Cardinal law leaves Rome but still sits on 7 vatican committees

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pepipop

Guest
news.yahoo.com/video/bostonwbz-15750588/disgraced-ex-boston-archbishop-cardinal-law-leaves-rome-job-27354071.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fbostonwbz-15750588%252Fdisgraced-ex-boston-archbishop-cardinal-law-leaves-rome-job-27354071.html

one of which, selects bishops. I received this from a lapsed catholic who thinks the CC is now under the devil and always has been.

Does anyone know whether this cardinal still sits on these committees or could give me some feedback about the reasons for his resignation and/or if he sits on these committees - so that I can respond back positively to the person.

Many thanks
 
Religion News Service reports that the Vatican’s chief spokesman said that Cardinal Law’s committee assignments have expired.
Law turned 80 earlier this month, the normal retirement age for cardinals, and also lost his right to vote in any future papal election. The Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s chief spokesman, said Law’s membership in several Vatican offices – including the body that advises Benedict on the selection of bishops – has expired.
Click to expand...
huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/cardinal-bernard-law-resigns_n_1106098.html
 
From what I can read on the internet he resigned in 2002. Articles state that he sat on vatican committees thereafter. However, what proof there is regarding that is another matter.
 
pepipop said:
From what I can read on the internet he resigned in 2002. Articles state that he sat on vatican committees thereafter.
Click to expand...
Yes, he resigned as archbishop of Boston in 2002. However, that resignation wouldn’t have affected his Vatican committee assignments.

Turning 80 years old, which happened to him last month, may be an important factor though.
 
How would I respond though, to the fact as a bishop he moved sex abusers to different parishes - which unfortunately did happen in those days - but yet was allowed to sit on vatican committees. I understand it - but to an outsider or someone wishing to discredit the church it’s not easy to answer. He obviously was not ‘disciplined’, for want of a better word, by the CC and to anti-catholics this looks like the church had allowed this to happen and he was acting under orders, which then reverts back to the fact that the church was complicit i allowing abusers to continue their abuse.
 
As an Australian reading American blogs I thought that Cardinal Law was the only bishop who moved sexual abusers around because his was the only name mentioned. I later found out that a number of bishops did the same yet the media and the public seem to have given them a pass; why?

For those who missed this:

Law turned 80 earlier this month, the normal retirement age for cardinals, and also lost his right to vote in any future papal election. The Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s chief spokesman, said Law’s membership in several Vatican offices – including the body that advises Benedict on the selection of bishops – has expired.
huffingtonpost.com/2011/1…n_1106098.html

Just for the record: I think that Cardinal Law’s Roman appointment was a public relations blunder and that if Law had the good of the Church to the forefront he would have refused the appointment.
 
pepipop said:
He obviously was not ‘disciplined’, for want of a better word, by the CC and to anti-catholics this looks like the church had allowed this to happen and he was acting under orders, which then reverts back to the fact that the church was complicit i allowing abusers to continue their abuse.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say he wasn’t disciplined. There’s a phrase that comes to mind: “kicked upstairs.”
 
NewEnglandPries said:
I wouldn’t say he wasn’t disciplined. There’s a phrase that comes to mind: “kicked upstairs.”
Click to expand...
Yes, the Cardinal went from being Ordinary of a vast archdiocese in the United States to “pastor” (archpriest) of one parish (admittedly a very important one…St. Mary’s Major) in Rome…in a nutshell. Archpriest of St. Mary’s Major may carry a certain degree of prestige…but in terms of pastoral responsibility, it was a major downgrade.
 
twf said:
Yes, the Cardinal went from being Ordinary of a vast archdiocese in the United States to “pastor” (archpriest) of one parish (admittedly a very important one…St. Mary’s Major) in Rome…in a nutshell. Archpriest of St. Mary’s Major may carry a certain degree of prestige…but in terms of pastoral responsibility, it was a major downgrade.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In military terms, it would be like someone who was Captain of a large aircraft carrier being assigned to command the group that gives public tours of the Pentagon to tourists.

Sure, it’s a job at the Pentagon, but could hardly be considered a reward.
 
twf said:
Yes, the Cardinal went from being Ordinary of a vast archdiocese in the United States to “pastor” (archpriest) of one parish (admittedly a very important one…St. Mary’s Major) in Rome…in a nutshell. Archpriest of St. Mary’s Major may carry a certain degree of prestige…but in terms of pastoral responsibility, it was a major downgrade.
Click to expand...
Do you know if he still retained the title of cardinal, and/or how/why was he retained on the 7 vatican committees as a ‘priest’ to appoint bishops?
 
pepipop said:
Do you know if he still retained the title of cardinal, and/or how/why was he retained on the 7 vatican committees as a ‘priest’ to appoint bishops?
Click to expand...
The title is rarely taken back, I can’t recall anyone losing the title.

Being on a Catholic Church committee is not all its cracked up to be. The committee’s suggestions/advice is always considered but is not always taken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top