Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy
Boston Herald.com ^ | Wednesday, July 30, 2003 | Robin Washington

Posted on 07/31/2003 8:21:16 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catch22; catholiclist; popejohnxxiii; sexabuse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-319 next last
To: Loyalist
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

201 posted on 08/01/2003 9:10:27 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
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.

202 posted on 08/01/2003 9:11:15 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Thorondir; Antoninus
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.

203 posted on 08/01/2003 9:11:38 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Is it in the plant?

Or is it the plant?
204 posted on 08/01/2003 9:11:45 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius (How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: narses
HMS Pinafore. One of Gilbert and Sullivan's best, though The Mikado is better.
205 posted on 08/01/2003 9:13:21 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
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.


206 posted on 08/01/2003 9:13:32 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
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.
207 posted on 08/01/2003 9:15:19 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
I agree with you!
Preferences and errors are two different things.
208 posted on 08/01/2003 9:18:14 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius (How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius
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.
209 posted on 08/01/2003 9:21:10 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Are you saying that only Catholics can be saved?

I promise this probably the last post... my wife is going to kill me.
210 posted on 08/01/2003 9:21:23 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius (How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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?
211 posted on 08/01/2003 9:22:50 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius
Hey, been there, done that. I understand. God bless.
212 posted on 08/01/2003 9:25:04 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
So is Cardinal Ratzinger saying that VII is in error?
213 posted on 08/01/2003 9:26:01 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
At least they put all the eggs in one basket.
214 posted on 08/01/2003 9:26:49 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
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?
215 posted on 08/01/2003 9:35:14 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
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.

216 posted on 08/01/2003 9:36:36 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I will be allowed to fulfill my destiny!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius
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.
217 posted on 08/01/2003 9:43:24 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
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.
218 posted on 08/01/2003 9:50:44 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
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.
219 posted on 08/01/2003 9:51:09 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.
220 posted on 08/01/2003 9:56:02 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
First, the SSPX is not schismatic. But let's save that for another time--I've explained this so often it's tiresome.
Second, the letter from Msgr. Perl of Ecclesia Dei says nothing about attending an SSPX Mass only if no other Roman Catholic Mass is available. It implicitly recognized that Novus Ordo Masses themselves pose doctrinal problems which are unacceptable to traditionalist Catholics. It stated that Catholics who attend SSPX Masses are not committing sins as long as they don't do so with the express desire to separate themselves from Rome. Since SSPX has always denied it wished to be so separated, this last seemed a sop to cover for the Vatican bureaucrat's own embarrassment in having to make his admission in the first place. As for not attending an Indult, in my own case, I loathed the priest who said the Mass and who appeared to me a charlatan. (He did not last long--though he did a lot of damage. He was appointed right after the great turmoil in which FSSP was punished by Rome for its stand against concelebrations, etc.)
221 posted on 08/01/2003 10:05:47 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
Here's an important point you need to consider. It is the existence of the SSPX that has been protecting the Indult all this while. In fact, without the SSPX, there would have been no Indult, no traditional Mass, no traditional Catholicism in most places. SSPX alone held the line from the beginning. It refused to go along with the widespread demolition of Catholic Tradition. If the SSPX were to accept the blandishments of the Novus Ordo Church as Campos did, then it would be pressured to change and conform little by little to the Novus Ordo Church--just as the Indult priests are being pressured, as well as the priests of Campos. It is only because of what Rome calls its "irregular" status that SSPX is able to protect ALL of Catholic tradition--in a way not even the Indult priests can do. In this sense its status as "schismatic", while a false accusation, has the side benefit of protecting Tradition itself from Rome's destructive impulses.
222 posted on 08/01/2003 10:21:33 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Pope say the NO Mass is a valid Mass (abuses aside). Are you saying he is wrong about that?
223 posted on 08/01/2003 10:22:18 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I don't think you've really thought this through. Rape victims sometimes take YEARS to come forward, because of the shame and the FACT that they feel they will not be believed

Amen, It took me years to get over the idea I was somehow responsible for the homosexual abuse I was subjected to.

224 posted on 08/01/2003 10:25:12 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
No. I have said this over and over. Nor does SSPX believe the Novus Ordo is invalid--but that's not saying much. It is still dangerous to the faith--because it suppresses Catholic dogmas and sustains a Protestantized theology. Just because a Mass is valid does not mean it is spiritually efficacious. In fact, it's been spiritually a disaster--destroying the faith of millions of unwitting Catholics.
225 posted on 08/01/2003 10:26:44 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
...just as the Indult priests are being pressured...

Mine isn't. He is just hated, villified and outcast. He isn't pressured to do anything to the Mass or the traditions of the Church.

It is only because of what Rome calls its "irregular" status that SSPX is able to protect ALL of Catholic tradition--in a way not even the Indult priests can do.

ALL traditions, including humility, obedience and unity with the Pope? Hmmm... I don't see you guys doing anything that my good priest cannot do, and he is fighting the good fight from the (apparent, but apparently debatable) inside.

I'm not convinced, my friend. Nor am I less than calm. Nor do I want to seem like your enemy in any way. I just don't see your point, but then, perhaps, as you say, I am a slow learner.
226 posted on 08/01/2003 10:28:35 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
FR. Brian Harrison says he does not consider such individuals as being in schism or heretics.<P.
Cut them some slack...most have had to face atrocious situations and they desire to worship as their Fathers and Grandfathers did
227 posted on 08/01/2003 10:29:52 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
If the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are not the same, what is the meaning of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"? Does it refer to the Church of Christ or the Roman Catholic Church?
228 posted on 08/01/2003 10:30:41 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
OK. Here you and I are in perfect agreement. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Well, maybe I could have. 8o)
229 posted on 08/01/2003 10:30:43 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
Enlighten me, my friend. My Latin is not that strong.
230 posted on 08/01/2003 10:31:57 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
ha ha ha..as a Neo-Catholic who has filed for an annulment from the spirit of vatican two, I can only say "amen"
231 posted on 08/01/2003 10:33:48 PM PDT by As you well know...
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
"No salvation outside the church"
232 posted on 08/01/2003 10:34:24 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
How long do you think the Indult Masses and their priests would have lasted if there wasn't an SSPX for the fed-up faithful to retreat to? The Amchurch bishops would have crushed them long ago. It is fear of SSPX and its attraction that keeps the Indults alive.

As it is, in some Indult parishes communion in the hands and other Novus Ordo practices are being slowly introduced. As for SSPX priests doing what your priest can't do--they can baptize in the old rite, they can confirm in the old rite, they can confer Holy Orders in the old rite, they can give extreme unction in the old rite, and so on-none of which your priest can do.
233 posted on 08/01/2003 10:38:37 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
I am arguing they are the same. So you need to ask somebody else that question.
234 posted on 08/01/2003 10:40:57 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
It is fear of SSPX and its attraction that keeps the Indults alive.

Could be, but you cannot say with absolute certainty that this is the Holy Father's motivation. Regardless, the Holy Spirit is keeping the reverent Mass alive, though tenuously.

As it is, in some Indult parishes communion in the hands and other Novus Ordo practices are being slowly introduced.

This is absolutely forbidden... (laughing) as are most of the wild abuses going on in the Nervous Disorder Messes. (laughing because the Vatican's forbidding them has not done much good, has it? Disobedience to Rome fathers ugly children, as we have seen.)

...none of which your priest can do.

Hmmm... I'll have to ask him. Thanks for the info.

Dominus vobiscum
235 posted on 08/01/2003 10:45:49 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
Et cum spiritu tuo.
236 posted on 08/01/2003 10:51:37 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
This looks to me to express the notion of the Mass as a memorial meal. Do you think that the priest who installed this tabernacle has the proper intent when offering Mass?
237 posted on 08/01/2003 10:52:25 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
Do you think that the priest who installed this tabernacle has the proper intent when offering Mass?

Yes. Offering the Mass in the approved manner, according to the GIRM, assumes proper intent.

Canon Law insists that proper intent must be assumed, unless one can offer specific proof to the contrary.

238 posted on 08/01/2003 10:55:01 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I will be allowed to fulfill my destiny!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Would not the picnic basket tabernacle suffice for specific proof?
239 posted on 08/01/2003 10:56:43 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
The most awful looking tabernacle I've ever seen is at the Basilica of Divine Mercy near Cracow, Poland. It looks like a big Chinese gong and has a blinking red light on it.
The picture is huge, and I don't know how to reduce it and post it here, but here's a link to the picture:
http://www.sanktuarium.krakow.pl/jpg/Baz0208j.jpg
240 posted on 08/01/2003 11:26:59 PM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"He saved His contempt for those who thought they WERE enlightened."

Congratulations, you just declared open season on yourself.
241 posted on 08/01/2003 11:28:23 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
This looks to me to express the notion of the Mass as a memorial meal.

Then if you click on the link I just posted, you might think the Sacrifice of the Mass is Chinese Take-Out.

242 posted on 08/01/2003 11:29:50 PM PDT by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
Thank you. I'll post it:


243 posted on 08/01/2003 11:38:22 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine
Do you think that the priest who installed this tabernacle has the proper intent when offering Mass?

No, I'm afraid not.

244 posted on 08/01/2003 11:42:37 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
Good Gawwwwwwd! What the hell is that thing?
245 posted on 08/02/2003 12:07:07 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
What the hell is that thing?

The New World Ordo Order.

246 posted on 08/02/2003 12:10:27 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
The new world ODOR?
247 posted on 08/02/2003 12:16:09 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
The new world ODOR?

As in "smoke of Satan"?

248 posted on 08/02/2003 12:19:31 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Antoninus; maryz; eastsider; HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
You are welcome to think that clerical pederasty is isolated to the last 40 years.

Freeper maryz posted the following breakdown of 'reported' abuses, in the Boston Diocese. The oldest ones date back to 1940.

Recently in the Albany Diocese, a 62 year old man stepped forward to report being abused as a young boy. The bishop apologized to him but was helpless to pursue his case as his 'alleged' abusers are both dead. Which brings us back to 'sinkspur's contention that abuse was prevalent pre VCII.

What do these numbers show? They show a pattern of abuse before during and after VCII, with the greatest concentration in the 1970's. Those victims AND their abusers are still alive and in a position to pursue legal action. Given the example from Albany, it is quite likely that other 'older' victims cannot be counted for the very reason given by Bishop Hubbard.

It would be naive to believe that abuse was the result of 2nd Vatican Council. It is simply more visible statistically, from that standpoint in time.

* * *

I apologize for being so compulsive about posting the numbers breakdown of reported abuse cases from last week's Boston Herald, but I find them illuminating (they'd be more illuminating broken down by year):

1940-1959 (20 years) – 24
1960-1969 (10 years) – 163
1970-1979 (10 years) – 282
1980-1984 (5 years) --- 107
1984-1992 (9 years) --- 86
1993-2000 (8 years) --- 33

No date (whatever that means) -- 94

SuziQ - compare the numbers before and after 1984, when Law took over; looks like he was doing something, if not quite enough.

249 posted on 08/02/2003 3:09:15 AM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
The first thing I thought was "War of the Worlds" or perhaps, just a war against the Church. (sigh)
250 posted on 08/02/2003 3:53:39 AM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-319 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson