Germans quit church during 2010 sex scandal

[adrift]

This is an explaination by renouned Canon Lawyer Father Thomas Doyle on Crimen Sollicitationis:

youtube.com/watch?v=ikleJkicAOU&feature=player_embedded

God Bless

Reverend Thomas Patrick Doyle

Thomas ‘Tom’ Doyle is a Roman Catholic priest of the Dominican Order and a Doctor of Canon Law. His present status is unclear as he was disciplined by his superiors in 2004 and recently described himself as ‘legally’ still a priest, as though in contrast to his actual status Within the Roman Catholic Church he is best characterised as a ‘liberal’, with an apparent denial of the ‘Real Presence’ (or at least it’s historicity), an anti-hierarchical view of church structure (he likens ‘clericalism’ to a disease), an opposition to clerical celibacy and a desire to change the church’s teachings on human sexuality. …In 2003, Doyle began circulating a copy of the document Crimen sollicitationis. The document, known in Catholic canon law as an ‘instruction’, operated from 1962 to 2001. Two civil lawyers, Carmen L. Durso and Daniel J. Shea began airing claims that Crimen sollicitationis constituted a criminal conspiracy on the part of the Vatican to obstruct justice in sex abuse cases, a so-called ‘smoking gun’. Given both men were involved in litigation against the church (and thus had a strong vested interest in misrepresenting the nature and scope of the document), and neither possessed expertise in canon law, it would have arguably been unethical for a journalist to publish those claims without further consulting experts. Inexplicably, Kathleen A. Shaw, a journalist with the Telegram & Gazette, immediately published them, relying solely upon the lawyers’ assertions (she later became Shea’s communications director during his unsuccessful run for Massachusetts District Attorney). Subsequently, it became clear that the document was no ‘smoking gun‘. Crimen sollicitationis’ significance, if it has any at all, is in it’s potential to offer insights into the culture of the Roman Catholic Church and it’s decision-making processes. Doyle used it this way when he argued Crimen sollicitationis illustrates a culture of harmful and undue secrecy within the church. The sociological explanation favoured by him lost out in the media to the universally rejected ‘smoking gun’ theory. In spite of the lack of evidence, this theory continues to be perpetuated over the Internet by broad range of groups, including atheists, fundamentalists, conspiracists and others too difficult to categorise, largely on the basis of a documentary known as “Sex Crimes and the Vatican“, to which I turn to now…
In this video, Doyle, contrary to his previous claims, says that Crimen sollicitationis is an explicit Vatican conspiracy to cover up child abuse allegations. There is an edit in between the remarks quoted below, but even when this is taken into consideration it does not appear to change the nature of the claims, as Doyle seems to be holding a copy of Crimen sollicitationis as he makes the second claim.

In this video, Doyle, contrary to his previous claims, says that Crimen sollicitationis is an explicit Vatican conspiracy to cover up child abuse allegations. There is an edit in between the remarks quoted below, but even when this is taken into consideration it does not appear to change the nature of the claims, as Doyle seems to be holding a copy of Crimen sollicitationis as he makes the second claim…
“Crimen sollicitationis is indicative of a worldwide policy of absolute secrecy and control of all cases of sexual abuse by the clergy. But what you really have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy [and] to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.”

The key phrase is the second one, where Doyle says “what you really have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy”. This claim was central to the thesis of the documentary (which can be seen in full here). It seems as though Doyle catches himself mid-statement but rather than correcting himself, he continues on in his error.

Doyle subsequently clarified his view and blamed the documentary makers for the error:

“Although I was a consultant to the producers of the documentary I am afraid that some of the distinctions I have made about the 1962 document have been lost. I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse. I do not believe that the Vatican or any group of bishops needed a conspiracy.”…
Several matters concern me. The first is that such a claim was made in the first place. It’s false, as Doyle later acknowledges. The second is that this misrepresentation remains uncorrected on the BBC website where it’s mentioned twice, including on it’s own separate page. The third is that his claim became the basis of a series of highly dubious, if not dishonest, inferences that culminated in the condemnation of Pope Benedict XVI in the strongest of terms. Doyle should move to have the record corrected regardless of whether the misrepresentation works in his ideological favour by demonising ‘the hierarchy’…
Regardless of whether Doyle is right or wrong in his interpretation of Crimen sollicitationis, it’s Journalism 101 that anyone so centrally involved in a major litigation process shouldn’t get such [special] treatment. It’s about time to stop giving Tom Doyle a free ride.

 

[adrift]

‘Crimen sollicitationis’

I invite everyone to actually read this document.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. The crime of solicitation occurs whenever a priest – whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession [but] in a confessional or another place assigned or chosen for the hearing of confessions and with the semblance of hearing confessions there – has attempted to solicit or provoke a penitent, whosoever he or she may be, to immoral or indecent acts, whether by words, signs, nods, touch or a written message, to be read either at that time or afterwards, or he has impudently dared to have improper and indecent conversations or interactions with that person (Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, §1).

1. The crime of solicitation is ordinarily committed in the absence of any witnesses; consequently, lest it remain almost always hidden and unpunished with inestimable detriment to souls, it has been necessary to compel the one person usually aware of the crime, namely the penitent solicited, to reveal it by a denunciation imposed by positive law. Therefore:16. “In accordance with the Apostolic Constitutions and specifically the Constitution of Benedict XIV Sacramentum Poenitentiae of 1 June 1741, the penitent must denounce a priest guilty of the crime of solicitation in confession to the local Ordinary or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office within one month; and the confessor must, by an obligation gravely binding in conscience, warn the penitent of this duty.” (Canon 904).

This was hardly the smoking gun. It has been used to smear the Church. The claims that are made by the enemies of the Church are not substantiated by this document. They can’t point to anything in it to substantiate their claims.

 

[Insight]

Catholic Priest Who Aids Church Sexual Abuse Victims Loses Job

snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/doyle_loses_job.htm

The crime of solicitation occurs whenever a priest – whether in the act itself of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from confession [but] in a confessional or another place assigned or chosen for the hearing of confessions and with the semblance of hearing confessions there – has attempted to solicit or provoke a penitent, whosoever he or she may be, to immoral or indecent acts, whether by words, signs, nods, touch or a written message, to be read either at that time or afterwards, or he has impudently dared to have improper and indecent conversations or interactions with that person (Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, §1).

The part you just posted basically says that the victim only needs to make one confession in his or her lifetime for the mandate to apply.

God Bless

 

[adrift]

Catholic Priest Who Aids Church Sexual Abuse Victims Loses Job

snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/doyle_loses_job.htm

The part you just posted basically says that the victim only needs to make one confession in his or her lifetime for the mandate to apply.

God Bless

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion from what I posted. What I posted isn’t remotely connected to your posting.

What I posted was the begining of Crimen Sollicitationis which is the Directive that you refer to in your initial post. Do you mean you have never read it? What I quoted defines what the crime of sollicitation is when it involves the confessional. How you came to your conclusion that you stated is beyond me.
The Directive concerns what to do if a priest sollicits a person in or concerning confession. Solicits means a : to entice or lure especially into evil b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute.

One of the things that is mentions is that it is usually a crime, and they do call it a crime, that is committed without witnesses. As such, the victim is obligated to report it. As I said you really should read it carefully before trying to use it to smear the Church or the Cardinal. Trying to smear the Cardinal to undermine his judgment only show that the ficiton of the book is harmful to the Church.

 

[The_Rock]

The Directive concerns what to do if a priest sollicits a person in or concerning confession. Solicits means a : to entice or lure especially into evil b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute.

The Church uses the word “solitation” differently than the secular definition you posted. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Solicitation
( Latin sollicitare )

Technically in canon law the crime of making use of the Sacrament of Penance, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of drawing others into sins of lust.

So the Church’s uses this word when refering to crimes of lust associated with the Sacrament of Penance. This understanding of how the Church uses the word strengthens your argument.

 

[adrift]

Catholic Priest Who Aids Church Sexual Abuse Victims Loses Job

snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/doyle_loses_job.htm

God Bless

His aid to abuse victims is comendable. The article by New York Time tries to indicate that he lost his job over the aid which is a blantant attack on the Church and does not stand up to scrutiny. I did not know who this priest was until you posted about him. In doing a web search I found the article that you have now linked. Considering the source I believed the account might not be fair. It is an opinon piece.

Getting pass the insinuation that he was “fired do to his support of victims” it is written

His dismissal stemmed from a memorandum he wrote for two superiors at Ramstein interpreting the archbishop’s expectations for how Catholic base personnel should be ministered to. On several points, he appears to contradict the written guidelines of Archbishop O’Brien.

Which matches what I posted on him that he is anti-hierarchical view of church structure.
He didn’t help himself either:

Father Doyle complicated his position after losing his endorsement by seeking to replace it with one from the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, a small body unrelated to the Roman Catholic Church. The priest called that endorsement a bureaucratic fig leaf to keep chaplain status so that he could stay on past his required retirement in August, when he turns 60, and receive a better retirement package. He now calls that decision a mistake and has renounced it.

I am glad that he renounced his dicision but it is sadder still that he has not denounced all of it.

What the abuse victims suspect is not based on facts but their runaway emotions. Just because they have suffered grave harm does not give them the right to make statements against the Church with just feelings. Looking at Fr. Doyle it is obvious that his superior were correct. It is to their credit that they did the right thing even under the cloud of doing it because they were punishing him for his support of victims of abuse.

Speaking from Bamberg, Germany, Archbishop O’Brien rejected suggestions that he was punishing Father Doyle. He said that since he became archbishop seven years ago, he had tolerated the priest’s criticisms of the hierarchy even if they were sometimes “over the top.” He also said he could have waited until Father Doyle retired in August and avoided the turmoil. “But I can’t abdicate my pastoral responsibility because of what some others who are rather deeply involved in the sex-abuse issue would conclude,” he said.

 

[adrift]

The Church uses the word “solitation” differently than the secular definition you posted. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

So the Church’s uses this word when refering to crimes of lust associated with the Sacrament of Penance. This understanding of how the Church uses the word strengthens your argument.

Thank you for your information.

 

[Insight]

Crimen Sollicitationis reverses Pope Saint Pius V’s original Directive regarding pedophile priests. Pope Saint Pius V’s Pontifical Decree reads “Whoever commits such an execrable crime (pedophilia), by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.”

If Pope Saint Pius V’s Directive remained in effect there would never have been a pedophile priest scandal in the Church and there would not be a Priest shortage crisis.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=izBOnZzZe3g

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion from what I posted. What I posted isn’t remotely connected to your posting.

What I posted was the begining of Crimen Sollicitationis which is the Directive that you refer to in your initial post. Do you mean you have never read it? What I quoted defines what the crime of sollicitation is when it involves the confessional. How you came to your conclusion that you stated is beyond me.
The Directive concerns what to do if a priest sollicits a person in or concerning confession. Solicits means a : to entice or lure especially into evil b : to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute.

The first page (Preliminaries) describes who falls under the jurisdiction of the Directive, which becomes far reaching; basically all the victim needs to do is make one confession in his/her lifetime to fall under the terms of the Mandate.

vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

As such, the victim is obligated to report it.

You are referring to Title One – 18; “A member of the faithful who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person (pedophile priest) by whom he or she (victim) was solicited, incurs an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to no one, which is not to be lifted until he or she (victim) has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so”

vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

The denunciation is to the Sacred Penitentiar, an Ordinary, or Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, not the “secular authority” as originally mandated by Pope Saint Pius V; illustrating how imperative is to expeditiously move control of the victim to the jurisdiction of the Crimen Sollicitationis Mandate.

God Bless

 

[incense]

It seems to me, that if this order was in effect for 40 years, and it meant that bishops were to threaten excommunication to anyone who complained about abuse, we would have lots and lots of people coming forward saying their bishop threatened them with this. I’ve never heard of it happening. When our bishop was told about abuse, he dealt with the priest. He did not excommunicate the victim/complainer. So if that twisted interpretation were true, it would mean that my bishop should have been excommunicated. He wasn’t, because he was following cannon law.

While reading about the Spanish Inquisition, I learned that it was church policy to never accuse anyone publicly until there was absolute proof of guilt. One’s reputation was considered valuable. Unlike our press today, who publish the names of “alleged criminals” and “persons of interest”, who have their reputations destroyed before proof or a trial. Remember Padre Pio’s act of contrition directions to a defamer? He was told to toss the feathers from a pillow out the window, and then go and retrieve them all. “Impossible!” complained the penitent. St. Piio agreed, and said the feathers were like the damage caused by his defamation. It can never be all taken back, the damage is forever done.

 

[The_Rock]

Crimen Sollicitationis reverses Pope Saint Pius V’s original Directive regarding pedophile priests. Pope Saint Pius V’s Pontifical Decree reads “Whoever commits such an execrable crime (pedophilia), by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.”

If Pope Saint Pius V’s Directive remained in effect there would never have been a pedophile priest scandal in the Church and there would not be a Priest shortage crisis.

Your assertion fails in a number of points:

1 Pope Saint Pius V’s Directive I believe was actually is speeking of all homosexual acts not just pedophilia, and mandates that the clerics be “delivered to the secular authority to be executed as mandated by law” The full Directive without the part you ommited about execution and without the word “(pedophilia)” which you inserted…
Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568:

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.(Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

2 You said: “Crimen Sollicitationis reverses Pope Saint Pius V’s original Directive regarding pedophile priests”. But if you are talking about pedophilia the Church had already changed the penalties before Crimen Sollicitationis was written; namely the 1917 Code of Canon Law:

1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 2357, §1: “Lay persons who have been legitimately declared guilty of the commission of crimes against the sixth commandment with minors under sixteen years of age, or of rape, sodomy, incest, or traffic in vice, are automatically branded with infamy, besides incurring the other penalties which the Ordinary may think proper to impose.”
Canon 2359, §2: “[Clerics in major orders] If they have committed an offense against the sixth commandment with minors under sixteen years of age, or been guilty of adultery, rape, bestiality, sodomy, traffic in vice, or incest with blood relatives or relations by marriage in the first degree, they shall be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of every office, benefice, dignity, or position that they may hold, and in more grevious cases they shall be deposed.”

3 It has been demonstrated on previous threads on this forum that Crimen Sollicitationis is not the “smoking gun” you claim it to be. It does not give Priests permission to abuse. It does not mandate they be moved to a new Parish etc. etc.
It was about all crimes of solicitation linked to the Confessional.

 

[Insight]

It seems to me, that if this order was in effect for 40 years, and it meant that bishops were to threaten excommunication to anyone who complained about abuse, we would have lots and lots of people coming forward saying their bishop threatened them with this. I’ve never heard of it happening. When our bishop was told about abuse, he dealt with the priest. He did not excommunicate the victim/complainer. So if that twisted interpretation were true, it would mean that my bishop should have been excommunicated. He wasn’t, because he was following cannon law.

While reading about the Spanish Inquisition, I learned that it was church policy to never accuse anyone publicly until there was absolute proof of guilt. One’s reputation was considered valuable. Unlike our press today, who publish the names of “alleged criminals” and “persons of interest”, who have their reputations destroyed before proof or a trial. Remember Padre Pio’s act of contrition directions to a defamer? He was told to toss the feathers from a pillow out the window, and then go and retrieve them all. “Impossible!” complained the penitent. St. Piio agreed, and said the feathers were like the damage caused by his defamation. It can never be all taken back, the damage is forever done.

We may never know, the Catholic Church paid out over 3 billion in settlements to the victims, with stipulations that these victims maintain silence:

bishop-accountability.org/settlements

God Bless

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

Insight, about the CBS article you like to link to:

By Catholic Culture:
catholicculture.org/news/…m?recnum=24023

CBS news story distorts 1962 Vatican document (Analysis)

A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.

In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics’ sexual misdeeds.

The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort.

In fact the network’s story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.
The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of “solicitation”-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.

[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]

The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.

In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

**They lost what very little faith they had, because they did not produce fruit. **

**
12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.**

The Parable of the Sower

1That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9He who has ears, let him hear.”

10The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;

though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15For this people’s heart has become calloused;

they hardly hear with their ears,

and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.’a

16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

18“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I often wonder if the real reason they are leaving is because of the abuse issues, or they find this as the perfect justification for wanting to leave the Church anyway.

If that were the case, they would have to blame themselves. It’s a lot easier to blame someone else.

 

[amber_lux]

I often wonder if the real reason they are leaving is because of the abuse issues, or they find this as the perfect justification for wanting to leave the Church anyway.

You mean the money. Declaim allegiance to a church, and you have an instant reduction in your taxes.

Amber

 

[adrift]

You mean the money. Declaim allegiance to a church, and you have an instant reduction in your taxes.

Amber

Do the Germans have a tax break?

 

[estesbob]

Do the Germans have a tax break?

I beleive in Germany you declare your religion and a “tithe” is automatically deducted from your paycheck.

 

[Atsf1868]

It seems to me, that if this order was in effect for 40 years, and it meant that bishops were to threaten excommunication to anyone who complained about abuse, we would have lots and lots of people coming forward saying their bishop threatened them with this. I’ve never heard of it happening. When our bishop was told about abuse, he dealt with the priest. He did not excommunicate the victim/complainer. So if that twisted interpretation were true, it would mean that my bishop should have been excommunicated. He wasn’t, because he was following cannon law.

While reading about the Spanish Inquisition, I learned that it was church policy to never accuse anyone publicly until there was absolute proof of guilt. One’s reputation was considered valuable. Unlike our press today, who publish the names of “alleged criminals” and “persons of interest”, who have their reputations destroyed before proof or a trial. Remember Padre Pio’s act of contrition directions to a defamer? He was told to toss the feathers from a pillow out the window, and then go and retrieve them all. “Impossible!” complained the penitent. St. Piio agreed, and said the feathers were like the damage caused by his defamation. It can never be all taken back, the damage is forever done.

I know that bishops would try to exploit the sacrament of penance as a means of covering up crimes. I recall one article about a victim in Boston who told Cardinal Law about what had happened to him. At the end of the conversation, Law placed his hands on the victim and said that their conversation was bound by the seal of confession.

 

[estesbob]

I know that bishops would try to exploit the sacrament of penance as a means of covering up crimes. I recall one article about a victim in Boston who told Cardinal Law about what had happened to him. At the end of the conversation, Law placed his hands on the victim and said that their conversation was bound by the seal of confession.

You really have no idea how confession is conducted , do you?

 

[adrift]

You really have no idea how confession is conducted , do you?

Nor does he understand the seal of confession.