http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8587082.stm
Pope Benedict faces child abuse cover-up queries
Benedict once led the Vatican office charged with investigating abuse
Questions are being raised about whether Pope Benedict was personally involved in covering up a case of child sex abuse by a Roman Catholic priest.
Documents seen by the New York Times newspaper allege that in the 1990s, long before he became Pope, he failed to respond to letters about a US case.
Fr Lawrence Murphy, of Wisconsin, was accused of abusing up to 200 deaf boys.
Defending itself, the Vatican said US civil authorities had investigated and dropped the case.
For more than 20 years before he was made Pope, Joseph Ratzinger led the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - the Vatican office with responsibility, among other issues, for the Church's response to child abuse cases.
Allegations that the Church sought to cover up child abuse by Catholic priests in Europe have haunted the Vatican for months.
'So friendly'
The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally.
Instead of removing [Fr Murphy] from the priesthood, they just gave him a free pass
Jeff Anderson
US lawyer
They concerned the Rev Lawrence Murphy, who worked at a Wisconsin school for deaf children from the 1950s.
Three archbishops of Wisconsin were told Fr Murphy was sexually abusing boys but those allegations were not reported to civil authorities at the time.
Alleged victims quoted by the New York Times gave accounts of the priest pulling down their trousers and touching them in his office, his car, his mother's country house, on class excursions and fund-raising trips, and in their dormitory beds at night.
"If he was a real mean guy, I would have stayed away," said Arthur Budzinski, 61, a former pupil of at St John's School for the Deaf, in St Francis, in the Diocese of Milwaukee.
"But he was so friendly, and so nice and understanding. I knew he was wrong, but I couldn't really believe it."
According to the New York Times, Fr Murphy was quietly moved to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes and schools. He died in 1998, still a priest.
Two lawyers have filed lawsuits on behalf of five men alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee did not take sufficient action against the priest.
One of the lawyers, Jeff Anderson, told the Associated Press news agency that the documents they had obtained on Fr Murphy, and shown to the New York Times, showed the Vatican was more concerned about possible publicity than about the abuse allegations.
"Instead of removing him from the priesthood, they just gave him a free pass," he said.
'Tragic case'
The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, called it a "tragic case" but pointed out that the Vatican had become involved only in 1996, after US civil authorities had dropped the case.
"During the mid-1970s, some of Fr Murphy's victims reported his abuse to civil authorities," the Rev Lombardi said in a statement.
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith was not informed of the matter until some 20 years later."
The Milwaukee diocese was asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", the Rev Lombardi added.
He also said that Fr Murphy's poor health and a lack of more recent allegations had been factors in the decision not to defrock him.
But the Vatican's decision not to carry out its own investigation is the question that brings the now Pope's own involvement centre stage, says BBC religious affairs correspondent Christopher Landau.
Victims of sexual abuse by priests have long argued that the Church has been more interested in protecting its reputation and helping its priests than seeking justice for victims, our correspondent adds.
Fr Murphy died in 1998, with - in the Church's view - no official blemish on his priestly record.
But questions about why Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to concerns being raised by American archbishops still demand answers, our correspondent says.
And such questions mean that this sexual abuse crisis continues to have an impact at the very highest level in the Roman Catholic church, he adds.
Oh yes, and he's also guilty of not telling us who really killed Jesus, who really killed Judas, who really got Mary preggers.
And while we're at it, I once stole a pen from work. Should I through myself of a cliff?
No-start a new thread.. Good Popes- What have they done for you? ::)
Does a bear shite in the woods ?
Quote from: orangeman on March 25, 2010, 03:30:38 PM
Does a beat shite in the woods ?
Not sure
What exactly is a beat?
Anybody of thinks that the Pope was not involved in keeping the whole business of abusers and pedophile priests as quiet as possible is living in Cuckoo land.
Cloud Cuckoo land is a nice place though
(http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/attachments/general-chit-chat/30189d1260559161-cloud-cuckoo-land-cuckoo-hones-8680t-ns1.jpg)
Quote from: Main Street on March 25, 2010, 04:42:21 PM
Cloud Cuckoo land is a nice place though
(http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/attachments/general-chit-chat/30189d1260559161-cloud-cuckoo-land-cuckoo-hones-8680t-ns1.jpg)
THE VATICAN
So I don't think I make any secrets about my faith on here. I will say that I do believe the Pope (then Cardinal), in my opinion, was aware of the abuse and failed to act on it. He failed the victims and lives were ruined as a result. Just like Sean Brady did.
So what happens now? The media and the public go crazy, the Pope is told to resign (which he wont) and the media and public call for everyone and anyone who had any notion of half of what was happening to stand down. The Church falls apart. Everyone lives happily ever after?
The Church messed up (biggest understatement ever) but I believe that the people in positions of power today, despite their failings, are in the best position to lead us (the Church, the faithful, people who actually go to Mass) out of this tragedy and forward towards reconciliation and peace.
Who tells the pope? Seeing as he is christ's vicar?
QuoteWho tells the pope? Seeing as he is christ's vicar?
Christ did not select him, Joey Ratzinger took over the vatican circus show long before JPII died, he ran the show for the funeral and was it any surprise then that all the auld cardinals then voted him in, jaysus I'd say they were scared shitless of him. It would have been a great time for a younger man to get elected and to bring some modern thinking to the church and first thing to do would have been to stand up and apologies for the past and root out all the evil hoors from the church and ensure the wrongs of the past were never repeated.
Hard to warm to the pope, he's too old school, John Paul had his flaws but he had a bit of charisma and people trusted him and in the most part liked him. Benny 16 is driving people away from the church.
As for the topic yes I'd say all popes have been quilty by association of some form of cover ups over the years.
Quote from: Kerry Mike on March 25, 2010, 08:41:26 PM
QuoteWho tells the pope? Seeing as he is christ's vicar?
Christ did not select him, Joey Ratzinger took over the vatican circus show long before JPII died, he ran the show for the funeral and was it any surprise then that all the auld cardinals then voted him in, jaysus I'd say they were scared shitless of him. It would have been a great time for a younger man to get elected and to bring some modern thinking to the church and first thing to do would have been to stand up and apologies for the past and root out all the evil hoors from the church and ensure the wrongs of the past were never repeated.
Hard to warm to the pope, he's too old school, John Paul had his flaws but he had a bit of charisma and people trusted him and in the most part liked him. Benny 16 is driving people away from the church.
As for the topic yes I'd say all popes have been quilty by association of some form of cover ups over the years.
He is of course guilty but to say he is worse than JP 2 is a stretch, they both knew what was going on and on both their watches Priests were moved around rather than held accountable for their disgusting actions.
The message el papa sent to us all was hardly an admission of wrongdoing, it was however wonderful from a bullshit artists point of view, he should resign, in fact he should never have been elected in the first place.
If the Catholic Church is to survive it first has to cast out all of it's demons, i.e, be 100% honest in what it's leaders knew, who the paedos were (all of them) and then explain why they did not contact the authorities when they found out who these scumbags were. After that, they need to compensate the victims and screen all potential priests within an inch of their lives.
The Popes throughout history have been mostly men completely out of touch with their flock at best and absolute sadistic whoremongers at worst
Quote from: The Iceman on March 25, 2010, 06:54:25 PM
The Church messed up (biggest understatement ever) but I believe that the people in positions of power today, despite their failings, are in the best position to lead us (the Church, the faithful, people who actually go to Mass) out of this tragedy and forward towards reconciliation and peace.
Just like our present government ;)
stew, I know for an absolute fact that religious orders and diocesan people responsible for recruiting men to the priesthood have been screening people within an inch of their lives via the RUC/PSNI/Gardai for at least 15 years. That includes psychological interviews and tests along with prolonged interviews with trained counsellors as well as priests
That doesn't mean that the security checks with cops will pick up on all paedophiles, as those checks only pick up known ones
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
stew, I know for an absolute fact that religious orders and diocesan people responsible for recruiting men to the priesthood have been screening people within an inch of their lives via the RUC/PSNI/Gardai for at least 15 years. That includes psychological interviews and tests along with prolonged interviews with trained counsellors as well as priests
That doesn't mean that the security checks with cops will pick up on all paedophiles, as those checks only pick up known ones
Nah, that doesnt do it Ardmacha, there were far too many in Ireland for any meaningful screening process to be in place, I hate to say it but there was a certain arrogance in the clergy in Ireland, they had the Government of the South in their pockets and if they were serious in any way about getting rid of these scumbags they would have turned them over to the police, they didnt and in their arrogance they chose to do the wrong thing, shame on the lot of them that knew what was going on.
I take no pleasure in saying this but you should have a bit more perspective, they knowingly moved these bastards about the country or even abroad t do the same thing elsewhere, why???
stew, fact of the matter is you don't know a thing about the inner workings of the church. End of.
In every country in the world where catholic clergy abused children the same actions were taken to cover it up. Abusers were protected and moved to other parishes on instructions of the bishops. Now surely no one can be so naive to believe that this is a coincidence. Clearly instruction on how to handle this came from a central authority - the Vatican. Therefore I would conclude that not only does this pope know about this but also the previous pope. It is this fact that tells me the church is rotten to the core. All the decent priests should do a Luther and start a "real" catholic church and cast the corrupt leadership away. Surely these good priests have the moral balls to stand up and not just be yes men?
When you see what the vatican along with the upper echelons of the roman catholic hierarchy has colluded in, you can actually get a sense of why the reformation occured.
Big Ian maybe wasn't that far away :-\
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
stew, I know for an absolute fact that religious orders and diocesan people responsible for recruiting men to the priesthood have been screening people within an inch of their lives via the RUC/PSNI/Gardai for at least 15 years. That includes psychological interviews and tests along with prolonged interviews with trained counsellors as well as priests
That doesn't mean that the security checks with cops will pick up on all paedophiles, as those checks only pick up known ones
Even if the Church screened out all paedophiles, you still have morally depraved people in the church including Bishops, Cardinals and Popes who believe it is ok to cover up the sexual abuse of a child to protect their beloved church. Criminal and Cardinal are not too far apart in the dictionary. They are well matched. If the pope ever sets foot on this island, I hope the guards will show some balls and arrest the canonized you know what.
Quote from: NetNitrate on March 26, 2010, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 09:51:59 PM
stew, I know for an absolute fact that religious orders and diocesan people responsible for recruiting men to the priesthood have been screening people within an inch of their lives via the RUC/PSNI/Gardai for at least 15 years. That includes psychological interviews and tests along with prolonged interviews with trained counsellors as well as priests
That doesn't mean that the security checks with cops will pick up on all paedophiles, as those checks only pick up known ones
Even if the Church screened out all paedophiles, you still have morally depraved people in the church including Bishops, Cardinals and Popes who believe it is ok to cover up the sexual abuse of a child to protect their beloved church. Criminal and Cardinal are not too far apart in the dictionary. They are well matched. If the pope ever sets foot on this island, I hope the guards will show some balls and arrest the canonized you know what.
Ya well to be honest they should have arrested George Bush and many other heads of state as well as many Irish leaders by those standards. I don't think we have the nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities to try a stunt like that.
It's all the media's fault :
Vatican attacks media on 'Pope role' in sex abuse cases
Victim Arthur Budzinski says Vatican members knew about the scandal
The Vatican has attacked the media over charges that the Pope failed to act against a US priest accused of abusing up to 200 deaf boys two decades ago.
A Vatican newspaper editorial said the claims were an "ignoble" attack on the Pope and that there was no "cover-up".
Archbishops had complained about Fr Lawrence Murphy in 1996 to a Vatican office led by the future pope, but apparently received no response.
One victim told the BBC the Pope had known of a cover-up "for many years".
Arthur Budzinski, now 61, said Pope Benedict XVI should confess about what he knew.
He said through an interpreter: "It goes all the way up to him - he was in charge of these types of cases."
ANALYSIS
David Willey, BBC Vatican correspondent
Hardly a day goes by without new allegations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests somewhere in the world being reported in the media.
The Pope's spokesman defended Benedict, saying the Vatican department which the future pontiff was in charge of had not been informed of these latest allegations until 1996 - 20 years after the priest's victims first informed the police.
But the Vatican's rather lame excuse for lack of any action is that canon law, as Church law is called, "does not envision automatic penalties".
The Catholic Church teaches that paedophilia is a grave sin, but the evidence is that accused priests were usually moved to another parish rather than punished.
While the Pope is now promoting a policy of zero tolerance to clerical abuse, the suspicion remains that for many years he failed to react to the damning evidence which arrived on his desk.
Pressure grows on Pope
The Catholic Church has been plagued in recent months by abuse cover-up claims in Europe, echoing paedophilia scandals that rocked the institution in America eight years ago.
Fr Murphy was a popular priest who is suspected of abusing some 200 boys at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, between 1950 and 1974.
According to Church documents, an archbishop wrote in 1996 to a Vatican morals watchdog led by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope, to complain about Fr Murphy.
A canonical trial was authorised by the future pope's deputy, but was later halted, despite objections from a second archbishop.
Fr Murphy had written to Cardinal Ratzinger saying he was ill and wanted to live out his life in the "dignity of my priesthood".
The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 - two decades after the Milwaukee diocese in Wisconsin first learned of the allegations, and two years before the priest died.
The diocese had been asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", the Rev Lombardi said.
"Father Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident," said Fr Lombardi's statement," the statement said.
The papal spokesman also noted that police at the time investigated the allegations, but did not bring charges.
A strongly worded Vatican newspaper editorial said there was "no cover-up" over the case, which was reported in Thursday's edition of the New York Times.
L'Osservatore Romano labelled the allegations "clearly an ignoble attempt to strike at Pope Benedict and his closest aides at any cost".
Meanwhile, one of the Pope's top aides, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, told reporters there was "a conspiracy" against the Church, without specifying who was responsible.
The Pope was also supported in the UK by the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, who said the then Cardinal Ratzinger had not been an "idle observer" in the case.
Writing in the Times, the Archbishop also said the Pope had introduced changes into Church law to protect children.
The BBC's Robert Pigott in Milwaukee says the US case is particularly shocking, not only because the priest abused boys but because he was allowed to go on to another diocese where he had access to children all over again.
Our correspondent says that although there is no direct evidence against the then Cardinal Ratzinger, this is an uncomfortable confluence of events for the Vatican. This is a case of concealment, he says, and that is where the Pope will have a case to answer.
Ireland letter
Fr Murphy - who admitted abusing boys before he died in 1998 - is said to have targeted victims in their dormitory beds, on school trips and even at confession.
Fr Lawrence Murphy died in 1998 with no official blemish on his record
Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of five men alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee did not take sufficient action against the priest.
Meanwhile, members of a group of clerical abuse victims who were holding a news conference outside the Vatican to denounce Pope Benedict's handling of the case were briefly detained by Italian police for not having a permit.
Last week the Pope issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of clerical cover-up scandals.
He has yet to comment on his handling of a child sex abuse case involving a German priest, which developed while Benedict was overseeing the Munich archdiocese.
The Rev Peter Hullermann had been accused of abusing boys when the now Pope approved his 1980 transfer to Munich to receive psychological treatment for paedophilia.
The disgraced priest was convicted in 1986 of abusing a youth, but stayed within the Church for another two decades.
Check out the name of the Journalist
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece)
They're taking the piss, surely?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
stew, fact of the matter is you don't know a thing about the inner workings of the church. End of.
There's that arrogance Stew was talking about, you'd have made a fine priest!
I see that the defence for Ratzinger not knowing about this Fr Murphy in Wisconsin is that the letters were sent to the The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and even with the fact that at the time Ratzinger was head honco of said department he may not have been informed or aware of the letter.
This begs the question; was rampant paedophila by a serving priest not serious enough to merit the attention of Ratzinger let alone JPII??
This drip drip of scandals shows no sign of abaiting.
QuoteThey're taking the piss, surely?
That's what I thought HArdy but apparentely not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boyes)
This is all good in my mind. The more scandal to surface the better. It will help drive out the rats and get a new leadership that can start to sort this shit out. Then they can start to modernise the church with moves like women priests and priests having the choice to get married and have a family.
If it continues as is the church will be a small fraction of itself in 50 years.
Quote from: Declan on March 26, 2010, 11:01:32 AM
Check out the name of the Journalist
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece)
Roger Boyes - OMG
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
This is why I get ANGRY when people on this board accuse me a Nationalist & Republicanof being a Unionist or a Monarchist when I abhor the institutions that put a Queen on the throne of England and a Pope on the throne of Rome. All these so called Republicans who worship to a Pope in Rome, that makes you Monarchists, ya numpties. Monarchs & Dictators, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS, LONG LIVE IRELAND.
When you really don't understand or respect something it is difficult to talk about it.
How can you appreciate Mass unless you understand what its all about?
How can you not think its ok to avoid religion and go it alone if you don't fully understand God's message and Paul's teachings?
Of course you're going to make fun of any level of respect shown to any hierarchy if you don't respect that leadership yourself or what it stands for or understand who instituted it and what it really means.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 01:55:13 PM
When you really don't understand or respect something it is difficult to talk about it.
How can you appreciate Mass unless you understand what its all about?
How can you not think its ok to avoid religion and go it alone if you don't fully understand God's message and Paul's teachings?
Of course you're going to make fun of any level of respect shown to any hierarchy if you don't respect that leadership yourself or what it stands for or understand who instituted it and what it really means.
Respect has to be earned and maybe I don't understand but a few years in Maynooth doesn't break much delf in my mind.
Certainly an individual priest through good deeds and honesty can earn my respect like any other individual but the institution he represents has to show me and my children some respect before it'll get the light of day from me.
I can quite easily detach gods message and Pauls teachings from those eminating from Rome who are supposed to be teaching his message to us as they are now very far removed from that.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 26, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 01:55:13 PM
When you really don't understand or respect something it is difficult to talk about it.
How can you appreciate Mass unless you understand what its all about?
How can you not think its ok to avoid religion and go it alone if you don't fully understand God's message and Paul's teachings?
Of course you're going to make fun of any level of respect shown to any hierarchy if you don't respect that leadership yourself or what it stands for or understand who instituted it and what it really means.
Respect has to be earned and maybe I don't understand but a few years in Maynooth doesn't break much delf in my mind.
Certainly an individual priest through good deeds and honesty can earn my respect like any other individual but the institution he represents has to show me and my children some respect before it'll get the light of day from me.
I can quite easily detach gods message and Pauls teachings from those eminating from Rome who are supposed to be teaching his message to us as they are now very far removed from that.
If you understood the Mass you would still go. The Mass isn't about the priest. In fact I don't like the majority of the priests in my parish or most parishes I have visited.
Which goes back to my post.
Maybe read it again before commenting.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
stew, fact of the matter is you don't know a thing about the inner workings of the church. End of.
There is the arogance I was talking about earlier. ::)
Ok ardmachaabu we will play it your way, here is what i do know. Bishops in Ireland KNEW that they had paedophiles in their midsts and they covered it up and worse still, sent these scumbags to different parishes/countries to inflict more of the same on innocent children, by doing so they hurt children, their families and the Church they worked for.
I also know that the Pope has done nothing but deflect blame away from his office, he, like you sends messages dripping in arrogance and he refuses to accept responsibility for what has happened on his watch.
To me the worse Character in all of this is JP the second, they are talking about making the man a Saint, I would have him up on neglegence charges for failing to protect the Children of the world from the rapists among his ranks, you know, the ones who stripped children from their innocence, I would also have every Bishop, Cardinal and Priest up on charges that knew what was going on and said nothing for the sake of the Church.
I believe in God just as much as you do ardmacha, what I fail to understand is why you take the blinkered stance that you do, your stance is unhealthy and for your sake I hope you come to understand that the Chuch MUST be held accountable for the failure to protect it's flock, the scum must be weeded out and those that harbourer these animals MUST pay the price, and that includes your Pope and His Cardinals and Bishops.
I still go to Mass but I have learned one thing, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in my Priest, I put my faith in God and God alone and all you do by blindly supporting the Church is perpetuate the problem. The word is brainwashed adrmacha, look it up in the dictionary, hows that for arrogance. :(
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 26, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 01:55:13 PM
When you really don't understand or respect something it is difficult to talk about it.
How can you appreciate Mass unless you understand what its all about?
How can you not think its ok to avoid religion and go it alone if you don't fully understand God's message and Paul's teachings?
Of course you're going to make fun of any level of respect shown to any hierarchy if you don't respect that leadership yourself or what it stands for or understand who instituted it and what it really means.
Respect has to be earned and maybe I don't understand but a few years in Maynooth doesn't break much delf in my mind.
Certainly an individual priest through good deeds and honesty can earn my respect like any other individual but the institution he represents has to show me and my children some respect before it'll get the light of day from me.
I can quite easily detach gods message and Pauls teachings from those eminating from Rome who are supposed to be teaching his message to us as they are now very far removed from that.
If you understood the Mass you would still go. The Mass isn't about the priest. In fact I don't like the majority of the priests in my parish or most parishes I have visited.
Which goes back to my post.
Maybe read it again before commenting.
I'll bow to your greater knowledge oh enlightened one but please put in laymans terms for us great unwashed what the mass actually means?
Quote from: johnneycool on March 26, 2010, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 26, 2010, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 01:55:13 PM
When you really don't understand or respect something it is difficult to talk about it.
How can you appreciate Mass unless you understand what its all about?
How can you not think its ok to avoid religion and go it alone if you don't fully understand God's message and Paul's teachings?
Of course you're going to make fun of any level of respect shown to any hierarchy if you don't respect that leadership yourself or what it stands for or understand who instituted it and what it really means.
Respect has to be earned and maybe I don't understand but a few years in Maynooth doesn't break much delf in my mind.
Certainly an individual priest through good deeds and honesty can earn my respect like any other individual but the institution he represents has to show me and my children some respect before it'll get the light of day from me.
I can quite easily detach gods message and Pauls teachings from those eminating from Rome who are supposed to be teaching his message to us as they are now very far removed from that.
If you understood the Mass you would still go. The Mass isn't about the priest. In fact I don't like the majority of the priests in my parish or most parishes I have visited.
Which goes back to my post.
Maybe read it again before commenting.
I'll bow to your greater knowledge oh enlightened one but please put in laymans terms for us great unwashed what the mass actually means?
Find out johnny for yourself. I'm really not trying to sit on any high horses. Find out for yourself and have an open heart and see what happens.
There have been loads of other topics on this board where people who are ignorant of anything have to understand things more and then the ignorance disappears. The same is true for the Catholic Faith and the Mass. Ignorance is bliss in a lot of cases but then don't comment and fight a corner so passionately if you are not fully informed of what you are fighting against.....
The cover-up continues (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0326/breaking64.html);
Munich archdiocese defends pope
Pope Benedict's former archdiocese of Munich today insisted he had no knowledge of a 1980 decision to reassign a priest undergoing therapy there for suspected paedophilia to a post with access to children.
Archdiocesan spokesman Bernhard Kellner dismissed as speculation a New York Times article that the fact the-then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was copied in on a memo of the transfer meant he was informed of what went on.
"We stand by our account that Cardinal Ratzinger didn't know about this decision," Mr Kellner said. "I cannot confirm he knew about this, and we don't have any evidence to that effect."
The priest, Rev Peter Hullermann, was identified earlier this month after a newspaper reported that he had been moved from northern Germany to Munich in 1980 for therapy for suspected paedophilia, but was soon put to work with youths. Six years later he was convicted of molesting a boy at another parish.
Pope Benedict, archbishop of Munich in 1980, oversaw the decision to transfer the priest at that time to Munich for therapy, Mr Kellner said. However, the Vatican has denied the pope knew of the priest's reassignment to youth work in Bavaria.
The pope's then vicar general, Father Gerhard Gruber, took full responsibility earlier this month for the decision to reinstate Hullermann, who has since been suspended from his priestly duties.
"It was the decision of Gerhard Gruber, and he admitted his mistake," Mr Kellner told Reuters. "(Pope Benedict) did not decide to make this man a spiritual counsellor." Mr Kellner said the New York Times account was accurate but "there is not one single piece of new information in the article." Copying the memo detailing the decision to the office of the archbishop was routine procedure, he said.
"An archbishop doesn't read all the administrative acts. He just can't. That's why he has a vicar general," he added. "Gruber had 100 percent administrative control."
The Munich archdiocese said on Wednesday that new sexual abuse allegations had been made against Hullermann, whose case had been forwarded to the prosecutor's office.
In a statement, the Church said it met with possible victims and that Hullermann was alleged to have abused a minor in 1998 when he worked in Garching, near Munich. The archdiocese also said that Garching and Bad Toelz, the two towns where Hullermann had worked, had appointed independent lay ombudsmen to examine any new allegations of abuse.
The latest Times report followed an article yesterday that revealed the Vatican did not defrock a US priest accused of sexually abusing up to 200 deaf boys in Milwaukee from the 1950s to the 1970s.
A Vatican spokesman explained that church laws did not require automatic punishment and that civil authorities dropped their investigation into allegations of his abuse in 1974.
Reuters
Further comment is almost superfluous at this stage.
It's difficult to see how the Church will regain anyone's trust under the leadership of this man.
Quote from: stew on March 26, 2010, 03:40:18 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
stew, fact of the matter is you don't know a thing about the inner workings of the church. End of.
There is the arogance I was talking about earlier. ::)
Ok ardmachaabu we will play it your way, here is what i do know. Bishops in Ireland KNEW that they had paedophiles in their midsts and they covered it up and worse still, sent these scumbags to different parishes/countries to inflict more of the same on innocent children, by doing so they hurt children, their families and the Church they worked for.
I also know that the Pope has done nothing but deflect blame away from his office, he, like you sends messages dripping in arrogance and he refuses to accept responsibility for what has happened on his watch.
To me the worse Character in all of this is JP the second, they are talking about making the man a Saint, I would have him up on neglegence charges for failing to protect the Children of the world from the rapists among his ranks, you know, the ones who stripped children from their innocence, I would also have every Bishop, Cardinal and Priest up on charges that knew what was going on and said nothing for the sake of the Church.
I believe in God just as much as you do ardmacha, what I fail to understand is why you take the blinkered stance that you do, your stance is unhealthy and for your sake I hope you come to understand that the Chuch MUST be held accountable for the failure to protect it's flock, the scum must be weeded out and those that harbourer these animals MUST pay the price, and that includes your Pope and His Cardinals and Bishops.
I still go to Mass but I have learned one thing, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in my Priest, I put my faith in God and God alone and all you do by blindly supporting the Church is perpetuate the problem. The word is brainwashed adrmacha, look it up in the dictionary, hows that for arrogance. :(
VERY well said Stew.
Look at the name of the reporter :o
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
Thats quality shit right there.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on March 26, 2010, 04:22:30 PM
Look at the name of the reporter :o
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
You're a bit late with that one...
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #856 on:
Today at 12:55:14 PM » Time for a bit of levity... :D
You couldn't make it up .... this is from The Times online report...
'Roger Boyes probes Vienna Boys' Choir
Catholic paedo scandal? The Times has the man for the job'
INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL BISHOPS / CARDINALS / PRIESTS
1. Ignore any accusations that comes to your attention that might harm mother church.
2. Ignore the safety of children and facilitate the continuing abuse of young, vulnerable boys and girls by moving known paedophiles and child rapists to other parishes all over the country.
3. Just deny every accusation that ever comes your way.
4. If legal action is taken against you, defend the action and again deny everything.
5. At all times, blame somebody else.
6. The media should take the blame as well.
7. Changes in society can be blamed also.
8. Appear contrite in front of TV cameras / reporters.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 26, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on March 26, 2010, 04:22:30 PM
Look at the name of the reporter :o
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
You're a bit late with that one...
Sorry - I don't live on here like some people
Quote from: EC Unique on March 26, 2010, 04:09:36 PM
Quote from: stew on March 26, 2010, 03:40:18 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 25, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
stew, fact of the matter is you don't know a thing about the inner workings of the church. End of.
There is the arogance I was talking about earlier. ::)
Ok ardmachaabu we will play it your way, here is what i do know. Bishops in Ireland KNEW that they had paedophiles in their midsts and they covered it up and worse still, sent these scumbags to different parishes/countries to inflict more of the same on innocent children, by doing so they hurt children, their families and the Church they worked for.
I also know that the Pope has done nothing but deflect blame away from his office, he, like you sends messages dripping in arrogance and he refuses to accept responsibility for what has happened on his watch.
To me the worse Character in all of this is JP the second, they are talking about making the man a Saint, I would have him up on neglegence charges for failing to protect the Children of the world from the rapists among his ranks, you know, the ones who stripped children from their innocence, I would also have every Bishop, Cardinal and Priest up on charges that knew what was going on and said nothing for the sake of the Church.
I believe in God just as much as you do ardmacha, what I fail to understand is why you take the blinkered stance that you do, your stance is unhealthy and for your sake I hope you come to understand that the Chuch MUST be held accountable for the failure to protect it's flock, the scum must be weeded out and those that harbourer these animals MUST pay the price, and that includes your Pope and His Cardinals and Bishops.
I still go to Mass but I have learned one thing, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in my Priest, I put my faith in God and God alone and all you do by blindly supporting the Church is perpetuate the problem. The word is brainwashed adrmacha, look it up in the dictionary, hows that for arrogance. :(
VERY well said Stew.
this is out of context. Ardmhacha abu was commenting on Stews misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the asmission procedure for new priests and religious over the last 15 years. Read the posts again boys.
Iceman, they only see what they want to see
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 26, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on March 26, 2010, 04:22:30 PM
Look at the name of the reporter :o
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
You're a bit late with that one...
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #856 on: Today at 12:55:14 PM »
Time for a bit of levity... :D
You couldn't make it up .... this is from The Times online report...
'Roger Boyes probes Vienna Boys' Choir
Catholic paedo scandal? The Times has the man for the job'
:D :D :D
What are the odds of that happening.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 26, 2010, 05:27:24 PM
Iceman, they only see what they want to see
Three words come to mind after reading that, Kettle, Pot & Black.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 26, 2010, 05:27:24 PM
Iceman, they only see what they want to see
A bit like yourself I suppose.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 26, 2010, 01:55:13 PM
When you really don't understand or respect something it is difficult to talk about it.
How can you appreciate Mass unless you understand what its all about?
How can you not think its ok to avoid religion and go it alone if you don't fully understand God's message and Paul's teachings?
Of course you're going to make fun of any level of respect shown to any hierarchy if you don't respect that leadership yourself or what it stands for or understand who instituted it and what it really means.
Paul who, Daniels?
The church sidelined much of Paul's teachings and went with Peter's.
Ours isn't the only religion to confuse tradition and well intentioned parables with the imposition of strict lifelong disciplines.
For example the Jews not eating pork apparently started with the good advise that eating parasite ridden pigs might not be a good idea not to mention the risk if the meat isn't properly prepared. Now for lots of Jews it is part of their religious dogma.
In the Catholic Church the rise of the position of Pope to what is it today is at odds with history but we seem to have people who just accept everything they are told.
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
Wonder were you as revolted at the kissing of Saddam's ring by most all who came before him?
(
Did Gorgeous George have the honor?)..but then Saddam didn't abuse kids right enough that I know of, just killed
hundreds if not thousands of them ::)
It was obvious from Fr. Brian Darcy's interview on last night's Late Late, that he doesn't have much time for the Pope, or Cardinals for that matter.
Quote from: Tyrones own on March 26, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
Wonder were you as revolted at the kissing of Saddam's ring by most all who came before him?
(Did Gorgeous George have the honor?)..but then Saddam didn't abuse kids right enough that I know of, just killed
hundreds if not thousands of them ::)
Yes he did kill thousands of them and he got what was coming to him in the end and deservedly so as he was an evil bastard. But then I don't see a huge difference between raping children, covering up for child rapists or child killers to be honest. Its a strange position you have taken there trying to deflect from the pathetic ring kissing of the pope by saying its ok sure people used to do the same to mass murderer psycho like Sadam. ???
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on March 26, 2010, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 26, 2010, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on March 26, 2010, 04:22:30 PM
Look at the name of the reporter :o
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
You're a bit late with that one...
Sorry - I don't live on here like some people
Good point-well made Gabriel :P tho you don't do too bad yourself with an average of over three posts a day for more than four years!
Quote from: balladmaker on March 27, 2010, 10:01:57 AM
It was obvious from Fr. Brian Darcy's interview on last night's Late Late, that he doesn't have much time for the Pope, or Cardinals for that matter.
He got a lot of abuse from some hardline church supporters on here but I thought he was very good last night. He speaks with an honesty and openess that is a breath of fresh air to me anyway. He rightly, imo, pointed out his dislike for the hierarchy that now exists in the church asking where it came from and pointing out that Jesus never envisaged such a thing. The ring kissing and the pomp he also dislikes. Lets not forget he was a victim of sex abuse so is more qualiified than his bosses to talk about it. What a shame a few other ordinary priests don't have the moral courage to speak out instead preferring to follow the leader like sheep.
The reason Fr Brian Darcy is so able to speak out is that he isn't AFRAID to.
He's not afraid of the cardinals, the bishops, parish priests and that hierarchical structure that exists.
Quote from: orangeman on March 27, 2010, 12:05:08 PM
The reason Fr Brian Darcy is so able to speak out is that he isn't AFRAID to.
He's not afraid of the cardinals, the bishops, parish priests and that hierarchical structure that exists.
He is outside of it. He is not a diocesan priest.
Let's face it the Church has it's pomp and circumstance and D'Arcy has his. Other priests kiss rings, D'Arcy kisses celebrity arse in return for praise. As for the ridiculous dyed black hair - that just reinforces the vainglorious nature of the man. He's quite obviously a Protestant and I can't for the life of me work out why he is still in the Catholic Church.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 27, 2010, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 27, 2010, 12:05:08 PM
The reason Fr Brian Darcy is so able to speak out is that he isn't AFRAID to.
He's not afraid of the cardinals, the bishops, parish priests and that hierarchical structure that exists.
He is outside of it. He is not a diocesan priest.
As an ordained priest, he is well inside the hierarchy structure of the Catholic Church. He has to be responsible to someone,
if not a diocese structure then he answers to the hierarchal equivalent in his order.
But you appear to be suggesting that more priests might well share his sentiments but have a fear of doing so out loud.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 27, 2010, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 27, 2010, 12:05:08 PM
The reason Fr Brian Darcy is so able to speak out is that he isn't AFRAID to.
He's not afraid of the cardinals, the bishops, parish priests and that hierarchical structure that exists.
He is outside of it. He is not a diocesan priest.
That's my point. He is not going round shiting himself afraid that he'll get into trouble and be called into the office and get punished for being bold and not towing the party line.
I suppose this thread will do... on news today... check out the arrogance of this shower still so out of touch with their crimes against children... not the first time they would 'not dignify a story with a response.' Looking the other way when they heard the victims' stories got them in this mess in the first place.
Cardinal Brady denies Vatican wants him to resign
Cardinal Sean Brady is being sued at the Dublin High Court
Reports that the Vatican want the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland to resign over a child abuse scandal have been denied.
As a priest in 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings where children signed vows of silence over complaints against paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth.
A number of newspapers reported that the Vatican hierarchy want the cardinal to stand aside.
However, a spokesman for Cardinal Brady dismissed the story.
"This kind of headline on a story, I would not dignify with a response," he said.
Cardinal Brady is being sued by a man who claims he was abused by Smyth.
The man is suing Cardinal Brady at the High Court in Dublin in his capacity as head of the church.
Documents lodged at the High Court allege that the victim was abused by prolific paedophile Smyth while he was an altar boy in Dundalk in the early 1970s.
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 01:26:55 PM
Let's face it the Church has it's pomp and circumstance and D'Arcy has his. Other priests kiss rings, D'Arcy kisses celebrity arse in return for praise. As for the ridiculous dyed black hair - that just reinforces the vainglorious nature of the man. He's quite obviously a Protestant and I can't for the life of me work out why he is still in the Catholic Church.
If so, then the Catholic Church is serious need of more Protestants
The Catholic Hierarchy Ireland is stained by the lack of consensus on that the sex abuse cover-up, allowing priests to continue their abuse, was a crime then just as it is a crime now. Only the diehards inside the Church in Ireland do not see this.
The Church in the USA could admit it and move on, probably because the diehards were either outvoted, out-argued or less stubborn.
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2010, 01:56:04 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 27, 2010, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 27, 2010, 12:05:08 PM
The reason Fr Brian Darcy is so able to speak out is that he isn't AFRAID to.
He's not afraid of the cardinals, the bishops, parish priests and that hierarchical structure that exists.
He is outside of it. He is not a diocesan priest.
As an ordained priest, he is well inside the hierarchy structure of the Catholic Church. He has to be responsible to someone,
if not a diocese structure then he answers to the hierarchal equivalent in his order.
But you appear to be suggesting that more priests might well share his sentiments but have a fear of doing so out loud.
Certainly he answers to someone in his order, I am not sure what their title is. I am not suggesting more priests would take his stance though I am just pointing out that he doesn't fall under the same circumstances as diocesan priests so he can say what he likes by and large. Personally speaking, I am not his greatest fan, I think Ulick is right about him in that he craves celebrity status between books, his newspaper column and he seems to have met and been photographed with quite a few celebrities. I wouldn't say that he even speaks for anyone other than himself. Some of his views are out of line with Church teachings. I find that egotistical in the extreme, to be honest about it
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 27, 2010, 02:02:34 PM
I suppose this thread will do... on news today... check out the arrogance of this shower still so out of touch with their crimes against children... not the first time they would 'not dignify a story with a response.' Looking the other way when they heard the victims' stories got them in this mess in the first place.
Cardinal Brady denies Vatican wants him to resign
Cardinal Sean Brady is being sued at the Dublin High Court
Reports that the Vatican want the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland to resign over a child abuse scandal have been denied.
As a priest in 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings where children signed vows of silence over complaints against paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth.
A number of newspapers reported that the Vatican hierarchy want the cardinal to stand aside.
However, a spokesman for Cardinal Brady dismissed the story.
"This kind of headline on a story, I would not dignify with a response," he said.
Cardinal Brady is being sued by a man who claims he was abused by Smyth.
The man is suing Cardinal Brady at the High Court in Dublin in his capacity as head of the church.
Documents lodged at the High Court allege that the victim was abused by prolific paedophile Smyth while he was an altar boy in Dundalk in the early 1970s.
Fox those 'reports' emanated from yesterdays London Times which also references 'The Tablet'. Considering both especially the Times have been running with extremely biased coverage of anything concerning the Pope for months now and the (liberal) Tablet have been using any excuse to have a dig a perceived conservative Pope, the reports can be safely dismissed until they come from a more authoritative source.
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2010, 02:11:16 PM
If so, then the Catholic Church is serious need of more Protestants
The Catholic Hierarchy Ireland is stained by the lack of consensus on that the sex abuse cover-up, allowing priests to continue their abuse, was a crime then just as it is a crime now. Only the diehards inside the Church in Ireland do not see this.
The Church in the USA could admit it and move on, probably because the diehards were either outvoted, out-argued or less stubborn.
That is certainly one view and far be it for me to disagree, however, as there are as many conservative Catholic priests within the Church who are disgusted by both the current revelations, clericalism and with the liberalism of priests like D'Arcy, the other argument would be that à la carte catholics such as D'Arcy are as much a problem for the Church as is the current hierarchy. Hence, the argument goes, they should all leave and allow the Church to regroup around it's core tenets of faith.
Archbishop Nichols is well known for his liturgical differences with Benedict but looks like he can spot a hit job when he sees it.
The Church is not trying to cover anything up
Catholics are shamed by child abuse allegations. But the Pope has taken strong action
Vincent Nichols
The child abuse committed within the Roman Catholic Church and its concealment is deeply shocking and totally unacceptable. I am ashamed of what happened, and understand the outrage and anger it has provoked.
That shame and anger centres on the damage done to every single abused child. Abuse damages, often irrevocably, a child's ability to trust another, to fashion stable relationships, to sustain self-esteem. When it is inflicted within a religious context, it damages that child's relationship to God. Today, not for the first time, I express my unreserved shame and sorrow for what has happened to many in the Church.
My shame is compounded, as is the anger of many, at the mistaken judgments made within the Church: that reassurance from a suspect could be believed; that credible allegations were deemed to be "unbelievable"; that the reputation of the Church mattered more than safeguarding children. These wrong reactions arise whenever and wherever allegations of abuse are made, whether within a family or a Church. We have to insist that the safety of the child comes first because the child is powerless.
Serious mistakes have been made within the Catholic Church. There is some misunderstanding about the Church, too. Within the Church there is a legal structure, its canon law. It is the duty of each diocesan bishop to administer that law. Certain serious offences against that law have to be referred to the Holy See to ensure proper justice. Some of these offences are not criminal in public law (such as profanation of the sacraments), others (such as offences against children) are. The role of the Holy See is to offer guidance to ensure that proper procedures are followed, including the confidentially needed to protect the good name of witnesses, victims and the accused until the trial is completed. It is no different from any other responsible legal procedure.
This "secrecy" is nothing to do with the confidentiality, or "seal" of the confessional, which is protected for reasons of the rights of conscience.
The relationship between the administration of church law and the criminal law in any particular state is a point of real difficulty and misunderstanding. Nothing in the requirement of canon law prohibits or impedes the reporting of criminal offences to the police. Since 2001 the Holy See, working through the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, has encouraged that course of action on dioceses who have received evidence about child abuse and which the diocesan authorities are responsible for pursuing. The canonical procedure is best put on hold until the criminal investigation is complete, whatever its outcome. This is what is needed. That it has not happened consistently is deeply regrettable.
In England and Wales, since 2001, the agreed policy followed by the bishops has been to report all allegations of child abuse, no matter from how far in the past, to the police or social services. By doing so and by having clear safeguarding procedures in place in every parish as well as independent supervision at diocesan and national level, we have built good relationships with those authorities in these matters, including, in some areas, co-operation in the supervision of offenders in the community.
What of the role of Pope Benedict? When he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statue of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders. He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words.
Every year since 2002 the Catholic Church in England and Wales has made public the exact number of allegations made within the Church, the number reported to the police, the action taken and the outcome. As far as I know, no other organisation in this country does this. It is not a cover-up; it is clear and total disclosure. The purpose of doing so is not to defend the Church. It is to make plain that in the Catholic Church in England and Wales there is no hiding place for those who seek to harm children. On this we are determined.
One more fact. In the past 40 years, less than half of 1 per cent of Catholic priests in England and Wales (0.4 per cent) have faced allegations of child abuse. Fewer have been found guilty. Do not misunderstand me. One is too many. One broken child is a tragedy and a disgrace. One case alone is enough to justify anger and outrage. The work of safeguarding, within any organisation and within our society as a whole, is demanding but absolutely necessary. The Catholic Church here is committed to safeguarding children and all vulnerable people.
Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop of Westminster
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 02:45:06 PM
Archbishop Nichols is well known for his liturgical differences with Benedict but looks like he can spot a hit job when he sees it.
The Church is not trying to cover anything up
Catholics are shamed by child abuse allegations. But the Pope has taken strong action
Vincent Nichols
The child abuse committed within the Roman Catholic Church and its concealment is deeply shocking and totally unacceptable. I am ashamed of what happened, and understand the outrage and anger it has provoked.
That shame and anger centres on the damage done to every single abused child. Abuse damages, often irrevocably, a child's ability to trust another, to fashion stable relationships, to sustain self-esteem. When it is inflicted within a religious context, it damages that child's relationship to God. Today, not for the first time, I express my unreserved shame and sorrow for what has happened to many in the Church.
My shame is compounded, as is the anger of many, at the mistaken judgments made within the Church: that reassurance from a suspect could be believed; that credible allegations were deemed to be "unbelievable"; that the reputation of the Church mattered more than safeguarding children. These wrong reactions arise whenever and wherever allegations of abuse are made, whether within a family or a Church. We have to insist that the safety of the child comes first because the child is powerless.
Serious mistakes have been made within the Catholic Church. There is some misunderstanding about the Church, too. Within the Church there is a legal structure, its canon law. It is the duty of each diocesan bishop to administer that law. Certain serious offences against that law have to be referred to the Holy See to ensure proper justice. Some of these offences are not criminal in public law (such as profanation of the sacraments), others (such as offences against children) are. The role of the Holy See is to offer guidance to ensure that proper procedures are followed, including the confidentially needed to protect the good name of witnesses, victims and the accused until the trial is completed. It is no different from any other responsible legal procedure.
This "secrecy" is nothing to do with the confidentiality, or "seal" of the confessional, which is protected for reasons of the rights of conscience.
The relationship between the administration of church law and the criminal law in any particular state is a point of real difficulty and misunderstanding. Nothing in the requirement of canon law prohibits or impedes the reporting of criminal offences to the police. Since 2001 the Holy See, working through the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, has encouraged that course of action on dioceses who have received evidence about child abuse and which the diocesan authorities are responsible for pursuing. The canonical procedure is best put on hold until the criminal investigation is complete, whatever its outcome. This is what is needed. That it has not happened consistently is deeply regrettable.
In England and Wales, since 2001, the agreed policy followed by the bishops has been to report all allegations of child abuse, no matter from how far in the past, to the police or social services. By doing so and by having clear safeguarding procedures in place in every parish as well as independent supervision at diocesan and national level, we have built good relationships with those authorities in these matters, including, in some areas, co-operation in the supervision of offenders in the community.
What of the role of Pope Benedict? When he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statue of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders. He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words.
Every year since 2002 the Catholic Church in England and Wales has made public the exact number of allegations made within the Church, the number reported to the police, the action taken and the outcome. As far as I know, no other organisation in this country does this. It is not a cover-up; it is clear and total disclosure. The purpose of doing so is not to defend the Church. It is to make plain that in the Catholic Church in England and Wales there is no hiding place for those who seek to harm children. On this we are determined.
One more fact. In the past 40 years, less than half of 1 per cent of Catholic priests in England and Wales (0.4 per cent) have faced allegations of child abuse. Fewer have been found guilty. Do not misunderstand me. One is too many. One broken child is a tragedy and a disgrace. One case alone is enough to justify anger and outrage. The work of safeguarding, within any organisation and within our society as a whole, is demanding but absolutely necessary. The Catholic Church here is committed to safeguarding children and all vulnerable people.
Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop of Westminster
Any chance you could provide a link to where this came from?
The catholic church in England ( unlike in Ireland ) is actually on the rise over the last few years. Catholocism has more regular attenders in England than any other church for the first time since Henry 8th. There may be many reasons for this but I suspect one is that since the catholic church has not been attached to the state for centuries in England it has not got as carried away with its own power in the community there the way it did in Ireland.
Myles it is a right of reply piece by the Archbishop in todays London Times.
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 03:26:50 PM
Myles it is a right of reply piece by the Archbishop in todays London Times.
My pontificating about how I haven't covered up heinous crimes since 2001 would hardly be something I'd put on a CV, especially if I was a 2000 year old organisation.
That letter has a heading stating that the Pope has taken strong action, it sits just after a denial of covering anything up. Yet all he says the Pope did was to create a couple of new offences in Canon Law and a fast track penalty for abusers. Like it or not the man at the top of an organisation should not be above taking some responsibility for failings in that organisation.
It says nothing new. It is hardly a turning point in the debate.
It's a very pertinent point in the debate Muppet as it points out that the current Pope in his previous position did more than anyone else in the Church to deal with clerical abuse.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 25, 2010, 06:54:25 PM
So I don't think I make any secrets about my faith on here. I will say that I do believe the Pope (then Cardinal), in my opinion, was aware of the abuse and failed to act on it. He failed the victims and lives were ruined as a result. Just like Sean Brady did.
So what happens now? The media and the public go crazy, the Pope is told to resign (which he wont) and the media and public call for everyone and anyone who had any notion of half of what was happening to stand down. The Church falls apart. Everyone lives happily ever after?
The Church messed up (biggest understatement ever) but I believe that the people in positions of power today, despite their failings, are in the best position to lead us (the Church, the faithful, people who actually go to Mass) out of this tragedy and forward towards reconciliation and peace.
Despite the fact they should be prosecuted and jailed?
Quote from: gallsman on March 27, 2010, 05:31:35 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 25, 2010, 06:54:25 PM
So I don't think I make any secrets about my faith on here. I will say that I do believe the Pope (then Cardinal), in my opinion, was aware of the abuse and failed to act on it. He failed the victims and lives were ruined as a result. Just like Sean Brady did.
So what happens now? The media and the public go crazy, the Pope is told to resign (which he wont) and the media and public call for everyone and anyone who had any notion of half of what was happening to stand down. The Church falls apart. Everyone lives happily ever after?
The Church messed up (biggest understatement ever) but I believe that the people in positions of power today, despite their failings, are in the best position to lead us (the Church, the faithful, people who actually go to Mass) out of this tragedy and forward towards reconciliation and peace.
Despite the fact they should be prosecuted and jailed?
"The people in positions of power today......are in the best position to lead us...."
I don't mean to get personal but this is the type of meaningless waffle that passes for action in the Church.
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
It's a very pertinent point in the debate Muppet as it points out that the current Pope in his previous position did more than anyone else in the Church to deal with clerical abuse.
I think that's a very poor and meaningless defence.
It's not ment to be a defense merely an explanation of why I posted the article. However if someone posts evidence that the Pope is guilty of covering up abuse rather that dealing with it, then I will consider the merits of any defense.
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 05:29:35 PM
It's a very pertinent point in the debate Muppet as it points out that the current Pope in his previous position did more than anyone else in the Church to deal with clerical abuse.
Then why did he refuse to go to the US to answers questions on what he knew about child abuse there?
Why did he do a deal with Bush so that as long as he is pope, he is immune from having to go to the US to answer questions?
Is he hiding anything?
Thats news to me Dixi, when did all this happen? Without knowing the details though I would seriously question the judgement of anyone who would willingly go to the US for questioning on these kind of matters nevermind a Head of State. Could you imagine Bush giving himself up for questioning to the Palestinian Authority or the UN over his secret deals with Isreal?
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 06:23:48 PM
It's not ment to be a defense merely an explanation of why I posted the article. However if someone posts evidence that the Pope is guilty of covering up abuse rather that dealing with it, then I will consider the merits of any defense.
Have you even acknowledged that the Irish Bishops are guilty of the crime of covering up sex abuse crimes, thereby allowing priests to continue with further abuse crimes?
The Vatican to this very hour of this very day has not even acknowledged that the Church institutionalised cover-up in the USA was a crime,
where even the US bishops as a unit have acknowledged the cover-up was a crime.
No more proof is needed than that.
The article you posted is irrelevant. Procedure for dealing with sex abuse allegations in 2001 is not an admission of cover up. The cover-up has not been acknowledged as a crime, instead the cover up has been constantly excused by the last Pope and this Pope, to this day with similar sentiments to being "misplaced good intentions", while scapegoating the sex-abusers.
The cover up is at least equal to commission of the crime.
Main Street, the last time I checked the thread was about the Pope, not the Irish bishops or Irish Church, so the piece I posted is relevant. What is not relevant is your question to me about the Irish bishops.
Quote from: Main Street on March 27, 2010, 07:12:43 PM
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 06:23:48 PM
It's not ment to be a defense merely an explanation of why I posted the article. However if someone posts evidence that the Pope is guilty of covering up abuse rather that dealing with it, then I will consider the merits of any defense.
Have you even acknowledged that the Irish Bishops are guilty of the crime of covering up sex abuse crimes, thereby allowing priests to continue with further abuse crimes?
The Vatican to this very hour of this very day has not even acknowledged that the Church institutionalised cover-up in the USA was a crime,
where even the US bishops as a unit have acknowledged the cover-up was a crime.
No more proof is needed than that.
The article you posted is irrelevant. Procedure for dealing with sex abuse allegations in 2001 is not an admission of cover up. The cover-up has not been acknowledged as a crime, instead the cover up has been constantly excused by the last Pope and this Pope, to this day with similar sentiments to being "misplaced good intentions", while scapegoating the sex-abusers.
The cover up is at least equal to commission of the crime.
Donagh and his reincarnation of Ulick has never addresses the central question you posted there to the best of my knowledge. Of course he is fully entitled not to but I wonder why that is. Only place he came close to giving an opinion on this was the 1st few pages of the clerical abuse thread. So come on Ulick, I never thought you would have a problem putting up your opinion on something. You were never normally one to hold back.
Quote from: slow corner back on March 27, 2010, 03:09:18 PM
The catholic church in England ( unlike in Ireland ) is actually on the rise over the last few years. Catholocism has more regular attenders in England than any other church for the first time since Henry 8th. There may be many reasons for this but I suspect one is that since the catholic church has not been attached to the state for centuries in England it has not got as carried away with its own power in the community there the way it did in Ireland.
I'd say the main reason is the influx of eastern Europeans.
Sorry Myles, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me, do you want to clarify?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 27, 2010, 10:05:58 AM
Quote from: Tyrones own on March 26, 2010, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
Wonder were you as revolted at the kissing of Saddam's ring by most all who came before him?
(Did Gorgeous George have the honor?)..but then Saddam didn't abuse kids right enough that I know of, just killed
hundreds if not thousands of them ::)
Yes he did kill thousands of them and he got what was coming to him in the end and deservedly so as he was an evil b**tard. But then I don't see a huge difference between raping children, covering up for child rapists or child killers to be honest. Its a strange position you have taken there trying to deflect from the pathetic ring kissing of the pope by saying its ok sure people used to do the same to mass murderer psycho like Sadam. ???
No..it would seem you've misunderstood my post because nowhere did I attempt to deflect anything or say anything was
OK with this situation
for that matter..what i did do was merely point out the hypocrisy once more of the hater who unsurprisingly has never found reason to vilify
any action of the 7th century throw backs that he and his Ilk seem to have serious time for but has no problem dishing it out when it
comes closer to home... the fact that it involves the head of the Catholic church or the church as a whole no doubt gets him that little bit harder
and as despicable as that is...I'm hardly surprised!
For the record the whole shoot should be locked up >:(
This seems to have replaced priests abuse thread... I was chatting to a woman from that area that (Fr ... Jesus wept :'() Green was in Falcaragh, Donegal. She told me of a young boy that he tried to lure into his bedroom who ran off. Anyway seems that arrogant sc**bag Hegarty was teaching at the school then and asked the boy why he was off the previous day. He said he was sick and Hegarty told him he wasn't as he saw him running the roads... and proceeded to give him a thrashing. Any wonder these children were afraid to go to the authorities. This woman, in her 70s, is a very devout Catholic who still goes to church.
Quote from: Ulick on March 27, 2010, 07:40:00 PM
Main Street, the last time I checked the thread was about the Pope, not the Irish bishops or Irish Church, so the piece I posted is relevant.
For the Vatican read the Pope as included.
"The Vatican to this very hour of this very day has not even acknowledged that the Church institutionalised cover-up in the USA was a crime,
where even the US bishops as a unit have acknowledged the cover-up was a crime.
No more proof is needed than that "QuoteWhat is not relevant is your question to me about the Irish bishops.
It is relevant to me what you regard as proof of a cover-up.
If you have not acknowledged the cover-up crimes as committed by the Church as an institution in Ireland, considering the weight of evidence, then it would be a waste of time for me proving that they were acting in complete harmony with the Vatican instructions on these matters.
Now tell me someone is not out to get the Pope. The statement below indicates that the New York Times deliberately lied and maybe even falsified documents in order to drag him into this scandal.
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of church trial
By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JLC
For CatholicAnchor.org
To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men.
To put some parameters on the following remarks, I am writing this article with the express knowledge and consent of Archbishop Roger Schwietz, OMI, the Archbishop of Anchorage, where I currently serve. Archbishop Schwietz is also the publisher of the Catholic Anchor newspaper.
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy's trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;
To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.
Before proceeding, it is important to point out the scourge that child sexual abuse has been — not only for the church but for society as well. Few actions can distort a child's life more than sexual abuse. It is a form of emotional and spiritual homicide and it starts a trajectory toward a skewed sense of sexuality. When committed by a person in authority, it creates a distrust of almost anyone, anywhere.
As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.
As for the numerous reports about the case of Father Murphy, the back-story has not been reported as of yet.
In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy's tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John's involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.
Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.
Between 1996 and August, 1998, I interviewed, with the help of a qualified interpreter, about a dozen victims of Father Murphy. These were gut-wrenching interviews. In one instance the victim had become a perpetrator himself and had served time in prison for his crimes. I realized that this disease is virulent and was easily transmitted to others. I heard stories of distorted lives, sexualities diminished or expunged. These were the darkest days of my own priesthood, having been ordained less than 10 years at the time. Grace-filled spiritual direction has been a Godsend.
I also met with a community board of deaf Catholics. They insisted that Father Murphy should be removed from the priesthood and highly important to them was their request that he be buried not as a priest but as a layperson. I indicated that a judge, I could not guarantee the first request and could only make a recommendation to the latter request.
In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home
With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying 'odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people". Also quoted is this: "Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation."
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.
Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.
Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues.
Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more.
Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.
To conclude, the events during the 1960's and 1970's of the sexual abuse of minors and solicitation in the confessional by Father Lawrence Murphy are unmitigated and gruesome crimes. On behalf of the church, I am deeply sorry and ashamed for the wrongs that have been done by my brother priests but realize my sorrow is probably of little importance 40 years after the fact. The only thing that we can do at this time is to learn the truth, beg for forgiveness, and do whatever is humanly possible to heal the wounds. The rest, I am grateful, is in God's hands.
Father Thomas T. Brundage, JCL
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 12:38:38 PM
Now tell me someone is not out to get the Pope. The statement below indicates that the New York Times deliberately lied and maybe even falsified documents in order to drag him into this scandal.
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of church trial
By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JLC
For CatholicAnchor.org
To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men.
To put some parameters on the following remarks, I am writing this article with the express knowledge and consent of Archbishop Roger Schwietz, OMI, the Archbishop of Anchorage, where I currently serve. Archbishop Schwietz is also the publisher of the Catholic Anchor newspaper.
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy's trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;
To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.
Before proceeding, it is important to point out the scourge that child sexual abuse has been — not only for the church but for society as well. Few actions can distort a child's life more than sexual abuse. It is a form of emotional and spiritual homicide and it starts a trajectory toward a skewed sense of sexuality. When committed by a person in authority, it creates a distrust of almost anyone, anywhere.
As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.
As for the numerous reports about the case of Father Murphy, the back-story has not been reported as of yet.
In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy's tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John's involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.
Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.
Between 1996 and August, 1998, I interviewed, with the help of a qualified interpreter, about a dozen victims of Father Murphy. These were gut-wrenching interviews. In one instance the victim had become a perpetrator himself and had served time in prison for his crimes. I realized that this disease is virulent and was easily transmitted to others. I heard stories of distorted lives, sexualities diminished or expunged. These were the darkest days of my own priesthood, having been ordained less than 10 years at the time. Grace-filled spiritual direction has been a Godsend.
I also met with a community board of deaf Catholics. They insisted that Father Murphy should be removed from the priesthood and highly important to them was their request that he be buried not as a priest but as a layperson. I indicated that a judge, I could not guarantee the first request and could only make a recommendation to the latter request.
In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home
With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying 'odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people". Also quoted is this: "Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation."
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.
Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.
Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues.
Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more.
Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.
To conclude, the events during the 1960's and 1970's of the sexual abuse of minors and solicitation in the confessional by Father Lawrence Murphy are unmitigated and gruesome crimes. On behalf of the church, I am deeply sorry and ashamed for the wrongs that have been done by my brother priests but realize my sorrow is probably of little importance 40 years after the fact. The only thing that we can do at this time is to learn the truth, beg for forgiveness, and do whatever is humanly possible to heal the wounds. The rest, I am grateful, is in God's hands.
Father Thomas T. Brundage, JCL
You are joking right?
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 02:55:44 PM
You are joking right?
Why do you say that? He is clearly refuting the NY Times article. As the judge in the case, surely he would know whether the charges were dropped or not?b
"the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this.."
Was he remanded on bail or held in custody? ::)
What would have been the ultimate punishment had he been found guilty in a church criminal trial? lose his frock?
"second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information".
It was Ratzinger's deputy (again), ;D
Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE states in defence of Cardinal Ratzinger
"Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional".
Is he talking about Church criminal charges or real criminal charges?
Could the good Fr Thomas please explain if the compiled new evidence was sent to the police authorities for filing criminal charges especially in the light of the Cardinal Ratzinger defense,
here stated as
"Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither 'Crimen' nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities."
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 02:55:44 PM
You are joking right?
Why do you say that? He is clearly refuting the NY Times article. As the judge in the case, surely he would know whether the charges were dropped or not?b
He was a Canon Law judge appointed by the Church who speaks out in favour of the Pope and attacks his critics.
Read the 3 things he sets out to achieve in his article. You would want to have the blindest of blind faith to think for a second he achieves it with that article.
"The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history."
Would you like to comment on this revelation?
Quote
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it.
Best line in the article! Irony at it's best!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 31, 2010, 05:59:39 PM
Quote
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it.
Best line in the article! Irony at it's best!
He must have got something at some time or other ! ;)
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 02:55:44 PM
You are joking right?
Why do you say that? He is clearly refuting the NY Times article. As the judge in the case, surely he would know whether the charges were dropped or not?b
He was a Canon Law judge appointed by the Church who speaks out in favour of the Pope and attacks his critics.
Read the 3 things he sets out to achieve in his article. You would want to have the blindest of blind faith to think for a second he achieves it with that article.
"The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history."
Would you like to comment on this revelation?
I am pointing out that the New York Times article on which this thread is based is inacurate and has probably used false documetation as the basis for it's claims. Is anyone going to comment on that?
The 'judge' attacks the NYT for quotes lifted from a document he says was not written by him. But he never denies the substantive claims made. This is merely a semantic emotional argument and is designed to divert from the issue. His repetition of 'no one contacted me' rings hollow in the absence of blatant denial of what was reported.
Then he states the following: "Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."
The next paragraph states: "When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."
Either he wasn't 'involved at all' or it was the work 'of then Cardinal Ratzinger'.
He can't have it both ways and in no way does he successfully deflect questions about the Pope, in fact he achieves the opposite.
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 06:45:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 05:18:11 PM
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 02:55:44 PM
You are joking right?
Why do you say that? He is clearly refuting the NY Times article. As the judge in the case, surely he would know whether the charges were dropped or not?b
He was a Canon Law judge appointed by the Church who speaks out in favour of the Pope and attacks his critics.
Read the 3 things he sets out to achieve in his article. You would want to have the blindest of blind faith to think for a second he achieves it with that article.
"The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history."
Would you like to comment on this revelation?
I am pointing out that the New York Times article on which this thread is based is inacurate and has probably used false documetation as the basis for it's claims. Is anyone going to comment on that?
You have posted a article which is a load of auld shite as the other lads of pointed out. Its clear to me that you have some bias in favour of the catholic churches position which flies in the face of all logic and reason. Fair enough, you're entitled to it. This is an article in some catholic newspaper seeking to deflect blame from the pope = hardly independent thinking is it? If this priest is so sure he was misrepresented when doesn't he take it to the courts?
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 07:12:32 PM
The 'judge' attacks the NYT for quotes lifted from a document he says was not written by him. But he never denies the substantive claims made. This is merely a semantic emotional argument and is designed to divert from the issue. His repetition of 'no one contacted me' rings hollow in the absence of blatant denial of what was reported.
Then he states the following: "Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."
The next paragraph states: "When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."
Either he wasn't 'involved at all' or it was the work 'of then Cardinal Ratzinger'.
He can't have it both ways and in no way does he successfully deflect questions about the Pope, in fact he achieves the opposite.
Muppet the basis of the NY Times article was that the Pope dropped the charges against this priest and hence tried to cover it up he abuse (title of the thread). However the judge involved is now saying that this is not true and that charges were still pending when he died. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant to the substantive charge i.e. that the Pope was involved in a cover-up. Both of them cannot be correct - are you telling me that the NY Times is correct and that the charges were dropped on the Popes order? If so, can you produce any evidence to support this?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 31, 2010, 07:13:28 PM
You have posted a article which is a load of auld shite as the other lads of pointed out. Its clear to me that you have some bias in favour of the catholic churches position which flies in the face of all logic and reason. Fair enough, you're entitled to it. This is an article in some catholic newspaper seeking to deflect blame from the pope = hardly independent thinking is it? If this priest is so sure he was misrepresented when doesn't he take it to the courts?
How is it a load of oul shite? Do you even know the background to these claims of cover-up? The man who wrote the article was the judge in the case the NY Times is saying didn't exist.
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 07:57:34 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 31, 2010, 07:13:28 PM
You have posted a article which is a load of auld shite as the other lads of pointed out. Its clear to me that you have some bias in favour of the catholic churches position which flies in the face of all logic and reason. Fair enough, you're entitled to it. This is an article in some catholic newspaper seeking to deflect blame from the pope = hardly independent thinking is it? If this priest is so sure he was misrepresented when doesn't he take it to the courts?
How is it a load of oul shite? Do you even know the background to these claims of cover-up? The man who wrote the article was the judge in the case the NY Times is saying didn't exist.
Legally it didn't.
"The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally. "
The "judge' says he "i have no reason to believe' he was involved. Hardly conclusive evidence of non-involvement is it?
Then of course he praises the former Cardinal for his work on these issues. I wouldn't want him defending me.
Quote from: muppet
Legally it didn't.
"The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally. "
The "judge' says he "i have no reason to believe' he was involved. Hardly conclusive evidence of non-involvement is it?
Then of course he praises the former Cardinal for his work on these issues. I wouldn't want him defending me.
Okay Muppet let's rewind a little. Do you agree or not agree that the charges against this priest were dropped?
BTW the portion of the article which has been posted omits this bit which you can see if you follow the link:
"A canonical trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after Fr Murphy wrote to the future pope asking that proceedings be stopped, despite objections from a second archbishop. "
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 08:14:27 PM
Quote from: muppet
Legally it didn't.
"The documents seen by the New York Times suggest that in 1996, the then Cardinal Ratzinger twice failed to respond to letters sent to him personally. "
The "judge' says he "i have no reason to believe' he was involved. Hardly conclusive evidence of non-involvement is it?
Then of course he praises the former Cardinal for his work on these issues. I wouldn't want him defending me.
Okay Muppet let's rewind a little. Do you agree or not agree that the charges against this priest were dropped?
BTW the portion of the article which has been posted omits this bit which you can see if you follow the link:
"A canonical trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after Fr Murphy wrote to the future pope asking that proceedings be stopped, despite objections from a second archbishop. "
Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.
As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?
Quote from: muppet
Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.
As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?
Muppet whether you have respect for canonical trials or not is irrelevant and so is the quote you mention, as the basis of the NY Times claims are that the Pope ignored letters to deal with this man and quitely dropped the matter 1996. But now we find out that in fact an investigation was initiated by the Church in 1996 and charges were in fact were still pending against the man when he died in 1998. Where is the cover-up that the NY Times alleges? Do you not think the NY Times has questions to answer regarding the false quotes they attribute to the judge in the case?
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: muppet
Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.
As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?
Muppet whether you have respect for canonical trials or not is irrelevant and so is the quote you mention, as the basis of the NY Times claims are that the Pope ignored letters to deal with this man and quitely dropped the matter 1996. But now we find out that in fact an investigation was initiated by the Church in 1996 and charges were in fact were still pending against the man when he died in 1998. Where is the cover-up that the NY Times alleges? Do you not think the NY Times has questions to answer regarding the false quotes they attribute to the judge in the case?
the ny times may be lying but has it not crossed your mind that this "judge" ::) may be lying?
Quote from: Ulick on March 31, 2010, 08:41:42 PM
Quote from: muppet
Look, I have no respect for or belief in any canonical trials. Therefore in my opinion there never was a trial as we understand it.
As for the above, your friend above never directly addresses any such issue. He says this: " I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all." That is not stating 'I categorically know he wasn't involved'. Remember 'mental reservation'?
Muppet whether you have respect for canonical trials or not is irrelevant and so is the quote you mention, as the basis of the NY Times claims are that the Pope ignored letters to deal with this man and quitely dropped the matter 1996. But now we find out that in fact an investigation was initiated by the Church in 1996 and charges were in fact were still pending against the man when he died in 1998. Where is the cover-up that the NY Times alleges? Do you not think the NY Times has questions to answer regarding the false quotes they attribute to the judge in the case?
I think you need to read it again. Yes they said the Pope was written to, but they didn't say the matter was quietly dropped. They say he failed to respond to the letters. Meanwhile the 'case' (Canon not proper civil) continued for 2 years without resolution until he died, still a priest. That doesn't disagree with either article.
Your 'judge' never really contradicts anything other than to deny he was the source of the quotes, but he never states the quotes were false.
Even the canon law judge (inadvertently) admits there was a cover up, authorised by Ratzinger.
It is as plain as the nose on anyones face.
Yet we have heard claims by Ratzinger that 'Crimen' nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities."
At no time during all his exhaustive and tearful investigation did the canon law judge inform the legal authorities of the evidence.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not reply to letters ?
Surely not ?
Shock, horror and a huge surprise. ;)
Give her Dixie posted this on the Clerical abuse page - think it might be more suited here :
Catholic League head: Abuse not pedophilia because boys were 'post-pubescent'
The head of the influential Catholic League says that the priest who allegedly sexually abused 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin did not engage in pedophilia because 'the vast majority of the victims [were] post-pubescent."
Bill Donohue made the argument during a raucous debate on Larry King Live Tuesday night, during which he repeatedly pointed the finger to homosexuality -- rather than pedophilia -- as the cause of the church's sex abuse problems.
"You've got to get your facts straight," Donohue said, addressing sex abuse victim Thomas Roberts. "I am sorry. If Im the only one thats going to deal with facts tonight then that'll be it. The vast majority of the victims are post-pubescent. Thats not pedophilia, buddy. Thats homosexuality."
A rather surprised panel of commentators -- which included pop icon Sinead O'Connor -- then began to debate at what age, exactly, does sexual attraction to children cease to be pedophilia.
Donohue argued the age at which children become "post-pubescent" is around 12 or 13.
Click on this link to read the article in full, and then watch the 3 minute clip from the show where he springs this wild claim.
Is now a defence that is going to be used in the future by elements within the church?
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0331/catholic-league-boys-pubescent/
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 08:54:17 PM
I think you need to read it again. Yes they said the Pope was written to, but they didn't say the matter was quietly dropped. They say he failed to respond to the letters. Meanwhile the 'case' (Canon not proper civil) continued for 2 years without resolution until he died, still a priest. That doesn't disagree with either article.
Your 'judge' never really contradicts anything other than to deny he was the source of the quotes, but he never states the quotes were false.
The original NY Times article said the case was dropped. The judge said it wasn't. The fact that the case continued makes any claim that the Pope never replied to a letter (asking for an investigation and for him to be defrocked) irrelevant.
Quote from: Main Street on March 31, 2010, 10:25:05 PM
Even the canon law judge (inadvertently) admits there was a cover up, authorised by Ratzinger.
It is as plain as the nose on anyones face.
Yet we have heard claims by Ratzinger that 'Crimen' nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities."
At no time during all his exhaustive and tearful investigation did the canon law judge inform the legal authorities of the evidence.
The police had already dropped the prosecution, it was the Church that continued with it.
this should've been an april fool unfortunately it appears to be serious!
Satan behind media attacks on the Pope, asserts Italian exorcist
Noted Italian exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth, commented this week that the recent defamatory reporting on Pope Benedict XVI, especially by the New York Times, was "prompted by the devil."
Speaking to News Mediaset in Italy, the 85-year-old exorcist noted that the devil is behind "the recent attacks on Pope Benedict XVI regarding some pedophilia cases."
"There is no doubt about it. Because he is a marvelous Pope and worthy successor to John Paul II, it is clear that the devil wants to 'grab hold' of him."
Father Amorth added that in instances of sexual abuse committed by some members of the clergy, the devil "uses" priests in order to cast blame upon the entire Church: "The devil wants the death of the Church because she is the mother of all the saints."
"He combats the Church through the men of the Church, but he can do nothing to the Church."
The exorcist went on to note that Satan tempts holy men, "and so we should not be surprised if priests too ... fall into temptation. They also live in the world and can fall like men of the world."
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/satan_behind_media_attacks_on_the_pope_asserts_italian_exorcist/
Quote from: Ulick on April 01, 2010, 10:09:48 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 31, 2010, 10:25:05 PM
Even the canon law judge (inadvertently) admits there was a cover up, authorised by Ratzinger.
It is as plain as the nose on anyones face.
Yet we have heard claims by Ratzinger that 'Crimen' nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities."
At no time during all his exhaustive and tearful investigation did the canon law judge inform the legal authorities of the evidence.
The police had already dropped the prosecution, it was the Church that continued with it.
The police had dropped a prosecution in the mid 1970's ?
This new evidence was compiled by the canon law judge in 1996.
The new evidence was not handed over to the police despite the canon law judge alluding to that it was a possibility.
Quote from: Main Street on April 01, 2010, 02:00:19 PM
The police had dropped a prosecution in the mid 1970's ?
This new evidence was compiled by the canon law judge in 1996.
The new evidence was not handed over to the police despite the canon law judge alluding to that it was a possibility.
No the police came to the conclusion he was going to die and there was no point in reopening the investigation, though I'm not sure what that as to do with the Popes "cover-up".
Quote from: Ulick on April 01, 2010, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 01, 2010, 02:00:19 PM
The police had dropped a prosecution in the mid 1970's ?
This new evidence was compiled by the canon law judge in 1996.
The new evidence was not handed over to the police despite the canon law judge alluding to that it was a possibility.
No the police came to the conclusion he was going to die and there was no point in reopening the investigation, though I'm not sure what that as to do with the Popes "cover-up".
Why would the Milwaukee DA use such an excuse? Have you got a link to that?
I suspect you are mixing up what has allegedly happened in the fantasy world canon law prosecution, which carries the most lethal punishment of losing a frock, to what happened in the world of real criminal law prosecution.
The criminal prosecutors did not go ahead in the mid 70's because the Milwaukee DA claimed the 6 year statute of limitations had passed.
The Canon Law Judge say he informed the sex abuser Murphy in 1996 that criminal charges may be filed against him. Yet no mention was made by the CLJ that contact was made with the DA. One can only conclude that the CLJ did not contact the DA, not even to ascertain the status of a possible criminal prosecution.
Quote from: Ulick on April 01, 2010, 10:08:38 AM
Quote from: muppet on March 31, 2010, 08:54:17 PM
I think you need to read it again. Yes they said the Pope was written to, but they didn't say the matter was quietly dropped. They say he failed to respond to the letters. Meanwhile the 'case' (Canon not proper civil) continued for 2 years without resolution until he died, still a priest. That doesn't disagree with either article.
Your 'judge' never really contradicts anything other than to deny he was the source of the quotes, but he never states the quotes were false.
The original NY Times article said the case was dropped. The judge said it wasn't. The fact that the case continued makes any claim that the Pope never replied to a letter (asking for an investigation and for him to be defrocked) irrelevant.
This is mere semantics. It could be argued that the case was dropped because he died or that it wasn't dropped because he died. Either way the 'judge's' article hardly delivers the knockout blow you suggested.
Going round in circles here lads. The New York Times have been proven to be less than truthful with the facts to say the least and certainly don't have any evidence to suggest the Pope was engaged in a cover-up. Back to the drawing board, but no doubt I'm sure there'll be another equally spurious claim coming along soon. See you then...
Something tells me this will be of interest to Ulick and Muppet...
(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/father-brundage-is-wrong.html#more)
The Vatican Spins; The NYT Wins
01 Apr 2010 09:53 am
The Vatican came out swinging yesterday against the New York Times. And whiffed bad. The Vatican accused the Times of reporting "deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness," and insisting that then-Cardinal Ratzinger had nothing to do with the decision by his deputy to suspend a canonical trial against Father Lawrence Murphy, an unrepentant multiple rapist of deaf children, because he was nearing death.
The only way this can be the case is, again, if control-queen Ratzinger knew nothing of the final decisions of his number two in a meeting in Rome on a case where hundreds of defenseless deaf children had been raped and molested by an unrepentant priest for decades. That's the agit-prop being pushed out by some Vatican-sympathizers. They argue that because Ratzinger's CDF only got responsibility for child abuse cases in 2001, he cannot have been responsible for the 1998 decision. But Ratzinger was in charge of the case in 1996 to 1998 because
"Father Murphy was suspected of using the confessional to commit his crimes — a crime that is considered particularly serious under the church's canon law because confession is a sacrament. "
This is why Ratzinger is so connected to the Murphy case. And he was handling it for two years. What are the odds he knew nothing about it? Or that he had no sign-off on the final decision not to proceed with a trial?
But the NYT's coup de grace against the Vatican comes with the theocon chief witness, Father Brundage. Brundage had claimed he had been misquoted in the NYT, and that the trial was indeed ongoing at the time of Murphy's death. Brundage, now seeing documents he had not seen before, reverses himself:
" Father Brundage, who is now working in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, posted an essay this week saying he was never informed that the trial of Father Murphy had been halted.
He also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.
He said the documents show that the Vatican had encouraged the Milwaukee Archdiocese to halt the trial, but they did not use strong language and actually order a halt. He said that he never saw the letter from Archbishop Weakland abating the trial until it appeared on the Times Web site last week."
So it seems perfectly clear that the Vatican did indeed make the final decision - against Weakland's wishes - not to proceed with a canonical trial, and Murphy was buried in full vestments, and his victims never got justice and the church had more sympathy with an elderly and dying priest than with the raped souls and bodies of countless children. The indefatigable Carolyn Disco, a commenter at America, and NCR and a Dish-reader, notes the critical meeting when the decision was made:
" Snip: The May 30, 1998 meeting with Weakland, Fliss, Sklba, Bertone, his deputy Girotti, and staff is critical. The translated minutes from Italian specify Weakland pleaded for a canonical trial to proceed. He specified six points, including Murphy has no remorse, many victims, fear of scandal, etc. Some of the translation wording can be awkward but the meaning is clear.
Then Bertone lists the problems of continuing a trial: difficulty in furnishing proofs, testimonies without increasing scandal, need for secrecy, long period of time, no other accusations from Superior diocese; that "there are not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial."
Bertone lists what should be done by way of "penal remedies" like restricting where Murphy can celebrate Eucharist (only Superior, not Milwaukee), and requiring permission in writing. Also that Murphy must give clear signs of repentance, "OTHERWISE he must be applied to a trial." Clear signs of repentance mean NO TRIAL.
Bertone even "restates the two central points TO BE FOLLOWED" and lists them: (no discretion allowed) "1) the territorial restriction of the celebration (of the) Eucharist and 2) the needed remorse and reform of the priest." That's it, period.
The meeting concludes with Weakland's pained "difficulty he will have explaining this to the community of the deaf." Weakland would have no difficulty at all explaining the continuation of a trial but great difficulty in explaining the cancellation of one."
Notice that one factor in Bertone's decision - my italics - was avoiding more scandal for the church and needing more secrecy. Moreover, Disco notes how the Vatican bureaucracy, like most bureaucracies, finds a way to avoid full responsibility by anyone :
" There is no separate written order by Bertone to stop a canonical trial (with or without his superior's agreement or understanding, ie Ratzinger) but there are minutes that specify what measures are "to be followed."
There is no written order to Brundage to stop a trial, instead there are those same minutes he read, and a report of a status conference on the Murphy case with no mention of a trial in progress – just administrative measures related to "precepts.""
For clarifying details of what went on at those meetings at the Vatican and compelling case that Weakland was pushing strongly at the end for a trial and the Vatican was pushing against can be read in Disco's responses (7,8 and 9) here.
Quote from: Ulick on April 01, 2010, 04:09:58 PM
Going round in circles here lads. The New York Times have been proven to be less than truthful with the facts to say the least and certainly don't have any evidence to suggest the Pope was engaged in a cover-up. Back to the drawing board, but no doubt I'm sure there'll be another equally spurious claim coming along soon. See you then...
The only thing proved here is that you accept the quoted word of a canon law judge as the one true account
and you got the information contained in his account which excused Murphy from a defrocking mixed up as a reason to explain why criminal charges were not pressed by the DA.
Did anyone catch this nonsense today from the popes personal preacher?
Now, this excuse takes some beating.
Pope Benedict XVI's personal preacher on Friday likened accusations against the pope and the Catholic church in the sex abuse scandal to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.
Reaction from Jewish groups and victims of clerical sex abuse ranged from skepticism to fury.
The Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa said in a Good Friday homily with the pope listening in St. Peter's Basilica that a Jewish friend wrote to him to say the accusations remind him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism."
So far I haven't seen St. Peter burning, nor were there outbursts of violence against Catholic priests. ... The Vatican is now trying to turn the perpetrators into victims.
- Stephan Kramer, general-secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews
The 82-year-old pontiff looked weary as he sat near the central altar during the early evening prayer service before he was scheduled to take part in a candlelit Way of the Cross procession near the Colosseum that commemorates Christ's suffering before his crucifixion.
The Vatican later officially distanced itself from Cantalamessa 's Good Friday remarks.
Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi contacted The Associated Press in Rome to say such parallelism can lead to misunderstandings. He said the comments did not represent the position of the Church and that Cantalamessa was not speaking as a Vatican official.
Thousands of Holy Week pilgrims were in St. Peter's Square as the church defends itself against accusations that Benedict had a role in covering up sex abuse cases.
The "coincidence" that Passover falls in the same week as Easter celebrations prompted Cantalamessa to think about Jews, said the preacher, a Franciscan who offers reflections at Vatican Easter and Advent services.
"They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms," the preacher said.
Stephan Kramer, general-secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews, said Cantalamessa's remarks were "a so-far-unheard-of insolence."
"It is repulsive, obscene and most of all offensive toward all abuse victims as well as to all the victims of the Holocaust," Kramer said. "So far I haven't seen St. Peter burning, nor were there outbursts of violence against Catholic priests. I'm without words. The Vatican is now trying to turn the perpetrators into victims."
Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, U.S. director of interreligious relations for the American Jewish Committee, called the comments "an unfortunate use of language."
"The collective violence against the Jews resulted in the death of 6 million, while the collective violence spoken of here has not led to murder and destruction, but perhaps character assault," Greenebaum said.
Quoting from the letter from the Jewish friend, who wasn't identified by Cantalamessa, the preacher said that he was following "with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful of the whole world."
"The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism," Cantalamessa said his friend wrote him.
In the sermon, he referred to the sexual abuse of children by clergy, saying "unfortunately, not a few elements of the clergy are stained" by the violence. But Cantalamessa said he didn't want to dwell on the abuse of children, saying "there is sufficient talk outside of here."
Peter Isely, the Milwaukee-based director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, denounced the anti-Semitism analogy as "reckless and irresponsible."
"They're sitting in the papal palace, they're experiencing a little discomfort, and they're going to compare themselves to being rounded up or lined up and sent in cattle cars to Auschwitz?" he said. "You cannot be serious."
Benedict didn't speak after the homily, but, in a tired-sounding voice, chanted prayers. He leaned up to remove a red cloth covering a tall crucifix, which was passed to him by an aide. He took off his shoes, knelt and prayed before the cross.
The head of Germany's Roman Catholic bishops said earlier in an unusually forthright Good Friday statement that the church in the pope's homeland failed to help victims of clerical sex abuse because it wanted to protect its reputation.
Clerics have neglected helping abuse victims by a "wrongly intended desire to protect the church's reputation," Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg said.
The news about sexual and physical abuse of children by priests and other employees leaves the church with "sadness, horror and shame," he said.
Reports of new cases have been cropping up almost daily in neighboring Austria, where the country's top Catholic, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, held a service for victims and acknowledged church guilt in the controversy this week.
Austria's Platform Of Those Affected By Church Violence — a group that includes victims, psychologists, psychiatrists and lawyers — said about 150 people had called a new hot line for victims of abuse by clergy and church workers, with about a third claiming they had been sexually abused and the rest reporting physical or verbal abuse.
In 1980, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, allowed a pedophile priest to be transferred from the northwestern city of Essen to undergo therapy in Munich, where he was then archbishop.
The Munich archdiocese says Benedict wasn't involved in a lower-ranking official's later decision to allow the priest to return to pastoral work. The Rev. Peter Hullermann went on to work with youths again and was sentenced for sexual abuse in 1986.
Germany's prestigious Regensburg Domspatzen boys choir once led by the pope's brother, the Rev. Georg Ratzinger, as well as the school that sends many students to the choir, also have faced allegations of sexual and more general physical abuse.
An Associated Press tally has documented 73 cases with allegations of sexual abuse by priests against minors over the past decade in Italy, with more than 235 victims.
Italian prosecutor Pietro Forno said that once investigations have gotten under way, church officials have never tried to interfere or hinder the probes. But he added, "In the many years that I have dealt with this, never — and I stress, never — have I received a single complaint from bishops, or priests. And that's a bit odd."
Quote from: give her dixie on April 02, 2010, 09:43:19 PM
Did anyone catch this nonsense today from the popes personal preacher?
Now, this excuse takes some beating.
Pope Benedict XVI's personal preacher on Friday likened accusations against the pope and the Catholic church in the sex abuse scandal to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.
Reaction from Jewish groups and victims of clerical sex abuse ranged from skepticism to fury.
The Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa said in a Good Friday homily with the pope listening in St. Peter's Basilica that a Jewish friend wrote to him to say the accusations remind him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism."
So far I haven't seen St. Peter burning, nor were there outbursts of violence against Catholic priests. ... The Vatican is now trying to turn the perpetrators into victims.
- Stephan Kramer, general-secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews
The 82-year-old pontiff looked weary as he sat near the central altar during the early evening prayer service before he was scheduled to take part in a candlelit Way of the Cross procession near the Colosseum that commemorates Christ's suffering before his crucifixion.
The Vatican later officially distanced itself from Cantalamessa 's Good Friday remarks.
Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi contacted The Associated Press in Rome to say such parallelism can lead to misunderstandings. He said the comments did not represent the position of the Church and that Cantalamessa was not speaking as a Vatican official.
Thousands of Holy Week pilgrims were in St. Peter's Square as the church defends itself against accusations that Benedict had a role in covering up sex abuse cases.
The "coincidence" that Passover falls in the same week as Easter celebrations prompted Cantalamessa to think about Jews, said the preacher, a Franciscan who offers reflections at Vatican Easter and Advent services.
"They know from experience what it means to be victims of collective violence and also because of this they are quick to recognize the recurring symptoms," the preacher said.
Stephan Kramer, general-secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews, said Cantalamessa's remarks were "a so-far-unheard-of insolence."
"It is repulsive, obscene and most of all offensive toward all abuse victims as well as to all the victims of the Holocaust," Kramer said. "So far I haven't seen St. Peter burning, nor were there outbursts of violence against Catholic priests. I'm without words. The Vatican is now trying to turn the perpetrators into victims."
Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, U.S. director of interreligious relations for the American Jewish Committee, called the comments "an unfortunate use of language."
"The collective violence against the Jews resulted in the death of 6 million, while the collective violence spoken of here has not led to murder and destruction, but perhaps character assault," Greenebaum said.
Quoting from the letter from the Jewish friend, who wasn't identified by Cantalamessa, the preacher said that he was following "with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful of the whole world."
"The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism," Cantalamessa said his friend wrote him.
In the sermon, he referred to the sexual abuse of children by clergy, saying "unfortunately, not a few elements of the clergy are stained" by the violence. But Cantalamessa said he didn't want to dwell on the abuse of children, saying "there is sufficient talk outside of here."
Peter Isely, the Milwaukee-based director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, denounced the anti-Semitism analogy as "reckless and irresponsible."
"They're sitting in the papal palace, they're experiencing a little discomfort, and they're going to compare themselves to being rounded up or lined up and sent in cattle cars to Auschwitz?" he said. "You cannot be serious."
Benedict didn't speak after the homily, but, in a tired-sounding voice, chanted prayers. He leaned up to remove a red cloth covering a tall crucifix, which was passed to him by an aide. He took off his shoes, knelt and prayed before the cross.
The head of Germany's Roman Catholic bishops said earlier in an unusually forthright Good Friday statement that the church in the pope's homeland failed to help victims of clerical sex abuse because it wanted to protect its reputation.
Clerics have neglected helping abuse victims by a "wrongly intended desire to protect the church's reputation," Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg said.
The news about sexual and physical abuse of children by priests and other employees leaves the church with "sadness, horror and shame," he said.
Reports of new cases have been cropping up almost daily in neighboring Austria, where the country's top Catholic, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, held a service for victims and acknowledged church guilt in the controversy this week.
Austria's Platform Of Those Affected By Church Violence — a group that includes victims, psychologists, psychiatrists and lawyers — said about 150 people had called a new hot line for victims of abuse by clergy and church workers, with about a third claiming they had been sexually abused and the rest reporting physical or verbal abuse.
In 1980, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, allowed a pedophile priest to be transferred from the northwestern city of Essen to undergo therapy in Munich, where he was then archbishop.
The Munich archdiocese says Benedict wasn't involved in a lower-ranking official's later decision to allow the priest to return to pastoral work. The Rev. Peter Hullermann went on to work with youths again and was sentenced for sexual abuse in 1986.
Germany's prestigious Regensburg Domspatzen boys choir once led by the pope's brother, the Rev. Georg Ratzinger, as well as the school that sends many students to the choir, also have faced allegations of sexual and more general physical abuse.
An Associated Press tally has documented 73 cases with allegations of sexual abuse by priests against minors over the past decade in Italy, with more than 235 victims.
Italian prosecutor Pietro Forno said that once investigations have gotten under way, church officials have never tried to interfere or hinder the probes. But he added, "In the many years that I have dealt with this, never — and I stress, never — have I received a single complaint from bishops, or priests. And that's a bit odd."
Dixie, they are rotten to the core. Our moral leaders have no morals at all. No amount of this putrid muck suprises me anymore.
It's getting worse as time goes by and the sooner they realise that new leaders are needed the better.
Yes the existing leaders might be good men, but they're tainted and guilty at least by their failure to act historically.
This new PSNI team that has been set up could lead to further embarassment.
Sinead O'Connor ::) really had a go at him on the Late Late Show tonight.
Quote from: hardstation on April 02, 2010, 11:43:51 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 02, 2010, 11:42:00 PM
Sinead O'Connor ::) really had a go at him on the Late Late Show tonight.
I feel sorry for her. The woman isn't well.
I know what ya mean, she is bi-polar, which can't be easy.
It's called Narcissism http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0929/1224255430943.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0929/1224255430943.html)
Ireland became a breeding ground for self-serving narcissists
KATE HOLMQUIST
GIVE ME A BREAK: NARCISSISTS ARE some of the loneliest people in the world, except they never learn how lonely they are until it's too late. Narcissists, either as individuals or in an elite group, are convinced that the world revolves around them and they're very good at pulling others into their game, especially if they have financial or moral power. When their behaviour tests the patience of even the most willing enablers, narcissists have a trump card – they appear needy and vulnerable.
So when caught out in wrongdoing, they demand generosity, special favours and tolerance. In the rare event that someone stands up to them, they brand their accusers as lacking in empathy, when it's the narcissist who actually cannot empathise with others.
Has no one any idea what they've been having to deal with? Is nobody but them actually living in the real world? Can no one understand the sheer stress involved in being the centre of the universe?
If that doesn't work, narcissists avoid blame by blaming everyone else and are very good at producing scapegoats and fall guys. A narcissist never experiences guilt because he's like the pampered dog who eats your dinner and allows itself to be chastised, only to cuddle up to you afterwards and steal your breakfast the next morning.
A narcissist's needs come before everyone else's, and when these needs are met, the world is better off because the narcissist knows what's best for everyone – whether it's pulling together the money for a vanity project that will never see the light of day or something more sinister, such as an abuse of people or power.
Anyone in thrall to a narcissist has usually accepted an emotional or economic payoff, because narcissists are good at buying people or gaining their loyalty on credit.
When an entire institution is narcissistic, most people involved with it may believe that if narcissistic needs are unmet, the world will stop turning. At its most basic, people fear for their jobs. If the narcissist is running a religion, the potential whistleblower may even fear hell.
What's so dangerous about narcissists is this ability to convince people that if they fall from grace, so will everyone else.
Narcissists and their institutions believe that everything they own, no matter how expensive or outlandish, has been earned, whether or not that's the case.
Like the Russian prince in need of just one more diamond encrusted Fabergé egg, the narcissist in public life can convince others that without that egg, the world will implode.
Say you live in not just one fabulous house, but several. You haven't got just one enviable car, you have a fleet. These possessions are no less than you deserve and they are but worthy examples of your (arguably) refined taste, which in itself makes the world a better place – can't anyone see that?
Without people providing an example at the very top, what does everyone else have to aspire to? Narcissists always travel first class because they deserve it, they spend more on clothing and personal grooming, they dine in the finest establishments because all of these things are not meant to please them personally – they are actually generous acts in themselves because they raise the status of everything associated with them, such as Ireland Inc.
Narcissists are impossible to win an argument with. They're adept at turning criticism on its head by speaking of their humble roots and their struggles to lift themselves up from the bottom to the pinnacle of achievement. They are convinced that they are a fine example to others.
Narcissists can be irresistibly charming and are often surrounded by enablers, who lose their own identities and values by becoming wrapped up in the narcissist's world, like the backstage wardrobe mistress who puts up with abuse because she gets the star's cast-offs.
Psychiatrists and psychologists debate what gives the narcissist this grandiose sense of entitlement. Is it an accident of genetics or the environment?
Ask a narcissist what made them that way and they can't tell you because they're not narcissists, are they?
Psychiatrically definable narcissism is relatively rare; people and institutions whose behaviour borders on it are not, particularly when given the circumstances in which to grow. And these days it's running like weeds gone wild. The economic boom encouraged narcissism like top-grade organic compost.
The "because I'm worth it" mantra wasn't just from a shampoo commercial, it was a personal statement of empowerment. Narcissists convinced non-narcissists that overspending on luxuries while others were starved of the basics made sense because weren't they lifting everybody up with them and – famous last words "providing jobs".
All of this Galway Tent, fake tan, champagne first-class living was contagiously good because it made Ireland Inc appear successful to the outside world. The outside world was laughing at the ostentation, but never mind that.
Most people don't laugh when dealing with narcissists – these people and institutions are too powerful. Don't dare to criticise publicly unless you're prepared for the worst. A narcissist will throw it right back at you, and because you were an enabler caught up in their selfish world, some of it will probably stick.
Quote from: Main Street on April 01, 2010, 05:32:00 PM
The only thing proved here is that you accept the quoted word of a canon law judge as the one true account
and you got the information contained in his account which excused Murphy from a defrocking mixed up as a reason to explain why criminal charges were not pressed by the DA.
No the thing proved here are that there are conflicting views of the events and therefore the NY Times article can't be accepted as unchallenged evidence that the Pope was engaged in a cover-up. For that to stick much more evidence is required.
Ulick, how about you provide some evidence that the pope didn't cover up abuse scandals?
Quote from: hardstation on April 02, 2010, 11:43:51 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 02, 2010, 11:42:00 PM
Sinead O'Connor ::) really had a go at him on the Late Late Show tonight.
I feel sorry for her. The woman isn't well.
Well or not, she has been totally right about the Catholic Church and its leaders for a long time. I thought she did wel last night and it seems Brady or any other bishop hasn't the balls to go on the show when invited.
Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2010, 10:51:38 AM
It's called Narcissism http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0929/1224255430943.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0929/1224255430943.html)
Ireland became a breeding ground for self-serving narcissists
KATE HOLMQUIST
GIVE ME A BREAK: NARCISSISTS ARE some of the loneliest people in the world, except they never learn how lonely they are until it's too late. Narcissists, either as individuals or in an elite group, are convinced that the world revolves around them and they're very good at pulling others into their game, especially if they have financial or moral power. When their behaviour tests the patience of even the most willing enablers, narcissists have a trump card – they appear needy and vulnerable.
So when caught out in wrongdoing, they demand generosity, special favours and tolerance. In the rare event that someone stands up to them, they brand their accusers as lacking in empathy, when it's the narcissist who actually cannot empathise with others.
Has no one any idea what they've been having to deal with? Is nobody but them actually living in the real world? Can no one understand the sheer stress involved in being the centre of the universe?
If that doesn't work, narcissists avoid blame by blaming everyone else and are very good at producing scapegoats and fall guys. A narcissist never experiences guilt because he's like the pampered dog who eats your dinner and allows itself to be chastised, only to cuddle up to you afterwards and steal your breakfast the next morning.
A narcissist's needs come before everyone else's, and when these needs are met, the world is better off because the narcissist knows what's best for everyone – whether it's pulling together the money for a vanity project that will never see the light of day or something more sinister, such as an abuse of people or power.
Anyone in thrall to a narcissist has usually accepted an emotional or economic payoff, because narcissists are good at buying people or gaining their loyalty on credit.
When an entire institution is narcissistic, most people involved with it may believe that if narcissistic needs are unmet, the world will stop turning. At its most basic, people fear for their jobs. If the narcissist is running a religion, the potential whistleblower may even fear hell.
What's so dangerous about narcissists is this ability to convince people that if they fall from grace, so will everyone else.
Narcissists and their institutions believe that everything they own, no matter how expensive or outlandish, has been earned, whether or not that's the case.
Like the Russian prince in need of just one more diamond encrusted Fabergé egg, the narcissist in public life can convince others that without that egg, the world will implode.
Say you live in not just one fabulous house, but several. You haven't got just one enviable car, you have a fleet. These possessions are no less than you deserve and they are but worthy examples of your (arguably) refined taste, which in itself makes the world a better place – can't anyone see that?
Without people providing an example at the very top, what does everyone else have to aspire to? Narcissists always travel first class because they deserve it, they spend more on clothing and personal grooming, they dine in the finest establishments because all of these things are not meant to please them personally – they are actually generous acts in themselves because they raise the status of everything associated with them, such as Ireland Inc.
Narcissists are impossible to win an argument with. They're adept at turning criticism on its head by speaking of their humble roots and their struggles to lift themselves up from the bottom to the pinnacle of achievement. They are convinced that they are a fine example to others.
Narcissists can be irresistibly charming and are often surrounded by enablers, who lose their own identities and values by becoming wrapped up in the narcissist's world, like the backstage wardrobe mistress who puts up with abuse because she gets the star's cast-offs.
Psychiatrists and psychologists debate what gives the narcissist this grandiose sense of entitlement. Is it an accident of genetics or the environment?
Ask a narcissist what made them that way and they can't tell you because they're not narcissists, are they?
Psychiatrically definable narcissism is relatively rare; people and institutions whose behaviour borders on it are not, particularly when given the circumstances in which to grow. And these days it's running like weeds gone wild. The economic boom encouraged narcissism like top-grade organic compost.
The "because I'm worth it" mantra wasn't just from a shampoo commercial, it was a personal statement of empowerment. Narcissists convinced non-narcissists that overspending on luxuries while others were starved of the basics made sense because weren't they lifting everybody up with them and – famous last words "providing jobs".
All of this Galway Tent, fake tan, champagne first-class living was contagiously good because it made Ireland Inc appear successful to the outside world. The outside world was laughing at the ostentation, but never mind that.
Most people don't laugh when dealing with narcissists – these people and institutions are too powerful. Don't dare to criticise publicly unless you're prepared for the worst. A narcissist will throw it right back at you, and because you were an enabler caught up in their selfish world, some of it will probably stick.
Speaking of narcissists................................. This is a gem i received from that ballix gallsman.
Perhaps idiot was a bit strong and for that I apologise. To say our opinions differ on lots of things would be an understatement and I'm sure this won't be the last time we clash!
However, I would ask that when I'm having great fun toying about with some of the village idiots you don't join in and reinforce their belief that they're in some way great intellects of the board.
Yes, I am this cocky before you ask. Has no one told you? I'm a f**king genius.
A man who does not have the courage of his convictions is no man at all.
Toying with thevillage idiots me arse, gallsman you are a tool and pm me no more.
Quote from: stew on April 03, 2010, 11:01:01 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 03, 2010, 10:51:38 AM
It's called Narcissism http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0929/1224255430943.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0929/1224255430943.html)
Ireland became a breeding ground for self-serving narcissists
KATE HOLMQUIST
GIVE ME A BREAK: NARCISSISTS ARE some of the loneliest people in the world, except they never learn how lonely they are until it's too late. Narcissists, either as individuals or in an elite group, are convinced that the world revolves around them and they're very good at pulling others into their game, especially if they have financial or moral power. When their behaviour tests the patience of even the most willing enablers, narcissists have a trump card – they appear needy and vulnerable.
So when caught out in wrongdoing, they demand generosity, special favours and tolerance. In the rare event that someone stands up to them, they brand their accusers as lacking in empathy, when it's the narcissist who actually cannot empathise with others.
Has no one any idea what they've been having to deal with? Is nobody but them actually living in the real world? Can no one understand the sheer stress involved in being the centre of the universe?
If that doesn't work, narcissists avoid blame by blaming everyone else and are very good at producing scapegoats and fall guys. A narcissist never experiences guilt because he's like the pampered dog who eats your dinner and allows itself to be chastised, only to cuddle up to you afterwards and steal your breakfast the next morning.
A narcissist's needs come before everyone else's, and when these needs are met, the world is better off because the narcissist knows what's best for everyone – whether it's pulling together the money for a vanity project that will never see the light of day or something more sinister, such as an abuse of people or power.
Anyone in thrall to a narcissist has usually accepted an emotional or economic payoff, because narcissists are good at buying people or gaining their loyalty on credit.
When an entire institution is narcissistic, most people involved with it may believe that if narcissistic needs are unmet, the world will stop turning. At its most basic, people fear for their jobs. If the narcissist is running a religion, the potential whistleblower may even fear hell.
What's so dangerous about narcissists is this ability to convince people that if they fall from grace, so will everyone else.
Narcissists and their institutions believe that everything they own, no matter how expensive or outlandish, has been earned, whether or not that's the case.
Like the Russian prince in need of just one more diamond encrusted Fabergé egg, the narcissist in public life can convince others that without that egg, the world will implode.
Say you live in not just one fabulous house, but several. You haven't got just one enviable car, you have a fleet. These possessions are no less than you deserve and they are but worthy examples of your (arguably) refined taste, which in itself makes the world a better place – can't anyone see that?
Without people providing an example at the very top, what does everyone else have to aspire to? Narcissists always travel first class because they deserve it, they spend more on clothing and personal grooming, they dine in the finest establishments because all of these things are not meant to please them personally – they are actually generous acts in themselves because they raise the status of everything associated with them, such as Ireland Inc.
Narcissists are impossible to win an argument with. They're adept at turning criticism on its head by speaking of their humble roots and their struggles to lift themselves up from the bottom to the pinnacle of achievement. They are convinced that they are a fine example to others.
Narcissists can be irresistibly charming and are often surrounded by enablers, who lose their own identities and values by becoming wrapped up in the narcissist's world, like the backstage wardrobe mistress who puts up with abuse because she gets the star's cast-offs.
Psychiatrists and psychologists debate what gives the narcissist this grandiose sense of entitlement. Is it an accident of genetics or the environment?
Ask a narcissist what made them that way and they can't tell you because they're not narcissists, are they?
Psychiatrically definable narcissism is relatively rare; people and institutions whose behaviour borders on it are not, particularly when given the circumstances in which to grow. And these days it's running like weeds gone wild. The economic boom encouraged narcissism like top-grade organic compost.
The "because I'm worth it" mantra wasn't just from a shampoo commercial, it was a personal statement of empowerment. Narcissists convinced non-narcissists that overspending on luxuries while others were starved of the basics made sense because weren't they lifting everybody up with them and – famous last words "providing jobs".
All of this Galway Tent, fake tan, champagne first-class living was contagiously good because it made Ireland Inc appear successful to the outside world. The outside world was laughing at the ostentation, but never mind that.
Most people don't laugh when dealing with narcissists – these people and institutions are too powerful. Don't dare to criticise publicly unless you're prepared for the worst. A narcissist will throw it right back at you, and because you were an enabler caught up in their selfish world, some of it will probably stick.
Speaking of narcissists................................. This is a gem i received from that ballix gallsman.
Perhaps idiot was a bit strong and for that I apologise. To say our opinions differ on lots of things would be an understatement and I'm sure this won't be the last time we clash!
However, I would ask that when I'm having great fun toying about with some of the village idiots you don't join in and reinforce their belief that they're in some way great intellects of the board.
Yes, I am this cocky before you ask. Has no one told you? I'm a f**king genius.
A man who does not have the courage of his convictions is no man at all.
Toying with thevillage idiots me arse, gallsman you are a tool and pm me no more.
Does PM not mean
PERSONAL message? Bad form posting it here instead of answering back with a PM. Anyway, how do we know you didn't make that up?
Quote
Does PM not mean PERSONAL message? Bad form posting it here instead of answering back with a PM.
will you get a grip
Class, :D
The cake is ready when it's dished out!*! ;D
At least when it's my wife cooking*
QuoteDoes PM not mean PERSONAL message? Bad form posting it here instead of answering back with a PM. Anyway, how do we know you didn't make that up?
fcuk it Stew... can't win for loosing with the intellects on here :D
Ah Stew, up to your old tricks I see.
Why don't you post up the rest of our private conversation and show everyone where my comments came from and their tongue in cheek nature?! No? Afraid to be seen as a tosser again?
While you're at it, why don't you go ahead and repost whatever you deleted from the previous page?
You are a complete and utter twat. Go ahead and report me for calling you a twat, I don't particularly care.
You can also take your patronising, smug, self-superior attitude on this board and shove it up your hole.
sure why don't you post it galls?
Because my sent messages clears things every two weeks or so.
Quote from: give her dixie on April 03, 2010, 04:47:11 PM
Ulick, how about you provide some evidence that the pope didn't cover up abuse scandals?
Ah thank you for this opportunity dixie. I have never said he didn't cover up abuse scandals, only that there is no evidence to say that he has. A subtle but important difference - innocent until proven guilty an all that - even for Catholics.
Quote from: Ulick on April 03, 2010, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 01, 2010, 05:32:00 PM
The only thing proved here is that you accept the quoted word of a canon law judge as the one true account
and you got the information contained in his account which excused Murphy from a defrocking mixed up as a reason to explain why criminal charges were not pressed by the DA.
No the thing proved here are that there are conflicting views of the events and therefore the NY Times article can't be accepted as unchallenged evidence that the Pope was engaged in a cover-up. For that to stick much more evidence is required.
True, it can't be accepted as unchallenged evidence, because it is challenged :)
Ratzinger has not lent his name to any document.
Are the document's content challenged?
http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p75 (http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p75)
Even to the end, the Church hierarchy wanted Murphy squirelled away into the ground unnoticed.
I am satisfied that there is enough evidence implicating Ratzinger's Vatican office directly in the cover up over the decades.
As a reasonable man, I can can reasonably assume Ratzinger not only knew but directed the operations of his office.
All canon law charges against a priest discipline would come to his office.
His office was concerned with directing the application of Canon Law. The application of Canon law on the sex abuse issue in the catholic Church was an instrument to maintain and preserve secrecy, was the framework for a cover up and used to actively stonewall against attempts by criminal prosecutors to gain evidence. The application of Canon Law, in that manner, is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Credible inquiry judges have said so, indeed even the US bishops have admitted it and many other credible witnesses have given their uncontested testimony on how Canon Law was applied.
In 2001 sex abuse cases came directly to Ratzinger's office under terms of strict secrecy.
Interestingly Ratzinger's excuse in the Munich archdiocese was also
'it wasn't me, it was the deputy'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,684970,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,684970,00.html)
'Church officials in Essen decided not to press charges and instead arranged for their brother to enter into therapy in Munich. In the letter of transfer, written to the Bavarian diocese that Ratzinger then led, there was a clear admission that the priest had sexually assaulted children in his former parish. Munich was not left in the dark about what kind of problem was on its way to them, the diocese of Essen said last week.
The Diocesan Council, chaired by Archbishop Ratzinger, dealt with the case in Munich on Jan. 15, 1980. According to the minutes of the meeting, "Point 5d" on the agenda saw the council discussing Peter H., who had requested "accommodation and support in a Munich parsonage for a while." The request also stated that "Chaplain H. will undergo psychological therapeutic treatment."
Ratzinger Knew Police Hadn't Been Informed
A policeman's son, Ratzinger was well aware that no one had notified the police and that everything had been handled by the Church internally. Neither he nor his diocese reported the case to the authorities. Instead, a brief, succinct statement concerning the chaplain's application was entered into the minutes: "The request is granted."
Barely two weeks later, H. had been assigned to pastoral duties again. Ratzinger allegedly knew nothing of this. But his office did receive a note from his vicar-general at the time, Gerhard Gruber, concerning the chaplain's placement in the Catholic parish of St. Johannes Evangelist in Munich. Did Ratzinger overlook the memo? Gruber now says that he alone was responsible'.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 03, 2010, 11:22:52 PM
Quote
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. 8)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 04, 2010, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 03, 2010, 11:22:52 PM
Quote
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. 8)
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.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 04, 2010, 05:39:20 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 04, 2010, 05:10:07 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 03, 2010, 11:22:52 PM
Quote
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. 8)
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.
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
Quote from: give her dixie on April 14, 2010, 11:37:38 AM
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 ?
Had to happen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spUtCNpLbQ&feature=player_embedded
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm (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!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html)
Long piece but worth reading by Hans Kung
Quote from: Declan on April 16, 2010, 09:21:35 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0416/1224268443283.html (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.
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.
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 (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
Quote from: theskull1 on April 16, 2010, 11:42:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Ulick on April 16, 2010, 01:36:17 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 16, 2010, 11:42:19 AM
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
Quote from: theskull1 on April 16, 2010, 01:56:31 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 16, 2010, 01:36:17 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 16, 2010, 11:42:19 AM
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.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 15, 2010, 10:33:38 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm (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:
Quotethe 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.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 15, 2010, 10:33:38 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm (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:
Quotethe 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.
"OK we've kinived, colluded & protected child abusers and ruined the lives of countless numbers of little children for generations and have remained silent only until begrudingly pressured to do so BUT.... BUT..... BUT.... THE REST OF YOU LOT should focus on you own indescretions (e.g saying bad words, shouting at the children, missing mass, use red diesel etc etc) and seek your own forgiveness.....leave us to repent for our own sins"
So this is a fair comment for the pope to make do you reckon Iceman in the context of the severity of the child abuse scandal?
I think comments like this are just digging a bigger hole
Quote from: theskull1 on April 16, 2010, 01:56:31 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 16, 2010, 01:36:17 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 16, 2010, 11:42:19 AM
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
When Bishop Casey's child became known, his arse didn't hit the ground and he was whisked off to anonymity in a matter of seconds. No need to mull over that one for the better part of a decade!!
Is using red diesil as sin now? That wasn't in the ten commandments i was taught!
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2010, 02:50:01 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 15, 2010, 10:33:38 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm (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:
Quotethe 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.
He is trying to deflect from the evil perpetrated by his comrades and covered up by himself and others but if you want to self flagalatte Iceman go ahead...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8627429.stm
04/19/2010
Yet another dastardly attempt by heretics to blacken the name of the Pope ::)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,689761,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,689761,00.html)
Catholic Abuse Scandal
Was Munich's Vicar General (Gruber) Forced to Serve as Ratzinger's Scapegoat?
On the morning of March 12, while the press office was busy drafting a statement in which Gruber was given the full blame for H.'s (the sex abuse priest) appointment to serve as a pastor, and that included Gruber's personal apology, a church official was badgering the retired priest on the phone.
But Gruber, who felt put under pressure, later confided in theologian friends. He told them that he had been emphatically "asked" to assume full responsibility for the affair, and that church officials had promptly faxed him a copy of the statement and instructed him to make any changes he deemed necessary.
To everyone's surprise, Gruber wrote an open letter in which he qualified the archdiocese's statement, writing that he did not sign any documents over which he had no influence. He also noted that he was "very upset" about the "manner in which the incidents were portrayed" by the archdiocese. "And the phrase 'acted on his own authority' also wasn't discussed with me," he wrote.
Benedict XVI after five years: time is running out for a great reforming Pope
Today is the fifth anniversary of the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, and there is chance – just a chance – that it also marks the beginning of the end of the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Yesterday, the Pope was reduced to tears when he met victims of predatory priests in Malta. His horror at these crimes is not in doubt. And now, at last, sections of the secular media are grudgingly acknowledging that those journalists who tried to paint the former Cardinal Ratzinger as the protector of paedophiles made a serious error of judgment.
Still, the Vatican could have done much more to stop the frenzied misdirection of public outrage towards the Holy Father. That it failed to do so tells us something depressing: that Benedict XVI, the cleverest pope for centuries, an important thinker in his own right and the author of wonderful teaching documents, may lack the administrative skills and support that he needs to push through desperately needed reforms.
How to sum up the particular vision of Benedict? In an article for Catholic World Report, the Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland quotes a line from the 1963 Hollywood film, The Cardinal: "The Church ... thinks in centuries, not decades." Fr Ratzinger is reported to have been a consultant for the film; he would certainly endorse that particular line. As Dr Rowland argues, Benedict wishes above all to lay the groundwork for healing the schisms that have torn limbs from Catholic Christianity, by purifying the worship of the Church in a way that enables Christians who are Catholics at heart to return into communion with Peter.
He understands – as no Pope before him has done – that conservative Anglo-Catholics are not Protestants, but aspiring Catholics for whom the scandalously bad worship of the post-Vatican II Church is a spiritual, not just an aesthetic, obstacle to reunion. Hence the Ordinariate provision, a structure for ex-Anglicans that will be set up soon but will take years to reach maturity (if it is not sabotaged). Hence also the removal of virtually all restrictions on the celebration of the classical form of the Roman Rite – to my mind, the boldest and finest single achievement of Benedict's pontificate to date.
Correctly orientated worship, believes Pope Benedict, is a sine qua non for the operation of the redeeming love of Christ in the world. That is why his request that priests should say Mass facing a crucifix on the altar is so important to him; he would prefer that the celebrant faced eastwards, in the same direction as the congregation, but at least the central crucifix helps ensure that the consecration is not directed at the people, which would make it more like a Protestant shared meal than a sacrifice.
But Catholics should ask themselves: when did they last visit an ordinary parish church and see a priest observing the Pope's wishes? Just as the correct orientation of the altar matters enormously to Benedict XVI, so the disregard of this reform tells us a lot about the fundamental disconnection between the Pontiff and his priests.
This disconnection is made possible by the immense power of the bishop and the diocese in the Church – a power that also made possible the sheltering of so many clerical sex abusers not just from the police but also from the Vatican. Much of this power is derived from Scripture: the diocese has been the fundamental unit of the Church since its institution. A crucial problem is that the Vatican – a tiny organisation, really, about the size of a middle-sized American corporation – has neglected its historic role of aligning Catholic bishops with their Pontiff. Benedict XVI wants to reform the Church; but how can he do so when the dicasteries (major departments) are run by cardinals and archbishops of widely differing degrees of loyalty and mental alertness?
In an interview he gave in the 1980s, Cardinal Ratzinger said that he had come to appreciate the laid-back Italian way of doing things, since it meant that the Vatican didn't rush into bad decisions. I wonder if he still thinks that, surveying the wreckage of European Catholicism. No wonder no one goes to church on the continent, for what they encounter is barely recognisable as Catholic. Even the philistine horrors of the Archdiocese of Liverpool cannot begin to compare with the liturgical desert of many French, German, Austrian and Italian dioceses, long since captured by the exhausted aesthetic and pastoral practices of 1960s liberal Protestantism. And who let this happen? The old men in the Vatican.
I wrote last week that, as a result of recent scandals, the Pope finally has a chance to clear out some of the cardinals who are too compromised by laziness, corruption and bad taste to initiate the Benedictine reform. Since then, I've spoken to a friend of Benedict XVI who feels that he lacks the will to effect the necessary changes. Also, it wasn't exactly encouraging to see the Pope fall asleep during Mass in Malta; he is not ill or confused, but he is 83 and (though the world has been slow to pick up on this) of a naturally gentle disposition.
I was in St Peter's Square five years ago. It was hilarious to witness the rage of the Tabletistas (though, to my everlasting regret, I missed Bobbie's blubbing). But it was hard to know what to expect of a papacy led by "God's Rottweiler", as we still thought of him. Not yet having read his amazing books, I didn't anticipate the intensity of Ratzinger's vision of renovation. Still less did I guess that his reforms might founder because he is simply too nice.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100035325/benedict-xvi-after-five-years-time-is-running-out-for-a-great-reforming-pope/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100035325/benedict-xvi-after-five-years-time-is-running-out-for-a-great-reforming-pope/)
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 06:21:01 PM
Benedict XVI after five years: time is running out for a great reforming Pope
Today is the fifth anniversary of the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, and there is chance – just a chance – that it also marks the beginning of the end of the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Yesterday, the Pope was reduced to tears when he met victims of predatory priests in Malta. His horror at these crimes is not in doubt. And now, at last, sections of the secular media are grudgingly acknowledging that those journalists who tried to paint the former Cardinal Ratzinger as the protector of paedophiles made a serious error of judgment.
Still, the Vatican could have done much more to stop the frenzied misdirection of public outrage towards the Holy Father. That it failed to do so tells us something depressing: that Benedict XVI, the cleverest pope for centuries, an important thinker in his own right and the author of wonderful teaching documents, may lack the administrative skills and support that he needs to push through desperately needed reforms.
How to sum up the particular vision of Benedict? In an article for Catholic World Report, the Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland quotes a line from the 1963 Hollywood film, The Cardinal: "The Church ... thinks in centuries, not decades." Fr Ratzinger is reported to have been a consultant for the film; he would certainly endorse that particular line. As Dr Rowland argues, Benedict wishes above all to lay the groundwork for healing the schisms that have torn limbs from Catholic Christianity, by purifying the worship of the Church in a way that enables Christians who are Catholics at heart to return into communion with Peter.
He understands – as no Pope before him has done – that conservative Anglo-Catholics are not Protestants, but aspiring Catholics for whom the scandalously bad worship of the post-Vatican II Church is a spiritual, not just an aesthetic, obstacle to reunion. Hence the Ordinariate provision, a structure for ex-Anglicans that will be set up soon but will take years to reach maturity (if it is not sabotaged). Hence also the removal of virtually all restrictions on the celebration of the classical form of the Roman Rite – to my mind, the boldest and finest single achievement of Benedict's pontificate to date.
Correctly orientated worship, believes Pope Benedict, is a sine qua non for the operation of the redeeming love of Christ in the world. That is why his request that priests should say Mass facing a crucifix on the altar is so important to him; he would prefer that the celebrant faced eastwards, in the same direction as the congregation, but at least the central crucifix helps ensure that the consecration is not directed at the people, which would make it more like a Protestant shared meal than a sacrifice.
But Catholics should ask themselves: when did they last visit an ordinary parish church and see a priest observing the Pope's wishes? Just as the correct orientation of the altar matters enormously to Benedict XVI, so the disregard of this reform tells us a lot about the fundamental disconnection between the Pontiff and his priests.
This disconnection is made possible by the immense power of the bishop and the diocese in the Church – a power that also made possible the sheltering of so many clerical sex abusers not just from the police but also from the Vatican. Much of this power is derived from Scripture: the diocese has been the fundamental unit of the Church since its institution. A crucial problem is that the Vatican – a tiny organisation, really, about the size of a middle-sized American corporation – has neglected its historic role of aligning Catholic bishops with their Pontiff. Benedict XVI wants to reform the Church; but how can he do so when the dicasteries (major departments) are run by cardinals and archbishops of widely differing degrees of loyalty and mental alertness?
In an interview he gave in the 1980s, Cardinal Ratzinger said that he had come to appreciate the laid-back Italian way of doing things, since it meant that the Vatican didn't rush into bad decisions. I wonder if he still thinks that, surveying the wreckage of European Catholicism. No wonder no one goes to church on the continent, for what they encounter is barely recognisable as Catholic. Even the philistine horrors of the Archdiocese of Liverpool cannot begin to compare with the liturgical desert of many French, German, Austrian and Italian dioceses, long since captured by the exhausted aesthetic and pastoral practices of 1960s liberal Protestantism. And who let this happen? The old men in the Vatican.
I wrote last week that, as a result of recent scandals, the Pope finally has a chance to clear out some of the cardinals who are too compromised by laziness, corruption and bad taste to initiate the Benedictine reform. Since then, I've spoken to a friend of Benedict XVI who feels that he lacks the will to effect the necessary changes. Also, it wasn't exactly encouraging to see the Pope fall asleep during Mass in Malta; he is not ill or confused, but he is 83 and (though the world has been slow to pick up on this) of a naturally gentle disposition.
I was in St Peter's Square five years ago. It was hilarious to witness the rage of the Tabletistas (though, to my everlasting regret, I missed Bobbie's blubbing). But it was hard to know what to expect of a papacy led by "God's Rottweiler", as we still thought of him. Not yet having read his amazing books, I didn't anticipate the intensity of Ratzinger's vision of renovation. Still less did I guess that his reforms might founder because he is simply too nice.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100035325/benedict-xvi-after-five-years-time-is-running-out-for-a-great-reforming-pope/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100035325/benedict-xvi-after-five-years-time-is-running-out-for-a-great-reforming-pope/)
Damian Thompson is a conservative British journalist, author and blogger. He is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group, for whom he blogs about religion, politics and classical music. He is also a regular leader writer for The Daily Telegraph and
editor in chief of the Catholic Herald.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Thompson
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 07:03:55 PM
Damian Thompson is a conservative British journalist, author and blogger. He is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group, for whom he blogs about religion, politics and classical music. He is also a regular leader writer for The Daily Telegraph and editor in chief of the Catholic Herald.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Thompson
And?
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.
Does your link tell us that he is the editor of the Catholic Herald?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:22:14 PM
Does your link tell us that he is the editor of the Catholic Herald?
Well if you read the piece it's a bit f**king obvious he's not going to be editor of the Protestant Post.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.
What should I have learned from that far from impartial link Ulick in regards to this topic?
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:45:57 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:22:14 PM
Does your link tell us that he is the editor of the Catholic Herald?
Well if you read the piece it's a bit f**king obvious he's not going to be editor of the Protestant Post.
Exactly Ulick now we are getting somewhere. The guy is obviously a biased reporter, you've as much as admitted it. You have no love for the catholic church yet you continue to paste stories with a bias to the catholic church. Half the time you don't paste the link but this time you did because it was from the telegraph. All I did was inform people that it was another catholic newspaper you were effectively pasting. Now you are getting touchy :'(
For a lad with no love for the catholic church you read a hell of a lot of their papers!
Quote from: theskull1 on April 19, 2010, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.
What should I have learned from that far from impartial link Ulick in regards to this topic?
Who said it was impartial? If you read it you will see it's very partial. The clue is in my post that you quoted.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:57:27 PM
Exactly Ulick now we are getting somewhere. The guy is obviously a biased reporter, you've as much as admitted it. You have no love for the catholic church yet you continue to paste stories with a bias to the catholic church. Half the time you don't paste the link but this time you did because it was from the telegraph. All I did was inform people that it was another catholic newspaper you were effectively pasting. Now you are getting touchy :'(
For a lad with no love for the catholic church you read a hell of a lot of their papers!
What do you mean a "biased reporter" - it's a blog, an opinion piece. That is evident from the link I posted, if not blindingly obvious from the piece itself.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:57:43 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 19, 2010, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.
What should I have learned from that far from impartial link Ulick in regards to this topic?
Who said it was impartial? If you read it you will see it's very partial. The clue is in my post that you quoted.
I never said you did. I was commenting on my own view of the piece. Now I'm just confused what this opinion piece brings to this discussion?
Quote from: theskull1 on April 19, 2010, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:57:43 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 19, 2010, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 19, 2010, 10:00:33 PM
Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.
Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.
What should I have learned from that far from impartial link Ulick in regards to this topic?
Who said it was impartial? If you read it you will see it's very partial. The clue is in my post that you quoted.
I never said you did. I was commenting on my own view of the piece. Now I'm just confused what this opinion piece brings to this discussion?
Sorry skull that's the second time I've replied to you without reading your post fully. My apologies - too busy trying to watch telly as well.
I posted it because I thought it was an interesting viewpoint which illustrates perfectly that there are lots of different blocs within the Church, each with competing viewpoints and criticisms of how things were handled. This contrasts with most of the contributors to these thread who seem to believe that the Church is some sort of monolithic entity where everyone knew what was going on, everyone is implicated and everyone is to blame. Now I'm not saying that is not the case, but the evidence is not there to substantiate it. Similarly there is no evidence there to implicate the current Pope but plenty to suggest that he has done more than anyone else before him to deal with the problem. That doesn't prove he is completely without blame or hasn't colluded in a cover-up but at the very least it earns him the presumption of innocence in my book.
It also illustrates the point I made on this thread or the other one that there is a lot of opposition to the Pope within the Church and this is why I think most of the bishops would be quite happy to get rid of him and why they'd be happy for him to take the fall for the abuse.
Quote from: Ulick on April 19, 2010, 11:24:49 PM
Sorry skull that's the second time I've replied to you without reading your post fully. My apologies - too busy trying to watch telly as well.
I posted it because I thought it was an interesting viewpoint which illustrates perfectly that there are lots of different blocs within the Church, each with competing viewpoints and criticisms of how things were handled. This contrasts with most of the contributors to these thread who seem to believe that the Church is some sort of monolithic entity where everyone knew what was going on, everyone is implicated and everyone is to blame. Now I'm not saying that is not the case, but the evidence is not there to substantiate it. Similarly there is no evidence there to implicate the current Pope but plenty to suggest that he has done more than anyone else before him to deal with the problem. That doesn't prove he is completely without blame or hasn't colluded in a cover-up but at the very least it earns him the presumption of innocence in my book.
It also illustrates the point I made on this thread or the other one that there is a lot of opposition to the Pope within the Church and this is why I think most of the bishops would be quite happy to get rid of him and why they'd be happy for him to take the fall for the abuse.
It illustrates to me that yer man is a hard core catholic who wants a stricter regime to lay down the law on lazy ministries. It is totally unrelated to the child abuse scandal.
You are not properly representing the opinions people have made on this thread and others. People have described the catholic church as a hierarchical rather than a monolithic structure. People have not said catagorically that "everyone" is implicated or to "blame" but they have said that from an institutional point of view that the numbers concerned makes the institution corrupt (when you add up those who perpetrated, those who covered up and those who knew but remained silent). There is also some evidence that has implicated the popes role in the cover up so why suggest otherwise. And the fact that he may have (your opinion) done more than anyone else before him to deal with the problem would only suggest that the media, the law and society are only now not prepared to stomach the way the church is dealing with this issue any longer and only through persistent pressure have the church been lurching forward on the issue. I am at a loss why, for the reasons outlined above, you reckon we should presume he is innocent (i.e not perpetrator, not one of those who covered up and not one who knew but remained silent) when he has had such a long life at the upper echelons of the orginisation?
Quote from: theskull1 on April 20, 2010, 12:53:51 PM
It illustrates to me that yer man is a hard core catholic who wants a stricter regime to lay down the law on lazy ministries. It is totally unrelated to the child abuse scandal.
You are not properly representing the opinions people have made on this thread and others. People have described the catholic church as a hierarchical rather than a monolithic structure. People have not said catagorically that "everyone" is implicated or to "blame" but they have said that from an institutional point of view that the numbers concerned makes the institution corrupt (when you add up those who perpetrated, those who covered up and those who knew but remained silent). There is also some evidence that has implicated the popes role in the cover up so why suggest otherwise. And the fact that he may have (your opinion) done more than anyone else before him to deal with the problem would only suggest that the media, the law and society are only now not prepared to stomach the way the church is dealing with this issue any longer and only through persistent pressure have the church been lurching forward on the issue. I am at a loss why, for the reasons outlined above, you reckon we should presume he is innocent (i.e not perpetrator, not one of those who covered up and not one who knew but remained silent) when he has had such a long life at the upper echelons of the orginisation?
1. he is a liturgical conservative at odds with the vast majority of priests, bishops and cardinals who make up the current Church 'personnel' and one who is probably more in line with the Popes thinking than any of those other priests, bishops and cardinals. It illustrates how the Pope is out on his own within the Church due to his reforms and for this reason much of the current hierarchy are happy enough to see him scapegoated.
2. there is no evidence, that has stood up to scrutiny, to implicate the Pope in any cover-up and an unbiased examination of this thread shows that. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the current Pope took steps to deal with the problem when it came under his remit in Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Now we have the Pythonesque silly approach of 'the cocoon argument' to deny that the Vatican even knew of the sex abuse cover up, never mind participate. I suppose there is some irony there.
It has a kid like innocence about it, hands firmly on ears, screaming ' they didn't know', 'they didn't know'.
When my dog performs some thing like swipe half an avocado from the kitchen. I come to her and see the skin nearby her den, she looks the other way as if to say 'not me master', 'it wasn't me', 'can you prove it was me?'
By 2001 the sex abuse storm had blown up to such a proportion that not even the Vatican could avoid the issue.
It was not until 2003 that the first evidence emerges that Ratzinger acted with appropriate conviction, when Marcial Degollado the founder of the Legion of Christ, held in high esteem by Pope JP2, to a monastery. Marcial had sexually abused minor seminarians.
We have already met the unique phenomena called the 'flexible defense' with its peculiar contradictions used by defenders of the Vatican.
Excuse of 'only following orders' alternating with 'they didn't follow orders' alternating with 'the deputy acted alone'.
I'd admit the 'cocoon theory' has some merit but one has to examine how the Vatican acted when the cocoon was pierced and when the bishops informed (with complete documentation) the Vatican directly, the CDF and Ratszinger himself of serious abuse cases.
So far there is no higher case than the appointment of Groer to Cardinal in Austria by Pope John Paul in 1995.
Here we have a man appointed to Cardinal, whose rampant well known sexual abuse proficiency reached some 2,000 cases, where the Bishops united along with millions of people signed a petition to get him sacked, the Pope stuck by him to the end calling the attack on Groer's good character a violation of "ecclesiastical dignity" and part of a broader "strategy" of "suspicion and criticism." designed to attack the church.
Truly an utter idiotic statement which insults the abused and all rationality.
The Pope/ Ratzinger and the Vatican were living in a cocoon of ignorance and denial which amounts to cover up. When required to act they did so with a Canon Law snail speed sluggishness. But it was through one aspect of Canon Law advocacy the Vatican excelled, Canon Law was used with lightening speed when a sex abused victim needed to be silenced and the abuser moved on. The oil on that machine was slick.
The NY Times and the facts of the Kiesle case
Posted by : John Coverdale | 21 Apr 2010
http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/7084/ (http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/7084/)
Law professor John Coverdale wrote this letter to the New York Times. It has not been published.
"Like many other people, I have felt in recent weeks that some news outlets have unfairly targeted Pope Benedict XVI in connection with sexual abuse by priests.
In part this is a question of emphasis, with daily coverage of what may or may not have been minor mistakes in judgment decades ago and almost no attention to the major efforts Pope Benedict has made to remedy what is undeniably a horrible situation.
With some frequency, however, I have observed what strikes me as deliberate distortion of the facts in order to put Pope Benedict in a bad light. I would like to call your attention to what seems to me a clear example of this sort of partisan journalism: Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo's article "Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest" published on the front page of the New York Times on April 10, 2010. The story is so wrong that it is hard to believe it is not animated by the anti-Catholic animus that the New York Times and other media outlets deny harboring.
Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by "suspending" them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as "defrocking." (According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary to "defrock" is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office. )
A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. If granted, this petition to be "laicized" would leave the former priest free to marry. Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended..
The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization not his "defrocking" as the article incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.
My complaint here is not that the article misuses the word "defrock" but rather that by so doing it strongly suggests to readers that Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the priest's removal from the ministry. Delaying laicization had nothing to do with allowing him to continue exercising the ministry, from which he had already been suspended.
Not only does the article fail to make these distinctions, it positively misstate the facts. Its title is "Pope Put off Move to Punish Abusive Priest." [italics added] It describes Cardinal Ratzinger's decision as involving whether the abusive priest "should be forced from the priesthood" [italics added]. Even a moderately careful journalist would have to notice that all of this is incompatible with the fact (reported in the second paragraph of the article) that the priest himself had asked for what Cardinal Ratziner delayed.
Had the facts been reported accurately, the article would have said that the priest was promptly punished by being removed from the ministry for his crimes, but that when he asked to be reduced to the lay state, which would have given him the right to marry within the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger delayed granting the petition. That, of course, would hardly have merited front page treatment, much less a headline accusing the Pope of "Putt[ing] off Move to Punish Abusive Priest."
The second half of the article reports that the priest later worked as a volunteer in the youth ministry of his former parish. This is obviously regrettable and should not have happened, but he was not acting as a priest (youth ministers are laymen, not priests).
A careful reader who was not misled by the inaccuracies in the first part of the article would, of course, realize that his volunteering as a youth minister had no factual or legal connection with Cardinal Ratzinger's delaying the grant of laicization. The article does not say in so many words that it did, but an average reader might well conclude that there was some connection when he is told that "while the bishop was pressing Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock Mr. Kiesle, the priest began volunteering in the youth ministry of one of his former parishes."
Any one of these errors might be due to carelessness, but their cumulative effect, coupled with the decision to make this front page news accompanied by a two column photo of Cardinal Raztinger's signature, strongly suggests to me that something worse than carelessness is involved. I urge you to look into whether some major news outlets have indeed been engaged in a campaign to vilify the Pope and into whether their desire to do so has caused them to slip below minimum standards of professional journalism"
John Coverdale is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law
John Coverdale, Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law
The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization not his "defrocking" as the article incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.
The eminent law professor should know better
Actually in context, a restriction on duty is not understood as being a defrocking. The Priest is still in ministry.
Defrocking is understood as removing the right to act as a priest with the obligations of the ministry.
The article clearly stated
'Mike Brown, a spokesman for the Oakland Diocese, said that after Mr. Kiesle was convicted, the diocese withdrew permission for him to work as a minister'
The issue of import brought up in the article was
'focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops'
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?pagewanted=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?pagewanted=1)
Many of you will be pleased to read that the Vatican has issued a guideline earlier this month as part of its policy.
It actually copies much of what the US bishops had already posted some 8 years ago.
The guideline of interest,
"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed,"
This guideline did not appear in a draft released by the Vatican a few days previous. It appears to have been a late add on.
It is the first time the Vatican have stated this guideline.
Previously they had not instructed that civil should be followed, nor had they said that civil law should not be followed.
In 2001 the CDF/Ratzinger required bishops to refer all clerical sex abuse cases to the CDF, which then determined how to proceed. He had also instructed that all information obtained in a Canon law investigation be kept strictly secret.
It's great to see how the Vatican has learned the lessons of the past !
Bid to block Pope testimony move
The Vatican is asking a US federal judge to reject an attempt to question Pope Benedict
Friday June 25 2010
The Vatican is asking a US federal judge to reject an attempt to question Pope Benedict XVI under oath in a Kentucky sex abuse lawsuit.
Lawyers for the Roman Catholic Church say there has been no evidence of a link to church officials in Rome.
The arguments were filed in US District Court in Louisville. They also say that forcing Benedict to give a deposition would violate international law.
The Kentucky lawsuit accuses the Vatican of orchestrating a cover-up of priests sexually abusing children throughout the US
Louisville lawyer William McMurry has asked to depose Benedict and other Vatican officials.
Mr McMurry has also asked that the Vatican turn over administrative documents and respond to questions related to the abuse scandal in the US.
Press Association
Quote from: orangeman on June 25, 2010, 09:16:16 AM
It's great to see how the Vatican has learned the lessons of the past !
Bid to block Pope testimony move
The Vatican is asking a US federal judge to reject an attempt to question Pope Benedict
Friday June 25 2010
The Vatican is asking a US federal judge to reject an attempt to question Pope Benedict XVI under oath in a Kentucky sex abuse lawsuit.
Lawyers for the Roman Catholic Church say there has been no evidence of a link to church officials in Rome.
The arguments were filed in US District Court in Louisville. They also say that forcing Benedict to give a deposition would violate international law.
The Kentucky lawsuit accuses the Vatican of orchestrating a cover-up of priests sexually abusing children throughout the US
Louisville lawyer William McMurry has asked to depose Benedict and other Vatican officials.
Mr McMurry has also asked that the Vatican turn over administrative documents and respond to questions related to the abuse scandal in the US.
Press Association
Did George W Bush & Donald Rumsfeld not do something similar?
Not condoning it btw.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10417102.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10417102.stm)
Vatican 'indignant' over Belgium police raids
Page last updated at 16:06 GMT, Friday, 25 June 2010 17:06 UK
Prosecutors said the raids were over alleged clerical abuse of minors
The Vatican has expressed shock at raids, including the "violation" of a cathedral crypt, by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse.
As well as searching a couple of main Church offices and a cardinal's home, police had drilled holes in two archbishops' tombs, said the Church.
Prosecutors said the raids were over alleged "abuse of minors committed by a certain number of Church figures".
Belgium is one of many countries where the Church has been hit by sex scandal.
In April, the Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, resigned after admitting he had sexually abused a boy more than 20 years ago.
'Da Vinci Code'
The Vatican has summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to voice anger over Thursday's raids.
Police in Leuven seized nearly 500 files and a computer from the offices of a Church commission investigating allegations of sex abuse.
They also searched the Church's headquarters, the Brussels archdiocese in Mechelen, north of the Belgian capital.
Bishops holding a meeting there were barred from leaving the premises for several hours and had their mobile phones confiscated, said Church officials.
Investigators made holes in the tombs of two former Belgian primates at Mechelen cathedral, and sent down cameras in search of hidden documents, without success, said a Church spokesman.
In a statement, the Vatican expressed "shock over how the searches were carried out by Belgian judicial authorities and indignation over the violation of the graves of the Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Leon-Joseph Suenens," reports AFP news agency.
The raids had been the stuff of "crime novels and The Da Vinci Code", said the Church's leader in Belgium, Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard.
"We are surprised it went as far as drilling into tombs in the cathedral," he told a news conference in Brussels on Friday.
A spokesman for the Belgian prosecutor in the Belgian capital told news agency Reuters that investigators partially opened one tomb in the cathedral after someone mentioned work had recently been carried out on the grave.
Officers also raided the nearby home of the recently retired Archbishop of Belgium, Cardinal Godfried Danneels.
He was not interrogated but a personal computer and some paperwork was confiscated.
The Vatican said the raids had led to the "violation of confidentiality of precisely those victims for whom the raids were carried out".
The Catholic Church in Belgium has apologised for its silence on abuse cases in the past and Archbishop Leonard has promised a policy of zero tolerance.
the vatican is a joke... sadly a very sick one.
Maybe the Belgians have learned to have zero tolerance for sick child abusing scumbags (given previous horrific mistakes), unlike in this country. As for the vatican, tough shit lads I look forward to the day that the Pope gets called to a court of law to answer for his inaction.
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
Indeed, some people have their head so far up there holes they can't see in front of them.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
i made a dig at dixie because hes over the top (as ever) and i just applied his own logic to another situtation. that line of yours is a dig at a whole county and if you have any decency youll delete it pronto. it says a lot about you btw
Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 25, 2010, 10:08:12 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
Indeed, some people have their head so far up there holes they can't see in front of them.
Not sure if you are having a did at me or the Kerry fellow :o
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
i made a dig at dixie because hes over the top (as ever) and i just applied his own logic to another situtation. that line of yours is a dig at a whole county and if you have any decency youll delete it pronto. it says a lot about you btw
Your dig came across as a go at his condemnation of the Catholic Church's record on child abuse which says a lot about you too.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
i made a dig at dixie because hes over the top (as ever) and i just applied his own logic to another situtation. that line of yours is a dig at a whole county and if you have any decency youll delete it pronto. it says a lot about you btw
Your dig came across as a go at his condemnation of the Catholic Church's record on child abuse which says a lot about you too.
your obviously confused it was clearly highlighted in
bold. or maybe your just thick - myles is also clearly backing you up.
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 10:56:24 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 10:11:30 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 25, 2010, 10:02:08 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
100% Dixie... sure don't mind him, in Kerry they queue up to shake hands with with convicted rapists
i made a dig at dixie because hes over the top (as ever) and i just applied his own logic to another situtation. that line of yours is a dig at a whole county and if you have any decency youll delete it pronto. it says a lot about you btw
Your dig came across as a go at his condemnation of the Catholic Church's record on child abuse which says a lot about you too.
your obviously confused it was clearly highlighted in bold. or maybe your just thick - myles is also clearly backing you up.
Tell you the truth I'm not the brightest. So you agree with the rest of Dixie then that the church and its hierarchy in its present form is 'revolting'... good stuff.
Here we go again ! Cloud cuckoo land.
Vatican says Belgium raids 'worse than Communist era'
The Vatican has stepped up its criticism of raids by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse, calling the detention of priests "serious and unbelievable".
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, said "there are no precedents, not even under the old communist regimes".
He claimed the priests were held for nine hours without eating or drinking.
Several buildings of the Belgium Church were searched on Thursday.
Bishops holding a meeting there were barred from leaving the premises for several hours.
"It was sequestration, a serious and unbelievable act," said Cardinal Bertone.
'Astonishment'
Police in Leuven seized nearly 500 files and a computer from the offices of a Church commission investigating allegations of sex abuse.
They also searched the Church's headquarters, the Brussels archdiocese in Mechelen, north of the Belgian capital.
Prosecutors have said the raids were over alleged "abuse of minors committed by a certain number of Church figures".
On Friday, the Vatican voiced "astonishment" at how the raids have been carried out, saying police had drilled holes in two archbishops' tombs.
The Vatican said the raids had led to the "violation of confidentiality of precisely those victims for whom the raids were carried out".
The Vatican has summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to voice their anger at the incident.
The Catholic Church in Belgium has apologised for its silence on abuse cases in the past.
The Vatican has summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to voice their anger at the incident. (//http://)
The Vatican just doesn't get it. Pedophile acts are crimes. Perpetrators deserve to be treated as criminals. Those actively and deliberately protecting pedophiles are not much better.
Our department of Foreign Affairs belatedly expelled an Israeli diplomat for forging an Irish passport. I agree with this action, but if that act is justified what about an organisation that refuses to hand over information on the sexual abuse of our children? We should expel all Vatican officials until they completely co-operate with our authorities.
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
Magickingdom, how is it a load of sh1t? Do you know any victims of church abuse, or do you just blindly support the church and put up with the cover up?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10427935.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10427935.stm)
Pope deplores 'sex abuse' raids by Belgian police
The Pope delivered a message of support for the Archbishop of Brussels
Pope Benedict has joined mounting Vatican criticism of raids by Belgian police investigating alleged child sex abuse, calling them "deplorable".
In a message to Belgian bishops, the pope expressed his solidarity "in this moment of sadness".
Several buildings were searched in raids targeting a retired archbishop and the graves of two prelates.
Prosecutors said the action concerned alleged "abuse of minors committed by a certain number of Church figures".
Police in Leuven, central Belgium, on Thursday seized nearly 500 files and a computer from the offices of a Church commission investigating allegations of sex abuse.
They also searched the Church's headquarters and the Brussels archdiocese in Mechelen, north of the Belgian capital.
Belgium's bishops, who were holding a meeting at the time of the raids, were kept incommunicado for nine hours while the searches were conducted.
'Unprecedented treatment'
Pope Benedict's criticism of the raids came in a message of support to Brussels Archbishop
An inquiry into church sex abuse in Belgium has been running for years
Andre Joseph Leonard, the head of the Belgian bishops' conference.
"I want to express, dear brother in the Episcopate, as well as to all the Bishops of Belgium, my closeness and solidarity in this moment of sadness, in which, with certain surprising and deplorable methods, searches were carried out."
"I hope that justice will follow its course while guaranteeing the rights of individuals and institutions, respecting the rights of victims, (and) acknowledging those who undertake to collaborate with it," Pope Benedict said.
On Saturday Vatican officials compared the raids and investigation into allegations of child sex abuse with the treatment of the Church under communist rule.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, described the detention of priests "serious and unbelievable".
"There are no precedents, not even under the old communist regimes," he said.
The Vatican has summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to voice its anger at the incident.
The Catholic Church in Belgium has apologised for its silence on abuse cases in the past.
The church was rocked in April when the bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, resigned and admitted to sexual abuse before and after becoming a bishop.
Benny is fierce quick to condem the raids.
Pity he isn't as quick to condem the cover up he and his chums have been involved in for decades.
Quote from: give her dixie on June 27, 2010, 03:25:37 PM
Benny is fierce quick to condem the raids.
Pity he isn't as quick to condem the cover up he and his chums have been involved in for decades.
The question is what exactly is he condemning?
Is it only the heavy-handed nature of the action? If this was the problem they should qualify their criticism by stating their support for the investigation and prosecution of pedophiles. By not qualifying the criticism it leaves them open to the obvious hypothesis that they think that they are above the law and above any scrutiny no matter how heinous the crime. I have always thought Ratzinger believes this and his comments today reinforce that.
I suspect he will turn out to be the worst Pope since the Reformation.
So much for the pope repecting the laws of the lands his church operate in. Belgium was once hit with an horrendous paedophille ring, when I was a young lad the "joke" doing the rounds was about Belgians being Paedophilles etc. Now it is no wonder they are not going to allow anything like that happen too easily again. Fair play to them. No person, organisation or religious group is above the law. Its about time the pope realised his position in the order of things and stop being such a hypocrite.
Quote from: give her dixie on June 27, 2010, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
Magickingdom, how is it a load of sh1t? Do you know any victims of church abuse, or do you just blindly support the church and put up with the cover up?
its the general sweeping tone of your posts that i find full of shit to be honest. i dont personally know any victims of abuse but this doesn't stop me from forming the opinion that the abusers should be hunted down and locked up or preferrably shot (i couldn't care if they were lynched tbh). yet the 85 year old neighbour of mine that trots off to mass each day is in your book supporting the clergy and is on the side of the abusers. well shes not actually she a decent old lady - as are most mass goers who has been horrified beyond words by the abuse. like i said your just full of shit and that goes for the way you addressed the question to me - do you just blindly support the church and put up with the cover up - without knowing a thing about my views.
Quote from: magickingdom on June 27, 2010, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on June 27, 2010, 03:14:00 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on June 25, 2010, 09:55:25 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on March 26, 2010, 12:28:26 PM
The sight of the disgraced Irish Bishops meeting the Pope in Rome a few weeks ago was sickening.
Watching them curtsey in front of him, and then proceed to kiss his ring like he was some form of royalty was revolting.
Watching this, i'm sure the victims felt like they had support at the highest level.
I'm sure the meeting went into much detail about how they could cover up some more. Share a few idea's and secrets on the art of cover up.
I have a very good friend who was abused by a priest, and knowing about the cover up involved in their case is one very very sad affair. The church is rotten to the core from the top down. Until there are changes from the top down, then the church will continue in free fall.
If any of the loyal supporters of the church on here knew a victim personally, then you would soon change your tune. By supoporting the church and clergy in it's current form, you are on the side of the abusers.
and if you knew a victim of hamas...... what a load of sh1t bla bla bla
Magickingdom, how is it a load of sh1t? Do you know any victims of church abuse, or do you just blindly support the church and put up with the cover up?
its the general sweeping tone of your posts that i find full of shit to be honest. i dont personally know any victims of abuse but this doesn't stop me from forming the opinion that the abusers should be hunted down and locked up or preferrably shot (i couldn't care if they were lynched tbh). yet the 85 year old neighbour of mine that trots off to mass each day is in your book supporting the clergy and is on the side of the abusers. well shes not actually she a decent old lady - as are most mass goers who has been horrified beyond words by the abuse. like i said your just full of shit and that goes for the way you addressed the question to me - do you just blindly support the church and put up with the cover up - without knowing a thing about my views.
Since it took you exactly 3 months to comment on this topic, how was I or anyone else supposed to know your views? Instead of responding the topic, you took an opportunity to involve Hamas? Why? As for the 85 year old neighbour, well, there are plenty of those around. A fine example of thos are the people in Donegal who refused to rely on a court decision and a priests testemony on child abuse. Instead, they closed their ears and eyes and every month sent money to the priest. Or the priest in Kerry who stood in line to shake hands with a convicted rapist. Or the old dears who lined up to support Brady in Armagh, despite the majority who want him to resign, following his own admission in covering up abuse by Brendann Smith.
As I have said before, if you knew someone who was abused by the church, then you wouldn't have waited 3 months to reply.
US Supreme Court deals pedophilia blow for Vatican
(AFP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court declined Monday to hear an appeal by the Vatican in a landmark case that opens the way for priests in the United States to stand trial for pedophilia.
Allowing a federal appeals court ruling to stand, the decision means Vatican officials including theoretically Pope Benedict XVI could face questioning under oath related to a litany of child sex abuse cases.
The Supreme Court effectively confirmed the decision of an appellate court to lift the Vatican's immunity in the case of an alleged pedophile priest in the northwestern state of Oregon.
The Oregon case, which was filed in 2002, does not directly address questions raised in a separate lawsuit in Kentucky alleging that US bishops are employees of the Holy See.
In recent months, large-scale pedophilia scandals have rocked the Roman Catholic Church in a number of countries, including Austria, Belgium, Ireland, Pope Benedict XVI's native Germany and the United States.
Senior clerics have been accused of protecting the priests involved by moving them to other parishes -- where they sometimes offended again -- instead of handing them over to civil authorities for prosecution.
The pope, who has himself faced allegations he covered up the scandal, has repeatedly said priests and religious workers guilty of child abuse should answer for their crimes in courts of law
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/made-in-his-own-image-the-catholic-church-faces-another-scandal-2012093.html
Made in his own image: The Catholic Church faces another scandal
Joseph Ratzinger is having a terrible year. But as the Catholic Church faces yet another scandal, blame is falling on its most popular figure of modern times, Pope John Paul II, writes Peter Popham
Monday, 28 June 2010
There is a cruel paradox in the career of the man who, in September, will become only the second pope in history to visit Britain. When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in April 2005, he set about purifying the Catholic Church and returning it to its core values. He also pledged to get his charismatic predecessor, John Paul II, canonised as quickly as possible.
But as a new church scandal exploded last week, hard on the heels of the paedophilia storm, this one involving allegations of massive corruption at the heart of the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict's papal career risks being eclipsed by the dark shadow of John Paul's legacy.
Nobody doubts that the Pope would like the church to be a cleaner, leaner, quieter, purer institution, purged of paedophile priests and greedy careerists; he said as much again last week. But this man, who proposes himself as a new broom and wags his finger at those who take a permissive, typically Italian view of venality, has been at the heart of the church for half a lifetime. All these people are his old colleagues. If this is Sodom, he has been a citizen in good standing for 40 years.
Take the man at the centre of the latest storm, Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe. Aged 67, he was born on the outskirts of Naples and was raised speaking the gritty local dialect, incomprehensible to outsiders. Referred to by Italian newspapers as "l'impresario di Dio", "God's wheeler-dealer", today he is the much-beloved archbishop of the same city: an impressively fat, prosperous looking prelate, who likes nothing better than immersing himself in his crowds of Neapolitan fans, slapping backs and kissing babies. Neapolitans affectionately call their archbishop "O'guapo", local slang for "the boss" – the kindly mafia capo whom people go to with their problems instead of phoning the police. But although no one is accusing him of complicity with the city's fearsome Camorra mafia (Roberto Saviano, author of Gomorrah, a book about the Camorra, leapt to his defence), the crimes of which he is accused are of a type which any mafioso would understand.
Sepe, who is still very young for a cardinal, received spectacular promotions from John Paul II which climaxed when he was given the job of running the church's Jubilee celebrations in 2000. A showman after the late-Pope's heart, he threw a carnival such as Rome has not seen since the days of Nero, and was rewarded for his success with the juicy job of running a church agency called Propaganda Fide, with a Roman property portfolio said to be worth €9bn (£6bn).
Now prosecutors claim that he sold property from that portfolio to a top politician at half its market value in return for his agency receiving special favours from the government. In classic clientelismo style: you scratch the politician's back, and he scratches yours. Except that in this case the alleged perpetrator was one of the most illustrious figures in the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict, Vatican watchers say, spotted Cardinal Sepe's frailties early on, which is why, in 2006, he unceremoniously removed him from Propaganda Fide – a job that an incumbent would normally expect to hold indefinitely – and packed him off home to Naples.
The cardinal denies that version of what happened as flatly as he denies the corruption charges. Last week he said of the change in his fortunes: "The Holy Father asked me with great insistence to stay in Rome, but my heart was beating for Naples." But apropos of his legal difficulties, he also speaks darkly of enemies "who wanted to strike me, both inside and outside the church".
It is hard to think of two men of God more different than Sepe and Ratzinger: the meaty, glad-handing Mediterranean man of the people, and the ascetic, book-loving Bavarian introvert. In a church regulated according to the Pope's wishes, it's also hard to imagine a man like Sepe obtaining much preferment. But the uncomfortable fact for Benedict is that the two men have one vital thing in common: both of them were chosen and promoted by John Paul II. And it is over his ambiguous legacy that an epic battle is now being fought behind the closed doors of the Vatican.
He may be physically slight, but this Pope is no pushover. Once, when a CNN reporter pursued him with an awkward question, he slapped him on the wrist rather than answer. As John Paul II's "enforcer of the faith" for nearly 30 years, he was ruthless in purging anyone and everyone with whom he disagreed – liberal theologians, those who lobbied the cause of gays in the church, the propounders of liberation theology, and easy-going Catholics who wanted the church to get on closer terms with other faiths. Anyone who he thought was trying to muddy the pure waters of faith with modern ideas was in deep trouble.
Since becoming Pope, he has kept up the hard line, favouring the return of Latin and of priests who turn their back on the congregation during Mass, the end of guitar-strumming populism, and the fashioning of a church that might have fewer members but is purer and less contaminated by the secular world. But Pope Benedict is meeting fierce resistance from within the church, in particular from some senior churchmen like Cardinal Sepe – those most lavishly favoured by John Paul II. Skeletons are tumbling out of the cupboard.
First it was the nightmare of priestly paedophilia: early this year, lawyers acting for US victims of paedophile priests accused Benedict of having been complicit in the cover-up of the crimes, and of having shown no sympathy for the victims. Since then, the Pope has been rowing back hard. En route by air to Lisbon last month he made the announcement that indicated a radical change of tack on the paedophilia crisis. During the flight, he told reporters: "Today the greatest persecution of the church does not come from outside, but from the sin inside the church itself. The church thus has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn on the one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice."
He has subsequently reinforced the message and, for the first time, offered humble apologies to the victims. He seems to be winning the public relations battle. But if we believe him to be sincere, he now finds himself in a very difficult situation. He is, according to one Vatican expert, "surrounded by people who share his politics and his conservative theology, but who don't share his views about paedophilia". He will also have to come clean about how his own views have changed. And he has so far shown no sign of being prepared to take either of those steps.
The Pope is a sort of monarch, but his power is severely constrained by the men who were his colleagues when he was still a cardinal. Within the Curia, the church's governing body, Benedict is surrounded by old men like himself who have been together for many decades. All of them, we can assume, have plenty of dirt on all the others.
All these men share broad agreement on the big doctrinal issues facing the church. Arch-conservatives all, like John Paul II, they are united in believing that no concessions should be made to the changing times – no movement on abortion, contraception, stem cells and the other "sanctity of life" issues; nor on the stigma attached to homosexuality, the rules on celibacy or the ban on women priests. They are also united in believing that the church is under siege from the godless compulsions of modern consumer society. The church's enemies, they agree, are without.
But on the question of priestly paedophilia, several are very vulnerable. One of them, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, has been one of the most powerful men in the church for decades. From 1990 to 2006, this fleshy son of a Piedmontese politician was Pope John Paul II's secretary of state, the most important post in the Vatican below the pontiff. Relieved of that job by Benedict he is now, aged 82, dean of the College of Cardinals and still has great power. But he has been tainted by the current scandal. Particularly problematic are his relations with a veritable monster of the modern church, the late Mexican prelate, Marcial Maciel.
Maciel was the founder of a highly conservative order called the Legion of Christ, but it has gradually emerged over the years – particularly since his death in 2008 – that he was much else besides: a morphine addict for decades who sexually abused his own seminarians, fathered several children by two mistresses, and then went on to abuse and rape those children.
Yet Maciel was greatly favoured by John Paul II, remaining persona grata at the Vatican until nearly the end of his life, and Sodano, like other senior members of the Curia (though not Ratzinger) received large cash gifts from him. Sodano repaid Maciel generously by killing a Vatican investigation into his misdeeds in 1998.
Another close ally of Benedict, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the man who replaced Sodano as secretary of state and is much mocked in Vatican circles for his alleged lack of brain- power, has also been badly tarnished by his friendship with Maciel. In 2004, when he was Archbishop of Genoa, he wrote a preface to a book-length interview with Maciel entitled "My Life is Christ", in which he praised "the frankness of one who lives his mission ... with his sights and his heart fixed on Christ Jesus".
Benedict is not tainted in the same way. But although he obtained Maciel's removal from the Legion of Christ in 2006, critics accuse him of featherbedding this dreadful man right to the end. Jason Berry, the American Catholic journalist, who has done most to expose Maciel's crimes over the years, argues that until Benedict sacks Sodano and Bertone, the Maciel shadow will still hang heavy on him.
The problem for the current Pope is that he was there, in the inner circle, throughout the years that Maciel was John Paul II's favourite. And – according to the damaging testimony of a former cardinal – he also went along with the prevailing attitude of his fellow cardinals towards priestly paedophilia in general.
It emerged in April that Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, a Colombian who for 10 years was in charge of the Vatican department that supervises the clergy, wrote in 2001 with gushing approval to the Bishop of Bayeux, who went to jail rather than give French authorities information about a priest who had raped a minor. "I congratulate you for not turning in a priest to the civil administration," he wrote. "I am delighted to have a colleague ... who ... has preferred prison to turning in his son-priest."
The Vatican confirmed the authenticity of the letter, which had been posted on a French website. But then Castrillon Hoyos himself added a crucial detail. In a radio interview he said the letter was the outcome of a high-level meeting of cardinals at which Ratzinger had been present. "It was a meeting of cardinals," he told RCN radio. "Therefore the current Pope, who at the time was a cardinal, was present."
If the Pope wants to purge paedophilia from the church he must confront the compromised figures within the Curia and dismiss them. But whether that is politically possible is an open question. Sodano, Bertone and friends will fight like tigers to retain their privileges. There is also the question of whether Benedict has the personal, managerial talents to pull it off. When I asked one German expert on the Vatican for his assessment, he merely laughed. "No he doesn't," he said. "He's just a professor!"
When Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope five years ago, he was seen as a figure who would guarantee continuity after the 26-year reign of the Polish Pope. After all, it was John Paul II who had persuaded Ratzinger to leave his job as Archbishop of Munich and come to Rome to be his chief doctrinal advisor.
With the death of John Paul, the Catholic Church lost its greatest communicator, the man who had travelled more than any pope in history, who inspired eastern Europe's revolt against Communism and enjoyed enormous popularity even among non-Catholics. At his funeral thousands chorused, "Santo subito!" – "Make him a saint immediately!" He is not a saint yet, but he is on the fast track. And, in death, he remains a focus of devotion.
Nobody expected Cardinal Ratzinger to be able to replicate that performance, this introverted, book-loving German with his grand piano, cats and fondness for archaic vestments. But he was seen as the right man to protect Wojtyla's heritage and steer him safely towards sainthood.
Instead the chickens of John Paul's papacy are coming home to roost – the poisonous legacy of Maciel, one of whose brutalised sons spoke about his bizarre and hideous childhood for the first time last week, and all the other paedophile cases that festered during his long reign. And now the alleged venality of Cardinal Sepe has added more pollution to the air.
Both Maciel and Sepe were highly favoured by Pope John Paul II. Their worldliness resonated with the extrovert ex-actor and footballer; for him they brought vitality and energy into the church, not to mention a great deal of money. And he didn't care to look too closely at what else they brought.
Pope Benedict XVI would like the Catholic Church to be very different from the one that ballooned out of all proportion under John Paul, purer, more beautiful, more austere. But far from moulding the church in his own image, he now risks having his own heritage fatally compromised by the sins of the Holy Father. Tasked with fostering John Paul's legacy, he risks being flattened by it