C
CMatt25
Guest
and Matt 7:20
- Status
C
CMatt25
Guest
I too see the same responses (excuses?). But for instance CNN covered frequently this wk the story of mega church (ecclesial community to some) New Birth Missionary Baptist pastor Eddie Long’s gay sex scandal accusations. So I pay little credence to #1.Just as an observer, whenever something new breaks about this scandal, it seems to me that responses are one or a combination of five kinds:
For me a credible response to this crisis would be to begin holding some bishops accountable for their actions or lack of action in these matters. This would mean essentially “firing” the offending bishop from his duties in the church (defrocking, no-longer-on-the-payroll, no housing, no car allowance, not at a retreat house doing “prayer and penance” etc.). Until something like this happens, I don’t think the Catholic Church will be viewed as having seriously addressed this issue and truly standing on the side of those victimized rather than the enablers. It’s pretty shocking to me that even the offending priests are sometimes not even defrocked and continue to be supported by the church.
- The report is untrue; it’s all part of a big evil attack on the Catholic Church (essentially, “blame the media”);
- Priests are good men, or at least no worse than the general populace. (Somehow this is seen as an excuse for the abuser and his enablers?)
- Everyone else does it (other denominations, public schools, etc.). Even your mother wouldn’t have let you get by with this one…
- Offer an official apology, but focus only and intently on the priest/offender and the victim(s), never, ever, mention or apologize for those who facilitated the abuse or covered it up.
- Keep saying that things are all better now–this is all in the past.
Beyond that, $2.7 billion has been spent on this crisis. I don’t understand why Catholics aren’t more up in arms about this!
Another reason often given is sin. I suppose that can be placed under the umbrella of your reasons #2 and 3. The problem I have with us playing the sin card is most everyone who are not Apostolic successors do not cover up child sex abuse. Neither of course do all Apostolic succesors. But I do have a problem with Apostolic successors who preach the sanctity of life but then not knowing better or being unable to keep themselves from covering up child sex abuse.
But after watching the CNN report tonight (Sept 25) on what the Pope knew (re-airs tomorrow Sept 26 at 8pm ET and PT) one thing that especially troubled me was a written response stating one of the reasons Cardinal Ratzinger did not at first support the defrocking of a particular priest was “for the good of the universal Church”. That greatly disturbs me. It implies it was the concern for the image of the Church which was of utmost importance. Rather than for the victims. I think it might have been the Oakland CA case. But there were several cases discussed so I might have the particular one wrong. Another reason at the time was JP2’s policy of not defrocking a priest under age 40.
Also not rebuking or holding the bishops accountable as you said was talked about and is troubling. Take the case of Bernard Law being brought to Rome following his scandal and JP2 appointing him in charge of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore as the Archpriest. He also retains membership in several congregations and well as in the Pontifical Council for the Family. That seems odd to me. You cover up child molestation abuse and yet remain a member of a council on the family.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law
In any case what indeed is ironic as the report spoke about is that given Benedict 16 is such a hardliner in people following the Catholic Church, a result of the handling of it is that many have lost their faith and will not be following. Which is exactly what the Pope did not want to occur.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
Lot a good responses here…That bolded comment surprised me also…The Corinth church was told to “clean house” for the good of the church…And yes it does affect the “universal” church…
S
SunnaB16
Guest
The truth.
That didn`t give the little bantam rooster the right to do what he did.
Yeah…whatever you reckon…
A withdrawal? You mean a retreat!
The “withdrawal” started in October: the emperor didn
t learn about the coup until November. Dont you think that the Russians Scorched Earth Policy may have had something to do with the "withdrawal"? And the guns DID drop from the hands of the survivors (due to disease and starvation) of the massive army which invaded Russia, even if the severe cold part of it didnt strike until after they left Russian territory.Stalin asked: “How many divisions does the Pope have?”.
Let
s get something straight: The Catholic Church has been in existence for almost 2,000 years. Her enemies have been trying ever since to bring Her down. ***Theyve failed.***Don`t get the idea that the latest crop of Her enemies will have any more success. Individually, or collectively, you will not destroy Her. The Church is a Diivinely instituted organism, and cannot be destroyed. The Judases within the Church are included in that group.
The posturing of Dawkins, Hitchens et al is laughable. It`s like:
The braying of asses.
The hissing of asps.
Your sarcastic yawn makes no difference, and, sooner or later, you
re going to hit the brick wall of Reality. For your sake, i hope its in this life. Otherwise, you`re going to have an infinitely long time to contemplate your folly.Anyway, we
re off topic......Dont you reckon?
C
choose_to_love
Guest
cmatt and hiskid,
I am not sure which case you are talking about, but if it is Oakland case, I will address the issue you raise, although I am going from memory here. The reference to the good of the Church has to do with whether the Church wants to set the precedent of releasing one from one’s vows to God (I think in the context of what relation that would have to annulments/marriage vows), not whether children should be protected or not. The offending priest in the Oakland case had already been removed from active ministry and I think had already served a jail term when the laicization petition was presented to the CDF. The laicization would have not had an effect on the offender’s actions; I think that offender may have gotten “married” once he left the church too. Jimmy Akin at NCRegister had a number of thorough articles about it at the time, roughly March or April of this year. I’m sure if you google it or search the NCRegister site you can find them for more detail. Again, going from memory here without any refresher research.
I am not sure which case you are talking about, but if it is Oakland case, I will address the issue you raise, although I am going from memory here. The reference to the good of the Church has to do with whether the Church wants to set the precedent of releasing one from one’s vows to God (I think in the context of what relation that would have to annulments/marriage vows), not whether children should be protected or not. The offending priest in the Oakland case had already been removed from active ministry and I think had already served a jail term when the laicization petition was presented to the CDF. The laicization would have not had an effect on the offender’s actions; I think that offender may have gotten “married” once he left the church too. Jimmy Akin at NCRegister had a number of thorough articles about it at the time, roughly March or April of this year. I’m sure if you google it or search the NCRegister site you can find them for more detail. Again, going from memory here without any refresher research.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Again, just speaking as an outsider here…
As I recall, the defense of this case offered by Jimmy Akin (also from memory) was that the Oakland priest had already been removed from pastoral ministry, so the laicization part was not that big of a deal. But the problem–at least as I see it–is that once these priests are removed from diocesean ministry they can and have become “free agents” where they continue to pop up as priests elsewhere (and they ARE still priests) but are also simultaneously free of their former diocesean/episcopal oversight to make sure they don’t re-offend.
I too recall part of the issue being one of releasing men from their vows, particularly after the onslaught of men wanting to leave to priesthood to be married in the 70’s.
But to me, it’s pretty obvious that one the priest has already served prison time for molestation, that he should probably be laicized–and certainly shouldn’t be staying on anyone’s payroll.
S
st_julie
Guest
One thing to remember is that the CDF was responsible for Doctrine abuses.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
There are some here who aren`t concerned with the truth.
Pope bashing is the in thing.
M
markomalley
Guest
Let’s take a look at the articles:
1. With flower-petal ‘snow,’ Cardinal Law leads Mass at St. Mary Major
This has nothing to do with the premise of the thread’s title, 1963 Letter Suggests Pope Knew of Abuse.
In regard to Cardinal Law, the Massachusetts Attorney General declined to pursue an indictment against him, according to this article on bishop-accountability dot org. Law did resign from his post as Archbishop of Boston.
The response typically is, “the Church should have dealt with him.” Can you tell me, exactly, which canon he violated? I’m not trying to defend Law, who was, IMHO, negligent in his duties and very possibly guilty of some sort of conspiracy. But I’m not sure where he broke canon law. And if he didn’t break canon law, then how is the Church supposed to deal with him? Sincere question, as I don’t honestly know. If you choose to answer, please give me the number of the canon, not just a generalized charge.
So he resigned and they moved him to Saint Mary Major in Rome. Very unpopular move. But what would the alternatives be?
Think about this for a moment: Under normal circumstances, when a bishop resigns his post, he stays “in residence” as an emeritus. Should Law have stayed in Boston as an emeritus bishop? How much screaming would there have been at that? OK, so you move him from Boston to another diocese, where he goes into emeritus status. Which diocese would receive him? Who wants that albatross?
I would have liked Law to request laicization voluntarily. That, to me, would have been the best solution (for him to fall on his own sword). But he didn’t. He did, at least, resign from his post.
But what to do with him…couldn’t leave him in Boston. Couldn’t move him to another US diocese. He is a diocesan priest, so he can’t be forced to go to a monastery. So what to do?
The Solomon type solution is to make him the Archpriest of a major basilica in Rome. That way he is out of everybody’s hair. BTW, you are aware who are typically named Archpriests of the major basilicas, right? Retired Vatican diplomats and curial prefects. For example, the Archpriest of the Lateran is the predecessor to Archbishop Burke in the Signatura, the Archpriest of St Peter’s is the President of the Fabric of St. Peter (his predecessor was the President of the Pontifical Commission for Archaeology), and the Archpriest of St Paul Outside the Walls is a retired diplomat.
2. 1963 Letter Suggests Pope Knew of Abuse
Which Pope? (Answer: Paul VI). This has to do with Benedict XVI how, exactly? (Note: neither I, nor anybody I know, are trying to argue that the pederast priest issue was dealt with properly in the 60s and 70s…and, really, through the 80s and, at least, up to the early 90s. My response is: if the article is true, what does that have to do with any pope other than Paul VI?)
3. Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys
As others have stated, the Slimes has extremely biased coverage on this whole issue. But, there are some facts you can get out of this:
Bottom line: the only article above that even deals with the current situation is the last one from the Slimes. It, however, presents a one-sided story that, rather than presenting the situation as it is: neglect of leadership within the Wisconsin Church for over three decades, attempts to slime the current Pope.
I don’t blame a person reading the story or hearing the one-sided reporting for buying into it. But, as Catholics, we need to discern what is actually the truth in the matter. Doing so requires one to not only look at info from the trial lawyers, SNAP and the newspapers that they feed stories to, nor is it good to look at only what comes out from official Church sources, but also to look at it multiple angles to make sure that the stories are being fairly and accurately reported. In most cases, they aren’t.
1. With flower-petal ‘snow,’ Cardinal Law leads Mass at St. Mary Major
This has nothing to do with the premise of the thread’s title, 1963 Letter Suggests Pope Knew of Abuse.
In regard to Cardinal Law, the Massachusetts Attorney General declined to pursue an indictment against him, according to this article on bishop-accountability dot org. Law did resign from his post as Archbishop of Boston.
The response typically is, “the Church should have dealt with him.” Can you tell me, exactly, which canon he violated? I’m not trying to defend Law, who was, IMHO, negligent in his duties and very possibly guilty of some sort of conspiracy. But I’m not sure where he broke canon law. And if he didn’t break canon law, then how is the Church supposed to deal with him? Sincere question, as I don’t honestly know. If you choose to answer, please give me the number of the canon, not just a generalized charge.
So he resigned and they moved him to Saint Mary Major in Rome. Very unpopular move. But what would the alternatives be?
Think about this for a moment: Under normal circumstances, when a bishop resigns his post, he stays “in residence” as an emeritus. Should Law have stayed in Boston as an emeritus bishop? How much screaming would there have been at that? OK, so you move him from Boston to another diocese, where he goes into emeritus status. Which diocese would receive him? Who wants that albatross?
I would have liked Law to request laicization voluntarily. That, to me, would have been the best solution (for him to fall on his own sword). But he didn’t. He did, at least, resign from his post.
But what to do with him…couldn’t leave him in Boston. Couldn’t move him to another US diocese. He is a diocesan priest, so he can’t be forced to go to a monastery. So what to do?
The Solomon type solution is to make him the Archpriest of a major basilica in Rome. That way he is out of everybody’s hair. BTW, you are aware who are typically named Archpriests of the major basilicas, right? Retired Vatican diplomats and curial prefects. For example, the Archpriest of the Lateran is the predecessor to Archbishop Burke in the Signatura, the Archpriest of St Peter’s is the President of the Fabric of St. Peter (his predecessor was the President of the Pontifical Commission for Archaeology), and the Archpriest of St Paul Outside the Walls is a retired diplomat.
2. 1963 Letter Suggests Pope Knew of Abuse
Which Pope? (Answer: Paul VI). This has to do with Benedict XVI how, exactly? (Note: neither I, nor anybody I know, are trying to argue that the pederast priest issue was dealt with properly in the 60s and 70s…and, really, through the 80s and, at least, up to the early 90s. My response is: if the article is true, what does that have to do with any pope other than Paul VI?)
3. Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys
As others have stated, the Slimes has extremely biased coverage on this whole issue. But, there are some facts you can get out of this:
- The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974…He was promoted to run the school in 1963 even though students had disclosed to church officials in the 1950s that he was a predator.
- Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center.
- In 1993…Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him…it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. So let me get this straight. The local diocese knew about his predatory problem as far back as 1960, but they promoted him. Weakland knew about his problem as far back as 1993, but didn’t do anything until 1996. But somehow this is Ratzinger’s problem. The authority to deal with problems didn’t fall to Ratzinger until 2001, with the approval of the Normae de gravioribus delictis, But somehow this is Ratzinger’s problem. Got it. Check.
Bottom line: the only article above that even deals with the current situation is the last one from the Slimes. It, however, presents a one-sided story that, rather than presenting the situation as it is: neglect of leadership within the Wisconsin Church for over three decades, attempts to slime the current Pope.
I don’t blame a person reading the story or hearing the one-sided reporting for buying into it. But, as Catholics, we need to discern what is actually the truth in the matter. Doing so requires one to not only look at info from the trial lawyers, SNAP and the newspapers that they feed stories to, nor is it good to look at only what comes out from official Church sources, but also to look at it multiple angles to make sure that the stories are being fairly and accurately reported. In most cases, they aren’t.
S
SunnaB16
Guest
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
And the letter dispatched to every Bishop in Cardinal Ratzinger’s name instructed them to submit all cases involving the sexual abuse of minors to the CDF expressly pointing out that it’s jurisdiction does not end at the Crime of Solicitation.
M
markomalley
Guest
To the best of my knowledge, that direction was dated 2001. The Murphy case was supposedly from 1996.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
The Murphy case involved the Crime of Solicitation so it should have been handled by Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF at that time. Instead, Cardinal Bertone ordered that the investigation end per Murphy’s request to Cardinal Ratzinger.
S
SamH
Guest
Actually the American public school system has more REPORTED cases of abuse in a single year than ALL the “priest molestors” combined. That does not included the cases like those mentioned above that go unreported.
That being said I have never understood how the priests abuse cases were silent for so many years. If my sons were abused by anyone in that manner the case would probably be reported with multiple reports of gun fire (not a joke). Perhaps the Christopher Titus is on to something:
comedians.jokes.com/christopher-titus/videos/christopher-titus—pedophilic-priests
Yes its a joke, but no more so than the how the Church actually handled the issue in the 60s 70s and 80s.
H
Hiskid1973
Guest
It seems like a never ending cycle, scandal begets more scandal as more people feel
freer to open up…The news media feed on every shred…I just read today of some
priest’s sexual escapades going on in different countries(a lot in Africa)…Seems like a good Corinth style housecleaning is in order for all churches in this day and age…
Scandal is the fodder news places feed on…The body of Christ needs to word on being above reproach…
freer to open up…The news media feed on every shred…I just read today of some
priest’s sexual escapades going on in different countries(a lot in Africa)…Seems like a good Corinth style housecleaning is in order for all churches in this day and age…
Scandal is the fodder news places feed on…The body of Christ needs to word on being above reproach…
- Status