-- “Blessed, he said, are the persecuted. Persecuted? Law wasn't even prosecuted, despite knowingly transferring serial predators from parish to parish rather than removing them from ministry and despite dodging his responsibility for the coverup under oath in depositions that prolonged the pain of the victims.

The cardinal did apologize, we are sure to be reminded. Tell that to Patrick McSorley's family and friends. They didn't see Law at the funeral for Patrick, who died of a drug overdose in February. The last Patrick saw of Law, the cardinal was sitting across a conference table, stonewalling lawyers during the civil lawsuit against the church that tolerated the abuse that John J. Geoghan meted out to Patrick and to so many others in three decades as a Catholic priest.

Law could have been meek, merciful, a peacemaker. He could have spared Patrick McSorley and the other victims, but "settlement" was synonymous with "surrender" to the embattled archbishop. He gave no ground. The case did not end until he was gone. The pain still hasn't.

The Vatican's appointment of Law as head priest at the Basilica of St. Mary Major is an affront to every immigrant whose hard-earned nickels and dimes built the churches that will now be razed or sold off for condominiums to ease the financial burden brought by the clergy sexual abuse crisis. It does not matter whether the proceeds are used directly to pay the multimillion-dollar settlements to abuse victims. The coffers are empty because the scandal emptied the pews of the people and their checkbooks.” – Eileen McNamara (Globe)

--“Anyone who reads through the relevant and extensive correspondence of not only Law but his auxiliary bishops -- many of whom went on to positions of greater responsibility -- as well as through the depositions he gave can only conclude that Law was fortunate to get out of Boston and the United States without facing greater legal consequences.” – National Catholic Reporter

Should the Pope resign? Yes. Jailed. Probably.

John Paul II appears to have been equally guilty of protecting clergy.

Cardinal Law eh?

Whatever happened to Cardinal Sin?

>> Should the Pope resign? Yes. Jailed. Probably.<<
Sorry Oliver, I thought you were more serious than that, therefore I replied to your posts also on this thread. Nixon resigned because he lost the trust of those who voted for him; those who want Benedict to resign did not vote for him, and would not vote for his successor; actually some Vatican watchers claim that today Benedict would get even more votes than in 2005.

Nobody denies that many pedophilia crimes were committed under the protection of Catholic educational institutions and parishes, and some of them - well, too many - were covered-up or even negligibly (never mind unintentionally) abetted by those in positions of responsibility. However, nobody in the Roman Curia did more to start cleaning up the mess - both on his own initiative and under outside pressure - than Ratzinger/Benedict. Resigning under external pressure in the middle of the cleansing job would probably be beneficial to the 83-year old pope, and his health, but not for solving the problem by both accepting institutional responsibiliy and issuing clear directives for the future.

As to “probably jailed” (according to the principle “guilty unless proven innocent”?) this is beyond comment, but let me assure you, that nothing would help the Church more than if that happened, judging from my own experience with the public (not only Catholic) reaction to the jailing of bishops by Communist authorities on blown up charges.

I have often found your logic a little difficult to get a grip on, George, and I'm afraid this is one of those times.

>>Nobody denies that many pedophilia crimes were committed under the protection of Catholic educational institutions and parishes, and some of them - well, too many - were covered-up or even negligibly (never mind unintentionally) abetted by those in positions of responsibility.<<

You stop short of saying "...and those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law".

Do you agree with this corollary, or dispute it?

If you agree, then we have a mismatch at this point...

>>nothing would help the Church more than if [the Pope were to be jailed], judging from my own experience with the public (not only Catholic) reaction to the jailing of bishops by Communist authorities on blown up charges.<<

What if - and this was the original direction of this thread - it is proven in court that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime?

Are you suggesting this would be beneficial to the Church?

I certainly get the allusion to martyrdom inherent in your reference to "Communist authorities".

But would the public, "not only Catholic", actually express support for a human being who would do such a thing?

More to the point, would the Catholic faithful continue to venerate him as God's representative on earth?

George,

“Should” was the keyword. As I noted in examples no Bank Manger or common labourer would get away with what the Popes (Benedict and JP II) and bishops did. These people are treated as “special”.
By “jailed”, again, I mean equivalent justice to others, given criminal deeds. The Catholic Church is not alone; Muamma Gaddafi and Idi Amin are in the bucket of leaders who have/were not held accountable. That is the point, I feel Gibbon makes (see quote): Privilege has become the order of the day, usurping “the shoes of a fishermen”. Herein, the College of Cardinals, I suspect is every bit as political as any Board Room.

Do I feel that I am especially targeting the Catholic Church? No. I accept your examples of similar behaviours in Boarding Schools. Likewise, I would have liked have seem those in Big Tobacco to have been run through the same legal wringler.

Probably, “tried and if found guilty, jailed” would have better recognised Western legal processes. I agree.
The current examples receiving attention do not appear to “blown-up” charges. Because the Communists jailed bishops on feigned auspices, it does not follow that bishops should not be charged, tried and perhaps jailed, if they engage in paedophilia and/or covering-up criminal activity.

The practice of a Conclave voting in the Pope is not in accordance with the primitive Church. The Anglicans are closer to the original more democratic practice of voting in leaders.

As for Benedict, I think it would cause riots (and deaths) if he was arrested. Instead, he could be invited to “come-in”, as they say. If he chooses to evade, he could tried “in absentia” as was Martin Bormann at Nurnberg. The symbolism would be enough.

Law appears to have been guilty of a cover-up and costing the Church millions in damages suits. Yet, the Catholic Church promotes him. If everything, Law should have been demoted to a humble appointment.

“Look at what I am doing now” and not “what I should do”, is a bit like the magician’s trick of using the attractive women to distract the audience.

nothing's gonna change.que cera cera

socratease