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 ...
So by this reasoning, when a priest touches the genitals of one of my little boys, I should turn over another to him?
he started it by saying,
“No, it’s because the pope sent a child molester away for therapy instead of removing him from service and when he returned to service he abused yet another child.”
talk about trying to get the Pope condemned and accused.
You just love to change the subject don’t you?
No, as I said before, those of us who live in reality know the difference between a diddler and a straight dude with the hots.
It's just that the pedophilia scandal exposed an entire seamy side of the catholic hierarchy, so all aspects are open to scrutiny now.
I agree it’s not a very good analogy but my intent was not to compare the gravity of the two situations. Rather it was to show how, at the time, it was unthinkable to believe that psychiatry could not cure pedophilia.
Clearly it was wrong to put so much faith in psychiatry. No one (at least not me) is saying the bishops didn’t make a huge mistake there.
The point is though, it was an honest mistake, with the best it intentions. It was not some evil conspiracy.
Does your mommy know you're home from school today?
I think you are projecting. It’s a big word that means, I know you are but what am I, LOL!!!
You can criticize you want to, that’s your opinion and your entitled to it. But I gaurantee you, that if you think Church will change her teachings she won’t do it.
What the heck, does that have to do with anything?
OK, but you're still not adressing the point that it was a crime which should have been reported and the individuals should have been tried in court. The bishops certainly knew that they were breaking the law by not reporting it.
Of course, you are correct. However, for 1750 years at least, in one place or another, The HRCC had it's own courts, its own punishments, and yes Virginia, it's own prisons (and death penalty).
So, there IS a long, if not glorious, HRCC tradition of settling this stuff in-house. Doesn't work any more. Doesn't work here. Probably never really worked.
No excuses. mais tout comprendre est tout pardonner.
That's for us. Let the cops and the courts handle the rest, with the disgusting chips falling where they may. When the outhouse explodes, everbody gets covered. HRCC, viewed strictly as an organization, is no more immune to the law than any other.
PS, If I catch a Baptist playing cards, where do I turn him in?
Thank you FourtySeven.
And THAT my FRiend, is exactly why I am no longer a Catholic.
its actually the responsibility of law enforcement
The NY Times attack on the pope has to be related to the Catholic Church’s stand against abortions which is in opposition to abortion funding in the health care bill.
Couldn’t agree more. And that the Church doesn’t approve of same-sex unions.
Sabe: its actually the responsibility of law enforcement
THis is exactly my point
The behavior was not just a "psychological disorder" 50-60 yrs ago. It was and is a CRIME!
Any organization can be infiltrated by sociopaths. It's covering up their CRIMES that makes it so much worse. What happened to the people in authority that did not report the CRIMES to the police. Were they elevated in stature, or were they thrown out and prosecuted for their CRIMES?
How many more suffered because CRIMES were covered up?
:-) 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.
No is denying that there are isolated incidents of abuse by Catholic clergy, and the Church has not always handled it well, but the entire institution is not at fault. The fact that Protestant abuses are 5x to 10x more prevalent is of little consequence to those who work to undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church. There is no argument that the Catholic church represents one of the largest obstacles to the agendas of the secular humanists, the leftists and communists, the fascists, and even to the envious Protestants. The real story is the history of this is available to anyone with the integrity to actually investigate it. This exactly parallels the Nazi party's campaign of so-called "Immorality Trials" in which a rumor campaign and a full blown media campaign preceded the public arrest and trials of Catholic clergy and leaders with the expresses purpose of linking the Church with pedophilia and perversion in the public's mind. This was done to undermine the Church's moral authority and remove it as an obstacle to its political agenda. The useful idiots within the German Protestant Church were instrumental in its success and were rewarded with a cabinet level position, the Reichbishop, within Hitler's inner circle. That same blueprint has been at work here in the US for the last 20 years. It has successfully sought to exaggerate the incidence and culpability of the Church. One need only watch the glee with which the Main Stream Media repeats the exact same story, word for word, ad naseum and the Pavlovian joy of the anti-Catholics on FR to post this within the body of every thread involving the Church or its clergy. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santanya
... and the Church has not always handled it well, but the entire institution is not at fault.”
Who is the institution? At what point time after high up leaders are made aware of systemic abuses within its organizations are happening and those high up leaders dictate orders to handle it within house rather than reporting it to law enforcement is the institution as a whole at fault?
Absolutely mendacious! It may not make any difference to you or the others who show up to these threads like flies in a barnyard on a hot summer day to trash the Church but the facts of the letter follow:
1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives.
By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Rome
A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a "smoking gun" providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.
Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.
For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.
The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.
Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the "secret of the Holy Office," today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy.
The document was itself to be kept secret. Instructions on Page One direct that it be stored in the secret archives of each diocese, and that it not be published or commented upon. Msgr. Thomas Green, canon law expert at The Catholic University of America, told NCR Aug. 4 that unlike most church legislation, Crimen Sollicitationis was never published in the official Vatican bulletin Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.
Boston attorney Carmen L. Durso sent a copy of the document July 28 to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, arguing that it may prove the Catholic church has been obstructing justice.
"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Durso said, as quoted by the July 29 Worcester Telegram and Gazette. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed 'a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Durso told the federal attorney.
Oblate Fr. Francis Morrisey of St. Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, told NCR Aug. 4 that he doubts the document had such an effect, because few bishops knew Crimen Sollicitationis even existed.
"The document was so secret that it couldn't even be mentioned," Morrisey said. "I'm inclined to believe that most bishops were unaware of its existence and contents until a situation arose, and so it never crossed their mind to take cover under this text."
Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.
"Of course, a bishop couldn't use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse," Morrisey said. "The document simply wasn't made for that purpose."
Green said the document was issued by the Holy Office because it had responsibility for dealing with "serious violations of the sacrament of penance."
Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.
Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread "mentality" that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities.
Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures.
That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to "cover up" sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, "lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls."
Canon lawyers also note that pontifical secrecy is hardly reserved to sexual abuse. Under a Feb. 4, 1974, instruction Secreta Continere, pontifical secrecy covers: 1) Documents for which pontifical secrecy is expressly indicated; 2) Affairs dealt with by the Secretariat of State under pontifical secrecy; 3) Doctrinal denunciations and publications of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as its investigations; 4) Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith or against morals, and crimes against the sacrament of penance, as well as the procedures leading to these denunciations; 5) Acts by Vatican representatives relative to matters covered by the pontifical secret; 6) Creation of cardinals; 7) Nomination of bishops, apostolic administrators and other ordinaries with episcopal power, and the procedures related to these appointments; 8) Nomination of superiors and other major officials of the Roman curia; 9) Codes and coded correspondence; 10) Affairs and practices of the pope, of the chief cardinal or archbishop of a dicastery and of pontifical representatives.
John L. Allen Jr. is NCRs Vatican correspondent. His e-mail address is email@example.com.
Fortunately for all involved it is a completely voluntary organization that you do not have to belong to. Whether you like it or not the Catholic has been the greatest instrument for Good in the history of the world. That some continue to concentrate on its blemishes instead of its overwhelming beauty speaks more about them and their motives than about the Church.
My advice, if things about the Catholic Church bother you join it and try to fix it from within or don't join it. Sniping irreverently and incorrectly from the outside will accomplish nothing making you a part of the problem you perceive.
Have you read it for yourself rather than relying on others to tell you what they think it says?
“Fortunately for all involved it is a completely voluntary organization that you do not have to belong to.”
Does the Catholic Church teach there is salvation outside of it?
Where did the pope say it was 5 percent? It’s 2 percent, not 5 that have been accused.
This is no different then in the general population.
Yes, they do.
Ex-Catholics are like ex-wives...