Cardinal Bernard Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holland
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holland

Guest
I have only been back in the Church for 6 months so I don’t know a lot about this controversy. Did the Vatican reward Cardinal Bernard Law with an important position at the Vatican? I had someone make this point to me in regards to why American Catholics are so mad at everyone at the Vatican. Anyway is the Vatican protecting Cardinal Law? If so why?
 
40.png
Holland:
I have only been back in the Church for 6 months so I don’t know a lot about this controversy. Did the Vatican reward Cardinal Bernard Law with an important position at the Vatican? I had someone make this point to me in regards to why American Catholics are so mad at everyone at the Vatican. Anyway is the Vatican protecting Cardinal Law? If so why?
Click to expand...
I doubt everyone is mad at the Vatican. I doubt MOST Catholics are mad at the Vatican. This topic has been discussed on other threads devoted to it. Search *Cardinal Law. *I came down on the side of “he shouldn’t have been made the archpriest of Santa Maria Magiore,” but I seem to recall my position was not universally acclaimed. I usually defend our old and beloved Holy Father, Pope John Paul the Great (eternal rest upon his soul and may he soon be acclaimed a saint), BUT…this is one call I wish he’d made differently. But then, who am I to critique the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Servant of the Servants of God. Naught, but a rotten sinner. As are the rest of us, as is Cardinal Law, so perhaps we should extend to him the mercy we crave ourselves.
 
Mercy and forgiveness are one thing. Crimes and punishment are quite another. Doesn’t seem to me I’d be getting a cushy and prestigeous post if I’d been the sicko he was.

Bad Call on the Church’s part…big time.
 
I am actually interested in the chain of thought the Vatican used to put him in his new position. Did they ever come out with a public statement regarding this?
 
40.png
Holland:
I am actually interested in the chain of thought the Vatican used to put him in his new position. Did they ever come out with a public statement regarding this?
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t. He was simply appointed.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I doubt everyone is mad at the Vatican. I doubt MOST Catholics are mad at the Vatican. This topic has been discussed on other threads devoted to it. Search *Cardinal Law. *I came down on the side of “he shouldn’t have been made the archpriest of Santa Maria Magiore,” but I seem to recall my position was not universally acclaimed. I usually defend our old and beloved Holy Father, Pope John Paul the Great (eternal rest upon his soul and may he soon be acclaimed a saint), BUT…this is one call I wish he’d made differently. But then, who am I to critique the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Servant of the Servants of God. Naught, but a rotten sinner. As are the rest of us, as is Cardinal Law, so perhaps we should extend to him the mercy we crave ourselves.
Click to expand...
This is from the perspective of a convert who spent a quarter-century in a “liberal” Protestant denomination where things just as bad as Boston happened, but went unreported, because my former denomination was socially acceptable, and the Catholic Church is not.

This is also from the perspective of someone who is not, and WILL not, justify sin or perversion. Period.

This being said: there are many things about the Catholic “sex abuse” scandal which have never come out. Most importantly, is this question: WHERE are the demands for the heads of the psycologists and psychiatrsts from the 1960’s and 1970’s who were the ADVISORS to the bishops and cardinals, and who ADVISED and ARGUED for the very policies for which the bishops are being condemned, 20 years later?

I’ve been in a clerical family all my life, and my father is of an age, and went through seminary at the very time Cardinal Law and other bishops of his generation did. The “Counsel and Transfer” policy was NOT invented by bishops to protect clergy at the expense of victims; rather, it was the PROFESSIONAL ADVICE given by the seminary professors and professional counselors, based on the latest “theories”.

I AGREE that the theories were wrong, bad, and misguided. I agree that at the end of the day, the “buck” stops with the bishops, as they are ultimately in charge of the souls in their care.

BUT . . . the professional advisors from the seminaries, etc. are ultimately the ones responsible for the advice which resulted in the “counseling and transfer” policy which has hounded the Church for generations.

Calling Cardinal Law a sick pervert is NOT a useful or helpful solution. Placing responsibility where it belongs is.

Blessings,
 
None of us know the fine details of what happened. We should be careful not to judge.
 
David Zampino:
This is from the perspective of a convert who spent a quarter-century in a “liberal” Protestant denomination where things just as bad as Boston happened, but went unreported, because my former denomination was socially acceptable, and the Catholic Church is not.

This is also from the perspective of someone who is not, and WILL not, justify sin or perversion. Period.

This being said: there are many things about the Catholic “sex abuse” scandal which have never come out. Most importantly, is this question: WHERE are the demands for the heads of the psycologists and psychiatrsts from the 1960’s and 1970’s who were the ADVISORS to the bishops and cardinals, and who ADVISED and ARGUED for the very policies for which the bishops are being condemned, 20 years later?

I’ve been in a clerical family all my life, and my father is of an age, and went through seminary at the very time Cardinal Law and other bishops of his generation did. The “Counsel and Transfer” policy was NOT invented by bishops to protect clergy at the expense of victims; rather, it was the PROFESSIONAL ADVICE given by the seminary professors and professional counselors, based on the latest “theories”.

I AGREE that the theories were wrong, bad, and misguided. I agree that at the end of the day, the “buck” stops with the bishops, as they are ultimately in charge of the souls in their care.

BUT . . . the professional advisors from the seminaries, etc. are ultimately the ones responsible for the advice which resulted in the “counseling and transfer” policy which has hounded the Church for generations.

Calling Cardinal Law a sick pervert is NOT a useful or helpful solution. Placing responsibility where it belongs is.

Blessings,
Click to expand...
Um, just to clarify, since you quoted me, I didn’t call the Cardinal anything.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Um, just to clarify, since you quoted me, I didn’t call the Cardinal anything.
Click to expand...
No, you’re right, and I apologize for sloppy quoting on my part. I was commenting on another poster’s remarks concerning the Cardinal.

Again, I apologize.

Blessings,
 
Well, let’s get this in perspective.
  1. Is he wanted by the law? Not that I’ve heard.
  2. He went from running a diocese to nothing more than an titled pastor close by where Rome can keep an eye on him.
Sounds like a clear and definite demotion to me.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
Holland:
I have only been back in the Church for 6 months so I don’t know a lot about this controversy. Did the Vatican reward Cardinal Bernard Law with an important position at the Vatican? I had someone make this point to me in regards to why American Catholics are so mad at everyone at the Vatican. Anyway is the Vatican protecting Cardinal Law? If so why?
Click to expand...
It sickens me that this guy, who confirmed me, got to vote for the new Pope. I cannot believe he is not in jail, but is instead in beautiful Rome.

The devastated lives he left behind are numerous. That includes lives ended tragically because of what he did.

Mel
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
None of us know the fine details of what happened. We should be careful not to judge.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you on this. I don’t think any of us here have anywhere near enough accurate info on all this to make any kind of decent accessment. I have a serious problem believing the stuff that the press has fed us, and regardless of the American bishops, I would trust the Holy Father to do the right thing.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I doubt everyone is mad at the Vatican. I doubt MOST Catholics are mad at the Vatican. This topic has been discussed on other threads devoted to it. Search *Cardinal Law. *I came down on the side of “he shouldn’t have been made the archpriest of Santa Maria Magiore,” but I seem to recall my position was not universally acclaimed. I usually defend our old and beloved Holy Father, Pope John Paul the Great (eternal rest upon his soul and may he soon be acclaimed a saint), BUT…this is one call I wish he’d made differently. But then, who am I to critique the Vicar of Christ on earth and the Servant of the Servants of God. Naught, but a rotten sinner. As are the rest of us, as is Cardinal Law, so perhaps we should extend to him the mercy we crave ourselves.
Click to expand...
You are very wise.
Also, I would just like to quote the old phrase, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
Perhaps the Vatican thought it would be better to keep Cardinal Law close than to let him go to do other things, for whatever reason.
 
You have all made some good points. I certainly don’t want to judge. I can see where having him in Rome might be the safest avenue to take. On the other hand, the Catholics in Boston have been hurt by the scandal that he was ultimately responsible for. We can all pray that he has repented for this and I assume that he has. It doesn’t take away from the confusion that is left in the wake of such an ugly mess. I came back to the Church with the knowledge that part of being Catholic is being obedient to Church law and that is what I will do. I was trying to get some information so that the next time I am in the middle of some Vatican bashing I could say something helpful and still be supportive to the Vatican.
 
John Paul the Great, ever the best teacher, even when we didn’t realize it had a lesson here as well.

Do we know what Cardinal Bernard Law may have said in a confessional regarding the matter? What if he had confessed malfeasance or negligence on his part? Who are we to condemn him if Pope John Paul II did not do so?

When we confess our sins, must we carry a label on our forehead with a list of our sins for all to see?

How do we know that Cardinal Law didn’t attempt to resign, but was given this assignment and was asked to accept it as part of a lesson for him to learn from?

It is my personal belief that Pope John Paul II wanted to teach all of us to remember that it is not our job to bind the sins, or even bad decisions of others here on earth. All of us need to evaluate our responses to people who have fallen in one way or another.

It doesn’t matter if it was a promotion, a demotion, or a lateral move. The pope made the call and he was probably privvy to far more information than most of us.
 
I completley forgot something that my elderly father always says when people attack the Vatican. He says “Listen to the Pope, he’s God’s man on earth.” I guess it really is that simple.
 
David Zampino:
… The “Counsel and Transfer” policy was NOT invented by bishops to protect clergy at the expense of victims; rather, it was the PROFESSIONAL ADVICE given by the seminary professors and professional counselors, based on the latest “theories”.
Click to expand...
Could you provide a source for this information. I would like to have this information the next time this topic comes up (as it often does).

Thanks.
 
40.png
Melchior:
It sickens me that this guy, who confirmed me, got to vote for the new Pope. I cannot believe he is not in jail, but is instead in beautiful Rome.

The devastated lives he left behind are numerous. That includes lives ended tragically because of what he did.

Mel
Click to expand...
No question he could have and should have done better than he did; that said, the primary perpetrators of the deeds are to blame. In all the rhetoric, all the high emotion, often people forget that. Each of us bears the responsibility of the sins we commit against others. Never mind the “my parents are to blame, my teachers are to blame, my formation master is to blame, my boss is to blame…” Put the blame where it belongs. Why do you think the age old prayer of Mea culpa, mea culpa" rings so true with us all?

And what other sins do you feel this strongly about? Adultery, lying, fornication, gambling, alcoholism, physical abuse, corporate and personal corruption? …they all grieve God, we are all sinners, we all have affected the lives of others and not always in a positive fashion. If Christ forgave Peter who denied Him, and the rest of us “because they know not what they do” – how then can we not while recognizing the sin, seek to be glad that anyone who sins remains within the church, turns from his bad judgments and regains his life in service?

It is not for Catholics to seek to brand the foreheads of other sinners. Best we all stay with our own sackcloth and ashes and rejoice when our brothers and sisters who strayed from the path return to it. Peter denied Christ and was our first pope.

The pain, the betrayal, the innocent priests who suffer because of these devlish deeds are not even possible to measure…the victims grope with a part of their lost innocence for the rest of their lives. What Cardinal Law has been put through personally, professionally and as a Catholic pastor must parallel St. Peter who it was said, had two channels carved deep in his face, from the tears he shed for the rest of his life over his betrayal of the Lord he loved.

We all need to pray for victims, for those who neglected their duty or turned their face the other way – it is a backbreaking burden of guilt and shame to carry every day of their lives and thank God that it rests not on us.

We are all childen of Adam and Eve…thankfully Our Blessed Savior came to let us know that no mattter what we do, how badly we fail, that true contrition, true repentance brings us home again.
 
It was the American media, predictably and in its perpetual ignorance of things Catholic, that took the view that Cardinal Law was “promoted.” The fact is that he was deprived of his see and sent to headquarters, were he was given an ersatz honorary position and basically placed under house arrest, or rather, sentenced to live in a halfway house.

Perhaps the media can understand only the business apsect of things, so one could say to them that when the board of directors recalls the CEO of the company and replaces him with another individual, then says that the former CEO remains with the company as a consultant, the CEO has most assuredly NOT been promoted. In most cases, he would be humiliated and would not stay with the company in such a hokey capacity. The Cardinal did not have that option; he was simply instructed to stay close by where a close curial eye could be kept upon him. :tsktsk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top