Cardinal Bernard Law Resigns: Pope Appoints Archbishop Castello

By Francis X. Rocca
Religion News Service

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Nine years after the clerical sex abuse scandal forced his resignation as archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard F. Law has stepped down from his controversial post as head of a prominent basilica in Rome.

The Vatican announced on Monday (Nov. 21) that Pope Benedict XVI has named Spanish Archbishop Santos Abril y Castello as the new archpriest of the Papal Basilica of St. Mary Major.

The announcement made no reference to Law, who has served as archpriest since May 2004. Advocates for sex abuse victims criticized the late Pope John Paul II for giving Law the prestigious post after his mishandling of clergy sex abuse in Boston, which broke open the abuse scandals that shook the Catholic Church in the U.S.

Law turned 80 earlier this month, the normal retirement age for cardinals, and also lost his right to vote in any future papal election. The Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's chief spokesman, said Law's membership in several Vatican offices -- including the body that advises Benedict on the selection of bishops -- has expired.

Archpriests of papal basilicas often serve past retirement, however. Law's immediate two predecessors at St. Mary Major both held the largely ceremonial post until the age of 82.

Law has not announced where he will go next or what activities, if any, he will pursue. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston referred reporters to the Holy See. Lombardi said that he had no knowledge of Law's plans, which he said would be "entirely up to his discretion."

Comments

[jwcmass]

04:55 PM on 11/28/2011

p3

Now as for the confessional, I really don't know how the law treats this. I would consult with a lawyer or a legislator. 

But I have yet to hear of an incident where the ONLY evidence was a confession. Usually there is a report from the victim or their families. 

Finally, please do not compare what this bishop is going through (as a result of his ILLEGAL actions) with the trial, torture, and execution of Jesus. He was not involved with the harming of children. 

The idea of equating a bishop protecting a potential abuser with the passion and death of Jesus is grotesque in the extreme. 

As for your third post in that series, I really have no idea what you are talking about. 

For some reason, you simply refuse to recognize the great harm that has been done to children and their families. 

This is not about vengeance, it is about JUSTICE -- and about protecting further children from harm. And the fact is that the Pope and Curia are hopelessly out of touch on this issue. They simply do not get it.

[jwcmass]

04:52 PM on 11/28/2011

p2

It is not OUR job to conduct an investigation, it is the Commonwealth, and the various departments of state and local government which conduct an investigation.

Now MOST organizations would conduct their own investigation AT THE SAME TIME AS THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES. Especially when the incident involves a staff person. But we CANNOT withhold information from the civil authorities. That is a CRIME!! 

This bishop did NOT learn about the child porn from a confession, he learned from someone who had access to that computer, and uncovered the evidence. THAT MUST BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY to the civil authorities, and must not wait until the church completes its investigations. 

Failure to do so CAN place a mandated reporter in criminal jeopardy. And if the civil authorities find that nothing illegal occurred, there is no legal jeopardy for those who file a report. You are protected, as long as you acted in good faith. 

And we at the Y have policies which aim to protect children (eg. A staff member may not be alone with a single child.) If those are violated, even if no crime was committed, that staff member CAN be fired. 

The goal here, which you seem to fail to see, is NOT a thirst for vengeance, it is that the TOP priority is the PROTECTION OF CHILDREN!! 

ANYONE who works with children, if suspicion of inappropriate conduct is suspected, should, at the very LEAST, be denied access to children, pending the outcome of investigation (or investigations). 

The fact is that we do not understand WHY abusers do what they do. There are many who are repeat offenders, and it is simply too dangerous to have them living among the public. 

I do not have an answer as to what to do -- we do need to do much more research into WHY this happens, and if there even is a way to treat it. 

But we have (and the hierarchy has) an OBLIGATION to protect children. PERIOD. That MUST come first, and it certainly takes priority over the rights of a serial abuser or those who protect them, and enable them to abuse many more children. 

That bishop did not NEED to know whether any children were in imminent danger. He had a LEGAL obligation to file. There are NO exceptions to this. (And the bishops and Rome have provided argument number one as to WHY this is necessary. Their actions have resulted in the abuse of FAR more children than if they had been transparent, and reported the abuse (or suspicion of abuse). 

end p2

[A-Superstitionist]

12:31 PM on 11/27/2011

Hi Benny Hex,

Please send this fugitive back to the US to face the court for his coverup of pedophilia scandals in Boston.

Thanks.

[qsfoxx]

08:18 PM on 03/09/2012

Fat chance! The protect their own.

[lobstur]

07:51 AM on 11/27/2011

They dress like kings, don't they.
What's with that.

[JackNasty]

06:08 AM on 02/01/2012

With those snazzy red Prada Papal loafers, I'd say more like queens....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/16/popes-visit-stylewatch-red-loafers

[qsfoxx]

08:24 PM on 03/09/2012

They have become the latter day Pharisees dressed in flowing robes. According to the Book of Matthew... Jesus said, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

[Sherzie]

06:01 AM on 11/27/2011

Any bets that returning to the US is not on his agenda?

[Clovis4]

02:08 AM on 11/27/2011

His new post is to head up the Vatican Sex tour office to Thailand. When it comes to morality the Holy See isn't holy nor does it see anything that would hurt the flow of cash coming in from the credulous.

[Olethea]

11:37 PM on 11/26/2011

Is it too much to ask that a church refuses to harbor child predators?

I guess it is.

[jwcmass]

03:26 PM on 11/28/2011

Olethea,

While I do not have comprehensive knowledge about what has happened to all of the abusers, several (but not all) have been incarcerated in prison. 

In many of the older cases, the abusive priest has died. 

Now I am NOT defending the conduct of Bernard Law. But he has never been accused of any abuse against anyone. 

What he did was to keep secret the crimes of other priests, failed to report these crimes to the proper authorities, and reassigned the abusers to other parishes. 

At the time, priests and bishops were not mandated reporters. So, unfortunately, what Law did was not illegal at that time (the law has since been changed). Certainly, however, there is NO moral defense for what he did. 

I would also point out that it is not the "church" which has harbored child abusers -- it is the hierarchy (popes and bishops) which did this and kept it secret from almost everyone else in the Church. 

In Boston, it was when the court ordered the Archdiocese to release its personnel files that the full extent of this became known -- and people were shocked at how extensive this system was. 

And MOST members of the Church were OUTRAGED. Several have formed grassroots organizations which seek to hold accountable the members of the hierarchy, and to really release as much information as possible, with the goal of making this all more transparent (we don't know the full extent of this universally. If this happened in Boston, you can be sure it has happened elsewhere, and that we are not talking about a minor problem. 

Many priests signed a public letter calling on Law to resign as Archbishop -- which did happen. However, several other bishops WERE involved, or had knowledge of what was occurring, and none were removed. 

So many Catholics have called for reform in the way it is governed, because all this does prove that the current system is clearly not working.

[Olethea]

11:34 PM on 11/26/2011

This church should be taxed not only because it is actually a lobbying group, but it harbors child predators which clog up our public justice system.

Maybe it should be outlawed.

[jwcmass]

03:59 PM on 11/28/2011

Well, you cannot outlaw it -- we do have a First Amendment, and the vast majority of people (including priests and sisters) did not even know what was occurring. 

But I have no problem with revoking tax-exempt status. At one time, the hierarchy confined itself to teaching about the moral implications on a widespread number of issues, and never, directly or indirectly supported one candidate over another, or one party over another. 

That has clearly changed, and not for the better. Now the hierarchy seems fixated on just two issues, abortion and gay marriage. 

Now they can take whatever position they like. But what they have done is to ignore issues like torture and killing of large numbers of civilians in war (though John Paul II DID speak out against going to war with Iraq. -- Ironically, John Paul KNOWS from personal experience what happens to civilians when an army invades.) 

But this statement was ignored by conservatives (even within the Church) who, while attacking people for disobeying the Pope, found it quite convenient to ignore the Pope on this issue. 

So the hierarchy ignores the potential war crimes (in the use of torture) and yet attacks politicians for their stance on abortion. 

That simply is not consistent with church teaching, which encompasses FAR more areas than just abortion and gay marriage. 

If that is the policy they wish to take, then they should not have tax-exempt status. 

I would also favor severing diplomatic relations with Rome. There is abundant evidence that the Vatican used its embassy for storing personnel files from many American dioceses, with the clear intent of frustrating attempts to enforce the laws protecting children.

[farmilyman]

01:02 AM on 11/26/2011

Why do all the leaders look so angry and grumpy. Where's the love?

[George Genung]

03:52 PM on 11/26/2011

Reference the actors at a Broadway show that is slowly closing. The same thing, costumes and sadness.

[Boomerwoman]

07:30 PM on 11/25/2011

Rotting from the inside out...from the soul to the corpus.

[celere]

04:52 PM on 11/25/2011

Church is a racket.

[Shesme]

04:55 PM on 11/25/2011

Amen, sistah.

[Envirohag]

08:00 AM on 11/25/2011

The church harasses the priests in favor of women's ordination and kicks them out rapidly-what about this guy? Height of inconsistency with what Jesus would do.

[Olethea]

12:13 AM on 11/25/2011

Corrupt institution.

Tax them.

[archarabia]

09:23 PM on 11/24/2011

I still can't understand how this man was allowed to flee to the Vatican -- and to a prestigious post no less! He should have been extradited to the US ASAP to face charges as an accessory to child abuse; he knew it was happening, and helped predators evade the law by sending them to parishes that had no knowledge of their past. Disgusting.

[WheelsOnFire]

11:40 PM on 11/24/2011

Excellent points.

And a lengthy report on child sex abuse in Ireland released just a few months ago found numerous cases there -- together with Vatican encouragement to conceal the crimes that were committed in that country.

That's obstruction of justice, being an accessory to a crime and conspiracy.

But the christianistas will get away with it. They seem to have a special privilege of being above the law.

[SonOfUgh]

12:20 AM on 11/25/2011

This activity has gone on for decades. Back in the 1920s, my grandfather turned away from his Catholic upbringing because of how the parish Priest was protected by the church after impregnating a mentally handicapped serving girl. Furthermore, the church publicly shunned the girl as an unwed mother to be. That was, for my grandfather, too much hypocrisy to take.

[Donns]

08:46 AM on 11/26/2011

All this could be stopped instantly. If the people who support this church would announce enmass that they were leaving the church because they don't support the corruption that it embraces there would instantly not be a church. However the church members do not withold their support and are therefore the guilty ones. It is no different form the people allowing their elected leaders to lie and not keep promises. The leaders therefore do what they do because we the people allow them to do it.

[Olethea]

11:35 PM on 11/26/2011

Great idea. Unfortunately, sheep are sheep.

[MikeDu]

04:28 PM on 11/24/2011

Don't imagine this is some sort of a 'victory' for priest rape victims. Law is only retiring from his big money job, the church is not disavowing him. I once had a conversation with someone who went to the Boston seminary as a young man. On leaving, Cardinal Law sat him down and told him no uncertain terms "What happens in the seminary stays in the seminary".

[Hysterian68]

08:22 PM on 11/24/2011

Yes, nobody understood the clerical culture of secrecy better than Cardinal Law. See this shocking study and report : http://www.richardsipe.com/Miscl/2011-10-15-mother_church.htm to obtain a better understanding of the origins of that culture and the roots to the clerical culture's implosion and the sequel to the 16th century's Protestant Reformation.