EXCOMMUNICATION THREAT witness gag order in church sex trial

[Letchitsa1]

So if a priest abusers a child why his he not EXCOMMUNICATED ,The abuse to a child is a lot more damaging ,than been accused of some thing as an adult ,I know this from both sides as a survivor of sexual abuse and being jailed for things i was innocent of ,yours Michael McManus

Actually, the Vatican has started defrocking priests for confirmed sexual abuse of children. There were at least two priests in Des Moines, Iowa, recently defrocked for just that. See this article: ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=6913

As for excommunicating them, my question is this–is the average Catholic in the pews for sexual sins against children? If the answer is no, and I have a feeling it is, why should priests be treated any differently?

Child sexual abuse is a tragedy, but Catholic priests are by far not the only people guilty of it. They are, however, taking a much heavier rap for it than other groups of people–i.e. public school officials–who have been proven more prone to such abuse, and basically solely because they are priests.

Also, make no mistake, the vast majority of these cases are men sexually abusing post-pubescent male teens, which is not the same as pedophilia, although it is often called pedophilia. Pedophilia is its own monster and its own special category of sexual deviancy. What we most commonly see with Catholic priests, however, is more likely to be homosexuality run amok than it is to be true pedophilia.

 

[Letchitsa1]

I was hoping that people could comment on the excommuncation edict in this case. I have never heard of excommunicatin being threatened for something like this, and I see it as a bad sign moving forward.

This is the first I’ve heard of such a thing as well, and I’d be curious as to what the basis in Canon Law or elsewhere is that’s being used to back up this threat. I don’t suppose we would be fortunate enough to have a canon lawyer or somebody who would know the answer to this lurking out there?

 

[Letchitsa1]

So if a priest abusers a child why his he not EXCOMMUNICATED ,The abuse to a child is a lot more damaging ,than been accused of some thing as an adult ,I know this from both sides as a survivor of sexual abuse and being jailed for things i was innocent of ,yours Michael McManus

Actually, the Vatican has started defrocking priests for confirmed sexual abuse of children. There were at least two priests in Des Moines, Iowa, recently defrocked for just that. See this article: ktiv.com/News/index.php?ID=6913

As for excommunicating them, my question is this–is the average Catholic in the pews excommunicated for sexual sins against children? If the answer is no, and I have a feeling it is, why should priests be treated any differently?

Child sexual abuse is a tragedy, but Catholic priests are by far not the only people guilty of it. They are, however, taking a much heavier rap for it than other groups of people–i.e. public school officials–who have been proven more prone to such abuse, and basically solely because they are priests.

Also, make no mistake, the vast majority of these cases are men sexually abusing post-pubescent male teens, which is not the same as pedophilia, although it is often called pedophilia. Pedophilia is its own monster and its own special category of sexual deviancy. What we most commonly see with Catholic priests, however, is more likely to be homosexuality run amok than it is to be true pedophilia.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was hoping that people could comment on the excommuncation edict in this case. I have never heard of excommunicatin being threatened for something like this, and I see it as a bad sign moving forward.

What is the bad sign? I take it you are against the civil/criminal courts that place a gag order with the punishment of being found in contempt of court which could be as small as a fine to as much as sitting in a jail cell until the trial is over (or possibly longer).

I see nothing wrong with this. Especially if the priest is found to not have actually done anything wrong. This way he might get to keep some dignity. If he is found guilty then I am sure we will all find out about it.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Dear Steven,

In the case that the OP presented, I have to argee with what Kathleen Elsie replied in Post # 2 below, as it can do a lot more damage to the man and his credibility even if the charges are unfounded, and he’s proven innocent.

Wouldn’t you agree, Steven, that a man (even a priest) is innocent until proven guilty?

How do we know that his accuser or the witnesses don’t have an axe to grind?
Has this priest in the OP pleaded guilty of the charges? According to the article, he hasn’t.

If/when the priest if found guilty, let the witnesses talk all they want. But why add fuel to the fire until we know for sure of if he is, in fact, guilty of the crime?
God Bless!

Hello Denise,

My condolences to your loss of a family member. I will say a prayer for you and your family member who has passed away.

The last time Pope John Paul II met with US president George Bush, he slamed the president hard over the Abu Grieb incident in Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but the aqused in the Abu Grieb incident had not been tried in court yet at the time that the Pope used world media to condemn their untried actions.

Should the Church have professed excommunication against anyone who spoke out against the acused in the Abu Grieb incident before the aqused were tried in court?

Is it only the witnesses of the Abu Grieb incedent who were possibly under the threat of excommunication? Once witnesses break the Church command of excommunication against witnesses speaking out, before the aquesed are tried in court, can a Pope now use the sinful excommunicated witnesses testimony to now slam those aquesed in the Abu Grieb incident in world media without commiting grave/mortal sin? How would the threat of excommunication against the witnesses speaking out, but not against Pope John Paul II speaking out, thoroughly protect those aqused in the Abu Grieb incident?

Should Church excommunication only be used as a threat to silence those who are witness to Church leaders doing evil? If so, is this just? If so, why do other aqused not deserve such protection from the Church? If so, would this not tempt Church leaders to abuse using Church excommunication sinfully to protect themselves from having thier evil conduct exposed to the world?

What do you think?

 

[geraldffff]

Hello Denise,

My condolences to your loss of a family member. I will say a prayer for you and your family member who has passed away.

The last time Pope John Paul II met with US president George Bush, he slamed the president hard over the Abu Grieb incident in Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but the aqused in the Abu Grieb incident had not been tried in court yet at the time that the Pope used world media to condemn their untried actions.

Should the Church have professed excommunication against anyone who spoke out against the acused in the Abu Grieb incident before the aqused were tried in court?

Is it only the witnesses of the Abu Grieb incedent who were possibly under the threat of excommunication? Once witnesses break the Church command of excommunication against witnesses speaking out, before the aquesed are tried in court, can a Pope now use the sinful excommunicated witnesses testimony to now slam those aquesed in the Abu Grieb incident in world media without commiting grave/mortal sin? How would the threat of excommunication against the witnesses speaking out, but not against Pope John Paul II speaking out, thoroughly protect those aqused in the Abu Grieb incident?

Should Church excommunication only be used as a threat to silence those who are witness to Church leaders doing evil? If so, is this just? If so, why do other aqused not deserve such protection from the Church? If so, would this not tempt Church leaders to abuse using Church excommunication sinfully to protect themselves from having thier evil conduct exposed to the world?

What do you think?

My sense here is there is a mixing of apples with oranges. Excommunication is only usefull when practicing Catholic are involved. The Apostle Paul has given guidance on this matter in Romans ( I think). Those who are in the Church should not be taking internal issues to external judges. This would indicate the “threat” of excommunication is appropiate in this instance inorder to protect the innocent and avoid undue scandle. Of coarse if the “threat” is inapropiate the eternal judge will know and take appropiate action. Faith hope and Charity to all Gerald

 

[Saint_Michael]

What is the bad sign? I take it you are against the civil/criminal courts that place a gag order with the punishment of being found in contempt of court which could be as small as a fine to as much as sitting in a jail cell until the trial is over (or possibly longer).

I see nothing wrong with this. Especially if the priest is found to not have actually done anything wrong. This way he might get to keep some dignity. If he is found guilty then I am sure we will all find out about it.

Our Church is NOT a civil court why do people use these ridiculous comparisons, it’s a Church of God, that has for 40 years held the horrible sin of child rape in secret and actively moved child predators to commit other crimes. When I see them threaten people with excommunication instead of opening these proceedings to the public, I feel sick to my stomach. It seems more of the same, no accountability, these guys still want Catholics to not question them, and hope this just goes away. Well it’s not going to go away, and now we get more secrecy and intimidation. Like I said, not a good sign going forward.

 

[Steven_Merten]

My sense here is there is a mixing of apples with oranges. Excommunication is only usefull when practicing Catholic are involved. The Apostle Paul has given guidance on this matter in Romans ( I think). Those who are in the Church should not be taking internal issues to external judges. This would indicate the “threat” of excommunication is appropiate in this instance inorder to protect the innocent and avoid undue scandle. Of coarse if the “threat” is inapropiate the eternal judge will know and take appropiate action. Faith hope and Charity to all Gerald

Hello Gerald,

So what you are saying is that the those testifiying against the Church should be threatened with excommunication to keep things secret and avoid a Church scandal, and this is like apples. And you believe that everyone from Pope John Paul II on down should be screaming at the top of their lungs to create a secular world scandal in the not yet proven guilty Abu Greib incident, which is like oranges. Is this what you think?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Our Church is NOT a civil court why do people use these ridiculous comparisons, it’s a Church of God, that has for 40 years held the horrible sin of child rape in secret and actively moved child predators to commit other crimes.

So then there is no idea of innocent before found guilty? Anyone who is accused is automatically guilty?

When I see them threaten people with excommunication instead of opening these proceedings to the public, I feel sick to my stomach.

Wait. First you claim that the Church is not a civil court yet now you claim that its proceedings must be open to the public? I just dont see where the public has any right in these proceedings at all.

It seems more of the same, no accountability, these guys still want Catholics to not question them, and hope this just goes away. Well it’s not going to go away, and now we get more secrecy and intimidation. Like I said, not a good sign going forward.

I do not see it that way and neither does the Church.

Seems there are others issues at hand here.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I do not see it that way and neither does the Church.

Seems there are others issues at hand here.

Agree to disagree then, to me and many others this is a very bad sign going forward. It appears to be using scare tactics to keep this thing quiet again. Out of the 10,000 priests who were accused how many have actually been reprimanded? I think the Churches abissmal track record clearly shows that the Church handling these cases “in house” and behind closed doors is a woefully pathetic way to handle the crisis, and not to be trusted.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Agree to disagree then, to me and many others this is a very bad sign going forward. It appears to be using scare tactics to keep this thing quiet again. Out of the 10,000 priests who were accused how many have actually been reprimanded? I think the Churches abissmal track record clearly shows that the Church handling these cases “in house” and behind closed doors is a woefully pathetic way to handle the crisis, and not to be trusted.

I agree with you Michael,

The Pharisees and Scribes were God’s authorized Church leaders of Jesus’ day as Catholics leaders are God’s authorized Church leaders today. Jesus exposes to the world how evil God’s authorized Church leaders, the Pharisees and Scribes, were. The reason the Pharisees and Scribes were so evil is because they desired and protected their exaltation in the world as great holy men. When Jesus exposed their evil to the world, they killed Him.

God authorized Church leaders desire to be seen and exalted as upright and holy men is probubly the greatest form of temptation Church leaders face. Pope’s, Cardinals and Bishops are probubly not so likely to commit murder, adultery or stealling. It is the evil desire to do evil to preserve a worldly, exalted, holy image of themselves to the world which is going to be Church leaders greatest temptation. I think Church leaders and the world should recognize this potentially great threat to Christ’s Church.

Looking at Church leader actions in the clegy abuse cover up, it certianly appears that protecting an exalted and glorified image of themselves to the world, is more important to them than protecting the least of Christ’s children from physical and spiritual harm. If this is the case then this is the same great evil which led God’s authorized Church leaders to murder Jesus.
NAB MAT 12:14

When the Pharisees were outside they began to plot against him to find a way to destroy him. NAB MAT 23:23

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.** You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth. Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing.**
**NAB MAT 21:43 **

Therefore, I say to you,** the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that will produce its fruit.** ( The one who falls on this stone will be dashed to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls.)"

When the chief priests and** the Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them. And although they were attempting to arrest him,** they feared the crowds, for they regarded him as a prophet.

 

[geezerbob]

A church proceeding of this type is very much like a personnel matter in a large corporation - it’s private. I don’t understand the excommunication threat, though. The person making the complaint can also pursue civil and/or criminal action in the courts which would be public unless the judge ordered otherwise.

 

[geraldffff]

Hello Gerald,

So what you are saying is that the those testifiying against the Church should be threatened with excommunication to keep things secret and avoid a Church scandal, and this is like apples. And you believe that everyone from Pope John Paul II on down should be screaming at the top of their lungs to create a secular world scandal in the not yet proven guilty Abu Greib incident, which is like oranges. Is this what you think?

“if they dare discuss their testimony outside the church court”
This line from the original text of this thread tells me this is an internal Church issue. The testimony is not “against the Church” but an individual member. The apostle has us given guidance in this area. The imposition of the threat of excommunication may be appropiate to protect the integrity of the proceedings. What a pope pronunces in public world issues has no relationship to the discussion at hand. One is apples one is oranges. If the motive for the threat of excommunication is to protect the Church from financial responsibility for a coverup of wrong doing in civil or criminal court proceedings then it is inappropiate. It appears this issue is about scandlemongers trying to undermine a legitimate Church inquirey. One might compare this with the left wing homosexuals outing one of their own, Congressman Foley, just befor an election, in order to make political gains. The abuse of children by a small fraction of Preists dose not warrent the disembowlment of the Body of Christ as the outing of one of the many homosexual congressmen dose not warrent the disbanding of Congress. One might hope God has reserved the hottest place in hell for those clergy who have abused their offices to get sexual gratification by destroying the innocense of children. On the other hand to defame an innocent clergy person might have the same fate reserved for them.

 

[geraldffff]

What we most commonly see with Catholic priests, however, is more likely to be homosexuality run amok than it is to be true pedophilia.

Surely you jest when you say homosexuality run amok. Are you telling me homosexuality is a normal state that can run amok rather than just plain sexuality run amok by an adult person with freewill who is making a calculated decision. Are they less liable to God for abusing their authority because they have erotic same sex dreams, They are adults who are better edgucated in the laws of man and of God than the laity . The “normalsing” of homosexuality is a slippery slope we have been sliding down for the last few decades and we see the fruits now. A concerted effort to equate homosexual unions with legitimate sacramental marriage enshrined in the law of the land. Now that is even a worst threat to innocent children.

 

[geraldffff]

Hello Denise,

Do you agree that Jesus gave His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors that anyone they bind to sin on earth, Jesus will bind to sin in heaven? If Jesus binds a person to sin in heaven, what happens to the person? People Jesus refuses to forgive in heaven, go to hell.

In Church Anathema, the Church uses Jesus sworn oath to Apostolic Successors, that Jesus will bind to sin in heaven anyone who they call upon Him to do so from earth. I would be very supprized if Jesus did not hold true to His sworn oath to Apostolic Successors.

[/INDENT]

“If Jesus binds a person to sin in heaven, what happens to the person?” I believe this is a missrepresentation of what Jesus was saying. Now if you had wrote (if Jesus’ apostles) that is another matter. Second your assumption is that Jesus could or would commission and authorize his apostles to do somthing that was contrary to the will of God. Is it not?

 

[Steven_Merten]

“If Jesus binds a person to sin in heaven, what happens to the person?” I believe this is a missrepresentation of what Jesus was saying. Now if you had wrote (if Jesus’ apostles) that is another matter. Second your assumption is that Jesus could or would commission and authorize his apostles to do somthing that was contrary to the will of God. Is it not?

Hello geraldfff,

So what does happen to a person when Jesus binds them to sin in heaven? I say that a person held bound to sin in heaven by Jesus goes to hell. What say you?

Throwing Stones

Jesus gave His solomn oath to Apostolic Successors that anyone that they hold bound to sin on earth, He will hold bound to sin in heaven. Do we agree? What happens to a person that Apostolic Successors call upon Jesus to uphold His sworn oath and bind that person to sin in heaven? I say that person, if guilty of the sin, goes to hell with his sin held bound. What say you?

Are you trying to say that Jesus holding sins bound to people’s souls thus casting them into hell is contrary to the will of God?

Please visit: WARNING! Jesus Does Not Forgive All

**NAB MAT 16:13 **

Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.**NAB REV 1:16 **

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth, and his face shone like the sun at its brightest. When I caught sight of him I fell down at his feet as though dead, he touched me with his right hand and said: “There is nothing to fear. I am the First and the Last and the One who lives. Once I was dead but now I live-- forever and ever. I hold the keys of death and the nether world.”
NAB ISA 11:4

The Rule of Immanuel

He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

At the sight of the Lord the disciples rejoiced. “Peace be with you,” he said again. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Then he breathed on them and said: “Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.” NAB MAT 5:22

What I say to you is: everyone who grows angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement; any man who uses abusive language toward his brother shall be** answerable to the Sanhedrin,** and if he holds him in contempt he risks the fires of Gehenna. **NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

“if they dare discuss their testimony outside the church court”

This line from the original text of this thread tells me this is an internal Church issue. The testimony is not “against the Church” but an individual member. The apostle has us given guidance in this area. The imposition of the threat of excommunication may be appropiate to protect the integrity of the proceedings. What a pope pronunces in public world issues has no relationship to the discussion at hand. One is apples one is oranges…

Hello geraldfff,

Should the Church profess excommunication on any Catholic who uses the mass media to bash those aquesed in the Abu Greib incident to “protect the integrity of the (court)proceedings”? Apples to Apples, is this correct?

 

[Saint_Michael]

Hello geraldfff,

Should the Church profess excommunication on any Catholic who uses the mass media to bash those aquesed in the Abu Greib incident to “protect the integrity of the (court)proceedings”? Apples to Apples, is this correct?

That’s a great point Steve. The Vatican has no problem painting American soldiers as torturers in the media and condemning thousands of our fighting men in the open. Yet they insist on handling this pedophilia matter “in secret”, even though their track record of this has been beyond horrible.

I honestly CAN’T believe there are Catholics defending the idea of excommunicating those involved in this case if they talk, it’s really unbelieveable to me that anyone can defend the Catholic Church keeping this secret and conducting business “in house”.

 

[michaelmac]

That’s a great point Steve. The Vatican has no problem painting American soldiers as torturers in the media and condemning thousands of our fighting men in the open. Yet they insist on handling this pedophilia matter “in secret”, even though their track record of this has been beyond horrible.

I honestly CAN’T believe there are Catholics defending the idea of excommunicating those involved in this case if they talk, it’s really unbelieveable to me that anyone can defend the Catholic Church keeping this secret and conducting business “in house”.

ST Michael ,It is easy to see why people are defending ,The Catholic church on this issue ,Stand out side the pro Cathedral in Dublin or the Cathedral London and you see Catholics wanting to shake hands with people whose moral authority exspired when the abuse scandal was exposed ,yours Michael McManus

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Michael,

Can you clarify your comment? Do you believe that all priests and bishops have lost their moral authority, or are you commenting on some specific priests and bishops in Dublin and London?

God bless,

Robert

ST Michael ,It is easy to see why people are defending ,The Catholic church on this issue ,Stand out side the pro Cathedral in Dublin or the Cathedral London and you see Catholics wanting to shake hands with people whose moral authority exspired when the abuse scandal was exposed ,yours Michael McManus