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 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 301-319 next last
To: Saint Athanasius
Why should I believe you over Fr. Most?

You should not believe either, since neither is part of the Magisterium. You should believe Paul VI, who explicitly denied that Vatican 2 taught infallibly.

81 posted on 08/01/2003 3:44:14 PM PDT by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: saradippity; ultima ratio
During my career in Catholic higher education, I noticed a common pattern.
Liberals would usually set up these false dichotomies. The choice was usually framed as between the most ludicrously stereotyped version of clericalist, authoritarian, guilt-ridden Jansenist dogmatism (an absurd parody of anti-Catholic Protestant and liberal atheist notions of Catholicism)or the most extreme version of secularized, multiculturalist, relativism (conveniently posed in idealistic terms as "pluralism"). In most cases, "pluralism" meant the standard the anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-male liberalism that we all know so well.

You would often hear rhetoric about how, "Oh, we could not go back to that..." What we could never "go back to" was of course Catholicism. There were so many different arguments about how we "could not go back" to anything Catholic, I lost count of all of them.

With the whole "spirit of Vatican II" hoax - the "new Coke" of Amchurch - that has been imposed on American Catholics, it just became glaringly obvious that there was something weird about claiming it was about getting the Church up to date "with the modern world" and also about "getting back to" the primitivist minimalist Agape of the early Church of antiquity. If a minimalist folk Mass in one of those StarTrek architecture monstrosities like LA's new "cathedral" is both getting up to date with the modern world AND getting back to the early Christianity antiquity, I'd like to hear the full explanation of this from someone who can keep a straight face while outlining it.

At the moment, however, New Agey folk music is not in style and is therefore sadly "out of date." I'd hate to see a really up-to-date Mass. I guess it would have to have music from these grundge style bands like Pearl Jam and The Red Hot Chili Peppers or whatever the current nonsense is that these unwashed punks in baggy clothing peddle. Has "Rap Music" been used yet at Masses? Does anyone know? I try to stay far away from any silly progressive parishes or fever swamps these days. There was something like rap music which opened a papal Mass during John Paul II's trip to the U.S. in 1995, as I recall. No Catholic is compelled to bow down to contemporary pop music.

82 posted on 08/01/2003 3:49:08 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Read the article at least!
83 posted on 08/01/2003 3:53:35 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 81 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
Excellent post!!
84 posted on 08/01/2003 4:09:35 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius
I ask again--what is it Vatican II commands us to believe? If you can't answer that simple question--why introduce anything about levels of infallibility or authority? It is a simple question. Most of those who say they support Vatican II have no idea what it wants us to believe except that we should be nice to everybody.
85 posted on 08/01/2003 4:28:54 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
In reference to these debates, one should always ask which version of "the Spirit of Vatican II" is the person talking about. Are we talking about the Bernardin-Weakland version of the "Spirit of Vatican II" with New Agey music and wreckovation architecture? Are we talking about the Liberation Theology social(-ist) justice model of the new liberal Jesuits? Is it the Frances Kissling model? The Commonweal model? Is it the charismatic model? How is it exactly that the U.S. bishops have clarified these other models from the Joseph Fessio/Adoremus/EWTN model and those proposed by the Catholics United for the Faith? Or have they? How do you explain to the pastor or "music ministry" mafia at your parish that the Sesame Street musical chairs version of "the Spirit of Vatican II" they are following is a wrong interpretation? The bishop here isn't doing that. How would any Catholic be able to figure this out if the bishop does not clarify which ones active in the diocese are WRONG? Do we assume then that they are all right? How could that be possible?
86 posted on 08/01/2003 4:29:47 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
"The end game is becoming clearer now."

Time to start developing the underground Church!
87 posted on 08/01/2003 4:40:14 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/722955/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
I get very edgy when I hear "spirit" disconnected from Holy. I have now started to say Holy Ghost,in order to assure that an "evil" spirit doesn't respond to the naked "spirit".

I have pointed out in several classes and at every oppurtunity,that I had read that the "evil one" lurks,ready to come when ever anyone calls on the him. I add,that I think that's why the Church is such a mess because they never call on the third person of the Trinity but instead on a somewhat unidentifiable one.

I consider my calling during these times is to derail all "programming sessions" and that is one of my most successful techniques. They don't know how to start responding and it throws them off track. In the meantime attendees lose focus on the "program" and it cuts a good 5 to 10 minutes out of their brainwashing.

I am developing new techniques as I get older. A few years ago I could count on sharp and bright but as the years pile on I'm working on pleasant and dithery. I don't have to work too hard,God takes care of it.

Bottom line,I don't think the evil one dares come in when he hears Holy Ghost. I know it may not seem like much but I do believe the use of the spirit without prefacing it with Holy is responsible for a lot of the problems. But then I have a sense that the supernatural is something that the "Evil One" and his minions are seeking to eliminate by ignoring it.

88 posted on 08/01/2003 5:04:53 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You bring up a good point. It is also interesting to me that those who charge others with not accepting Vatican II do not realize just how much of Vatican II's teachings the church no longer accepts.

For example, Vatican II outlined pastoral measures for reforming the Roman Rite. Yet, no one could seriously argue that the Novus Ordo Missae represents the application of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI decided to ignore the outline set forth by Vatican II and instead reformed the mass the way he saw fit.

The same can be said for Dei Verbum. Could anyone argue that the modernist filth issuing forth from the Pontifical Biblical Commision is in line with Dei Verbum?

Or even further, what about Assisi I and II? There is no way to justify these events based on Dignitatis Humanae, even as liberal as that document is.

I say that I accept all of the teachings of Vatican II, but what in the world does that mean? How can I keep track of all of its directives that have already been abandoned, and how can I know which ones will be abandoned in the future?

89 posted on 08/01/2003 5:19:40 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
"...I get very edgy when I hear "spirit" disconnected from Holy..."

Yep! The latest red flag to catch my eye was a pastor's column that didn't capitalize the M in Mass...and of course it is rare to see this addressed as Holy Mass.
90 posted on 08/01/2003 5:45:55 PM PDT by Domestic Church (AMDG...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/722955/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity; saradippity; Alberta's Child; Aloysius; AniGrrl; Bellarmine; ...
When was the last time the Vatican Council II, itself, was quoted as the reason for the radical changes?

It's always been this mythical "Spirit of Vatican Council II".

The council was concluded December 8, 1965; but this mythical spirit continues to mutate to suit the individual user's needs.

I challenge anyone to show me a Novus Ordo Mass that is currently being celebrated in exactly the same way a Novus Ordo Mass was celebrated in 1966.

91 posted on 08/01/2003 6:00:55 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Well, apparently, there are liberal groups who claim that this is all still "evolving" and that there are yet further stages for changing and minimalizing the Mass into the participatory congregational People's Assembly. In other words, we still haven't really gotten to what Vatican II actually calls for (whatever that may mean). This cult known as "Renew" seems to be part of this fuzzy, vague liturgical gnosticism revolution. Well, if the goofy crap we've all seen for the last 30 odd years was not really the real Vatican II Mass, what on earth was it?

The implication is that there is some unwritten blueprint for the church which only the esoteric elite of liberal liturgists understand. In other words, something other than official conciliar documents. The USCCB proceedings work in a similar way - they interpret what "norms" should be construed from "the Spirit of Vatican II." The disappearance of crucifixes and the moving of tabernacles are in the same spirit of innovative "interpretation." It's a little like the liberal Supreme Court inventing rights and laws.

92 posted on 08/01/2003 6:25:02 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
You just blasphemed Jesus Christ who founded this institution and the Holy Spirit who leads this institution of imperfect men.
93 posted on 08/01/2003 6:29:21 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Church deserves the condemnations it is receiving.

WRONG!

The actions of these particular men deserve condemnation. The Church does not, for Jesus Christ is the Church and the Church is Jesus Christ. It is His mystical body. Why do you want to condemn Jesus? Or is it that you just don't know Catholic faith?
94 posted on 08/01/2003 6:35:07 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Ever notice how the far left modernist libs sink so far as to broadbrush the Church as evil for child mollestations, 95% of which were committed by the very sodomites they praise and protect? It's disgusting enough to spur you on to fight their apostate evil at every turn.

The Church is filled with her enemies.
95 posted on 08/01/2003 6:40:32 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
Catholic hater, PFKEY: "More proof that satan is the foundation of this nefarious institution?"

Catholic hater, PFKEY: "Sinkspur, You are to be commended. It is rare to find a person of your caliber."

Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm..."
The one true Church is besieged with enemies within and enemies without.
96 posted on 08/01/2003 6:47:32 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Thorondir
Catholic hater, PFKEY: "Sinkspur, You are to be commended. It is rare to find a person of your caliber."

Talk about hate, Thorndike. You're eaten up with it.

97 posted on 08/01/2003 6:51:25 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You got that right, my friend. Have you read the great essay; "The Elephant in the Sacristy"?

BTW, my brother: Rome is NOT the problem. Some apostate punks in Rome ARE the problem, along with the Ultra-Lib modernists and their gay-wad "special-ones" in the clergy.
98 posted on 08/01/2003 6:52:09 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dsc
They are valid, but illicit because they have declared themselves to not be in union with the Vicar of Christ.
99 posted on 08/01/2003 6:54:43 PM PDT by Thorondir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY; sinkspur
Sinkspur, You are to be commended. It is rare to find a person of your caliber.

Why am I not surprised that sinkspur is an anti-Catholic bigot's type of Catholic?
100 posted on 08/01/2003 6:57:24 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 301-319 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