# South Carolina priest: No communion for Obama supporters **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 14, 2008, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632 "2008-11-14T00:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/201 "2008-11-19T01:24:12Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > “Abortion” the way most of us use it (as in the termination of a pregnancy) is okay under certain rare circumstances, according to the church. The theological nitpicking probably isn’t necessary to answer j666’s question. Actually, my question was about the theological nitpicking. I really thought I’d heard that ‘the pope has never invoke papal infallibility on capital punishment, [?but has?] on abortion’. So, I do want to know the exact difference between abortion and capital punishment. But thank you for your input. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/202 "2008-11-19T01:26:50Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Actually, my question was about the theological nitpicking. I really thought I’d heard that ‘the pope has never invoke papal infallibility on capital punishment, [?but has?] on abortion’. > > So, I do want to know the exact difference between abortion and capital punishment. > > But thank you for your input. Sorry! And sorry, Captain Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/203 "2008-11-19T03:40:28Z")
> [@j666](#): > > Actually, my question was about the theological nitpicking. I really thought I’d heard that ‘the pope has never invoke papal infallibility on capital punishment, [?but has?] on abortion’. > > So, I do want to know the exact difference between abortion and capital punishment. That the pope has never made an _ex cathedra_ declaration on either topic has been addressed. As to the difference: abortion is regarded as the taking of an innocent life and can only be accepted with reservations if it is an unintended consequence of a measure to save the life of the mother. (Ectopic pregnancies, for example, as noted by **Bricker** , where the child is going to die, regardless, but the mother could be saved.) Capital punishment is regarded as the taking of the life of a convicted criminal who is considered dangerous to society following a legitimate decision by a court of law. (Executions following a kangaroo court would be prohibited; executions for petty offenses would be prohibited; executions for major crimes where the felon was not likely to physically harm other people (_e.g/_, Enron management) would be prohibited.) ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/204 "2008-11-19T03:58:47Z")
> [@Captain\_Carrot](#): > > Yet another clergyman has his head stuck up his ass. Yawn. > > Oh, and for the record, he’s completely fucking wrong. Catholics are only prohibited from voting for pro-choice candidates if they vote for that candidate _because_ of his/her position on abortion. That sounds a bit too rational to mesh with my own memories of Catholicism. Does anyone have a cite that would back up that “record” from the Catholic Church? I’m not challenging so much as looking for evidence to help me argue that view with my still-Catholic siblings… ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/205 "2008-11-19T04:17:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I wonder why you never hear these guys complaining about politicians who are pro-capital punishment. The Catholic Church is just as opposed to the death penalty as it is to abortion, but you never hear about them trying to refuse communion to those who support it. If that were only true! But unfortunately, it’s not. The Church does not forbid capital punishment in any official teaching. And I tried very hard to find one. The closest I could find was summed up in this article: [Church opposition to execution ‘practically’ absolute](http://ncrcafe.org/node/800) ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/206 "2008-11-19T05:22:29Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > **Jsgoddess** , it will take me a while to research the RCC’s position on religious freedom, but I’ll try to post something tonight. Okay, here we go. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: > [@](#): > > 2106 “Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.” This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.” > > 2107 “If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well.” > > 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right. The source for these statements (see link for citations) is primarily [_Dignitatis Humanae_](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html) from the Vatican II council. I highly recommend reading the entire document for a full understanding of what the church understands religious freedom to entail and what its reasons for supporting it are. > [@](#): > > This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. > > The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. Clearly the RCC currently believes that soul-saving depends upon religious freedom. Were they to come into conflict, I believe that the answer in Catholic moral teaching would rest on the concept of “the very dignity of the human person” alluded to in the quote above. Human dignity is an important concept in Catholic moral theology because to act morally in Catholic thinking is to act in accordance with the truth. It is an absolute duty. (1713 Man is obliged to follow the moral law, which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil” (cf. GS 16). This law makes itself heard in his conscience.–Catechism) The duty to proselytize and to oppose heresy stems from the same commitment to human dignity and truth. The duty to the truth, in fact, stems directly from the dignity of the human as a creature endowed with reason. To deny religious freedom in order to oppose error is an offense against the very thing it seeks to uphold. Dignitatis Humanae spells it out as follows: > [@](#): > > It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. Again, this os not to imply that the RCC has always believed this, or that it has always acted in accordance with it. But when it _does_ proclaim that religious freedom is a fundamental right, it isn’t being hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/207 "2008-11-19T05:24:29Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > [Bishop Accountability](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ma-boston/archives/PatternAndPractice/doc-list-1.html) > > It would have been pretty tough for Law not to know about Shanley’s history. > > These are documents from the church. And which of these documents show that Law was aware of Shanley’s history and lied about it? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/208 "2008-11-19T05:44:18Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That the pope has never made an _ex cathedra_ declaration on either topic has been addressed. > > As to the difference: abortion is regarded as the taking of an innocent life and can only be accepted with reservations if it is an unintended consequence of a measure to save the life of the mother. (Ectopic pregnancies, for example, as noted by **Bricker** , where the child is going to die, regardless, but the mother could be saved.) > Capital punishment is regarded as the taking of the life of a convicted criminal who is considered dangerous to society following a legitimate decision by a court of law. (Executions following a kangaroo court would be prohibited; executions for petty offenses would be prohibited; executions for major crimes where the felon was not likely to physically harm other people (_e.g/_, Enron management) would be prohibited.) I’d like to expand on the teaching about abortion a little, if I may. AIUI, it is not correct, as **jsgoddess** claims, that the RCC allows abortion even under the most extreme of circumstances. There is a subtle but significant difference between what is allowed - a procedure to save the life of the mother that incidentally will cause the death of the fetus - and what is not allowed - a procedure to save the life of the mother _by_ causing the death of the fetus. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is not necessary that the fetus die _in order_ to save the mother’s life. Ectopic pregnancies are resolved during the first trimester, when it is currently impossible to maintain viability of the fetus. The fetus is removed from the mother, and dies as a result, but it may be possible in the future to preserve a fetus that is removed at that stage and implant it into a (human or artificial) womb. The doctor does not deliberately kill the fetus as part of the procedure. A case in which the mother was saved by intentionally killing the fetus as a deliberate act would not, in my understanding, be countenanced by the RCC. I can’t think of a medical analogy, but one I remember from a class on moral theology is that if a mother and a child were trapped in a burning car, it would be permissible to remove the mother if doing so meant trapping the child permanently. It would not be permissible to drill through the living child, killing him, in order to get to the mother, even if that were the only way to save either of them. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/209 "2008-11-19T15:41:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And which of these documents show that Law was aware of Shanley’s history and lied about it? Dude, seriously, denial doesn’t fit you. The letter from Wilma Higgs about Shanley’s talk states that he said > [@](#): > > When adults have sex with children, the children seduced them I don’t know what kind of fantastical world you are living in, but if someone wrote me a letter accusing one of my employees of buggering kids, I would stand up and take notice and look at the dude’s history, which by at least 1967 had two allegations against him. If I let that slide, maybe the allegation of a sexually charged atmosphere where Shanley discussed sado masochism might raise a flag. Somehow Shanley’s involvement in NAMBLA fell from the archdiocese consciousness the moment Law walked through the door? I don’t know if you are a lawyer for the church or what, and you want me to produce a smoking gun letter where Law states that Shanley buggers kids, I don’t have it. But even the limited amount of documents I linked to show a history that a reasonable person would become concerned about. If Law was sequestered in a cone of silence and had no involvement with the people that he supervised, and never cracked open a file, and have proof that he never did such things, you might sell me on him not knowing. Otherwise, you are delusional if you think a guy with that kind of history would have escaped the attention of everyone in the office of the archdiocese. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/210 "2008-11-19T15:44:23Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Again, this os not to imply that the RCC has always believed this, or that it has always acted in accordance with it. But when it _does_ proclaim that religious freedom is a fundamental right, it isn’t being hypocritical. Dammit dammit dammit! I had a long reply and now it’s gone. I don’t think that has ever happened to me on this board. Damn and blast. I haven’t said the church is being hypocritical, only inconsistent (though I’m not sure I’ve even used those words, specifically). I concede that the church supports freedom of religion, though the “acting in accordance with it” caveat is an important one, and the built in limitations on it are also important since, for example, they offer only religious reasons for opposing same-sex marriage (at least that I’ve ever encountered), yet want those laws passed. To me, freedom of religion should include freedom from laws that are solely based on religious underpinnings. Crap. I can’t remember what else I wanted to say. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/211 "2008-11-19T16:29:43Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Dude, seriously, denial doesn’t fit you. The letter from Wilma Higgs about Shanley’s talk states that he said… Your contributions to this thread have been a a series of brief claims, including links to long citations; you have consistently failed to quote the part of the cite that you are relying upon in offering your claim. It’s not “denial” so much as it’s requests for clarification and a reluctance to construct your argument for you. Now, we’re trying to find support for the claim that Law knew of Shanley’s history and lied about it. According to your link, Wilma Higgs wrote Law a letter which he received in May 1985, which said that Shanley gave a talk in Rochester saying, among other things, that it’s immoral to try to change homosexuals, and if adults have sex with children it’s because the children seduced them. So where’s the lie Law told? > [@](#): > > I don’t know what kind of fantastical world you are living in, but if someone wrote me a letter accusing one of my employees of buggering kids, I would stand up and take notice and look at the dude’s history, which by at least 1967 had two allegations against him. If I let that slide, maybe the allegation of a sexually charged atmosphere where Shanley discussed sado masochism might raise a flag. Somehow Shanley’s involvement in NAMBLA fell from the archdiocese consciousness the moment Law walked through the door? I don’t know if you are a lawyer for the church or what, and you want me to produce a smoking gun letter where Law states that Shanley buggers kids, I don’t have it. But even the limited amount of documents I linked to show a history that a reasonable person would become concerned about. If Law was sequestered in a cone of silence and had no involvement with the people that he supervised, and never cracked open a file, and have proof that he never did such things, you might sell me on him not knowing. Otherwise, you are delusional if you think a guy with that kind of history would have escaped the attention of everyone in the office of the archdiocese. I’m in agreement that as of May 1987, Law knew or should have known that Shanley had a history of past accusations of molestation. Where was his lie? ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/212 "2008-11-19T16:42:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m in agreement that as of May 1987, Law knew or should have known that Shanley had a history of past accusations of molestation. Where was his lie? post #188 dude. > [@](#): > > The Archdiocese of Boston arranged the transfer of a known child molester, the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, to a California parish in 1990 with a top-level written assurance that Shanley had no problems in his past 1990 is later than May of 1987, according to my math. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/213 "2008-11-19T16:56:11Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > post #188 dude. 1990 is later than May of 1987, according to my math. Yes, it is. However, Law didn’t assure the California authorities of anything; Fr. Banks did, by writing “I can assure you that Fr. Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese.” Although Banks invoked Law’s name in the letter, Law specifcally said, under oath, that he did not know Banks had done this. And correct me if I’m wrong, but so far as I know, Fr. Shanley did NOT have a problem of any kind while in California – did he? Again, I’m not denying that there were massive, negligent fuck-ups here. I’m denying they were intentional. If you can open my eyes to evidence otherwise, I’ll gladly learn. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/214 "2008-11-19T17:02:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, I’m not denying that there were massive, negligent fuck-ups here. I’m denying they were intentional. If you can open my eyes to evidence otherwise, I’ll gladly learn. No you won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/215 "2008-11-19T17:11:03Z")
> [@Lamar\_Mundane](#): > > No you won’t. Well, it’ll take me a while to dig through the massive evidence you’ve provided in your post, so I hope it’s OK if I don’t get back to you right away. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/216 "2008-11-19T17:49:55Z")
Aha! Now I see! You are inclined to believe pure bullshit when you see it, whereas I am not! I knew there was a simple explanation! If you read [this](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E5D61330F93AA35756C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2) article about Law’s deposition in a Goughan case, you’ll see that he makes Alberto Gonzales look like an amateur when it comes to not remembering. The man is what a reasonable person would call full of shit. A prime example, > [@](#): > > He said he did not remember a September 1984 letter from Margaret Gallant, the aunt of seven boys Father Geoghan had admitted molesting several years earlier. Mrs. Gallant wrote to complain that Father Geoghan, who because of his pedophilia had been removed from her parish but placed in another near her neighborhood, had been seen associating with boys. > > The cardinal received that letter six months after he became archbishop of Boston, and at a time when it would have been very rare for him to have received complaints about sexual abuse by priests, he acknowledged today. And in the deposition he identified his initials and handwriting on a hand-scrawled note on the letter’s envelope indicating that he had forwarded it to Bishop Thomas V. Daily, the cardinal’s top deputy at the time and now bishop of Brooklyn. The note the cardinal wrote said, ‘‘Urgent, please follow through.’’ He made notes in the fucking margins! And he claims not to remember it! How the fuck can someone not remember that!? If you can give me a rational explanation for that, I’ll be impressed. And the letter written by Fr. Banks in which he states “His Eminence, Cardinal Law, will appreciate whatever assistance can be given to Father Shanley” sure makes me think that Law knew his underling was writing the letter, or why include that? It was at a time that the church had just began to be rocked by lawsuits, do you think Law was aawre of the suits in Canada and England at that time? Don’t you think he would have been a little twitchy holding on to that hot potato? Or was he just blissfully ignorant of all that surrounded him? Like I said, there isn’t a smoking gun document where Law admits knowledge, but given even the limited paper trail that the church has released, a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the sex abuse was common knowledge by Law’s staff and underlings. Oh, and he’s accused of buggering in California: > [@](#): > > A [lawsuit](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n11385781) filed in January accused Father Shanley of having sex with a 17-year-old boy in San Bernardino in 1990 and of persuading the boy to have sex with other men. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/217 "2008-11-19T17:53:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, it’ll take me a while to dig through the massive evidence you’ve provided in your post, so I hope it’s OK if I don’t get back to you right away. Don’t bother. I’m not interested in debating someone who is trying to win an argument rather than find the truth. I know far too many Catholics like you. Your willingness to defer to the authority of the Church is the reason for all this shit, and they rely on people like you to maintain their status. Congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/218 "2008-11-19T18:09:02Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > How is “advocating for abortion rights” any different than “allowing people to have abortions”? > > Again, I’m not committing a sin, according to the RCC, if I support freedom of religion. But I’m committing a sin, according to the RCC, if I support freedom to have an abortion. Sorry, the distinction I was trying to make was Allow abortion: I know it goes on and while not supporting it, I don’t intervene either. An abortionist lives across the river from me and I don’t restrain him from going to work each day. I regret that it goes on but don’t believe the Church considers my non-intervention sinful. Actively supporting it: driving someone to the clinic, advocating for abortion rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/219 "2008-11-19T20:12:49Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Aha! Now I see! You are inclined to believe pure bullshit when you see it, whereas I am not! I knew there was a simple explanation! > > If you read [this](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E5D61330F93AA35756C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2) article about Law’s deposition in a Goughan case, you’ll see that he makes Alberto Gonzales look like an amateur when it comes to not remembering. The man is what a reasonable person would call full of shit. A prime example, He made notes in the fucking margins! And he claims not to remember it! How the fuck can someone not remember that!? If you can give me a rational explanation for that, I’ll be impressed. Well, the letter was sent in 1984. The question about the letter was asked almost twenty YEARS later. What letters did you receive at your job in 1990? Who were they from, what were they about, and what actions did you take with respect to them? It’s not crazy, in my view, to not remember details of a letter you got twenty years ago. > [@](#): > > And the letter written by Fr. Banks in which he states “His Eminence, Cardinal Law, will appreciate whatever assistance can be given to Father Shanley” sure makes me think that Law knew his underling was writing the letter, or why include that? The “Turbulent Priest” method. Kinda funny that its application here actually involves a priest. But I find it very plausible that Law said to Banks, “Just handle it – OK?” > [@](#): > > …but given even the limited paper trail that the church has released, a reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the sex abuse was common knowledge by Law’s staff and underlings. Yes, I agree it was. The question is: did Law lie? If we want to expand this to, “Did Law’s staff and underlings lie?” then yes, it’s clear they did. > [@](#): > > Oh, and he’s accused of buggering in California: Lovely. OK, ignorance fought on that score. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632/220 "2008-11-19T21:02:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, the letter was sent in 1984. The question about the letter was asked almost twenty YEARS later. > > What letters did you receive at your job in 1990? Who were they from, what were they about, and what actions did you take with respect to them? Oh, I don’t know, if I got a letter that said that one of my employees was FUCKING SEVEN LITTLE BOYS it would make a lasting impression. We’re not talking about a fucking Visa bill here. > [@](#): > > The question is: did Law lie? If we want to expand this to, “Did Law’s staff and underlings lie?” then yes, it’s clear they did. Wow Rick. Just…wow. Are you really grasping at straws this thin? So you concede that a Bishop’s staff said to themselves, “I know this priest is gonna keep abusing kids, but frankly I couldn’t care less.”? Great. Nice bunch you are defending. It’s not like this went by with little turbulence. Law resigned, and McCormack, who worked with Law until 1998, was forced to [acknowledge](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news_manchester/2003_06_02_Hechler_VictorySometimes.htm) publicly that the church had “contributed to the endangerment of children.” Lawyers for the diocese in suits against Law have chosen to [settle](http://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/) for millions rather fight it out in court. It seems to me that Reasonable people are realizing that Law was full of shit. I’m just amazed that you can’t see it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/south-carolina-priest-no-communion-for-obama-supporters/472632.md?page=12)