[Wino]

Originally Posted by angelize56

Well don't lend him mine!

Not ot worry, Dear. I had yours 'bronzed'!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by aspinajo

This is the first time in this forum and i love a healthy debate especially on the subject of rogue clergy, i fully back what Linskyjack is saying, it really is about time catholics wake up to the fact that priests etc are only human and not some divine conduit between god and the masses, as displayed by the many who have been caught playing with kiddy's and who knows, that is probably the tip of the iceberg.

These people need to be weeded out of every profession but more so in positions of trust and they are obviously being protected by people with the same tastes but higher up the food chain, i am not into bagging the clergy, they, like any profession have there place in society, but what confuses me is how people can be sucked in by the rhetoric that they come out with when passing on the so called word of god, the bible has been written and rewritten so many times over the centuries by learned people of the times and they have put in and taken out what suits them and as an argument against this question they keep saying "but it is the word of god", i try and keep an open mind on things like this and i would say" but who told you", did god tell you personally and if he did'nt then you are doing what a lot of other people have been doing and just accepting what one person is telling you instead of questioning the whole ideal. (chinese whispers).

Thanks
aspinajo

Welcome to the forum, apsinajo.

The issue here for me, and at least some others, is not whether the Catholic Church needs reform and not whether the Pope should bear blame or not for what happened to law, but an issue of respect. As I said, there is a time and place for everything. I do not think immediately after the Pope's death is it time to start poking Catholics in the eye with a stick. We've already beat this subject to death in other threads (i..e, molestation and the Church, etc.). I think this thread was more of an attempt to poke a stick in Catholic's eye than it was for intelligent discussion on the topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it!

Right Wendy!

Wino--fit the man for some steal knickers!

[linskyjack]

The time and place for this was before the Pope died and the molester enabler was given that cushy position in Rome. Fact is, today he held a funeral mass in a famous bascilica for the Pope--a high honor in the Church.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

The time and place for this was before the Pope died and the molester enabler was given that cushy position in Rome. Fact is, today he held a funeral mass in a famous bascilica for the Pope--a high honor in the Church.

You know, I was listening to Jim Rome (a radio sports talk show host--that's right--I listen to sports primarily, not political radio talk shows) and he was talking about how some Soccer fans disprected the Pope--I don't even know what he was referring to, but not important. He said that some people just are not going to respect anything--it doesn't matter-they just have little or no respect for anyone or anything. I think if you cannot respect the Pope at the time of his death, I think you probably fall into that category.

[LANMaster]

Mulder,
If you were Pope, then what would YOU have done about Cardinal Law?

[LANMaster]

I, personally, would have fired Cardinal Law and done it SOOOO publicly, that there would be ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION where the Church stood on pedopohilia among the ranks of the Priesthood.

Which by the way, is exactly what Cardinal Law should have done to the pedophile Priest to begin with.

It is a disturbing pattern of ignoring the problem regardless of it's perpetuation. Which is why, I think, the Catholic Church membership has dropped by 50% in America since the scandal first broke.

[linskyjack]

God Lan, thats two today----this is getting scarey.

[LANMaster]

I have loads of respect for the Catholic Church. I was raised catholic, and my Father is still a loyal practicing Catholic.

This scandal made my skin crawl.
But for the Catholic leadership to ignore it, minimize it, and even perpetuate it has done, IMO, irreparable harm to the Church especially in America.

It is no wonder to my why no American Cardinal is even being considered for the Papacy.

[linskyjack]

Thats an interesting question--why no American popes. Could it have to do with America not being a country where Roman Catholicism is the religion of the majority?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Thats an interesting question--why no American popes. Could it have to do with America not being a country where Roman Catholicism is the religion of the majority?

Sure. I can imagine that is a good reason. I think only 6% are Catholic in the US. However, I think 80% are Christian so the majority believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Anyway, I don't know of any Cardinal that spoke up against Law or even the pedophile Priest.

That is disturbing to me.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Mulder,
If you were Pope, then what would YOU have done about Cardinal Law?

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I, personally, would have fired Cardinal Law and done it SOOOO publicly, that there would be ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION where the Church stood on pedopohilia among the ranks of the Priesthood.

Which by the way, is exactly what Cardinal Law should have done to the pedophile Priest to begin with.

It is a disturbing pattern of ignoring the problem regardless of it's perpetuation. Which is why, I think, the Catholic Church membership has dropped by 50% in America since the scandal first broke.

LAN--how come you didn't slam Cheney for all the lucrative benefits he got from Haliburton?

The point of that is I have no idea (and niether do you or Linsky) what Law knew or didn't know nor do I have any firsthand knowledge of what specific pedophilia went on (i.e., was it 14 or 15 year olds that consented or was it 8 years olds?)?

What I would have done if I was in charge of investigating Law is find out all of the "facts" and then make a decision as to whether I thought Law was culpable (i.e., deliberatly attempting to protect a priest where he has sufficient evidence to conclude the priest had committed a heinous crime--I say heinous because I don't consider sexual relations between a 14 or 15 year old boy and a priest as a heinous crime although it certainly is a crime and I am not condoning it in the least. But I am a strong believer in the punishment fitting the crime.

I won't pass judgment on Law or the Pope anymore than I would on anyone else where I don't have all the facts. You did the same thing with Michael Schiavo comparing his conduct to that of Scott Peterson while Linsky thought Schiavo should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor!

I see far far too much in the way of unfounded accusation by people (like you and Linsky) who haven't a clue as to what the factual situation was. I try not to participate in that (unless we are roasting a liberal unfairly and without just cause!)

As to the Catholic Church Membership dropping 50%, where did you get that from? I find it extremely hard to believe.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Mulder

LAN--how come you didn't slam Cheney for all the lucrative benefits he got from Haliburton?

The point of that is I have no idea (and niether do you or Linsky) what Law knew or didn't know nor do I have any firsthand knowledge of what specific pedophilia went on (i.e., was it 14 or 15 year olds that consented or was it 8 years olds?)?

I do not know what this has to do with Cheney or Haliburton. And I can't understand how it makes a difference what age of MINORS these Catholic priests were having homosexual sex with.

What I would have done if I was in charge of investigating Law is find out all of the "facts" and then make a decision as to whether I thought Law was culpable (i.e., deliberatly attempting to protect a priest where he has sufficient evidence to conclude the priest had committed a heinous crime--I say heinous because I don't consider sexual relations between a 14 or 15 year old boy and a priest as a heinous crime although it certainly is a crime and I am not condoning it in the least. But I am a strong believer in the punishment fitting the crime.

I DO consider it a heinous crime.
Acting under the color of religious authority! If nothing else, he broke the moral code of the Church on several occasions, and Cardinal Law should have AT THE VERY LEAST suspended his priesthood until an investigation was completed. The guy was guilty, Mulder. Proven in a court of Law. Sitting in a cell right this minute. Guilty of crimes which I personally consider to be heinous.

Picture this; (Please accept my apology in advance for calling on such a personal scenario) You find out when your daughter turns 18 that your local priest has been having "consensual" sex with him since she was 14 years old. You always wondered why she was so distant. Why she was turning to drugs and alcohol behind your back. Perhaps the Priest even threatened her that he would tell you of her solemn confessions unless she performed certain acts for his erotic pleasure. Perhaps you even encouraged your 14 year old Daughter to seek him out for guidance, not knowing what harm would become of that.

Now increase the damage just a little but and imagine it was a Son, and not a daughter who was homosexually molested in this fashion.
You believe your Son or Daughter's tale, and others in your parish have made the same complaint about this priest. And what does the Cardinal do? He simply moves him to another Parish where he does the same thing to other CHILDREN! And when he's caught again, he is moved again by the same Cardinal!

This is what Cardinal Law did!
I do not have a link to prove this, but I have watched enough of this story unfold in the media to determine that is exactly what happened.

I call that a heinous criminal act. Not only by the pedophile Priest, but by the Cardinal as well.

I won't pass judgment on Law or the Pope anymore than I would on anyone else where I don't have all the facts. You did the same thing with Michael Schiavo comparing his conduct to that of Scott Peterson while Linsky thought Schiavo should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor!

I think I'll side with the Pope on the Sciavo case, and in opposition to you there as well. The more I hear about Mr. Schiavo, the more I think my comparison with him and Peterson was right on the money. Just my opinion.

I see far far too much in the way of unfounded accusation by people (like you and Linsky) who haven't a clue as to what the factual situation was. I try not to participate in that (unless we are roasting a liberal unfairly and without just cause!)

Did you think OJ Simpson was guilty? Did you say so publicly before, or even after he was acquitted? I know I did. It is called an opinion. We all have them. Just because mine differs from yours (which admittedly it rarely does) is no reason to profoundly insult me by comparing me to Linskyjack.

[Mulderator]

Well see this from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-1dcover_x.htm

Despite an intense media focus on high-profile serial pedophiles, 20 priests account for more than 500 of the publicly known accusations, USA TODAY found, while 95 men (40%) are accused by only one person.

Contacted Sunday to comment on the findings, Galante said with a deep sigh, "I wish I were shocked."

Public outrage has been stoked by the dramatic stories of pedophile priests, he says, but USA TODAY'S numbers "show that it is too simplistic to say that everybody has multiple victims or everybody has a preference for children," says Galante.

"The extreme cases have been reported disproportionate to the numbers," says Boston College's Pope, citing the "particularly flamboyant" cases of Boston priest Paul Shanley, now facing 10 counts of child rape and six counts of indecent assault and battery, and ex-priest John Geoghan, also of Boston, who was convicted of indecent assault; he faces two criminal trials and about 90 civil suits. He is now in prison.

The revised policy makes no distinctions between multiple offenses with children and a single act of sexual relations with a teenager.

"A 25-year-old priest having a relationship with a 17-year-old boy is not the same as having sex with a 5-year-old. It's not right but it's still not the same," says Pope.

. . .

"It's not in anyone's interest for the church to be cavalier with the rights of priests and to allow innocent priests to be unjustly removed," says Lori. "At the same time it is quite clear we have to protect children and young people, and give victims justice."

As I said, and what you should know as well as I do, the media has a habit of stoking the fires--my Haliburton example was reminding you how many unfounded stories there were about Cheney's dealings with Haliburton--you don't remember?

The point I am making is while it certainly would not be at all unreasonable for Law to have been removed, it is also my be unreasonable to brand him some sort of sick monster akin to the people who committed the acts (as Linksy attempts to do) and then to further push that allegation onto the Pope.

I'm not defending Law, but he ran a huge disocese with thousands and thousands of priests. My guess would be his conduct was more negligent than it was sinister or evil. So bounce him out of his position fine. I think it was probably poor public relations to give him a high profile position in the Pope's funeral, but the point is the man's life consists of 50 years of life devoted to the Church and to works of charity. Do you even know anything about Law other than the sex scandal issue? Is a man to be branded a "child molester enabler" for nelgigence?

Again, I would point out that you are agreeing here with a person who thinks Michael Schiavo is a hero while you think he's akin to a murderer. I don't think Law should be forced to bear the scarlet letter of pedophile because he failed to take appropriate action to remove a pedophile--not unless I've reviewed all of the evidence and the evidence is strong that his motives were either evil or that he knew or should have known that his actions would result in further pedophile activity.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Picture this; (Please accept my apology in advance for calling on such a personal scenario) You find out when your daughter turns 18 that your local priest has been having "consensual" sex with him since she was 14 years old. You always wondered why she was so distant. Why she was turning to drugs and alcohol behind your back. Perhaps the Priest even threatened her that he would tell you of her solemn confessions unless she performed certain acts for his erotic pleasure. Perhaps you even encouraged your 14 year old Daughter to seek him out for guidance, not knowing what harm would become of that.

Non Sequitur--you can't let victims decide whether an accused is quilty or determine the punishment for obvious reasons. And let me turn it around for you--suppose some psychologist got your son to remember molestations my you that never occurred (this has happened in reality in to a troubling degree). Should we brand you a child molester based on the word of your son and no other evidence?

[b]I do not have a link to prove this, but I have watched enough of this story unfold in the media to determine that is exactly what happened.

I thought as much--were you getting this from Moveon.org? I'd bet my house that number (50% of Catholics have left the church) isn't even close to accurate (they numbe in the billions for godsakes). Go do some research and support your assertion. You should know better than to throw some statistic at Mulder without a rational basis.

I call that a heinous criminal act. Not only by the pedophile Priest, but by the Cardinal as well.

I do not call sex with one 14 or 15 year old boy by a priest (i.e., a single incident) a heinous crime. Is it wrong? Absolutely, but wrong has many degrees and I can think of far far worse crimes that I consider heinous. Again, I remind you of Linsky's belief that M. Schiavo is a hero compared to your belief.

Did you think OJ Simpson was guilty? Did you say so publicly before, or even after he was acquitted? I know I did. It is called an opinion. We all have them. Just because mine differs from yours (which admittedly it rarely does) is no reason to profoundly insult me by comparing me to Linskyjack.

But that's because a trial went on and evidence was leaked to the public to a very large extent. Also, we are not talking about the pedophile priest here--I'll be right behind you if you want to rail against the couple of priests--much evidence has come out about them. We are talking about the culpability of Law and his punishment--not the pedophiles.

Remember Law has said he was unaware of much of what went on, which is certainly not incomprehensible and did not realize that pedophiles were incapable of reform--one of the tenets of the Catholic Church is repentance and forgiveness--remember Christ forgave a murderer and took him into heaven. I think Law is guilty of being too forgiving most of all. Again, not defending him, just stating there is too sides to every story--no one knows that better than an attorney that does litigation.

[linskyjack]

Sorry, there was evidence at the trials that clearly implicated Law. In fact it cleraly shows that he did everything in his power to cover up the incidents (and by the way there were many) In fact there is a letter he wrote that is so damning that one can only conclude that this man cared more about his reputation then about the health of the kids in his diocese.