Should Bernard Law be Indicted?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Folks,

Looks like a grand jury is looking into whether Bernie Lawless ought to be indicted --

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/170/metro/A_grand_jury_is_said_to_weigh_case_against_Law+.shtml

My question: If Bernie did the things he is accused of -- shouldn't he be indicted?

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 19, 2002

Answers

Dear Moderator,

Please delete this disrespectful and rules-breaking garbage from Stevie Jackass (who ought to have been banned from the forum ages ago).

-- (@@@.@), June 19, 2002.


Eugene gets the facts confused once more.

The is no judge involved in the Grand Jury proceeding. Its issues are to determine whether there is probable cause to conclude that a crime has been committed, and whether there is probable cause that the individual(s) in question committed the crime . The jurors may question suboenants, and they vote by a majority whether to grant a True Bill. Guilt or lack thereof are not determined by a Grand Jury but by a trial court or a petit jury .

One more thing: the proceedings are conducted before closed doors. Whether Bernard Law is the target of a Grand Jury proceeding generally is not known prior to deliberation.

-- Yoda (yoda@yadda.com), June 19, 2002.


Yoda,
I'm confused 'once more'--? Have you known me when I was confused? I referred to Judge Steve Jackson, Yodum. You're confused. I know all about that grand jury. I read the daily news. Steve came here to gloat over ''Bernie's'' legal troubles. You know we're talking about a prelate of the Catholic Church, I suppose? If he's a bad prelate or if he's not; let Judge Jackson refer to him by his title in this forum: Cardinal Law. Steve tips his hand; he isn't an impartial observer. He likes what he comes to report here to us Catholics. Now he has his chance at a cheap shot; when ordinarily, in Christian apologetics he gets his clock cleaned here.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 20, 2002.

I don't particularly like the way Mr. Jackson expresses himself either, eugene.

However, if the moderators are going to remove the posts of everyone who rubs someone else the wrong way, there would be a lot of empty space around here! It's just one of the risks of having an open forum.

Love, Christine :-)

-- Christine Lehman (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 20, 2002.


Christine, you must not have you had a chance to read the Moderator's rules yet.
The anti-Catholic Steve Jackson breaks them, in letter and/or in spirit, every time he posts a message here. None of us can stand up for his referring to his Eminence, Cardinal Bernard Law, as "Bernie Lawless." Such a post ought to be deleted.

Jackson routinely breaks the following rules of the Moderator (to which I have added relevant emphasis) -----
"The purpose of this board as I see it is to allow Catholics to ask questions in a community setting that will help in deepening our knowledge and strengthening our faith; as well as to allow non-Catholics the chance to ask us sincere questions about our beliefs, and about Christ's church on Earth.
"As you may be aware, ... there have been a rash of anti-Catholic posts on the board that for me have exceeded the bounds of tolerable. Please remember that this is a Catholic board, and not an 'anti-Catholic' one. It is also not a free-for-all, but a moderated board.
"Topics on this board are meant to be related to the objectives stated above, (furthering knowledge of the Catholic religion, and increasing people's faith). Questions *and Criticisms* from non-Catholics are also welcomed if done in a sincere fashion. Non-Catholics should feel free to politely ask any question they wish regarding our faith, and if you have a criticism, politely express it.

-- (@@@.@), June 20, 2002.



Sorry about the bad link. Please try this one.

-- (@@@.@), June 20, 2002.

Dear Christine,
I haven't suggested Steve Jackson be deleted or banned. I'm almost never one of those who keeps out some poster, or asks for deletions. The few times I did were when they were simply obscene. Jackson's welcome to post; but when he does, we'll treat him as he deserves. If he is respectful, we'll respect him. If he's disrespectful--??? And, it's quite a reach isn't it? His ''Bernie Lawless' dig is meant to elevate him to the position of judge and executioner. So I called him Judge Jackson. He's getting off easy.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 20, 2002.

Well, then, leave it to the moderator, that's all I have to say.

For what it's worth, I've seen others implore the moderator to remove *your* posts too, eugene.

Love, Christine :-)

-- Christine Lehman (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 20, 2002.


Yes, Christine. My posts are abrasive to some people. No excuses.

I let the chips fall where they may. If I deserve the black-ball, I'll get it, I suppose.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 20, 2002.


Okay, mea culpa, eugene! I have this habit of instinctively siding with the underdog -- even when he's biting me on the leg! So I'll try not to butt in on your conversation anymore - you make sense!

Love, :-)

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 20, 2002.



Ok, from now on I'll refer to Cardinal Law as "Cardinal Bernard Law who protected priests who molested little boys" in order to be 100% accurate.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 20, 2002.

Steve,
That's why I call you Judge Jackson. You pronounce others guilty even before charges are filed. If you find him guilty NOW, what's left to do when he gets due process? As for being 100% accurate, there's no way to tell. The news media isn't always 100% accurate, and there is where you're getting this information. If the media publishes something inaccurate, you have to be inaccurate, too.

The Cardinal may in fact be worth indicting. If he isn't indicted, what's going to be the reason? Check with the grand jury and DON'T let us know, OK? We'll find it out for ourselves without your alert. Thank you, Steve.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 20, 2002.


Eugene,

I don't trust the liberal media any more than you do. Cardinal Law is probably not "guilty" of everything he has been accused of. Whether he has broken the criminal law is a question for a jury to decide.

My point is that Cardinal Law -- when presented with credible allegations of abuse -- did not remove the offending priests from contact with children, much less excomunicate them and hand them over to secular authorities for punishment.

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 20, 2002.


Judge Jackson

I had no idea that you had a Degree to practice Law. I think you are using the latest technique. Guilty prior to trial. I thought it is innocent til proven guilty. Now you are telling me the laws have changed. Sheeze, I must have fallen asleep at the wheel lately. I will need to check out this real soon.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 20, 2002.


Dear Steve:
Your point is well taken. It's my understanding as well. Nevertheless, I derive no pleasure from the thought; and you do.

I wouldn't want to rob you of your thrill, but after all, Steve. Gallumping all over this forum as happy as a lark over this scandal is not very gentlemanly of you. --If you had the least drop of shame, you'd look away for a few days, until all the crap shakes out. We have God as our judge. You don't have to clip our wings like little parakeets who might fly away before He sees us.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 20, 2002.



Steve writes:

"My point is that Cardinal Law -- when presented with credible allegations of abuse -- did not remove the offending priests from contact with children, much less excomunicate them and hand them over to secular authorities for punishment."

As far as I know, there is a grand jury that is looking to see if there is enough evidence to have a trial.

Regarding "excommunication," you might want to read up on its application. Bishops can't just arbitrarily write up an excommunication for any reason. The only priest who really seems to be worthy of excommunication is NAMBLA-advocate John Geogan. I offer this opinion because he was actually publically advocating something terribly contrary to Church teachings.

Anyway, most sins do not cause "excommunication." Mortal sins are grave acts contrary to the Will of God--all of them are. But, none are so great that Jesus cannot find the mercy to forgive; consistent with that, the Church does not close the door to poor sinners, precisely because we are all sinners.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 20, 2002.


Correction: the NAMBLA-advocate was Paul Shanley...

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 20, 2002.

Can an invertibrate be indicted?

-- john klein (jklein1882@cs.com), June 21, 2002.

I guess Mr. Klein is another person who considers due process of the law an inconvenience. Mr. Klein, is it your omniscience that allows you to make such harsh judgments?

Due process. If there is evidence that Cardinal Law acted criminally, he will be indicted. If there is proof that he acted criminally, he will be convicted. Your name calling just shows your immaturity. Get over yourself.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 21, 2002.


Actually, Mateo,you're partially correct: a conviction requires not only proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by the trier of fact. Coupled with this burden are the facts that (a) any criminality on the part of Law would have had to occur within the statute of limitations, and (b) the criminal statutes of the state of Massachusetts do not seem to mandate reporting of criminality for one such as the cardinal in question.

Until these hurdles have been met, the man is presumed innocent. Thank God. I would rather see 1,000 guity men go free before standards of due process are abandoned. And yes, those standards also apply to cardinals.

-- Yoda (yoda@yoda.com), June 21, 2002.


Reference to excommunication above made me remember this (intended-to-be-humorous) item found in a political newsletter -----

"I recently realized that the problems with the Catholic Church could be summed up by the pope telling the U.S. cardinals, 'What we have here is a failure to ex-communicate.' My apologies to 'Cool Hand Luke' fans."

-- (@@@.@), June 21, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ