Posted on 07/02/2010 4:21:11 AM PDT by TSgt
In its long struggle to grapple with sexual abuse, the Vatican often cites as a major turning point the decision in 2001 to give the office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the authority to cut through a morass of bureaucracy and handle abuse cases directly.
The decision, in an apostolic letter from Pope John Paul II, earned Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, a reputation as the Vatican insider who most clearly recognized the threat the spreading sexual abuse scandals posed to the Roman Catholic Church.
But church documents and interviews with canon lawyers and bishops cast that 2001 decision and the future pope’s track record in a new and less flattering light.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Imagine their frustration, they are trying to fight God and they’re furious because they are losing.
“Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. {1 Jn 4:4-6 RSV}”
God will not be defeated nor will the followers of God. A few obsessed freepers and a few newspapers and magazines in cahoots with satan are no match for God...pity them, pray for them.
This graph, derived from the John Jay report, is incomplete as it only covers abuse in America for a specific period ending in 2002 and does not include recently discovered cases such as Lawrence Murphy, 200 deaf boys, etc..
Most of these incidents were reported in the 1990s and 2000s, years after they took place. This raises the question of whether the low numbers for the 1950s reflect a real difference between the rate of abuse in the Eisenhower era and the rate in the decades that followed, or whether it’s just that fewer of the victims from the ’50s have come forward with their stories, because of advanced age, greater shame, etc.
Sorry but the graph is bogus.
This is a Liberal problem and the NYTs is doing some work for the ACLU. I’d safely say that moe than 90% of the troublemakers were liberals, like one priest I know who pretended to be a traditional priest. He’s out of the jail now and has no reason to hide. He’s very much a stereotypical homosexual that you might see crowing on these forums about how they think sex abuse isn’t linked to homosexuality.
There are plenty of useful idiots on hand to help out too.
I’ve always been amused by the fact that people who don’t trust the New York Times for ANYTHING ELSE are willing to accept ANYTHING the NYT prints that supports their anti-Catholic agenda.
Have you noticed that anti-Catholic activity seems to peak on Fridays? I wonder if there is conscious symbolism.
I am on topic.
And what do you know of the Murphy case?
The Jay report is used by your fellows to prove whatever they wish. Here, for you, it’s bogus; there, it’s used to prove the severity and uniqueness of the abuse.
Soon you’ll see as those you invited will demonstrate.
Sorry, but this “even handed” thread is bogus from the git-go.
The New York Times still thinks the homosexual enabling Scandal Cardinal from the Danube is papabile.
That’s how out of touch they are, but they can’t possibly be as out of touch as the useful idiots who take common cause with the ACLU and Progressivists (Marxists) to attack the Church.
I suspect it’s out of a misplaced loyalty for birth control or some other sexual related issue that the Church teaches against.
It continually reminds me of Caine and Abel, Joseph and his brothers, or Esau and Jacob. I’m sure there are other examples as well... One above all springs to mind.
Yes, they are frustrated and furious. Pity and prayer are the proper response.
thanks for your post.
“I think you will be surprised at how even handed it is with regard to Ratzinger.”
From the article:
“Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine.”
Do you really think that statement is even handed? That would only be a fair statement if marxism actually is a way of empowering the poor and oppressed, like the NYslimes. It is not “even handed”.
Freegards
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You wrote:
“This graph, derived from the John Jay report, is incomplete as it only covers abuse in America for a specific period ending in 2002 and does not include recently discovered cases such as Lawrence Murphy, 200 deaf boys, etc..”
You’re basing that conclusion on what? The graph is about all known cases. That would include the Fr. Murphy cases since those were known about already in the 1970s and fully investigated in the 1990s. Remember, even the police investigated in the 1970s. Your assertion is clearly without merit. Back it up. Can you?
Such articles as this merely serve to foster a surge of combativeness among Catholics which has lain dormant since World War II. Expect to see a more vibrant and aggressive church in the future.
“Sorry but the graph is bogus.”
The graph is completely not bogus in connection to the article. The graph shows that the incidents started to sharply decline 30 years ago, while JPII was Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For the article to not address this, and in fact give the impression that the Church only really started to address the problem post-public scandal, is not even handed at all. It is bogus.
Freegards
People seem to forget that most of what the media has recently decided to report has ALREADY BEEN REPORTED, that’s what makes their agenda so transparent.
The matter cannot be reduced to a legal one, as Carfardi’s summmary tries to do. The failure was the failure of unfaithful churchmen who were and are supported by unfaithful lay Catholics as well as people outside the Church who wish to destroy the Church asa public entity. At the core is a rejection of traditional Catholic sexual morality. For instance, the matters of homosexuality, of radical feminism, of the very worldly liberation theology, of the actions of prelates such as the Belgium Cardinal who is now under the gun. are put aside in an attempt to fix blame on the present pope. In short, the kind of confusion that Paul sort to clear up with respect the behavior of Christians in Corinth. The devil is at work here, but the author of this article that he is a player in the game.
There will be howls how the NYT and various news media are attempting to “bring down the Church” and such, yet when the Boston Globe writers produced a book based upon their investigations it was one of the best around.
Secondly, it must be pointed out that the debates at the Vatican presented by the article have nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with removing priests from active ministry or protecting children. These issues were, and are, the responsibility of the local bishop. Rather they have to do with removing priests from the clerical state, a complex relationship of rights and responsibilities between the priest and the Church. To present this issue as if it were about protecting children is a gross misrepresentation.
As to the issue of bias on the part of the NYT. The first question is why is this news? These were events that happened 10-20 years ago. There is clearly a drum beat to keep this issue in the public eye and to attach responsibility to the pope. Then there is the issue of false reporting. I will give a few examples:
The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm. But for the two decades he was in charge of that office, the future pope never asserted that authority, failing to act even as the cases undermined the church’s credibility in the United States, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere.The implication, of course, is that the congregation had the responsibility to initiate its own investigations, sending out agents like the FBI to root out abusive priests. The truth, however, is that the congregation could only handle cases that were sent to it by the bishops. No referral, no action. Indeed, Rome would not even know about the cases unless they were referred by the bishops. The Vatican is not the federal government with vast resources for law enforcement. One would be surprised at how small the staffs at the Vatican really are.
But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction.By this the NYT is implying that the pope, having full knowledge of the extent of the abuse, was actively involved in a cover-up to obstruct justice. Rather, everyone was slow to appreciate the extent of the problem and were struggling with a legal structure that was inadequate to the issue; a problem shared with public criminal law.
During this period, the three dozen staff members working for Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were busy pursuing other problems. These included examining supernatural phenomena, like apparitions of the Virgin Mary, so that hoaxes did not “corrupt the faith,” according to the Rev. Brian Mulcahy, a former member of the staff. Other sections weighed requests by divorced Catholics to remarry and vetted the applications of former priests who wanted to be reinstated. …Notice the size of the staff, three dozen, to handle the doctrinal work of a church of over 1 billion members. Then notice how the implication is being made that the congregation was being negligent on the issue of priest abuse because is was busy with unimportant "supernatural phenomena" and other issues, persecuting innocent theologian while ignoring abusive priests. Rather, these other issues of a theological nature are the primary responsibility of the congregation. It is the responsibility of the bishops to discipline their priests. The congregation only gets involved in the limited question of reduction from the clerical state when it is referred by a bishop. And yes, there is, rightly, the question of following canon law. What those bishops who are now trying to shift the blame to Rome were trying to do was avoid the hard work of following the law, wanting to take a short-cut through a simple administrative act. This might be appealing until you raise the question of justice for falsely accused priests. But what are a few ruined lives in exchange for good PR?As Father Gauthé was being prosecuted in Louisiana, Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine. Later, he also reined in a Dutch theologian who thought lay people should be able to perform priestly functions, and an American who taught that Catholics could dissent from church teachings about abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexuality.
Other misrepresentations could be presented from the article. It is clear that the NYT is not just reporting news but is trying to advance an agenda. But that should not come as a surprise to anyone, should it?
What a hit piece. Take for instance this statement.
“Yet throughout the ’80s and ’90s, bishops who sought to penalize and dismiss abusive priests were daunted by a bewildering bureaucratic and canonical legal process, with contradicting laws and overlapping jurisdictions in Rome, according to church documents and interviews with bishops and canon lawyers.”
Umm let’s see how many bishop’s were interviewed: Archbishop Philip Edward Wilson of Adelaide,
Bishop Geoffrey Robinson (a notorius dissenter), Eamonn Walsh, auxiliary bishop of Dublin. O.k. that is three interviewed. No doubt proof of Benedict’s guilt. As to canon lawyers only two were interviewed. Would there be canon lawyers who did not agree with these laweyer’s take on the matter. Yes. They are laywers after all. Bottom line can anything be conclusivly proven by these interviews. Nope.
“Archbishop Wilson said he had stumbled across the old instructions as a canon law student in the early 1990s. And he eventually learned that canonists were deeply divided on whether the old instructions or the 1983 canon law — which were at odds on major points — should hold sway.
If the old instructions had prevailed, then there would be no cause for confusion among bishops across the globe: all sexual abuse cases would fall under Cardinal Ratzinger’s jurisdiction.
“(The Vatican has recently insisted that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was responsible only for cases related to priests who solicited sex in the confessional, but the 1922 instructions plainly gave his office jurisdiction over sexual abuse cases involving “youths of either sex” that did not involve violating the sacrament of confession.)”
What the article fails to make clear is that after the 1983 canon law was published it remained unclear whether CDF still retained jurisdiction over these grave crimes. Because of this most of the cases were handled by congregation for the clergy (they were not just ignored all together if they advanced to the status of requiring a canonical trial). In 2001 it was clarified that CDF did have jurisdiction over these crimes.
The article makes it sound as if sexual abuse cases were simply not handled during this time. That is not true they were not handled by CDF due to the confusion between the norms and 1983 canon law.
The NYT seems unaware that the congregations (offices such as Congregation for the Clergy)are not infallible when it comes to Canon law. Much like congress relying on legal advice about the powers and duties of their offices the these congregations would defer to canon lawyers in determining the scope and limits of their offices. There is nothing nefarious about this. Should it have been clarified much sooner? Yes. Did the Vatican sit on this as the one Canon lawyer implies? No it means only this that while their was confusion about the contradictions in 1983 canon law and the norms the cases of priests who sexually abused children were not exclusively handles by CDF. But they were handled.
And I think the NYT made sure they found canon lawyers who would give them quotes that supported the NYT’s conclusions. Two canon lawyers are not that great a number.
Another blatant twisting of facts is this (notice the contradiction in the article itself).
“Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
After another abuse scandal in 1992 in Fall River, Mass., bishops in the United States pressed the Vatican for an alternative to the slow and arcane canonical justice system. Without a full canonical trial, clerics accused of abuse could not be dismissed from the priesthood against their will (although a bishop could impose some restrictions short of that). In 1993, John Paul said he had heard the American bishops’ pleas and convened a joint commission of American and Vatican canonists to propose improvements.
John Paul rejected its proposal to let bishops dismiss priests using administrative procedures, without canonical trials”
Notice how the agenda of the NYT is presented. First we are told that Bishops did have the power to remove priests from having contact with children. A very important tool in protecting children from abusive priests. And probably the most direct and immediate one. Yet the subsequent paragraph discussing dismissal from the priesthood tells us that “the bishops could impose some restrictions short of that” Not bothering to emphasis that these restrictions were the most effective for the safety of children.
The article than laments Pope John Paul’s refusal to allow dismissal without a canonical trial. The conclusion we are to draw. The Bishops hands are tied they can not dismiss the priests who are abusing children and the Vatican refuses to act on this problem.
The use of the word dismissal is very misleading. It does not the removal from duties or the restriction of their ministry or any other means used by the Bishops to keep a priest away from potential victims. Dismissal here refers to being removed from the clerical state or laicization. It does nothing to further protect victims as that can be handled by the discipline of the Bishop. Should the Bishops have the right to use administrative procedures to laicize a priest? I don’t think they should. For many reasons but mainly because laicization is not required to remove a priest from his ministerial duties and keep him away from children.
This Q & A from the Arizona Sun about a priest who was guilty of sexual abuse. explains this.
http://www.catholicsun.org/2010/february/16/fushek-q-and-a.html
We can glean the reason for the NYT’s hatred for and determination to cast scandal at this Pope by reading the following: “The heart of the office, though, was its doctrinal section. Cardinal Ratzinger, a German theologian appointed prefect of the congregation in 1981, aimed his renowned intellectual firepower at what he saw as “a fundamental threat to the faith of the church” — the liberation theology movement sweeping across Latin America.
As Father Gauthé was being prosecuted in Louisiana, Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine. Later, he also reined in a Dutch theologian who thought lay people should be able to perform priestly functions, and an American who taught that Catholics could dissent from church teachings about abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexuality.” You better believe that if the Church embraced Marxism and gave her blessing to abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexual behavior we would hear as much about the sexual abuse in the Church as we do about sexual abuse in government schools.
And let’s not forget that Cardinal Ratzinger did not care about sexual abuse “Another hint of his priorities came at a synod in 1990, when a bishop from Calgary gingerly mentioned the growing sexual abuse problem in Canada. When Cardinal Ratzinger rose to speak, however, it was of a different crisis: the diminishing image of the priesthood since the Second Vatican Council, and the “huge drop” in the numbers of priests as many resigned.” Yep at one synod where the subject is brought up the Cardinal does not speak about it in his prepared public address. That can only mean it did not matter to him. It would be nice to know the purpose of meeting. Where was it held?
And the NYT keeps believing it is entitled to its own facts. “But the future pope, it is now clear, was also part of a culture of nonresponsibility, denial, legalistic foot-dragging and outright obstruction. More than any top Vatican official other than John Paul, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who might have taken decisive action in the 1990s “ No where in the article is this proven or even given cause to be believed.
Now just no one believes I don’t hold that even a blind pig can find an acorn I do agree with the NYT assertion in one matter. I do agree the norms for the reporting accusation of abuse should be universally applied and that the Vatican should instruct all Bishops that priests so accussed should be suspended from office until determination of his guilt is made in any civil or criminal actions.
I also agree that too many Vatican officials just did not get the magnitude of the problem. That they were way too slow to address the problem. That they failed the victims in more ways than can ever be defended. And yes in that then Cardinal Ratzinger did not press more for his office to be in charge of these cases as stated in the norms, he failed. But nothing says he could have made this happen by fiat.
The NYT relies on people not carefully reading the article to see if what the NYT opines is supported by the facts known in and outside the scope of the article. As usual it does not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.