Whats the problem with Cardinal Bernard law?

Bill_A · #1 Apr 11, '05, 5:36 pm

Evidently since the pope has died, he has forgotten that he has destroyed the Boston Diocese and he cant shut up. Hes been on TV all week.

After trying to celibrate a mass today, a group of underground conservative Catholics disrupted mass and were tossed out of the vatican. Imagine a cardinal who has been accused of Criminal negiligence in the US gets to speak on TV and say mass while COnservative Catholics who protest are asked to leave. Id go up to communion if I was there and do something really unchristian to him or perhaps very Christ like..

Teresa · #2 Apr 11, '05, 6:12 pm

I don't pretend to understand any of this. I certainly do not condone Cardinal Law's behavior over the years. I'm not sure why PopeJP II gave the position of Archpriest of St.Mary Major Basilica to Cardinal Law..............BUT.......I do believe in the mercy of Jesus and I pray with all my heart that Cardinal Law confessed his sins with genuine contrition and is doing penance .......
Although it is most difficult to understand, God loves each one of us and wants all of us to be saved........Cardinal Law, the Clintons, the abortionists, Adolph Hitler, Osama Benladin, Sadam Hussein..................
All peace to all!

hlgomez · #3 Apr 11, '05, 7:24 pm

Quote:

After trying to celibrate a mass today, a group of underground conservative Catholics disrupted mass and were tossed out of the vatican.

Bill A,

The actions of those "conservative" catholics are very inappropriate. You cannot--and should not--disrupt a mass. That's very disrespectful to the Eucharist. If you want to protest, do it in a proper forum. We are not in a US style democracy in the Church. The Church is a Divine institution--not established by men.

Quote:

Imagine a cardinal who has been accused of Criminal negiligence in the US gets to speak on TV and say mass while COnservative Catholics who protest are asked to leave. Id go up to communion if I was there and do something really unchristian to him or perhaps very Christ like..

We assureedly symphatize with those who were victimized by those abusive priests. But, the bottom line of our Catholic faith is not to hate forever. If we truly have to forgive--then let's forgive with all our hearts. Not keep on pressing the same issue with the same person all over and over again. We should not forget that they are also fallen human beings, just like you and me. Are we more righteous than those priests? Then if you think you are, cast the first stone.

Protests have limits. Priests have been tasked by Christ to perform mass. NO human being has the authority to say when you can say mass or not--it is a divine mandate.

Pio

JKirkLVNV · #4 Apr 11, '05, 7:32 pm

Look, I agree, the Cardinal, having repented, should surely be forgiven, absolved, shown compassion. The fact of the matter remains, he had to resign in disgrace and he should keep a low profile, for the sake of not giving scandal. He shouldn't be laicised, he shouldn't be impoverished, he just should be seen in so prominient a way. For good or ill, appearances sometimes matter. Having said that, those people had no business disrupting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Kevin Walker · #5 Apr 11, '05, 7:36 pm

Please read these thoroughly:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotligh...ps_archive.htm

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotligh...02_letters.htm

harveyc · #6 Apr 11, '05, 7:37 pm

For all of his failings, Cardinal Law is also very wise in other matters. I listened to his homily this morning and thoroughly enjoyed it.

My memory is vague here: was it St. Frances that made a statement of receiving Eucharist from the consecrated hands of a priest that had committed offenses?

JKirkLVNV · #7 Apr 11, '05, 7:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by harveyc

For all of his failings, Cardinal Law is also very wise in other matters. I listened to his homily this morning and thoroughly enjoyed it.

My memory is vague here: was it St. Frances that made a statement of receiving Eucharist from the consecrated hands of a priest that had committed offenses?

Yup, it was reported to him that the priest in question had been fooling around sexually. He went to the priest (with the person who came to report the priest) and his first words were something like, "Let me reverence the hands that bring me my Lord!", kissed his hands, and the priest never gave cause for scandal again.

Obj. No TV, no newspapers, no internet back then, so the priest's scandalous behavior was NOT known by every Catholic in the world. We don't even know his name, in fact. I wonder if we can say the same about Cardinal Law?

hlgomez · #8 Apr 11, '05, 7:58 pm

Quote:

The fact of the matter remains, he had to resign in disgrace and he should keep a low profile, for the sake of not giving scandal.

JKirkLVNV,

You can say that because you are not a priest. Once a priest--always a priest. That's Biblical and Traditional. No matter how grave your sins are.

Scandals are healed thru forgiveness--not thru resigning. The Church is not a secular institution. And definitely not a US style democracy. Priest are given a Divine mandate. They are NOT voted by the people--they are called by Christ. It's a vocation, and once they are ordained, they have an indelible mark as priests. It is only fitting that the Holy Mother Church welcomes back sinners who repents. And definitely, they can say mass. Not because men wants it, but Christ wanted them to do so and gave them that authority. NO MAN has authority over a priest but Christ.

Pio

hlgomez · #9 Apr 11, '05, 8:03 pm

Quote:

Obj. No TV, no newspapers, no internet back then, so the priest's scandalous behavior was NOT known by every Catholic in the world. We don't even know his name, in fact. I wonder if we can say the same about Cardinal Law?

Since it is widely known story today, isn't it a scandal?

But read back the history during that time. It was widely known among the believers in St. Francis place. It was truly a scandal, and the people were clamoring and telling St. Francis to separate and make a new church and they all wanted to follow him. But the humble St. Francis refused, but instead did what was an act of humility and obedience. St. Francis knew that this priest, though a big time sinner and scandalous, can still confect the Eucharist.

Pio

JKirkLVNV · #10 Apr 11, '05, 8:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by hlgomez

JKirkLVNV,

You can say that because you are not a priest. Once a priest--always a priest. That's Biblical and Traditional. No matter how grave your sins are. I don't disagree with that. I have great reverence for the priesthood.

Scandals are healed thru forgiveness--not thru resigning. The Church is not a secular institution. I agree.And definitely not a US style democracy. God forbid! Priest are given a Divine mandate. They are NOT voted by the people--they are called by Christ. It's a vocation, and once they are ordained, they have an indelible mark as priests. I know that. It is only fitting that the Holy Mother Church welcomes back sinners who repents. And definitely, they can say mass. Who said they couldn't!?!? Not because men wants it, but Christ wanted them to do so and gave them that authority. NO MAN has authority over a priest but Christ.

Pio

You lost me at the end. Bishops, archbishops, popes, abbots, archabbots, etc., ALL have authority over priests. I'm not proposing that he be put out of the Church! I'm not proposing that he should loose his faculties. I'm proposing that he should have voluntarily, for the sake of the Church, gone into seclusion somewhere. The former Archbishop of Santa Fe had to resign in disgrace. He's now a chaplain for a community of nuns. He gets to celebrate Mass, is still a bishop, etc. He's just not visible, just not a source of scandal.

hlgomez · #11 Apr 11, '05, 8:07 pm

Quote:

You lost me at the end. Bishops, archbishops, popes, abbots, archabbots, etc., ALL have authority over priests. I'm not proposing that he be put out of the Church! I'm not proposing that he should loose his faculties. I'm proposing that he should have voluntarily, for the sake of the Church, gone into seclusion somewhere. The former Archbishop of Santa Fe had to resign in disgrace. He's now a chaplain for a community of nuns. He gets to celebrate Mass, is still a bishop, etc. He's just not visible, just not a source of scandal.

I understand your point.

Are you telling us here that he is still making a scandalous behaviour at the Vatican?

Pio

hlgomez · #12 Apr 11, '05, 8:10 pm

Quote:

Who said they couldn't!?!?

What was the protest all about, then? Isn't it the Mass being celebrated by Cardinal Law? My question is: Why? He can't say Mass anymore? Is he making scandal out of the Mass?

Pio

**Annunciata** · #13 Apr 11, '05, 8:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV

I'm proposing that he should have voluntarily, for the sake of the Church, gone into seclusion somewhere. The former Archbishop of Santa Fe had to resign in disgrace. He's now a chaplain for a community of nuns. He gets to celebrate Mass, is still a bishop, etc. He's just not visible, just not a source of scandal.

Cardinal Law did go to a religious order of nuns as a chaplain and from there was called to Rome... Do you think he should have been disobedient to the Holy Father?

Bill_A · #14 Apr 11, '05, 8:12 pm

This is all true but it will be up to the next pope to figure out how to deal with this guy, whether he should have a muzzle or be defroked. I agree it is wrong to disrupt mass but what about ringing cell phones. Are these people asked to leave. Most people in Europe do not know about him and what he did, bankrupting the diocese was more wrong.

So I say Good for them to fly there and protest! That is there right!

hlgomez · #15 Apr 11, '05, 8:22 pm

Quote:

So I say Good for them to fly there and protest! That is there right!

Opps, you should know that there is a limit for every so called "right."

I hope this right will not end up saying, "we have the right whether a priest can say mass or not." Which is what we see in this protest.

Pio