Catholic Group Ask Law to Resign

by blondie 5 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • blondie
    blondie

    I wonder if they will be excommunicated for this?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/national/12BOST.html?ex=1040360400&en=e03926f31d08c5fb&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

    December 12, 2002

    Catholic Group Asks Law to Resign

    By PAM BELLUCK

    NEWTON, Mass., Dec. 11 Voice of the Faithful, a fast-growing Roman Catholic lay group that had refrained for months from calling for the resignation of Cardinal Bernard F. Law, voted overwhelmingly tonight to demand that he step down immediately.

    The group also voted to ask the Vatican to "acknowledge the urgency" of the situation and to "appoint a suitable person to this position which, de facto, is not functioning at this time."

    "The Archdiocese of Boston has effectively been without a leader," said James E. Post, president of Voice of the Faithful. "Huge cracks exist in the foundation of the Catholic Church."

    Since February, when Voice of the Faithful formed with 40 people meeting in the basement of a suburban Boston church in response to the church's sexual abuse crisis, the group has mushroomed and now says it has 25,000 members in 40 states. Its members are largely middle-of-the-road Catholics, active members of their churches. Until tonight, the group had taken a nonconfrontational posture; it even met with Cardinal Law last month.

    But Dr. Post and others said the last straw was the release of documents last week showing that Cardinal Law and his aides had allowed priests accused of abuse to remain in ministry and that Cardinal Law was more involved in dealing with those priests than he has asserted, even to the point of writing some of them personal and consoling letters.

    The documents revealed "a pervasive pattern of administrative cover-up and concealment by Cardinal Law, his auxilliary bishops and others within the church," Dr. Post told the group. "Whatever thoughts we had about serious discussion between Cardinal Law and Voice of the Faithful have been ended."

    Over the weekend, the cardinal flew to Rome, where he has been meeting with Vatican officials and is expected to meet with the pope. Vatican officials say the cardinal is expected to discuss the possibility of his resignation as well as whether the archdiocese should file for bankruptcy as a way to deal with the hundreds of abuse lawsuits it faces.

    The meeting of roughly 80 representatives of the hundreds of people in local parish chapters of Voice of the Faithful took place tonight in a Newton church that last week, because of its outspoken pastor, was barred by the archdiocese from being the site of any meetings related to archdiocesan business.

    Seventy-one people voted to call for the cardinal's resignation, 2 voted against it and 2 others abstained. Supporters of the motions included people who had strongly opposed calling for the cardinal's resignation earlier in the year.

    "I'm fighting with my emotions," said Ann Urban, of St. John the Evangelist Church in Wellesley, who previously objected to such a move. "Something has pushed me over the top. It's time to rid the cancer."

    David Castaldi, a former chancellor of the Boston Archdiocese, stood to say he supported the motions but added, "I do it with great sadness."

    "I know Cardinal Law personally and well and I know him to be a good man and a good priest," Mr. Castaldi said.

    Bob Castagnola, of St. Denis's Church in Dedham, was a dissenter, saying he believed that group was making a "bad strategic decision" and should instead reach out to Cardinal Law and say: "You're deep down. You're two steps away from oblivion. Bring us on. We can help."

    But Bill Cadigan, vice president of Voice of the Faithful, said of the cardinal, "He made it very clear that he does not want our help, and more importantly that he does not need our help."

    The group also voted to ask the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to "recognize and respond to the moral and pastoral crisis in the Archdiocese of Boston" and to ask the bishops to release publicly the records of abusive priests.

    The vote comes as there is growing pressure across Boston on Cardinal Law to resign. Fifty-eight priests signed a letter to the cardinal this week that read, in part, "The events of recent months and, in particular, of these last few days, make it clear to us that your position as our bishop is so compromised that it is no longer possible for you to exercise the spiritual leadership required for the church of Boston."

    More church documents were released today detailing more allegations against priests accused of sexual abuse, including one teenager's contention that he was a victim of sexual advances by two priests at the same South Boston parish.

    Another teenager says in the documents that a priest in a Roman Catholic church in Lawrence, Mass., molested him on 21 consecutive nights on a cross-country trip in a Winnebago and that another priest in the same church tried to molest him by telling him that if he wanted to "get closer to God" he should undress and get closer to the priest.

    Like the ones released last week, today's documents roughly 2,000 pages concerning 11 priests were made public by lawyers for plaintiffs suing the archdiocese in a sexual abuse case. The lawyers, who are trying to prove that the archdiocese had a pattern of mishandling sexual abuse cases, had obtained a court order compelling the archdiocese to turn over 12,000 pages of files on some 65 priests.

    In some of today's documents, the files do not make it clear what action the archdiocese took beyond sending priests for psychiatric evaluations.

    In the case of the priests from the South Boston church, one, the Rev. James L. Wilson, acknowledged in 1993, when the accusations were reported, that he had touched the boy's genitals. He was sent for treatment and ultimately removed from the priesthood. The other priest, the Rev. Redmond Raux, denied accusations that he showed the boy a pornographic movie, chased him and hugged him, touching his genitals.

    Father Raux was suspended and sent for an evaluation, and Cardinal Law withdrew his support for the priest's application to be a military chaplain. In 1995, the archdiocese settled a suit filed by the teenager for $200,000. In 1996, however, the archdiocesan review board determined that "no sexual misconduct occurred" and recommended that the restrictions on Father Raux be lifted.

    After the review board's verdict, Cardinal Law wrote to the supervisor of military chaplains, reinstating his support for Father Raux. He called Father Raux "a priest in good standing" and wrote, "I am unaware of anything in his background which would render him unsuitable to work with minor children."

    An archdiocese spokeswoman issued a statement today that the archdiocese "did in fact notify representatives of the military diocese to the unsubstantiated allegation."

    Also today, a priest who has become a central figure in the scandal was released on bail after spending seven months in jail on charges of child rape. The priest, the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, 71, accused of repeatedly molesting boys at a Newton parish in the 1980's, was released on $300,000 cash bail. It was not clear today who raised the money.

    Judge Charles Grabau of Middlesex Superior Court ordered that Father Shanley give up his passport and remain in the state. He was also barred from having contact with anyone under 16 or with any of his accusers or witnesses in the cases against him. Father Shanley has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

    Edited by - Blondie on 12 December 2002 7:57:44

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Blondie,

    You asked,

    I wonder if they will be excommunicated for this?

    Obviously you have the Catholic Church confused with the Society. There really aren't that many things you can do to be Excommunicated. This is NOT one of them. Canon Law, in fact, gaurantees the right of the faithful to address grievances to both the heiracrchy of the church, and other faithful within the church.

    What's much more impressive and important than this group is the group of 60 or so priests that are calling for Law's resignation. Law has direct say in their future assignments and heavy influence on their careers, to step out like this is quite brave on their part. I applaud them. I still say Law should be in jail.

  • Darkhorse
    Darkhorse

    No, those people will not be excommunicated. Time is really changing how the Catholic people react to situations in the Church. I am a non-practicing Catholic, and I was excommunicated quite some time ago because I was not married in the Catholic Church and in addition to that, got divorced. I never really bought into the Catholic thing as a kid either.

    Not too long ago, nobody would ever speak against the Church, especially in public. Things are sure changing for the better.

    I think the only people who support Cardinal Law (maybe) are some of the "old-school" Catholics (those people are pretty old). In the past most people believed the priests and higher ups could do no wrong. They were in awe of the priests and thought they had some "higher power". Not me, I just thought of them as mortals no different than myself, was never impressed. I never saw the sense in people confessing their sins to a priest. Why? A priest is just another human being, why would somebody need a middle man to be sure his/her prayers were heard by God if God was supposed to hear everybody? When I was a kid and attended all the functions a Catholic kid was supposed to, I would often have the priest shaking his head at me because I would question much. I guess I would not have done well as a JW.

    I hope they are able to get Cardinal Law out of his position because he was as guilty as the priests who committed the acts. I also think they should investigate Bishop John McCormack of the Manchester, NH diocese also because he worked under Cardinal Law before he was sent to NH. Hopefully these people will be prosecuted criminally, that is what they deserve. Law will have to be booted out because that cocky SOB will never resign.

    As far as the Catholic Church's handling of the sexual abuse cases, it is very similar in the way the JW's handled theirs. Both religions would not report the incidents to the law authorities. "They wanted to take care of it themselves", church law you know. Yea, right.

    Eventhough the Catholics that reported the incidents were not kicked out of the church as in the case of the JW's, I think the Catholic situation is a bit worse. You are talking about priests who innocent children trusted and looked up to committing such awful acts and getting away with it for years because they used their position as power. They knew if a child said anything to his parents, the parents more than likely would not believe that Father So and So would ever do such a thing, no way. They would have believed the kid was making it up.

    Unfortunately, it is sad for the good priests remaining. I would like to think there are some that are not sicko perverts, but the more one hears in the news, the more one wonders. This situation sure makes it hard for the good priests that do remain.

    I live not far from Boston. In fact, a long time priest in the parrish in the town I live was removed because there was evidence he too was involved in sex scandals. The attendance in that parrish went way down, in fact, the church was so desparate to regain attendance they even sent a letter to my husband (he was a member of parrish before he got a divorce and was excommunicated) just about begging for people to return because the church was half empty. We will not be there.

  • Darkhorse
    Darkhorse

    No, those people will not be excommunicated. Time is really changing how the Catholic people react to situations in the Church. I am a non-practicing Catholic, and I was excommunicated quite some time ago because I was not married in the Catholic Church and in addition to that, got divorced. I never really bought into the Catholic thing as a kid either.

    Not too long ago, nobody would ever speak against the Church, especially in public. Things are sure changing for the better.

    I think the only people who support Cardinal Law (maybe) are some of the "old-school" Catholics (those people are pretty old). In the past most people believed the priests and higher ups could do no wrong. They were in awe of the priests and thought they had some "higher power". Not me, I just thought of them as mortals no different than myself, was never impressed. I never saw the sense in people confessing their sins to a priest. Why? A priest is just another human being, why would somebody need a middle man to be sure his/her prayers were heard by God if God was supposed to hear everybody? When I was a kid and attended all the functions a Catholic kid was supposed to, I would often have the priest shaking his head at me because I would question much. I guess I would not have done well as a JW.

    I hope they are able to get Cardinal Law out of his position because he was as guilty as the priests who committed the acts. I also think they should investigate Bishop John McCormack of the Manchester, NH diocese also because he worked under Cardinal Law before he was sent to NH. Hopefully these people will be prosecuted criminally, that is what they deserve. Law will have to be booted out because that cocky SOB will never resign.

    As far as the Catholic Church's handling of the sexual abuse cases, it is very similar in the way the JW's handled theirs. Both religions would not report the incidents to the law authorities. "They wanted to take care of it themselves", church law you know. Yea, right.

    Eventhough the Catholics that reported the incidents were not kicked out of the church as in the case of the JW's, I think the Catholic situation is a bit worse. You are talking about priests who innocent children trusted and looked up to committing such awful acts and getting away with it for years because they used their position as power. They knew if a child said anything to his parents, the parents more than likely would not believe that Father So and So would ever do such a thing, no way. They would have believed the kid was making it up.

    Unfortunately, it is sad for the good priests remaining. I would like to think there are some that are not sicko perverts, but the more one hears in the news, the more one wonders. This situation sure makes it hard for the good priests that do remain.

    I live not far from Boston. In fact, a long time priest in the parrish in the town I live was removed because there was evidence he too was involved in sex scandals. The attendance in that parrish went way down, in fact, the church was so desparate to regain attendance they even sent a letter to my husband (he was a member of parrish before he got a divorce and was excommunicated) just about begging for people to return because the church was half empty. We will not be there.

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Did you receive a formal writ of excommunication? Going over my history, I'd be hard pressed to think of a time in this century that you were actually excommunicated from the Catholic Church for either marrying outside the church, or getting a divorce. My sister had thought the same thing when she, being pregnant, married the father of the baby (much at my parent's insistence) back in 1969. The truth of the matter was that marrying outside the church (she was married by a baptist minister) nor her divorce 11 years later were grounds for excommunication. She was unable to receive communion, but that isn't the same thing as excommunication. Sis has since been reconciled with the church, attends weekly, is a lay reader and eucharistic minister and a teacher for our religion classes.

  • blondie
    blondie

    Sorry, Yeru, I guess my little emoticon didn't accurately convey my irony that I know these wouldn't be excommunicated. If they were JWs and doing the same, they would be DF'd. I was trying to highlight the difference in accepting dissent. Of course, the Catholic Church was not so magnanimous in the past towards dissenters, the Inquisition; nor the Protestants with the execution of Michael Servetus.

    Blondie

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit