Monday, May 20, 2002

Okay, I just read this article where Boston's Cardinal Law says he didn't know about Father Shanley and his "past" until 1993. Now that was 9 years ago. I don't think that forgives him at all. The fact that he actively worked to either cover up the charges, keep them hidden, whatever, I thikn this man should be looked at for accessory charges. Accesory after the fact or something like that. If you didn't turn the guy over to the police, then you are just as guilty as the cardinal who actually did the deed. Only now is he rescinding Shanley's right to be a priest. That should have been done years ago when you KNEW ABOUT IT! Additionally, if you knew about a crime, no matter how long ago it took, don't you have an obligation to go to the authorities to say, "Hey something happened here and I think you should take a look at it." By not doing so, it's not doing anything to help prove that you are somehow without blame.

''The attestation that he was a priest in good standing at the time was in accord with the facts as I knew them,'' Law wrote in regards to Shanley's move to California in 1990. I find it hard that they can even think of saying that Shanley was in good standing since there were allegations of sexual abuse dating back to the 1960s(!). I mean you ran an entire archdiocese...do you not keep personnel records or something along those lines about your priests. And do you NOT review them when you come to an archdiocese so you know something about the people who are working in your archdiocese? I find it VERY VERY VERY hard to believe that is the case. But maybe that's the HR guy in me.

Additionally, Cardinal Law said that there was never a direct intent to put children at risk. Well, if you live in your own little world then yes, there was no intent. But the fact that he kept being moved (and other priests for that matter) after being accused of molestation so many years ago shows that therewas a cover up of some sort. It is my firm belief that that any archbishop, bishop, or priest that actively works to cover up the misdeeds of another priest without reporting it to the authorities is just as guilty of the crime. Accessory before, during, or after the fact. There are crimes for that and should be enforced against those who help cover up these crimes.....

Sigh....getting off of my soapbox now.....
Post a Comment