Posted on 05/30/2010 7:47:34 PM PDT by TaraP
The future Pope Benedict XVI refused to defrock an American priest who confessed to molesting numerous children and even served prison time for it, simply because the cleric wouldn't agree to the discipline. The case provides the latest evidence of how changes in church law under Pope John Paul II frustrated and hamstrung U.S. bishops struggling with an abuse crisis that would eventually explode.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press from court filings in the case of the late Rev. Alvin Campbell of Illinois show Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, following church law at the time, turned down a bishop's plea to remove the priest for no other reason than the abuser's refusal to go along with it.
"The petition in question cannot be admitted in as much as it lacks the request of Father Campbell himself," Ratzinger wrote in a July 3, 1989, letter to Bishop Daniel Ryan of the Diocese of Springfield, Ill.
With the church still recovering from a notable departure of priests in the 1970s to marry, John Paul made it tougher to leave the priesthood after assuming the papacy in 1978, saying their vocation was a lifelong one. A consequence of that policy was that, as the priest sex abuse scandal arose in the U.S., bishops were no longer able to sidestep the lengthy church trial necessary for laicization.
New rules in 1980 removed bishops' option of requesting laicizations of abusive priests without holding a church trial. Those rules were ultimately eased two decades later amid an explosion of abuse cases in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
10. PETER THE ROMAN - The 112th prophesy states: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End.” The last pope may just cut Catholics loose from unity and the papacy, causing total disruption and confusion. See Saint Francis of Assissi’s 13th century prophecy below. It is believed the next pope will
Will “The Glory of the Olive” be the last Pope?
The problem with the prophecies as listed in The Prophecies of St. Malachy, published by the Thomas A. Nelson, a Catholic Publishing House, is that Malachy’s original works listed only 111 Popes, not 112, as given in the TAN version of the prophecies. Sometime between the first and subsequent printings the 112th, Petrus Romanus, was added to Malachy’s prophecy. It was added after the 1820 publication of the prophecies.
On April 19th, 2005 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI, the 265th Pope. The name Benedict means “blessing”.
Not again. Can’t they ever get anything straight?
Not again. Can’t they ever get anything straight?
Nope.
Church shoots self in foot.
It’s amazing how many times these anti-Catholic articles get posted at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2524233/posts
If you read the whole story you will see that all then Cardinal Ratzinger did was tell Bishop Ryan that he could not take shortcuts with canon law and must proceed to a church trial in order to reduce Campbell from the clerical state. It is also important to point out that this process has nothing to do with removing someone from the active ministry but rather with one's internal relationship to the Church. Sorry to disappoint all those looking for a smoking gun but there is no scandal here.Future Pope Refused Defrocking of Convicted Priest Without a Trial
In other words, Ratzinger just followed the law as it existed at that time.
He did nothing wrong.
Clueless media almost never gets story right on any topic.
The Anti Catholics in here do not want to let any facts confuse their opinion.
The would dispute any claims of Papal infallibility but don’t understand why he can not rule by fiat in all matters. They also hate the Catholic church because they view her as too powerful and worldly but want her to exercise powers beyond any law when it suits them.
Oh, not this again!
Strange though it seems to me as an Orthodox Christian familiar with the ancient canons under which deposition (a.k.a. defrocking) of a priest and laicization of a priest were the same thing, as a FReeper familiar with the Latin church’s present canon law explained to me when this made the rounds in the British press, under the Latin church’s system laicization entails only release from the priestly vows, and is a separate step after deposition (removal from priestly ministry). All the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger blocked was laicization after the offending priest had been deposed by his diocesan bishop.
Now if you all want to debate whether this separation of deposition and laicization is sensible, go ahead (for my part, I side with the ancient canons on matters of church discipline), but anyone who portrays this as “sheltering abusers” is slandering the present Pope of Rome, either out of ignorance or malice.
Actually, Cardinal Ratzinger did not block anything. All that he did was insist that Bishop Ryan follow canon law and proceed with a trial in order to reduce Campbell from the clerical state.
Did you spend as much time trying to get BOTH sides of the story?
“Clueless media almost never gets story right on any topic.”
And usually, it’s INTENTIONAL.
Nope, readers believe everything they read.
Documents obtained by The Associated Press from court filings in the case of the late Rev. Alvin Campbell of Illinois show Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, following church law at the time, turned down a bishop's plea to remove the priest for no other reason than the abuser's refusal to go along with it.
OK. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but doesn't this say that the priest wasn't disciplined because HE wouldn't go along with the discipline?
Since when is that a factor if he likes it or not or wishes to comply or not?
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
It appears so.
He did nothing wrong.
*wrong* and *illegal* are not necessarily the same thing.
He followed procedure, which can still be wrong in a moral sense even if it's not wrong legally.
So what is wrong in a moral sense with insisting that canon law must be followed and that there must be a trial before a priest is reduced from the clerical state?
If the guy confessed, he should have been removed immediately.
You don’t need a trial to determine guilt when someone admits it.
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.