Leading Catholic writer slams different Papal treatment of American and Irish cardinals

Gearoid4-Grow Up son..

It seems that IC is involved in it's unremitting crusade against the Church by typically supporting the biased interpretations of an activist from the left without taking into consideration the nuances of the stories involved.

Cardinal Sean Brady was not willingly involved in a widespread conspiracy to deviously cover up the suspected or true evil deeds of clerical offenders but rather has paid the price for his naivety in being involved in a cumbersome internal Church practice during the seventies which committed victims to a vow of silence after giving testimony to priestly interviewers. Fr Brady, as he was then in 1975 was appointed by his bishop in an Irish diocese to interview the young victims of a notorious clerical sex-abuser. Unfortunately as both interviewer and interviewees could not divulge what they discussed, the information that could have saved other victims was not passed on to the priest. This has come back to haunt the now Cardinal Brady and he has suffered anguish over that fateful incident. Consequently he is now preparing himself for a handing over of his position eventually within the next year or two to his newly appointed coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh, Monsignor Eamonn Martin of Derry. In contrast, Archbishop Gomez of the US Archdiocese of LA took decisive action to stand down his predecessor Cardinal Mahony from his duties after discovering the direct part that he played in covering up the crimes of pedophile priests and misleading the relevant authorities. The differences in the two cases lies in the degree of culpability and the intentions of the two prelates involved in the two stories. But Mr Slevin does not seem to appreciate this but rather seems to be deliberately ignoring these realities.

So Slevin's petitioners want the President of the United States to do the bidding of people "no matter where in the world you live" .... and he wants Eric Holder to prosecute the cases?

Part of the difference is that for all US history, civil law trumped religious law, not always the case in Ireland. But it may be true that Mahoney being more politically liberal than Boston's Cardinal Law, and others like him, has been hung out to fry.

@paddyh1: Cardinal John O'Connor took proof of sex abuse among the clergy in Albany to JPII. JPII looked athe documents and stated that "there was nothing that he could do". The priest who "ratted out" Bishop Hubbard then committed suicide or was murdered (Minkler). Bishops of a diocese are equal in authority to the pope. He cannot interfere in their diocese. It is up to the Apostolic Delegate to pass on information for the screening of proper and orthodox bishops. Bernardin and Mahony were not orthodox and were rigidly entrenched.

Drawing any similarity between police ignoring drunk driving and the Catholic church ignoring sexual abuse of children is not unlike the homeowner ignoring the fly in the kitchen while the church ignores sexual abuse of children. Ignorance is no excuse and denial, covering up and threatening the victim hardly equates with drunk driving being ignored.

When the scandals broke here in Boston, some hoped that the priests would try to clean up the church, and or even break away. Many of us would have followed. Then came the closing of successful, financially stable parishes. I believe a revolt is necessary by parishioners and clergy alike to go back to the basic principles the church was founded on. Unfortunately, that would probably leave the leadership sitting in Rome amid their obscene riches and lavish lifestyle. The entire hierarchy is corrupt and politically motivated, preaching the commandments to us while turning a blind eye to abuse on so many levels, collecting vast amounts of money from low and middle class people who can ill afford it, when the sale of one of their paintings each year would probably raise the same amount.

While I support a married clergy, I don't know if it would necessarily cut down the abuse of children. A married priest who has the ability to have sex and the availability of their partner is probably, usually not the same person who is attracted to having sex with children. One of the real tragedies of this whole situation is that John Paul II and Benedict XVI both had full knowledge these happenings and did little or nothing to prevent it. This is the same John Paul that many are pushing to be a saint??? And as a cardinal Benedict was the head man for discipline in these matters??

Last night HBO aired "Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God" which chronicles abuse cases within the church, from the time of Fr. Murphy who molested 100's of deaf boys in a school for the deaf in the 1970's, through the abuse in Boston in 2002, and on to present day Ireland. The heartbreaking side of the abuse of the deaf boys by Murphy, was he targeted boys whose parents "could not understand sign language" knowing the boys could never communicate that they were being abused. The glaringly clear point and facts of this documentary, were that this Pope and Pope John Paul were completely aware of the magnitude of abuse, and that Benedict in his prior capacity was given every single report of childhood abuse by a priest worldwide. These men have destroyed our church and the lives of countless innocent children. We must come to the realization, a church is its people, and not a corrupt group who chose to protect criminals and image rather than do what was the right thing before God and man.I don't know what the answers will be. One would hope a new Pope would right the generations of wrong by the Roman Catholic Church or possibly we should look to our Orthodox Christian roots who always maintained a married priesthood and beliefs closer to Christs message than the one which became "distorted by the Roman way" which worshiped image and power more than the lives of children.I'm like the majority of Catholic parents, left devastated by the "facts" and wondering, what to do next? I want to raise my children with faith, but can only look at the Vatican with utter disgust and anger.

The guilt of abuse can not be denied, but the broad brush of guilt on the church is wrong. The political slant is obvious, are you as motivated about other religions such as the Muslim's who attack women's rights seems like you turn away from these issues.

Church leaders who ignored priestly abus of schoolboys and teenagers prior to the '90s in the U.S. reminds one of a similar 'policy' of law-enforcement officials toward drunken drivers. Many a driver unnder the influence was let go by police officers and those arrested were often given a 'slap on the wrist'.