ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY STILL BASICALLY INTACT, SAY 2 U.S. BISHOPS

EWTN.com/Zenit.org ^ | 11-12-02 | Zenit.org

[Salvation]

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY STILL BASICALLY INTACT, SAY 2 U.S. BISHOPS

Revised Proposal on Clergy Abuse Builds on Dallas Norms, They Contend

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 7, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The president of the U.S. bishops' conference contradicted widespread media reports alleging that the Holy See had rejected the policy suggested by the American bishops last June.

"Contrary to many news reports," Bishop Wilton Gregory said in a statement, "the Holy See did not reject or even 'soften' this work. In fact, it [remains] the foundation for what will become particular law in the United States."

In a letter dated Oct. 14 to Bishop Gregory, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, said the norms approved in Dallas, Texas, last June "can be the source of confusion and ambiguity."

Yet, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, one of the four American bishops who participated in discussions of the proposed policy in Rome, agreed the revised proposal -- the product of a mixed U.S.-Vatican commission -- is not a retreat from the zero-tolerance position which came out of Dallas.

"No one remains in ministry who is a threat to children and young people," Bishop Lori said during a press conference Nov. 2.

Bishop Gregory summarized the effects of the law as follows: "This particular law will provide every diocese in the country with standards in canon law for protecting children and young people, reaching out to victims, assessing allegations against clergy, with the benefit of the advice of competent lay persons, and for keeping from ministry anyone who would harm children."

The updated policy calls for tribunals to hear the cases of accused priests and mandates that guilty clerics -- including those who committed offenses years ago -- be removed from Church work.

"Anyone who has committed even a single act of sexual abuse of children is permanently banned from ministry," Bishop Lori said.

Responding to criticisms from some quarters that the new policy would curtail the involvement of lay people in the disciplinary process, Bishop Lori said that lay sexual-abuse review boards would still participate in preliminary investigations of allegations of sexual abuse in an advisory capacity.

Furthermore, he said that the Church tribunals which in most instances would wield the ultimate decision-making power are made up of judges -- usually priests, canon lawyers and assessors -- who may or may not be lay people.

Bishop Lori characterized the revisions to the Dallas policy as a response to concerns from the Holy See about the lack of clear juridical procedure for handling allegations of sexual abuse by a priest.

Saying that the charter approved in Dallas had been drafted "rather hastily," Bishop Lori continued: "If you're going to go forward and deal with this, it's better to have clarity. And I think we now have a much greater degree of clarity. The zero-tolerance policy very much survives."

The revised norms will be presented to the U.S. bishops at their meeting next week.

[Coleus]

Do you have access to the deposition? I heard it reported as I mentioned - that the gentleman did not say his accusations were lies, rather, he said his memory had been so damaged by his AIDS that he wasn't able to be certain the charges were true.>>>>>>

That excuse (his memory and AIDS) was just a tactic the lawyers used so he wouldn't be charged with perjury. The bottom line is that there was no trial and no guilt proven, if this man, the card, was a typical molester, there would have been hundreds of people coming forward. There were none. So, he may have been gay, an abortionist and a bad priest, but he was not a victim of zero tolerance and rightfully so because the policy is no good unless one thinks school children should be arrested and taken to police HQ because they play cops and robbers on the school playground. We have a good legal system in the USA, due process, let's keep it that way. It's bad enough we have these idiotic hate crimes laws on the books don't give the liberals more ammunition. Remember, many of the zero-tolerance policies are geared towards conservatives, i.e. guns, I've seen on the FR where kids were suspended for wearing pro-life and anti homosexual (I'm straight) tee shirts, etc. and it will never stop. I'm sticking with due process.

Remember the subject of the thread had to do with a zero tolerance policy. I still say I am against it and used the "card" , my classmate, a priest in my diocese and some school hysteria as examples. Zero tolerance policies are no good since it doesn't give the accused due process. This thread has nothing to do with homosexuals or Abortions only zero tolerance.

As far as the Masons, I've never seen any harm in what they do and when I see article and threads stating that someone was honored by them, it means nothing to me, it only leads me again to more unsubstantiated folklore, rumors,etc. I've heard it all: Satanists (no evidence) idolize false gods (no evidence). I have a black friend of mine who is a devout Christian and a former leader on his Prince Hall Lodge where he explained to me many of the ceremonies w/o divulging the secrets. Let see there is a bible present, God is mentioned, doesn't sound like devil worship to me. Also, my K of C council and the local Freemasons have a combined dinner dance every year with the blessings of Supreme (a letter of approval) and our chaplain. Now I guess your going to say that the supreme council of the K of C is demonic?

Sure, back in the 1700's the masons and a pope, only one pope, didn't get along, so he wrote and encyclical against it.

[Catholicguy]

<> I guess you do have access to the deposition. Any links?

I don't think we have a good legal system.

I am in favor of dealing with homosexual priests, all priests who break laws - Commandments and positive secular law - with policies that don't violate Canon Law. The Bishops are supposed to know Canon Law or have Canonists that do. Their Dallas-dance was a joke. They knew it violated Canon Law.

One is still forbidden to be a Catholic and a member of the Masons. I suggest you do a little research on the history of the Masons and their malign intent re Church and Crown. I would suggest your "supreme" is underinformed. I will ping sitest for a response as he used to be a G.K. in the K of C.

[Catholicguy]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

<>Masonry link. (I suggest you are woefully underinformed re masonry)<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May1999/contents.html

<> LInk to Fr. William B. Smith answering a question about Masonry in Homelitic and Pastoral Review<><>

[RobbyS]

The Yorkish rite is relatively benign; the Scottish Rite had always been bitterly anti-Catholic. The Latin rite is atheistic.

[Coleus]

Thanks, I read it and will look into the book from Ignatius Press.

But once again, mass hysteria is the rule. The good father misinformed the questioner. The ceremony at a funeral is a very PUBLIC one, no secrets and nothing supernatural. I went to a wake last year of a person I knew from the Scouts, a protestant and mason, and there were the masons with the lambskin aprons which represented purity and holding an evergreen branch which I forgot what that symbolism meant. I think priests and others who were never masons should not talk about them since they are misinforming people and lying.

Fine, if the Church is against it, great, so let it be. I have no problem with that. But priests should not lie and tell false stories about the masons in regard to funeral services. Nothing of what the priest said in that article went on at the service I attended which was at the wake in full view of everyone. THere were no masonic ceremonies at the funeral or gravesite.

I've also seen the 4th-degree Knights at Funeral Services as well. And as a Knight let me tell you, we have our secrets from our 4 degree ceremonies as well. Since we are an organization with secrets, does the same Canon Law apply to us?

[meema]

bump too read later

[sitetest]

Dear Coleus and Catholicguy,

I saw your ping, CG. Why do you seek to arouse the dead?? ;-)

(I just completed some state regulatory compliance stuff, and though I'm not dead, I half-wish I were.)

* * * * * WARNING * * * * *

This post is from the point of view of Catholic teaching. I don't personally have any significant contact with freemasonry, and thus, nothing that follows is based on my own experiences. Any efforts to engage me on this issue will prove futile. It is the teaching of the Church, I believe and obey. But I'm without first-hand knowledge or experience to engage in any sensible discussion about freemasonry.

Catholic teaching on freemasonry is venerable and consistent. The Church has always condemned membership in masonic lodges, since masonry began sometime during the Enlightenment.

The Church teaches that freemasonry is, of itself, a religion, with all the trappings of beliefs and rituals. The Church further teaches that the basic religion of freemasonry is a kind of natural theology. While there is nothing wrong with natural theology of itself, it is incompatible with Catholic faith for a Catholic to belong to another religion, especially which does not accept things like the divinity of Jesus Christ, etc.

Additionally, many masonic organizations, both here and in Europe, have anti-Catholic histories. Masonic institutions in the West and Midwest played important roles in passing anti-Catholic laws in those parts of the nation. Many masonic institutions have or had anti-Catholic oaths as part of their membership rituals.

This isn't to say that freemasons are evil. That isn't what Church teaching asserts. Thus, cooperating in various civic events with masons is certainly not against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Lots of other religions deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, and various Christian denominations deny one or more truths of the Catholic faith. This doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong to participate in civic life with these other institutions. But it would be inappropriate for a devout Catholic to also belong to the Baptist congregation down the street.

"Let see there is a bible present, God is mentioned,..."

At a masonic facility dominated by Muslims, a Koran would be used. At a masonic facility dominated by Jews, a Torah might be used. Masonry doesn't decree the presence of a Bible, nor does it affirm the particular teachings that are found in the Bible, except insofar as they confirm its own natural theology.

"Sure, back in the 1700's the masons and a pope, only one pope, didn't get along, so he wrote and encyclical against it."

The ban against membership in freemasonry has been consistent from that time to the present day.

I think that this is the relative part in Canon Law:

"Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty - one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict."

Though for reasons relating to editorial style, freemasonry is not mentioned by name in the current Code of Canon Law, the code refers to organizations including freemasonry, and the general penalty for active membership is usually interdict.

Here is an EWTN link to the Vatican document explaining the current code in relation to freemasonry, followed by some commentary:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/freemasonry.htm



sitetest

[RobbyS]

Masonic secrets cannot be told even to a priest in the Confessional, so it is a question of where one's ultimate loyalty lies. You may have heard about the anti-masonic party that was started in the United States in the 1830s, which included John Quincy Adams. Modern day Masons may not but the Masons of that time were deeply into political conspiracy.

[sitetest]

Dear Coleus,

"But once again, mass hysteria is the rule. The good father misinformed the questioner. The ceremony at a funeral is a very PUBLIC one, no secrets and nothing supernatural."

I suppose that you're responding to the information given by Fr. William Smith at the link provided by CG in post 44.

I think that you misread Fr. Smith's response. He didn't say that the masonic funeral rituals were secret, or were supernatural. He said that it is likely that they didn't occur DURING a Catholic funeral, but rather, likely took place AFTER the Catholic services were completed, at the gravesite.

He said that only masons could engage in the actual ritual, not that the ritual was secret.

He said that masonry forbids the performance of the ritual during the religious services of another religion.

Where is Fr. Smith in error?


sitetest

[Coleus]

It's not that I am underinformed, it's that many writers say things about it that aren't really true without backing it up like the passage that stated the Cardinal Bernadin was honored by the Freemasons which implied he was a devil worshiper or anti Catholic, anyone can throw out those statements without relative facts.

The K of C has secrets are they banned from the Catholic Church?

[Coleus]

Masons do not have ceremonies by the gravesites. Funerals are during the day when many masons are working, they offer a small ceremony, yes by masons, just like the 4th degree of the Knights of Columbus do with their brothers, at the wake by the casket. There are no Masonic pall bearers at funerals for masons just like there are no 4th Degree Knights as pall bearers either. They wouldn't have any jobs if they took days off to carry coffins. As a matter of fact, I have never been to a funeral where the pall bearers were other than the employees of the funeral parlor. It would look like a circus to have it any other way and you have to be trained to carry and to know when and where to move it.

I was throwing in some comments which I've read on other threads, re: secret rituals, etc. I'm just tired of seeing people throwing in these false allegations about bishops and priests being masons without any evidence.

And I think the person asking the question was asking a loaded question. I don't think any priest in the USA would allow masons to pose as pallbearers (and once mass starts, what do you expect a priest to do, have them drop the casket on the floor and leave?)and no bishop has joined a masonic lodge to my knowledge. And once again, show me something (anything, a picture, an envelope with the lodge stationary and the bishops name on it) where a priest or bishop is a member.

[sitetest]

Dear Coleus,

I'm unfamiliar with the rituals of masons. However, even giving you that the rituals are at a wake, rather than gravesite, that doesn't make Fr. Smith's statement that likely this DID NOT happen during a Catholic funeral Mass any less true.

I think that the complaints you have about Fr. Smith's Q&A have more to do with the person who posed the question, not Fr. Smith's answers. He didn't say that there are bishops who are masons, or any of that. In fact, Fr. Smith points out that a bishop or priest who became a mason would be subject to ecclesiastical penalties.

Fr. Smith's answer is, in the main, truthful, accurate, and not making any allegations at all, really, false or otherwise.

If you wish to complain about the question, or the questioner, remember that it's the job of someone like Fr. Smith to take questions that may have false premises, and to correct those false premises. Fr. Smith seems to have done a good job of that.


sitetest

[Coleus]

Masonic secrets cannot be told even to a priest in the Confessional, so it is a question of where one's ultimate loyalty lies.>>>

Are you a mason? If not how do you know this, and if Catholics can not become masons why would they not be telling priests the secrets inside a confessional?

Yes, I saw the History Channel show about the anti Mason period in America after some printer (I think) divulged a secret.

[Coleus]

Yep, I understand.

It was Catholic Guy who stated in a previous post that "the card" was honored by the masons. For once, I would like to see some evidence of some of these accusations of priests and bishops being masons and that Popes and Cardinals defiled St. Peter's by having Masonic rituals conducted in it which I've seen written elsewhere. See, here is a site which prints it's evidence to back up claims.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/archive.shtml
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/blakedeath1.html

Now let me see something with a name of a lodge linking a bishop or priest or a picture or something. I guess we can start with a picture of Bernadin accepting his masonic award or a pic of the award hanging in his office, or a picture of the lettering on the award, something.

[sitetest]

Dear Coleus,

"I guess we can start with a picture of Bernadin accepting his masonic award or a pic of the award hanging in his office, or a picture of the lettering on the award, something."

Even if the RCF link that CG posted is true, it would be hard to imagine that there would be a picture of Cardinal Bernadin accepting the award, or a picture of it hanging it in his office.

The link alleges that the honors received from the masons were posthumous.

;-)


sitetest

[RobbyS]

I had a close family friend who was a Mason--and Episcopalian. He said this: that he saw nothing that was incompatible with Christianity or Catholicism, for that matter. But he really didn't not take the secret matters seriously and his attitude was that it was more like a club. But he did say that, in theory, ceremonial secrets were not to be related to priests, even though noting was going on that he thought needed to be confessed.

[longtermmemmory]

The solution is there as it has always been. When the obstruction is gone the path is clear. When the man no longer has a wife, he can become a priest. (wodowers do become priests) When the man ceases to be homosexual then he can be considered. The compassion argument is a red herring, homosexuality has no place in the calling of the priesthood or in the seminaries.

[Catholicguy]

<> FR. Smith and Sitetest have spoken the truth. Their words have value and the ring of authority. They cite legitimate authority. Now, you are at liberty to oppose legitimate authority and right reason but don't expect the Catholic Caucus to be befuddled by your personal opinion when it opposes authority and right reason.

In regards to your point about being underinformed, I was speaking about Masonry, not Card Bernardin. You are also at liberty to praise and defend Card Bernardin.

However, I think it useful to note the individuals forming a line behind you in your defense of Card Bernardin will be fewer in number than the total number of words in a Walter Cronkite,"Famous quotes" collection.... "And that's the way it is." <>

[Coleus]

Bernardin received the Presidential award from President Clinton and was honored, posthumously, by the Masons.>>>>

I was referring to your link you posted to me.

http://www.rcf.org/docs/beginningoftheend.htm

I just don't like people, priests or laypeople, to make blanket statements without proof. As I said previously, anyone can state or write on a website that catholicguy was honored by the masons. Just show me the proof. That's my pet peeve. If you saw the smoking gun links, there they put they put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, by backing up their statements with evidence.

All that link did was besmirch a prince of the church with unsubstantiated innuendo.