Vatican responds , the Holy See attempted to frustrate an inquiry is unfounded

Min · 03-09-2011 3:31pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Are you saying that Priests and the Church are above the Law of the State?

No.

The church needs it's own processes to deal with issues, this is entirely separate to civil law and does not mean one should break the law of the land.

Sonics2k · 03-09-2011 3:35pm

Min wrote: »

No.

The church needs it's own processes to deal with issues, this is entirely separate to civil law and does not mean one should break the law of the land.

But that's exactly what has happened here Min.

Priests of the Clergy have broken the Law in Ireland, but were protected by the Vatican.

This is why people are enraged and angry at the Church.
Not because of Religion, not because Enda Kenny made a mis-informed rant.

But because for a long time the Church has known about these crimes, but has done nothing to hand these men over to the State for a real trial under the Laws of this State.

Min · 03-09-2011 3:38pm

teol wrote: »

Here is the 1997 letter from the vatican to the Irish Bishops:

Father Brian D'arcy explained this.

Something to do with a problem defrocking a priest and this would be highly embarrassing and detrimental to the diocese involved.

gerrycollins · 03-09-2011 3:45pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Are you saying that Priests and the Church are above the Law of the State?

cannon law is the law of the catholic church within the walls of the instution. some elements/aspects (confessional) of it clash somewhat with the law od the state.

as far as the church is concerned they obey cannon law first.

Min · 03-09-2011 3:47pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

But that's exactly what has happened here Min.

Priests of the Clergy have broken the Law in Ireland, but were protected by the Vatican.

This is why people are enraged and angry at the Church.
Not because of Religion, not because Enda Kenny made a mis-informed rant.

But because for a long time the Church has known about these crimes, but has done nothing to hand these men over to the State for a real trial under the Laws of this State.

Protected by the Vatican?

The bishops here didn't even follow the rules set down by the Vatican.

It has been said if the bishops had followed their own rules that there wouldn't be all the abuse that happened.

btw Cardinal Hoyos in the Vatican was the problem, probably gone now as Cardinal Ratzinger didn't believe he was doing a proper job dealing with abuse cases, it has been claimed there was a power struggle between them as Cardinal Ratzinger wanted the abuse cases removed from the congregation for the priests to his own congregation for the doctrine of the faith so the abuse cases could be dealt with properly, Cardinal Ratzinger won the battle and got the abuse cases moved to his department in 2001.
The church is a much safer place for children since Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict took control, he gets a lot of criticism but has spent his time when he goes to different nations where abuse happened meeting victims of abuse and has been on amission to remove the sexual offenders or filth as he called them from the church.

gerrycollins · 03-09-2011 3:49pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

But that's exactly what has happened here Min.

Priests of the Clergy have broken the Law in Ireland, but were protected by the Vatican.

This is why people are enraged and angry at the Church.
Not because of Religion, not because Enda Kenny made a mis-informed rant.

But because for a long time the Church has known about these crimes, but has done nothing to hand these men over to the State for a real trial under the Laws of this State.

the actual priests who have committed the crimes(we may never get a true figure) have in large been brought to court over their actions.

the issue now is those that helped these individuals by moving them from parish to parish and not telling the state what they knew in effect been acessory to the crime.

however I personally dont know if a time limit exists to where they can be prosecuted?

Min · 03-09-2011 3:53pm

Eamon Gilmore is sticking to his view on the 1997 framework document - has to I suppose as saying the government was wrong would be highly embarrassing.

Nodin · 03-09-2011 3:58pm

Min wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore is sticking to his view on the 1997 framework document - has to I suppose as saying the government was wrong would be highly embarrassing.

Theres no independent verification that the government was "wrong". There was no trial, no inquiry, nada.

Destroyer666 · 03-09-2011 3:59pm

Can you imagine the abuse these priests would have gotten away with out in the missions in Africa. Rotten to the core the Church of Rome.

Min · 03-09-2011 4:02pm

Nodin wrote: »

Theres no independent verification that the government was "wrong". There was no trial, no inquiry, nada.

The Holy See explained how a document is made official.

The Irish bishops never went through the procedures needed to make it official, this did not stop them implementing it.

Nodin · 03-09-2011 4:04pm

Min wrote: »

The Holy See explained how a document is made official.

The Irish bishops never went through the procedures needed to make it official, this did not stop them implementing it.

...which rather ignores....

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".

Min · 03-09-2011 4:08pm

Nodin wrote: »

...which rather ignores....

No, Father Brian D'arcy on the Marian Finucane show said this was about a problem about defrocking a priest and not being able to.
I don't know the technicalities but this is what was said about that.

Biggins · 03-09-2011 4:08pm

Min wrote: »

...The church is a much safer place for children since Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict took control, he gets a lot of criticism but has spent his time when he goes to different nations where abuse happened meeting victims of abuse and has been on amission to remove the sexual offenders or filth as he called them from the church...

Are you serious? If so are, thats just poor judgement in my opinion.
I offer the following to widen your eyes:

* http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6048

The spin is that Ratzinger worked to cure that problem, but there is NO evidence that he told them to report these crimes to the civil authorities rather than covering them up.

...Or as the London Standard put it:
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do)

The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.
(Biggins comment: I presume this includes the Cloyne one too!)

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

"When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."

Min · 03-09-2011 4:16pm

Biggins wrote: »

Are you serious? If so are, thats just poor judgement in my opinion.
I offer the following to widen your eyes:

* http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6048

The spin is that Ratzinger worked to cure that problem, but there is NO evidence that he told them to report these crimes to the civil authorities rather than covering them up.

...Or as the London Standard put it:
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do)

I already said Cardinal Hoyos was a problem and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who worked against him to get the abuse cases removed from Cardinal Hoyos.

It is not spin, it is the truth.

Tell me is abuse in the church as bad now as it was in the 60's 70's, 80's or 90's?

Son Of A Vidic · 03-09-2011 4:16pm

Their response is very much what you would expect from a global corporation. Not very church like at all is it? But this comes as no surprise really.

Biggins · 03-09-2011 4:21pm

Min wrote: »

I already said Cardinal Hoyos was a problem and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who worked against him to get the abuse cases removed from Cardinal Hoyos.

It is not spin, it is the truth.

So what! His latter actions then speak volumes - at least to those that are willing to listen!
He can and does transfer what he hell he wants - then evokes further rulings upon such events to see that Rome gets to make sure the world does not find out about such things!

Where is his doing good in that!

Min wrote: »

...Tell me, is abuse in the church as bad now as it was in the 60's 70's, 80's or 90's?

I personally don't know.
We can suspect however this might be because the evil bastards might fear more so now todays that the state authorities are more willing to prosecute IF the Rome org is willing to even comply with state laws and tell of such crimes - but so far, their record on doing so is beyond appalling - its truly shocking!

...So far, judging by confessional attitude alone - they still think they are above such state laws!
If there is drop (and I hope there is), again I suspect its due to fear of jail time - not of fear of being handed over from the arms of Rome personnel who are in the know of such sick people!

teol · 03-09-2011 4:21pm

Bishop Magee took out insurance against child abuse claims in 1987:

Bishop Magee told the Commission that he informed his diocesan
College of Consultors (see Chapter 3) that he was taking out an insurance
policy in respect of clerical child sex abuse claims. He said some of the
priests seemed very surprised about that step but he told them that it was the
decision of the Irish Bishops’ Conference and that nobody knew “what was
lurking in the background”. He said that he told them “if anybody had any
information to share with me in that regard I would be grateful to receive it”
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Cloyne_Rpt.pdf/Files/Cloyne_Rpt.pdf

Again Bishop Magee was private secretary to 3 different Popes, and was the first official to find Pope John Paul dead.

teol · 03-09-2011 4:24pm

Min wrote: »

Tell me is abuse in the church as bad now as it was in the 60's 70's, 80's or 90's?

I'm sure history is repeating itself in Africa.

Min · 03-09-2011 4:27pm

Biggins here is Crimen Sollicitationis

http://www.sarabite.info/crimen.pdf

It has nothing to do with civil law, it is how canon law should be applied.

It does say in penalties:

He who has committed the crime of solicitation. . ., should be suspended from
the celebration of Mass and from the hearing of sacramental confessions or even, according to
the gravity of the delict, should be declared incapable of accepting them. He should be deprived
of all benefices and dignities, of his active and passive voice, and be declared incapable for all
these [honors and capacities], and in the more grievous cases also be subjected to reduction [to
the lay state]. Thus states the Code in Canon 2368, § 1.

So back then they were saying the lay state should be invlved in grievous cases.

It is clear that this document was not followed either...

Min · 03-09-2011 4:30pm

teol wrote: »

I'm sure history is repeating itself in Africa.

Making claims without evidence is a dangerous assumption.

Biggins · 03-09-2011 4:34pm

Min wrote: »

...It does say in penalties:

He who has committed the crime of solicitation. . ., should be suspended from
the celebration of Mass and from the hearing of sacramental confessions or even, according to
the gravity of the delict, should be declared incapable of accepting them. He should be deprived
of all benefices and dignities, of his active and passive voice, and be declared incapable for all
these [honors and capacities], and in the more grievous cases also be subjected to reduction [to
the lay state]. Thus states the Code in Canon 2368, § 1.

So back then they were saying the lay state should be invlved in grievous cases.

It is clear that this document was not followed either...

So do they inform the state? Did they at the time? Please show where and evidence equally to back such an action up - if they bothered their arse!
NO! They waffle on about just denying him the right to mass and confessional duty - O' that must have the abusers really scared indeed!

Unbelievable!
And what is even more unbelievable is those that defend this stupidity!

Min · 03-09-2011 4:42pm

Biggins wrote: »

So what! His latter actions then speak volumes - at least to those that are willing to listen!
he can and does transfer he hell he wants - then evokes further rulings upon such events to see that Rome gets to make sure the world does not find out about such things!

Where is his doing good in that!

I personally don't know.
We can suspect however this might be because the evil bastards might fear more so now todays that the state authorities are more willing to prosecute IF the Rome org is willing to even comply with state laws and tell of such crimes - but so far, their record on doing so is beyond appalling - its truly shocking!

...So far, judging by confessional attitude alone - they still think they are above such state laws!
If there is drop (and I hope there is), again I suspect its due to fear of jail time - not of fear of being handed over from the arms of Rome personnel who are in the know of such sick people!

Everyone knows about the abuse, we all hear when a priest is stood down over claims of abuse.

It is not in the interest of the church to have abuse happening, and this pope will do what he can to clean up the universal church.

I would be unhappy if the church agreed with the state over the confessional. When I go to confession I go on the knowledge that what I say is confidential and that the priest would rather die than betray the trust and priests have died defending the sacrament.
Paedophiles will not tell a priest in confession if he or she knew they would be reported, at least in the confesional the priest can advise the offender on the right thing to do, what the government is doing means the offender will not get the advise to go to the Gardai or whoever and admit their crime, potentially it could keep offenders longer in society to do more offending.
In Australia with mandatory reporting the confessional is excluded.

teol · 03-09-2011 4:48pm

Min wrote: »

Everyone knows about the abuse, we all hear when a priest is stood down over claims of abuse.

It is not in the interest of the church to have abuse happening, and this pope will do what he can to clean up the universal church.

I would be unhappy if the church agreed with the state over the confessional. When I go to confession I go on the knowledge that what I say is confidential and that the priest would rather die than betray the trust and priests have died defending the sacrament.
Paedophiles will not tell a priest in confession if he or she knew they would be reported, at least in the confesional the priest can advise the offender on the right thing to do, what the government is doing means the offender will not get the advise to go to the Gardai or whoever and admit their crime, potentially it could keep offenders longer in society to do more offending.
In Australia with mandatory reporting the confessional is excluded.

I'm sure the priests in the 60s,70s,80s and 90s were telling each other about their abuse on children. Was the advice given to go to the gardaí or was it to hush it up because it was "highly embarrassing and detrimental" to the church.

Min · 03-09-2011 4:49pm

Biggins wrote: »

So do they inform the state? Did they at the time? Please show where and evidence equally to back such an action up - if they bothered their arse!
NO! They waffle on about just denying him the right to mass and confessional duty - O' that must have the abusers really scared indeed!

Unbelievable!
And what is even more unbelievable is those that defend this stupidity!

The document is about canon law not civil law.

It is not about a cover up, it does not deal with civil law or even mention the state, it is about church processes.

If you claim it is about covering up, then you do not understand the document, to claim it is about covering up is to suggest the church is covering up from itself, which the document is clearly not about.

It is about church processes dealing with solicitation in the confessional. It is a document often used to state a cover up when it has nothing to do with civil law.

Min · 03-09-2011 4:51pm

teol wrote: »

I'm sure the priests in the 60s,70s,80s and 90s were telling each other about their abuse on children. Was the advice given to go to the gardaí or was it to hush it up because it was "highly embarrassing and detrimental" to the church.

Again Fr Brian Darcy said the bits in italics was about a problem with defrocking a priest which would be highly embarrassing and detrimental to the diocese involved if they were unable to.

Biggins · 03-09-2011 4:52pm

Min wrote: »

...this pope will do what he can to clean up the universal church.

So far all we have seen is to offer weak few apologies, seen very few victims (in the case of some countries, he tried to avoid them till shamed into meeting them!), he has continued to work towards keep his org above state laws (as per the additions to edicts already issued), in fact his response has been one of denial, black refusal to accept alternative assessments of situations, sending in the lawyers to try avoid coughing up, sending in the PR people to spin things for himself and his org and on and on...

The only thing (as far as I can see) is that he's cleaning up the way things are done so that we can find out less and do less!

Min wrote: »

I would be unhappy if the church agreed with the state over the confessional. When I go to confession I go on the knowledge that what I say is confidential and that the priest would rather die than betray the trust and priests have died defending the sacrament.
Paedophiles will not tell a priest in confession if he or she knew they would be reported, at least in the confesional the priest can advise the offender on the right thing to do, what the government is doing means the offender will not get the advise to go to the Gardai or whoever and admit their crime, potentially it could keep offenders longer in society to do more offending.
In Australia with mandatory reporting the confessional is excluded.

Any person, be it priest or not, should have the kop-on to know the difference between obligatory State laws and (personal) moral laws.
Most don't really care if your breaking moral laws as long as it don't effect them (a person having a bit on the side with a married woman - only simple example) BUT when the legal state laws are broken - IT DOES MATTER more so! And the Rome org is not - and should not be above those laws.
So far, it considers itself otherwise.

I don't give a frak what Austrailia does. Thats their problem. One I suspect they will also have to deal with in time!

Sunnyisland · 03-09-2011 4:54pm

Good man biggins your making very good & valid posts here.

Son Of A Vidic · 03-09-2011 5:01pm

Biggins wrote: »

The only thing (as far as I can see) is that he's cleaning up the way things are done so that we can find out less and do less!

Amen to that brother.

Min · 03-09-2011 5:05pm

Biggins wrote: »

So far all we have seen is to offer weak few apologies, seen very few victims (in the case of some countries, he tried to avoid them till shamed into meeting them!), he has continued to work towards keep his org above state laws (as per the additions to edicts already issued), in fact his response has been one of denial, black refusal to accept alternative assessments of situations, sending in the lawyers to try avoid coughing up, sending in the PR people to spin things for himself and his org and on and on...

The only thing (as far as I can see) is that he's cleaning up the way things are done so that we can find out less and do less!

Any person, be it priest or not, should have the kop-on to know the difference between obligatory State laws and (personal) moral laws.
Most don't really care if your breaking moral laws as long as it don't effect them (a person having a bit on the side with a married woman - only simple example) BUT when the legal state laws are broken - IT DOES MATTER! And the Rome org is not - and should not be above those laws.
So far, it considers itself otherwise.

I don't give a frak what Austrailia does. Thats their problem. One I suspect they will also have to deal with in time!

The Pope meets abused people who are open to meeting the Pope.

He has made it clear on many ocassions that abuse should be reported to civil authorities.

The confessional will remain the way it has always being, Catholics are not open to state interference in their sacraments.
Are they going to bug the confessional, this government is delusional and it does nothiing to protect children.
They would be better off protecting children in the care of the state with 23 plus children dead over the past 10 years than thinking they can break the seal of the confessional.

Biggins · 03-09-2011 5:05pm

...I mean seriously - its off topic slightly I know - but he even changed the orgs laws that once stuck into the org as a 'member' - you not allowed even leave it any more!

This is an action that is also in NO way making things better - cleaning up the organisation, are we seriously supposed to swallow that?
More like its raising the walls! They considering themselves to be the guards and dictators of all (and only) laws which should apply!

Utter madness!

I offer the following comment of one victim Sue Cox who I agree with:

I don’t know why I am still amazed by the audacity and duplicity of the catholic church. I refer, of course, to the announcement that because of the pope’s visit to England last year, more sexual abuse “victims” of catholic clergy are coming forward to the NCPC !!!!

I am further astonished to hear the myth repeated that “one of the first things the pope did when he arrived was see victims”!

It seems that because of the “avuncular” pontiff, victims are assured that they will be taken seriously! You bet they will, it is very serious for this narcissistic tyrannical regime to squash and quieten as many Survivors as they can!! This pope is guilty of covering up abuse cases which are crimes against humanity. Damn right it is serious.

Their sick PR stunts get worse, and more outlandish every time they creep from under their rock to grab the headlines ,seing an eye to the main chance as Premier Kenny of Ireland at last showed what leadership is all about!

Let us get this all quite clear!!!
The catholic church does NOTHING to help survivors of their pedophile clergie’s crimes. (unless you count praying with them and washing their feet!)
They duck and dive, lie and deflect, blame everyone else,from the pornography that is available everywhere, to the gay community (they do a particularly nice line in “Victim blame”)
They refuse to comply with the laws of ANY country where they are being taken to task, seeing themselves as beyond the law. (they have their own they tell us)
When they are forced to answer to the law, they use every loophole, every delaying tactic possible which often ends up with the very damaged victim being further abused.
They appoint profoundly unskilled and biased people from their own ranks to head their” Child protection” service, (Like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank)
They use every occasion to spin their face saving bull****, and smile as they do it.

IF there is an increase in SURVIVORS of these people coming forward – since the pope’s visit, then it is because there were 20,000 people standing up to be counted,, and marching in protest through the streets of London – Dedicating that march to the survivors of abuse by the catholic church. It was because ordinary decent British people came out in their thousands to tell survivors LIKE ME that they are with us and they are repulsed!

I was priveleged to be the first person to speak at that rally. I looked out at the sea of warm compassionate faces, and they made me proud, and they made me BRAVE! Brave enough to stand with other survivors from all over the World and scream at these criminals – ENOUGH! Brave enough to be in Rome in October and scream ENOUGH to the Vatican, Brave enough to stand with 65 deaf and speech impaired fellow survivors in Verona, who were all systematically abused by catholic priests in their childhood in the institute where they were supposed to be being cared for (one man by 16 priests!) ENOUGH!!!
Brave enough to tell other survivors, come and stand with us and gain your power, do not allow these criminals to abuse you any longer.
It was the the Secularists the Humanists the Gay rights organisations, The Human rights fighters , the Women’s rights organisations, Geoffrey Robinson, Peter Tatchell,Richard Dawkins, and the honorable BRITISH people that gave me that courage, and if there is an increase in the survivors of these creeps coming forward, then PLEASE put the praise for that where it is due! Not at the perpetrators of these crimes.

We have seen this week Ende Kenny, tell it at last how it is in Ireland, there is a man with real balls ! It is time that other government leaders followed his example, time for David Cameron and the Australian , Canadian, American, Polish, French, Spanish, German ,Dutch, Italian leaders to show their balls too.
Ratzinger and his heirarchy simply don’t have any.

Sue Cox

Survivor’s Voice Europe

Sunday 31st July 2011

http://secular-europe-campaign.org/2011/07/the-catholic-church-does-nothing-to-help-sex-abuse-survivors/

Vatican responds , the Holy See attempted to frustrate an inquiry is unfounded

Comments