Clerical abuse!

[Ulick]

Needs to be read in context but in essence Humanae Vitae does not define or make distinctions between contraceptives but contraceptive acts.

Section 14 includes the definition of contraception which is also found in the Catholic Catechism (2370): "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible". In other words any act, before, during or after intercourse which is intended to prevent the creation of life.

Section 15 goes on to say that acts which have a contraceptive effect are allowed so long as the intention is not to impede the possibility of creation of life.

Ecclesia autem illas medendi rationes haud illicitas existimat, quae ad morbos corporis curandos necessariae sunt, etiamsi exinde oriatur procreationis impedimentum, licet praevisum, dummodo ne hoc impedimentum ob quamlibet rationem directo intendatur.

Which in your link is:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Humanae Vitae sets out the definition of contraception (within marriage) as the intention to prevent conception during intercourse. If the intention of the contraceptive act is not prevent conception such as in cases where they are intended to prevent the spread of disease then there is nothing to say they are illicit.

Rhonheimer explains it better in The Suppository:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

Section 15 referes to "therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases". Contraceptives are a means of prevention - they cure nothing.
I read that section to mean, for example, a cancer treatment that results in the woman/man being infertile.

What that philosopher says is neither here nor there. It's one interpretation. And you really shouldn't need a philosopher's interpretation to understand the Vatican's teachings - it should be in black and white and clear to understand. You'd also expect it to be clear in the Vatican's subsequent statements and responses on the matter, not just some vague, ambiguous reference from 1968. I can't find anything.

The fact remains the Vatican has not 'allowed' what you're saying they have. The following extract, for example, comes from a Catholic newspaper after the Pope's 2010 statement:
Had the Pope given as an example a serodiscordant married couple, instead of a prostitute (whether male or female is not currently clear) he would really have said something dramatic; and answered a question which many senior churchmen have asked and the Vatican has declined to answer.

Maguire, you're splitting hairs, what you've posted is one interpretation. We could go round in circles about it all day but to be honest it would be rather tedious. Fact is the Magisterium has not said it is illicit for married couple to use condoms were there is risk of passing on a disease. Now I've posted Church doctrine that justifies that their use. If you want to continue, it is then up to you to show me actual Church doctrine which says it is banned in such circumstances i.e. not some cut and paste from a newspaper.

[Ulick]

Many including Ulick are qouting tradition and not doctrine based on the gospels to support the ongoing practices within the Church of Rome which has seen numbers of belivers and priests dwindle. It is time the Church started to review its position otherwise it will wither and die. Just a point at no stage have I said that there is a corelation between celibacy and abuse. Rather easy unregulated access to children is the main reason many paedophiles in the past joined the priesthood. I am a mass going Catholic, I want to see married priests at the very least, that was a tradition that changed!

Applesisapples, if knew anything about the religion you purport to follow of even read my previous post you should now know that Catholic doctrine is not solely based on the Bible. If it were I assume we'd all be running around poking each others eyes out until we were all blind. You have not posted any evidence as a link between the dwindling number of believers/priests and "ongoing practices within the Church of Rome", so at this stage that view is still open to debate. However, I'm pretty sure that even if you did, I could quite easily counter it with something that links the dwindling number of believers to the growth in "liberal" practices and lack of teaching by these particular priests you are so fond off. You go on then to again make the link between celibacy and child abuse but where is the evidence?

[thejuice]

Just seen these lads.

http://itccs.org/2012/05/04/catholic-church-faces-disruption-and-banishment-as-irish-cardinal-set-to-resign/

Are their demands/threats being taken seriously?

The following concrete actions by the Church are required if justice is to be won for its victims and if the crimes it has committed and continue to cover up are to end.

If the Church fails to abide by these basic commandments of humanity and the law, we will take permanent action to end its criminal regime.

1.       The Church must issue full reparations to all of its victims, including by paying for all of their medical and counseling bills, the cost of their rehabilitation and retraining, and for any of their disabilities and losses.

2.       The Church must surrender for a proper burial, without conditions and at its own expense, the remains of all those who died in its institutions or while under its care.

3.       The Church must return all land and property taken from its victims, and restore all of the wealth generated by its exploitation of them as children, including the wealth created from their unpaid or low paid labor.

4.       The Church must surrender without conditions all of the evidence of its crimes against children, and all of those persons responsible for committing these crimes and concealing them, including its highest officials. The Church must fully disclose this evidence and participate without conditions in all public investigations into its crimes.

5.       The Church and its guilty parties cannot hide behind so-called diplomatic immunity or other privileges to evade justice and avoid prosecution. The Vatican must end its official cover up and annul its policy known as Crimen Sollicitationis, which compels Catholic clergy to conceal crimes committed against children in their parishes.

6.       The Church must immediately expel and defrock all known child raping priests, officials and employees in its ranks, and defrock any clergy who harms a child or conceals such harm.

7.       All clergy and Church officials must agree to be licensed and monitored as public servants, and take a legally binding, public oath to protect without conditions the rights and sanctity of children and disclose any harm done to them.

8.       The Church must forgo and withdraw from all of the tax exemptions, financial concordats and agreements, and other special privileges presently granted to it under the laws of nations.

9.       The Vatican must agree to the annulment of its status as a so-called state, and free its congregations and dioceses from its authority so that they may act according to the wishes and needs of their respective communities and their faith, and not the political and financial requirements of the Vatican.

10.   All of the wealth accumulated by the Church and the Vatican Bank through land theft and conquest, and from tax exemptions, concordats, and from its operations around the world that have harmed children through the exploitation of their labor, such as the Magdalene Laundries and Indian residential schools, must be returned to its victims and to the poor in general through a direct, public redistribution of that wealth, as Christ himself commands.

We have been instructed to inform the Bishops of Ireland, as we have notified the Vatican, that they have until September 15, 2012, to agree to these demands and implement these ten measures.

If they fail to commence to do so by midnight of that date, we will enact the following measures:

1.       The Roman Catholic Church will be formally and forever banished from our communities, and measures will be taken to legally and practically prevent it from operating;

2.       Roman Catholic churches, agencies and offices around the world will be permanently disrupted and occupied as part of an ongoing campaign of non-violent civil disobedience; and

3.       Our International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State will reconvene its court, and will seek the immediate detaining for questioning of the highest officials of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope Benedict, on charges of obstruction of justice, criminal conspiracy, and crimes against humanity.

It is time for all people of conscience within the Church to choose who they will serve: a self-governing, criminal church system that sets itself above the law and God – or its suffering victims, and justice.

[Applesisapples]

Many including Ulick are quoting tradition and not doctrine based on the gospels to support the ongoing practices within the Church of Rome which has seen numbers of believers and priests dwindle. It is time the Church started to review its position otherwise it will wither and die. Just a point at no stage have I said that there is a corelation between celibacy and abuse. Rather easy unregulated access to children is the main reason many paedophiles in the past joined the priesthood. I am a mass going Catholic, I want to see married priests at the very least, that was a tradition that changed!

Applesisapples, if knew anything about the religion you purport to follow of even read my previous post you should now know that Catholic doctrine is not solely based on the Bible. If it were I assume we'd all be running around poking each others eyes out until we were all blind. You have not posted any evidence as a link between the dwindling number of believers/priests and "ongoing practices within the Church of Rome", so at this stage that view is still open to debate. However, I'm pretty sure that even if you did, I could quite easily counter it with something that links the dwindling number of believers to the growth in "liberal" practices and lack of teaching by these particular priests you are so fond off. You go on then to again make the link between celibacy and child abuse but where is the evidence?

That is exactly my point, it based on tradition and traditions can and should change. it was as I pointed out once the tradition to allow priests to marry. It was once the tradition for men and women to be segregated, it was once the tradition to call out the amount of money each parishioner gave at mass, it was once tradition that only priests could give out communion, it was once tradition that the laity could not touch the host....etc...Traditions can change, the bible can be interprated.

[johnneycool]

Many including Ulick are quoting tradition and not doctrine based on the gospels to support the ongoing practices within the Church of Rome which has seen numbers of believers and priests dwindle. It is time the Church started to review its position otherwise it will wither and die. Just a point at no stage have I said that there is a corelation between celibacy and abuse. Rather easy unregulated access to children is the main reason many paedophiles in the past joined the priesthood. I am a mass going Catholic, I want to see married priests at the very least, that was a tradition that changed!

Applesisapples, if knew anything about the religion you purport to follow of even read my previous post you should now know that Catholic doctrine is not solely based on the Bible. If it were I assume we'd all be running around poking each others eyes out until we were all blind. You have not posted any evidence as a link between the dwindling number of believers/priests and "ongoing practices within the Church of Rome", so at this stage that view is still open to debate. However, I'm pretty sure that even if you did, I could quite easily counter it with something that links the dwindling number of believers to the growth in "liberal" practices and lack of teaching by these particular priests you are so fond off. You go on then to again make the link between celibacy and child abuse but where is the evidence?

That is exactly my point, it based on tradition and traditions can and should change. it was as I pointed out once the tradition to allow priests to marry. It was once the tradition for men and women to be segregated, it was once the tradition to call out the amount of money each parishioner gave at mass, it was once tradition that only priests could give out communion, it was once tradition that the laity could not touch the host....etc...Traditions can change, the bible can be interprated.

It was once the tradition that non baptised children who died were buried in unconsecrated ground.

It was once the tradition that mothers had to be 'churched' after giving birth before they could enter the doors let alone take part in the sacraments.

Thankfully some 'traditions' have fallen by the wayside, some more to go though!

[orangeman]

What about the place they used to call "Limbo" ?

It turns out now there is or was no such place.

[Applesisapples]

What about the place they used to call "Limbo" ?

It turns out now there is or was no such place.

No it's just in limbo...uh no maybe...

[johnneycool]

What about the place they used to call "Limbo" ?

It turns out now there is or was no such place.

Nah, Purgatory was just a money making scam where you could 'buy' plenary indulgences to shorten your spell there.

[orangeman]

What about the place they used to call "Limbo" ?

It turns out now there is or was no such place.

Nah, Purgatory was just a money making scam where you could 'buy' plenary indulgences to shorten your spell there.

Ah, the good old plenary indulgence where there was like a buy one get two free offer for the month of November when things were slow coming up to the Christmas period.
Those were the days !.

[Maguire01]

Needs to be read in context but in essence Humanae Vitae does not define or make distinctions between contraceptives but contraceptive acts.

Section 14 includes the definition of contraception which is also found in the Catholic Catechism (2370): "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible". In other words any act, before, during or after intercourse which is intended to prevent the creation of life.

Section 15 goes on to say that acts which have a contraceptive effect are allowed so long as the intention is not to impede the possibility of creation of life.

Ecclesia autem illas medendi rationes haud illicitas existimat, quae ad morbos corporis curandos necessariae sunt, etiamsi exinde oriatur procreationis impedimentum, licet praevisum, dummodo ne hoc impedimentum ob quamlibet rationem directo intendatur.

Which in your link is:
Lawful Therapeutic Means
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

Humanae Vitae sets out the definition of contraception (within marriage) as the intention to prevent conception during intercourse. If the intention of the contraceptive act is not prevent conception such as in cases where they are intended to prevent the spread of disease then there is nothing to say they are illicit.

Rhonheimer explains it better in The Suppository:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/2284

Section 15 referes to "therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases". Contraceptives are a means of prevention - they cure nothing.
I read that section to mean, for example, a cancer treatment that results in the woman/man being infertile.

What that philosopher says is neither here nor there. It's one interpretation. And you really shouldn't need a philosopher's interpretation to understand the Vatican's teachings - it should be in black and white and clear to understand. You'd also expect it to be clear in the Vatican's subsequent statements and responses on the matter, not just some vague, ambiguous reference from 1968. I can't find anything.

The fact remains the Vatican has not 'allowed' what you're saying they have. The following extract, for example, comes from a Catholic newspaper after the Pope's 2010 statement:
Had the Pope given as an example a serodiscordant married couple, instead of a prostitute (whether male or female is not currently clear) he would really have said something dramatic; and answered a question which many senior churchmen have asked and the Vatican has declined to answer.

Maguire, you're splitting hairs, what you've posted is one interpretation. We could go round in circles about it all day but to be honest it would be rather tedious. Fact is the Magisterium has not said it is illicit for married couple to use condoms were there is risk of passing on a disease. Now I've posted Church doctrine that justifies that their use. If you want to continue, it is then up to you to show me actual Church doctrine which says it is banned in such circumstances i.e. not some cut and paste from a newspaper.

Well done on avoiding the substantive points of my post. And you're the one who posted one interpretation. I posted a newspaper report - not a mainstream paper, but a Catholic one - to support the point that if they can't see your interpretation, and the Church in general and the Vatican in particular doesn't make that interpretation known, then how are Catholics in places like Africa with HIV going to come to that interpretation? Surely if your interpretation was correct, then the current Pope (and his predecessor) would have no issue in spelling it out.

Anyway, I think we should run the risk of becoming tedious to reach some clarity on this.

You based your argument on section 15 saying that contraception in such a case was allowed. That section relates to thereputic means to cure disease. This has nothing to do with using condoms to avoid transmission of disease. Now, having seen the error in that line of argument, you've shifted to saying that contraception in such a case is not not allowed (i.e. not explicitly disallowed).

The previous paragraph is as follows:
Unlawful Birth Control Methods
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

The sections in bold, I would read as saying that contraception is not allowed, even in the case of a serodiscordant married couple.

[orangeman]

Not exactly a vote of confidence -


Just 20 out of a total of 150 priests in the Armagh archdiocese turned up to a recent gathering organised in support of Cardinal Sean Brady.

The figure was revealed by The Irish Catholic newspaper.

Several priests in the diocese told the paper the lack of support was indicative of low morale among the clergy there.

A spokesman for Dr Brady told The Irish Catholic the poor turnout may have been because of short notice.

About 13% of the priests who were invited attended the gathering which was described as a "prayer gathering of support for Cardinal Brady" in the Synod Hall in St Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh, last Friday.

One priest told the paper he felt the poor turnout "was a sign that priests of the diocese are very fed up. Many are just doing their own thing because they think it is rudderless at the top".

Another attributed the small uptake for the event to "a great deal of apathy among priests of the diocese. It certainly isn't helped by everything that's going on at the moment," he said, referring to the controversy around Cardinal Brady's handling of allegations against Fr Brendan Smyth.

However, another priest said he felt the low morale was as a result of other issues.

He felt that "many priests" were "very unhappy that there are priests in this diocese, against whom allegations [of abuse] have been made, who have been cleared by the civil authorities, but not returned to ministry".

"A lot of priests feel sore about that," he said.

Cardinal Brady's spokesman pointed out that the event was not the annual gathering for clergy and "because of the short notice it was expected to be a small gathering".

He said it had been organised "a few days before".

Cardinal Brady told The Irish Catholic, the event was "a most beautiful and moving experience".

"I am very grateful for all the prayerful support that I have received."

Earlier this month, a BBC documentary revealed that in 1975, a 14-year-old boy who had been sexually abused by a paedophile priest, Fr Brendan Smyth, gave the then Fr Brady the names and addresses of other children who had been abused.

It said Fr Brady did not pass on the details to the police or parents.

In response, the Catholic primate of all Ireland said he would not resign as Church leader despite revelations in the BBC's This World show.

[orangeman]

Can you believe this ?

The deputy first minister raised the possibility of prosecuting Cardinal Sean Brady, it has emerged.

Martin McGuinness did so at a 3 May executive meeting amid revelations the cardinal failed to report child sex abuse to police almost 40 years ago.

He formally asked Justice Minister David Ford to consult the police to see if a prosecution was possible under the Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967.

It makes it an offence to withhold information about a crime.

The meeting took place two days after the BBC's This World Programme revealed fresh details about Cardinal Brady's role in the Brendan Smyth affair and his part in the failure to inform the police or parents about the abuse by the paedophile priest.

In public, Mr McGuinness has been an outspoken critic of the Roman Catholic primate of all Ireland, saying he should consider his position.

But it has now emerged he raised the subject at executive level.

According to one well-placed source: "He formally asked David Ford as justice minister... to consult with the PSNI and if necessary its RUC predecessor to see if prosecution was possible in this case."

It is understood the justice minister agreed to pass on the executive's concerns to the chief constable and the relevant Dublin authorities, but stressed it was an operational matter for the police.

Sources have also told the BBC that an executive press release on the matter was not issued as parties could not agree to the wording.

It is understood Sinn Fein wanted to confine the wording to child sex abuse but the SDLP, Alliance and DUP insisted on a reference to all crime.

"In the end they abandoned it," the source said.A spokesman for the executive had no comment as its business is private.

There was no immediate comment from Sinn Fein.

[orangeman]

Now Martin clarifies matters - which appears to be a bit different to what the earlier report claimed.



Martin McGuinness sought co-operation in Smyth inquiry

Sinn Fein has said the deputy first minister pressed the justice minister to ensure police co-operated with a cross-border inquiry into the crimes of paedophile priest Brendan Smyth.

A spokesman for Martin McGuinness denied he asked the justice minister to consult police about the possibility of prosecuting Cardinal Sean Brady.

It was over his part in the failure to inform police about the abuse in 1975.

Sources told the BBC Mr McGuinness raised the Smyth case on 3 May.

This followed revelations in a BBC This World programme that the cardinal had the names and addresses of children being abused by Smyth, but did not ensure their safety.

The well-placed sources said that at an executive meeting, Mr McGuinness asked asked the justice minister David Ford to formally ask the PSNI about the possibility of prosecution, given the 1967 Act which makes it an offence not to report a crime.

But Sinn Fein said Mr McGuinness did not mention the cardinal but asked Mr Ford to ensure the PSNI cooperated with if there was to be a cross-border inquiry, as called for by Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin.

[armaghniac]

It makes it an offence to withhold information about a crime.

So McGuinness has never withheld information about a crime?

[Lar Naparka]

It seems that the priests in his own diocese aren't too happy with the antics of Cardinal Brady:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/underfire-cardinal-suffers-snub-from-his-own-priests-3111528.html

Under-fire cardinal suffers snub from his own priests
CARDINAL Sean Brady has suffered a new blow after the majority of priests in his diocese snubbed a meeting organised as a show of support for the embattled leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Just 20 of 150 priests in the Armagh Archdiocese invited to attend a prayer gathering in support of Dr Brady actually showed up -- with many privately voicing concerns about his leadership.
The poor turn-out at the meeting is the most overt response by rank-and-file priests to new allegations surrounding Cardinal Brady's handling of abuse allegations made against notorious paedophile Fr Brendan Smyth.
Allegations
It follows calls by a number of government ministers for the cardinal to consider his position.
Catholic Church insiders said Dr Brady had been keeping a low profile for the past fortnight after the allegations emerged in a BBC 'This World' documentary.
Despite defending his position in the immediate aftermath of the programme, the cardinal has rarely been seen out in public since and has not been presiding at confirmation ceremonies. Dr Brady had claimed he received a lot of support from within the church to stay on in his role as Primate of All Ireland.
However, the revelation that so few priest attended the prayer meeting suggests that his analysis may not be the correct one.
The BBC documentary revealed how in the mid-1970s the then Fr Brady had been informed by 14-year-old abuse victim Brendan Boland that other children were being abused by Smyth.
Mr Boland gave the names and addresses of other children in danger from Smyth.
But despite being given this information, the then Fr Brady and his superiors did nothing to warn the parents of Smyth's victims.
As well as disquiet over Dr Brady's role in the Smyth affair, other factors also played a part in the poor attendance, according to priests in the diocese.
Priests in Armagh who were contacted complained of low morale.
One said he felt that the poor turnout "was a sign that priests of the diocese are very fed up. Many are just doing their own thing because they think it is rudderless at the top."
A spokesman for Cardinal Brady claimed the poor attendance last Friday week was due to "short notice".