I still want to know what how Law will be living subsequent to his resignation. Those Cardinals live damn well. Anybody have any information?
jjorge*197982
Law is being scapegoated or thrown to the lions in hopes that it will quell the uproar. In reality the entire church hierarcy should have their feet held to the fire up to and including the pope since they have all been complicit.
Phoenix32890
Maybe he can borrow 72 virgins from the Muslims
The following was posted at P45 by B Tray L:
London - The crisis over sex abuse by priests in the Catholic church in the United States has taken a startling new turn.
A document emerged on Wednesday, proving that the Pope had personally ordered that a defrocked priest convicted of paedophilia should move to a new area where his behaviour was unknown - unless his continued presence in the parish where the abuse took place caused "no scandal".
Joseph Gallagher, co-founder of the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors, said the document, one of thousands from the Boston Archdiocese made public by court order last week, was the "smoking gun" that proved a hitherto secret Vatican policy of keeping its problem with abusive priests under wraps.
"This would explain why (other) bishops have done the same thing as (Boston's) Cardinal Law - they've moved sexual offenders from parish to parish without notifiying the parishioners," Gallagher commented.
On Thursday or on Friday the man at the centre of the scandal, Cardinal Bernard Law, was to have lunch with Pope John Paul II inside the Vatican.
The Pope's order of 1999, in which he wrote that the defrocked priest, "ought to live away from the places where his previous condition is known" unless his continued presence causes "no scandal", may be one item on a crowded agenda that will carry the two men through coffee and beyond.
Other topics they will have to mull over include the letter delivered to the Cardinal's Boston address on Tuesday, signed by 58 priests in the archdiocese, calling for his resignation.
On Thursday 12 more priests joined the swelling chorus.
Then there is the offer made by Cardinal Law to declare protective bankruptcy to fend off 400 victims of priestly sexual abuse now preparing to deluge the church with lawsuits, with claims expected to exceed $100-million
- Independent Foreign Service -- The Star --December 12 2002
By Peter Popham
For jjorge and c.i. - I refer to Law as a scapegoat because I'd be willing to wager that he'll be the only senior member of the Catholic church that steps down or is removed because of all of this.
The church will use his resignation as it's example of how it's cleaning up it's act and is "reforming" but what about all of the other priests and bishops in other areas that have been doing the exact same thing Law did? The problem isn't and never was confined to greater Boston but no one else will be forced to resign. Do either of you have a better term for the one person that falls as the result of the actions of several thousand? I think "scapegoat" is quite appropriate.
For Phoenix - If Law follows tradition he'll stay right here in Boston. Attached to the diocese HQ is a "retirement home" for Priests/Nuns. Some of them fill in officiating services for others who go on vacation and such but beyond that I don't know what they do. My guess is that they are busy readying the "Presidential Suite" for him there.
I asked this question on the Abuzz and came up dry.
Could Rome be held libel for Boston Archdiocese's Bankruptcy
For Boston Archdiocese, Bankruptcy Would Have DrawbacksBy PAM BELLUCK and ADAM LIPTAKBOSTON, Dec. 2 ? For officials of Boston's Roman Catholic Archdiocese, bankruptcy hasemerged as a potentially attractive strategy for dealing with the hundreds of lawsuits itfaces over sexual abuse by priests. But the move would open up the archdiocese's tightlyheld financial records and give a federal judge control over whether any of itsmultimillion-dollar holdings would be sold to pay to the plaintiffs. And in a city simmering with outrage over the clergy sex abuse scandal that erupted here,the archdiocese would be likely to face the unflattering image that it was trying toescape from fully compensating abuse victims for their suffering, plaintiffs' lawyers say.Admittedly I know very little about the structure of the Catholic Church However, how canone diocese declare bankruptsy and the Church in Rome bear no responsibility. Is eachDiocese in the Catholic Church part of the overall? If we liken it to a company wouldn'tthe parent company be responsible for the actions of all it's subsidiaries?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/national/03PRIE.html?todaysheadline
fishin, According to some media info, there are over 450 civil suits againsts priests in Boston as of the most recent record. That number is going to increase exponentially as time passes. New laws were created in some states such as California to extend the statute of limitations on molesting priests. I'll bet dollar to donuts that many more civil suits are now being worked on by some hungry lawyers. I don't think Law is going to mediate any of those law suits, and many others will be swinging from the yard arms. Scapegoat? Depends on your viewpoint. Many priests have been relieved of their duties, and many more will follow. I don't believe for one minute that Law "resigned." He was fired. Let's just say, it was a political move by the catholic church. c.i.
Though certainly guilty of concealing and enabling child abuse. Law is still being "Scapegoated". Fortunately, he in fact earned his fate. Unfortunate is that the matter is not an isolated instance, but sympotomatic of much more pervasive problems throughout The Church in particular, and in "Churches" in general. Not all American Priests are pederasts, nor are all priests who are pederasts American, nor are all religious pederasts priests, nor even need they be Christian or of particular gender.
Left to The Church, Law will be quite comfortable, likely to enjoy a lengthy and very private retirement. Secular litigation may well interfere with such plans. It is not entirely clear he could be prosecuted successfully for criminal misconduct. His Civil Liability, and that of his Employer, The Arch Diocese of Boston, A Division or Subsidiary of The Roman Catholic Church, is clear beyond contest. The financial impact from this is going to be significant. Perhaps the consequences will result in meaningful change, perhaps not. Institutional Inertia is a force of nearly cosmic scale.
Law will likely be little more than embarrassed and chastened by the scandal, treated by his caretakers as a revered elder statesman. His funeral, whenever it may come, will be marked by few if any orations dwelling on the current unpleasantness.
timber
au1929
Law is not being scapegoated. The malfeasance in his diocese is breathtaking.
If you had said he was being sacrificed or thrown overboard in the hopes of quenching the publics thirst for someone to be punished,
I might agree with you. However, Rome could hardly have let him remain; not with the tidal wave of outrage and rejection by his own Boston catholics.
I am convinced that there has been widespread malfeasance on the part of other Bishops and probably by elements in Rome on this matter as well. However I think you go too far in saying that, "They have ALL been complicit".
Also, be careful not to mistake catholics anger and determination to oust wrong-doers with any wholesale abandonment of the church itself.
Any catholic will tell you that the church is NOT the Hierarchy, that it is the people of God. Catholics that I know love their church, and it's core of belief, (even those who verge on being anti-clerical).
Most catholics (and some catholic theologians), reject Rome's
position on birth control. Many reject the hierarchical church's positions on women in the priesthood, priestly celibacy, and divorce, yet still consider themselves to be members of the church and are determined to participate in it's reform.
jjorge,
I said:
"Law is being scapegoated or thrown to the lions in hopes that it will quell the uproar. "
You said:
If you had said he was being sacrificed or thrown overboard in the
hopes of quenching the publics thirst for someone to be punished,
Aside from my calling it scapegoated and you calling it sacrificed it would appear that we are saying the same thing.
Yes, they all were complicit I have no doubt that they all were aware of what had been going on and went along. The average priest could of course do nothing but those in a position of authority could. And did nothing
(a favorite for us altarboys, oh so many years ago . . .)
Nominus Dominus, things is lookin' ominous . . .
I heard that Lott is conferring with Law!
au1929
I actually noticed as I was posting that our positions may not be as far apart as they initially seemed.
Perhaps it may seem to you that I'm splitting hairs but I believe the notion of 'scapegoat' contains the element of being 'innocent' or 'unjustly punished', which Law is most certainly not.
On the other hand to say that someone is being thrown overboard, (while implying that they are being disgarded for the benefit of others) doesn't seem to imply that they are innocent or blameless the way a scapegoat is.
Now to 'sacrifice' someone also seems to contain the suggestion that the one who is sacrificed is 'innocent', so I guess I shouldn't have offered that word as better than 'scapegoat'.
We may have a greater divergence on the culpability of others. When you say that 'they were ALL complicit' you definitely part company with me.
jjorge, I believe your definition of "scapegoat" matches mine. I don't see any innocence in Law. He was a major contributor to the abuse. A scapegoat would be a somewhat innocent individual sacrificed for the 'greater good.' c.i.
C.I.
You and I
C.I. to I.
An update in California: A man molested by a priest 25 years ago has charged a Los Gatos priest hoping to see more victims to reveal their ordeals. It's good that the statute of limitation has been lifted on this crime. It's about time, and I hope the healing process begins for many of the victims of molested by priests no matter how long ago. This man has attempted suicide twice. I hope he finds peace and happiness. c.i.
Well, you gents are using a different definition for "scapegoat". From my view if 10 guys go in and rob a bank and only one ever is held responsible then he's a scapegoat. The term doesn't imply innocence to me. It's simply one person taking the blame for the actions of many.
The dictionary definition
1 : a goat upon whose head are symbolically placed the sins of the people after which he is sent into the wilderness in the biblical ceremony for Yom Kippur
2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility
Make of it what you will.
wow, who knew the origins of Yom Kippur were so cool? Well, maybe Jews know, but I didn't!
