Pope's Pastoral Letter

A Primal Nut

prinz wrote: »

What he means is that as society and the Church separated a lot of the clergy were caught in a type of "no-mans land" and this led to the problems of cover-up etc, in the end the people who became aware of the abuse didn't satisfactorily deal with the problem through canon law of the Church or civil law of the State and it was left to fester. Society changed, and the Church changed, but the change of the Church was not in tune with the change of society. That the clergy were trying to serve two masters and in the end failed at serving either.

Well, if thats the case, I don't agree with him. Ireland didn't become secular the way the pope means it until the 90's and as far as I know the process didn't begin till the 80s (I wasn't alive in the 70's so no idea haha). But still certainly the 50s and 60s there was no secular society and the cover up goes back to then and before it. I don't see why there would be any ambiguity - I think most normal people would do everything they can to stop someone from abusing children.

Apart from that, he clearly suggests that the abuse and coverup should be seen in the context of a more secular society, as if that is supposed to be seen as part of the explanation, which is complete crap.

He should be praising secularity for allowing the abuse come to light, although to be fair to the lad, he does partially blame "a
tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures."

prinz

LookingFor wrote: »

He gets some sly digs in at the divergence of civil law from canon law..

Yeah he acknowledges there was a misguided tendancy to avoid penal approaches to the findings of abuse, in favour of some half-arsed canon law approach. Seems clear cut.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Well, if thats the case, I don't agree with him. Ireland didn't become properly secular until the 90's and as far as I know the process didn't begin till the 80s (I wasn't alive in the 70's so no idea haha). But still certainly the 50s and 60s there was no secular society and the cover up goes back to then and before it..

Not sure what definition of secular you are using, but Ireland still isn't "properly secular", as for the 50's and 60's, there was a big world outside of Ireland you know.

Min

The pastoral letter by the pope for Irish Catholics will be condemned by some people no matter what it contained.

The response will be very predictable.

A Primal Nut

prinz wrote: »

Yeah he acknowledges there was a misguided tendancy to avoid penal approaches to the findings of abuse, in favour of some half-arsed canon law approach. Seems clear cut.



Not sure what definition of secular you are using, but Ireland still isn't "properly secular", as for the 50's and 60's, there was a big world outside of Ireland you know.

I guess I meant secular in the sense the Pope meant, couldn't think of a better word at the time.

The letter is aimed at Ireland, and the confusion Irish bishops faced between penal law and canon law, therefore the outside world had no affect in how the bishops should have dealt with these cases.

prinz

Min wrote: »

The pastoral letter by the pope for Irish Catholics will be condemned by some people no matter what it contained.
The response will be very predictable.

Indeed. Sadly predictable.

Hagar

That document could well become the epitaph of the RCC in Ireland.

prinz

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The letter is aimed at Ireland, and the confusion Irish bishops faced between penal law and canon law, therefore the outside world had no affect in how the bishops should have dealt with these cases.

The 'secularisation' and changes of the outside world had a lot to do with it. See his reference to Vatican II for example.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

...The response will be very predictable.

Thats just an easy, lazy kop-out and miserable excuse to cheaply knock those who disagree with its contents and the direction/mis-direction some read in it .

As a father of four, a husband and citizen of this country - I have read the whole thing, gone away, done some work, feed kids, sat down with wife, talked and re-read the whole thing again.

After all that time - the letter still says the same damn thing.
I'm sorry, go pray, bishops bad, compares one mans nailing to a cross to decades of pain inflicted suffering(!), its the public's fault, I'm coming to Ireland and hold another damn meeting!

Fcuking cobblers!

prinz

Biggins wrote: »

Thats just an easy, lazy kop-out and miserable excuse to cheaply knock those who disagree with its contents and the direction/mis-direction some read in it .

No it isn't. You have read and digested it's contents and disagree, that's fine. Most people will read a few selective quotes, can't even be bothered spending two or three minutes to even read through it once, and will still write it off as waffle, BS etc etc. THAT is the lazy cop-out way to cheaply knock something the Pope has written.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

Thats just an easy, lazy kop-out and miserable excuse to cheaply knock those who disagree with its contents and the direction/mis-direction some read in it .

As a father of four, a husband and citizen of this country - I have read the whole thing, gone away, done some work, feed kids, sat down with wife, talked and re-read the whole thing again.

After all that time - the letter still says the same damn thing.
I'm sorry, go pray, bishops bad, compares one mans nailing to a cross to decades of pain inflicted suffering(!), its the public's fault, I'm coming to Ireland and hold another damn meeting!

Fcuking cobblers!

No it is not a kop out.

I texted into Marian Finucane's program before the document was there for people to see. I said the response to the letter will be predictable no matter what it contained in that the Pope's letter will be condemned by some.

She read out my text first, followed by texts of people condemning it.
Marian said it was a bit early to be judging it.....

He doesn't say he is coming to Ireland, an Apostolic visitation is where the Vatican will send over it's people to enforce it's views in seminaries and so on and make sure the candidates for the church roles as in religious life are suitable.
It does not mean a visit by the pope, maybe you didn't understand all you read.

landsleaving

That letter should have been a formal apology to abuse victims and a condemnation of what happened, as well as a call for serious legal punishment for all involved. As I've read it, it is none of those things, merely a typical political statement, with no real sentiment other than covering those in power.

There was planty they could say that would have been better than that, but I guess you're right, some people wouldn't have been appeased no matter what was in the letter, but it's hardly something they should be able to talk their way out of now is it?

Oh well, at least we might get to see the popemobile.

Red_Marauder

Is nobody else slightly frustrated at the victims' group, One in Four?

They came on the news today saying they are "very disappointed" with the letter partially because it didn't ask for Cardinal Brady's resignation. Are they for real? For a people who have been so gravely hurt by Church authorities, what the hell are they doing clinging to the popes gowns like needy infants seemingly searching for some sort of justice. They're not going to get it from the pope, they need to grow up.

One does not need to be a member of the RCC to be a faithful and committed Catholic, one does not need it for any religious or spiritual affiliation whatsover. If they are interested in pursuing justice through civil law, fair enough, but unless they are pursuing justice through canon law, I really don't get their preoccupation with Il Papa.

Furthermore, One in Four said that the Pope blamed secularisation for the child abuse scandal. No he didnt; he frequently referenced failures on the behalf of church authorities as a problem throughout the letter.

Some people will never be happy with whatever kind of apology is given or whatever sort of renewal is suggested - so it would make you wonder what exactly they are bothering to ask for in the first place.

genericguy

Oremus wrote: »

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

It's inevitable that an organisation on the scale of the Church will succumb to human failings. And to compound matters: unlike employees who work 40 hours a week and can engage in their perversions outside office hours, priests represent God's Church 24-7.

here, hold on a second - are you saying that because i work more than 40 hours a week i can rape people and not have to answer for my crimes?

OP, i think you are a priest, and at any rate all you're doing is consolidating the rest of the non-catholic posters' opinions that those who follow religion are not the full shilling.

landsleaving

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Is nobody else slightly frustrated at the victims' group, One in Four?

Um. No.

LookingFor

Red_Marauder wrote: »

One does not need to be a member of the RCC to be a faithful and committed Catholic, one does not need it for any religious or spiritual affiliation whatsover. If they are interested in pursuing justice through civil law, fair enough, but unless they are pursuing justice through canon law, I really don't get their preoccupation with Il Papa.

It's very simple. They want him to resign. He's said he'll only resign if told to by the pope. Hence their disappointment he's not asking Brady to resign.

They can't get a resignation via civil means or via a civil prosecution. The latter could help along a resignation, but wouldn't oblige one.

Anyway, we'll have to see what Brady does. Maybe he'll go of his own volition.

Biggins

With the greatest of respects to those that are devoutly religious (and others here should not knock them for being that way I hope) - would those of the faith who have read the letter, please point out directly:
* Where something advantageous has been proposed as to how things are ABSOLUTELY going to be changed and done?
* Where is the section that states clearly and unequivocally that "the Catholic Church at the highest levels has always known about the clerical sexual abuse of children?"
* Where is the sections that offer help BESIDES of only getting down on our knees and just praying?
* Where is the abused being offered and given DIRECT help (not money!)?
* Where is the admission that they have said one thing and one another (even within the last ten years)!
* Where do they accept that they have done absolutely wrong, without outside reasons or excuses AND will step down because they admit they should do so because their positions have been shown to be untenable?

Min

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Is nobody else slightly frustrated at the victims' group, One in Four?

They came on the news today saying they are "very disappointed" with the letter partially because it didn't ask for Cardinal Brady's resignation. Are they for real? For a people who have been so gravely hurt by Church authorities, what the hell are they doing clinging to the popes gowns like needy infants seemingly searching for some sort of justice. They're not going to get it from the pope, they need to grow up.

One does not need to be a member of the RCC to be a faithful and committed Catholic, one does not need it for any religious or spiritual affiliation whatsover. If they are interested in pursuing justice through civil law, fair enough, but unless they are pursuing justice through canon law, I really don't get their preoccupation with Il Papa.

Furthermore, One in Four said that the Pope blamed secularisation for the child abuse scandal. No he didnt; he frequently referenced failures on the behalf of church authorities as a problem throughout the letter.

Some people will never be happy with whatever kind of apology is given or whatever sort of renewal is suggested - so it would make you wonder what exactly they are bothering to ask for in the first place.

Yes, you could get no more predictable than them.

Part time abuse victims organisation, part time putting out how much they hate the church.
If they were impartial and said good as well as bad about the church they would have more credibility.

1in4

The 'predictable' victim responses are proving to be even more predictable than usual and as a result are becoming a real 'turn off' factor. I feel more sympathy for those many many more people who are bearing their past and present suffering siliently and couragously so. My concern is for the mental well-being of those who have not got a microphone to speal into.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

...He doesn't say he is coming to Ireland, an Apostolic visitation is where the Vatican will send over it's people to enforce it's views in seminaries and so on and make sure the candidates for the church roles as in religious life are suitable.
It does not mean a visit by the pope, maybe you didn't understand all you read.

If thats the way you read it, fair enough.
I can understand why he won't dare show his face in the country!
After all the country is at a religious crises point like NEVER before and he can't be arsed coming then?
Lets just hold yet another fcuking meeting of prayer and reflection!

Great stuff!

Mr Fonnen

So generations of kids get raped and beaten and we get a letter and the promise of a visit... best religion ever just wow

landsleaving

Min wrote: »

Yes, you could get no more predictable than them.

Part time abuse victims organisation, part time putting out how much they hate the church.
If they were impartial and said good as well as bad about the church they would have more credibility.

Are you serious? You want them to say good things about the organisation that continues to allow people who have covered up the abuse they suffered within their ranks? That is yet to offer them any meaningful response about the awful things they suffered?

Can you really criticize them? Really? You should really consider what it might be like to be in their shoes.

mfceiling

Here's what's wrong:

Man A - rapes and beats a child. Goes to court and the full letter of the law is applied and he faces a jury of his peers and is tried for his crime.

Man B - rapes and beats a child. He is a priest. He is moved somewhere else and the child is told not to mention it again. His "employers" brush this under the carpet and when asked about it say "we were bound by canon law" ie...go away and don't ask us any more questions.

Have i got this correct?

Red_Marauder

landsleaving wrote: »

Are you serious? You want them to say good things about the organisation that continues to allow people who have covered up the abuse they suffered within their ranks? That is yet to offer them any meaningful response about the awful things they suffered?

Can you really criticize them? Really? You should really consider what it might be like to be in their shoes.

Just because an organisation is in place (supposedly) to stand up for victims of abuse, does not in any way put them beyond criticism. I personally have a big problem with One in Four, I think they are totally detached from reality and overly reliant on the church they so fervently dislike.

They're too caught up in the church and church affairs to actually do anything constructive about child protection in civil and constitutional law where it actually matters and can have a real impact.

If they acknowledged the good work that many people in the church do, if they acknowledged the fact that many religious are ashamed and upset over what their organisation has done, then they would probably be seen differently. But all they want to do is reject and criticise, it doesn't actually matter a damn what any pope or cardinal or politician says.

It surprises me to say it. But I am with the pope on this one. I was pretty impressed by the honesty, exactness, and openness of his letter. I accept that many people won't be, it's simply how I feel personally about it.

ec18

Oremus wrote: »

In other words: I'm not open to the idea of the Catholic Church trying their best to heal deep wounds. If you want to live out your days being a bitter man, that's your perogative.

wounds that should never have happened......the only reason they are trying to heal them is because they got found out

Min

landsleaving wrote: »

Are you serious? You want them to say good things about the organisation that continues to allow people who have covered up the abuse they suffered within their ranks? That is yet to offer them any meaningful response about the awful things they suffered?

Can you really criticize them? Really? You should really consider what it might be like to be in their shoes.

I suppose 1 in 4 should have a problem with a letter that tells the Irish church to be fully open about all cases of abuse.

landsleaving

I thnk the Pope should come to ireland and say he'll sort it out, then send all the guilty Bishops/Priests/etc. to confession, where he gives them a billion Our Fathers to say and gives them a nice locked room each to say them in. That would be a fine example of Canon law at work no?

Then he could ride off into the sunset in his popemobile...

Pow. Thwok. Gospel.

landsleaving

Min wrote: »

I suppose 1 in 4 should have a problem with a letter that tells the Irish church to be fully open about all cases of abuse.

Well yes, when it doesn't also say that the guilty parties need to be punished severely for abusing and covering it up in the first place, or that those involved should at least step down from their positions in the Church.

prinz

landsleaving wrote: »

Well yes, when it doesn't also say that the guilty parties need to be punished severely for abusing and covering it up in the first place,

Ah but it does, they should be answerable before God and the legal system of the land, is what he says.

landsleaving wrote: »

or that those involved should at least step down from their positions in the Church.

It's not the time or place to call for resignations, he can/should pick up the phone and do that one to one.

Blueboyd

Biggins wrote: »

With the greatest of respects to those that are devoutly religious (and others here should not knock them for being that way I hope) - would those of the faith who have read the letter, please point out directly:

* Where is the section that states clearly and unequivocally that "the Catholic Church at the highest levels has always known about the clerical sexual abuse of children?"

That was in another letter

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf

landsleaving

prinz wrote: »

Ah but it does, they should be answerable before God and the legal system of the land, is what he says.

'Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.'

I don't think that says clearly what you suggest.

Honestly, my reading of it is different but I guess we aren't going to agree

prinz wrote: »

It's not the time or place to call for resignations, he can/should pick up the phone and do that one to one.

Personally, I think it should be totally public and open, as you put it yourself. It would be the first step to showing the Church wants to genuinely do something, which I don't see evidence of in the Pastoral letter. The Cardinals and Bishops were complicit in a crime, perverting the course of justice (no pun intended) and should be held accountable, and the Pope should just say as much to be fair. He does admit there was abuse yes, and I'm sure some more priests will be in a lot of trouble, but the people who kept it under wraps will more than likely never be punished.