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.
W#hat objective data do you have to substantiate this claim, Sink?
Thank You. However, I'm considered a "liberal" around this place, and not in the "mainstream", since most here yearn for the Church of the 1950s.
God help us if we return to that triumphalistic, clericalist Church. Ritual, and ceremony, and codas were not the mark of The Nazarene.
My Church has often been a Church of "bending down" to the little people, rather than a community of "lifting up" all men in prayer to Jesus.
I appreciate your kind words, and invite your participation here. I've got as many questions as you do.
Nothing objective. Just the consideration of human nature.
Clerical abuse of young men and the protection of it by bishops didn't just spring up, overnight, in 1965.
Even the figures from Boston indicate that there were abuse cases extending back as far as the 1930s.
Remember, the likelihood of a victim coming forward in the days of the imperial priesthood was remote. Who would believe them?
There was no sunlight on clerical sin, then. There is now, and that is a very good thing.
Its sadomasochistic to ping such pervert trolls to a thread like this.
Do you loathe the Faith so much that you must ping others who loathe it even more and denigrate it in such a demonic fashion to make you feel better by comparison?
He's working out his anger against the Church for something that happened to him in his youth, as a former Catholic, courtesy of Holy Mother Church. He can work it off on this threads, since they're really harmless. I'd rather he do that than take it out on his wife or kids.
So, you think I loathe the Faith, do you?
Dr. Brian Kopp, I think you've lost your perspective of late. Lashing out at people is a sign of someone who's also got some anger he needs to deal with.
So, deal with it. Get some counseling. Or, keep beating me up, if you must. I can take it.
This is not the first time you've questioned my Faith, nor will it be the last, in all likelihood.
Why do you feel the need to put yourself on some kind of pedestal as a "defender of the Faith"? And why do you insist on doing it by tearing down other people?
This is pharasaical behavior, Brian, and beneath you.
Get a handle on it.
Regardless of his abuse victimhood status, there is simply no excuse for CP/OPH's behavior, willful deceptions, and slanders of Catholics and Catholicism on this forum. Having been a victim confers no right upon him to victimize others and denigrate and publicly undermine the Roman Catholic Faith.
Your pinging him to this thread and encouraging him to continue his rhetoric against Catholics and Catholicism is reprehensible.
Sorry, Sink, but you've played the rest of these cards before, and the gig is up. This isn't about me. Its about a Catholic deacon publicly inviting a rabid anti-Catholic bigot pervert to pile on the Church. I'm not the one who needs counseling.
What objective data do you have to substantiate this claim, Sink?
Nothing objective.
You should have stopped there. You have no objective evidence whatsoever that Sexual abuse was rampant under Pius XII, and, likely under prior popes.
He has every reason to be anti-Catholic. And I'm not inviting him to "pile-on." He needs to understand the history of this whole sordid business.
Brian, your gig is carrying your banner into battle, against homosexuals, against those who use contraceptives, against your "enemies" like Stephen Hand.
I'll work with people on a personal level.
I know you think little of me, as do most Catholics on this forum. That matters to me not one bit.
How many times are you going to condemn other people here, Doctor? How many times? Do you think your stridency is effective?
Heal thyself.
Like I said, if you think clerical abuse of minors began, suddenly, in 1965, then you're very naive.
Martin Luther complained of pederasty by clerics in the 16th century, for heaven's sake.
No one has a copy of the text,nonetheless,they seriously contend this is proof of something sinister and nefarious. What they are saying makes absolutely no sense and everyone is joining in the discusssion and agreeing that this is awful and doesn't look good.What doesn't look good? What does it say?I can't figure it out what in the world it means and it is quite clear no one else does either.
It seems that catholics are eager to believe anything bad about the Pope,whomsoever,he was or is. If someone knows what the documents actually say and mean would you clue in the rest of us.
But both lawyers said they believed the Latin original to be authentic.
Does this make it so? No.
My comments are based on my beliefs and if this "blueprint" is true it would further cement those beliefs.
Not that it matters much but I did end my comment with a question mark.
If I may continue to ask more questions.
Did this change satify the conditions of infallibility?
As I understand these conditions they are:
Speaking ex cathedra as Supreme Pastor
Explaining a doctrine of faith or morals
To be held by the Universal Church
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.