Film on Pedophile Priest Revives Focus on Cardinal

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahhh, we wont have to worry about deposing Mahoney after all! The American police will hang him for us 😃
 
Cardinal Mahoney appears to be suffering from the same type of amnesia that Cardinal Law suffered from when he was questioned by authorities. Odd isn’t it?

from the article posted…
Mr. O’Grady says in the film that as bishop in Stockton, the cardinal moved him from parish to parish in the face of abuse accusations
Click to expand...
Now…I know that there is debate about when was a bishop complicit, and when was he trying to follow the advice of experts in psychiatry.
Bishops did send many of these guys off to get treatment and were told the priests were cured and could return to work.
At what point does the bishop lose the benefit of the doubt?
After one incident? two? three?
Some bishops kept transferring these guys over and over. The cases in Boston show an amazing lack of regard for children.

It will be interesting to see how often Mahoney transferred this guy.
 
Lorarose said:
Now…I know that there is debate about when was a bishop complicit, and when was he trying to follow the advice of experts in psychiatry.
Click to expand...
While it offers no moral defense ro allowing a predator to keep access to children, another question that has bearing is the dating of any state law requiring that suspected cases of child abuse be reported to legal authorities. Depending on when he knew what, he may have committed a criminal act.

Caesar, they don’t hang perverts an accomplices in the US anymore, only in Texas.
 
pnewton said:
While it offers no moral defense ro allowing a predator to keep access to children, another question that has bearing is the dating of any state law requiring that suspected cases of child abuse be reported to legal authorities. Depending on when he knew what, he may have committed a criminal act.

Caesar, they don’t hang perverts an accomplices in the US anymore, only in Texas.
Click to expand...
Ah, then Texas is the place to be 👍

Seriously though, I think that bringing Mahoney’s crimes into the light will be a good thing.
 
Lorarose said:
Cardinal Mahoney appears to be suffering from the same type of amnesia that Cardinal Law suffered from when he was questioned by authorities. Odd isn’t it?

Cardinal Law opened the CHurch records to investigators relatively soon after the crisis began. All Church reords were made available going back to the days of Cardinal Cushing (60’s) on the priests of Boston. Although Law accepted his ultimate blame, it was clear that many other Cardinals and bishops had similarly acted upon these cases, and some cases were handed down from one tenure to the next. It appears that Mahoney has not done this, although God knows it would seem to cost his reputation very little at this point in the game.
Click to expand...
 
It seems that he and Cardinal Law did the same things. I presume that Cardinal Mahoney hasn’t been pilloried in the press because he is a religious liberal and so the media like him. Carninal Law was a conservative in religion and so the Boston Globe went after him with great delight. (Not that he didn’t deserve what happened.)
Lorarose said:
Cardinal Mahoney appears to be suffering from the same type of amnesia that Cardinal Law suffered from when he was questioned by authorities. Odd isn’t it?

from the article posted…

Now…I know that there is debate about when was a bishop complicit, and when was he trying to follow the advice of experts in psychiatry.
Bishops did send many of these guys off to get treatment and were told the priests were cured and could return to work.
At what point does the bishop lose the benefit of the doubt?
After one incident? two? three?
Some bishops kept transferring these guys over and over. The cases in Boston show an amazing lack of regard for children.

It will be interesting to see how often Mahoney transferred this guy.
Click to expand...
 
I posted on another a veiled reference to this on another thread. I think what I said was something to this effect:
Some bishops when forced into public testimony [regarding priest sex abuse] left many people scratching their heads and muttering “isn’t perjury a mortal sin?”
Click to expand...
(see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1608386#post1608386 for my complete post. It is germane to this thread.)

Let me start by saying I have the utmost respect the position Cardinal Mohoney holds and for his personally as a shepherd of the faithful. And while I truly mean this in all charity, Cardinal Mahoney has done much to change the character of the Catholic Church in his dioecese. He has, for example, rendered, through architectual changes, many churches incapable of celebrating the Tridentine Rite and has created an awful monstrosity (some, though not I, have referred to it less charitably) of a cathedral at an exorbitant price. It took the direct and personal intervention of Pope John Paul II for him to give up his personal helocopter.

But what upset me more than anything was a comment he made in response to an earnest and polite question during an online chat regarding the Traditional Latin Mass. He actually mis-stated (?) history and promoted modernism in a single sentence.

recongress.org/chat2006.htm

I was rather disapointed by many of his answers during this chat.
 
Its not playing anywhere near me unfortunately. I will be buying this on dvd and getting the book, The Rite Of Sodomy, at $64 for that book it aint cheap but its 1300 pages and hundreds of pages footnotes, endnotes, etc to back up its claims. I will be studying these two items very closely in the coming months and making some pretty important decisions.
 
Friends, please . . . there is no *e *in Mahony. This is not about spelling; it’s about paying attention.

JSA
 
This movie is being played in a cinema in my city (it is general knowledge that the cinema in question is owned by gays) and they had the nerve to invite the Bishop to watch it. :mad:
 
Caesar ,It is not just the Bishop who was invited but all the Clergy , It might make them understand why many victims of clerical abuse have left the church ,And why the church has destroyed their FAITH in there being a God, yours michael
 
Caesar said:
Ah, then Texas is the place to be 👍

Seriously though, I think that bringing Mahoney’s crimes into the light will be a good thing.
Click to expand...
It is a good thing to have these accusations properly resolved, whether the result clears the Cardinal’s name or not. To assert that he committed crimes either means you have more information than just the article in the OP or you may have committed an Offense against the Truth which is a grave matter when directed at a Shepherd.

While it has become an American blood sport to say anything derogatory about the character, motives, or actions of our politicians, we should refrain from being so wreckless when talking about our Shepherds. In and of itself, it encourages dissent (“If you can criticize Bishop Bill about this, I can ignore him about this.”). Additionally, we shouldn’t be so quick to just take the word of a man of Mr. O’Grady’s character against one of our own Cardinal’s.

I don’t advocate that we brush things under the rug. This needs to be exposed and dealt with legally, morally, and spiritually. In all situations, we should be compassionate and using it as an opportunity for all involved to see we have the Light of Christ in us and He is our model, our life and our saviour.

And for those of us who don’t have all the facts, it is wreckless to rush to judgment especially against a Bishop.

From the Catechism:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
 
Orionthehunter said:
It is a good thing to have these accusations properly resolved, whether the result clears the Cardinal’s name or not. To assert that he committed crimes either means you have more information than just the article in the OP or you may have committed an Offense against the Truth which is a grave matter when directed at a Shepherd.

While it has become an American blood sport to say anything derogatory about the character, motives, or actions of our politicians, we should refrain from being so wreckless when talking about our Shepherds. In and of itself, it encourages dissent (“If you can criticize Bishop Bill about this, I can ignore him about this.”). Additionally, we shouldn’t be so quick to just take the word of a man of Mr. O’Grady’s character against one of our own Cardinal’s.

I don’t advocate that we brush things under the rug. This needs to be exposed and dealt with legally, morally, and spiritually. In all situations, we should be compassionate and using it as an opportunity for all involved to see we have the Light of Christ in us and He is our model, our life and our saviour.

And for those of us who don’t have all the facts, it is wreckless to rush to judgment especially against a Bishop.

From the Catechism:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
Click to expand...
Your words of caution are an important reminder to us all and are worth repeating.

I agree when you say that we must be circumspect and repectful to bishops. I also agree with you when you say we should not “brush things under the rug”.

In reading St. Thomas Aquinas, I did come accross a line which said something to the effect that when the Faith or souls are at stake it may be necessary to correct a bishop, even publicly. While I believe St. Thomas’s intended audience was other clergy, not necessarily the lay faithful, it is an intriguing comment from one the greatest theologians and doctors of the Church.

It was the last phrase, “even publicaly”, that got my attention the first time I read it.

Of course all communications, and the attitudes behind them, must be based on christian love and charity with no rancor. Righteous anger must be held in check by this love.

May ther Lord give us the grace to always be mindful of this and guide our actions by this.

That said, we must also remember the Justice, whether it man’s or God’s, is no respector of persons.
 
rpp said:
Your words of caution are an important reminder to us all and are worth repeating.

I agree when you say that we must be circumspect and repectful to bishops. I also agree with you when you say we should not “brush things under the rug”.

In reading St. Thomas Aquinas, I did come accross a line which said something to the effect that when the Faith or souls are at stake it may be necessary to correct a bishop, even publicly. While I believe St. Thomas’s intended audience was other clergy, not necessarily the lay faithful, it is an intriguing comment from one the greatest theologians and doctors of the Church.

It was the last phrase, “even publicaly”, that got my attention the first time I read it.

Of course all communications, and the attitudes behind them, must be based on christian love and charity with no rancor. Righteous anger must be held in check by this love.

May ther Lord give us the grace to always be mindful of this and guide our actions by this.

That said, we must also remember the Justice, whether it man’s or God’s, is no respector of persons.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, one may have placed upon them the obligation to rebuke even a Bishop in public. But it is incumbent on them to have the facts or else it is an offense against the Truth. At this stage, few people know the facts. And without the facts, their obligation is to not rush to judgment and give their fellow Christian the benefit of the doubt until they have FACTS that should dissuade them otherwise.

Reminder from the CCC:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
  • of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
  • of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
  • of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

“Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.” (St. Ignatius of Loyola)

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
 
Rash judgments should be avoided. But given the millions of dollars paid out, it seems like due consideration has been given to much of what has been laid at the Cardinal’s feet. A lot of sex abuse when on during his watch and he has to answer for it.
 
Diocese of Wilmington has named tweenty alleged abusive priests ,It has dones this to help victims come forward and ask for help
 
Some one else is suing Mahoney and the Mexican Cardinal of allowing a priest to abuse 60 boys in two countries
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top