Amen!

The photo of Monster McGuire with his arm around that little boy should be used for a warning poster. Perhaps it would be more significant if Shaeffer's photo were used. I wonder what Mother Angelica would advise today if she were able. The devil assumes lovable shapes in costumes to deceive believers. Black priestly garb is perfect. We raised five beautiful, now successful, children. I wonder what these parents are feeling knowing they placed their precious children in the hands of both of these men. My point is that Schaeffer is just as guilty as McGuire. His hands are just as covered in filth as McGuires. Why the circumspection in regards to his presence at BC? It is that horrible collegial embrace that endangers both the church and its faithful. Boston College is not more important than Catholic children. The Pope, his bishops and priests are not more important than our children. Yet, that is the clear picture the board presents as it protects itself and Schaeffer instead of baring its soul, confessing its sins and seeking reconciliation not only with God, but his people.

This guy is a disgrace. Shame on B.C. The whole place over there is one big mess. Lack of leadership from the top down. All they are interested in is donations to their many funds. They wouldn't have gotten rid of him if they were not concerned about a loss of giving.

" Leahy cited a reluctance to rely on sensationalist press for information." Yes, forget the facade of the Church in the 21st Century, the real reaction at BC to the child abuse crisis was anger at the media, the 1960's and Vatican II. While the country recoiled at the horror of child rape, these Jesuits reacted with exclamations of "How dare they question us?" Jesuits have so little to do with Jesus, they dishonor His name.

This is a step by Rev Schaeffer to "do the right thing" after appropriate actions by the student newspaper and by the faculty. The Heights and the faculty should be commended for taking action. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with David Clohessy that "This is a step forward, but real progress will be when Catholic officials, not public pressure, force those who ignore and conceal child sex crimes to step aside." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also appropriate for the board not to take hasty steps based on "sensationalist press". There are 53 board members, and this would have made action a bit more difficult than with the typical board (8 - 11 members) of a corporation. But in these days of email and the omnipresent cell phone there is little reason to think the the process could not have been both thorough and expeditious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with one of the commenters that Rev. Schaeffer shares equally in the guilt with the prepetrator (come on). But I DO agree that the guilt IS indeed shared, and Reb Schaeffer, the students, and the faculty have now taken steps to cleanse themselves of their share of it.

This is an ongoing mistake made by bishops or senior members of a given, religious order. It compares to the he blue wall of silence in police forces. The good cops refuse to turn in their fellow, rogue cops. The good father, however, deserves some credit. He has served well his Church and the various colleges, of which he is a board member. Too bad these institutions have to lose his talent and knowledge because of this one mistake. I ask why he should have to step down. He has admitted his wrong doing and I assume, he would not allow it again. Does he not deserve the good old Jesuit code of mercy called the "plus sigh?" Does he not deserve the benefit of the doubt that he would make the same mistake again? I say yes. In addition, I remember with fond affection all my Jesuit teachers at B.C. High. They were gentlemen of the highest caliber. There were no molesters at that time (1942-1946) and I hope and fervently believe not within the majority of these fine priests today. But when will the Church follow the lead of the Episcopalian Church that allows her priests to marry. You don't read of Episcopalian priests molesting children. Holy Mother the Church is stiff with millenial athritis that comes with old age and its overwhelminhg resistance to change.

What is the evidence for this. Where did you read this?

stephanosky, obviously sincere heartache and sympathy in your last comment, for which I have great respect. Unfortunately, when I look at your logic it is not persuasive. Let me respond to some of your points (prefaced with --): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This is an ongoing mistake made by bishops or senior members of a given, religious order. It compares to the he blue wall of silence in police forces. " >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I agree, but the fact that it is typical in a "given religious order" does not make it any better. In fact, it may turn what was originally just a few bad apples into a conspiracy or the organization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The good father, however, deserves some credit. He has served well his Church and the various colleges, of which he is a board member. Too bad these institutions have to lose his talent and knowledge because of this one mistake. I ask why he should have to step down. He has admitted his wrong doing and I assume, he would not allow it again. Does he not deserve the good old Jesuit code of mercy called the "plus sigh?" Does he not deserve the benefit of the doubt that he would make the same mistake again? I say yes." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- I am sure that the good father DOES deserve some credit, maybe a whole lot. But that is what accountability is all about. You throw your reputation away by making this kind of a "mistake" -- and this was no "small mistake", this was a crime (or it should have been). Don't forget, this is not about some imprudent cultural practice of the Jesuits, or making off with assets. This is about something that can (and frequently does) destroy a person's life. In the public sector you do not simply "confess" your mistake (or crime) and it is all forgiven, you pay the consequences. Do not confuse relgious practices with legal (public) obligations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g

Let's not see Shaeffer take all the flack for what happened. He is culpable, yes, but he was only the regional director in Chicago and his superiors need to be identified as well. Msgr. Lynn in Philadelphia who did not do his job: What about the late Cardinal? How many Bishops have been indicted so far in the U.S. Answer: None