Posted on 02/07/2006 1:13:07 PM PST by NYer
You're correct, but I don't really see people doing that.
Dear Claud,
There is a line in Canon Law, or perhaps it's in the Catechism (and I'm too lazy to go find it right now) that talks about the right and duty of the laity to express our views, respectfully, to our sacred pastors.
When we see a hierarch who clearly should be removed, we cannot effect that removal, but perhaps it would be well if we screamed, respectfully, to high heaven for that result.
If, through the secular courts, it comes out that some or all of the accusations against these hierarchs are proven true, then we do well to scream bloody murder, respectfully, until they are removed.
"We Freepers (darnit) can't remove them from office, therefore what purpose does our debating the accusation serve?"
I'm not sure that DEBATING the accusation serves much good or not. However, when the time comes that the charges are either proven or disproven, it'll be good that we'll have kept ourselves informed, and will be prepared to offer our views to our sacred pastors.
sitetest
Claud, you're a nice guy, but you have a scrupulous conscience.
Thanks for your thoughtful, well written reply. And Claud, I'm sorry for my shot from the hip response. Just ignore it. This article upset me and I should have waited a few days before posting anything.
Dear old and tired,
"sitetest, you said what I wanted to say, only you said it so much more thoughtfully and just all around better."
Heck, I was thinking the same thing about what you said.
;-)
sitetest
My husband is from NYC and said that the Village Voice is very liberal and whacky.
So I wonder if they are just trying to hurt the church.
You make a fair point. The occasional vent is often enjoyable, feels like an enormous release but is probably not Christian.
Forum's like this can be a huge occasion of sin. Not only with respect to what we say about the clergy but also with respect to our behavior to each other, e.g. the flame wars which regularly errupt.
Keeping each other informed is OK but it's really easy to cross the line into calumny and detraction.
I nominate you as "Vent Inspector".
Just joking. I have no idea what the answer is.
I don't know if John Aretakis is right or wrong. I'd say he is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. But let's not forget that he is making a lot of $$.
LOL...scrupulous???!!!
Try living in my head for a few months, and you'll see just how scrupulous I am!
Yep...I think wait and see is a good tactic with these things.
YOU might call allowing a climate of pedophilia to florish and exist a simple mistake. I on the other hand call it wicked, morally and legally.
What you think of as a mistake, I think of as totally wrong beyond words.
It would not matter to me WHY he rescued Law and gave him the prestigious position and rewarded him.
There is no excuse for what Law did and there is no reason for him to have been rewarded.
Years and years and years of covering up for, and advancing pedophiles in the Roman Catholic church who molested over and over again and you call that a mistake and not wicked?
AMEN!!
No doubt he is praying for Eagan and all the other shepherds who have mislead their flocks to the precipice. BTW, Cardinal O'Connor requested an Albany based priest to compile a report for him of all the homosexual activity in the Albany Diocese. He intended to present it to the Vatican. Unfortunately, the good Cardinal died before the report was ever submitted. Two years ago, the priest who compiled the report was called down to the Chancelry. The following day, he was found dead in his kitchen. The report, posted to the Internet, also disappeared several days later, though I suspect some may have downloaded it to their pc's before it was exorcized along with the web site on which it had been published.
That climate of pedophilia was there long before Bernard Law arrived in Boston. He had to deal with the problems that had been swept under the rug under Cardinals Cushing and Medeiros. Ain't saying what he did was right, but he didn't create the climate that allowed the sinfulness to flourish.
Bernie Law arrived in Boston in the mid-80's. I remember the time frame, because we were still living in NJ when he was appointed. By the mid 90's he had already begun to implement changes in the way these matters were handled. I wouldn't call that years and years of covering up for anyone. No, he didn't take care of matters as quickly as he might have, but he was also dealing with an entrenched bureaucracy in the Chancery; the people who HAD dealt with this problem before he arrived, and with people who didn't like him because they considered him way too conservative for Boston.
You are absolutely correct. Handing our children a costly education has no meaning. If anything, it renders them flippant. Those who have few if any resources, become 'resourceful' in funding their dreams.
Father comes from a family of 9 children - 8 boys and 1 girl. He occasionally shares stories of how the kids tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the parents. On one occasion, after miscalculating the time the parents would be absent from home, the children (most of them were teens) pulled the house apart, always intent on restoring everything to its proper place before the parents returned. Unfortunately, that night, the parents returned early from Church and they were caught. When the parents discovered the dissaray, they sent each child to the corner of a room to kneel in repentant prayer. It obviously left a strong impression :-)
You are now implying that he didn't have the power to bring justice to the victims, but when you heard that about the parents in some cases being unable to do anything about what was happening, you blamed the parents.
You have different standards for different people.
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.