Mageth

peteyh, I more or less agree with you in principle, but there's the slight problem of Separation of Church and State. Churches aren't considered "companies like any other" under U.S. Law. Perhaps they should be, but they're not.

In addition, what about the innocent parishioners who've suffered under the corrupt Church Hierarchy? Should their neighborhood churches, which they paid for and support, be seized and sold because of the actions of their priests?

I think the best action is to prosecute the perpetrators to the extent of the Law. Hopefully, doing that will teach the RCC a lesson and they'll think twice before covering up for criminal priests.

Wyz_sub10

The Boston diocese has a history of Jesuit leadership, and the Jesuits were the most outspoken on Law. This lead me to believe he was a Jesuit priest. He is not. I was mistaken - mia culpa.

He did, however, attend a Benedictine seminary (an order that also takes a vow of poverty). But I will concede the point that Law, himself, took no vow of poverty.

Yes, but as I've said, they are not mutually exclusive. Growing up, our parish priest (and the one who baptized me) was Dominican. Subsequently, we have had parish priests who were Franciscan and Jesuit.

Domincans, many of whom are parish priests, take vows of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience (as do the Jesuits, Basilians and Franciscans). Benedictines take a fourth vow - stability.

Technically you are correct in stating that a diocesan priest does not take a vow of poverty. Religious priests do, however, and they make up a number of the parish priests in Canada and the United States.

The wealth or income of a diocesan priest who is also a religious preist goes to the order.

Wyz_sub10

Patience. I responded to you. I do work, after all.

Gemma Therese

That's mea culpa.

I'm willing to wager I know far more about religious orders and religious life than you.

Gemma Therese

Mageth

Apparently you don't belong to one that takes a Vow of Humility.

Gemma Therese

I don't belong to any order.

lunachick

So how do you feel about the actual crimes, Gemma? Or don't you really care unless the Church gets itself into trouble, or gets bad PR?

Godless Dave

I heard yesterday on NPR that Massachussetts doesn't have child endangerment laws (incredible in itself!) so Law may not have broken and state or local laws. I think Galiel was alluding to this.

As to his wealth, whether he took a vow of poverty or not, most people would agree that it's inappropriate for the head of an ostensibly non-profit organization to make that kind of money and have such lavish perks. Our attorney general managed to create an uproar about Minnesota health insurance companies for having parties for employees!

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

Wyz_sub10

Wow, do we have a little cat-scratch icon??

Apparently the concept of "grace" is unfamiliar to you. I understand that because you never admit to error, you are perplexed when others do.

My first response was polite. I took some time to review, upon request, and admitted that I had made an error with regard to Law, specifically.

My initial and principal point remains - it is not atypical for a diocesan priest to have taken a vow of poverty.

Maybe next time you post, perhaps I'll tell you to "go read Summa Theologica", and feel as though I've made a point.

And I'll graciously concede that you likely know more about your mythology and associated rituals than I...but not by much.

[edited for a spelling mistake so I don't get another irrelevant correction]

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Gemma Therese

The crimes committed by the priests were reprehensible, but no more reprehensible than had they been committed by a father or step-father. And, frankly, is Law any more guilty for protecting abusive priests than the thousands of women who do not protect their children from abusive fathers / step-fathers?

I love the Catholic Chruch, but that does not mean it does not have its faults and bad apples.

Gemma Therese