Ongoing religious scandals

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

that was 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Sexual_abuse_in_the_Catholic_Church
In 2001, Ratzinger convinced John Paul II to put the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of all investigations and policies surrounding sexual abuse in order to combat such abuse more efficiently.

Read the following keeping the dats of the players in mind and the unfolding timeline.

"driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as 'filth' in the church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a 'conversion experience' throughout 2003–04. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess"

In his role as Head of the CFD, he "led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statute of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders.

One of the cases Ratzinger pursued involved Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, a Mexican priest and founder of the Legion of Christ

After Ratzinger became pope he began proceedings against Maciel and the Legion of Christ that forced Maciel out of active service in the church.[127] On 1 May 2010 the Vatican issued a statement denouncing Maciel's "very serious and objectively immoral acts", which were "confirmed by incontrovertible testimonies" and represent "true crimes and manifest a life without scruples or authentic religious sentiment." Pope Benedict also said he would appoint a special commission to examine the Legionaries’ constitution and open an investigation into its lay affiliate Regnum Christi.[134] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn explained that Ratzinger "made entirely clear efforts not to cover things up but to tackle and investigate them. This was not always met with approval in the Vatican"

In March 2010, the Pope sent a Pastoral Letter to the Catholic Church in Ireland ...
Victim groups claim the letter failed to clarify if secular law enforcement has priority over canon law confidentiality pertaining to internal investigation of abuse allegations
n April, the Vatican issued guidelines on how existing church law should be implemented. The guideline dictates that "Civil law concerning reporting of crimes... should always be followed."http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html

So the idea of coverup doesnt come from the Pope in this issue.

But all of that seems more internal than external ISAW, did he report that Masciel guy or others to the secular authorities ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

But all of that seems more internal than external ISAW, did he report that Masciel guy or others to the secular authorities ?

Church courts only tell a priest whether or not he can hold office. they dont prosecute crimes. that is for the local state to do if they so wish.
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/05/04/clerical-sexual-abuse-the-case-of-fr-marcial-maciel-degollado.htm

The case of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado is horrifying, and there is no doubt that much of the blame for decades of deceit lies in the actions of some who walked the halls of the Vatican.

But the credit for bringing this case out into the open, for removing a horrendous predator from ministry, and for attempting to reform the Legion of Christ lies with one man: Pope Benedict XVI.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Church courts only tell a priest whether or not he can hold office. they dont prosecute crimes. that is for the local state to do if they so wish.
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/05/04/clerical-sexual-abuse-the-case-of-fr-marcial-maciel-degollado.htm

That is not what I am asking ISAW- did he report the Masciel guy and others to the secular authorities or not ?

mikhail

Ah, so he doesn't do it any more. Well, that's me satisfied. That's certainly how we'd treat anyone other than the pope who bullied people into covering up crimes.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Church courts only tell a priest whether or not he can hold office. they dont prosecute crimes. that is for the local state to do if they so wish.

And that 2001 letter indicates that the church congratulates its employees when they cover up crimes.

Even today, the church does not require, or even recommend, its employees to inform the civil authorities in the countries it operates in.

Nodin

ISAW wrote: »

http://BLOGS.reuters.com/us/

Which is headed ANALYSIS & OPINION

..........

So if a blog links to a factual piece (as in this instance here) the factual piece can be dismissed as its linked to a blog? That's intellectual dishonesty.

ISAW wrote: »

i know i have written opinion pieces.

.

(A) - I don't believe you and (B) - thats rather irrelevant.

ISAW wrote: »

It refers to A former Vatican cardinal and that was in 2010!
.

And why would the fact that hes a former official logically make any difference whatsoever to what happened when he had the job?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

But all of that seems more internal than external ISAW, did he report that Masciel guy or others to the secular authorities ?

dont know; first I heard of him. But that is irrelevant really given the fact that the case seems to be world news, i doubt the local civil authorities are unaware of it. As such it would be for them to prosecute.

ISAW

mikhail wrote: »

Ah, so he doesn't do it any more. Well, that's me satisfied. That's certainly how we'd treat anyone other than the pope who bullied people into covering up crimes.

But it isnt a case of that . It is a case of a senior vatican official expressing an opinion which is contrary to the Pope and Vatican policy and subsequently being removed from his job but still having substantial influence in the Vatican. A bit like say the Bush or Kennedy family in the US.

ISAW

Nodin wrote: »

So if a blog links to a factual piece (as in this instance here) the factual piece can be dismissed as its linked to a blog? That's intellectual dishonesty.

the blog is an opinion. the FACT is the letter which i reproduced in full;
1. the letter does not say it is the view of the Pope
2. the letter was not copied to all other bishops in the world.

(A) - I don't believe you and (B) - thats rather irrelevant.

A so what? 1 and 2 are true based on the actual FACTS of the letter which I supplied
B the actual words of the letter and the people to whom it was sent is central to the issue.

And why would the fact that hes a former official logically make any difference whatsoever to what happened when he had the job?

Because he was removed from the job after he did this thing. For example is it relevant to the Watergate affair that Nixon was a former president who actually was President when Watergate happened?

Nodin

ISAW wrote: »

the blog is an opinion. the FACT is the letter which i reproduced in full;
1. the letter does not say it is the view of the Pope
2. the letter was not copied to all other bishops in the world.

Nobody said that the letter did. The cardinal said so at a conference. That was reported in the Paper, which was not a blog expressing an opinion but a paper recording a remark.

ISAW wrote: »

Because he was removed from the job after he did this thing.

...which doesn't negate whether or not it happened, that he said what he said etc and so on.

Delirium

First US Catholic pedophile cover-up trial opens

High-ranking Catholic priest Monsignor William Lynn protected the dark "secrets" of child-abusing subordinates, a US prosecutor said Monday at the start of a landmark trial.

The trial of the most senior church official in the United States to be charged with covering up priests' sexual abuse of children began under heavy media scrutiny in Philadelphia.

Prosecutors are targeting Lynn for allegedly shuffling two priests suspected of child abuse to other positions, thereby enabling the crimes to continue.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

That is not what I am asking ISAW- did he report the Masciel guy and others to the secular authorities or not ?

Let us say there is an offender in Venezuela.
It isnt for the Pope to go to Venezuela or to write to the police there to tell them about this pedophile.
It is a rule of the church that if the state has a law against it in Venezuela then the church must fully disclose any such people in that jurisdiction.
It isnt for the church to try the crime or to obstruct any civil authority in trying the crime.

ISAW

Nodin wrote: »

Nobody said that the letter did. The cardinal said so at a conference.

Said what? theat the letter had been copied to all bishops? where did he say that?
Was it in fact copied to all Bishops?

That was reported in the Paper, which was not a blog expressing an opinion but a paper recording a remark.

an opinion piece and a news item are different.

...which doesn't negate whether or not it happened, that he said what he said etc and so on.

I do not dispute whether the cardinal said it. I dispute whether what he said is Catholic Policy. Clearly it isnt!

CiaranMT

ISAW wrote: »

Let us say there is an offender in Venezuela.
It isnt for the Pope to go to Venezuela or to write to the police there to tell them about this pedophile.
It is a rule of the church that if the state has a law against it in Venezuela then the church must fully disclose any such people in that jurisdiction.
It isnt for the church to try the crime or to obstruct any civil authority in trying the crime.

None of which answers the question.

Lads, how did ISAW end up on this thread again?

Sarky

It's hard to tell with so many extra words in there, but that looks like a "no".

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Let us say there is an offender in Venezuela.
It isnt for the Pope to go to Venezuela or to write to the police there to tell them about this pedophile.
It is a rule of the church that if the state has a law against it in Venezuela then the church must fully disclose any such people in that jurisdiction.
It isnt for the church to try the crime or to obstruct any civil authority in trying the crime.

Let us say stop acting the fcuking edjit and give a straight answer. Did the relevant church authorities in the country in which the offence occurred report the issue to the relevant secular authorities ?

A yes or no will sufffice .

Nodin

CiaranMT wrote: »

None of which answers the question.

Lads, how did ISAW end up on this thread again?

....well, some would suggest the Wrath Of An Angry God...

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Let us say stop acting the fcuking edjit and give a straight answer. Did the relevant church authorities in the country in which the offence occurred report the issue to the relevant secular authorities ?

A yes or no will sufffice .

I actually dont know. To my knowledge i hadnt heard of the case until you mentioned it.

I assume they did or that the case was so widely known in whatever place it happened it was not necessary.
i hafd heard of the Order he was involved with and that the head was questionable but i didnt know his name and i didnt know the questions were about child sexual abuse. i thought it was about cult like power or control.
Have you evidence they knew and didnt report it and tried to hide it?
Because if so that is against church policy.

Dades

marienbad - calling someone a "fcuking edjit" is against the charter.
You have been duly warned.

Galvasean

Nodin wrote: »

....well, some would suggest the Wrath Of An Angry God...

He moves in mysterious (and sneaky) ways. The 21st century God has become much more refined than the OT one that's for sure.

ISAW

Galvasean wrote: »

He moves in mysterious (and sneaky) ways. The 21st century God has become much more refined than the OT one that's for sure.

Id have to mostly agree with that. Im actually posting about just that in Christianity. Im not going to post here anymore because it draws attacks on me. Ill express my personal opinions about what i believe religions think somewhere where i dont get attacked when I am honest about them. and Ill back them up with stats and reference. Nuff said here.

marienbad

Dades wrote: »

marienbad - calling someone a "fcuking edjit" is against the charter.
You have been duly warned.

What can I say - guilty as charged - mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa. Applying the cilice this instant .Lashing of apologies as Count Almasy would say .

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Im not going to post here anymore because it draws attacks on me.

As I've explained numerous times, your posting style is not the dialectic form that most A+A regulars use and enjoy. If you followed any of the tips you've been sent about this, you probably wouldn't have navigated yourself up the creek you now find yourself in.

The best of luck over the fence.

mikhail

marienbad wrote: »

What can I say - guilty as charged - mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa. Applying the cilice this instant .Lashing of apologies as Count Almasy would say .

You know what the difference between a god and a mod is? When you anger a mod, you get an automatically generated pm indicated that you have been smited.

Sarky

I've had no success asking God to buy me a beer. Mods are much more generous.

marienbad

mikhail wrote: »

You know what the difference between a god and a mod is? When you anger a mod, you get an automatically generated pm indicated that you have been smited.

And By the grace of Mod I am definitely smitten, smited , smote , whichever is applicable

Delirium

Abuse victim testifies in Philadelphia church trial

The jury in the Philadelphia Archdiocese pedophilia case on Wednesday got a look at the lurid lives of priests that were allegedly ignored by a top church official now on trial for child endangerment.

Testimony by a former altar boy who said he was abused and by a priest who stumbled upon his fellow clergy's misdeeds came during the trial of Monsignor William Lynn, the most senior church official to go to trial in the child sex abuse case rocking the Roman Catholic Church.

Lynn, 61, who served as secretary of the clergy under the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, is charged with child endangerment and conspiracy for covering up allegations against priests, many of whom were simply transferred to unsuspecting parishes.

Lynn, who was effectively the archdiocese's personnel director, said he tried to expose suspect priests by giving a list of their names to Bevilacqua but his boss ordered the paperwork shredded.

Delirium

Nun arrested in ‘stolen babies’ scandal

AN 80-year-old nun has become the first person to be officially named as a suspect in the stolen babies scandal.

Sister Maria Gomez has been arrested over a case involving Maria Luisa Torres and her daughter Pilar who were reunited eight months ago after 29 years.

Torres told investigators she contacted Gomez after seeing an advert offering to help single mothers who had become pregnant by another man.

She insists that Gomez, who worked with two Madrid clinics in the 1980s, promised to put the baby in an orphanage until she was able to look after the child herself.

But after the birth Gomez gave the baby to another family and threatened to denounce her and have her other daughter taken away if she complained.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

As I've explained numerous times, your posting style is not the dialectic form that most A+A regulars use and enjoy. If you followed any of the tips you've been sent about this, you probably wouldn't have navigated yourself up the creek you now find yourself in.

The best of luck over the fence.

Im aware people dont like my style. that isn't a reason to assume i am wrong.
but when you cant win an argument attach the person making it
I call that ad hominem. Others call it "getting rid of ISAW".
Im not afraid to admit when I am wrong but I haven't been shown where.
and when you support you 6.5% claim about priests
and the claim that it is widely supported
and statistics on sex abuse convicts in Irish prisons support it
and that the Irish Bishops own stats support it

THEN Ill be prepared to accept it. but you have failed to do so.

Sarky

HHe's doing it again