Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

Boston Herald.com ^ | Wednesday, July 30, 2003 | Robin Washington

[Land of the Irish]

A Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII outlined a 1962 Vatican procedure for shielding sexually abusive priests, two lawyers for plaintiffs in cases against the church maintain.

The ``Crimine Solicitationis,'' translated as ``Instructions on proceeding in cases of solicitation,'' states abuse cases are subject to the ``papal secret'' and threatens excommunication against victims who do not come forward within 30 days, according to the document given to authorities by Carmen Durso of Boston and Daniel J. Shea of Houston.

On Monday, Durso presented an English translation to U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan.

``We gave it to the U.S. Attorney because we wanted him to understand what we mean when we say this has been an ongoing conspiracy,'' he said.

Added Shea, ``It's an instruction manual for a rigged trial for a priest accused of sexual crimes, including crimes against children.''

The document, which Shea said he had been trying to uncover for more than a year and recently received from canon lawyer the Rev. Thomas Doyle, allows victims one month to make their claim known to the supervising bishop.

``The penitent must denounce the accused priest . . . within a month to the (bishop) . . . and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, warn the penitent of this duty,'' the document states.

``The confessor is the accused priest,'' Shea said.

``They're giving the priest the responsibility to tell his victim that the victim has to turn the priest in to the bishop within 30 days. If not, the victim is automatically excommunicated,'' he said, citing another passage.

A Boston Archdiocese spokesman could not be reached for comment and the Herald could not verify yesterday if the document was indeed genuine.

But both lawyers said they believed the Latin original to be authentic.

[Land of the Irish]

AmChurch: Where the Body of Christ is hidden in a closet, and the priests aren't!

Can you find the real Body of Christ in this tabernacle?

"Eucharistic Chapel" of "Catholic Campus Ministry," Springfield, MO

[sinkspur]

Very well. I think we will be able to get along just fine without you.

Good. There are just two of you. Everybody else seems to be able to keep a civil tongue in their heads.

It's not "your" Church, Thorndike. You sound like a pre-Vatican II bishop.

[narses]

The following isn't contempt, it is satire. I defy you to find personal contempt of you by me on this thread:

DEACON:

I am the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON,

I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical

From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical;

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,

I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,

About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news,

With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

ALL:

With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.

DEACON:

I'm very good at integral and differential calculus;

I know the scientific names of beings animalculous:

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I am the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON.

ALL:

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

He is the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON.

DEACON:

I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's;

I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox,

I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus,

In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous;

I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies,

I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes!

Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore,

And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

ALL:

And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.

DEACON:

Then I can write a washing bill in Babylonic cuneiform,

And tell you ev'ry detail of Caractacus's uniform:

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I am the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON.

ALL:

In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

He is the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON.

DEACON:

In fact, when I know what is meant by "mamelon" and "ravelin",

When I can tell at sight a Mauser rifle from a javelin,

When such affairs as sorties and surprises I'm more wary at,

And when I know precisely what is meant by "commissariat",

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern gunnery,

When I know more of tactics than a novice in a nunnery--

In short, when I've a smattering of elemental strategy,

You'll say a better MODERN-DEACON has never sat a gee.

ALL

:

You'll say a better MODERN-DEACON has never sat a gee.

You'll say a better MODERN-DEACON has never sat a gee.

You'll say a better MODERN-DEACON has never sat a gee.

DEACON:

For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,

Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century;

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

I am the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON.

ALL:

But still, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral,

He is the very model of a modern MODERN-DEACON.

[Saint Athanasius]

Is it in the plant?

Or is it the plant?

[sinkspur]

HMS Pinafore. One of Gilbert and Sullivan's best, though The Mikado is better.

[Thorondir]

Oh, for crying out loud, my brother. You sound like a bitter Baptist, straining, squirming and parsing to find SOME little imperfection to throw in the face of one of those "God-cursed Catholic monsters".

Look, I think VII devastated the Church according to Satan's plan. But to say it contained doctrinal or moral errors is simply to attack the Chair of Peter and thus the promises of Christ. I just cannot go there. I wish you wouldn't. I am just as hurt and offended by the Nervous Disorder Circuses as you, my friend, but VII never intended for such abominations to happen.

I wish you would come into full union with the Vicar of Christ and fight the abuses from within. You have so much knowledge and wisdom to offer in this great battle of restoration after Satan's century has come to a close. With you on the outside, the Church's internal enemies can just dismiss you as a scismatic.

(sigh) My heart hurts, honestly.

[ultima ratio]

No--words have meanings. "Subsistit" requires the preposition "in"--which necessarily implies something is in something else. It suggests two entitities. Even Cardinal Ratzinger admits as much:

"When the Council Fathers replaced the word 'is' with the word 'subsistit,' they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by 'is' (to be) is far broader than that expresed by 'to subsist.' 'To subsist' is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that THE BEING OF THE CHURCH AS SUCH IS A BROADER ENTITY THAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject." (L'Osservatore Romano, Oct 8, 2000, p. 4.)

As Ferrara and Woods point out in The Great Facade, the Catholic Church had always identified itself as the Mystical Body of Christ--i.e., the Church of Christ. Pius XII in Humani Generis states this: "The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." This was an assertion of Church self-understanding that had always been held until Vatican II.

[Saint Athanasius]

I agree with you!
Preferences and errors are two different things.

[ultima ratio]

Who says ecumenical councils are error free? Some ecumenical councils make official declarations, some do not. Only definitive declarations are subject to divine protection--and Vatican II made none. But even those councils which make official declarations are guaranteed divine protection only for what is officially declared as binding. All the rest can theoretically be full of errors.

[Saint Athanasius]

Are you saying that only Catholics can be saved?

I promise this probably the last post... my wife is going to kill me.

[Thorondir]

It's not "your" Church, Thorndike.

Yes, it IS my Church. I am an active, struggling, baptized Roman Catholic. What, do you think the Methodist Church is my church?

It's MY Church.

And what's with messing with my nick? That's so childish, un-Christian and hateful. Is it supposed to sting me to the core? Here's an even better one that one of your "special ones" on the FR used to throw at me; Thorondick. Wow! That one was a real zinger. I used to cry on my pillow every time I saw it. You might try it out. Perhaps it will make you feel better.

You sound like a pre-Vatican II bishop.

Thank you. Now tell us what was wrong with the 2,000 years of bishops prior to VII. Was VII the true birth of the Church? If so, why was Jesus such a failure for 2,000 years?

[ultima ratio]

Hey, been there, done that. I understand. God bless.

[Thorondir]

So is Cardinal Ratzinger saying that VII is in error?

[Aliska]

At least they put all the eggs in one basket.

[ultima ratio]

Calm down. I am saying what it said in its documents were not protected from error--and they were not. Some of what they said, in fact, contradicts declarations by the Church which ARE so protected. There's a huge problem. You need to admit it. I'm not the problem--LOGIC is the problem. Two contraries can't be right at one and the same time.

This, by the way, has nothing to do with the Chair of Peter, it has to do with a Council that said a lot of ambiguous and even mistaken things but did so with a general carelessness of expression that was uncharacteristic of previous councils.

As for my being in "full union" with the Church, you are a slow learner. In what way am I not in full union? I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel--so what? Rome has just issued a letter conceding people like myself fulfill their Sunday obligation by doing so. Do you think excommunication is some kind of communicable disease?

[sinkspur]

And what's with messing with my nick? That's so childish, un-Christian and hateful.

You do the same to me,all the time.

It's that "goose"-"gander" thing.

[ultima ratio]

Absolutely not. Why would you imagine I am saying this? If the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, then all who make up the Mystical Body of Christ are already in the Catholic Church in a spiritual way. This was the point of preconciliar popes when they spoke of just persons who were invincibly ignorant, but belonged nevertheless to the Church in a hidden way.

[Thorondir]

Calm down.

Gosh, I ... why I ... I FEEL calm. (just teasing, my friend.)

I'm not the problem

I didn't say you were, just that you are easy for the internal enemies of the Church to dismiss.

...it has to do with a Council that said a lot of ambiguous... things but did so with a general carelessness of expression that was uncharacteristic of previous councils.

I couldn't agree more. And it devastated the Church. I have always maintained that hte devil could not get the Church to teach doctrinal or moral errors, so, in his vile century, he got it to teach in a grossly sloppy, ambiguous way that his nasty minions could interpret any way they wanted.

As for my being in "full union" with the Church, you are a slow learner. In what way am I not in full union? I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel--so what? Rome has just issued a letter conceding people like myself fulfill their Sunday obligation by doing so.

Perhaps I am a slow learner. I hope not, though. I know that your Masses are valid, but so are the eastern Orthodox Masses, but we are not to attend them because they are scismatic. We can attend them to fulfill the Sunday obligation only if no roman Catholic Masses are available. Now, without getting all fired up, tell me exactly how the status of the SSPX Masses differ from that.

P.S. I go to a beautiful indult mass, where our wonderful priest suffers immeasurably at the hands of the horrid new-age bishop for his orthodoxy. The priest wants so much for you guys to come back in full union with the Church, but says the Church holds you as scismatic. I tend to go with him, as he is careful to hold to the faith and is even (and this is very difficult for this firebrand of a priest who was educated in Rome for nine years after he became a priest) obedient and charitable toward the bishop who hates him.

If you please, brother, enlighten this "slow learner". I will consider all that you have to say.

[ultima ratio]

No, he is confirming that it is in disagreement with Tradition. Now we are contending with what this means. Why do you suppose the Church is in such turmoil--a turmoil reflected in microcosm by the conflicts on this website? You have Catholics who are traditionalists and Catholics who are not--and they inhabit alternate universes. The Pope has been trying to make these opposites into one entity. It is impossible. The preconciliar Church and the Novus Ordo Church are not reconcilable.

[Thorondir]

All the time? When? I think I may have misspelled your nick once, months ago, and by accident. What are you talking about?

Why don't you just stick to the argument at hand? You quote the passage where Jesus says to the rich man, "Go and sell all you have, and give it to the poor, then follow me." And you say we have to do that. I asked you if you had done that and you responde by caling me Thorondike, whatever that is supposed to mean.

But I am still wondering if and when you sold all your good and gave the money to the poor as you say we all must.

And it IS my Church. Isn't it YOURS?

I wonder.