Skip to comments.Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy
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.
My "gig" is not against homosexuals but the homosexual agenda. My "gig" is not against those who contracept but against the Culture of Death contraceptive mentality. There is a big difference, and to misrepresent what I do otherwise is slander.
I have no "enemies," not even Stephen Hand. I too work with people on a personal level, and after extensive charitable communications Steve Hand and I have hashed out our differences, resolved mutual misunderstandings, and have resumed cooperation in the battle for the Culture of Life. That would never have happened if the caricature of me that you paint were true.
I don't think little of you, Sink, I think a lot of you. If I thought little of you I wouldn't bother.
And my point about CP/OPH is still true: being a victim confers no rights on a person to in turn victimize others.
And I'm not inviting him to "pile-on." He needs to understand the history of this whole sordid business.
There is no proof that this document even exists, and if it does that this interpretation of it is correct.
Pinging him to this article, which will likely be shot down on further investigation, does nothing to help him heal or understand. I stand by my criticism.
I just did a Google search on Crimine Solicitationis and nothing showed up. If this document really exists, I would expect that there would be a reference to it.
Since they made this public, the attorneys have a moral obligation to support its authenticity.
Apparently you didn't see Satan's press conference last week. He admitted that he was behind Hitler, Stalin, and Charles Manson; but he said that those pedophile priests are REALLY sick, and he didn't want anything to to do with those freaks.
The Boston Herald (7/24?) ran a summary of the Attorney General's report on the Archdiocese of Boston. According to archdiocesan records, instances of abuse reported were:
1940-1959 (20 years) 24 (a bit over one per year)
1960-1969 (10 years) 163 (over 16 per year)
1970-1979 (10 years) 282 (almost 30 per year)
1980-1984 (5 years) --- 107 (over 21 per year)
1984-1992 (9 years) --- 86 (between 9 and 10 per year)
1993-2000 (8 years) --- 33 (a bit over 8 per year)
No date (whatever that means) -- 94 I don't know why the Herald broke out the years the way they did (except that I think Law started in 1984).
As I understand it, the 16th centure wasn't one of the Church's better hours by any measure.
The statistics for reported sex abuse shot up after Vatican II. Any criminologist will tell you that sex crimes are always underreported. An increase in reports could mean either that there are more cases, or that more victims are coming forward.
Exactly. Those who were abused in the 50s and before are older than 60, or dead, and the likelihood of a senior citizen coming forward now over a 50-year-old sex abuse is extremely remote.
Pederasty is endemic to the helping professions (teaching, coaching, counseling, ministry), and always has been.
The numbers the Herald ran were lifted directly from the AG's report and based on archdiocesan records of abuse reported at those times.
The report (though it doesn't seem all that worth reading) is at Attorney General's Report
An appendix, however, lists by year of graduation the numbers of accused priests who graduated from St. John's Seminary. The chart starts in 1946, so I'm assuming they didn't find any for the earlier 40's. To summarize by decade (see the AG's report, Appendix 2 for the chart):
1940s -- 5
1950s -- 33
1960s -- 52
1970s -- 16
1980s -- 5
1990s -- 2
1960 was, of course, the infamous class that produced both Geoghan and Shanley, if I recall, as well as the infamous Bishop McCormack.
However, Catholics must give all non-infallible Chruch teaching what is known as "religious submission." Essentially this means that we must give it the benefit of the doubt. If we have no strong evidence to believe it is false, we must believe that it is probably true, though holding open the possibility that it might be corrected at a future date. However, if we can find strong evidence that it is false, such as documents issued by previous popes that teach the opposite or passages in scripture that unambiguously contradict it, then we can respectfully raise questions and doubts about the non-infallible teaching. The key word here, however, is respectful. We are supposed to avoid polemics in doing so.
Who or what John XXIII was has been a debate in Catholic circles. At any rate, God terminated his career before he had finished his projects.
Has anyone ever tabulated how many false accusations of criminal conduct are directed at priests?
Vatican 2 only binding in the sense that we owe religious submission to its doctrinal teachings and obedience to its dsciplinary decrees.
It is not binding in the sense that we owe any of its teachings the assent of faith. Paul VI himself proclaimed in a 1966 general audience that it did not teach anything infallibly.
"Modern" is the operative weasle word of the whole sordid business. For the sake of not being lynched by the enthusiasts of goofy liberal neo-modernism, I will limit my focus to how liberals in America have applied and interpreted the alleged mandate of the "Spirit of Vatican II" to modernize. "Modern" is a very unfortunate term. Liberals, in their fuzzy and murky ways, began to think that the "modern" world was somehow a model for the Church to follow. Suddenly, everything modern - including absurd modern art and architecture, folk music, and liberal and socialist political movements - was good and everything old and traditional was viewed as bad, reactionary, narrow, rigid, out of date. Forget the fact that scholars were already offering critiques of the ideology of progress which forms the underpinning of modernity. Vatican II, at least in its American interpretation, blended with a spirit of liberal giddiness of the 1960s. In so far as certain clerics became liberals, they ceased being authentically Catholic and the Church in their charge took on an unCatholic atmosphere of silliness.
There is simply no binding mandate whatsoever on any Catholic to accept the liberal American interpretation of Vatican II which turned the Mass into a circus. There is no binding mandate for Catholics to like New Agey folk music, modern architecture, minimalist liturgies, gay socialist counter-culture among the clergy, the secularization of Catholic education, priests offering stand-up comedy or political speeches as sermons, and buffet-fed bishops leading lives of leisure while remaining silent about the reigning scandals whether they be sodomite clergy or pro-abortion Catholic politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion. All of these things would have been UNTHINKABLE for most Catholics prior to the late 1960s. None of them are binding.
It is outrageous for any literate adult Catholic to suggest that the interpretation of Vatican II which issues a neo-nmodernist license to change everything, gut the Church's institutions, and level parishes with iconoclastic wreckovation and minimalist liturgies is in any way binding upon the consciences of Catholics. The whole circus from folk Masses to Enneagrams and nuns in horrible pantsuits is a product of MODERN culture. There is very little in modern culture that elevates the lives of Catholics. The stylistic controversies of modern culture do not change the articles of faith, the Creed, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or the Seven Sacraments which remain the essence and substance of the Catholic faith. No Catholic need feel obligated to bow down to an inferior modernized style of presenting Catholicism. These are fads.
When the pajama party of playing musical chairs with the Mass finally ends, sensible Catholics will ask for a return to some dignity, solemnity, and reverence in their worship. Hints in this direction can already be seen. They will also seek a re-Catholicization of Catholic institutions. The "modern" world will be seen for the absurd tragedy and farce that it has been. Traditions will return. The faith will remain as it always has been. Liberal movements will self-destruct. Sensible people generally flee from the most liberal and modernistic parishes and Catholic institutions. The more conservative and orthodox trends in Catholicism are the only places where the genuine marks of the Church and the substance of the faith are to be found. There is just simply no binding mandate to build churches like this monstrosity cathedral in LA. That's a fad in modern bad taste. Nothing more. No amount of liberal modernist jargon can make it anything other than that. It is, however, a very apt symbol of "the Spirit of Vatican II."
An intelligent debate about "the Church in the Modern World" would have to include a defense of traditional culture and the need for the Church to defend Christian civilization from modern culture. How the rhetoric of "the Spirit of Vatican II" managed to get this spin going on "modern" as always good is quite bizarre actually. Contemplate this - how can "the Spirit of Vatican II" be both bringing the Church up to date with the "modern world" and returning to the practices of the early Church of antiquity? Is a folk Mass an early Christian "Agape" or is it a modern folk concert with scriptural readings and Holy Communion? Think about it. It's this kind of cognitive dissonance that is all over the place with "Spirit of Vatican II" jargon.
Whatever the council was supposed to be about, this nonsense rhetoric about the "modern world" and modernization is in dire need of critical review.
From the information I have I can't tell whether the abusers were all priests or if it included church workers like the Reardon character,choir directors,coaches,youth ministers et al. Do you know?
And,last but not least did the Attorney General ever categorize the abuses in any way that would indicate sex of the victims,ages etc. and/or the degree of the abuse. There is a significant difference in a kiss on the lips,which may be an ethnic custom and genital contact. Any info you can give me would be much appreciated. Thanks.
And another crime involving sex that was very exaggerated was incest and familial sesual abuse. Any divorce lawyer can tell you how often that offense was fabricated to prevent custody. Many men were horribly hurt by those false accusations.
Then there were the witchcraft,satanism,sex abuse charges from children lodged against quite a few day care centers and nursery schools.
There are tomes devoted to "false memories" that caused people to recollect all kinds of "sexual" incidents that never happened.
I only say all of this to cause people to reflect on reality. I am not saying that fabricated reports are common in the scandal in the Church,but to blithely walk by and present as fact "underreporting of sex crimes" is not is not in the interest of truth.
They don't even have the capacity to understand that what they are demanding is that "man must evolve,the Church must devolve".They have spoken!!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Talk about hate, Thorndike. You're eaten up with it.