of the bishop. Only an independent process will have the credibility to say that, "Yes, this priest can return to ministry." Third, we still do not have a system for bringing bishops to account. It is a disgrace that only one bishop (Cardinal Law) resigned because of his failure to deal with the sexual abuse crisis. The church would be in a much better place today if 30 or more bishops had stood up, acknowledged their mistakes, taken full responsibility, apologized and resigned. A shepherd is supposed to lay down his life for his sheep; these men were unwilling to lay down their croziers for the good of the church. The bishops also have to step up and supervise their own. I know, "only the pope can judge a bishop under canon law," but there are lots of things the bishops can do anyway. First, they must speak out and publicly criticize those bishops that are not observing the charter or are failing in their responsibilities. Bishops, including the president of the bishops conference, need to say, "Shame on you bishop, get your house in order." This is not a canonical judgment; this is fraternal correction. The Vatican also needs to do its job. It appears to have no problem investigating nuns and theologians, but investigating mismanagement by a bishop is not a priority. A bishop can be quickly removed in Australia for hinting that women and married priests might need to be discussed, but bishops who failed children are not removed. Only in Ireland were a few bishops removed because of their failure to protect children, and that took a brave archbishop and the full force of the Prime Minister and the government. Even when a bishop is indicted, no one has the sense to tell him to take a leave of absence until the case is over. Finally, the sexual abuse crisis has to be seen in the context of clerical culture in the church. I agree with those who say that celibacy did not cause the sexual abuse crisis, but when a group of men sit around a table discussing what to do with one of their colleagues who abused a child, it makes a big difference whether the men at the table have children. The first question in a parent's mind is "How would I feel if my child was abused?" The inability of celibate men to ask that question blinded them to the consequences of their decisions. They focused on the priest, not the victim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: Joe Offer Date: 13 May 12 - 03:15 AM Ah, it's a good article. Let me give you the ending of it:
In this corporate culture, few are going to tell the bishop "no." The one pastor in Philadelphia, who refused to accept an abusive priest, got reprimanded and punished for challenging the archbishop. This is what happens when you speak truth to power in the Catholic Church. The problem in the Catholic Church today is that the hierarchy has so focused on obedience and control that it has lost its ability to be a self-correcting institution. Creative theologians are attacked, sisters are investigated, Catholic publications are censored and loyalty is the most important virtue. These actions are defended by the hierarchy because of fears of "scandalizing the faithful," when in fact it is the hierarchy who have scandalized the faithful. Is there any hope. The data in the John Jay report shows that the cases of abuse fell dramatically during the 1980's. The problem of abuse is probably worse in other parts of American society than it is in the church, but that is still damning with faint praise. It can never be an excuse for doing less than is required. But I dream of the day when the church becomes part of the solution rather than part of the problem. We are not there yet. But hopefully someday what we learn about the detection, prevention and healing of abuse in the church may be of help in responding to abuse in American society. --Thomas J. Reese, SJ Reese, by the way, was removed from his position as editor of America at the request of the Vatican. I think he says things that make them nervous, like suggesting that thirty bishops in the U.S. should have resigned. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 May 12 - 05:26 AM What we have needed is for a group of priests and lay people to get their shelleleighs in hand, go the house of the bishop and say we will not stand for this. There are places to shelter abusing priests...they could be in a special place and do accounting or make wine or whatever..or communion wafers. They could have full disclosure of their tendencies and have people volunteer to be their parishioners, children and vulnerable people excepted. I would go to one with full disclosure. The day will come when there is a war or whatever and we will need all priests on board. But confine them, make them wear ankle bracelets if you are determined not to turn them into th e law, which you should. I am much more interested in the feeble minded bishops and pope who allow this to continue...where is the decency were are supposed to have? Where is the slightest bit of common sense or priorities? We can get a priest who dates a Las Vegas dancer out of office in one day I bet but it takes 30 years to get one out who rapes little boys. It makes us all sick and twisted trying to make sense of this. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 May 12 - 05:30 AM I think we have to ask not why do they allow this to continue, as if they were too stunned to not see what is obvious to the casual observer, but why do they want it to. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another lying cardinal gone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 13 May 12 - 07:07 PM I am on the warpath now. I have essentially issued a fatwah..totally non-violent, but serious. Popes, cardinals and bishops: where you are better than me, I will try to do as you say. Where I am better than you, you do as I say. mg |
