V
- Status
V
VitaminC
Guest
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Here’s a link to an image of the original letter golias-editions.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L284xH460/lettre2-4-3f1cf.jpg for those who want to read it for themselves.
I’m a translator of French into English, using the same definition of “translator” as Jimmy Akin used for the person who translated the Italian letter (i.e. I’ve been paid to do it for published documents). I don’t have time at the moment to translate the letter and reproduce it here, but the two sections that bother me (others feel free to verify) are one in which the Cardinal speaks of a sacramental bond (Or “relation” for the more literal) between bishop and priest and a “spiritual paternity” or “spiritual fatherliness” that exists as well and that he implies comes before the civil obligation of the bishop. He cites Vatican II and two Bishops synods as evidence of this belief.
He also notes that he is writing this letter in his role as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and that he is forwarding a copy of the letter to all bishops’ conferences as a positive example to them of how a bishop ought to act.
The priest in question was found guilty and sentenced to 18 years in prison and the bishop received three months in jail for having protected him. The Cardinal was aware of these facts when writing the letter.
This sickens me. Period.
I’m a translator of French into English, using the same definition of “translator” as Jimmy Akin used for the person who translated the Italian letter (i.e. I’ve been paid to do it for published documents). I don’t have time at the moment to translate the letter and reproduce it here, but the two sections that bother me (others feel free to verify) are one in which the Cardinal speaks of a sacramental bond (Or “relation” for the more literal) between bishop and priest and a “spiritual paternity” or “spiritual fatherliness” that exists as well and that he implies comes before the civil obligation of the bishop. He cites Vatican II and two Bishops synods as evidence of this belief.
He also notes that he is writing this letter in his role as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and that he is forwarding a copy of the letter to all bishops’ conferences as a positive example to them of how a bishop ought to act.
The priest in question was found guilty and sentenced to 18 years in prison and the bishop received three months in jail for having protected him. The Cardinal was aware of these facts when writing the letter.
This sickens me. Period.
A
anode
Guest
I’ll say it again:
The church’s worst enemies are or were within the church.
Boy.
The church’s worst enemies are or were within the church.
Boy.
L
lynx
Guest
Wow. Brutal news. I hope Cardinal Hoyos is re-thinking that statement, and maybe another career.
M
momor
Guest
I am glad to see that it appears that Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF had a lot to do with the needed reforms and between Maciel and others like this Cardinal he is slowly cleaning house by folding up their offices and retiring them. I’m sorry to say this does not speak well for JPII’s administration and Pope BXVI is getting the blame.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Cardinals are not impeccable. Certainly this one’s misplaced and misguided (at the least) belief that it was ‘more important’ to shield the wrongdoer and not protect the wronged is reprehensible especially knowing what we know now (and what he should have known then).
Again, though, this is one cardinal’s ‘take’ and if I’m not mistaken, he (Hoyos) did not have any direct ‘say’ regarding the priest in that it was (and remains) the responsibility of the bishop.
So the bishop in this case was wrong, and the Cardinal (who had no direct authority in the matter) was wrong.
FURTHERMORE it was precisely this wrong attitude which then-Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of among some of the clergy and which **directly contributed to then-Cardinal Ratzinger pushing for and ultimately achieving the strict, strong and stringent anti-abuse standards that have been in place now. **Even if some clergy are still ignoring them.
IOW–some people in the Church were wrong (because nobody is impeccable.)
When then-Cardinal Ratzinger was given the opportunity and the power (which he had not had before) to be able to act on the scandal, having become aware of some of the things like the above, perhaps, he then–and has been–working tirelessly to **stop the abuse. **
Again, though, this is one cardinal’s ‘take’ and if I’m not mistaken, he (Hoyos) did not have any direct ‘say’ regarding the priest in that it was (and remains) the responsibility of the bishop.
So the bishop in this case was wrong, and the Cardinal (who had no direct authority in the matter) was wrong.
FURTHERMORE it was precisely this wrong attitude which then-Cardinal Ratzinger became aware of among some of the clergy and which **directly contributed to then-Cardinal Ratzinger pushing for and ultimately achieving the strict, strong and stringent anti-abuse standards that have been in place now. **Even if some clergy are still ignoring them.
IOW–some people in the Church were wrong (because nobody is impeccable.)
When then-Cardinal Ratzinger was given the opportunity and the power (which he had not had before) to be able to act on the scandal, having become aware of some of the things like the above, perhaps, he then–and has been–working tirelessly to **stop the abuse. **
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
While I may concede that Cardinal Ratzinger undertook some actions that had the potential to reduce abuse, we neither know the full extent of his actions, nor whether these “improvements” were accepted and implemented by the bishops in the church-we’ve heard so much lately from catholic apologists about how little influence the Vatican had/has with bishops.
That aside, the key point is the one you obscured-this was not the “take” of one Cardinal, this was an official act of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. (Hoyos was kind enough to note this specifically at the beginning of the letter) He goes on to end it by saying the Congregation will send this letter out to all the conferences of bishops-it isn’t some jotting in the Cardinal’s diary-it’s an official communication from the Vatican Congregation that was supposed to be dealing with pedophile priests!
Hoyos obviously didn’t figure he would get in trouble for holding this opinion in his office, or he wouldn’t have distributed it worldwide. In other words, it was within the realm of acceptable thought at the Vatican in 2000-not 1950, not 1960, but in 2000!
I’m stopping now as reading this and the continuing attempts by some catholics to spin this scandal have upset me more than you can understand.
M
momor
Guest
I agree. I think this is going to be the biggest bombshell dropped yet.That aside, the key point is the one you obscured-this was not the “take” of one Cardinal, this was an official act of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. (Hoyos was kind enough to note this specifically at the beginning of the letter) He goes on to end it by saying the Congregation will send this letter out to all the conferences of bishops-it isn’t some jotting in the Cardinal’s diary-it’s an official communication from the Vatican Congregation that was supposed to be dealing with pedophile priests!
Hoyos obviously didn’t figure he would get in trouble for holding this opinion in his office, or he wouldn’t have distributed it worldwide. In other words, it was within the realm of acceptable thought at the Vatican in 2000-not 1950, not 1960, but in 2000!
I’m stopping now as reading this and the continuing attempts by some catholics to spin this scandal have upset me more than you can understand.
J
Jasg1973
Guest
I have just celebrated my first year as a full fledged catholic. I was raised in a Baptist home but later was exposed to several different protestant denominations. I have to admit that the priest scandals exposed during Pope John Paul 2 had a huge impact on my converting to the Catholic Church. When I saw how the world attempted to topple the Church and the relentless hounding and rehashing of individual cases of abuse I sympathized. Not with those who had committed the abuses or those who knowingly where responsible for allowing it to continue. I saw the Church as a whole being attacked. I tried to think of how the world treated my protestant church when similar situations had occurred (THEY DID AND DO). There is never the whole hearted attack that the Catholic Church is subjected to. Iv come to realize that that’s because the Catholic Church does represent the True church.
M
markeverett49
Guest
This sounds horrible. I understand that bishops and priests would have a special bond, but should it override each’s bond with Christ? How can injustice be justified?
- Status