Future pope stalled pedophile case

[pollylodges]

new news story that suggests the pope stalled pedophilcase

This just came in from associated Press.

Future pope stalled pedophile case

This is really turning into a tragedy.

We should Pray for all involved-especially the victims.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I’m sorry, but I don’t take the Associated Press’ word for anything. They have a smear campaign going against the Church.

If you want a better perspective on all this, read the article at the following link:

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1825

 

[mlund]

Something smells very fishy here.

From what I understand the intervention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not specifically called upon or required to reduce a priest to the laity. The requirements under Canon Law to try this sort of offense lay with the local bishop. Intervention from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith usually requires extraordinary circumstances, none of which are detailed in this article.

Also, this man apparently plead no-contest to trying up children and molesting them, according the AP report, but received probation from the government?

No, that doesn’t add up at all. There is a lot more to the particulars of this case than the reporters cared to research. The completely lack of inquiry into the circumstances behind such an outlandish judicial sentence leaves me skeptical in the extreme.

• Marty Lund

 

[thomasf]

The title in the AP story is misleading. Cardinal Ratzinger did nothing to ‘stall pedophile case’. The man was tried and released on probation by a criminal court. That has nothing to do with the Pope. The priest was relieved of his duties and was not in a parish after his case. Nothing was stalled. The man was relieved of his duties, and the Bishop acted to remove him as a threat.

This kind of reporting is inflammatory and misleading and isn’t supported in the actual story.

All of this is just an attack and a piling on.

 

[unafraid]

As the convolutions of these stories become cleverly infolded, over and over, by the masters of deception, the “father of all lies” must be well pleased. Before this is all over, truth will be locked somewhere so deeply beneath the brambles of inuendo, exageration and outright falsehood that it will take a modern day William of Baskerville, the clerical sleuth from “The Name of the Rose” , Umberto Eco’s masterpiece, to exume the truth.

Personally, I am looking to Fatima, and the Pope’s visit there. Our Lady appeared there, and that mystery is still unfolding. That event was of great cosmic significance, and as our beleagured pontif visits the very place of this apparition, with Christ’s Holy Church under seige, I turn to the Mother of God for help. Many people labor under the misconception that the Church is simply some sort of political, cultural and sociological body existing in the world much in the same way as the United Nations. In fact, the Holy Church is a supernatural living entity which proceeds through time by metaphysical means. It is in this world…but it is also above this world.

I urge the faithful to pray the rosary every day and ask for the intercession of Our Lady in this matter. She is assigned great power by God. Let’s lift our eyes upward…with true faith. Hail Mary, Full of Grace…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The man was tried and released on probation by a criminal court. That has nothing to do with the Pope.

No one has suggested otherwise.

The priest was relieved of his duties and was not in a parish after his case…

Wrong. The priest was sent to another Parish where he served, of all things, as a youth pastor.

Nothing was stalled. The man was relieved of his duties, and the Bishop acted to remove him as a threat.

Incorrect. Ratzinger stated in a signed letter that he would not laicize him at that time, despite the wishes of both the Bishop and the priest himself, because it would be a scandal to laicize a young priest. Ratzinger waited years to do what he should have done immediately.

 

[Image_of_God]

Incorrect. Ratzinger stated in a signed letter that he would not laicize him at that time, despite the wishes of both the Bishop and the priest himself, because it would be a scandal to laicize a young priest. Ratzinger waited years to do what he should have done immediately.

But I think you should ask yourself, what difference laicization would make. That the Pope did not laicize the priest is nothing criminal. Laicization is a very serious matter and something that is very rarely done. The Pope, might have not done so because he saw the spiritual perspective of the subject at hand.

It fails me why some are trying to make the Pope’s reluctance to laicize this priest a criminal matter. I’ve tried very hard to reserve my opinion on these matters. But it is becoming increasingly hard to do so, especially because of what looks like a smear campaign. Now, I’m not saying that all of it is. Some of it is obviously not. However, it is beginning to appear to me that a great part of it is.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

But I think you should ask yourself, what difference laicization would make…

For one thing he wouldn’t have been sent to another parish to serve as a youth pastor nor would he have been living on the parishoners’ dime.

That the Pope did not laicize the priest is nothing criminal. Laicization is a very serious matter and something that is very rarely done.

I don’t know of anyone who is saying that it was/is criminal. The issue here is that Ratzinger placed the reputation of the Church above the safety of children.

The Pope, might have not done so because he saw the spiritual perspective of the subject at hand.

Except that the reason he gave in his letter was that laicizing a young priest would be a scandal and damaging to the Church’s reputation.

 

[Adeodatus]

For the real story see here:

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/of-bulletpoints-and-wolves/

 

[Image_of_God]

For one thing he wouldn’t have been sent to another parish to serve as a youth pastor nor would he have been living on the parishoners’ dime.

The priest should not have been allowed to go to another parish even as they were awaiting to here from Rome whether or not he was defrocked. The the bishop would permit the priest to go to another parish even as he was awaiting to hear from Rome very much confuses me. This fact should cause you to scratch your head.

I don’t know of anyone who is saying that it was/is criminal. The issue here is that Ratzinger placed the reputation of the Church above the safety of children.

When the slowness to laicize a priest is being considered a cover-up, then it most certainly is. Those things are two different things. How does this case show this?

Except that the reason he gave in his letter was that laicizing a young priest would be a scandal and damaging to the Church’s reputation.

For “the good of the universal church” does not necessarily bear this meaning. This meaning does not coincide especially if you consider the fact the bishops sent a letter to the future Pope saying that if the priest wasn’t defrocked there would be a higher chance of scandal. I think there is another reason why he didn’t defrock the priest.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The priest should not have been allowed to go to another parish even as they were awaiting to here from Rome whether or not he was defrocked. The the bishop would permit the priest to go to another parish even as he was awaiting to hear from Rome very much confuses me. This fact should cause you to scratch your head.

Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Such reckless decisions seem to have been the status quo.

When the slowness to laicize a priest is being considered a cover-up, then it most certainly is. Those things are two different things. How does this case show this?

It doesn’t have to be a cover up. Not only did the priest admit to the crime but he also asked to be laicized. The request from the priest and the Bishop were initially rejected because, as the letter reveals, Ratzinger needed to think about the effect it would have on the Church as a whole (i.e. it’s reputation). Priest ties children up and rapes them in the Church. Priest admits crime. Priest asks to be laicized and Bishop requests that he be laicized. What legitimate reason could Ratzinger possibly have for waiting six years to laicize a serial child molester who didn’t even want to be a priest? And yes, he went on to molest another child.

 

[Image_of_God]

Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Such reckless decisions seem to have been the status quo.

Yes, but it was the bishop’s error, not that of the future Pope. If the bishop were waiting to here from the Rome, he could have simply kept the priest aside. He most certainly had the power to do so.

It doesn’t have to be a cover up. Not only did the priest admit to the crime but he also asked to be laicized. The request from the priest and the Bishop were initially rejected because, as the letter reveals, Ratzinger needed to think about the effect it would have on the Church as a whole (i.e. it’s reputation). Priest ties children up and rapes them in the Church. Priest admits crime. Priest asks to be laicized and Bishop requests that he be laicized. What legitimate reason could Ratzinger possibly have for waiting six years to laicize a serial child molester who didn’t even want to be a priest? And yes, he went on to molest another child.

There are various reasons why the Pope may have chosed to wait to defrock the priest. But I’m not going to claim any one because I know so little about the details. The letter has absolutely no context and proves little by itself. It also has to be considered that the future Pope’s office did not get direct charge of child abuse cases until 2001. Anyway, I only exhort people from passing judgments on things we know so little about. There are so many circumstances to be considered.

 

[Seno_Ryan]

Sadly, it doesn’t surprise me in the least. Such reckless decisions seem to have been the status quo.

It doesn’t have to be a cover up. Not only did the priest admit to the crime but he also asked to be laicized. The request from the priest and the Bishop were initially rejected because, as the letter reveals, Ratzinger needed to think about the effect it would have on the Church as a whole (i.e. it’s reputation). Priest ties children up and rapes them in the Church. Priest admits crime. Priest asks to be laicized and Bishop requests that he be laicized. What legitimate reason could Ratzinger possibly have for waiting six years to laicize a serial child molester who didn’t even want to be a priest? And yes, he went on to molest another child.

One of the memebrs of CAF (Zab) had sent this in another thread.
it seems that the initial intepretation of the letter may have taken out of context by the media.
Here is a response to that topic from Jesuit Fr. Joseph Fessio :
insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004…fessio-sj.html