Cardinal Law Offers Resignation/ Awaits Pope's Acceptance

fishin, There are ten molestors under the supervision of one honcho. The honcho protects the molestors, so the ten molestors continue their unsavory acts. The honcho resigns/is fired from his job. He is not a "scapegoat." The ten molestors will pay their dues when the victims brings charges against them; they also pay with their reputation, and anything else of value they may have once had. c.i.

c.i. - You are ignoring all of the other "honchos" (i.e. Cardinals/Bishops in the Catholic Church) that did the EXACT same thing Law did and aren't getting any heat at all. The problem isn't and never was confined to Boston.

I have zero problem for him taking his lumps for his actions/decision however, as I stated earlier, I'd wager he will be the only SENIOR church official that ends up resigning over all of this. There has been NO call for any of the other Bishops/Cardinals to resign and no one is going after any of them even though they've done the vary same thing Law did.

You keep insisting on a measure of innocence but that is a bit of fiction you've made up as a part of the definition of the word. It doesn't exist anywhere else. See definition 2a that au1929 provided. Every Cardinal in the Catholic church knew what was going on. Only one is taking the fall. That makes him a scapegoat.

I think that some folks are fighting over the symantics of a word when their positions are so close together I totally agreed with both - me thinks, me does!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, let's KAMU.

Fishin said:

" Every Cardinal in the Catholic church knew what was going on. Only one is taking the fall. That makes him a scapegoat."


Fishin, you may be right that the other Cardinals and bishops all "knew what was going on".

However, even though you and others might INFER that that is so, that is not the same as KNOWING it.

My guess is that many of them are culpable and should resign. Is that 10% ? 20% ? 40% ? ......I don't know. It remains to be seen.

fishin, Your stmt, "You keep insisting on a measure of innocence but that is a bit of fiction you've made up as a part of the definition of the word." Please show us where I "keep insisting on a measure of innocence?" You probably came to conclusions about guilt I am unable to determine. There's a big difference in knowing and guessing. c.i.

By whatever name we call it these things are certain: Cardinal Law is one thoroughly guilty man. He has offered to resign, and the Pope has accepted his offer. There is not the slightest doubt that the Pope and his Vatican Cardinals regard this as a political move. They doubtless hope that Law's resignation will quell the demand for other resignations and the demand for reforms, at least meaningful reforms, and will help to reestablish the moral reputation of the church. Fishin, I'd agree that the Pope hopes there will be no more resignations, but we can't be sure that there won't be. A lot will depend on what comes to light, and on how persistent the reformers are.

In reality, this resignation, which is the only meaningful action that the church has taken so far, ought to be only the beginning.The action of the Pope in cover ups, as reported above by Setanta, indicates that the reform needs to start at the top, or that the entire institution is so rotten that nothing will ever help. I admit that I have wondered if the breaking of sexual vows, heterosexual, homosexual, and pedophilic, is not so much a part of the RC Church culture, including the Vatican culture especially if acts the cardinals and the Pope may have committed in their youth are considered, that it defies change. If the Vatican is full of old men who at some point in their ecclesiastical careers were enjoying sex among themselves or with their parishioners, consensual or not, then these old guys are bound to be sympathetic to current malefactors being discovered within the church.

All efforts at reform will fail, as Setanta comments, unless celibacy is given up. Under the present set up the priesthood becomes a magnet for young sexually maladjusted men who imagine that they can jettison their troubles by entering the celibate priesthood where, through the power of God, their sexual aberrations, whatever they may be, will be made to go away. Of course, they later learn that taking the vows did not fix anything, and to make matters worse, they are boxed into an air tight system that cannot deal with their problems.

All RC clergy should be allowed to marry, and women should be allowed into the priesthood without restrictions. This will make the church more human, and will provide a socially acceptable outlet for the human desire for family life and sex. It will not mean the end of pedophilia in the church, because there are pedophiles, both homosexual and heterosexual, married and single, in the general population, and will be in the church too. But there should be less of it if priests are not forced into a convoluted sexual life-style.

Some of the thoughts I've expressed may be distressing to some Catholics. I aplogize for that, but I have only tried to say what seems obvious to me, and may seem so to many others.

I always thought that celibacy was the bane of priesthood. What modern western (wo)man is willing to swear to a life of abstinence?
But still, if you still choose to be a priest, whaddaya gonna do? You got all the urges normal men have, but no female companionship is allowed in order to relieve these urges. Well, from there on it's one very small, albeit cruel, even brutal, step to pedophilia.

I think this problem is of course not confined to the Boston area, or even the USA alone, but can be found anywhere where there is a substantial Catholic group of believers, and henceforth priests.
So now that one cardinal has been exposed, the Vatican hopes to let this embarrasing issue slowly fade away by making sure the man resigns.

My hope is that those who suffered from sexually aggressive priests in their childhood take this opportunity to expose said priests.
My fear is that those who didn't suffer from sexually aggressive priests in their childhood take this opportunity to get publicity or even easy money, at the cost of another man's name. I hope it will not get to this.

It may very well be the case that committers of sexual felonies can also be found in the highest circles of power within the RC church, namely the Vatican. I hope this is not the case, but one can never be sure.
So what's the solution? Thorough investigation of the lives of everyone connected to the RC church would come close to a witch hunt, and also be an enterprise that can only be arranged by worldwide cooperation between countries, something I don't see happening anytime soon. Yet just focusing on the vatican itself is not focusing on the actual pulprits, the priests themselves.
The best thing to happen would be if the vatican itself would start investigating and punishing those priests whom commit these crimes. As long as the general attitude in the RC is one of 'hush up', there is only a spiritual impediment for priests to refrain from pedophilia etc. And that, as can be seen today, is not enough for a number of priests.

This biggest sin of Cardinal Law is that he apparently did the things to not cast a pall for the church. In other words, to hide the truth to not besmirch the name. He did this at the request of the Pope.

How deep does this duplicity sin sink? Should the Pope go? Has Law been sacrificed to save the Pope? Does the adventure continue - upward?

BillW, If the Pope is complicit, then the history of the RCC is replete with sinners and law breakers. This is not a 'new' phenomenon. It's just that the media made it seem that way. It's a time in human history when the sophistication of the people will have more influence on religion and religious teachings. If not today, then tomorrow. c.i.

So true c.i.

I am late to this discussion, which is very interesting. The Cardinal in NH -- can't recall his name -- who served under Cardinal Law, will be the next to go. He will soon come under the gun, as will others who served under Law and knew of the covered-up abuses.

I think this dust-up has been good for the Church. If the bad apples are ousted, and if there is more openness within the heirarchy, the Church will be much improved.

I am nominally a Catholic and feel that there is much I admire and love about the Church; there is a sense of community, of help for the poor and needy, and there is the staunch belief in morals and values that are universal.

I believe with others that there should be a differently organized priesthood. There could be men ordained in two different groups, one celebate, another allowed to marry. Then two groups of women priests, similarly divided. I believe strongly that allowing women to be priests would rejuvenate and revitalize the entire Church, and being a fresh and new perspective to ministry.

The Church is unlikely to abandon long held ideas that are largely ignored by its people; e.g., birth control. Gary Wills wrote an interesting book: Papal Sin. This is well worth reading. Wills points out that we as Catholics are not bound to think of the Pope's pronouncements, even in faith and morals, as binding if our consciences believe otherwise. He has written a new book -- Why I am still a Catholic, or similar title -- that I am interested to read.

I don't see myself as a "cafeteria Catholic," picking and choosing the doctrines that I agree with and abandoning others. I believe that the Church is slow to change and, in fact, fears change especially if it demands that Rome back-track on what was considered gospel for centuries. It would be impossible for Rome to admit, at this point, that married people are intelligent enough to know how many children they should have and take appropriate means to plan their family. The Church scholars and apologists would have to devise a whole new rationale to support the blocking of life's pathway as a Good, rather than an Evil.So much more to say about this, but Christmas is...tomorrow!

Kara, Don't give up hope on the idea of two different groups of priests. Although not a catholic, I remember when catholics did not eat meat on Fridays. That changed several decades ago, and some catholics have changed their dietary habits, and now eat meat on Fridays. Long held doesn't necessarily equate to permanent. c.i.

I am not a Catholic however as with every religion it is not the teachings of the religion that are at fault just the people who lead it. I expect that changes will eventually be made which will help it exist in today's world. However not as long as the current leadership is in power.

I'm sure many of us wonder how a man (Cardinal Law) could be complicit in a crime (cover up) , exposed by 35 of his own priests,relieved of his post and yet not brought to justice like any other accused person.

And, since the Pope was also complicit (European newspapers say he actually wrote a letter saying, in essence, "move the offender to some place where his crimes are not known" is he not also guilty of cover-up?

So if the Pope was knowledgeable, would he, too, be asked to step down?

And who would ask him to step down, the 120 Cardinals, 90 of whom he himself appointed, or the world Catholic Commuinity, speaking out for once in their life instead of hiding and denying and excusing and only once-ing their way around the diddling and bu.ggering that has been going on for such a long time and for which, last year alone, in the United States, 740 million dollars was paid in compensation to victims

ronmac, Seems to me that the RCC has put themselves into pickle, but this whole matter will blow over, because there are too many devoted catholics. c.i.

Unfortunately, there are very few charges that Law can be prosecuted under within the criminal legal system. He has been accused in th epress by victims and detractors but the only time people are brought to justice within the legal system is when they are charged with a crime and that has yet to occur and very well may never happen unless a smoking gun is found indicating that he himself was busy molesting people.

fishin, Do you know if Mass changed their laws on the statute of limitations like California on molestations by priests? Otherwise, it's a moot question on whether Cardinal Law can be brought to justice - smoking gun or no smoking gun. c.i.

I know the law on reporting incidents was changed. Clergy used to be exempt and still can't be charged for any failures to report prior to the law change - only "new information" they learn of after the change was made is mandatory. That change was last winter/spring sometime.

I haven't heard anything about the statue of limitations changing yet but I'll look and see. Even then though, that whole "ex post facto" thing steps in and I think the change would only effect crimes committed when the new statute is in effect but.. I'll see what I can dig up.

There does seem to be an opening under the RICO act, as this has been widen at every opportunity. Then, wouldn't the priests have to have a specific exclusion?

Can anybody give a specific reference to a major newspaper that has reported on the letter that the Pope is alleged to have written asking that a pedophile priest be moved to another parish? Put another way, how do we know this letter exists?

Thanks.