Corp000085 Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Now let me get this straight? This guy had charges brought on him in the United States because he knowingly had people in his church molesting children. He RESIGNED, then got promoted to a higher rank, and now is responsible for voting for the next pope? He also has a (very slight) chance of winning the vote to become pope too? You know, for all the good i saw in the catholic church over the past week and a half, i can see that my religious ancestors were correct 500 years ago for breaking away from that church. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/09/cardinal.law/index.html P.S. Would Law get to vote if he were in jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Now let me get this straight? This guy had charges brought on him in the United States because he knowingly had people in his church molesting children. He RESIGNED, then got promoted to a higher rank, and now is responsible for voting for the next pope? He also has a (very slight) chance of winning the vote to become pope too? You know, for all the good i saw in the catholic church over the past week and a half, i can see that my religious ancestors were correct 500 years ago for breaking away from that church.http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/09/cardinal.law/index.html P.S. Would Law get to vote if he were in jail? 300807[/snapback] Law was already a Cardinal when the scandal broke. He was not promoted. His action and inaction during and especially before the "scandal" are indefensible. The Church is an institution in which redemption is important which leads to apparent contradictions. God will judge Law and gratuitously I advise Law to prepare well. I am sure you would like to see Law drawn and quartered- and that thought does have appeal- but it is more timely to make restitution. Let me surprise you ( and if you knew me well shock you) by saying that the Protestant Reformation was one of best things that ever happened to the RCC. I do not perceive any inherent defect in Catholic teaching that condones "diddlers". "Diddlers" seek out positions in which they come in contact with the diddleable, ergo, priesthood, boy scout leaders, coaches, teachers etc.. People of evil lust the appearance of good and then defile that goodness and relish with equal parts the admixture exquisite pain and erotic pleasure As child molesters attest it is in large measure the innocence destroyed that gives them the rush. It is hoped that as a Protestant you have gotten over the Renaissance Popes, especially in light of JPII, and take a positive approach toward your own religion. Your concern for my religion is appreciated. Now leave it alone. Your Church needs your attention. Still your interest is flattering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 10, 2005 Author Share Posted April 10, 2005 beausox, i read that article as saying that law was promoted to cardinal after the scandal. Pope John Paul II appointed Law to that position last year, two years after he resigned because of the sexual abuse scandal in Boston. He was an archbishop during the scandal and was promoted to a higher position after the scandal. I am very proud of my particular denomination. I'm also very intrigued by the RCC because of all the pagentry and press that it has received. You don't have to be offended by my remarks. I'm not knocking your particular church, just that i'm glad i'm not a member because of what i see as hypocracy at some levels. Anyhow, this is my first real debate here on PPP, so keep it going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 beausox, i read that article as saying that law was promoted to cardinal after the scandal. He was an archbishop during the scandal and was promoted to a higher position after the scandal. I am very proud of my particular denomination. I'm also very intrigued by the RCC because of all the pagentry and press that it has received. You don't have to be offended by my remarks. I'm not knocking your particular church, just that i'm glad i'm not a member because of what i see as hypocracy at some levels. Anyhow, this is my first real debate here on PPP, so keep it going! 300950[/snapback] I think you mis-read it and you are excused because it was unclear in the article. First, Cardinal is an honorific. Usually all Arch-Bishops are Cardinals too. Come to think of it the Arch-Bishop of Boston is not a Cardinal probably because Law retains the honorific. I do not know but it may be once a Cardinal always a Cardinal. Still there is no question Law is no longer Arch-Bishop of Boston. I am almost certain Law was a Cardinal before the scandal broke but I have been unable to document that yet. Regardless Law was not promoted when summoned to Rome. This was a kick upstairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 10, 2005 Author Share Posted April 10, 2005 oh ok... i get ya now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 I think you mis-read it and you are excused because it was unclear in the article. First, Cardinal is an honorific. Usually all Arch-Bishops are Cardinals too. Come to think of it the Arch-Bishop of Boston is not a Cardinal probably because Law retains the honorific. I do not know but it may be once a Cardinal always a Cardinal. Still there is no question Law is no longer Arch-Bishop of Boston. I am almost certain Law was a Cardinal before the scandal broke but I have been unable to document that yet. Regardless Law was not promoted when summoned to Rome. This was a kick upstairs. 301010[/snapback] Yes, he was a cardinal before the most recent scandal broke. Channel 5 out of Boston would always refer to him as "Bernard Cardinal Law." Always sounded weird to me as a copy editor. I have no idea why that order was used for him b/c every other cardinal I've read about is called "Cardinal X Y." Whatever.... O'Malley, who replaced him, is a Bishop, I think. "A kick upstairs"? Call it what you want. Law did not resign; he was transfered. People 'round here saw it as a promotion b/c he was sent to the Vatican, closer to the pope. Read that he is to lead a homily for the pope this week, too. Regardless, he's still high up in the leadership. It's utterly disgusting that this guy isn't rotting in a jail or had the Mafia do the same Chinese Finger treatment they do for diddlers b/c he is just as guilty, if not more since he facilitated it. The fact that JPII didn't take a much stronger stand, especially by making an example of the facilitators like Law, is a stain on the legacy of a pope that himself truly cared about children. Corp, I don't know why you're so "glad [you're] not a member" of the CC. The statistics aren't much different for other kinds of churches. You just don't hear about it, b/c many go unreported (and in this regard I think the Protestant churches are actually higher than CC, simply b/c victims are uncomfortable being the first to say anything and have the media clusterf--k their lives). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Yes, he was a cardinal before the most recent scandal broke. Channel 5 out of Boston would always refer to him as "Bernard Cardinal Law." Always sounded weird to me as a copy editor. I have no idea why that order was used for him b/c every other cardinal I've read about is called "Cardinal X Y." Whatever.... O'Malley, who replaced him, is a Bishop, I think. "A kick upstairs"? Call it what you want. Law did not resign; he was transfered. People 'round here saw it as a promotion b/c he was sent to the Vatican, closer to the pope. Read that he is to lead a homily for the pope this week, too. Regardless, he's still high up in the leadership. It's utterly disgusting that this guy isn't rotting in a jail or had the Mafia do the same Chinese Finger treatment they do for diddlers b/c he is just as guilty, if not more since he facilitated it. The fact that JPII didn't take a much stronger stand, especially by making an example of the facilitators like Law, is a stain on the legacy of a pope that himself truly cared about children. Corp, I don't know why you're so "glad [you're] not a member" of the CC. The statistics aren't much different for other kinds of churches. You just don't hear about it, b/c many go unreported (and in this regard I think the Protestant churches are actually higher than CC, simply b/c victims are uncomfortable being the first to say anything and have the media clusterf--k their lives). 301055[/snapback] Again Cardinal is an adornment whose sole duty will be apparent after the Conclave next week. Each Cardinal has some duty' usually in an Arch-Bishopric and/or a position in Curia. There is no defending Law's actions but this is no promotion. It is like having been Governor of New York and you are summoned to Washington to become Asst. Secy of the Interior. Law was fired; not transferred nor promoted. O'Malley is Law's replacement as Arch-Bishop. Law remains Cardinal. I am trying to find out why he remains Cardinal. Just how did JPII facilitate "it"? This Pope has a zero tolerance policy toward Priestly sexual indiscretions regardless of age or gender. Most of Boston's cases are 20 years old and the cover-up was as long. The saintly late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was accused by an ex- semenarian who eventually confessed he had lied. The not-so-saintly former Bishop of Springfield Mass when confronted by accusations via a reporter resigned within hours. What is the point? The lesson is that the Church has zero tolerance with the guilty as priests and will defend the innocent. Cardinal Law covered up. JPII did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Law was already a Cardinal when the scandal broke. He was not promoted. His action and inaction during and especially before the "scandal" are indefensible. The Church is an institution in which redemption is important which leads to apparent contradictions. God will judge Law and gratuitously I advise Law to prepare well. I am sure you would like to see Law drawn and quartered- and that thought does have appeal- but it is more timely to make restitution. Let me surprise you ( and if you knew me well shock you) by saying that the Protestant Reformation was one of best things that ever happened to the RCC. I do not perceive any inherent defect in Catholic teaching that condones "diddlers". "Diddlers" seek out positions in which they come in contact with the diddleable, ergo, priesthood, boy scout leaders, coaches, teachers etc.. People of evil lust the appearance of good and then defile that goodness and relish with equal parts the admixture exquisite pain and erotic pleasure As child molesters attest it is in large measure the innocence destroyed that gives them the rush. It is hoped that as a Protestant you have gotten over the Renaissance Popes, especially in light of JPII, and take a positive approach toward your own religion. Your concern for my religion is appreciated. Now leave it alone. Your Church needs your attention. Still your interest is flattering. 300888[/snapback] Just a friendly reminder that this is a politics board on a football website. I for one would be glad if you would keep this in mind. It would also be pretty good if you would just go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 It would also be pretty good if you would just go away. 301174[/snapback] It is better to see it and step around it, than it is to smell it and have to look at the bottom of your shoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Just a friendly reminder that this is a politics board on a football website. I for one would be glad if you would keep this in mind. It would also be pretty good if you would just go away. 301174[/snapback] What does that mean " a politics board on a football web site "? Does one talk of football on a politics board or politics on football board? I would be happy to keep that in mind and make you glad if only I knew what you had in mind. I am ever mindful that you are a Hall of Fame poster and i am honored by your attentitive mind. Mindfully yours.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Channel 5 out of Boston would always refer to him as "Bernard Cardinal Law." Always sounded weird to me as a copy editor. I have no idea why that order was used for him b/c every other cardinal I've read about is called "Cardinal X Y." 301055[/snapback] FWIW, when O'Connor was alive, he was addressed as, John Cardinal O'Connor here in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Again Cardinal is an adornment whose sole duty will be apparent after the Conclave next week. Each Cardinal has some duty' usually in an Arch-Bishopric and/or a position in Curia. There is no defending Law's actions but this is no promotion. It is like having been Governor of New York and you are summoned to Washington to become Asst. Secy of the Interior. Law was fired; not transferred nor promoted. O'Malley is Law's replacement as Arch-Bishop. Law remains Cardinal. I am trying to find out why he remains Cardinal. Just how did JPII facilitate "it"? This Pope has a zero tolerance policy toward Priestly sexual indiscretions regardless of age or gender. Most of Boston's cases are 20 years old and the cover-up was as long. The saintly late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago was accused by an ex- semenarian who eventually confessed he had lied. The not-so-saintly former Bishop of Springfield Mass when confronted by accusations via a reporter resigned within hours. What is the point? The lesson is that the Church has zero tolerance with the guilty as priests and will defend the innocent. Cardinal Law covered up. JPII did not. 301161[/snapback] I didn't write that JPII facilitated abuse; the paragraph was about Law. Go back and read again. That said, sorry, but anything less than the pope ordering that Law and the pertinent records be turned over to the authorities doesn't cast a good light on JPII. And however you describe it, the fact that Law took a fast plane to Vatican City, is still seen (in NE especially) that he was invited into the pope's city to be protected from the public outcry and possible prosecution. (Again, look through history and you'll see many a case where a leader who was exalted for doing something great in one area especially, also did (or in this case, failed to do) something not-so-great in that same area. Some people call it ironic when these things happen. I don't know what I call it, but it's definitely not a peachy-keen ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 FWIW, when O'Connor was alive, he was addressed as, John Cardinal O'Connor here in NYC. 301236[/snapback] That's just a weird construction. Might be interesting to find out why they have it like that. Is it a Northeast thing? or U.S.? They don't write 'Jaime Cardinal Sin' here.... And might I just comment, you can't make this stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 What does that mean " a politics board on a football web site "? Does one talk of football on a politics board or politics on football board? I would be happy to keep that in mind and make you glad if only I knew what you had in mind. I am ever mindful that you are a Hall of Fame poster and i am honored by your attentitive mind. Mindfully yours.... 301233[/snapback] What I really meant was while this board has had its ups and downs, we were able to survive many years without "my religion is better than yours" posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 What I really meant was while this board has had its ups and downs, we were able to survive many years without "my religion is better than yours" posts. 301306[/snapback] Just why would one choose a religion or denomination if it were not explicitly better (to them)? Should one choose an inferior one? Or one with glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies or fallacious roots or questionable legitimacy? I also believe United States to be the best nation in the world and I hope Brits/Canadians/ disagree. Finally, I hope your chosen set of beliefs is, in your mind, superior, if different than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Just why would one choose a religion or denomination if it were not explicitly better (to them)? Should one choose an inferior one? Or one with glaring weaknesses and inconsistencies or fallacious roots or questionable legitimacy? I also believe United States to be the best nation in the world and I hope Brits/Canadians/ disagree. Finally, I hope your chosen set of beliefs is, in your mind, superior, if different than mine. 301310[/snapback] Yeah thanks. We are all secure in our knowledge that you favor your own religion over others. Congrats. Carry on as you choose, but imo, your posts on this topic are out of place and I'm sorry, bordering on juvenile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Yeah thanks. We are all secure in our knowledge that you favor your own religion over others. Congrats. Carry on as you choose, but imo, your posts on this topic are out of place and I'm sorry, bordering on juvenile. 301326[/snapback] Give him cred, though. He uses sweet lingity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Give him cred, though. He uses sweet lingity. 301571[/snapback] Linguity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Linguity? 301573[/snapback] Is there a place to look up proper spelling of ebonics words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Is there a place to look up proper spelling of ebonics words? 301575[/snapback] The street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts