23 Comments

• snakehips | Apr 21, 2011, 11:45 AM EDT

  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.

• 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.

• 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)

• 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.

• 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!

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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]

• 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.

• 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.

• 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".

• 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.

• Carroll09 | Nov 15, 2010, 05:52 PM EST

  Pacifist - could you post a link to the directive that you say Cardinal Ratzinger issued? I am not aware of such a document - indeed, it was precisely because of individual dioceses working with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that many dioceses now have stronger child-protection policies than other state bodies, which REQUIRE bishops to contact the civil authorities when complaints are made...It just seems strange to me that the CDF would advise bishops who were devising child-protection policies to refer all complaints to the civil authorities (policies which are still in force) and then issue a document explicitly telling them to do the opposite.

• GoogieLaRue | Nov 15, 2010, 05:46 PM EST

  The heierarchy of the church lives in some parallel existence they think is reality. What it is in fact is coverup, lying and cheating.

• glorybe1929 | Nov 15, 2010, 04:36 PM EST

  This whole group of Bishops can talk their "arses" off and who cares? No thinking adult! They are instruments of the Devil. God Amighty does exist MIGHTILY OUT SIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NOT IN IT! Get out of this so called church, before you've lost your souls.

• pacifist | Nov 15, 2010, 03:42 PM EST

  You ask me what I think and then don't display it. Why?

• PhlutiePhan | Nov 15, 2010, 01:39 PM EST

  This is "scary stuff". Also, BostonCatholicInsider. com for July 2010 gives the following salaries for the Archdiocese: chancellor (250,000) education director (300,000), general counsel (300,000), media direcvtor (250,000), assoc supt of schools (185,270). In light of the financial bailout for abuse, this is very imprudent. It gives an image of fiscal irresponsibility as well as an attempt to set up an alternative religious infrastructure in this country and to "phase out" priests and nuns. That is what O'Malley is really all about. He is the retiring head of the USCCB and is soft on sex abuse and supportive of gay rights. Timothy Dolan is bringing socialism to the Catholic schools in New York by creating "one giant parish". The Catholic bishops are "plugged" in to Obama socialism. Read Malchi (Brendan) Martin, S.J. and you will see exactly what is going on.

• pacifist | Nov 15, 2010, 12:54 PM EST

  Not very surprising this kind of action. Here is a supposedly objective and impartial investigator of members of the hierarachy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland participating in a Concelebrated Mass with individuals he is investigating. This is totally inappropriate behaviour no matter how it is dressed up. But the current pope, Benedict XVI, when he was known as Cardinal Ratzinger and in charge of the Holy ( so-called ) Office for the Propagation of the Faith - formerly and more appropriately known as the Inquisition, issued a directive that the hierarchies in various countries should not share information or provide files to the legal authorities in their respective countries who were investigating alleged sexual abuse by clerics of the Roman Catholic Church.

• marycrotty | Nov 15, 2010, 10:44 AM EST

  Typical of Cardinal O'Malley He is so pathetic He just sold off the Caritas (Catholic) healthcare system in Boston to a forprofit investment group called Cerberus--named for the devil at the gates of Hell.

• Carroll09 | Nov 15, 2010, 09:54 AM EST

  Mr Roberts - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin DID NOT FIRE bishops Walsh and O'Mahony. Firstly, he could not because he does not get to decide whose resignations are accepted and rejected: resignations are submitted to the Pope and it is HIS decision alone, not the Archbishop's. Secondly, while Bishop O'Mahony did have some pastoral duties which were revoked by Diarmuid Martin in the wake of the Murphy Report, he had retired many years before the report was published. Also, the Archdiocese of Dublin has issued a press-release clarifying some of the items which were reported. It says: "Under the headline 'Pope’s child abuse envoy in Mass Row', the article, in referring to Bishop Dermot O’Mahony and Bishop Eamonn Walsh stated 'Both auxiliaries were criticised the Murphy report which examined the Catholic Churches handling of clerical child sexual abuse'. This is incorrect. There are 9 references to Bishop Eamonn Walsh in the report; but none contains criticism. The story also claims that Bishop Walsh 'resigned last Christmas Eve'. Bishop Walsh offered his resignation to Pope Benedict last Christmas Eve. His resignation was not accepted." As a matter of fact, if one can say that O'Malley shouldn't have celebrated the Mass with Bishop Walsh because he is NAMED in the Murphy Report, the same charge can be made against Archbishop Martin who is also NAMED in the report. The point is, merely being named in a report is not the same as being condemned by it.