Future pope resisted defrocking priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter markeverett49
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markeverett49

Guest
msnbc.msn.com/id/36325154/ns/us_news-faith/

The article I posted on this yesterday has already closed to comment, so I’m posting this link to the story.
What is fascinating—and galling—about this case is that the priest’s bishop asked the Vatican to defrock him. The priest himself asked to be defrocked. He had already been put on probation for tying up and molesting two boys in a rectory. (Why that just earned him probation I’ll never fathom.) It took Cardinal Ratzinger FOUR YEARS to respond and then another two passed before the priest was laicized. There was no dispute about the man’s sexual abuse of children. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger argued that it would be a scandal for a priest so young to leave the priesthood; the bishop of Oakland countered—and who here disagrees with him?—that there would be no scandal for a child molestor leaving the priesthood whereas there could be great scandal for the Church’s retaining one.

And o yes, he worked as a youth volunteer in a Catholic parish while Cardinal Ratzinger dithered.
 
According to the Vatican, they simply sent a form letter in Latin, which was the practice every single time a priest was seeking laicization anywhere in the world. Obviously, in this case more attention should have been paid and the letter should not have been sent. But it is hardly the case that the then Cardinal Ratzinger carefully analyzed the situation and drafted a missive stating this particular priest should have been kept. The New York Times showed its habitual dishonesty by featuring an image of Cardinal Ratzinger’s signature on the letter, as if that had been the case.
 
The Vatican doesn’t dispute that Ratzinger signed the letter!
If you are arguing that it was the CUSTOM of the CDF to send form letters saying ‘do nothing’ to bishops who wanted priests to be laicized for molesting boys in a rectory, then things are WORSE than the press has reported, much worse.

It is no defense of Ratzinger to say that he had so many such complaints that he dealt with them all by a form letter saying (to borrow from Duke Ellington) “Do nothing till you hear from me.” Except, of course, take care of the priest!
 
markeverett49 said:
The Vatican doesn’t dispute that Ratzinger signed the letter!
If you are arguing that it was the CUSTOM of the CDF to send form letters saying ‘do nothing’ to bishops who wanted priests to be laicized for molesting boys in a rectory, then things are WORSE than the press has reported, much worse.

It is no defense of Ratzinger to say that he had so many such complaints that he dealt with them all by a form letter saying (to borrow from Duke Ellington) “Do nothing till you hear from me.” Except, of course, take care of the priest!
Click to expand...
The problem is that people dont understand that a person can be pulled from active ministry and not be defrocked. The Priest in question had already been removed from all Priestly duties by the time the matter came to the attention of the Vatican. The fact there was a delay in “defrocking” him is irelevant.
 
I am confused. Didn’t this thread get its full airing of fifty posts yesterday? What good is a rule if it can be so easily circumvented. I thought the fifty post rule was going to mitigate the problem of repetition and redundancy which had crippled the mechanisms for fluid debate and discussion.
 
estesbob said:
The Priest in question had already been removed from all Priestly duties by the time the matter came to the attention of the Vatican. The fact there was a delay in “defrocking” him is irelevant.
Click to expand...
The priest continued to work in YOUTH MINISTRY at a local parish. He was to be housed and fed by the bishop, which suggests he would be in a rectory, no? Furthermore, the bishop asked the Vatican to laicize the man, so obviously HE thought it relevant. And the Vatican took six years to go along with it.
 
markeverett49 said:
The priest continued to work in YOUTH MINISTRY at a local parish. He was to be housed and fed by the bishop, which suggests he would be in a rectory, no? Furthermore, the bishop asked the Vatican to laicize the man, so obviously HE thought it relevant. And the Vatican took six years to go along with it.
Click to expand...
ST Peter made huge mistakes too.No one ever said a cardinal or even the Pope has the charism of Impeccability,even if there is such a thing.Let’s wait for the Vatican response first.I’ve got a whole boatload of stones if anyone’s interested.
 
markeverett49 said:
The priest continued to work in YOUTH MINISTRY at a local parish. He was to be housed and fed by the bishop, which suggests he would be in a rectory, no? Furthermore, the bishop asked the Vatican to laicize the man, so obviously HE thought it relevant. And the Vatican took six years to go along with it.
Click to expand...
There are no allegations he abused anyone from the time he was remoived from Priestly duties and the time he was defrocked. Since laity works with youth also why would laicizing him had made a difference?
 
estesbob said:
The problem is that people dont understand that a person can be pulled from active ministry and not be defrocked. The Priest in question had already been removed from all Priestly duties by the time the matter came to the attention of the Vatican. The fact there was a delay in “defrocking” him is irelevant.
Click to expand...
Correct. “Defrocking” here is somewhat of a canard.
 
Hey, everybody’s worried that the guy might have abused someone because he wan’t defrocked fast enough. OK, let’s pretend the guy was defrocked the next day after he was caught. What’s that supposed to mean? That’s he won’t abuse anyone in the future because he is defrocked.

If you are an abuser, defrocking isn’t going to stop it. Everybody’s worried about the defrocking and could not care less about stopping the abuser. So the guy’s defrocked and walking around in the world, an abuser, and because he’s not a Priest anylonger, it’s what, OK, problem solved. Ha

It’s better someone was watching him.
 
estesbob said:
There are no allegations he abused anyone from the time he was remoived from Priestly duties and the time he was defrocked. Since laity works with youth also why would laicizing him had made a difference?
Click to expand...
Uh, laity with criminal records for molesting children should be barred from working with youth. The parish knew. That’s the problem. Or else the diocese knew but didn’t tell the parish, in which case THAT is the problem.

Even if you never abuse again it doesn’t make it okay that you molested children before.
 
markeverett49 said:
Even if you never abuse again it doesn’t make it okay that you molested children before.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that. The fact that a priest has abused people, especially children, is abhorrent. Anyone here will say that.

All that anyone here is saying is that the issue of laicization is a non-issue. It makes no difference whatsoever. What matters is whether he was removed from ministry (which he really should have been completely, but it looks like nothing ever happened again). It doesn’t even make a difference to the priest himself, because even after laicization he still remains a priest forever. You can’t take that away.
 
curlycool89 said:
  • All that anyone here is saying is that the issue of laicization is a non-issue. It makes no difference whatsoever. .*
This is false. Notice, that while Ratzinger spent YEARS delaying the resolution of this case, that bishop was responsible for the support of that priest. You can bet your butt that stopped the second the ink dried on the laicization papers. The people of that diocese were funding the upkeep of a child molestor whose laicization was delayed FOR YEARS because Cardinal Ratzinger thought it would look bad for a priest so young to be laicized.
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
The problem is that people dont understand that a person can be pulled from active ministry and not be defrocked. The Priest in question had already been removed from all Priestly duties by the time the matter came to the attention of the Vatican. The fact there was a delay in “defrocking” him is irelevant.
Click to expand...
This is what I thought too. The media is making it sound like the pope’s delay on defrocking is somehow criminal. I’m just not seeing that.
 
As the Church teaches, we seek all that we seek under the aspect of the good. For a Cardinal to mistake the good of a child molestor’s reputation above the justice due his victims and the safety of those who might unsuspectingly fall under his sway is a perversion of justice. It is a mockery of justice. It is indifference to justice, and a slap in the face of Jesus.
 
markeverett49 said:
As the Church teaches, we seek all that we seek under the aspect of the good. For a Cardinal to mistake the good of a child molestor’s reputation above the justice due his victims and the safety of those who might unsuspectingly fall under his sway is a perversion of justice. It is a mockery of justice. It is indifference to justice, and a slap in the face of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Could you explain to me how this is what the future Pope did? From what I see, this priest was not active…he was asking to be laicized. Laicization is not taken lightly in the Church (and therefore does not happen regularly) because of what the Church teaches about God’s call to priesthood…“You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizadek (sp?)”
 
baylee said:
This is what I thought too. The media is making it sound like the pope’s delay on defrocking is somehow criminal. I’m just not seeing that.
Click to expand...
I beleive they think the Pope should have sent an Opus Dei assassin out to kill this Priest.
 
markeverett49 said:
As the Church teaches, we seek all that we seek under the aspect of the good. For a Cardinal to mistake the good of a child molestor’s reputation above the justice due his victims and the safety of those who might unsuspectingly fall under his sway is a perversion of justice. It is a mockery of justice. It is indifference to justice, and a slap in the face of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Except that is evidently not what happened in any way, shape or form.

It would also have been bad if Card. Ratzinger had blown up the Earth with a giant Doomsday Device. The AP and the New York Times have no evidence that Card. Ratzinger ever disavowed plans to do so. Scandal!
 
I don’t think the media are claiming that Ratzinger’s delay was criminal. Rather, it is morally damnable. Until he was laicized, ‘the Church owed him a living,’ so to speak. What’s more, the entire reason for NOT laicizing him was that it might embarrass the universal Church for a priest so young to be laicized. That priest’s bishop asked for the laicization. There was no good reason to delay it at all. It shows clearly that Ratzinger thought it more important to avoid scandal than to protect children. In the end, of course, he brought about a greater scandal. I think the Holy Spirit may be working through the media to cleanse the Church!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top