Sen. Paul Kirk (CNS/Reuters)
Posted on 09/25/2009 1:26:14 PM PDT by NYer
According to this post at USA Today’s Faith & Reason blog, that could be the depressing reality following the interim appointment of Paul Kirk to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the death of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, until a special election is held next January.
Kirk was appointed yesterday by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and was sworn into the Senate today by Vice President Joe Biden. But as USA Today notes, while Kirk is Catholic (in fact, he’s the grandnephew of Cardinal William O’Connell, who served as Archbishop of Boston from 1907-1944), Kirk also has a political history of supporting abortion rights when he served as Democratic National Committee chairman in 1988.
Given this political history, USA Today predicts Kirk would not vote in favor of the inclusion of pro-life language into the health-care reform bill now before Congress, to exclude any funding for abortion.
Says the Faith & Reason entry, “So, Kirk will likely be, as expected, a Kennedy on this matter—a Catholic politician social progressives will like and traditionalists despise—until he’s replaced in January.”
making up laws as they go along I see.........typical.
Man, sometimes I long for the Inquisition to return and free us from CINOs.
Grandnephew of Cardinal O’Connell? That’s interesting.
O’Connell, a notorious homosexual (like Spellman and Medeiros after him), had a nephew who was a priest, chancellor of the archdiocese, and a married man with a wife in New York City for years. O’Connell covered for him for years, paid the woman lots of money, etc. The nephew had a buddy, also a priest with a wife in New York. Both men eventually faded from the picture. O’Connell lied to the Pope to his face about the situation, at which the Pope reached into a drawer and pulled out a full dossier on it. O’Connell hung on in Boston for another 20 years.
The Kennedys and all the other pro-abortion Catholics have been highly fortunate in having neutered, blackmailable bishops in Boston for at least a century. Spellman never lifted a finger against “Catholic” Dr. John Rock, who was creating and murdering human beings in vitro as early as 1950.
Why is Law in Rome, btw?
He went to Cardinal Ratzinger and told him the State of Massachusetts was demanding the confidential files on priests. Ratzinger told him: You can’t do that. Law said: But if I don’t, I’ll go to jail. Ratzinger: There are bishops in jail all over the world. Americans can’t go to jail just like all other bishops?
Law went back to Boston and handed over the confidential files to the State. Whereupon, Law was SUED BY A GROUP OF HIS OWN PRIESTS! (And rightly so.)
THAT’S when Law fled to Rome, where he “serves” as rector of St. Mary Major, at nearly $200,000/year.
The church in Boston is a cesspool of abortion, money, sodomy, and, of course, heresy. His Obsequiousness Cardinal O’Malley keeps up the tradition, as shown by his abject groveling to all persons and things Kennedy.
I am speechless. Do you have a source for all this?
Yeah, well, no surprise there.
Given this political history, USA Today predicts Kirk would not vote in favor of the inclusion of pro-life language into the health-care reform bill now before Congress, to exclude any funding for abortion.
I wonder if his parish will (has) allowed him to take communion. Paging Archbishop Burke, please pick up the white phone. Paging Cardinal O'Malley, you have a call on the red phone.
There are no pro-abortion Catholics. Never have been, never will be. There may be former Catholics or persons who were baptized Catholic but left the faith who are now pro-death culture.
Before he left Boston, he'd already set in motion the policies that the Diocese would use to keep abuse from happening in the future. When Sean O'Malley arrived, he simply put those policies into practice. Bernie got no credit from anyone for having set those policies up.
All but a couple of instances of abuse in the Boston Archdiocese occurred before Cardinal Law was ever appointed. He didn't have a history of going easy on abusive priests, having been the point man for Bishop Brunini in Mississippi to get rid of a couple of abusive priests back in the 60's. He didn't put up with that nonsense back then, because the culture didn't allow for it. Unfortunately, the culture in Boston HAD allowed it, and hadn't punished it.
In my opinion, Cardinal O'Malley shouldn't have had any part of Teddy the Swimmer's funeral, and apparently he only did so because the President and several former Presidents were going to be there, and he thought that he, as the head of the Archdiocese, should be there, if only for the formality of the occasion.
“In my opinion, Cardinal O’Malley shouldn’t have had any part of Teddy the Swimmer’s funeral, and apparently he only did so because the President and several former Presidents were going to be there, and he thought that he, as the head of the Archdiocese, should be there, if only for the formality of the occasion.”
You are more charitable than me. I think he showed up to show the dems that things can easily go on as before as concerns pro-baby butchery Catholic pols despite all that recent nasty uproar over things like the Pelosioid and ND. It’s all about the social justice.
Freegards
It is reported that Cardinal Law learned in 1988 that the Rev. Daniel Graham admitted abusing the youth 20 years earlier, but said he never considered telling parishioners of the revelation.
“Did I think that I should have informed the parish and then not done it? No. I simply didn’t have that as part of our response to these cases,” Cardinal Law said.
Cardinal Law also testified that he was aware of accusations against John Geoghan as early as September 1984 but that he turned the matter over to his top aides and never followed up to learn specifically what they did. However, his name or initials were on a memo authorizing a transfer of Geoghan as I recall.
Cardinal Law said he did not remember a September 1984 letter from Margaret Gallant, the aunt of seven boys Geoghan had admitted molesting several years earlier. Gallant wrote to complain that Geoghan, who because of his pedophilia had been removed from her parish but placed in another near her neighborhood, had been seen associating with boys.
The Cardinal received that letter six months after he became archbishop of Boston. He did NOTHING. He had better ask God for forgiveness because it would be better for him that a millstone etc.
What the Clergy did in Boston and other parts of the Country seriously damaged the Church. The Church is too important to be left to the Clergy even though we have the promise of Christ that the Gates of Hell.
Cardinal Law should have been thrown in jail as far as I am concerned. His crime, let’s start with perjury.
If the Cardinal had gone public against any of these men, with no arrest having been made, or any LEGAL proof, the Diocese could have been sued for libel or defamation of character.
It's easy to look back, with 20/20 hindsight to say what should have been done, but the Church was doing what most institutions were doing at the time, and what was the accepted practice, and that was sending these men off for treatment. The Diocese was even told that the treatment had worked, so why not send the men back to work in the Parishes?
The Cardinal himself said that he made the mistake of being too much of a Pastor to the men, rather than being harder on them.
The Cardinal did NOTHING that was illegal, or for which he should have gone to jail. The State Attorney General, in his press conference said that he regretted that he couldn't find anything with which to charge the Cardinal. What an astounding statement from a public official!
I have often wondered just how much Cardinal Law was NOT told about some of the activities of these priests by his Auxiliary Bishops, some of whom had been in Boston before his arrival, and were privy to the activities that had gone on before. It would explain why he wasn't familiar with letters that had been written, or other complaints made.
I read O’Malley’s statement on his blog. It was pathetic. It was also very revealing. Starstruck, partisan Democrat.
BTW: O’Malley had the authority to bar cameras and celebrities from the funeral.
Interestingly, the Church’s top Canon Lawyer, Archbishop Burke, is of the opinion that there should have been NO Catholic funeral, because there was no explicit repudiation of Kennedy’s decades-long war against the Church.
I didn’t say he fled straight from Boston to Rome. I said he fled to Rome. He fled the United States when a group of Boston priests (rightly) sued him for libel.
Don’t know why any priests would have sued him for libel. What did he say about any of them? The only statements that I knew of that he made were those required under oath.
Priests’ personnel files contain all the letters sent in complaining about them. (I’ve never heard of anyone writing to a bishop to praise a priest, but that’s another issue.) Complaints are not always true.
So, when Law turned these files over to the State, the priests’ rights were being violated. These were not priests against whom there were abuse accusations. The State was on a fishing expedition.
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.