"The Law of Advancement"- columnist from Globe takes shot at Bishop-

[Riley259]

Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara not surprisingly takes her weekly pot shot at the Catholic church in today’s paper. Today’s column focuses on Bishop Richard Lennon, the former interim archbishop of Boston who was just transferred to Cleveland. McNamara calls him a reviled man who was a leftover from Cardinal Law’s administration. She spends the whole column trashing him and blaming him for difficult decisions that had to be made following Law’s departure. In short, the column is a cheap shot because the true Bishop Lennon was a good, kind man who had to make difficult decisions in the wake of the scandal and Law’s resignation (see the latest issue the The Pilot, the Boston archdiocean newspaper for a real profile of Lennon). This character assassination stuff is par for the course for McNamara who barely conceals her hate and revulsion for the church every time she puts pen to paper.

boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/09/the_law_of_advancement/

 

[bones_IV]

AntiCatholicism is a sin that cries to heaven. This anticatholic hatred will spell doom to our nation and will lead to anticatholic laws worse than then the ones we have now. At this moment it seems that many Catholics don’t do a THING! Our nation is crumbling under ruthless attacks by nihilistic atheism.

 

[frommi]

bones_IV:

AntiCatholicism is a sin that cries to heaven. This anticatholic hatred will spell doom to our nation and will lead to anticatholic laws worse than then the ones we have now. At this moment it seems that many Catholics don’t do a THING! Our nation is crumbling under ruthless attacks by nihilistic atheism.

How is it anti-catholic to point out that Cardinal Law and his bishops were never held accountable for any of what they did?

Bernard Law is still influencing episcopal appointments all over America due to his membership on the congregation of Bishops.

He’s a man who someone actually VOTED for to be the next pontiff last year.

Explain to me, given all he didn’t do to protect children…how pointing out these things…how is that anti-Catholic?

For crying out loud…a lot of Catholics would agree with this writer.

I’m one of them

 

[Petergee]

frommi:

He’s a man who someone actually VOTED for to be the next pontiff last year.

And which member of the conclave broke his solemn oath to tell you that?
Sorry, this totally unfounded claim makes it impossible to take the rest of your post seriously.

 

[bones_IV]

frommi:

How is it anti-catholic to point out that Cardinal Law and his bishops were never held accountable for any of what they did?

Bernard Law is still influencing episcopal appointments all over America due to his membership on the congregation of Bishops.

He’s a man who someone actually VOTED for to be the next pontiff last year.

Explain to me, given all he didn’t do to protect children…how pointing out these things…how is that anti-Catholic?

For crying out loud…a lot of Catholics would agree with this writer.

I’m one of them

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

 

[frommi]

bones_IV:

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Nice…it makes no sense…and you didn’t answer my questions…

 

[bones_IV]

Frommi this is not about Cardinal Law it’s about Bishop Lennon. Please read the initial post.

 

[frommi]

bones_IV:

Frommi this is not about Cardinal Law it’s about Bishop Lennon. Please read the initial post.

OK…so its about Bishop Lennon…a reasonable person could take the facts and make a decision to find him:

a - a sympathetic figure who was thrust into a role where he would have to make difficult choices to maintain the archdiocese

or

b- one of Cardinal Law’s ‘bishops’ who was a hatchet man doing the cardinal’s bidding for many years.

Either way…it’s not ANTI-anything

 

[frommi]

Petergee:

And which member of the conclave broke his solemn oath to tell you that?
Sorry, this totally unfounded claim makes it impossible to take the rest of your post seriously.

A diary of one of the cardinal’s was published last year anonymously…many major news sources picked this story up.

 

[jimmy]

frommi:

How is it anti-catholic to point out that Cardinal Law and his bishops were never held accountable for any of what they did?

Bernard Law is still influencing episcopal appointments all over America due to his membership on the congregation of Bishops.

He’s a man who someone actually VOTED for to be the next pontiff last year.

Explain to me, given all he didn’t do to protect children…how pointing out these things…how is that anti-Catholic?

For crying out loud…a lot of Catholics would agree with this writer.

I’m one of them

Because it has nothing to do with Bernard Law, it has to do with the bishop of Cleveland. It is nothing but slander.

 

[snoopy]

frommi:

How is it anti-catholic to point out that Cardinal Law and his bishops were never held accountable for any of what they did?

Bernard Law is still influencing episcopal appointments all over America due to his membership on the congregation of Bishops.

He’s a man who someone actually VOTED for to be the next pontiff last year.

Explain to me, given all he didn’t do to protect children…how pointing out these things…how is that anti-Catholic?

For crying out loud…a lot of Catholics would agree with this writer.

I’m one of them

Me too. Some posters think that ignorance is bliss. I for one want all the information I can get so I can protect children better. People want proof that he did these things, well, I want proof that he didn’t do these things. The article was published, now it’s time for the people in denial to prove that these accusations are not true if they think they are not. If he did these things they should be reported.

 

[frommi]

jimmy:

Because it has nothing to do with Bernard Law, it has to do with the bishop of Cleveland. It is nothing but slander.

However, it’s factual that some people are glad to see him go. That’s not slander, that’s fact. Again, it can hardly be called anti-catholic

 

[Riley259]

frommi:

How is it anti-catholic to point out that Cardinal Law and his bishops were never held accountable for any of what they did?

Bernard Law is still influencing episcopal appointments all over America due to his membership on the congregation of Bishops.

He’s a man who someone actually VOTED for to be the next pontiff last year.

Explain to me, given all he didn’t do to protect children…how pointing out these things…how is that anti-Catholic?

For crying out loud…a lot of Catholics would agree with this writer.

I’m one of them

Do you even know Bishop Lennon and the things he has done in the archdiocese of Boston? I’d venture that you don’t and your only info is from Ms. McNamara. There’s another side to the story.

 

[frommi]

Riley259:

Do you even know Bishop Lennon and the things he has done in the archdiocese of Boston? I’d venture that you don’t and your only info is from Ms. McNamara. There’s another side to the story.

Indeed I am sure there is.

My point is simply that an article/column that paints a Catholic bishop in a negative light is not always indicative of some anti-Catholic conspiracy…

 

[davy39]

snoopy:

Me too. Some posters think that ignorance is bliss. I for one want all the information I can get so I can protect children better. People want proof that he did these things, well, I want proof that he didn’t do these things. The article was published, now it’s time for the people in denial to prove that these accusations are not true if they think they are not. If he did these things they should be reported.

I always thought the burden of proof was on the accuser, not the person being accused? Isn’t a person, even a Bishop, innocent until proven guilty, or did they change the law sometime? Maybe you’re living in the wrong country.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

Indeed I am sure there is.

My point is simply that an article/column that paints a Catholic bishop in a negative light is not always indicative of some anti-Catholic conspiracy…

Yes, but with the Globe that argument is, at best, suspect.

 

[frommi]

johnnykins:

Yes, but with the Globe that argument is, at best, suspect.

You can’t presume badwill on the side of a person presenting a point of view…that is a decidedly anti-Catholic behavior.

 

[johnnykins]

frommi:

You can’t presume badwill on the side of a person presenting a point of view…that is a decidedly anti-Catholic behavior.

Of course you can when it’s the Boston Globe writing about the Catholic Church. I’ve read it for years - no brainer really.

 

[snoopy]

davy39:

I always thought the burden of proof was on the accuser, not the person being accused? Isn’t a person, even a Bishop, innocent until proven guilty, or did they change the law sometime? Maybe you’re living in the wrong country.

Thanks for the snotty reply. Maybe you don’t agree that all the information you can get to protect children better is a good thing. If not, that’s ok too. I would never suggest that you are living in the wrong country.BTW, Law was guilty as sin!!!

 

[bellesjoy]

frommi:

You can’t presume badwill on the side of a person presenting a point of view…that is a decidedly anti-Catholic behavior.

Can’t presume badwill on the part of a reporter, but a Bishop of the Catholic Church is to be guilty until proven to be innocent…seams a decidely anti-Catholic behavior.

Mortal sin is serious sin and most of us want to be in a state of grace especially this week and for Divine Mercy Sunday. Since we are now in Holy Week, it might be benificial for those so quick to attack the good name of another to consider from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church:

**2477 **Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 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;278
• 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.279 **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.