Posted on 02/07/2006 1:13:07 PM PST by NYer
A former singer in my church's choir used to say the same about Egan before he became Cardinal. Hmmmmmm....
Prayers said for you, your brother and family.
What rock have you been libing under?
Cardinal Law's departure from Boston bore NO resemblance to your comments, and repeating trash like that only serves to confuse faithful Catholics. When it became clear that his presence wasn't helping the situation, Cardinal Law stepped aside to allow Sean O'Malley to come in and deal with the lawyers, and try to put the Diocese back together again.
The Attorney General had already determined that Cardinal Law had not broken any laws, but the AG tipped his hand when he made it clear in his public pronouncements that he sure wished he could charge him with something. At that point, there was no reason for the Cardinal to stay in Boston. He didn't leave for Rome for almost a year. He wasn't being hidden by Rome or anyone else. He was called to Rome by the Pope to be the Pastor at one of the najor Basilicas in the city.
Not hiding under any rocks, but I've also not been presented with any evidence that would suggest that Mary Jo White would 'throw' an investigation. Maybe that evidence is like all the other 'evidence' that has been breathlessly presented in the article here and those that have been linked.
"There has got to be another way. Doesn't ANYONE SEE IT?"
I agree completely with your analysis. The Prince of Lies has woven a most painful web, a terrible dilemma.
Thank you.
"homosexual pedophiles"
Almost none of them are pedophiles.
Attraction to boys between puberty and adulthood is one of the defining symptoms of same-sex attraction disorder, but puberty is the cut-off for pedophilia.
"If you were assuming a cover up from the get go, I'm not surprised that's the conclusion you came to after the investigation was done."
Let's review the action: I expected a moral leper to act like a moral leper, then observed as she did just that.
However, SuziQ can "unhappen" that observation by accusing me of "assuming."
Interesting logic.
Perhaps what you say of the newspapers is true. But the scandal has never been about the abusers themselves. The scandal for Catholics has always been about the bishops' coverup and enabling of the situation.
My own cardinal Rigali doesn't see this and doesn't accept the bishops' own very large share of the blame. And so the scandal continues.
Mary Jo White is in bed with the Clintons. Nobody whose name who is uttered in the same sentence with those two is clean.
My point was that guilt has not yet been established. Accusations and counter-accusations have been made but that is all.
Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard, even within the Church, I believe.
Sadly, this is a typical scenario.
Shades of St. Francis 8-)
I think most priests would benefit from some manual labor.
You continue doing what you need to do, without losing faith. The Church is God's, not man's.
-Theo
You go girl! 8-)
Dear Theo,
Sure I see it.
However, some bishops have not acted like spiritual fathers but rather as carnal wolves. Regrettably, there's more than a little evidence that the human institutions of the Church that should protect against these abuses aren't working.
In the past, I've criticized those who make these allegations second, third, and fourth-hand, without offering any evidence, without offering the open, under-oath testimony of those with first-hand knowledge.
Now, here is a man, Fr. Hoatson, willing to come forth and present testimony and evidence in a court of law. He deserves to be heard, and to have his evidence and testimony taken seriously.
That it has come to having to use the courts of the pagans is a travesty. But that is the fault of bishops, not the alleged victims.
If the allegations against Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Myers are true, then one must ask - what is to be done with them? Clearly, the human institutions of the Church have not dealt with these men - unless you consider being created cardinal a fitting consequence of such an allegation.
sitetest
Just thought it was worth repeating.
I don't get it. Myers was only transferred to Newark a few years ago. He has a sterling reputation from Peoria. Something is fishy in this story--there are accusations (hearsay) against the former archibishop of Newark, Cardinal McCarrick of Washington. Does the lawsuit actually name Myers or does it name the archbishop of Newark and some careless gossip-mongerer has plugged in the current archbishop's name? I'm tired of gossip masquerading as news. Let the lawsuit run its course and then decide who did what. Can someone find out what the lawsuit actually alleges? I don't trust this reporting of it.
Perhaps. In practice, I think it's probably a chicken/egg situation. A little hard to discover which came first.
If you read the John Jay Report on the sex abuse crisis, you'll see that 44% of the accused priests analysed in the report, were ordained prior to 1960. That's almost half. This before Vatican II and before the proverbial you-know-what supposedly hit the fan.
This tells me that there were significant numbers of homosexual clergy already in place prior to the 1960s. I have no doubt that many of these men played significant roles in the chaos which ensued in the wake of VII, which in turn, led to an even more liberal and pro-homosexual attitude in seminaries.
In other words, a "snowball" effect.
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.