4 Priests Protected by Bishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter demetrios1973
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Detroit Sue:
He was also ordained by John Cardinal Dearden .
Which has what to do with any of this?

Bishop Joseph Brunini was the consecrator of Bernard Law.

Don’t start creating conspiracies where they don’t need to be. Grind your axe somewhere else about Cardinal dearden.
 
40.png
frommi:
Which has what to do with any of this?

Bishop Joseph Brunini was the consecrator of Bernard Law.

Don’t start creating conspiracies where they don’t need to be. Grind your axe somewhere else about Cardinal dearden.
Quit being so sensitive.
 
Detroit Sue:
Quit being so sensitive.
I’m sorry…I was just a little confused as to what John Dearden, who’s been dead for almost 20 years, had do with a deposition that Joseph Imesch gave 6 months ago.
 
I think you need to be careful where you get your news. I am in this diocese and a letter was read this weekend from our Bishop to help explain. He explained things from his side. I felt very sad for him as well as for the victims in this. I am not giving excuses, yet the MSM really leaves out a lot. Be careful about ruining his name.
 
40.png
Fitz:
I think you need to be careful where you get your news. I am in this diocese and a letter was read this weekend from our Bishop to help explain. He explained things from his side. I felt very sad for him as well as for the victims in this. I am not giving excuses, yet the MSM really leaves out a lot. Be careful about ruining his name.
It seems to me that in general, depositions tend to be taken out of context very often by the media.
 
Joliet Diocese covers DuPage County, IL.

DuPage is one of the wealthiest counties (per capita) in America.

Coincidence? Or avaricious lawyers scouring the land of deep pockets looking for careless or negligent bishops?
 
These sex scandals have caused me great concern. I am FED up with the excuses. Anyone that KNEW children were being abused and DID NOT go to the Police deserves blame also. Why do we keep protecting these people? ENOUGH ALREADY.
 
Hi all,one of the reasons for the scandal is the new Pope sent letters to every bishop telling them to coverup abuse . this was done before he came Pope ,he sent two letters one in 1986 and the second in 2001 ,when the Vatican was asked about the 2001 letter they would not talk about it because it was a private letter , the second reason is simple non of the so called faithful have demaneded the the sacking of those who coveredup the abuse of children , the first recorded report of abuse of children in the Catholic church was 1048 A D yours michaelmac
 
40.png
michaelmac:
Hi all,one of the reasons for the scandal is the new Pope sent letters to every bishop telling them to coverup abuse . this was done before he came Pope ,he sent two letters one in 1986 and the second in 2001 ,when the Vatican was asked about the 2001 letter they would not talk about it because it was a private letter ,
Could you please cite your source for this information?
 
Hi singerlady i can do better than that ,i can post the letter if you want michaelmac
 
40.png
michaelmac:
Hi singerlady i can do better than that ,i can post the letter if you want michaelmac
Thanks. I would like to see it. Was it made public later, then?
 
40.png
michaelmac:
Hi singerlady i can do better than that ,i can post the letter if you want michaelmac
Yes, I would be interested in reviewing this letter. Something tells me that you can’t always believe what you read. :rolleyes:
 
RATZINGER ORDERED COVER UP

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had ‘obstructed justice’ after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II’s successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a ‘clear obstruction of justice’. The letter, ‘concerning very grave sins’, was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger. It spells out to bishops the church’s position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric ‘with a minor below the age of 18 years’.

Ratzinger’s letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’.

The letter states that the church’s jurisdiction ‘begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age’ and lasts for 10 years. It orders that ‘preliminary investigations’ into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the ‘functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,’ Ratzinger’s letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice. Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: ‘It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It’s an obstruction of justice.’ Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church’s jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church’s opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims. ‘In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,’ Bertone said.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. ‘They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can’t investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,’ Shea added. A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. ‘This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,’ she said.
 
40.png
michaelmac:
‘This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,’ she said.
But how did it become public? I’m not disputing the veracity of the document, just curious as to how it surfaced if it was confidential.
 
40.png
singerlady:
But how did it become public? I’m not disputing the veracity of the document, just curious as to how it surfaced if it was confidential.
Here is the link where I think michaelmac found his information. The article is nearly a year old and is from the UK Observer, a notoriously liberal news magazine. What Ratzinger allegedly wrote is that abuse in the confessional was to be kept secret for 10 years. I am sure if we could read the real document we would find is that there is real concern with the seal of the confessional, something that is under constant attack it seems.
 
40.png
arieh0310:
Here is the link where I think michaelmac found his information. The article is nearly a year old and is from the UK Observer, a notoriously liberal news magazine. What Ratzinger allegedly wrote is that abuse in the confessional was to be kept secret for 10 years. I am sure if we could read the real document we would find is that there is real concern with the seal of the confessional, something that is under constant attack it seems.
Like I said before in my previous post not everything you read is true. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top