Skip to comments.NEW YORK TIMES TARGETS THE POPE AGAIN
Posted on 03/16/2010 7:25:56 AM PDT by Pope Pius XII
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attack on the pope by the New York Times:
Once upon a time there was a homosexual priest who was accused of molesting boys in Germany. That was 30 years ago. At the approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope), he was sent away for therapy and was later reinstated; years later, under a new archbishop, there was another incident and more therapy.
We know this because the New York Times (which does not like to report on molesting rabbis in 2010), told us about this on Saturday in a front-page article. Today, it ran a front-page article on the same story. Was there any difference? Yes. On Saturday, the Times was only able to identify the priest as bearing the initial "H." Today, it has real news: his name is Hullermann. And now "H" has been suspended.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
:-) See your freepmail
He can't be he was given immunity by George Bush.
It doesn’t help when you have the Pope sending a letter to every priest in the catholic church detailing the procedure on what action to take when abuse occurs and not one of the things telling what to do is to call law enforcement.
Like I say, the media goes after big fish because it sells.
that was unfortunate. but alas there lots of other countries that would be able to investigate it though.
That’s what I was going to say.
Raping a child was and is a crime. Why weren't the police contacted immediately?
because the pope sent out a letter to every priest in the church telling them to do otherwise
Got any proof?
Gotta go as well.
post 166 another poster Dr. Eckleburg
Canon 1040 defines “an irregularity” for receiving orders as a perpetual prohibition. One of the irregularities for receiving orders described in the following canon, 1041, part 4, is “voluntary homicide.” The two canons are reproduced in their entirety below:
Can. 1040 Those affected by any impediment, whether perpetual, which is called an irregularity, or simple, are prevented from receiving orders. The only impediments incurred, however, are those contained in the following canons.
Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;
3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;
4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;
5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;
6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty.
I think adults recognize sociopaths can infiltrate any organization. It's the response to their crimes that increases or diminishes the outrage. Does the organization make sure everyone knows crimes won't be tolerated and that the police will be notified immediately, or do they "handle it" internally and keep it quiet.
It seems pretty clear that people thought protecting the reputation of their church was more important than prosecuting perpetrators for their crimes. Is this a character trait of this church, or is it an aberation. What happened to those people in authority who did not report these crimes to the police?
I don't know;that seems like a fair question.
I believe it was Tminus Four who asked, "Didn't the bishops know it was a crime?". That seems to be the more relevant question.
Again, I don't know. I don't know what was in the minds of the bishops involved. Maybe, after hearing the details of the incidents, they didn't think it fit the definition of the crime.
Even in that scenario, the bishops were wrong, let me make that clear. But again, complacency and false hope in psychiatry is not evidence of evil intent.
I didn't know that. It explains why it was important for the Pope to be given immunity by George Bush.
It's probably a good practice to not assume a negative. However, I'm thinking these bishops were not some young kids still wet behind the ears. IOW, as grown adults they don't get the luxury of saying "well I didn't know it was a crime".
The more I learn about this the more I realize how smart my FIL was. He was EO. When we talked about this he always said the same thing. They have a duty to open the doors, call in the authorities and clean it all out.
We are Christians, our hearts should always go to protecting the weakest.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
***The secular and sacred worlds have become intertwined..like a serpent.***
Absolutely! The churches have been infiltrated by communists for at least 50 years. It’s part of their plans to destroy Christian churches.
***Psychiatrists can muck up the secular world all they want but the sacred world needs to get those perverted men (or women) out of the holiness of the faith once and for all...and they can then pray and be redeemed within their own relationship with the Lord.***
Which is exactly what the Catholic church is doing. And I assume some other Christian churches are also doing.
Sadly, we’ve fallen for the communist plot, and we have various Christian churches blaming each other. Pathetic, especially when we MUST STAND TOGETHER under the current rule of our Christian-hating president.
~~”Got any proof?”~~
And post 166...
Which is, I believe, what the Pope is doing now.
Everyone acknowledges the scandal was handled in perhaps the worst way possible. The Pope himself has apologized for the way it was handled. I believe he did so when he visited the USA last time.
The choice everyone faces now is, do we continue to hold the Church responsible for crimes Her leadership comitted in the past, even though She has owned up to them now, thus continuing to hold their past crimes against them even though the Church has admitted Her mistake and asked for forgiveness, or do we try to move on with the process of reconciliation and healing, that truly only forgiveness can bring?
That is something for each person to answer on their own. For me, in my own experience, holding on to hurt and rage never brings true peace and resolution. But that's just me.