SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (12893)5/13/2002 7:42:36 PM
From: Solon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21057
 
If I am dying of thirst and you take my last $100.00, in exchange for a glass of water, we can describe the action as uncharitable.

Exactly...but you CANNOT define it as CHARITABLE. Because it is not. "Uncharitable" means that the action performed was not informed by charity or charitableness. Do you understand the difference between SOMETHING, and the absence of something? An act that is UNcharitable does not have the quality of charity within it.

"Most of your treatment on nature, infinity etc seems sensible albeit with a sarcastic tone that I don't understand."

It is only apparent--not real. Absurdities, when recognized at an inner level, sometimes invoke a reaction which is often mistaken for the impression that one is being sneered at or mocked--which here is not the case. I think, though, that your idea of "God" mocks itself. I think the opinions you hold on "God" are utterly inane; but that is simple honesty about my beliefs as regards opinion. I think you are probably a very decent guy; and this is far more important to me than what you imagine..provided your imagination does not suggest any authority for you to interfere with my freedom to live, think, or pursue happiness in my own way, while respecting and honoring the rights of all people.

_____________________________________

"God is Beneficent and there is evidence of that in scripture and historical accounts"

I have read a great deal on religion, and I can say nothing about God other than the fact that none of the "evidence" from either philosophy or "scripture" is sufficient to suggest any reliability for any of the claims being made. Furthermore, most "scriptures" are so obviously related to human interests in defense of group claims of materiality, that it seems feckless to pursue the matter in a serious way (as regards the evidentiary value of scripture) until science or philosophy have suggested an approach which is not contaminated by the too too obvious histories of those religions we have researched. "The "Scriptures" I have seen are the penultimate authority for rejection of their claims.

"Given the definition we started with the Universe can be explained"

Not logically. Any definition can be invented which would have internal consistency within logic. However, definitions which do not do even that, are a waste of time, IMO.



To: one_less who wrote (12893)5/16/2002 1:06:21 PM
From: Bill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Pope Paul kept priest sex abuse under cover.

Records: Vatican knew of scandal coverup in 1973

by Jack Sullivan
Thursday, May 16, 2002

Previously sealed records in the case of defrocked pedophile priest James A. Porter show Catholic church officials - including Pope Paul VI, Humberto Cardinal Medeiros and top aides to Richard Cardinal Cushing - knew of and took part in the coverup of cleric sexual abuse as far back as 1964.

It is believed to be the first time records show Vatican officials were aware as long as 30 years ago that priests were molesting children and bishops were shuffling the pedophiles around the country and covering up their acts. It also is the first time involvement by the Boston archdiocese under Cushing has been documented.

``It's not shocking to me in the slightest,'' said the Rev. Thomas Doyle, who worked at the Vatican on priest sexual misconduct issues 20 years ago. ``There was even more coverup in days past than there has been in the past 15 to 17 years . . . What we're seeing now with Bernard (Cardinal) Law, (New York's Edward Cardinal) Egan and others is not isolated and not uncommon. It is something that has been going on for decades.''

The file, obtained by the Herald through a court order, also reveals that diocesan officials are required by canon law to maintain ``secret archives'' that have over the years become a hidden repository for sexual abuse allegations.

The documents contain hundreds of pages of Porter's personnel file, including details of his assignments and attempted treatments for his sexual assaults on young boys. The entire, previously secret file, along with a 17-page letter from Porter to Pope Paul VI, was forwarded to the Vatican when Porter petitioned for laicization in 1973 after being caught in Minnesota with a young boy.

In the letter addressed to ``Most Holy Father,'' Porter wrote, ``It became known and reported to (Fall River) Bishop (James) Connolly that I had become homosexually involved with some of the youth of the parish. Bishop Connolly decided to send me home to my family for a short while until the scandal of this affair died down . . . A short time later Bishop Connolly gave me another chance and assigned me to Sacred Heart Parish in Fall River. I can't recollect much about my stay there except that after a short time I again fell into the same situation that plagued me in North Attleboro.''

Porter also indicates he knows after he is laicized, he would no longer be protected by church officials ``should I fall again.''

The records also include scores of letters and memos written by Connolly, many based on conversations with Medeiros, then a monsignor and the Fall River Diocese's chancellor.

In a memo dated March 21, 1964, Connolly wrote about a meeting he had with Medeiros where Medeiros said there were ``30 or 40 (boys) involved'' in the molestation allegations against Porter and there was ``much concern among parents.'' Medeiros even told Connolly the nickname students at Bishop Feehan High School had given Porter.

``At Feehan they call him the horn,'' Connolly wrote. Medeiros told Connolly students would ask one another, `` `Has the horn tackled you yet?' ''

In 1966, when Porter was ``on retreat'' at his parents' home in Revere following his latest sexual assault, two Revere police officers approached James D. Bono, then associate pastor of Immaculate Conception Church, charging that Porter had molested the son of another officer.

Bono, in a 1993 affidavit, said he began reporting the information to higher-ups and was ``shocked'' at the response he received.

``I immediately called the Chancery of the Archdiocese of Boston to notify them Porter had admitted molesting a young boy,'' Bono stated. ``Officials at the Archdiocese directed me to speak with officials at the Diocese of Fall River.

``I then called Humberto S. Medeiros, who at the time was Chancellor,'' Bono testified. ``When I informed Chancellor Medeiros that Porter had admitted to me Porter had molested a young boy, Chancellor Medeiros responded, `Yes, we know.' ''

In 1973, the same year Vatican officials received Porter's file that graphically detailed Medeiros' complicity in covering up Porter's case, Pope Paul VI elevated Medeiros to cardinal.

In another deposition, Monsignor Reginald M. Barrette, who succeeded Medeiros as Fall River chancellor, confirmed the Porter records were part of a ``secret archive'' Connolly kept in his bedroom.

``The bishop kept all correspondence that had to do personally with priests he did not want to be known,'' Barrette testified in the deposition.

The records show Porter was sent to the Servants of Paraclete in New Mexico for treatment of his pedophilia at least twice, including the first time in 1967 on the advice and recommendation of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, now being held on three counts of child rape.

Law, in his public apologies, has said part of the problem in handling priests such as Shanley and convicted pedophile John J. Geoghan was the lack of knowledge about abuse and its effects on victims. But Doyle, who coauthored a report for American bishops on predatory priests in 1985 that was never formally presented, said the Paracletes were well-known even in the 1960s for their approach to dealing with sex offenders.

In the Porter personnel file that was forwarded to the Vatican, the Rev. Fred Bennett, a clinical psychologist with the Paracletes, clearly stated the harm sexual abuse by a priest could cause.

``People often suffer psychological difficulties later in life whose origins seem to be found in sexual approaches made to them during their childhood by adults of the same sex,'' he wrote in 1970. ``I have reason to believe that the trauma of such experiences may be further intensified when the adult involved is a priest.''

In 1985, after a notorious case of a pedophile priest in Louisiana became public, American bishops made their first acknowledgement of the problem, promising a unified policy that has still not been articulated. In 1993, Pope John Paul II made his first public statement on cleric sexual misconduct and last month, during the extraordinary summit of American cardinals, the pontiff declared child sexual abuse a crime and a sin.

``(The documents) are illustrating the fact it didn't start in 1985,'' said Doyle. ``The bishops first said in 1985, `This is the first we're hearing about this.' That's hogwash. They knew.''

www2.bostonherald.com