Skip to comments.PHILADELPHIA PRIESTS ACCUSED BY GRAND JURY OF SEXUAL ABUSE AND COVER-UP
Posted on 02/11/2011 7:11:53 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
click here to read article
Absolutely! Paul gave the church at Corinth a lashing over their inaction about a member who fooled around with his father's wife. Confront him and if he won't confess and repent and cease the sin, he was to be kicked out of the church. Why do we have actual leaders within churches today who not only refuse to even admit they have done wrong but get pushed on up the parochial ladder by their overseers??? Talk about seared consciences! I do NOT want to be there at that judgment scene.
Thank you for sharing your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!
Thanks for your kind reply.
Read the post. It says "refuse to believe the charges".
My family has a personal friend, a very good priest, who was accused of indiscretion, by a woman in her 60's who claimed he 'took liberties' with her, when she was in her teens. Even her family and friends didn't believe her, because they've known her for years, and understand her emotional problems, which she's had ALL her life, even before this priest ever came to our town. But in the new, "get rid of them as soon as there is an accusation" mindset of some Bishops, who are trying to not look like they're covering anything up, some completely innocent priests have been treated very unfairly.
I make absolutely NO excuses for Bishops who were looking to cover up abuse, so as to not create problems for themselves, because they made a horrible situation even worse. The abusers need to spend a LONG time in jail to consider what they've done, and ask for forgiveness from God, and those they hurt.
Not mentioned in this are the disclosures of political insiders that claim that this report, sans any indictments, was retribution for the Church's forcing their hand on the indictment of Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell.
Why on earth would anyone doubt the motives of anyone who spends in excess of 60 hours per week posting information of dubious veracity that is always highly critical of the Church?
Who in the hell to you think "these people" are? I coordinated my parish's altar server program for over 15 years. I recruited, trained, and scheduled servers and worked closely during that period of time with the other parishes of my diocese so when you saw "these people" you are talking about me and that is personal!
I am a 3rd generation altar boy and my sons and nephews were servers. Never in my entire life have I ever heard a first or even second hand account of any molestation.
To openly and unashamedly state that altar server programs are implemented to groom boys for pedophiles slanders the many thousands of youth, laity and clergy who have performed this service to God for generations shows what a filthy agenda Dr. Eckleburg has. If that wasn't flame bait nothing is. I am not questioning her motives or attempting mind reading, I am stating them right out. She is a evil trolling hatemonger hiding behind the rules and deserves to be zotted.
With reference to religions, deities, religious authorities and such - ridicule, condemnation and anti rhetoric are allowed only on "open" Religion Forum threads.
I can and do intervene to keep posters from "making it personal" but there is nothing I can do to keep posters from "taking it personally."
You are too thin skinned to continue on the subject of this thread.
Leave the thread.
That is pure unadulterated BS.
Dr. Eckleburg is a SHE?
An excellent objective post.
It would appear, Dr E . . .
that either this is another member of the Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology, Reality Mangling, Chronic Professional Blaming, Wailing and Whining Cult.
Or, the old bloke with a similar name got a very high powered calmness implant.
Which would be good—for lots of folks, probably.
That is not what the document says. It's what RC apologists say who hope to take the heat off of Rome's ungodly defense of the indefensible.
Read paragraph 13 of Crimen Sollicitationis...
"13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses. To none of these, however, is there subjection to a censure, unless by chance toward these same persons some censure has been expressly threatened upon the person himself, for his accusation, his deposition or of his violation (Excussionis?) [of such] by act. The accused, however, should be most seriously warned that even he, with all [the others], especially when he observes the secret with his defender, is under the penalty of suspension a divinis in case of a transgression to be incurred ipso facto. "
Rome swears to secrecy, under penalty of excommunication, even the accuser and anyone else involved with the proceedings, including parents.
The more light shown on Rome, the more rancid its lies become.
Rome reaps what it has sown.
Christopher Hitchens is wrong about everything regarding Christianity except one thing - Ratzinger belongs in jail.
1) Crimen sollicitationis is only applicable to sollicitation within the sacrament of Confession; it does not apply to acts outside of Confession.
2) "In these cases" refers to the judicial case, not the crime. Victims and witnesses can still go to the police to report the original act; they are just forbidden to report on the internal church judicial proceedings. What is so hard to understand here?
3) Did you not notice the line in your own quote: "To none of these [accusers and witnesses] IS THERE SUBJECTION TO A CENSURE
" ? Your own quote shows that they ARE NOT SUBJECT TO EXCOMMUNICATION.