Would you Believe - 17th Jan...

kelly1

Hello all,

did anyone see WYB last night? It was about a letter send from the Vatican to the Irish bishop about reservations around mandatory reporting of sexual abusers to civil authorities. It certainly put the Irish bishops in a better light.

What puzzles me is why didn't John Paul II do anything about rooting out abusers? To my surprise, RTE had good things to say about Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict. I think he has done a lot of good work dealing with the scandals. For a start he demoted Cardinal Hoyos and took over dealing with abuse cases. I think he very genuinely wants to deal with the issue and eradicate it as much as is possible.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all,

did anyone see WYB last night? It was about a letter send from the Vatican to the Irish bishop about reservations around mandatory reporting of sexual abusers to civil authorities. It certainly put the Irish bishops in a better light.

What puzzles me is why didn't John Paul II do anything about rooting out abusers? To my surprise, RTE had good things to say about Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict. I think he has done a lot of good work dealing with the scandals. For a start he demoted Cardinal Hoyos and took over dealing with abuse cases. I think he very genuinely wants to deal with the issue and eradicate it as much as is possible.

Didn't see the programme Noel. Could you expand on the content? What I extrapulate from your post above is that the Irish Bishops were for the mandatory reporting, but the vatican weren't? When was this letter sent?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Didn't see the programme Noel. Could you expand on the content? What I extrapulate from your post above is that the Irish Bishops were for the mandatory reporting, but the vatican weren't? When was this letter sent?

Yes, the Irish bishops were sending letters to Rome but the response from Cardinal Hoyos was that they were reluctant to laicize priests and they want them moved to monasteries but the monasteries didn't want to take them in so the problem remained and abuses continued. Apparently there were heated rows between the Irish bishops and Rome. Kinda puts the Irish bishops in a better light.

The letter I referred to in the OP was sent in 1997 when JPII was head.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, the Irish bishops were sending letters to Rome but the response from Cardinal Hoyos was that they were reluctant to laicize priests and they want them moved to monasteries but the monasteries didn't want to take them in so the problem remained and abuses continued. Apparently there were heated rows between the Irish bishops and Rome. Kinda puts the Irish bishops in a better light.

The letter I referred to in the OP was sent in 1997 when JPII was head.

What, in your opinion, would be the reasoning behind not reporting and defrocking these abusers? Initially, when the abuse was still hush hush, I can see that the RCC would have wanted to prevent the scandal (Awful as such reasoning is/was:( ). However, after all of this was out in the open, what possible 'reason' would they have for not reporting and defrocking such clergymen?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

What, in your opinion, would be the reasoning behind not reporting and defrocking these abusers? Initially, when the abuse was still hush hush, I can see that the RCC would have wanted to prevent the scandal (Awful as such reasoning is/was:( ). However, after all of this was out in the open, what possible 'reason' would they have for not reporting and defrocking such clergymen?

That is a very good question! Whatever reasoning the had, it's was totally misguided. Their priority should be been on the protection of innocent children, not avoidance of shame and scandal.

Fanny Cradock

It's on RTE player for the next 20 or so days

http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1089205

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

That is a very good question! Whatever reasoning the had, it's was totally misguided. Their priority should be been on the protection of innocent children, not avoidance of shame and scandal.

Couldn't agree more, but as I said, after the scandal had occured, what stood or stands in the way of taking such measures? In your opinion of course.

ubertrad

I think there are probably details RTE are not so kind as to share with us.

For example, is it the case that the Irish bishops wanted to report all allegations to the police? In my view, only credible allegations should be reported.

You can destroy the good name of a priest with false and malicious allegations, and believe me, these false allegations are made. Take this story from the USA:

Where's the Media? L.A. Att'y Declares Many Abuse Accusations Against Catholic Priests Are 'Entirely False'
By Dave Pierre | January 02, 2011 | 20:02
In a stunning ten-page declaration recently submitted to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, veteran attorney Donald H. Steier stated that his investigations into claims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests have uncovered vast fraud and that his probes have revealed that many accusations are completely false.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/01/02/wheres-media-la-atty-declares-many-abuse-accusations-against-catholic-p#ixzz1BP0y2Dq9

Other stories:

Archbishop Chaput 'saddened' by false abuse charges against deceased priest

US: Abuse scandal’s total cost approaches $2.2 billion; most victims male

RTE failed to tell us what the actual dispute was about - was it about credible allegations or all allegations?

RTE have an agenda, make no mistake about that - but the programme does raise some valid questions and both the Irish Catholic bishops and the Vatican authorities would seem to have some explaining to do.

homer911

ubertrad wrote: »

In my view, only credible allegations should be reported.

Its standard Child Protection policy for the Child Protection Officer in any organisation to make the decision about reporting - and the bias is to err on the side of caution and report the potential abuse - Its up to the HSE or the Gardai to decide what is credible and what isn't.

This can and does result in false accusations being made to the police - unfortuntely lives and careers have been damaged by this, but the child should always come first. I have second-hand experience of this.

The law currently allows "false accusers" to get away with it, provided there was no malicious intent - this is no comfort if a person has lost their career or been excluded from their sport/hobby because of the false accusation

ubertrad

homer911 wrote: »

The law currently allows "false accusers" to get away with it, provided there was no malicious intent - this is no comfort if a person has lost their career or been excluded from their sport/hobby because of the false accusation

If there is no law against false accusations, then there should be one. If someone is shown to have made a false accusation, then they should be charged with an offense.

I don't see how a person can make a false accusation with a good intent - by the very nature of it it's a wicked thing to do.

Morbert

ubertrad wrote: »

If there is no law against false accusations, then there should be one. If someone is shown to have made a false accusation, then they should be charged with an offense.

I don't see how a person can make a false accusation with a good intent - by the very nature of it it's a wicked thing to do.

The person making the false accusation might not know it is false. It would not be malicious intent in that case.

ubertrad

Morbert wrote: »

The person making the false accusation might not know it is false. It would not be malicious intent in that case.

How would you not know it was false? I think those genuine cases would be very few and very far between. Proving such would be next to impossible, thus those who make false allegations can claim they had 'ghost' memories.

ckeng

ubertrad wrote: »

How would you not know it was false?

The allegation may be made by someone who suspects abuse is taking place, not necessarily by someone who is being (or claiming that they are being) abused. Obviously in those cases it is easily possible to make an allegation in good faith which subsequently turns out to be false.

homer911

ckeng wrote: »

The allegation may be made by someone who suspects abuse is taking place, not necessarily by someone who is being (or claiming that they are being) abused. Obviously in those cases it is easily possible to make an allegation in good faith which subsequently turns out to be false.

That was exactly the situation in the case I am familiar with..

Blueboyd

Dublin, 31 January 1997

Strictly confidential

Apostolic Nunciature In Ireland N. 808/97

Your Excellency,

The Congregation for the Clergy has attentively studied the complex question of sexual abuse of minors by clerics and the document entitled "Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response", published by the Irish Catholic Bishops' Advisory Committee.

The Congregation wishes to emphasize the need for this document to conform to the canonical norms presently in force.

The text, however, contains "proceedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchial recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.

In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature".

Since the policies on sexual abuse in the English speaking world exhibit many of the same characteristics and procedures, the Congregation is involved in a global study of them. At the appropriate time, with the collaboration of the interested Episcopal Conferences and in dialogue with them, the Congregation will not be remiss in establishing some concrete directives with regard to these Policies.

For these reasons and because the abovementioned text is not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document, I am directed to inform the individual Bishops of Ireland of the preoccupations of the Congregation in its regard, underlining that in the sad cases of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchial recourse against his Bishop.

Asking you to kindly let me know of safe receipt of this letter and with the assurance of my cordial regard, I am

Yours sincerely in Christ,

+Luciano Storero
Apostolic Nuncio

To: Members of the Irish Episcopal Conference
- their Dioceses

ubertrad

Blueboyd wrote: »

Dublin, 31 January 1997

Strictly confidential

Apostolic Nunciature In Ireland N. 808/97

Your Excellency,

The Congregation for the Clergy has attentively studied the complex question of sexual abuse of minors by clerics and the document entitled "Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response", published by the Irish Catholic Bishops' Advisory Committee.

The Congregation wishes to emphasize the need for this document to conform to the canonical norms presently in force.

The text, however, contains "proceedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchial recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.

In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature".

Since the policies on sexual abuse in the English speaking world exhibit many of the same characteristics and procedures, the Congregation is involved in a global study of them. At the appropriate time, with the collaboration of the interested Episcopal Conferences and in dialogue with them, the Congregation will not be remiss in establishing some concrete directives with regard to these Policies.

For these reasons and because the abovementioned text is not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document, I am directed to inform the individual Bishops of Ireland of the preoccupations of the Congregation in its regard, underlining that in the sad cases of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchial recourse against his Bishop.

Asking you to kindly let me know of safe receipt of this letter and with the assurance of my cordial regard, I am

Yours sincerely in Christ,

+Luciano Storero
Apostolic Nuncio

To: Members of the Irish Episcopal Conference
- their Dioceses

If that is the actual letter...

The issue is the mandatory reporting. That is the issue. Am I wrong? I guess there was some confusion/disagreement about that. I am no fan of the Association of Catholic Priests, but I think they would be a bit conflicted about this. They do not agree with automatic mandatory reporting, as far as I can tell. They are concerned about the rights of priests. Remembering that people have rights, even people suspected or accused of crimes. I am thinking of those priests who are falsely accused and have their good name ruined and a shadow of suspicion placed over them which never disappears.

Blueboyd

ubertrad wrote: »

If that is the actual letter...

The issue is the mandatory reporting. That is the issue. Am I wrong? I guess there was some confusion/disagreement about that. I am no fan of the Association of Catholic Priests, but I think they would be a bit conflicted about this. They do not agree with automatic mandatory reporting, as far as I can tell. They are concerned about the rights of priests. Remembering that people have rights, even people suspected or accused of crimes. I am thinking of those priests who are falsely accused and have their good name ruined and a shadow of suspicion placed over them which never disappears.

Yes it is the letter.

Xizors Palace

Er. No they didn't.

The letter doesn't say what they say it says.

The letter advised the Irish bishops that if they followed their own procedures, they could fail to comply with Canon law, miscarriages of justice might then occur, affected priests might appeal to Rome, Rome might uphold their appeal, and the bishop would be left looking foolish. The letter is an advisory statement, not a warning or a directive. The letter does raise issues with mandatory reporting which may cause problems for both priests and victims. They were concerned that there be safeguards for the innocent accused. If you look at the actual proposals by the Irish bishops, you probably wouldn't agree with them. They state that all suspicion of abuse be reported immediately to the police. Do you realise how dangerous that is to the reputations of innocent men?

Jenny down the road hates Fr X because he preaches the faith and refused absolution cos she wouldn't stop her mortal sinning with the townsfolk and she just can't stand him anyway. She is a bit emotionally unstable and downright mean so she makes an accusation against Fr X. The PP knows Jenny is a headcase and that the accusation is highly likely false but he has to report good Fr X to the police automatically because that is what the policy states. It was this proposed policy that Vatican objected to and I agree with the Vatican. I am all for protection of kids, but I also care about the good name of innocent men. Once a priest is accused of kiddy-fiddling, it doesn't matter whether he is found guilty or not in the courts or whatever, he will forever be suspected by everyone. Fr X is now suspected, since mud sticks, of maybe/probably/possibly being a pedophile. The dark shadow of suspicion hangs over him for life. Is that fair?

Of course, my little example I just plucked out of thin air. There are loads of possible scenarios whereby an innocent priest may be accused. Not only that, but the victims, whether they want to be or not, will be involved once the thing is reported. Do they not even get a say in what happens? If it happened many years ago, they might just want to issue a warning to the Church, as happens, rather than personally involve themselves.

Read about it here.

In the comments below that article, the writer (Jimmy Akin) asks Anne Rice a question:

Anne, if I may, I’d like to ask a question. Do you think that a person might reasonably have a concern about a policy that allowed victims of priestly sexual abuse to report the priest only on the condition that the victim is willing to have this deeply wounding event exposed to other family members, the police, the media, friends, co-workers, etc., and that the victim be willing to relive the horrible events on the witness stand and endure cross examination, so that the victim can’t report the priest to Church authorities if they aren’t willing to agree to these terms?
Personally, I think it’s very reasonable to have concerns about a policy like that.
What is your opinion?

What I think is really interesting is that media, like RTE, report all the 'dirt', but then when the thing is clarified, they don't seem to bother explaining that. They just let all the mud stick there anyway. You would think they were doing it on purpose just to make the Church look as bad as possible.

Blueboyd

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Er. No they didn't.

They state that all suspicion of abuse be reported immediately to the police. Do you realise how dangerous that is to the reputations of innocent men?

I think this is the key question. Who will conduct the investigation into the matter if these men are innocent or not. I think it is clear there is different opinion here by the Vatican and the Irish.

The men are innocent til proven guilty - reporting suspicions to the police doesn't make them guilty. The police will do their investigation and if there are reasonable doubt the case will be passed on to a court. Vatican clearly do not want Irish laws to be taken seriously - they want that only canon laws applies to priests.

However some of these men the Vatican have been protecting have committed serious crimes. It doesn't look good to protect criminals in order to save some possibly innocent. And to reserve the right for yourself to decide who is criminal and who is not. Especially when your own track record of doing so is nearly sickening.

Acording to the Wikileaks US cables Vatican was annoyed even of the questioning of priests during the Murphy Report investigations and tried to pressure the government that diplomatic immunity had to be respected. It is all about cover up and the the reputation of the Church rather than the reputation of few possibly innocent.


Personally I think anyone who still think child abuse cases should not be reported to the police is a child abuser themselves. Or accomplice. And the police should have their names and addresses in their database too.

zoomtard

Am I right in thinking that the hesitance to bring all accusations of wrong doing to the civil authorities is grounded in part in the fact that loss of reputation is one of the means by which a priest can lose their right to administer Sacraments?

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Er. No they didn't.
...
The letter advised the Irish bishops that if they followed their own procedures, they could fail to comply with Canon law, miscarriages of justice might then occur, affected priests might appeal to Rome, Rome might uphold their appeal, and the bishop would be left looking foolish.

Er, that is a "warning". Advice that if you do something bad things might happen is a warning.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

They state that all suspicion of abuse be reported immediately to the police. Do you realise how dangerous that is to the reputations of innocent men?

As opposed to what?

The RCC was not and isn't in a position to investigate possible instances of sexual abuse. The police are.

Any person who works with children would realize that they are a risk, how ever small, of a false accusation of sexual abuse.

If they are worried about this they should either not work with children, or ensure that their organisation has in place procedures that ensure that a worker cannot have access to children where either they could abuse them, or a false accusation could go ahead with no defense.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Jenny down the road hates Fr X because he preaches the faith and refused absolution cos she wouldn't stop her mortal sinning with the townsfolk and she just can't stand him anyway. She is a bit emotionally unstable and downright mean so she makes an accusation against Fr X. The PP knows Jenny is a headcase and that the accusation is highly likely false but he has to report good Fr X to the police automatically because that is what the policy states.

And all a priest who wants to get away with abuse has to do is choose to abuse the child of the local "headcase".

Problem solved, the church are never going to report any accusations because the reporter is a "headcase".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that means the RCC should have mandatory reporting.

zoomtard

Wicknight wrote: »

And all a priest who wants to get away with abuse has to do is choose to abuse the child of the local "headcase".

Problem solved, the church are never going to report any accusations because the reporter is a "headcase".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that means the RCC should have mandatory reporting.

Hear hear!

Any organisation that cares for minors and does not have a policy of mandatory reporting is failing to do even basic care. Mandatory reporting alone is no way sufficient. But it is utterly insufficient to dream up cases where potential reputation damage is more important than potential abuse. I say this as a practicing pastor of a church- my reputation means nothing compared to the safety of children in the care of my community.

The policy has changed now however. We should remember that.

kelly1

Interesting discussion. I would have reservations over mandatory reporting where there is scant evidence that a crime was committed. Abuse of minors is a serious office in civil and church law and you'd want to have reasonable evidence that a crime occurred before reporting it. If someone goes to a bishop and says they've heard rumours that Fr. X was molesting children, should he immediately go to the Garda? If the same situation occured with a swimming coach, should his boss immediately report the allegation or investigate it?

It's not black and white and priests should be given the same treatment as anyone else suspect of a crime.

SonOfAdam

Which I'm sure they are - the DPP will only bring a case to court if he deems there is sufficient evidence in the case - if there isn't no case ensues. This is not another anti-catholic agenda it is about the safety of children, period. If the church was less concerned with it's own interest and actually cared for the people it purports to pastor there really would be no conflict

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting discussion. I would have reservations over mandatory reporting where there is scant evidence that a crime was committed. Abuse of minors is a serious office in civil and church law and you'd want to have reasonable evidence that a crime occurred before reporting it. If someone goes to a bishop and says they've heard rumours that Fr. X was molesting children, should he immediately go to the Garda? If the same situation occured with a swimming coach, should his boss immediately report the allegation or investigate it?

It's not black and white and priests should be given the same treatment as anyone else suspect of a crime.

Some people are rather vague as to what is actually meant by 'mandatory reporting'.

In some jurisdictions there are those who are designated as 'mandatory reporters' (eg those working in childcare, clergy, and health professionals). In other jurisdictions mandatory reporting applies to the population as a whole.

Usually mandatory reporting applies where you have 'a reasonably-founded suspicion' that abuse might have occurred. It should be clear that applies to where a child, or their parent, makes an allegation against someone. It does not necessarily apply in every situation where one person calls another a paedophile.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting discussion. I would have reservations over mandatory reporting where there is scant evidence that a crime was committed.

You don't report because you personally have determine that yes there is something going on.

You report because you don't investigate this, the police do. The police and HSE can then assess if there is any merit to the reports, and they take responsibility for this.

It should be remembered that mandatory reporting is often called for by people who work with children themselves precisely so they don't have to take responsibility for assessing whether or not something is happening. That is a lot of pressure, particularly if the person is not trained in this area.

Non-mandatory reporting opens up the possibility of the spot light being shined in on why exactly someone decided not to report a case, which is a huge responsibility to carry if you are someone who works with children.

kelly1 wrote: »

Abuse of minors is a serious office in civil and church law and you'd want to have reasonable evidence that a crime occurred before reporting it. If someone goes to a bishop and says they've heard rumours that Fr. X was molesting children, should he immediately go to the Garda? If the same situation occured with a swimming coach, should his boss immediately report the allegation or investigate it?

Yes, because the boss doesn't want to have to justify why they ignored a report of sexual abuse if it turned out genuine.

The boss would have then have to explain that in his totally non-professional and untrained opinion he thought the report had no merit. Not only is that unsatisfactory if the case does have merit, it is also something the boss most likely doesn't want to do.

If I was working with children I would be the first to admit that I would have no idea how to assess if a report is or isn't genuine, or what does or doesn't constitute enough evidence. I would pass the report on straight away. I would do so with the utmost digression, but it would be foolish to not pass the report on nor would I want the responsibility of justifying why I didn't to the abused child or their parents.

Bduffman

Surely its a bit disingenuous to suggest that the Vaticans motive was a concern about false accusations. Based on past history, isn't it most likely that protecting the church was the ultimate aim?

zoomtard

I think the motive was Canonical rigour. It's a hard concept to grasp for those outside the clergy of the Catholic Church and I certainly don't have my head around it.

But here goes my €0.02:

The pinnacle of a priest's ministry is the administration of the Sacraments, most importantly Eucharist. If someone has been abusing children they are guilty of grave, obstinate, mortal sin. They should not be administering any Sacraments without repentance, confession and penance.

But the pinnacle of the priest's ministry is celebrating Eucharist so the rules about restricting them have to be followed with great strictness.

Loss of reputation is another reason to restrict a priest in his office. So an accusation puts them in a tricky situation. If they are guilty of child abuse they definitely should be barred. If they are not guilty of child abuse but their reputation is in tatters, then they can be barred all the same.

So to avoid the second (and while still using church systems to investigate the first - which is of course a basic mistake) the Vatican asked people to go slow on mandatory reporting.

Perhaps as someone else has argued on this forum, I lack the intellectual competence to grasp Canon Law or perhaps I am being too generous in my interpretation of the Vatican's motives but it seems a more internally credible set of intentions than just pure evil!

Xizors Palace

zoomtard wrote: »

I think the motive was Canonical rigour. It's a hard concept to grasp for those outside the clergy of the Catholic Church and I certainly don't have my head around it.

But here goes my €0.02:

The pinnacle of a priest's ministry is the administration of the Sacraments, most importantly Eucharist. If someone has been abusing children they are guilty of grave, obstinate, mortal sin. They should not be administering any Sacraments without repentance, confession and penance.

But the pinnacle of the priest's ministry is celebrating Eucharist so the rules about restricting them have to be followed with great strictness.

Loss of reputation is another reason to restrict a priest in his office. So an accusation puts them in a tricky situation. If they are guilty of child abuse they definitely should be barred. If they are not guilty of child abuse but their reputation is in tatters, then they can be barred all the same.

So to avoid the second (and while still using church systems to investigate the first - which is of course a basic mistake) the Vatican asked people to go slow on mandatory reporting.

Perhaps as someone else has argued on this forum, I lack the intellectual competence to grasp Canon Law or perhaps I am being too generous in my interpretation of the Vatican's motives but it seems a more internally credible set of intentions than just pure evil!

The issue of sacraments is addressed in Church teaching.

CCC1549 Through the ordained ministry, especially that of bishops and priests, the presence of Christ as head of the Church is made visible in the midst of the community of believers. In the beautiful expression of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop is typos tou Patros: he is like the living image of God the Father.

CCC1550 This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church.

The Church teaches that the sacraments of the Church are not dependent on the holiness of the minister, i.e. the priest. So you can have a priest guilty of rape who is still able to say a valid Mass or give you absolution of your sins in confession. Is it a good thing that a priest should be in mortal sin? Of course not, but so long as he intends to do what the Church does in the administration of the sacraments, they are valid sacraments, despite his own personal sin.

The issue is that priests are people too, they have rights, as do the innocent and the vulnerable. All these rights and obligations have to be weighed up and the balance needs to be gotten right so that everyone is protected - the innocent from being abused or falsely accused of abuse. Did we get this right in the past? No. |Have we got it right now? Not necessarily, since priests are rightly fearful. But hopefully the Church will do a better job in future to protect everyone's rights.

zoomtard

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The Church teaches that the sacraments of the Church are not dependent on the holiness of the minister, i.e. the priest. So you can have a priest guilty of rape who is still able to say a valid Mass or give you absolution of your sins in confession. Is it a good thing that a priest should be in mortal sin? Of course not, but so long as he intends to do what the Church does in the administration of the sacraments, they are valid sacraments, despite his own personal sin.

The principle of ex opere operato does not extend in all cases. If cognisant of a mortal sin a priest must be reconciled first before celebrating Eucharist unless to not do so would cause scandal.

Besides, this is not a dogmatic issue (The 1997 letter) but a Canonical one so the Catechism does not apply. Canon Law does. And the Canon is clear. I'll take the book off the shelf and quote sections if you want the references.

Xizors Palace

zoomtard wrote: »

The principle of ex opere operato does not extend in all cases. If cognisant of a mortal sin a priest must be reconciled first before celebrating Eucharist unless to not do so would cause scandal.

Besides, this is not a dogmatic issue (The 1997 letter) but a Canonical one so the Catechism does not apply. Canon Law does. And the Canon is clear. I'll take the book off the shelf and quote sections if you want the references.

It is not only about avoiding scandal, it is also about provision of the Sacraments to people who require and have a right to them and would be unduly deprived of their spiritual needs. Take the example of a priest visiting mission territory. The people haven't seen a priest nor received the sacraments for years. No matter what the spiritual state of the priest, he would be obliged to make a perfect act of contrition and offer the people the sacraments. That would be the position of the Church in that instance. If a priest can be reconciled to the Church from his mortal sin via confession, that is the ideal, but if it is not possible, as in my example, the Church allows for that priest to do his best to make and act of perfect contrition, offer the sacraments, and then get to confession asap. The good of souls is the main issue. A priest in mortal sin can offer absolution, but the level of sacrilege would be magnified infinitely should the same priest offer Holy Mass.

No matter the priest's soul state, the sacrament is valid, thus ex opere operato does apply in every case. Whether it is advisable to offer sacraments in such a state needs to be discerned by the unfortunate priest. But so long as the priest means to do what the Church does, the sacraments are valid, even if they are sacrilegious for that priest, they will be spiritually edifying for the innocent people who are disposed to receive them.

The letter is indeed not a dogmatic issue. It was just an advisory note to the Irish bishops. That they lacked the competence to formulate procedures in accordance with canon law and also failed to see an advisory note for what it was, says to me that perhaps the Irish bishops were quite simply not up to the task. Or maybe there was some kind of communication issue or something. I think what we are seeing now, gleefully hosted by RTE, is simply a blame game between the Irish bishops and Rome.

goose2005

kelly1 wrote: »

Apparently there were heated rows between the Irish bishops and Rome. Kinda puts the Irish bishops in a better light.

No, it doesn't. You know of a serious crime, you tell the gardai. End of story.

ubertrad wrote: »

For example, is it the case that the Irish bishops wanted to report all allegations to the police? In my view, only credible allegations should be reported.

You can destroy the good name of a priest with false and malicious allegations, and believe me, these false allegations are made.

How is a bishop to assess whether an allegation is "credible" or not? Surely that is the job of the gardai and legal system? Any person's "good name" can be destroyed by false allegations, which is why anonymity is given to the accused in sexual crime trials.

As for these letters and back-and-forth bull****, it's just the usual stuff - delay delay delay and hope it'll go away.

eblistic

I skimmed this thread hoping to find an appetite for some kind of international civil-law inquiry into the Vatican's role in all of this. It's shocking to see so many people still stuck arguing against mandatory reporting after all that's been revealed over the last 2 decades. To do so misses the precise cause of the problem.

Motives, protecting the church, general deference to church figures, "I was only following orders" attitudes from Irish bishops: these are all worth discussing too but the core lesson is that the gardaí, HSE etc. are equipped, and trained, to evaluate the credibility of an accusation of child rape (or torture). Priests and bishops shouldn't be doing it.

MrPudding

goose2005 wrote: »

How is a bishop to assess whether an allegation is "credible" or not? Surely that is the job of the gardai and legal system?

Yes I love this. It reminds me of a thread in the Islam forum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056062161

First of all, I don’t have an issue with some of what he is saying, as you will see form my posts there. He is saying that rape has a specific meaning for them, and it cannot apply to married people. That is fairly simple and non-controversial. Where I do have a problem, and where I find a remarkable similarity between islam and the rcc is that this cleric felt that complaints of forced sex within marriage should be investigate to prove their veracity before involving the authorities.

So islam and the rcc seem to have more in common than perhaps they first thought. They both think that they are better suited to investigate serious allegations of rape than the civil authorities that actually have the responsibility for such investigations.

Both organisations need to drag themselves into the 21st century and realise that the rights and wellbeing of the purported victim needs to take priority over their organisation, or indeed the alleged perpetrator.

MrP

Xizors Palace

goose2005 wrote: »

No, it doesn't. You know of a serious crime, you tell the gardai. End of story.



How is a bishop to assess whether an allegation is "credible" or not? Surely that is the job of the gardai and legal system? Any person's "good name" can be destroyed by false allegations, which is why anonymity is given to the accused in sexual crime trials.

As for these letters and back-and-forth bull****, it's just the usual stuff - delay delay delay and hope it'll go away.

I know that if there was an accusation against one of my family members, I'd want to be very sure the allegation was true, or at least very, very, very credible, before I would go to the police. I'm not about to wreak the reputation of one of my family members for an allegation, unless I am very sure it's true. I'd probably go to the family member and question them, and then the accuser, to discern myself if it was credible, and only then would I go to the police if my investigations prove conclusive. That's how it works in the real world.

BTW, anonymity is not preserved: for a member of the public their name will be splashed over the local newspapers, and for a priest, it is unavoidable as he is suddenly pulled from his parish assignment. The Church is like a big family and it has to look after the rights of everyone. It's a balancing act.

EDIT: I just asked me da about it, and he said he would go to the parents of the accuser and let them deal with it. I suppose that is fair enough. He said the last thing he would do is go talk to the accused, because then you'd have given him the heads up that the police are gonna be calling.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

to discern myself if it was credible, and only then would I go to the police if my investigations prove conclusive.

Are you a professional child psychologist or a professional criminal investigator specializing in child abuse?

If not then not only is it doubtful you could actually determine this to any satisfaction, you also risk both the priests confidentiality and the child's well being (if the accusations are true), by mishandling your "investigations"

For example the police are in a position to protect the child and the child's family while investigating the priest, given that such an investigation will probably alert the priest (if he is abusing children) to the fact that one of the abused children has talked. You are not in that position.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

BTW, anonymity is not preserved: for a member of the public their name will be splashed over the local newspapers

Your name will not be splashed over anything unless you are arrested and you are only arrested after the police have determined that there is a credible case against you.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you a professional child psychologist or a professional criminal investigator specializing in child abuse?

If not then not only is it doubtful you could actually determine this to any satisfaction, you also risk both the priests confidentiality and the child's well being (if the accusations are true), by mishandling your "investigations"

For example the police are in a position to protect the child and the child's family while investigating the priest, given that such an investigation will probably alert the priest (if he is abusing children) to the fact that one of the abused children has talked. You are not in that position.



Your name will not be splashed over anything unless you are arrested and you are only arrested after the police have determined that there is a credible case against you.

Well that's why I would probably do what my dad recommended. Just pass the buck to the parents and let them deal with it.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Well that's why I would probably do what my dad recommended. Just pass the buck to the parents and let them deal with it.

Pass the buck to the POLICE and let them deal with it.

reXteryalizer

There has been ALOT of money losT, over 2 million dollars alone in the USA and sTill climbing

MORE money will be comming ouT of the Roman~Tic Rape fundie instution In the neXt 5 ~ 10 yrs .....

The Rape VICTIMS of Ireland, Britain, Scottland

& others are ready to receiVe their paYment
and have their torment, pain, nighTmares

and silenced cries heard by someone who cares for the firsT time in their entire lives....

It SURE has NOT been anyone in the Roman~Tic cattholic institution that has made a single move to
hear their pain, STOP the abuse and uncover the sYstem seT uP bY the vaTican to Hide .

& protect the RAPIST & MolesTer ....from the very last orgasm....to the last shreaded doccument...

So the upper brass of the church needs to be very careful, in backtracking its own covered & hidden
prints .....

The Catholic Church has been caught and we have the fingerprints

And they put more finger prints on the RAPE scene by trying to remove & clean the eXisting
fingerprints....

it is not helping the lawyers, more than it is helping the victims.

The laWyers are there to Collect eVidence......

They dont CONVICT priests JUST on the word of mouth.....of some person off the street......

There is a paper~ Trail....a LINE of other collaborative, combined, joint, eVidence of victims where
these Catholic rapists have been moving from place to place to place RAPING HUNDREDS & hundreds

.....AnaIy, Oraly spiritually & emotionally DISTROYING ther very souls and hearts. ...RIPPING their hearts
out all swept under the rugs of the Catholic Church....
.
JUSTICE would be TEARING down the VATICAN DOORS...SEIZING every single computer / EVERY
doccument EVERY single thing ALL information
Getting to the bottom of the investigation

4 lawsuits .....of the pope being SUMMONED to apear in a courT of law FOR QUESTIONING....

...he should be tried in a court of law.. convicted just on the letters alone....he sent COMMANDING total
secrecy

& COMMANDING for the bishops & PRIESTS to acT as their OWN Judge, Jury & Justice of rape cases
THAT is the facts....

.SEIZING every single computer in the vatican .

Declaring it a crime scene due to a proven mountian of evidence of delberate aTTempts to silence &
conTrol the flow of information of crimes against little innocent children eho were RAPED by the
thousands.......

IN SILENCE ORDERED under the pain of eXcomunication.....& physical termination of
church position & spiritual harrasment & spiritual rape as well





The vatican is being opened LIKE the little innocent childrens MOUTHS, anals, & HANDS & HEARTS that
were forced OPEN by this filthy culT.

reX is now standing by calling for the SEIZING every single computer / EVERY doccument EVERY single
thing / ALL information

ITS TIME for TRIAL......... the evidence shows the pain this church has caused.

kelly1

:eek::eek::eek:

reXteryalizer, judging from the anger of your post, I expect you yourself have been a victim of clerical abuse?

Xizors Palace

kelly1 wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

reXteryalizer, judging from the anger of your post, I expect you yourself have been a victim of clerical abuse?

Whether or not that is the case, all of us would benefit from reading this reflection on what happened. Although it refers to the USA, it is as relevant to Ireland.

Fanny Cradock

reXteryalizer, I think that most of us would understand your anger. However, we have a charter that is meant to foster discussion by keeping the peace. Please read it and stick by it.

rockbeer

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Well that's why I would probably do what my dad recommended. Just pass the buck to the parents and let them deal with it.

Good idea. Stick your head in the sand and wash your hands of all responsibility. Is that what passes for taking a moral stand in Catholic circles these days?

An astonishing number of people in this thread seem to be equating the rights of a sexually abused minor with those of the accused priest. There is no equivalence, no balancing act, nothing to think about. The priest is an adult, in a position of responsibility and power, and like anyone else who works with children has accepted both that there is a risk of a false allegation and the potential consequences of this on electing to become a priest. The child is, well, a child, and has precious little choice in anything.

When will you catholic folk get used to the idea that you don't run the show any more? You have obligations and responsibilities outside of your narrow, institutionalised world over which you have no control. One of these is that you are obliged to report an allegation of child abuse, no matter what your boss or any one else says about it.

The fact that you even have to think about it speaks volumes about the state of morality in your church and goes a long way to explaining why so many of us have no respect for it.

To all those arguing against mandatory reporting, please try to imagine for a moment how you might feel if it was your child, and your child's swimming coach decided 'not to pass on the allegation' because he personally didn't think it was 'credible'. I hope you would all fully support him for taking the investigation and decision upon himself.

Given what you all say, I'm equally sure you'd be just as concerned for the rights of the accused as those of your child. Wouldn't you?

reXteryalizer

There has been ALOT of money losT, over 2 million dollars alone in the USA and sTill climbing .

MORE money will be comming ouT of the Roman~Tic Rape fundie instution In the neXt 5 ~ 10 yrs .....

The Rape VICTIMS of Ireland, Britain, Scottland & others are ready to receiVe their paYment....and have their torment, pain, nighTmares and silenced cries heard by someone who cares for the firsT time in their entire lives....

It SURE has NOT been anyone in the Roman~Tic cattholic institution that has made a single move to hear their pain,

or to STOP the abuse and uncover the sYstem seT uP bY the vaTican to Hide . & protect the RAPIST & MolesTer ....from the very last orgasm....to the last shreaded doccument...


So the upper brass of the church is trying to be very careful, in backtracking its own covered & hidden prints .....

The Catholic Church has been caught and we have the fingerprints

And they put more finger prints on the RAPE scene by trying to remove & clean the eXisting fingerprints....

it is not helping the lawyers, more than it is helping the victims.
The laWyers are there to Collect eVidence......
They dont CONVICT priests JUST on the word of mouth.....of some person off the street......

There is a paper~ Trail....a LINE of other collaborative, combined, joint, eVidence of victims where these Catholic rapists have been moving from place to place to place RAPING HUNDREDS & hundreds
.....AnaIy, Oraly spiritually & emotionally DISTROYING ther very souls and hearts. ...RIPPING their hearts out all swept under the rugs of the Catholic Church.....

JUSTICE would be TEARING down the VATICAN DOORS...SEIZING every single computer /

EVERY doccument EVERY single thing , ALL information
Getting to the bottom of the investigation

4 lawsuits .....of the pope being SUMMONED to

apear in a courT of law FOR QUESTIONING....
...he should be tried in a court of law.. convicted just on the letters alone....he sent COMMANDING total secrecy

& COMMANDING for the bishops & PRIESTS to acT as their OWN Judge, Jury & Justice of rape cases
THAT is the facts....
.SEIZING every single computer in the vatican
.
Declaring it a crime scene due to a proven mountian of evidence of delberate aTTempts to silence & conTrol the flow of information of crimes against little innocent children eho were RAPED by the thousands......

.IN SILENCE ORDERED under the pain of eXcomunication.....& physical termination of church position & spiritual harrasment & spiritual rape as well


the lies are being eXXXposed .. The vatican is being opened LIKE the little innocent childrens MOUTHS, anals, & HANDS & HEARTS that were forced OPEN by this filthy scene .

ITS TIME for TRIAL......... the evidence shows the pain this church has caused.

georgieporgy

reminds me of Dr Evil's line "I want one million dollars"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs

Xizors Palace

Lawsuits and Christianity.

But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.
- Matthew 6:15

rockbeer

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Lawsuits and Christianity.

Hmmm, some tasty morsels in that rather wretched link. Like this little cracker:

"Life’s real purpose is measured in terms of purification of heart, and this purification happens both because of injuries and in spite of injuries."

Or this:

"First, taking responsibility for your own life means that you stop blaming others for anything that happens to you. "

The first suggests, worryingly, that from this perspective abusive priests are actually doing their victims a favour by offering them an opportunity for purification.

And the second suggesting that mere children should be blamed for the abuse they suffer, rather than the adults who perpetrate it.

Are you sure this is where you want to go?

It's this sort of delusional thinking that has been used to justified abuse of all kinds down the centuries. Thankfully in civilized societies we've moved beyond this kind of awfulness, which is why there is now an obligation on us all, christian or not, to allow the authorities to handle such matters rather than leaving it to the discretion of the peddlers of dodgy moral philosophies that celebrate suffering and push the responsibility for it onto the abused rather than the perpetrators.

Sorry to have to break the news that in a free society you can believe whatever foul and misguided nonsense you like but that doesn't absolve you of your social responsibilities and duties.

There's no point in discussing too deeply all the rubbish about compensation - the point of invoking the authorities isn't to secure compensation for the abused but to ensure protection of other children from suffering similarly at the hands of the perpetrator. I repeat: it is about protecting other children. Quite possibly your children.

Whether any individual party wishes to pursue compensation is up to them (and no one should be compelled to subscribe to the misguided notions in the linked document concerning compensation). But the primary point is ensuring that the perpetrator does not remain in a position to repeat the offence against other children. Society at large (most of us, may I remind you, don't subscribe to these twisted ideas) quite rightly insists on having the opportunity to exercise its own form of justice, and I can only repeat that your christian beliefs in no way exempt you from your social obligations in this.

An apologist for abuse hiding behind the shield of catholic christianity? Who'd have thought it? The sooner they close your despicable church down the better. If it was any other organization you'd have had the plug pulled years ago.

georgieporgy

Many attemps have indeed been made over the centuries to close it down.

Xizors Palace

rockbeer wrote: »

Whether any individual party wishes to pursue compensation is up to them (and no one should be compelled to subscribe to the misguided notions in the linked document concerning compensation). But the primary point is ensuring that the perpetrator does not remain in a position to repeat the offence against other children. Society at large (most of us, may I remind you, don't subscribe to these twisted ideas) quite rightly insists on having the opportunity to exercise its own form of justice, and I can only repeat that your christian beliefs in no way exempt you from your social obligations in this.

An apologist for abuse hiding behind the shield of catholic christianity? Who'd have thought it? The sooner they close your despicable church down the better. If it was any other organization you'd have had the plug pulled years ago.

I would suggest that you take your doubts and misunderstandings to the site owner.

Meanwhile, I suggest you mind your tone on this thread.

georgieporgy

When Our Saviour, the sacrificial lamb, Jesus, was abused and murdered (though innocent of any crime or misdeed), his dying words were "Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

He has suggested we copy him in all our actions.

Fanny Cradock

Two bits of business:

rockbeer wrote: »

The sooner they close your despicable church down the better. If it was any other organization you'd have had the plug pulled years ago.

You aren't on the A&A forum.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I would suggest that you take your doubts and misunderstandings to the site owner.

Meanwhile, I suggest you mind your tone on this thread.

Don't presume it is your place to hand out warnings.