Card. Castrillon-Hoyos Out At Latin Mass - Breaking

cmr ^ | April 21, 2010

[NYer]

The Traditional Latin Mass planned for April 24th honoring Pope Benedict on his five-year anniversary was scheduled to have Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos as the celebrant. Not any more.

As you probably know, a significant controversy has erupted over a letter sent by the Cardinal expressing gratitude to a Bishop for not turning over a sexually offending priest to civil authorities. The hue and cry that has erupted from this revelation is significant. As a result, the Cardinal is out as the celebrant at the planned Traditional Latin Mass for the 24th of April.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In consultation with His Eminence, Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, The Paulus Institute has agreed to seek another celebrant for the Pontifical Solemn High Mass taking place on April 24th. This action will help maintain the solemnity, reverence and beauty of the Mass.

The Paulus Institute was formed for the propagation of sacred liturgy. The Traditional Latin Mass planned for April 24th honoring Pope Benedict on his five-year inauguration anniversary is a liturgical event much bigger than the individual celebrant. Cardinal Castrillon was approached to celebrate the Mass early in what has been a three-year effort because of his special experience in celebrating this form of Mass and his efforts under Pope John-Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in encouraging the traditional form of the Mass, full liturgy and sacraments.

We are in the process of seeking another Bishop to celebrate a Pontifical Solemn Mass on Saturday and are confident that one will agree. However, in any event, a beautiful, dignified Traditional Latin Mass will be celebrated at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on Saturday at 1PM and will be the first time in nearly a half century this has occurred. All Catholic faithful are encouraged to attend.

The Paulus Institute regards all sexual abuse as tragic and a heinous sin and supports Pope Benedict's fight to rid this disease from the Church. It stands on the side of every victim of clerical sexual abuse and earnestly desires to bind up the wounds done to their human dignity, to vindicate their civil and canonical rights, and to help them in the restoration in Christ of all they have lost.

To that end, The Paulus Institute supports the directives by the Supreme Roman Pontiff and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that all bishops should report crimes of sexual abuse to the police in accordance with the requirements of civil law. However, the Paulus Institute is not competent, nor does it have the facts, to form an opinion about the about recent media reports concerning Cardinal Castrillon.

The Paulus Institute requests respect for the human dignity and civil rights of all who participate in this sacred liturgy and observance for the tranquility and good order of the celebration.

This is probably a wise move for both the Cardinal and those involved with the traditional mass. This would be bad PR for everybody involved, The Pope, the Cardinal, and the TLM community.

Thanks to David L Alexander for the info!

[nina0113]

"Dear Sheriff, a person I have not seen and whose voice I did not recognize confessed to me that he has molested children."

Since a person can confess to any priest, not just his own, all that means is that there's a child molester out there somewhere. The police already know that.

[outpostinmass2]

The Bishop owes society to put criminals behind bars as does anyone who witnesses or has information of a crime.

[Dajjal]

However, in any event, a beautiful, dignified Traditional Latin Mass will be celebrated at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on Saturday at 1PM and will be the first time in nearly a half century this has occurred.

This Mass will be the first scheduled, formally announced Traditional Mass to be celebrated at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in many years.

But I have heard that a priest (or priests) frequently says the Traditional Mass at the Shrine Grotto, but these are informal, not-published-in-the-bulletin Masses.

I would appreciate any information you could tell me about how/when to attend one of these Masses.

If you do not want to post on the thread, please Freepmail me.

Thanks in advance.

[Dajjal]

I didn't mean you, you -- just if any Freepers have information. :-)

[Pyro7480]

This will be the first TLM at the high altar of the Great Upper Church since the 1960s. There have been Solemn High Masses at the main altar of the Crypt Church since the Motu Proprio in 2007. The weekly Masses are low Masses in the Lourdes Chapel.

[outpostinmass2]

Not all confessions are performed in a confessional. I have confessed sins to a priest twice face to face. In this case the Bishop new who the priest was. If he did not want to go to authorities then he should have placed the priest under 24 hour survalence. I wonder how many times this molester confessed his crimes to go forth and sin again?

[Mrs. Don-o]

What you said is absolutely true if the priest doesn’t know who made the confession. But my question remains: what if he does? Then what’s his next step?

[Dajjal]

There have been Solemn High Masses at the main altar of the Crypt Church since the Motu Proprio in 2007. The weekly Masses are low Masses in the Lourdes Chapel.

Many, many thanks! Do you know about what time the Masses are said?

[nina0113]

He can make secular restitution (in this case, confession to the police) a condition of absolution. If the penitent ISN'T actually penitent, wanting to make things right, what's he doing at Confession anyway?

I think the point is really moot though - it's my understanding that pedophiles don't think they're doing anything wrong, which is why they can't be fixed by therapy.

[ArrogantBustard]

This Bishop (or any priest) is absolutely obligated NOT to discuss with ANYONE, ANYTHING he has heard in confession.

[ArrogantBustard]

Not all confessions are performed in a confessional. I have confessed sins to a priest twice face to face.

Most of us (Catholics) have done that ... It has no bearing on the priest's absolute obligation to keep secret the contents of your confession.

[outpostinmass2]

Then why did the molester priest confess his sin in this instance?

[outpostinmass2]

Is he obligated to make sure the molester does not harm any one else? He doesn’t need to go to the authorities to accomplish this. In fact all he would have to do is watch him for another couple of hours or days and catch him in the act and then report him. That is what I would have done.

[NYer]

How about reporting a crime so that these criminals can be prosecuted to stop any further victimization?

That is an excellent point. And I wonder how many non-Catholic priests are out there right now victimizing young children, yet no one in the media seems to be concerned.

Some of you may recall this little boy

On May 25, 1979, a little boy left for school and never came home. By late in the afternoon, when Etan had not returned home, the Patzes called the police. Officers searched the neighborhood. It was a difficult investigation. There were no leads. There was no crime scene. They couldn't dust for fingerprints. They didn't even know where he disappeared. It would take years before a suspect emerged.

Some boys had accused a man named Jose Antonio Ramos of trying to lure them inside a drainpipe, where he lived in 1982 in the Bronx. When police searched the drainpipe, they found photographs of Ramos and young boys who resembled Etan. When no one pressed charges, the case was dropped and Ramos vanished.

In 1985, Ramos was brought to NY to meet with a detective who asked him directly, "How many times did you have sex with Etan Patz?" According to the detective, Ramos "froze" and said, "I'll tell you everything." Ramos' response is now known as "the 90 percent confession." He admitted taking a young boy back to his apartment for sex on the day Etan disappeared and told GraBois he was 90 percent sure it was the boy he later saw on TV. As GraBois pointed out, "the only boy missing and on television that evening was Etan Patz." GraBois said that at that moment he "believed we had the right guy." But the confession was not complete. Ramos did not use Etan's name and he claimed he had "put the boy on a subway."

No Catholic will ever defend the indefensible. Most of the sex abuse that took place dates back to the 50's and earlier, long before JPII. I would ask you, however, what is being done in non-Catholic communities to stop predatory sex abuse of children? This is not limited to the Catholic Church.

Sex Abuse of Children by Protestant Clergy.

The Catholic Church here, through its bishops in the USCCB, have implemented a program to prevent future occurrences. This includes all members of the community who come in contact with children, from janitors in the schools to volunteers who teach children at the parish level. We all are subjected to fingerprinting and a police background check. We are also required to attend classes on how to identify sexual predators and what actions to take. This is possible because of the centralized nature of the Catholic Church. It is also the reason why the media have been able to focus a laser beam on us. This is not possible in the non-Catholic denominations where there is no one to take responsibility.

Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year

Worse still, is the sex abuse of children in the education system.

WHEN BOYS ARE MOLESTED BY TEACHERS AND OTHERS IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY

And then there are the camp counselors, Big Brothers of America and the list goes on and on. There is plenty of guilt to go around. You should be more concerned about the counteless victims of Ramos than the 0.3% of priests. Ramos said the boys were "friends," and none turned out to be Etan. Ramos did tell detectives, however, that his former girlfriend had worked for the Patzes, walking Etan to and from school during a bus strike.

[outpostinmass2]

Which does not obsolve the Catholic church and I am still concerned. The molestation in the Archdiocese of Boston was taking place as recently as 1995. The cases that were brought forward in court mostly occured in the 70’s and 80’s. The transfer of Cardinal Law to Rome is most troubling. Law should have been defrocked and he should have faced criminal prosecution.

The Vatican under Pope John PaulII claimed it was only an American problem. I guess he was wrong. The secracy and inactions of the “leadership “ is systemic. I only read claims by the leadership that they have fixed the problems and things are different but the abuse continues.

It is time that the church come completely clean and have an open and honest debate on this problem. Molester are monsters and infest all sorts of organizations that is true. But it does not obsolve or minimize the responsibility of the church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Defrocking"? Not really.

When there's a credible allegation against a priest, three things have to happen, and fast:

1. the victim needs to bring criminal charges against the abuser,
2. the bishop must cancel all the accused man's priestly assignments, and
3. the bishop must forbid him, in any case (assignment or no assignment) to function as a priest (this is what we call "the loss of priestly faculties.")

Please keep in mind that this is what the bishop must do, locally. (It's exactly what mine, Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, did immediately when he was given credible information that a priest had abused a teenager.) It is not the job of the Vatican, it is not done in Rome, it is not the responsibility of the Pope, it is entirely different from laicization (which is done in Rome), and it is not called "defrocking."

I say this not to be nit-picky, but because it has resulted in a lot of confusion as people don't know what the terms mean.

When people say "defrocking," (a squishy journalists' term) they rightly mean #2 and #3 above, but they usually have it confused with "laicization" or "being kicked out of the priesthood."

"Laicization," which means being dismissed from the clerical state, has little relevance to the abuse cases, because it simply means the man is dispensed from his vows, such as the vow of celibacy and the vow of obedience to his bishop, and has permission to live "as a layman."

When you think about it, you realize that laicization means less restriction (no vow of celibacy) and less supervision (no vow of obedience.) The vast majority of laicizations are not connected to crimes of any sort, they're requested by the priest himself because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of the priesthood anymore.

I hope I'm making myself clear here. Laicization is not actually what you want. What you want is for the bishop to cooperate wth the cops, put an end to the alleged abuser's assignment and his faculties, and insist that he stop violating his vows of celibacy and obedience. You don't just release him from his vows.

It's this confusion between the bishop's duty, and "the Vatican's" duty --- all jumbled together in the word "defrocking" --- which has enabled news outlets like the New York Times to make ludicrous charges against the Pope concerning, for instance, the Milwaukee case, when the Pope had nothing to do with it, while the @%#$$## Archbishop, Rembert Weakland, ignored the case and sat on the facts for almost 20 years.

It's like blaming Pres. Bush for something the Governor of Indiana neglected to do in 1975.

(Pause for a breath.)

Please pardon me for unleashing this whole torrent of words on YOU, my dear McGavin, just because you innocently used the word "defrocking".

But I wanted to get it said, because honest people are so often unclear about what's going on, and end up inadvertently attacking the good guys, and letting the genuine bad-ass bad guys off the hook-- and the media (NYT, AP, Reuters) have compounded this x 1000.

(Houghton M, do I have this about right?)

[McGavin999]

No problem at all. I'm not Catholic so I'm not familiar with the terms. I would never blame anything like this on any Pope let alone Benedict (who I am very fond of).

My use of the word "defrocking" is more removal from the priesthood after (and only after) conviction.

I have never understood protecting a child molester, but it's not the fault of the church, it is the fault of weak bosses who know about it and hide it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for mentioning "secular restitution," which is what I think the priest has the authority to insist on: "I can't absolve you until you tell the cops."

Sin darkens the intellect. To put it simply, "Sin makes you stupid."

Most people involved in sin --any sin, but especially the passionate sins --- go back and forth, half-repenting and then half-justifying themselves, denying, shaving off facts, having episodes of self-reproach and then a bunch of "but on the other hand" or "my case is so special, I'm not like those other people" or "I want to be good, but not too good and not quite all the time."

That's one of the reasons why actual spoken confession is so important: it helps the half-assed half-penitent expose his actions in an objective way, and maybe hear "for himself" how deluded he has really been.

That's what we hope for.

Gah, sin is such a pile of muck.

A court trial should help make things stand out in sharp relief for the self-deceiving offender.

(And I recall that Samuel Johnson said, "The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind.")

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks, McGavin. As we say in Tennessee, “I ‘preciate’ya.”

[AnAmericanMother]

"When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

- Sam had ghost-written a 'last goodnight' for a criminal who was hanged at Tyburn. Everyone wondered how an illiterate lowlife had composed such a moving and eloquent farewell speech. That was Sam's reply.