Any thoughts on Ms Law?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

I was amazed/amused to hear thim morning that the unexplained absense of Ms Law of Boston, from Boston, for the last week was because he had flown to the Vatican to confer with the big mucky mucks, including the Pope.

 

And what was concluded? That he would return to Boston, retain his job and position and devote all his energies to cleaning up and preventing the ca ca from happening again?

 

Pardon?

 

As a man who had knowledge of the goings on of his flock of perverts and who basically was a facilitator for years, I find it unthinkable that he is not out on his ass, standing in the unemployment line while waiting for an arrest warrent to be issued with his name on it.

 

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate - but how any Catholic can accept what has just happened is beyond my comprehension.

 

In my mind, this is a much more relevent topic of manipulation and exploitation than the ongoing thread about a $40 hustler.

 

And will anything be done about this man? Probably not?

 

Once again I am enlightened as to why I am not religious.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

I am amused that my original post on this subject has gone 100% unanswered. Not that I expected a furor, but with all the expressed concern about the exploitation of an $80 street worker, I would think that the exploitation practised and concealed by the Catholic Church would have had some interest to our more moral members.

 

Guess it's a case of it's OK to fuck the masses at mass, but God forbid that we take advantage of a street kid for money.

 

Or is it that nobody has the balls to tackle the subject?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Charon]

I presume because nobody here has much affection for the catholic church's hierarchy and isn't shocked to see it fucking up again. I'm certainly not. I didn't care about the catholic church before, and surprise, I still don't.

[+ deej]

>I am amused that my original post on this subject has gone

>100% unanswered.

 

Perhaps because nobody had a clue what you were talking about?

[Traveller]

No shit they're fucking up. Who let ugly priests plow the little altar boys instead of the handsome ones. This caused the urchins to freak out and tell their parents. Now the cat's out of the bag. Some of my fondest memories from childhood were when Father Murphy took me into the rectory and pounded the hell out of ass. I still get an instant woody when I smell incense.

 

Later.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>I am amused that my original post on this subject has gone

>>100% unanswered.

>

>Perhaps because nobody had a clue what you were talking

>about?

 

You're quite right - I just re-read my original post and I see how it could be so vague as to subject that many would not catch on.

 

However anyone who watches CNN at all would surely have a hint of what I was getting at - No?

 

The point I really wanted to make is that I find the abuse by priests of underage males and the manouverings of those that facilitated this abuse for years, seems to be much more of an exploitation issue than the trick Richie paid for on the street.

 

But the Rod Hagans of this world do not appear to be particularly bothered by it. Could it be because it posses no threat to their livelihood?

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

>However anyone who watches CNN at all would surely have a

>hint of what I was getting at - No?

 

Oh, I dunno. I watch CNN a fair amount and I'll admit I was wondering why we had a thread about Jude Law. ;-)

[OneFinger]

Just read an interesting article in the 4-22 edition of Time magazine. They did a very thorough job of highlighting one priest in the New York area that was openly supportive of NAMBLA and had accusations of abuse going back to the 1960's.

 

Law not only did nothing but promoted the priest and put him in charge of programs dealing with "troubled" youth. When the priest was transferred to California, Law wrote a glowing review of the man and *never* mentioned the abuse or thousands of dollars of "hush money" paid to victims.

 

After reading the article, I'm convinced that Law knowingly participated in a cover-up. I think his actions, in this single case, are enough to warrant his excommunication from the Catholic church. He ought to have his little red bennie yanked off his pompus head and be kicked out on the streets without his pension!!

[phage]

>But the Rod Hagans of this world do not appear to be

>particularly bothered by it. Could it be because it posses

>no threat to their livelihood?

 

Of course it could also be:

 

1. The fact that it’s been discussed recently and at length. Many topics get rehashed, but you have to give it enough time to get a new crowd if not a new perspective.

 

2. As far as I know we don’t have any members who have admitted being priests, let alone any that have committed any of the acts you are talking about and brought it to the attention of the board. There’s much more relevance and opportunity for debate/discussion/argument when it involves people we “know” rather than some faceless priest.

 

3. It might also be that no one feels like preaching to the choir (no pun intended). It is a given that everyone abhors child molestation, and if they don’t, they certainly aren’t going to enter a debate about it. Maybe you would have better luck drawing an argument if you framed the debate around a priest’s right to seduce a just legal kid.

 

4. Of course, it might just be that people are beginning to skip your posts altogether. One never knows.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>However anyone who watches CNN at all would surely have a

>>hint of what I was getting at - No?

>

>Oh, I dunno. I watch CNN a fair amount and I'll admit I was

>wondering why we had a thread about Jude Law. ;-)

 

Jude Law can molest me anytime he wants to! I'll never out him ;-)

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>1. The fact that it’s been discussed recently and at length.

> Many topics get rehashed, but you have to give it enough

>time to get a new crowd if not a new perspective.

 

I don't think it has - not what I'm talking about. Please read my reply to the next message as posted by Onefinger

 

>2. As far as I know we don’t have any members who have

>admitted being priests, let alone any that have committed

>any of the acts you are talking about and brought it to the

>attention of the board. There’s much more relevance and

>opportunity for debate/discussion/argument when it involves

>people we “know” rather than some faceless priest.

 

I'm not talking about pedophile priests. I'm talking about their Cardinal who turned a blind I to the whole thing and facilitated the continuance of the practice.

 

>3. It might also be that no one feels like preaching to the

>choir (no pun intended). It is a given that everyone abhors

>child molestation, and if they don’t, they certainly aren’t

>going to enter a debate about it. Maybe you would have

>better luck drawing an argument if you framed the debate

>around a priest’s right to seduce a just legal kid.

 

See above

 

>4. Of course, it might just be that people are beginning to

>skip your posts altogether. One never knows.

 

That could very well be - it's happened before!

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Just read an interesting article in the 4-22 edition of Time

>magazine. They did a very thorough job of highlighting one

>priest in the New York area that was openly supportive of

>NAMBLA and had accusations of abuse going back to the

>1960's.

>

>Law not only did nothing but promoted the priest and put him

>in charge of programs dealing with "troubled" youth. When

>the priest was transferred to California, Law wrote a

>glowing review of the man and *never* mentioned the abuse or

>thousands of dollars of "hush money" paid to victims.

>

>After reading the article, I'm convinced that Law knowingly

>participated in a cover-up. I think his actions, in this

>single case, are enough to warrant his excommunication from

>the Catholic church. He ought to have his little red bennie

>yanked off his pompus head and be kicked out on the streets

>without his pension!!

 

Thank you OneFinger for zeroing in on the point I was trying to make and which was misunderstood by some of the others.

 

I agree 110% with your last paragraph except that I don't think you go far enough. I think his actions should lead to prosecution and a length jail term.

 

One could argue that the priests involved were sick and could not help themselves and were powerless to stop their molestations. Not being a doctor, I'm not sure if this is factual but I have heard it said. Law, on the other hand could have most certainly nipped many of these cases in the bud thereby saving countless additional crimes from being perpetrated.

 

There was a 1 hour special on Dateline NBC tonight conducted by Stone Phillips. Did anyone catch it? The arrogance of Law was amazing - to say the least. A woman interviwed told of her experiences trying to bring the situation to the attention of the church. After several years of reporting the abuse to various church officials, and being stonewalled, she finally approached Law directly when he visited a parish in which she sang in the choir. He told her he would "look in to it". A year passed - nothing happened - and she approached him directly again. This time he said "Speak to my Bishops - that's what I have them for". Law is now claiming that these two conversations never took place. I would certainly believe the woman. She seemed very credible and was clearly distraught and in tears when telling her story.

 

I think that the media are not going to let this one drop. In my mind, it is a much more important story than the Clinton/Lewinsky crap that took up so much media time when it was discovered. And it certainly is more important than whether Robert Blake killed his ho of a wife which looks like we are going to hear about ad nasuam, like it or not - does anyone really care?

 

This, to me, is the kind of exploitation we should really be concerned about. Not some street kid being paid $80 for some boom boom, which may or not be exploitation. Many will probably disagree with me - a not unknown situation - but at least you know how I feel about it.

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

>I think that the media are not going to let this one drop.

>In my mind, it is a much more important story than the

>Clinton/Lewinsky crap that took up so much media time when

>it was discovered. And it certainly is more important than

>whether Robert Blake killed his ho of a wife which looks

>like we are going to hear about ad nasuam, like it or not -

>does anyone really care?

 

I think it's going to be a really big news story for a while, or as long as the news is slow.

 

If Osama Bin Laden is captured, the story is over. There won't *be* any other news. Robert Blake's arrest? YAWN! Even the LAPD waited until a slow news day to make the arrest and announcement.

 

The only reason the church's problems are getting coverage right now is because there isn't something more scandalous to cover.

 

The pope called the Cardinals to Rome. Whoopie. I thought it was for a gang bang. (What would YOU call a room full of middle-aged single guys dressed in high drag?)

 

It's depressing, but I think what will come out of this is more spin control and secrecy. What would the Catholic church be without secrecy?

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>The only reason the church's problems are getting coverage

>right now is because there isn't something more scandalous

>to cover.

 

I don't think they will be as luck as Gary Condit was. It would take another act of terror, similar to or bigger than 9/11 to submerge this one.

 

>The pope called the Cardinals to Rome. Whoopie. I thought it

>was for a gang bang.

 

I think the purpose of the meeting is for them to get all their ducks in a row and devise a cohesive plan to deny accountability.

 

I bet the Enron & Arthur Anderson shred teams have been working overtime in every diocese in America.

 

>It's depressing, but I think what will come out of this is

>more spin control and secrecy. What would the Catholic

>church be without secrecy?

 

The same as they are now - morally bankrupt.

 

Thunderbuns

[+ deej]

>>The pope called the Cardinals to Rome. Whoopie. I thought it

>>was for a gang bang.

>

>I think the purpose of the meeting is for them to get all

>their ducks in a row and devise a cohesive plan to deny

>accountability.

 

As I said, more spin control and coverup.

 

I feel for them. I really do. Their entire foundation is collapsing. The church is truly in crisis. True believers are doubting. The devoutly faithful are curious.

 

The Archdiocese of Chicago had ALREADY announced many school closings before this scandal hit the front page. The financial base is simply crumbling away.

 

And next week there'll be a big earthquake somewhere that takes over the front page and buys them time. I see real issues here, I just don't see them sticking to the front page.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>I feel for them. I really do. Their entire foundation is

>collapsing. The church is truly in crisis. True believers

>are doubting. The devoutly faithful are curious.

 

Although we agree on many issues, I have to disagree here. Sorry, but I DO NOT feel for them. They have been morally corupt for a very long time and they are finally getting their cum-uppance.

 

It was strange to see a very recent survey taken among Catholics in Boston. I believe that over 80% said that their faith in their religion was not shaken. I guess they need their religious crutch very badly. Goes to show you how effective brain washing can be.

 

>The Archdiocese of Chicago had ALREADY announced many school

>closings before this scandal hit the front page.

 

Probably a good thing. It will save thousands more children being exposed to the truth the way the Catholic Church would present it, Not to mention it should also foster a decline in child molestation.

 

>And next week there'll be a big earthquake somewhere that

>takes over the front page and buys them time. I see real

>issues here, I just don't see them sticking to the front

>page.

 

For those interested to read a fuller expose of the C church and their way of operating, I would recommend you read

"In God's Name-An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I" by David A. Yallop. It was written in the late '80s (I think) and I notice that Amazon is still offering it. I sometimes see it in bookstores in paperback, so it's still available. I found the first 75-100 pages are a boring read as they deal primarily with his early life, but if you get past that part, you will find the rest riviting.

 

It should be a "must read" for every Catholic out there, but I'm sure it is on the church's list of forbidden writings. The very fact that such a list exists and is maintained, should tell them all they have to know. In other words - don't think for yourself - believe instead the truth as we will it!

 

Not only does it explore the murder which the author claims was committed by Vatican officials who were afraid of the reforms John Paul I was intent in making, it exposes many other "shortcomings" of the Church.

 

Such as - The machinations of the Vatican Bank and their role in the laundering of Mafia money.

 

And did you know that the Catholic Church, who vigerously opposes any kind of artifical birth control, owns, as one of it's many profit making ventures, the largest contraceptive manufacturing company in the world?

 

This is just a small example of the information the book contains. One might argue that just because it is written, does not make it so. True - but I would think that it is in fact, frightenly true. Other wise the church would have been able to supress it in the courts and sue the ass off of the writer and publisher. That never happened.

 

Thunderbuns

[OneFinger]

RE: Spin Control and Cover-Up

 

I'm really afraid that spin control and cover-up is exactly what's going to happen in this case. :-(

 

I believe there are too many powerful people in the Catholic church for this to be adequately investigated. I also fault too many unconcerned or apathetic people who will allow this to quietly become non-news.

 

In this particular case, I'd like to see the monetary contributors to the Catholic church demand a disclosure and audit to determine how much money has been spent on cover-ups and hush money. I don't think anything will be resolved or full-disclosure made without focusing on money. In my humble opinion, most churches use their doctrine and beliefs as "hooks" to further their real goal - MONEY!! Threaten to stop the cash flow and maybe the truth will be revealed and the problem addressed.

 

I fully understand that the actions of individual priests cannot necessarily be controlled by the church government. However, I fully blame people like Law for allowing the problem to continue. He had the power and ability to take appropriate action. If he had done nothing I might be more forgiving. But he did take action and orchestrated a cover-up. I think what he did is much worse than anything done by Nixon or Clinton.

 

I still say excommunicate him. But, I honestly don't know what non-religious, legal action could be taken against him. At the very least I feel he's guilty of endangering minors but that would be hard to prove in a court of law.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

RE: Spin Control and Cover-Up

 

>I believe there are too many powerful people in the Catholic

>church for this to be adequately investigated. I also fault

>too many unconcerned or apathetic people who will allow this

>to quietly become non-news.

 

If Asscroft takes a stand on this I would reluctently have to revise my negative opinion of him - slightly. And if he doesn't he's either on the take (which I doubt)or a hypocrite.

 

>In this particular case, I'd like to see the monetary

>contributors to the Catholic church demand a disclosure and

>audit to determine how much money has been spent on

>cover-ups and hush money.

 

Same here but I can't see it happening. There was a priest on the Dateline show I mentioned earlier who gave an estimate of over 1 billion, so far.

 

>In my humble opinion, most churches use their doctrine and

>beliefs as "hooks" to further their real goal - MONEY!!

 

Don't be so humble - you are 100% correct.

 

>Threaten to stop the cash flow and maybe the truth will be

>revealed and the problem addressed.

 

Something else that should happen is to eliminate their tax free status, both for Income Tax & Property Tax.

 

>I fully understand that the actions of individual priests

>cannot necessarily be controlled by the church government.

 

Maybe not totally - but what's wrong with a zero tolerance policy. They have admitted that if a priest was caught skimming off $$$ from the Church's coffers, he'd be out on his ear on the first offense.

But there you go - money to them is so much more important than sexual abuse.

 

>However, I fully blame people like Law for allowing the

>problem to continue. He had the power and ability to take

>appropriate action. If he had done nothing I might be more

>forgiving. But he did take action and orchestrated a

>cover-up.

 

He did much worse than orchestrate a cover-up. He facilitated a program that allowed the abuse to continue.

 

>I still say excommunicate him. But, I honestly don't know

>what non-religious, legal action could be taken against him.

>At the very least I feel he's guilty of endangering minors

>but that would be hard to prove in a court of law.

 

I'm not so sure it would be all that hard to prove. Especially if you could assemble a jury with no Catholics on it.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest alanm]

Cardinal Law is beyond contempt. It's time for all the Catholic who belong to nice cosy liberal parishes to speak out, otherwise it is certain that the pope will side with Law.

 

By the way, I glance down the list of topic every day and vaguely saw a reference to "Ms. Law." Since that name did not connect with me, I moved on. So if the original poster is wondering why people did not respond right away, that was my reason. Also, it is stupid to make

person attacks like that in a posting. I can't abide Law, but there is no evident suggesting that he personally is either gay or a child molester. The phrase "Ms. Law" is totally inappropriate and reinforces

every stereotype of the self loathing queen. So if you want to know why people did not respond, you now have a very strong response from me.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>By the way, I glance down the list of topic every day and

>vaguely saw a reference to "Ms. Law." Since that name did

>not connect with me, I moved on. So if the original poster

>is wondering why people did not respond right away, that was

>my reason. Also, it is stupid to make

>person attacks like that in a posting.

 

As I'm sure you realise by now, I too find him contemptible, which is the reason I referred to him as Ms. It was meant to be derogatory. You call it stupid - and you're entitled to your call. I don't think of it as stupid. In poor taste, perhaps, but that was my intention as I find Law to be in the poorest taste possible.

 

>I can't abide Law,

>but there is no evident suggesting that he personally is

>either gay or a child molester.

 

I never stated or implied that Law was a child molester, just a facilitator of child molesters. Although I think a good case could be made that if one facilitates then he is by extension a child molester as well. As to his being gay - I agree there is no evidence of that. But should he be straight, then the term Ms. is an insult that he richly deserves.

 

>So if you want

>to know why people did not respond, you now have a very

>strong response from me.

 

Glad you took the time to follow the thread and thanks for replying. Although we seem to have differances of opinion concerning the way I chose to report it, I am gratified to hear that we are in agreement regarding the inappropriate behaviour of his past actions and the character of the man in general.

 

Thunderbuns