Wednesday, November 09, 2011

The Moral Rot of Sport Lust

Do I really want to go here again?

Funny topic, I know, for a guy who for his entire youth played three sports almost year round - but frankly - as an adult I never got it.

Where does it come from that grown men seem to tap in to their Upper-Paleolitic brain's tribal instinct to place so much of their self-worth in to what is at its core, a sport - a game.

It can become a mass-obsession. Like all obsession, it warps reality and causes otherwise sane and good people to sacrifice the good and important things in life in order to get more of it.

In the case of sports - they want their team to be #1. It must be #1; it must get the most attention. It must dominate. As the obsessed person has put in to their team their self-worth, ego, and passion - it becomes unstable. Morals are corrupted and any long-term benefit must be drained and sacrificed for the now.

Lines in the sand are erased and moved; blurred and then removed. Requirements are changed or ignored. All must serve the greater good - and the greater good is the sport.

We have seen it - and blogg'd about it most - in relation to the US Naval Academy where the pursuit of D1 sports has caused a great American institution to change admissions criteria, physical readiness requirements, academic requirements, honor code requirements, and even drug use disciplinary procedures. It has even warped the core purpose of the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) such that smart, deserving Fleet Sailors and Marines lose slots so potential varsity athletes can get a boost.

It isn't USNA. I saw it in college in the 1980s where the functionally illiterate were admitted and kept until their eligibility was over and then disposed of like a used diaper.

Given this systemic problem caused by legions of man-boys - is anyone really surprised about what is going on at Penn State?

Bar none - the best writing on this is by Five for Fighting's John Ondrasik.
Every once in a while we hardcore sports fans are reminded of our childish immaturity.
How else can you describe adults who spend a good part of their lives watching, listening, and discussing other adults who play games with sticks and balls, hoops and pucks? Games, and only games, are exactly what they are playing.
Considering the horror that is the Penn State scandal, I find it impossible to write an article discussing my favorite hockey team, the L.A. Kings, or any other sports topic. To do so would land somewhere between offensive and embarrassing.
Can any human being care about a hockey team's losing streak after reading the Sandusky Grand Jury Report?
As I struggle with words, my mind swings between the unimaginable suffering of those children and the evil that was Jerry Sandusky and the Penn State palace guard.
I'm not a religious man, but I pray for whatever healing a victim of a pedophile can undergo. May there also be a forever ring of suffering, deep in Dante's Inferno, for those who destroy our children.
Rape of a child is not a single act of violence - it is an act of violence that assaults the victim every day of their life. It revisits them in their nightmares, in their day to day encounters with people and situations that trigger a memory, with every act of intimacy. It assaults those who fall in love with the victim - and their families.

The victims cannot even have normal intimacy as those allowed to have a childhood know it - as their first experiences were ... well ... read the grand jury report. As an aside; for the record, this is not a sex scandal as the press is reporting it. This is child rape.

Imagine that was you as a 10-yr old. Imagine that as your 10-yr old. Imagine that is the benchmark. For the victim as they grow up, is anything "normal?"

Hat tip K-lo.

UPDATE: Via Daniel Foster at NRO, George Will gets it,
George Will’s take on the corrupted culture of college sports on ABC’s This Week: “When you graft a multimillion-dollar entertainment industry anomalously onto higher education, you produce a bubble of entitlements and exemptions, and eventually, a simple moral derangement.”


steeljawscribe said...

Trustees have fired Paterno and the university president, effective immediately...

Grandpa Bluewater said...

It's all about priorities.

Sports?  Low to no priority. Not important.

It's a damn game, knucklehead.

Except when it's a bidnez, like big time college sports. A big bidnez. That is different, or so too many say.

After that some folks will only discuss which road to hell they are going to take, not what does honor require.

After all, once you can fake integrity, you can overlook anything, or steal anything, with far less difficulty. Including a child's innocence and trust.

Guest said...

Joe Pa may have been loved by thousands...but failed the prime directive for adults: protect the children. He failed this prime moral obligation and thus deserves nothing but contempt now. All this pain, all this suffereing, all these young men scarred for life because he wanted to be on top the most wins list.

Go away, Joe, just go away. I got nothing for you.

USNA '89 said...

To show that people matter and not if you win or lose, I challenge USNA and USMA to play their 2nd and 3rd string players only for the entire first half of Army-Navy. Lead by example and show that it's the process and not the outcome that matters most.

Staff Puke said...

Grandpa got it - it's all about he money!  It's not sports lust - it's greed.  Greed kept the "adults" at Penn State from dialing 911.  And it's about greed at USNA.  Not the greed for money but the greed for prestige, power, fame.  And guess what, the same motivation powers the Diversity Industry - greed.   

Mike F. said...

Imagine you're the father who sent his son off to a prestigious football camp, trusting in the name of Penn State, only to now realize you were offering him up as fresh meat to a monster.  A son who trusted you to look out for him and keep him safe.

Trulyanon said...

No. Growing up, It is not. It is always there, in the way, a source of separation of self from others, whether real or perceived, creating doubt and guilt and shame. Years later, compartmentalized, and rationalized, it is survivable, for most. But. It is always There.

Millions and millions of boys, abused by men they trusted. I forget the horrific percentage of the shameful reality of the numbers of those like me among us.

PSUGrad said...

Way to not let the justice system run its course. A grand jury (Civics 101: that is a jury of our peers) found no evidence to levy criminal action against Paterno, and the President wasn't even mentioned. The two that were, the AD and the Grad Assistant are still on the payroll. I would argue that this is equivalent to the XO and Commodore walking away scott free when a CO is found guilty of being a drunk and sodomist, but the CNO being fired.

Penn State is more than the football team, and as much as the outsiders like to portray it as such, it is a big part of the institution. Why? It brings everyone together for a few hours on a glorious Saturday afternoon to show pride in our university, our people and most importantly, our friendships. Just like the Academy is not known for Spice users and rapists on the football team, Penn State is not just a football school.

This was a horrific crime, but as has been written numerous times, occurs at churches, boy scout camps, little league and within the Navy. This is not an isolated incident. The local DA failed on this case, by not prosecuting in the late 90's, and the current DA took 2.5 hours to investigate. That lack of action caused the continued assault on innocent boys, not the action of a football coach. The DA is charged with investigating criminal activity, not the coach.

FOD said...

The reports of students protesting after the firing disgusted me.  Are they really saying that firing the enablers of a child rapist was too harsh? Really? Over f*cking football?  Here are the facts as presented:
An employee was seen raping a child.
The witness reported it to management.
Management decided not to call the police.
The board found out and fired management.
And students protest the firing?... disgusting... there is no excuse. No defense. There is no "...,but.."  Anyone who thinks there is should reexamine their values, then be ashamed that they let them get so distorted.

PSUGrad said...

No, the students are protesting the lack of due justice in the case. The students are protesting the witch hunt led by the media and people that are ignorant to the situation. The students are protesting that the DA who investigated the case in 1998 NEVER FILED CHARGES and could have prevented this whole case. The students are protesting that the recent investigation took 2.5 YEARS TO COMPLETE.


Fellow PSU Grad said...

My fellow PSU are so far off base it boggles the mind.  What the students should be protesting is that the most powerful individual on the campus bar none is informed of the worst crime imaginable and has no more morale integrity to investigate further than to do the heisman and inform his boss.  He would have investigated a current football player that got a traffic ticket more than that.  You and I both know that having spent time in HV.  He purposely did next to nothing, that is as obvious as can be.  We have heard repeatedly this week say that he will continue to do "what is best for the university".  He did exactly that when he "investigated" the his mind it was best for the university to try (unsuccessfully) to sweep this under the rug.  As such with that terrible lack of judgment and morale character he will no longer coach at PSU, and rightly so.  If anything he is lucky to go now and possibly avoid further scrutiny because this is only going to get worse as more info is divulged.

butch said...

What boggles my mind is the 28-year old who walked in on Sandusky as he was sodomizing a 10-year old boy and just ran away.  How do you not (1) unleash a Biblical can of whoop-ass on the perv, (2) and call the police.

Actus Rhesus said...

dude,  you are confusing criminal process with the rights of a private employer.

sure, he gets a fair trial as to whether or not what he did was CRIMINAL

but his employer can still say "pack your bags, you're not wanted here"

Actus Rhesus said...

I'm going to hell for this but...

Q: If an old woman who likes young men is a cougar, what's an old man who likes young boys?

A: A Nittany Lion

Byron said...

The Southern boy would have opened the whole can of whoop on him.

Byron said...

You got an amen to that one, gal! PSU grad, almost every employee who works by contract as Joe Paterno did has a morals clause in the employment contract. It's almost a staple of contract law for people in the sports and entertainment business. Since it's obvious that Paterno's morals are extremely compromised, out he goes.

That man had a moral obligation to protect those young men. As an adult, he has a moral imperative to protect the next generation from harm. He completely failed at this, all because of maintaining the image of Penn State and his quest to be the winningest coach in college ball.

Fellow PSU Grad said...

...and hopefully left him physically unable to ever perform that act again!

DeltaBravo said...

I'm thinking back to 2002 when the abuse scandal with the Catholic Church erupted... 30 years of bad decisions by bishops who mistakenly believed that some people could or would be cured of their deep-rooted illness by a half year in the desert and counselling.   When it came to light that some disorders really cannot be uprooted.  A combination of deep pockets, statutes of limitations and lawyers brought that into the sunshine.  After 2002 there is no excuse anymore.  For anyone.  Protecting reputations, ignorance... none of it can ever be claimed again.  Yet that's what has happened here.  I imagine this behavior is more widely dispersed through sectors of our society than we want to admit.  The Catholic Church has revamped everything.  Those deep pockets will disappear.  Now they'll meet with cries of "discrimination" because they will hesitate to employ anyone who admits to any homosexual thoughts.  But it remains elsewhere.  I'm astounded at the seeming double standard.  The support for JoPa.  If he had been wearing a Roman collar the cries for his head would have been deafening.  But the lawyers will come along soon enough.  Deep pockets in football programs.  The double standard and lack of outrage here is sickening.  Due process?  Where were those cries when some good priests were accused?

Aubrey said...

That is the guy that really gets me in this - he is as much responsible for the rape on that boy, and all of the subsequent kids, as is Sandusky. Every kid that was victimized can be laid directly at his door.

As one PennState grad student reminded folks in a story in the paper this morning, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

As someone who has coached and worked with kids for 20+ years I cannot tell you what stories like this do to me....what I want to know is if situations like this fall under my state's (Colorado) "Make My Day" law so I can just shoot the bastard going after the kid.

Stu said...


If only Defensive Coordinators could marry or be women, this would have never happened.  :-E

Truth is, the rates of abuse within the Church were no different than the rest of society.  Absolutely, Church hierarchy erred in handling these things.  But fact remains, and this story highlights it, that these things are going on in all facets of society.  That should alarm people because little attention to this matter has been redirected from the Church. 

GBS said...

However bad this looks, I suspect there is plenty that we don't yet know that is even worse.

ewok40k said...

Few decades ago entire case would be swept under the rug, without ever seeing courtroom, let alone media spotlight... sometimes world changes for better, though it is hardly the "inevitable march of progress".

DeltaBravo said...

Exactly, Stu.  But it will as they look for the next "deep pocket."  Fact is, this went on AFTER 2002, which was a watershed year for realizations and facts and legal precedents and afterward, with all the media storm around the Catholic Church, NO ONE should have thought that sweeping anything under the rug to protect ANYONE'S reputation would be a legitimate course of action.  I just find the tone of the media very interesting.  Some perps are more fun to go after than others.  Ewok, in the past this was also swept under the rug to protect the victims and their identities in small towns and cities.  There were lots of reasons it wasn't brought out into the media glare. 

SouthernAP said...

Okay deep breath folks. We are all hating on PSU admin, Athletics, and football staffs. However, I would suggest that we also look at the former DA (who disappeared shortly after), Ray Gricar, about why no charges were filed back then. I would ask that where were the parents of the victims from that decade ago not screaming bloody murder if not to the city DA after charges were dropped but to local media? I know out where I am from, the minute a a student is inapproiately even looked at by a teacher/coach the local media is on that adult and the district like vultures. What about the State College police officals who took statements and watched the DA flush thier case (which again according to media reports was as open/shut as possible) in 1998, why didn't they go and bitch to the State Police? I would even lay some of the blame at the local media in State College and even in PA on a whole, who probably got sniffs of this years ago. However, they chose not to go after Sandusky for fear of offending/tranishing JoePa. Now they are making up for it all in the last 96 hours since the story broke.

There are all sorts of failures all around this incident that the blame doesn't just fall on those who work for Penn State U. I feel sorry for JoePa and that he will have his career permantely tarnished by this event for the decades to follow; however, he is a leader and a leader is suppose to know when one of thier juniors is screwing up.

Even worst though is I have had family graduate from PSU and talking to them offline, they have to wonder as well about that grad student's reaction. Because all of them have to sit through the same mandatory lectures from the Diversity Friendship Circle about sexual assault/prevention. With some of the same stupid posters. However, talking to them and talking amongst thier alumni; the answer seem to be that PSU is failing in building or generating leaders. Simply put most of them would know it is wrong, but fear of being the snitch/narc or in general trashing a friend would have given them pause. This is contrary to everything that I was taught in Navy Leadership schools (such as TQL, NavLead, etc) where if you need to bilge a buddy because they are screwing up so be it. Leaders don't have friends.

SouthernAP said...

Byron, I love you like a brother. However, seriously Southern Boys know how to act? Can we ask about Bobby Bowden writing letters on behalf of Rapists and murders to give them a more leintant sentance? Or we could talk about Hurricane players covering up for a rapist in thier midist?

I have seen it all through out the world of NCAA sports, yet the two worst offenders has been Men's Basketball and Football.

The Usual Suspect said...

The interim coach was asked if this former Graduate Assistant, McQueary, who is now a permanent coach was going to continue to coach at Penn State and be at the game on Saturday and he responded that McQueary would be coaching.  Asked if he was going to remove McQueary, he responded (and passed the buck) that the issue was up to the AD...instant replay.  Isn't that how all this started?

11B40 said...


I like your headline a lot. Just as it's the love of money, not money itself, that's the root of all evil, it's the lust for victory that produces so much reprehensible behavior from players, coaches, administrators, and fans. 

A while back, it occurred to me how, if a player is thought good enough, even a period of incarceration is no ban to continued sports employment. It's kind of been all downhill for me since then.

I watched the NFL's New York Jets-Baltimore Ravens game back on 02 Oct. During the playing of the National Anthem, I noticed that two of the Ravens players were wearing some kind of close-fitting head covering, one black in color, the other shockingly pink. I sent a letter of complaint to the NFL Commissioner but have yet to receive a reply, from an organization that espouses "National" in its name.

CDR K said...

1.  There are no charges against Paterno....yet.
2.  The NCAA has taken no action against the school....yet.
3.  There are no civil suits against the university, Paterno, and the others....yet. 

Paterno is a Jonah and the board was right to throw him overboard before further revelations about his actions/inaction -- and the sight of a standing ovation as he entered the stadium at this weekend's home game -- did further damage to the university.  An employer is not required to meet the standards of criminal law in order to fire someone; they can rely on good ol' common sense.

Using your example, about the CNO, I remind you that neither is he required to rely strictly on the results of a legal finding.  It's called loss of confidence.  If he fails to act, the President may in consequence lose confidence the CNO and require his letter.

Byron said...

Charles, the difference to me is that this crime was committed on a child. We have a moral  imperative to protect children: they are the future! As for Bowden and that gang of felons at Miami, I got nothing for them either. Miami is always going to have that problem so long as they continue to turn their heads when recruiting thugs.

SouthernAP said...

Yet another sport media member is acting shocked that sports is corrupting.

PSUGrad said...


SouthernAP said...


I fully understand that it was a crime committed against a child. My point is that nearly all of the NCAA, Media, Alumni, Fans and others have looked the other way as the SEC lead this moral decline with the Bowden and U of Miami incidents (of which there are many) in the 1980's and early 1990s. The worst is the sports media, IMHO, acting shocked every time an criminal charge is brought on to a player in a D1 school, no scratch that a Top Ten D1 school! Yet, just the story breaks and just as quickly the media is defending said program/coach/admin types because it isn't the fault of those folks that they have a bad apple. Yet, a more spunky non-sports loving reporter starts to look at the background of the said player/criminal finding that they were a gang-member or criminal from day one. Just everyone from Pee-wee on looked the other way because "that boy could play ball". It is total BS and I have seen through it years ago after watching the UW Huskies self-destruct after the recuriting violations in the 90's.  I just wonder if this incident with PSU will cause the NCAA to shake themselves up enough to get credibility back with even the non-sports Americans out there.

All sports as the money starts to flow gets corrupted. We have the drug issues in both MLB/NFL, for the race fans out there issues with regards to Formula 1 and bribes/industrial espionage, FIFA (the governing body for Soccer) has been rocked evyer couple of years with corruption, even the NBA with its current point shaving scandal amongst the refs. One just needs to take the blinders off and see sports for what it is. Flawed humans doing things that the rest of us couldn't do well.

SouthernAP said...

Some of the reasons cases are swept under the rug is to protect the victims in a quirky and weird bit of logic. Since some places a person/institution is so favored that for those on the outside of the incident begin to place the blame on the victim.

C-Low said...

The sad part is that the guilty parties will not even be dealt justice short some embarssment, carreer cost, and maybe some years in PC "protected custody" prison.  

Sandsuky and all those associated, or enabled this degenerate behavior should be tried and executed in short order.  This kind of stuff just pisses me off.

Anonymous said...

That did not take long

Stu said...

No one commented on the guilty priests who deserve all the punishement in the World.  But for those truly interested in protecting children, the area of focus within society should be more than just going after the Church as you seem want to do. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...


Bone to pick with your comment: "<span>the rates of abuse within the Church were no different than the rest of society".</span>

They were PRIESTS.  Supposed to be the most trusted of a society.  The Church did more than "err" in the handling.  They were criminally culpable, over and over again.  Cardinal Law fled to the Vatican because he would have faced a grand jury for his truly terrible deeds in transferring the homosexual pedophile abusers from Parish to Parish all throughout New England.  He deserves to be in a federal lock-up, in general pop.  Where his life expectancy can be measured in weeks, not months.  His method of execution would be quite appropriate. 

In the Parish where I grew up, there were THREE pedophiles at ONCE there.  THREE.  Teczar, Shauris, and Rebokus.  Every Priest there was abusing and raping young boys.   Rates of abuse?  "Erred in handling"?   Understatement of the Millenium so far.

MaryR said...

I sincerely hope this isn't true: 

Casey Tompkins said...

The lack of action was also the mistake made by Paterno (ironic name, that) who did nothing after having been informed one of his coaches was buggering kids in the shower.

If there was nothing evidently wrong at the time, why did Paterno tell Sandusky not to bring any more young boys to campus?

DeltaBravo said...

I'm just saying that for many many years the understanding of the psychology of the offender was such that some thought these people could be cured.  Or could stop.  When it became obvious that it couldn't happen that way (even as the APA took homosexuality off its list of aberrant psychological disorders) the game should have changed.  It most definitely did with all the publicity in 2002.  SO why ANY organization after that would look the other way and not take a lesson is beyond me.  That's my point here... I find it fascinating to see crowds turning over trucks and rioting because Paterno lost his job.  If he were Bishop Paterno, would there be such sympathy and allegiance?  I didn't notice Catholics rioting to protect their bishops when that story broke.  Matter of fact, I as a mother can't hand out crayons at a church daycare now to 5 year olds without getting fingerprinted and going through a bunch of lectures and seminars on protecting God's children. 

Stu said...

They are still men and thus susceptible to our fallen nature.  Holy Orders don't change that.  What it does change is how they will have to answer for it given the role they fulfill  But priests have betrayed Christ since one of his own handpicked Apostles betrayed Him at the Last Supper.  The precedent was set there.

So you take issue with my use of the word "err".  Big deal.  I don't get worked up over liberals squealing about my language not being hyper enough for their taste on such things. I really won't sweat your dissaproval either for a lack of hysterics.  As DB pointed out, the prevailing thought throughout all of society when such abuse happened was that the abusers could be rehabilitiated.  That, coupled with poor judgment on the part of some Bishops, led to the scandal. Should they be held accountable?  Absolutely, but perspective and sound judgment should prevail in such things, not sloganeering and opinions.  BTW, Cardinal Law did not "flee" to the Vatican.  He was never charged with any wrong doeings.  He was recalled to the Vatican where he is now essential in charge of maintaining a basillcia.  He would be like a General being recalled to DC to oversee the parking arrangements at Headquarters Marine Corps.

As for the rates of abuse...I have actual statistics if you are interested.  Or you could actually provide your own since you are so knowledgable.   

Bistro said...


I don't have a TV or radio and so don't follow the news except online sometime. Haven't really watched it in years.  Did the PSU admin make this case known to the State College police? They took statements? I'd gained the impression from the online news that the admin did nothing other than tell the pedaphile coach to resign but didn't see anything about them squelching him at his charity or turning him in to the police as a sex criminal.

Bistro said...

Yes I concur but I have never ever understood why the parents of the children in question never appear to have gone to the police or the media when they got stonewalled by the canons of the church. A terrible crime was committed but that is what the police and courts of justice are there for.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Stu, did you just call me a liberal? 

As for Bernie Law, like hell he wasn't facing indictment.  Two days after AG Reilly announced pursuit of criminal charges against the Archdiocese under both VCL and obstruction charges, Law was suddenly "recalled".  (Law had already been subpoenaed to testify in the Shanley Grand Jury proceedings.)  While the vicarious criminal liability in MA does not carry jail time, obstruction charges (lying on several occasions to Church officials and investigators) sure as hell does. 

Mentioning that clergy have no higher pedophilia instances than anyone else is like saying cops have no greater instances of breaking and entering than the rest of us.

Actus Rhesus said...

His autobiography.  I suppose Roman Polansky can direct the film version???

DeltaBravo said...

URR, point well made.  But the clergy rot seemed to predominate in certain geographic areas that coincided with voters who amazingly tolerated so-called Catholic politicians making up their own rules too.  Some dioceses didn't have these issues.  The parishioners wouldn't have kept silent and the bishops didn't pal around with notoriously liberal politicians.  Which goes to the situation at Penn, which seems to have simliar things in common... a climate where the people and police also seem to have looked the other way.   Penn created a climate where JoPa thought he was invincible I guess.   Where was the DA in this?  Was Penn "too big to fail?"  Personally, I think the Vatican should have punished all of Boston forever by revoking the red hat for its archbishop for all time to come.  A fitting punishment for inflicting Kennedys on America at the very least.  People create an atmosphere that their leadership feels comfortable functioning in.  Penn is an example.  The crowds protesting JoPa's firing illustrate it perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Catholics didn't riot because most are more passionate about football.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that'll teach them to strive for excellence.  I'm sorry, but it's the military, to say it's not about "win or lose" is just plain stupid.

Anonymous said...

That's what the latest round of news is saying.  The rumors are that they were pimping kids out to donors.

UltimaRatioRegis said...


No argument there.  My differences with the Catholic Church are well beyond the scope of this post.  But consider Father Robert Drinan holding office in MA, and famously being asked whether he could consider someone who opposed his far-left political views to be a good Catholic, to which he replied "I doubt it". 

In dealing with the pedophiles, methinks if a parent had shown up at the rectory of one of those Parishes, mine included, and stuck a shotgun under the bastard's chin and put a deerslug through the top of his head, the Church would have behaved differently.

Stu said...

AG Reilly never...never alleged that Cardinal Law had broken any laws even with the scathing criticism he made in his final report.  This after two full investigations by Grand Juries.  Those are the facts.  

As to mentioning that priests don't have a higher rate of pedophilia (and ephebophilia which is what the majority of the cases actually were), that was to point out that if you consider such, you then realize that abuse of this kind is going on in all facets of society, not just the Church.  However, the liberal, and those in chaoots with them, are so focused on their bones to pick with the Church to care about the wider picture.  

SouthernAP said...


From what I have read both online and via the print media that in the inital case a DA (the now missing and infamous Ray Gricar) had investigated by the police when the very first incident was reported way back in 1998 by a parent. Instead Sardansky promised to never do it again (just like all addicts) and that he would get help. At which the DA shut the case without bringing it to trial. That leads a logical person to ask so many questions about what was the Admin folks doing, but also what the local governmental folks were doing way back in 1998.

UltimaRatioRegis said...


You are mistaken regarding Reilly.  The AG was even pursuing legal action under RICO.  That he was unable to because Law fled the country is beside the point.

James said...

Mans Lucky if he survives the month. Grab the basterd and hang him from a tree in city square then leave the body to rot.

Stu said...

I'm not mistaken about anything.  What I provided about Cardinal Law is fact.  Check it yourself.

<span><span>From the AG's report:</span></span>

"The evidence gathered during the course of the Attorney General's sixteen-month investigation does not provide a basis for bringing criminal charges against the Archdiocese or its senior managers."

James said...

OH you havn't heard the crap where i work..........we all agree'd we are hell bound.

DeltaBravo said...

Don't accuse Drinan of being Catholic, please.  He spoke for nobody.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

So, convening a Grand Jury isn't pursuing charges?  Since when?

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Oh, and there is this little caviat:

"None of these statutes may be applied retroactively to address the past conduct of Archdiocese officials.  If these laws had been in place earlier, however, the Attorney General and District Attorneys would have had much more effective tools at their disposal as they sought to hold accountable those responsible for placing children at risk of sexual abuse."  (P.24)

UltimaRatioRegis said...

He was, and he did.  St Mary's had a "blankets for North Vietnam" drive in 1969.  That was the day my dad got up and walked us all out.  We didn't go back for twelve or thirteen years, and he never did.

Stu said...

The Grand Juries involved in the investigation did not indict law.  Again refer to AG Reilly's final report.  

Stu said...

Look,  here is your statement:

<span>Cardinal Law fled to the Vatican because he would have faced a grand jury for his truly terrible deeds..</span>

Now that is a common narrative among progressive/disaffected Catholics but it simply isn't true.  Fact remains that Cardinal Law was there for all of the investigations and only after it was clear that he would not face charges was he recalled to the Vatican.  Again, this is fact which I have shown.  If you want to claim that Cardinal Law was incompetent, negligent, etc, then fine.  I will agree on much of that.  But he didnt' flee to the Vatican.  Case closed.

Stu said...

You don't leave Peter becuase of Judas.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Had the Grand Jury had Law there to cross examine regarding his testimony in the Shanley case, they likely would have.  He would have been charged with perjury and obstruction. 

The Grand Jury was convened on both occasions pursuant to criminal charges.  Otherwise, there would have been no Grand Jury.  I have read the report many times and remember the case vividly. 

"As Archbishop, and therefore the executive of the Archdiocese, Cardinal Law bears ultimate responsibility for the tragic treatment of children that occurred during his tenure...  He had direct knowledge of the scope, duration, and severity of the crisis experienced by the children of the Archdiocese; he participated directly in crucial decisions concerning the assignment of abusive priests, decisions that typically increased the risk to the children..."

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Save the "common narrative" nonsense.  Law scooted out of Boston a good six months before the AG released his report. 

"Case closed"?

Yeah, the Catholic Church used that phrase quite a bit with pedophile priests.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

No, you leave Peter when he ceases to provide spiritual guidance and begins a course of left-wing political indoctrination. 

At which point, the Catholic Church has little to do with Catholicism.  I remain a Catholic.  Some of the Priests?  Seems doubtful.

Stu said...

Law answered questions from both Grand Juries.  There was no indictment.  He was not subpoened, subsequent.  The AG stated that there were no criminial charges.

These are facts.  You need to go and reremember it "vividly."

Stu said...

I'd ask you to save the "common narrative" nonsense because you keep repeating it without any regard for facts.  The case was closed.  Also a fact.  

Stu said...

The "gates of hell shall not prevail."  

Interestingly, types like Father Drinan would agree with you that the Catholic Church has little to do with Catholicism.  

One can oversteer to both the left and the right and still run off the road into a ditch.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

From the Globe:

"State troopers from the office of Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly delivered Law's subpoena to his Brighton residence last Friday, the same day that Law left for Washington. A day later, he flew from Washington to Rome."

Methinks they talked about much more than Law's resignation.  The topic of getting him out of the US and to the Vatican was rumored to be high on the discussion list.

But hey, maybe the State Troopers don't remember either.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Anyway, enough of this off-topic thread-jack. 

Pedophilia should carry the severest punishment.  What Paterno got is what he had coming.  As for Sandusky, like Law, prison in the general pop would be about right.  If he is such a fan of anal s*x, he will get all he can handle.

Stu said...

<span><span>What "youthinks" isn't relevant.  </span>
Your little excerpt leaves out the fact that Cardinal Law flew to the Vatican to resign personally to JPII and THEN he returned to the US a few days later.</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Whatever.  Law was not charged because his reprehensible conduct was not in technical violation of a criminal code when he engaged in it.  Had he done so in 2002, he would be behind bars. 

Your defense of Law to assert that charges were not pursued is not the case.  As for the matter being closed, it is only closed to the point where the Grand Juries have been dissolved.  If you think the matter of aiding and abetting child abuse and rape of countless young boys throughout New England is "closed" or that Cardinal Law's conduct cannot be called into question again, you are whistling past the graveyard. 

The Catholic Church, and Bernard Law, are criminally culpable.  Reilly knew it and said so, on Page 24.  Quoted below. 

Think if you had been the victim.  Or your friend.  Or your son.

Stu said...

Yes, we could pass all manner of laws today that would make previous conduct illegal.  That's kind of the nature of things, isn't it?  Like NATOPs, sections get added because people make mistakes or display gross errors in judgment.

I'm not defending the actions of Cardinal Law in any way.  So don't confuse the issue.  What I am doing, is pointing out that your presentation of the events is simply not accurate, to which you respond, "whatever."  

By all means, let's take action against injustice no matter who is guilty, but let's do so armed with the truth and not untrue narratives that are usually spun to serve other causes.  

DeltaBravo said...

Back to the original subject... this all underlines the complete ARROGANCE of the people in Pennsylvania who, despite the heavy publicity surrounding these new laws and findings of fact after 2002 thought they could ever get away with looking the other way, not reporting crimes against children, or protecting "reputations."

I don't begin to understand how or why anyone thought after 2002 that the whole game hadn't changed forever.

Stu said...

Agree completely, DB.

But I do wonder is there is something that happens to witnesses of such things such that they deny what is readily apparent even if witnessed.  Perhaps it is so horrific that people mentally deny that it really happened or attempt to explain it away to themselves especially when the perp is someone of apparent high esteem.  I don't know.  But given this incident and abuses that were witnessed involving clergy, it seems like something else is at play.

Think about it, I would wager that everyone here if they came across a grown man, naked in the school shower with a ten year old boy, would take action immediately to stop it right then and there instead of simply reporting it to the management.  Now I don't think I am above the average man, so why didn't the other witnesses do such?  There has to be some other factors.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>but let's do so armed with the truth and not untrue narratives that are usually spun to serve other causes."</span>

The Vatican could not be reached for comment.

Stu said...


Agree, it applies to everyone, even those in the Vatican.  How about fixing yourself first and then we can move on to others?  Or you can continue to dismiss factual corrections to your "vivid" memory and poor use of Google.  

Your choice.   :)

UltimaRatioRegis said...


You can go fix yourself. 

I stated that the AG pursued criminal charges.  He did, convening not one, but TWO Grand Juries. 

I stated that Cardinal Law left for Rome two days after being subpoenaed, which he did.  Cardinal Law and the Church state that the meeting was only about bankruptcy filing and Law's resignation.  If you choose to believe what the Church says regarding the sexual abuse scandal, go right ahead.  Seems to me they haven't told the truth in a single instance yet, unless they have been forced into it.

You state that the case is "closed", yet there are many dozens of criminal and civil cases against the Church that involve the Boston Archdiocese over the pedophilia.  Each and every one of those has the potential to call Cardinal Law's testimony in the Shanley case, and before the Grand Juries, into question. 

There was indeed a law in place governing reporting sexual abuse of children at the time of Cardinal Law's despicable conduct.  However, it did not yet cover Clergy.  An oversight which hardly makes what Law and his Bishops and Priests did any less reprehensible, or make them any less culpable.   Which is precisely the point AG Reilly made in his report.

I think that Law went to Rome in 2002 to ask the Pope to recall him because he knew that the scandals covered by the Grand Juries were the tip of the iceberg.  And that he knew, if he stayed in the US, he could be extradited with a minimum of fanfare back to Boston.  So he pleaded and got his recall to the Vatican, where he hopes he will be out of sight, out of mind.  And that even if he finds himself facing extradition, he could claim health issues and any long list of reasons for not facing the music. 

That last part is my opinion.  But it is fairly widely shared.  And it cannot be written into a report by an Attorney General, who must stick to strict legal protocols.  But it is certainly alluded to by Reilly. 

The alternative is to take the Church's word, and Law's word, at face value.  Which, given how each has obstructed and parried and covered up, and how each has shown such flagrant disregard for the innocent victims of the monsters they knowingly turned loose, is a fool's errand. 

Find me the factual errors.

andrewdb said...

It may be partly about money - if that IG report about the last leadership at USNA was any indication.  Remember the private bank accounts for bowl revenue sharing?

Stu said...

<span>You stated,  
<span>"Cardinal Law fled to the Vatican because he would have faced a grand jury ..."</span>  
"A<span>s for Bernie Law, like hell he wasn't facing indictment.  Two days after AG Reilly announced pursuit of criminal charges against the Archdiocese under both VCL and obstruction charges, Law was suddenly "recalled"."</span>  
That's simply not the case.  Cardinal Law answered all questions from both Grand Juries and didn't "flee."  He went to the Vatican to personally resign and RETURNED two days later.  He then remained in the US through 2004, another two years after resigning (and entire year after the investigation had been completed.)  
The AG report states unequivocally, even with Cardinal Law being called out for estreme neglicence, that he didn't break the law.    
Your "opinion," even if "widely shared" is simply wrong.  Again, fix yourself. </span>

andrewdb said...

Oh dear.  The description incluees this line:  "The book also explores SanduskyÂ’s involvement in children’s charities, including the founding of his charity, "Second Mile.""

DeltaBravo said...

I'd like to interject here that the "Church" here as a whole should not be confused with the Archdiocese of Boston.  Each bishop as the head of his diocese is the proper authority that personnel problems are referred to.  MOST of the 140-some US dioceses did NOT have egregious clergy molestation problems that went on for decades.  THAT is the subject of another discussion.  However... if you were to complain about Fr. Jerk to Rome through the papal pro-Nuncio in Washington, your letter would be referred back to Fr. Jerk's bishop, who is the legal, canonical and administrative head of his diocese and the proper authority, the place where the buck stops.  At the time of the issues there the Vatican congregation that dealt with any problems was the Congregation for the Clergy and the Archbishop that would have headed that unit.  Problems or legal issues concerning individual priests (except for defrocking them) fell under US canonical and legal jurisdiction.  The pope would have no more handled or heard of any particular instance unless he was told by those under him... which had about as much chance of happening as the Commander in Chief hearing about the DWI of a USMC Captain at Parris Island.  I do know though that the Vatican in the 1980s was aware enough of the loopiness of some seminaries and dioceses that it had instituted a housecleaning at the seminaries headed by Vatican authorities.  Some bishops maybe managed to project one face to Rome and another to their own dioceses.  A wise priest once said, "The road to hell is paved with many mitres." 

DeltaBravo said...


Whatever happened in Boston between the DA there, angry parents, the police and the archbishop does have echoes in the Penn. story.  Where the President of Penn seems to have been a bit cowed by the 800-lb canary there on campus.  I think the underlying desire not to have "bad publicity" and not to "rock the boat" come into play in both instances.  Except nobody can claim ignorance about the nature of the perps and the extent of the damage they do any longer.   Again, looking at the Lolita story above, I think American society is schizophrenic about this issue of the sexualization of children and the need to protect their innocence.  One wonders how that ad with Dakota Fanning would be perceived if there was a young boy sitting there with a vase and a flower....   Instead we scream and shout about the rights of kids and we tolerate disgusting ad campaigns and movie scenes.  We need to put up or shut up.  The Church for many years was a place where pedophiles could seek out, burrow in and have a steady supply of victims.  The priest selection process has now taken that into account and taken measures to weed those out long before they're ordained.  There are still many other areas of society where pedophiles still operate too freely.  Those stories will start breaking in due time.  I sadly suspect the sports world has not seen the last of situations like this.  It is an obvious place where vulnerable boys looking for male role models would go.  Those in charge should take a lesson on how institutions like the Diocese of Boston and others mishandled things and not make the same legal and moral mistakes. 

UltimaRatioRegis said...

If you think Law went to the Vatican in 2002 only to "personally resign", and that subsequent revelations from dozens or even hundreds of cases would not have placed his testimony in front of the Grand Juries and in the Shanley case in the category of perjury, you are either naive to the point of stupidity or blindly trusting of people unworthy of that trust.

"<span>Any claim by the Cardinal or the Archdiocese's senior managers that they did not know about the abuse suffered by, or the continuing threat to, children in the Archdiocese is simply not credible." (p25)</span>

Stu said...


There is no disagreement that Cardinal Law is culpable of wrong doing.  What is at issue, is your narrative.  It's simply wrong.  It's the song sung by many progressive Catholics who have a bone to pick with the Church, usually over theological matters.

Your personal conjecture as to what was disccussed at the Vatican is irrelevant.  Your narrative that that Cardinal Law "fled" the US and remained at the Vatican to avoid charges isn't even remotely supported by the timeline.   Fact remains, Cardinal Law answered all question from both Grand Juries convened.  From that, no charges were pressed against him.  Fact remains, AG Reilly, even with his scathing language for Cardinal Law, concluded that no laws were broken.  Fact remains, Cardinal Law remained in the US through 2004 assigned as a chaplain for a convent for a full year after the investigation on the Archdiocese was completed.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Believe what you wish about Cardinal Law's intentions with his visit to the Pontiff. 

You seem to assume that there could never be any further investigation of Law or the Archdiocese.  Law knew better.  He knew that the allegations in the Goeghan and the Shanley cases represented the very tip of an iceberg decades long.  He also knew that if he was subpoenaed in future cases or there were other Grand Juries investigating the conduct of priests in the Archdiocese, he stood to perjure himself (at a minimum) based on his previous testimony, among other things. 

That Cardinal Law knew the depth and breadth of the abuse makes his motives in meeting with the Pope in 2002 and his subsequent recall to the Vatican to fill a minor post at his rank entirely relevant.  Unless you are in the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" camp regarding the matter. 

I am no Catholic progressive.  And I have no major theological issues with Catholicism.  But I had a ringside seat for a larger portion of this whole sordid and tragic affair, and watched the Catholic Church (not just the Archdiocese of Boston) behave shamefully. 

A Grand Jury to investigate Al Capone in the St Valentine's Day massacre failed to indict.   Gotti went through how many?  Three?  Without an indictment.  Let's just say they were both as innocent as Bernard Law, and end this thread-jack.

Stu said...

Again, no one questioned the culpability of Cardinal Law in the whole sordid affair 

What is being questioned is your lack of grasp of the factual timeline and actual events and misrepresenation thereof to fit your template.  Let's just say that your attempts to channel the inner-thoughts of Cardinal Law and conspiracy theories aren't relevant and that facts prevailed.  

BostonMaggie said...

Stu, you have these timelines correct according to actual documentation.  And I understand why you would think URR was incorrect because of that.  However, the reason anyone hires Todd & Weld is for things that will never make it into the newspapers or official records.  Law is in Rome for his protection and that of the Church itself.

I am a Catholic with no problems concerning theology, etc.  I am still a faithful Catholilc, a Church-going Catholic. 

You are correct that there was nothing on paper.  URR is correct that an indictment was coming and Law fled the jurisdiction.

We are all for punishing actual perpetrators, but I think we understand they are sick and driven to commit those crimes.  I have no sympathy and don't believe they can be cured and I think they should be extinquished.

But Law, like Paterno was a man who can not say he was driven by a sickness.  He was a dishonorable, greedy, evil man.  Law violated his vows to protect himself and the massive corporation that is "The Catholic Church".  Paterno isn't a sick twisted child molester.  He is a dishonorable, evil man who put his reputation and legacy ahead of his obligations as a coach and a mentor of young people and finally as a human being.

The child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church just like the one at Penn State could not have gone on as long as it did and hurt as many as it did without people like Paterno and Law.  We're not commenting on the priests who committed these crimes because there is nothing to debate; they are wrong.  But there are people who would excuse Law & Paterno, so we are commenting on that.

Bistro said...

I was curious if the reports were made to the University Park Police and that's where it ended. Listening to the timeline of the crime today on NPR it sounded like the initial report found its way into the hands of a University Park Police "detective" who warned the critter off back in '98. The campus police are a joke and I'd never have given them credit for investigating any type of crime. State College PD struck me as a bit more of the real thing. Either one though had an abundance of spare brooms and carpets.

SouthernAP said...


It shouldn't have mattered if the University Police (who in PA as in most other locals in the 50 states, supposed to operate in conjuction with the local police forces outside the college fence line) or if the local police were given the task of looking at this and presenting thier evidence to the DA. The Police, who are are entrusted to servce the population and protect society on a whole, screwed the damn pooch here by not further investigating this or shift this over to the PA State Police to look at because of fear of ruining reputations of either JoePa or PSU or whatever the reason. Just as the DA's office screwed the pooch for not bringing charges against Sandusky. Just the same as the media in PA for not realizing that a child molester was loose on college campsus abusing young boys. Just the same as all the others in the Happy Valley who knew of or suspected or could have put a hand up to stop this 13+ years ago. That is why I am saying that everyone in Happy Valley is to blame for this scandal to be as big as it is right now with the taint of all that has affect everyone. There is plenty of blame to go around where some people need to have thier careers stopped for a while and either spend some time at the Grey Hotel in Waynesburg, PA for a while, IMHO.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Except, Stu, that the decades-long history of terrible abuses, knowledge of those abuses at the Archdiocese and even higher, the shifting of known abusers from one parish to another, the intimidation, bribery, threats, and denials to keep victims and their families quiet WAS A CONSPIRACY.  It isn't a theory.  From that conspiracy I ascribe the absolute worst of intentions to Cardinal Law and the "leadership" of the Archdiocese of Boston and beyond. They have not behaved in a way, individually or collectively, which merits anything else.

Again, I have no problem with the "timeline", but I do not believe a word of what Cadinal Law or the Vatican claims those events represented.  The fact that there are dozens of cases just in New England that are current and open is a matter of public record. 

It isn't "going after the Church" as if I am some progressive anticleric secular liberal.  It is about holding people responsible, and institutions, too, for thousands of terrible, unspeakable crimes committed by people who profess a belief in a life dedicated to God.

Stu said...

If my timelines are correct, which you agree then we also agree that the investigation was over for an entire year before Law was recalled to the Vatican and two years after he resigned.  He remained inthe states.  He could have easily been subpoined again and he can still be indicted.  

As to your characterization of Cardinal Law, I'm not in a postion to judge things about individuals.  Smply, put I can't judge their souls.  Instead I just judge actions.  There is plenty of evidence that Cardinal Law erred to the point that he is morally culpable.  But why he did it, I'll leave that between him and God.  Same with Joe Paterno  Yes, he looks like quite the nice old man now and built a great football program, but I don't know why he didn't go farther and don't need to know. 

As t what you are "commenting" upon.  We agree on much.  But it's important to simply state facts and what is known accurately in such matters lest we start to jump to wrong conclusions.  Regis clearly didn't know the timeline and accordlngly he then made wrong conclusions based upon that timeline.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Law knew that there were many other cases, that the tip of the iceberg was all the AG had seen so far.  Even though he didn't get subpoenaed in that year, he was out of town as fast as the Vatican could get him out. 

Judge a man's soul?  He knew that PRIESTS in his Archdiocese were raping young boys and he transferred them to other parishes where he knew they would do the same thing.  If someone, some parent of one of those boys, had put a bullet in Law's skull, it would be the soul of the parent that I wouldn't judge.  As for Law, he would have gotten what he deserved.

Stu said...

The timeline doesn't support your recollection of the events that Cardinal "fled" to the Vatican to avoid being charged.  In providing the "evidence" that he fled, you were clearly unaware that the Cardinal actually came back to the US two days later and remained in the US for another two years while the investigation completed.  Only after that did you latch on to other investigations might implicate him.  

Resigning and living in the US for another two years isn't exactly fleeing from being prosecuted.

As to your beliefs about him and his character.  Those are your's to have.  I don't know him personally.  I judge his actions to be very poor and warranting his current status. ()   His motivations?  I can't read minds.   

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I am well aware that Law returned to the US, but he knew good and well that a large number other cases, more than were opened when the Grand Juries were convened, would likely eventually have him subpoenaed again, where his testimony would be compared to that in the Goeghan and Shanley cases, and he would likely be indicted for perjury.  So off to the Vatican, as had been arranged in 2002.  Where he would have to be extradited in order to be subpoenaed.

Is that speculation?  Yes it is.  But hardly going out on a limb.   That I attribute calculating criminal behavior to someone who has exhibited calculating criminal behavior already is not exactly wild accusation. 

Stu said...

I'm happy you admit it is speculation.  You are free to do such.  But it's nonsensical.

So in your mind, Law leaves the US for two days to arrange personally with the Pope his egress if he is facing indictment.  They come to some sort of master plan which has Law return to Boston two days later and then remain in the US through the current investigation and leaving two years later. Not likely.

Instead, I can speculate that Law was told by the Pope that he would remain in the US in some sort of notional job (serving as a chaplain at a convent) until it was clear that he wouldn't be charged.  Only then would he be reassigned to something more final which is where he is now.  

Stu said...

I don't judge anyone's soul.  Quite simply, I'm not qualified or knowledgable to do such.  Biblically, we are warned of doing so.

That's why we stick to judging actions.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...


There is a special place for those who rally to the defense of Church and its heirarchy no matter how egregious and despicable their conduct. 

What is nonsensical is your insistence that Cardinal Law and/or the Vatican only had the best of intentions regarding his continued service. 

Let's end the discussion.  You may apply for that PR position in the Penn State athletic department at any time.

Stu said...

You keep wanting to make this out about Cardinal Law's conduct.  It's not.  He was wrong in many ways and I have not insisted that his motivation were always pure.  I have agreed with you on that repeatedly.  Repeatedly.

I have simply corrected your misunderstanding of the timeline involved and shown that your narrative of how the events transpired was either similarly incorrect or unprovable speculation on your part.  This has apparently gotten you angry. Oh well.   

One can insist that the presenation of events be accurate all while still codeming the actions of Cardinal Law.  It's easy.  No need to make up things.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...


Your insistence that the 'events' constitute the whole story or that Law or the Vatican should have their word taken as truth is the height of blind allegiance. 

I attribute to them both the absolute worst of intentions.  After the decades-long history of terrible abuses which they did their best to cover up, your assertion that my speculation is "making things up" rings pretty damned hollow. 

BostonMaggie said...

No, I do not agree that investigations were over before Law resigned.  Some investigations were over and others were in the middle and some were about to begin.  Law's flight to the Vatican tells you all you need to know.  When Owen Todd can't save you, you can't be saved.  This has nothing to do with anyone's feelings about the Church or priests or theology.  That is simply a fact.

I have no problem judging Law or Paterno.  They have both admitted to sufficient facts.  My verdict - evil.

You stated of Paterno "...but I don't know why he didn't go farther and don't need to know".  I will add that I don't care why.  His actions and inactions (like Law's) answer all my questions.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Maggie, you see why I both love you and fear you?  :-P

Stu said...

Read again what I wrote.  I did not say the investigation was over before Cardinal Law resigned.  

"<span>the investigation was over for an entire year before Law was recalled to the Vatican and two years after he resigned.  He remained inthe states.  He could have easily been subpoined again and he can still be indicted."</span>

Cardinal Law visited the Vatcian in December 2002.  He resigned to the Pope and flew back to Boston two days later.  He was then reassinged as Chaplain to a convent in the US.  The Investigation in to the culpability of the Archdiocese was completed in the Summer of 2003.  Law was recalled to the Vaticn in May 2004.  These are facts.  Look them up.  

Stu said...

I am insisting that we base our conclusions on known facts, not your opinions and demonstrated poor recollections.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Is that what you insist upon, Stu? 

Let's see....  did any of those priests transport minors across state lines?  Did any priest or bishop ever attempt to give money to claimant victims to keep them from telling law enforcement?  Were any victims or victims' families threatened by any Church officials?  Or anyone on behalf of the Church? 

I think, of the hundreds of cases, the answers to all of those questions is in the affirmative. Could there be any proof that Cardinal Law knew about one or more of these incidents?  Would that open him up to charges of accessory before and after the fact to witness tampering, bribery, criminal transportation of a minor across state lines for immoral and illegal purposes?  Those charges cannot be protected under privleged clerical communications, which was a thin veneer to begin with, and not one the Feds (state lines?) would recognize in a Grand Jury as it was applied in the Commonwealth.  So... Law is in Rome, as safe as he can be from subpoena and indictment.

You need to get it through your head that what is printed, while fact, does not represent ALL the facts or all the events that transpired.

Stu said...

You need to get it through your head that everything you might ponder isn't necessarily reality or "fact."  Forgive me if I don't give Regis's recollections the same weight and credibility that I do the public record.  

How about you focus on what my initial point has continued to be?  That is, your timeline is incorrect and thus does not support your notion ath Cardinal Law fled.  We all agree that heinous things happened and that he is morally culpable.  So lets stop bringing those things into the debate in an attempt to imply that I am defending guitly priests and/or the Archdiocese from misconduct.  Stay focused. 

Nothing stops Cardinal Law from being indicted now or at anytime in the past.  He wasn't.  That's fact regardless of whatever scenario you have in hou mind.  And if you think the AG simply gave up, a year after his investigation was complete simply because Cardinal Law now lives somewhere else, then you should take it up with the AG. Personally, I think most AGs wouldn't care about distance. If I were the AG now and could bring him up on charges, BASED UPON FACTS, then I certainly would.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Stu, you haven't seen the football since kickoff.  I can't figure if you are naive to the point of stupidity, or simply an apologist.  Either way, your willful ignoring of the circumstances of Law's recall is astounding.  You should know, and I think you do, that extradition from the Vatican is no simple matter.  Both the Pope and Cardinal Law know that, which is why he is there.

You want to think that the written record of this abomination is the entirety of the facts and events, have at it.  Don't expect others to follow suit.

Stu said...

Ignoring the circumstances of Cardinal Law's recall?  I'm the only one who has put for the actual timelne involved all while you delve into conspiracy theories.  Being able to have someone extradited and indicting them are two separate matters.  People are indicted all the time in abstentia.  

Nowhere have I claimed that the written record is the entirety of facts.  But it is all that we have to make solid judgments. Your opinions, even if some may be correct, remain simply opinions.  Let's avoid the emotion and use known facts instead.  It works.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Yep, special place in hell for them too.  Right next to the perps themselves.

Stu said...

Yes, guest.  Some people did not do the right thing.  I wasn't speaking for them, nor you.  

Stu said...


Do you believe in redemption?  Do you want people to go to Hell or would you wish everyone repented?  Just curious.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I was speaking metaphorically.  You should try it.  It can be fun. 

Chris G. said...

 Give it up trying to have a logical argument with URR. Even when you agree with him, like many of us do, it goes like this:

"Here's my facts"...

" facts were wrong? Oops! Here's an ad hominem attack, and *different facts*!"

"Oooh...those facts were wrong too? Damn! Here's another ad hominem attack, and some chaff! Stop arguing with me, troll!"

"And here's some proof by repeated assertion!"

Be comforted that you have the facts correct, and his inability to refute your facts or logic means he concedes the argument to you. Then just's like wrestling the pig.  You get muddy, and the pig likes it. I suspect URR isn't used to people challenging him, and he just doesn't like it much. In his world, he's right, all the time. He'd like to keep it that way, thank you very much.

And to stay on topic (my opinions here), Coach P is a moral failure. Coach McQ should've personally stopped the assault and is an accessory to same. The PSU admin folks are accessories after the fact. And all those Catholic priests y'all are fussing about are similarly moral failures, and many of them accessories as well.

 But we already agreed on that.

Bistro said...


No, I don't think so. The university police were something of an armed joke back in '81. When I needed to get fingerprints taken to submit for a NAC they pointedly refused and referred me to the real police in State College. Nevertheless I heard from NPR that a "detective" on the University police had warned Sandusky after the '98 incident so it did reach those dirtbags. I rather hope that the issue was raised with the real PD in State College but I don't believe it right now. I'm afraid that the issue may have been brought to the attention, officially, of the University Police. I can believe them complicit in the crime but I had higher expectations of the local police department in State College.

Bistro said...

Oh no, that's nothing like the prime directive for adults. Winning is everything. Let's not forget who we are. Somebody implemented strategic bombardment and used atomic weapons against cities. We kind of harmed hundreds of thousands of children to death.

ewok40k said...

@ bistro - Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, Belgrade... all came before US dropped single bomb in WW2. Strategic bombing was evil, but a necessary one. And before starting Hiroshima argument, read about Japanese plans for invasion, which pretty much envisioned sending millions of children and elders armed with bamboo lances and bows against US forces with its modern arsenal of tanks, artillery, machine guns etc. Winning is everything if when you lose you lose everything. Ask survivors of Holocaust.
And ever since WW2 US forces, contrary to all the enemy propaganda, has done everything to minimise enemy civilian casulaties. Otherwise Falujah would be nuked or conventionally carpet-bombed, without risking single US Marine, right?

Byron said...

Bistro, before you make another stupid comment like this, do yourself a favor and start learning some history. The men who made the decisions to use strategic bombing in Europe had already exerienced it at the hands of German (in case you had forgotten this). Does two wrongs make a right? Probably not. But those same leaders had two primary directives in the war: Defeat an evil enemy (of that there is exactly zero doubt) and while doing so, do it as quickly as possible with the least number of causualties to YOUR side...screw theirs, since they started this evil.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Chris G,

Perhaps one day I can reach the intellectual strata which you have achieved, where analysis consists only of looking at a limited amount of facts and coming to precisely the conclusion that the people who carefully revealed them purposely led me to.  That way, I won't have to worry about pesky things like other facts that don't support that conclusion, patterns of behavior and misconduct, motive, etc.  

Duke Cunningham is a moral failure.  Bernard Law and Joe Paterno are willing enablers of the worst monsters of society.  

But wait, that takes some analysis.  So maybe I shouldn't form an opinion until you provide me with the facts you would like me to have.

BostonMaggie said...

I know you didn't ask me -
"Do you believe in redemption?"  But I feel like jumping in anyway. 

First - I belileve that redemption comes from asking for forgiveness and being truly sorry.  IMO, if you don't see the error of your ways, you can't be sorry and therefore you can't sincerely ask for forgiveness.  I believe that neither Law nor Paterno see themselves as wrong.  Both had too much time to see the error of their ways.  Years in fact.  And they didn't.  So if they are sorry now, they are simply sorry their plan didn't work.  Ergo, no redemption.

Second - the actual pedophiles can't be redeemed in life.  They are defective.  There may be redemption for them before God.  But they will never change here on Earth.  Therefore they need to be locked away or exterminated.  They are no different thana rabid dogs.  The needs of their past, current or future victims supercede any rights they have.

Stu said...


I think it is human nature, especially as we get older, to want justice for everyone else but mercy for ourselves. I'm certainly no exception to such.  Part of my fallen nature as well.  Perhaps that is because we are all too well aware of the various challenges and situations in our lives that have shaped us for better or worse.  But we don't know of such things about other people.  Accordingly, unless you a gift to look into the hearts of others, say like, Padre Pio's ability to see the actual sins of others, then you aren't in a position to make such judgments about Cardinal Law, Joe Paterno or anyone.  And to do so, you are ultimately measuring out the very stick by which you will be judged.  

Did Law and Paterno fail to act out of a desire to promote evil?  Did they just not care?  Were they simply cowards?  We don't know. Coupled with how they are in standing with God now, we can't speak to their redemption.  Even and actual pedophile can be a mystery of sorts in this regard.  Was he smiliarly abused when he was younger and now mentally unfit?  There are potentially all manner of things which make such judgments foolish to make.  That's why we judge the actions only and leave the other questions up to the only Individual who can make such calls, our Lord Jesus Christ.

I asked Regis about his comments because I don't think Hell is anything to joke about in such a manner.  It's an eternity separated from a loving God.  Not something that I would wish upon anyone nor casually recommend it as their finale state.  All I can say, is that I deserve Hell along with any other sinner out there but only through His Grace and my going along to "carry my Cross daily" do I have hope as I work out my own salvation in fear and trembling.  

Stu said...

<p>Lastly, i find you remarks regarding actual pedophiles, while understandable given the crime, to be a bit hasty on your part and not in keeping with the Faith.  Now before you attempt to go and say that I don't care about the victims in offering my thoughts below, don't do it.  My remarks have nothing to do with the victims.  I certainly have concern for them and the damage that was done to them by those who would horribly victimize them.  Their victimization certainly demands justice and temporal punishment for those who would inflict such treatment.  But to call for pedophiles to be "exterminated" and likened to a "radid dog" is at odds with the humanity of these criminals who themselves are "sick" in their sinful nature and like you and me, created in the image and likeness of God.  Yes, lock them in jail and keep them them there away from the general populace forever but to say that they cannot find redemption even here in this world denies the very Grace God gives us all.  God's Grace can overcome anything and thankfully for me that is the case.  Remember again, many sex abusers were abused as children themselves.  If that is the case, perhaps you should rethink your thoughts.  We all have crosses in life to bear.  I, myself, am thankful that mine are of the the kind of most men and not being plagued and tormented with horrible temptations like homosexuality or pedophilia.  Even people whose cross is to be afflicted with a debilitiating illness have the opportunity to unite their suffering with that Christ.  
</p><p>Catholics and many non-Catholic Christians recite the Lord's prayer every week.  But sometimes I don't think we reflect upon what we are actually praying ot the Lord when we say, "forgive us our trespasses as we foregive those who trespass against us."  We are actually asking Him to forgive us only to the extent that we forgive others.  Chilling if you ask me.  

BostonMaggie said...

If the stick I am measured with is the very stick I am using to measure Law & Paterno, then I am just fine</span>

Stu said...

Let's hope you have then seen the errors of your ways with all of the years you have been able to ponder such.  Let's hope your mind is as clear on such things and free from mental defects as you assume theirs is.  

BostonMaggie said...


SERIOUSLY?????  You think Law and/or Paterno have some "mental defect"????  They are EVIL.  Not every aberration can be explained away with the DSM.

“My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted, that the devil’s best trick is to persuade you that he doesn’t exist!” - Baudelaire

Stu said...


I don't know what motivates anyone.  I don't know their life history nor their mental state.  And neither do you.  And further, nothing in my words denie the existence of Satan.  So that is a rabbit hole on your part as well.

When you classify someone as being "evil," you are saying that they are fully in league with the devil.  How do you make that determination?  How do we know they just aren't sinners like you and me?  How do you know that they haven't gone to confession and sincerely repented?  If they have done so and still think they are evil, are you denying the very real grace that God gives in that Sacrament?  

Law and Paterno may have a mental defect.  They may have issues from their childhood that affected their judgment.  They may have simply been lazy and committed a sin of omission. They may, out of a sense of pride, not wanted such things to come up on their watch.  They may indeed support such crimes.  Again, I don't know and unless you have some divine gift into reading such things (do you?) then you have no idea either.  

BostonMaggie said...

Annnndddd Stu jumps the shark.  I am now free of this post and it's comments.

Stu said...

You were free when you chose to comment on this to begin with.