Posted on 05/04/2002 9:27:33 AM PDT by ppaul
WASHINGTON -- In the Catholic catechism, schoolchildren learn the seven deadly sins.
There is Lust, which ran unchecked -- in a tortured, destructive form -- in the Catholic priesthood.
There is Greed, which prompted Catholic prelates to defame victims rather than face civil fines and depleted contributions.
And then there is Pride, which was on infuriating display last week in Rome, where the most compelling tableau was the row of empty chairs at a Vatican news conference. Only two of the 12 American cardinals there bothered to attend.
As American Catholics waited and prayed for a glimmer of humility, the princes of the church strutted off to what one church official called "other obligations," as if there were something more pressing than the rape of children.
And while conservatives back home yammered that the answer was a return to clerical austerity, Cardinal Edward Egan luxuriated at a five-star hotel near the Pantheon. (Add Gluttony to the list.)
When the cardinals issued a statement targeting "notorious" predatory priests, that notorious protector of predators, Cardinal Bernard Law, was hiding in a friend's apartment inside the Vatican.
This was supposed to be the moment when these shamed vicars would make an extraordinary act of contrition, when the men who usually urge redemption angled for their own.
But the leaders of a church built on symbols could not even manage the symbolism. The empty chairs sent an unequivocal message: They hadn't learned a thing.
The cardinals chose defiance over deference to the expectations of their devastated flock, which thought that celibacy, women priests and married priests might be discussed.
The shepherds opted for arcane legalisms over actual remorse, meaningless distinctions over meaningful changes: An abusive priest might or might not be ejected from the club, depending on the age of his victims and the frequency of his transgressions, and how long ago the abuse occurred. Was he a "serial" offender or a hobbyist, intent on abusing or inebriated? To the hair-splitting cardinals, these variables still seemed to matter. To enraged American Catholics, they no longer do.
We are angry that these spiritual arbiters are unyielding when the "sins" belong to us, not to them.
We have relatives whose lives were choked because they could not get annulments -- and thus remarry in the church -- after their spouses betrayed and abandoned them.
We know faithfully married women who are forced to violate the Vatican stricture against birth control if they don't want 13 babies. We are friends with gay Catholics who are expected to sacrifice intimacy to maintain their faith.
Rome has resisted modernity, clinging to black and white.
But -- astonishingly, disgustingly -- on the matter of molestation, which any sane person does see in black and white, the cardinals divine shades of gray.
It took them three days and a deafening chorus of disapproval before they ostensibly agreed on a one-grope-and-you're-out policy. They can still water that down at the bishops conference in June.
And it will be a miracle if they don't, given the increasing evidence that church leaders in America, and perhaps even the Holy See, have engaged in a huge conspiracy, spurred by fear of blackmail. They knowingly put children in harm's way because they did not want the priests they should have punished to divulge the church's hypocrisy.
Even as the cardinals were making their way back from Rome, the Archdiocese of Boston released new documents in the case of the Rev. Paul Shanley, an unabashed molester who made a speech in 1977 asserting that no sexual act in and of itself causes damage to children, not even incest or bestiality.
The documents show that Shanley threatened to spill the church's sexual secrets if he wasn't allowed to keep his street ministry. They also include a 1972 essay in which the priest boasted: "My name is to be found in the files of countless VD clinics in this fair land. One of the first things I do in a new city is to sign up at the local clinics for help with my VD."
In the cardinals' Vatican statement, they said of the church, "A great work of art may be blemished, but its beauty remains." Not at this rate.
Link to editorial HERE.
:
It took them three days and a deafening chorus of disapproval before they ostensibly agreed on a one-grope-and-you're-out policy. They can still water that down at the bishops conference in June.Sickening.
Law was probably with one of his homo/pedophile buddy Cardinals doing their homo sex rituals too?
15 "Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep, but are really wolves that will tear you apart.
16 You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit. You don't pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles.
17 A healthy tree produces good fruit, and an unhealthy tree produces bad fruit.
18 A good tree can't produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can't produce good fruit.
Oh if only that were true!
Dowd's biggest self-contradiction here is that she advocates "grayness" in virtually all areas of the faith. She's right to criticize the waffling and dishonest application of standards in the American cardinals and bishops. But her remedy seems to be to shift their waffling into areas where she'd like to see it, rather than to return to a firm moral standard in ALL areas.
This is the most sickening statement of all. When I heard about this last week, I was in shock, that Catholic Leaders would condone child rape as long a it is held to a minimum. Raping one or two is ok, it is only raping a lot of little boys that is bad.
This religion needs to be abandoned, immediately, that or this man needs a good lynching, for he just said it is ok to rape YOUR little boy!!
This is where she wanders off. If she wants to be a New York Times editorial writer she must adhere to the rules of her office. She is free, of course, to pursue something else.
I really don't think she is qualified to say what the doctrine of the Catholic Church should be. I don't think someone should just go into a denomination and say "I am Catholic, but I don't believe this this this and this..." and expect an entire Church to say "Okay, let's change our entire belief system to accomodate you." There is a religion to fit everyone in this Country. If there isn't, make one up yourself. It's done all the time. But this idea of verbal intimidation and coercion to force an assembled group of people to accomodate every contrary belief Maureen Dowd thinks they should is crazy. She makes herself into an Opinion Nazi when she does that. If she doesn't like it "No views for you!!!!"
Typical Dowd column; long on rhetoric, short on facts. She leaves out the capital sins of sloth and wrath, which she has been repeatedly guilty of committing, including in this piece. Her contempt for Law and his fellow aiders and abettors, which is well deserved, is undermined by her venom for the disciplines and doctrines of Roman Catholicism.
Aside from Cardinal Bevilacqua and perhaps a handful of bishops, all of the rest have not only failed us -- they have failed Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Maureen Dowd has repeatedly attacked the Catholic Church, so lets remember her point of view has its own agenda and carries with it her own baggage.
But she is spot on when she notes how disgusting and perverse it is that the Cardinals see gray regarding sexual abuse -- when the rest of the world can see it in black and white -- and Catholics like me are seeing RED.
Thank you for your unity at this time of strife. I know that Catholics and our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters are united in our effort to expose the depravity of homosexuality and the lies of abortion, through love and prayer and truth. When we agree on so much, and work together to end the immoral acts of our generation sometimes our differences seem trivial.
God bless.
Is her point that Egan is a conservative or that he is hailed by conservatives or that the conservatives "yammering" are wrong?
The cardinals chose defiance over deference to the expectations of their devastated flock, which thought that celibacy, women priests and married priests might be discussed.
Some of us thought that dealing with priest-molesters might be discussed, or does that constitute mere conservative "yammer[ing] about a return to clerical austerity"?
Repetez, if there is molestation, there should be investigation of the accusation, and if charges are filed by a prosecutor, then the Church should allow the law to prevail. If the Church had taken this position, there never would have been this scandal.
I recently saw a show about pedophila, and there was testimony by child victims, and how many years these guys were locked up. While it dealt with girls, the pedophiles all told how careful and cunning they were. It was gross, but it explained how a priest could get away with his position of trust with little boys.
That is, I am afraid, not very likely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.