Pope's Pastoral Letter

Min

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

It does as Prinz pointed out.

It is a letter for Catholics in Ireland. It is not a letter for specific Catholics in Ireland, it is for all Catholics on Ireland.

It never was a letter to tell someone to resign and it was not for Catholics worldwide which is another mistake 1 in 4 made when I heard someone from that group say it didn't deal with the problem worldwide.

Agent J

http://www.theemergency.ie/breaking-news/full-text-of-pastoral-letter-of-the-holy-father-pope-benedict-xvi-to-irish-catholics/#

Alternate popes letter...

landsleaving

Well if as a Catholic you're happy with that as a response to what's happened, good for you.

I just thought it was an opportunity to say and do a lot more.

The Sparrow

He lost me on the first sentence:

DEAR BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE CHURCH IN IRELAND

Where is the letter of apology to the entire nation of Ireland no matter what their religious beliefs are for the heinous crimes committed? Surely they understand that because of the awful abuse inflicted on them, many victims of abuse have denounced the church and can't stand to be apart of such a corrupt organisation. But yet the Popes approach is to write a pathetic letter to the 'brothers and sisters of the Church"

This also stood out for me:

14. I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.

At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland.

WTF... Let's prays is your concrete initiative to address the situation??? Why don't we have another mass???

Carry

Just an additional information:

Proof appeared that Ratzinger knew exactly about the pedophile priest in his diocese in Munich in 1980.
A letter from the archdiocese in Essen sent to the archdiocese in Munich under Ratzinger pointed out directly what kind of priest they are sending over.
Under Ratzingers chairmanship this case was dicussed and decided not to report the priest in question to the police. Instead they gave him shelter and a new job. A protocol about this discussion exists.

Furthermore a psyciatrist and psychotherapist working for the church at this time (1980) warned the archdiocese to employ the pedophile priest. To no avail.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,684720,00.html

Fact is that the pope Ratzinger is one of the lads. He is involved and guilty. And the lads stick together. Always will.

So why expect him to do something about the whole scandal other than waffle on in a letter to the faithful?

Mrmoe

Is it any surprise that the catholic church is infested with pedophile priests and that the best attempts were made to cover it up when you have someone like the current pope as head of the catholic church.'ve seen more leadership from a thumbtack.

1in4

SKY NEWS are correctly describing the Pastoral as an apology to abuse victims. Remember Sky's own Ash Wednesday gaff with Kay, she apologised most sincerely? One other recent apology of note was Newstalk's Tom Dunne apology to a certain health Minister. Now that is worth listening to over and over.....

TheZohanS

So the Pope is saying that the cover-up was wrong....yet he was responsible for a lot of it....


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf


This sh!t just keeps getting better and better...

dunleakelleher

Mrmoe wrote: »

Is it any surprise that the catholic church is infested with pedophile priests and that the best attempts were made to cover it up when you have someone like the current pope as head of the catholic church.'ve seen more leadership from a thumbtack.

Interesting found this link on another post. Its a letter the Vatican issued in 1922 and reissued in 1962 to all bishops of the world how to keep all abuse secret. Its 39 pages long but the interesting text is highlighted in blue boxes.

Just saw it is linked also linked above.

A Primal Nut

prinz wrote: »

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

What has Vatican II got to do with allowing child abuse?

1in4

Check out the spelling of 'Church' on the avalon marriage preparation course Irish web site.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

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!

That is silly talk.

The Pope went to America after the abuse scandals, he went to Australia after similar scandals.

I was simply pointing out you got it wrong when you associated apostolic visit with a papal visit.
It doesn't say anything about a possible papal visit, it doesn't mean a visit won't happen, though I expect a papal visit in 2012 when Ireland hosts the 50th Eucharistic congress.

Min

1in4 wrote: »

SKY NEWS are correctly describing the Pastoral as an apology to abuse victims. Remember Sky's own Ash Wednesday gaff with Kay, she apologised most sincerely? One other recent apology of note was Newstalk's Tom Dunne apology to a certain health Minister. Now that is worth listening to over and over.....

CNN said something similar to Sky news.

TheZohanS

Oremus wrote: »

Ah come on now. Even those on €205 a week can surely afford their daily fix of anti-Church outrage? I'm sure they could fish one out of the dustbin later on in the evening if they had young mouths to feed.

Re-reg banned.

Blueboyd

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Interesting found this link on another post. Its a letter the Vatican issued in 1922 and reissued in 1962 to all bishops of the world how to keep all abuse secret. Its 39 pages long but the interesting text is highlighted in blue boxes.

Just saw it is linked also linked above.

Here is another one

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER
sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church
and other Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest
REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[Translation of the text was printed in Origins 31:32, January 24, 2001, and posted at http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle/2002/graveoffenses.doc]
In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52 of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, "[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law,"(1) it was necessary first to define the method of proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)

At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine "more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions," because the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical codes were promulgated.

Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission's work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.

The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)

-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)

-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.

Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party's legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.

It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.

In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary

[Notes added from the Latin text]
[1] Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Constitutio Apostolica Pastor bonus, De Romana Curia, 28 iunii 1988, art. 52, in AAS 80 (1988) 874.

[2] Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine, 29 iunii 1997, in AAS 89 (1997) 830-835.

[3] Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Instructio Crimen sollicitationis, Ad omnes Patriarchas, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos aliosque locorum Ordinarios "etiam Ritus Orientalis": De modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis, 16 martii 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCMLXII.

[4] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1367; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1442. Cf. et Pontificium Consilium De Legum Textibus Interpretandis, Responsio ad propositum dubium, 4 iunii 1999.

[5] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 2 n. 1 et 1379; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1443.

[6] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 908 et 1365; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 702 et 1440.

[7] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 927.

[8] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1457.

[9] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1387; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1458.

[10] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1388 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1456 § 1.

[11] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 1 n. 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 2 n. 1.

[12] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 2; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 3.

Link

Biggins

A complete and utter failure of a letter.
Nothing that we haven't heard before - just re-worded.
More of the same monastic speech, avoidance of anything new/substantial and grammar that belongs in the dark ages for those that like to still want to decode it like a Shakespearian play!

* No new addressing of how the victims are going to be helped - except for giving them more fcuking praying. Whoop-de-do!
* No saying who is responsible directly.
* No saying that those that have defaulted from doing the right thing, will pay a price and resign.
* No saying when they are going to own up and tell all they know.
* No further telling us of how many other cases that they have covered up in Ireland
* No saying when the rest of the country is going to have their investigations and exposure of those that so far have gotten away silently in their communities.
* No saying how many more kids/adults were sworn to secrecy and not to tell the law!
* No admission that the priests WERE following DIRECT canon rules from Rome!
* No saying that those canon rules (some of which was HIS!) were fcuking wrong!

I could continue but at the end of the day, one thing sadly is obvious...
It all just regurgitated schite!

Agricola

Lads, hes the Pope, and an ultra conservative pope at that. What do people expect? Damage limitation mode FTW!

Biggins

Agricola wrote: »

Lads, hes the Pope, and an ultra conservative pope at that. What do people expect? Damage limitation mode FTW!

Yes, cover his own ass.
Pity the previous popes, bishops and offending priests didn't think to cover their congregations asses instead first!

goat2

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.

they are speaking of the church and its very rich organisation, which made money out of us innocent souls, through the collection boxes, easter collection, christmas dues, and people leaving their lot to them when they leave this world, also baptisms, weddings, funerals, calling out to the sick at home,and lets not forget the launderies they made these victims into slaves, a big money making racket
it is not God they are speaking of
it is a bunch of men who elected themselves to be messengers of Christ, well they failed badly
I still have my god, i beleive in him.
i dont need them
the letter means nothing to me,

Michaelrsh

Casterol letter:

"People of Ireland, I love you ..."

People of Ireland:

"... And?"

Hagar

Go to Mass on Sunday and when the letter is read out get up and walk out. You probably won't leave alone. Have the courage to act.

Michaelrsh

69 wrote: »

Go to Mass on Sunday and when the letter is read out get up and walk out. You probably won't leave alone. Have the courage to act.

Take's a great idea actually ... except I'm atheist.

Agricola

Biggins wrote: »

Pity the previous popes, bishops and offending priests didn't think to cover their congregations asses instead first!

In the solemn spirit of this thread, I will resist posting a tasteless joke!

69 wrote: »

Go to Mass on Sunday and when the letter is read out get up and walk out. You probably won't leave alone. Have the courage to act.

Thats a great idea except 95% of priests wont even address the issue. Im my parish the elderly priest talks about the meaning of the gospel, how we should be nice to our neighbours, stuff like that!

Biggins

Agricola wrote: »

In the solemn spirit of this thread, I will resist posting a tasteless joke!

Correct and understandable.
I wasn't attempting to be funny either, just to be clear.
In they had behaved appropriately at the right time, from a long time ago, they honestly wouldn't have been in this mess right now.

As someone once said "Ye reap what ye sow..."

Hagar

Michaelrsh wrote: »

Take's a great idea actually ... except I'm atheist.

So am I, should that stop us going? Who are we going to offend? Magic Invisible Man and his merry band of child molesters?

Min

69 wrote: »

Go to Mass on Sunday and when the letter is read out get up and walk out. You probably won't leave alone. Have the courage to act.

No intention of walking out, I have nothing against the priest so why would I want to make it personal with him?

Michaelrsh

Min wrote: »

No intention of walking out, I have nothing against the priest so why would I want to make it personal with him?

So, he is still affiliated with a corrupt organisation. I'd say walk out but do it as a protest against the Catholic Church itself and not the individual priest, maybe say a word to him after about it.

Hagar

Just make sure you hold on to your child's hand.

Min

Michaelrsh wrote: »

So, he is still affiliated with a corrupt organisation. I'd say walk out but do it as a protest against the Catholic Church itself and not the individual priest, maybe say a word to him after about it.

I am affiliated with the church, the church is made up of it's members, I do not want to miss out on the Eucharist through a silly protest that would do feck all.
It is like walking away from a problem than actually dealing with it.

I see the child protection policy in place and I don't go to mass to protest, what happened is a terrible shame on all Catholics as we are associated with abuse like the innocent priests who never abused.
My Catholic faith and what happened in the Catholic church are two entirely separate things.

Are people going to walk out of hospitals to refuse treatment because 20 children died in state care under the HSE, 10 of natural causes, 10 of unknown but unnatural causes.
One has to put things into perspective, I am not going to walk out of mass, I like going to mass on a Sunday, I have no problem with the mass or the priest who celebrates it.

Hagar

Can any of the Catholics on here state for an absolute fact that there parish priest has not been moved from another parish because of unsavoury acts? No is the only honest answer to that. For a moment draw the distinction between belief and knowledge.

Now I not accusing your PP of anything I'm just asking you to question the hierarchy that has done that innumerable times in the past and everybody in the new parish thought that the new priest was a decent man when in fact he was the lowest criminal you can imagine. That same hierarchy is still running the show and some of those priests are still serving mass somewhere to an oblivious community.