Is the Pope guilty of sexual abuse cover up?

[longrunsthefox]

Does PM not mean PERSONAL message? Bad form posting it here instead of answering back with a PM.

will you get a grip

I would have thought a Personal Message was ... well... personal between the two posters otherwise you'd put it on the board instead. Otherwise it is open to editing as Gallsman claimed happened to his or you could just make it up and say someone sent it in a PM... so, nah, I won't get a grip.    

[pintsofguinness]

Does PM not mean PERSONAL message? Bad form posting it here instead of answering back with a PM.

will you get a grip

I would have thought a Personal Message was ... well... personal between the two posters otherwise you'd put it on the board instead. Otherwise it is open to editing as Gallsman claimed happened to his or you could just make it up and say someone sent it in a PM... so, nah, I won't get a grip.    

There's nothing to stop anyone posting pms on the board which is something that idiots should bare in mind when sending bullshit to someone else. and gallsman didn't claim it was edited.

[gallsman]

Does PM not mean PERSONAL message? Bad form posting it here instead of answering back with a PM.

will you get a grip

I would have thought a Personal Message was ... well... personal between the two posters otherwise you'd put it on the board instead. Otherwise it is open to editing as Gallsman claimed happened to his or you could just make it up and say someone sent it in a PM... so, nah, I won't get a grip.    

There's nothing to stop anyone posting pms on the board which is something that idiots should bare in mind when sending bullshit to someone else. and gallsman didn't claim it was edited.

No, I just claim it was posted selectively without the rest of the conversation that would have outlined the context of the thing.

[give her dixie]

Watch this video to see a priest call for the resignation of the pope.
We need more brave preists like him to stand up and be counted. Not protect "Mother Church" with their silence.
His bishop compares him to "Doubting Thomas"..........................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3a6myDAJTo&feature=player_embedded

[orangeman]

Watch this video to see a priest call for the resignation of the pope.
We need more brave preists like him to stand up and be counted. Not protect "Mother Church" with their silence.
His bishop compares him to "Doubting Thomas"..........................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3a6myDAJTo&feature=player_embedded

Amazing that he came out and spoke his mind.


What's not so amazing was the bishop's condemnation of him.


Why should he be afraid ?

[Ulick]

Had to happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spUtCNpLbQ&feature=player_embedded

[pintsofguinness]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm

I really hope there was a slant put on the Pope's comments and he's not actually suggesting catholics repent for the things they've done!

[Declan]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html

Long piece but worth reading by Hans Kung

[Ulick]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html

Long piece but worth reading by Hans Kung

Interesting that Kung starts off with the Second Vatican Council, then goes on to criticise the rescinding of the SSPX excommunications, then the Latin Mass before even getting to the child abuse allegations. That I think highlights what I suggested on this thread or the other one about the real reason many of the bishops have it in for the Pope.

The one thing I'd like to ask Kung is that considering the SSPX hasn't been accused in any of these abuse issues nor any of the traditionalists (quite the opposite really given the Mexico scandal) why does he see the need to drag them into the debate when criticising the Popes handling of the child abuse claims?

Adds: Actually I've now read the whole thing and I can find very little reference to the child abuse scandals. Kung is patehtically using the issue as a cheap point scoring opportunity in his conflict with the Pope and Catholic traditionalists.

[Main Street]

The article is a general list of his angst with the the Catholic church.
How the varied political elements in the Church presently differ on the interpretation of the new testament Bible story around a controversial self proclaimed messiah of the Jews, rejected some 2,000 years ago, has some interest but not directly relevant.

He writes (are there no women in the church?),

'There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( "epistula de delictis gravioribus" ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the "secretum pontificium" , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties. With good reason, therefore, many people have expected a personal mea culpa on the part of the former prefect and current pope. Instead, the pope passed up the opportunity afforded by Holy Week: On Easter Sunday, he had his innocence proclaimed "urbi et orbi" by the dean of the College of Cardinals.'

There is plenty of denial, but not rational based denial, of the role of the CDF in a cover up of abuse cases. 

[theskull1]

One thing I found interesting after googling this SSPX society was just how responsive the vatican could be when someone broke canon law. Serious digging still needs to be done to find out the reasons why they have not been so responsive to their own breaking civil law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ec%C3%B4ne_Consecrations

1988 consecrations
Main article: Ecône Consecrations

A central controversy surrounding the SSPX concerns the consecration by Archbishop Lefebvre and a Brazilian bishop, Antônio de Castro Mayer, of four SSPX priests as bishops in 1988 in violation of the orders of Pope John Paul II.

By 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre was 81. In Catholic doctrine only a bishop can ordain men to the priesthood. At that point, if Lefebvre died, the SSPX would have become dependent upon non-SSPX bishops to ordain future priests - and Lefebvre did not regard them as properly reliable and orthodox. In June 1987, Lefebvre announced his intention to consecrate a successor to the episcopacy. He implied that he intended to do this with or without the approval of the Holy See.[20] Under canons 1013 and 1382 of the Catholic Code of Canon Law, the consecration of a bishop requires papal approval. Consecration of bishops without papal approval had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis, who described the sacramental activity of bishops who had been consecrated without such approval as "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious".[21] The Roman authorities were unhappy with Lefebvre's plan, but they began discussions with him and the SSPX which led to the signing on 5 May 1988, of a skeleton agreement between Lefebvre and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the future Pope Benedict XVI.

On Pope John Paul II's instructions, Cardinal Ratzinger replied to Lefebvre on 30 May, insisting on observance of the agreement of 5 May and adding that, if Lefebvre carried out unauthorised consecrations on 30 June, the promised authorisation for the ordination to the episcopacy would not be granted.

On 3 June, Lefebvre wrote from Ecône, stating that he intended to proceed. On 9 June, the Pope replied with a personal letter, appealing to him not to proceed with a design that "would be seen as nothing other than a schismatic act, the theological and canonical consequences of which are known to you". Lefebvre did not reply and the letter was made public on 16 June. For the first time the Holy See stated publicly that Lefebvre was in danger of being excommunicated.

On 30 June 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded to ordain to the episcopate four priests of the SSPX. Monsignor Antônio de Castro Mayer, the retired Bishop of Campos dos Goytacazes, Brazil, assisted in the ceremony.

The following day, the Congregation for Bishops issued a decree declaring that Archbishop Lefebvre had incurred automatic excommunication.[22] On the following day, 2 July, Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter known as Ecclesia Dei in which he condemned the Archbishop's action.[23] The Pope stated that, since schism is defined in the Code of Canon Law as "withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751),[24] the consecration "constitute[d] a schismatic act", and that, by virtue of canon 1382 of the Code,[25] it entailed automatic excommunication for all the bishops involved.

Lefebvre argued that his actions had been necessary because the traditional form of the Catholic faith and sacraments would become extinct without traditionalist clergy to pass them on to the next generation. He called the ordinations "opération survie" - "Operation Survival", citing in his defense canons 1323 and 1324 of the Code of Canon Law.[26]

Some members of the SSPX disassociated themselves from the Society as a result of Lefebvre's actions and, with the approval of the Holy See, formed a separate society called the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.


Thank god the virgin mary was there to broker a deal to lift the excommunications last year. She really is dealing with the important issues first

[Ulick]

One thing I found interesting after googling this SSPX society was just how responsive the vatican could be when someone broke canon law. Serious digging still needs to be done to find out the reasons why they have not been so responsive to their own breaking civil law.

Thank god the virgin mary was there to broker a deal to lift the excommunications last year. She really is dealing with the important issues first

Considering the SSPX and their congregations have been ostracised for 30 years you'd hardly call it responsive. Also the matters are far from reconciled given that the Irish Bishops (yes the same ones accused of covering up child abuse) refuse to allow them access to churches for Mass and many of them refuse to even allow a Latin Mass in their churches despite the motu proprio three years ago - Bishop Brennan in Ferns being the most obvious example.

In my opinon the Catholic Church is corrupt from top to bottom but those problems are not going to be solved by deflecting the anger toward the traditionalists. I'd say those traditionalists who are despised by the Bishops and media represent the last hope for the Catholic Church. What needs to be down is a complete restructure of the hierarchy, get rid of all those doting octogenarian cardinals who make the gaffs like that p***k in South America last week, weed out the power hungry bishops responsible for this carry-on and regroup around their core values - which thankfully for them the traditionalists have kept alive.

[theskull1]

One thing I found interesting after googling this SSPX society was just how responsive the vatican could be when someone broke canon law. Serious digging still needs to be done to find out the reasons why they have not been so responsive to their own breaking civil law.

Thank god the virgin mary was there to broker a deal to lift the excommunications last year. She really is dealing with the important issues first

Considering the SSPX and their congregations have been ostracised for 30 years you'd hardly call it responsive.

Did you not see what I was referring to in bold?

Canon law broke one day, excommunicated the next. That is responsiveness

[Ulick]

One thing I found interesting after googling this SSPX society was just how responsive the vatican could be when someone broke canon law. Serious digging still needs to be done to find out the reasons why they have not been so responsive to their own breaking civil law.

Thank god the virgin mary was there to broker a deal to lift the excommunications last year. She really is dealing with the important issues first

Considering the SSPX and their congregations have been ostracised for 30 years you'd hardly call it responsive.

Did you not see what I was referring to in bold?

Canon law broke one day, excommunicated the next. That is responsiveness

Apologies skull, I thought you were referring to the lifting of the excommunications by the current Pope.

[The Iceman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm

I really hope there was a slant put on the Pope's comments and he's not actually suggesting catholics repent for the things they've done!

I don't think that is the case at all Pints.  In fact the article answers your very question:

the gravity of the scandal harms all Christians.

As much as the Church needs to seek forgiveness we should all seek forgiveness and repent for our own sins.  He is not trying to take anything away from the sins of the Church but also as Pope, reminding us of our own sins.