NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish Pubs Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > People and Politics > Boston Cardinal O'Malley slammed for Irish mass said with two bishops named in abuse report

People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

Boston Cardinal O'Malley slammed for Irish mass said with two bishops named in abuse report

Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 08:18 PM

Larger Text

E-mail

23 Comments

Albeit the horrible effects of clerical abuse will always be with it's victims and those alive who executed the abuse should be expunged from the Church, I fear that the victims will never be satisfied with any type of plan going forward either in their own personal lives or with any participation in the Church. The victims, unfortuneately are aimless as to what outcome they really want from the Church and see no path forward. Too bad, the whole situation is very sad.

Report abuse

CER1940 | Jan 17, 2011, 08:14 PM EST

Unless and until they start cleaning out the heirarchy of the church any message they try to convey is just words. Recent revelations show that the pedofiles were protected from the heirarchy in the Vatican.

Report abuse

PhlutiePhan | Jan 05, 2011, 01:28 PM EST

Let's look at what really happened with Cardinal Law. He was sent in by the Vatican from Springfield, Missouri to clean up the mess left by Archbishop Humberto Madeiros Portuguese) who sent Father Shanley to be a chaplain to the gay community. In addition, you say that Cardinal O'Malley is frugal. Then why has he given 300K salaries to at least five staff within the Chancery? (BostonCatholicInsider.com)

Report abuse

PhlutiePhan | Jan 05, 2011, 01:23 PM EST

All of the troubles in Ireland were brought by priests educated in the United States. Archbishop Dolan was assigned here in St. Louis to analyze pedophile priests. They would be assigned to the parish where he took up residence. He examined every one over a period of time and then heard their confession and claimed that "not a one" was a pedoplhile. Cardinal Burke was "tarred and feathered" and run out of St. Louis for trying to take on the "cancerous powers" that be.

Report abuse

pacifist | Nov 18, 2010, 06:08 PM EST

FAO the Moderator/Editor: I am really disappointed and surprised that you didn't display my last three posts all of which were endeavouring to assist Carroll09 in accesssing the source of the information on which I based my claims about Cardinal Ratzinger. May I plead with you to show them as I surely have a right to show I had a basis for my assertions and he the right to investigate? Thank you!

Report abuse

pacifist | Nov 18, 2010, 05:14 PM EST

Carroll09, I submitted a response to you providing wesites you could check in relation to my claims. But for some reason or other the Moderator/Editor hasn't posted them so far.

Report abuse

Carroll09 | Nov 17, 2010, 05:34 PM EST

If, Pacifist, your last post is directed at me, I would be grateful if you would first respond to my detailed answer to your charge against Cardinal Ratzinger.

Report abuse

pacifist | Nov 17, 2010, 03:05 PM EST

And where is Cardinal Law? Didn't Pope John Paul II take him to Rome and hasn't he a prestigious position over a Basillica over there? How does his record read in relation to protecting children from predatory priests?

Report abuse

Liamkeyes | Nov 16, 2010, 07:44 PM EST

Cardinal Sean cleaned up the Mess in Fall River, Massachusetts. He was then sent to West Palm Beach, Florida and cleaned up the mess there. After that he was called up to Boston to sort that out. He is a Capuchin Monk and took a vow of Poverty. He promptly sold the Cardinal's Mansion up beside Boston College to pay off debts accrued to the Archdiocese of Boston. He now lives in a one Bedroom apartment beside Holy Cross Cathedral in Boston's South End. He has a Chauffeur with a very modest car. He speaks seven languages fluently. His ancestors are from Counties Mayo and Clare. WE could be talking about the first American Pope here.

Report abuse

Carroll09 | Nov 16, 2010, 10:24 AM EST

...Indeed, the document does not only relate to sexual abuse, but it is about grave crimes, i.e. against the Mass, the sacrament of penance, morals (namely sexual abuse of minors). It deals with crimes in ecclesiastical law, not civil law: that's what the "Pontifical Secret" refers to - the Church's own investigations. Nowhere does the letter instruct bishops not to co-operate with the civil authorities. Furthermore, while this document has been criticised by some, it is actually the very letter which demanded that ALL cases of sexual abuse (and other abuses mentioned in it) be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: it is in this very letter that Cardinal Ratzinger was putting his foot down with bishops who had dragged their heels for too long on the issue. It is this very letter which establishes that the statute of limitations is to be extended in abuse cases (10 years from when the minor has completed 18 years of age). These are the issues addressed when the letter refers to abuse specifically - again, not one word about not co-operating with the civil authorities. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger also provided for the waiving of the statute of limitations in certain cases, and just this year has extended, in canon law, the general statute of limitations again.

Report abuse

Carroll09 | Nov 16, 2010, 10:24 AM EST

Pacifist - I was merely asking if you yourself could provide your source in which you claim Cardinal Ratzinger ordered bishops not to co-operate with the civil authorities since the burden of proof in such a sweeping claim lies with you. Anyway, having looked at the blog you recommended- I am shocked that you or anyone would take it as a reliable source given the many unfounded claims and conspiracy theories it contains, such as pronouncing that John Paul II is in hell (even the Catholic Church has never presumed to have the authority to say that a particular individual is in hell), and the relationship between Opus Dei and the Vatican, not to mention the misleading posts on transubstantiation, and a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Anyway, the blog does mention the "edict" you referred to - interestingly, it doesn't (as far as I can see) provide a direct link to the document, or even quote it: the post, like others, descends into another incoherent rant. So, may I presume that the letter to which you refer is the one beginning: "Letter sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church and other Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest regarding the more serious offenses reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", and dated May 18, 2001. There is not one line in the text which forbids bishops from co-operating with civil-authorities...[continued]

Report abuse

OMalleyIII | Nov 16, 2010, 12:29 AM EST

I think people should do there research before they critized the "Good" Cardinal O'Malley He took on the Fall River Dioceces went the Father Porter case was out of control. He put in places stop gaps that priest could not get around. A few good priest had their name dragged thru mud with alligation. Bishop O'Malley at the time investigated each case. He handled it so well that the Pope asked him to take over the Boston Diocease as Arch-Bishop after then Cardinal Law sleeked out of town in the middle of the night for his shifting policy from one Church to another. Please remeber he is an Honored Chaplin to the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick New Bedford, Massachusetts.

Report abuse

pacifist | Nov 15, 2010, 07:32 PM EST

Carroll09, You could google the internet and serach for this information. However you might try stellaOmaris,blogspot.com And this edict, rather than directive, was issued in 2001.

Report abuse

Carroll09 | Nov 15, 2010, 07:31 PM EST

Pacifist- Can you give me a specific link to the text that Cardinal Ratzinger issued which explicitly ordered bishops not to co-operate with the civil authorities? Thanks. I addressed the article in my original post - I would at most have advised against concelebrating Mass with Bishop O'Mahony, but as I said, Bishop Walsh was not found guilty of wrongdoing by the Murphy Report. Secondly, O'Malley was not celebrating Mass with people he is investigating - the Church and individual bishops have accepted the findings of the Murphy Report: THAT was the investigation into how the Church in Ireland dealt with abuse in the past. According to the press-release from the Vatican, the purpose of the visitation is to "...identify whether the mutual relationship of the various components of the local Church, seminaries and religious communities is now in place, in order to sustain them on the path of profound spiritual renewal already being pursued by the Church in Ireland. It also has the goal of verifying the effectiveness of the PRESENT PROCESSES used in responding to cases of abuse and of the current forms of assistance provided to the victims. IT WILL NOT BE an investigation into individual cases of abuse nor a trial to judge past events. The Visitators will have to identify the explicit problems which may require some assistance from the Holy See".

Report abuse

pacifist | Nov 15, 2010, 07:14 PM EST

Carroll09, I believe this directive was issued in 2002,but I se you don't address the main thrust of my arguement about the inappropriate behaviour of Bishop O'Mahony in saying mass with people he's investigating.

Report abuse