CBC News: Vatican sex abuse letter from 1997 revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter empacae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s the sensationalistic headline of this story in the New York Times. As usual, it’s by Laurie Goodstein, and as usual she makes significant errors in her reporting that make the story more sensationalistic in a way that (just coincidentally) paints the Holy See in an unfavorable light. (So . . . what’s up with that, Laurie? You’ve been on the beat long enough that you should be better informed on these matters.)

As with previous stories of the same nature, this one involves a document from back in the 1990s that has now come to the attention of the press. It was a letter written by the Apostolic Nuncio of Ireland (that’s basically the Holy See’s ambassador to Ireland, though he also has a liaising role with the local bishops). In the letter the Nuncio—then Luciano Storero—communicated a message to the Irish bishops from the Congregation for Clergy concerning a document that the Irish bishops had drafted on child sexual abuse.

ncregister.com/blog/vatican-warned-bishops-not-to-report-child-abuse?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:01:37:52Z
 
empacae said:
it appears The Ratz was complicit and is a liar.

Anyone wanna help me out with this?

emp
Click to expand...
Your brother-in-law is a hateful person and obviously more concerned with tarnishing the Church than with the abused victims. Disgusting.
 
So the Vatican, or the Pope himself, never ordered child abuse to be covered up? I’m having a really hard time finding trust in an institution that would do this. I want to convert but this is proving to be my biggest hurdle. I’m supposed to trust in all the Pope’s decisions, right?:confused:
 
Thanks for posting the linked article since from there we can link to the “Document” (letter in question.
In reading the letter, it is obvious that this is NOT the smoking gun that some wish to make it out to be. This becomes obvious when reading through the NYT artical an they say it “seems” to contratict…In other words it does not “actually” contradict…

Peace
James
 
The letter (used as proof for the OP) was misunderstood by the sensational journalists…as usual.

"Vatican says its Irish abuse letter misunderstood"
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110119/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse

Whenever you see a negative story like this about the church, wait a day and see the Vatican’s response. There is almost always a misunderstanding. However, the media never apologizes once the damage is done.

There is a link to the letter in that article link as well I believe (click the pic).
 
A Vatican official downplayed a 1997 Vatican letter to Irish bishops about handling cases of clerical sex abuse, saying the letter did not tell bishops to keep the cases secret from the police.

More…
 
Just to clarify -
The linked letter in the article Garyjohn2 posted is not legible, however if one goes to the linked article in the OP and click on “document” in the opening line, it goes to a PDF file that can actually be read.

Peace
James
 
SRowan said:
So the Vatican, or the Pope himself, never ordered child abuse to be covered up? I’m having a really hard time finding trust in an institution that would do this. I want to convert but this is proving to be my biggest hurdle. I’m supposed to trust in all the Pope’s decisions, right?:confused:
Click to expand...
Correct. AFAIK there has never been any sort of proof suggesting the current pope (or JPII) ever ordered a cover up of any sort. If I’m wrong on this I’d love to see what someone else holds up as “proof”. I don’t even know that there has been any credible people that suspect any pope of this.

You are supposed to trust the pope on things of faith and morals, he is not infallible in all he does, he’s just a man. Though he is a man that has dedicated his entire life to God and service so it would be wise to trust him for most things I’d think.

Don’t let this be a hurdle to joining the Church. It is very much over reported, statistically kids are safer with Catholic priests than just about any other group of people. Look for facts on the issue, not sensationalized stories from a typically anti-catholic media.
 
In the above letter to the members of the Irish Episcopal Conference, the following sentence is most likely what is causing the trouble:
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature.
Click to expand...
As the NY Times article has been linked by people I know on Facebook, before trying to answer the charges, I would like to see a cogent explanation of this line in particular.
 
Big_Dummy said:
the document plainly says,

“In all instances where it is known or suspected that a priest
or religious has sexually abused a child, the matter should
be reported to the civil authorities.”

catholicbishops.ie/images/docs/csaframework.pdf

Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response
catholicbishops.ie/publications/62-safeguarding/381-child-sexual-abuse-framework-for-a-church-response
Click to expand...
And the document you linked (and referenced in the 1997 letter) was not an approved document, but rather a “Study document”, as pointed out in the 1997 letter.

As such it did not carry the force of canonical law - this is what the letter is clarifying - that until the 1996 document was approved, previous canon law was to be followed.
This could hardly be seen as a "smoking gun for an aledged “cover-up”.

Peace
James
 
What seems like a cover-up is the following:
The text, however contains “procedures and dispositions” which appear contrary to canonical discipline, and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.
Click to expand...
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature.
Click to expand...
The letter itself doesn’t say “cover up the abuse” or anything close to that, but the fact that it does seem to say that mandatory reporting in particular could prove embarrassing to some Bishops, is troubling, especially to those who are not deeply involved in canon law or Church policy.
 
I think the thing people are seeing isn’t the Report of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious, rather, the Vatican’s 1997 response to it which seems to indicate that the Irish Committee’s report was seen as “If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See,*** the results could be highly embarrassing ***and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities” — this seems to be indicative of someone trying to cover their collective rear ends rather than helping the victims of the abuse and bringing the criminal priests to justice. This 1997 document needs to be read for what it says rather than what we Catholics ‘interpret’ it have to have hopefully meant.
 
Exactly, Chris. We need to not be afraid to face what is actually happening.
 
Windfish said:
Your brother-in-law is a hateful person and obviously more concerned with tarnishing the Church than with the abused victims. Disgusting.
Click to expand...
The priests who chose to abuse children did a finer job of tarnishing the Church than his brother in law ever could hope to accomplish. This problem will not be solved until we Catholics bring justice to our own Church.
 
limabeanerson said:
Don’t let this be a hurdle to joining the Church. It is very much over reported, statistically kids are safer with Catholic priests than just about any other group of people. Look for facts on the issue, not sensationalized stories from a typically anti-catholic media.
Click to expand...
I think the hurdle some have difficulty overcoming has nothing to do with statistics of abuse vs other groups. This seems an argument Catholics like to present but I believe has little bearing on the issue. Here’s why. As awful any abuse by a priest may be, any cover up by bishops, who the Church believes to be Apostolic successors, is even worse to some. We are not talking about just any group. We are talking about a church interpreting itself to be the one true Church of Christ. Yes I know all about how bishops sin too and we are to do as they say not as they do. But I think some have more difficulty because a church’s Apostolic successors have covered up child abuse. They themselves know better than to cover up abuse. So they may see Apostolic successors, who preach the sanctity of life, as should have knowing better than that as well.
 
CMatt25 said:
I think the hurdle some have difficulty overcoming has nothing to do with statistics of abuse vs other groups. This seems an argument Catholics like to present but I believe has little bearing on the issue. Here’s why. As awful any abuse by a priest may be, any cover up by bishops, who the Church believes to be Apostolic successors, is even worse to some. We are not talking about just any group. We are talking about a church interpreting itself to be the one true Church of Christ. I just think some do not want to be part of a church whose proclaimed Apostolic successors have covered up child abuse. They see Apostolic successors, who preach the sanctity of life, as should have known better than that.
Click to expand...
The thing that I have trouble with is the use of “inexact terms” like “cover-up”. What precisely qualifies as a “cover-up”? To me this is a term that is more “sensation” oriented than it is useful in arriving at an accurate picture of what occurred.

My understanding is that in many cases priests were given councilling of various types and durations, consistant with accepted practices at the time and reassigned as deemed appropriate. Yes the matters were held within the Church - often times in accord with long standing canon law - But was the problem being ignored? No. Did the Church make mistakes/ Yes.
Cover - up? depends on how you define cover-up…

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
The thing that I have trouble with is the use of “inexact terms” like “cover-up”. What precisely qualifies as a “cover-up”? To me this is a term that is more “sensation” oriented than it is useful in arriving at an accurate picture of what occurred.

My understanding is that in many cases priests were given councilling of various types and durations, consistant with accepted practices at the time and reassigned as deemed appropriate. Yes the matters were held within the Church - often times in accord with long standing canon law - But was the problem being ignored? No. Did the Church make mistakes/ Yes.
Cover - up? depends on how you define cover-up…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Fair enough. The mistakes made by Bernard Law and others then come to my mind. And perhaps despite any counseling, a priest should not have been transferred to capacities which placed them back into such situations with children. That’s my take on it anyway. But it is obviously something the most faithful defenders and others shall probably never agree upon. Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top