Continuing Secrecy in Addressing Priest Sex Abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Island_Oak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Island_Oak

Guest
Interesting article/report presented in today’s Weekend Edition on NPR.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11336777

…in a 2001 letter to all bishops, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope Benedict XVI, ordered that all sex-abuse cases be transferred to the Vatican.
As theological watchdog, he also imposed total secrecy on the proceedings, with the threat of excommunication for any violations.
Daniel Shea, an American lawyer who has defended many sex-abuse victims in U.S. courts, accuses the Vatican — and the former Cardinal Ratzinger — of obstruction of justice.
“This gives them the opportunity to silence the victim, threaten the victim with hellfire for all eternity if they ever reveal what is going on in this transaction,” Shea says.
One Italian magazine says 1,000 sex-abuse cases have been reported to the Vatican, but only 10 have been investigated.
 
Isn’t this old news? IIRC, the Ratzinger letter dealt ONLY with abuse cases that directly involved abuses that included the violation of the seal of the confessional or the use of the confessional itself as part of the abuse MO.

If it is the one I’m thinking of, there is already a looong thread somewhere about it and the summary is: a lawyer is looking to distort things badly to get at perceived Vatican deep pockets.
 
manualman said:
Isn’t this old news? IIRC, the Ratzinger letter dealt ONLY with abuse cases that directly involved abuses that included the violation of the seal of the confessional or the use of the confessional itself as part of the abuse MO.

If it is the one I’m thinking of, there is already a looong thread somewhere about it and the summary is: a lawyer is looking to distort things badly to get at perceived Vatican deep pockets.
Click to expand...
Old news but still valid. In order to win trust back this part does need to be very transparent to the people.
 
No, its NOT valid. By definition, anything involving the confessional cannot be made public for any reason.

That is a VERY different matter than generically requiring secrecy in regards to abuse cases as the thread seems to imply.
 
manualman said:
No, its NOT valid. By definition, anything involving the confessional cannot be made public for any reason.

That is a VERY different matter than generically requiring secrecy in regards to abuse cases as the thread seems to imply.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
manualman said:
No, its NOT valid. By definition, anything involving the confessional cannot be made public for any reason.

That is a VERY different matter than generically requiring secrecy in regards to abuse cases as the thread seems to imply.
Click to expand...
I respect the confessional but if we are threatening the victims that is outrageous. While we cannot bring in to play what is said in confession we must protect the victims at all costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top