Juan Barros case: Chile sex abuse letter contradicts Pope over 'cover-up'

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
A victim of a paedophile priest in Chile has revealed he wrote to the Pope in 2015 about an alleged cover-up after Francis denied getting evidence.

Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of cleric Fernando Karadima in the 1980s, accused fellow priest Juan Barros of witnessing the abuse and doing nothing.

The Pope caused outrage after a visit to Chile last month by defending Bishop Barros, who was made a bishop in 2015.

The Vatican refused to comment on the letter when approached by BBC News.

Pope Francis has said in the past that dealing with abuse is vital for the Church’s credibility and perpetrators must face “sanctions”.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.com

Juan Barros case: Chile sex abuse letter contradicts Pope over 'cover-up'

A victim reveals he wrote to the Pope in 2015 after Francis denies hearing about an alleged cover-up.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
The Vatican has sent a sex abuse team to Chile to investigate. There is another thread on this topic that was started earlier today.
 
It is very hard to understand why the Pope would have spoken as he did given the existence of the letter references in the BBC story. A very serious problem I think. What is the other thread called? I couldn’t find it.
 
I am not defending Juan Barros, as I am not familiar with the entire situation, but I can see Pope Francis’s possible point. He specifically said that he didn’t have the evidence to convict. He may have been given testimonies, but without corroboration in a legal proceeding, either within the church or in a civil court, it simply doesn’t hold any weight. I don’t know if it is just that the legal terms in English and Spanish do not align exactly, but I think this was what he meant when he mentioned ‘slander’: uncorroborated evidence being presented as fact. Even in American courts, if you have a couple of testimonies, but are unable to prove that they are true, then you still can’t get a conviction. Even in the Church, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Pope Francis is reserving judgement on this fact until Bishop Barros is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
He later corrected himself, making his problem worse, by saying he had no ‘evidence’. The only thing I can think of that would explain all this is that the Pope had some sort of neurological event while he was on the plane and was unable to express his thoughts clearly.
 
Exactly. He had no ‘evidence’. Statements cannot become evidence in court unless they can be corroborated. This was my point above.

As to your so theory of a ‘neurological event’, if jumping from one topic to another while having questions shot at you by reporters is considered a ‘neurological event’ then, maybe. Pope Francis is neither a public relations specialist or a politician. He is a pastor. We can’t take his off the cuff comments like we do for those who have been specifically coached on how to make politically correct statements. Yes. There are times he needs to clarify what he says because he is human and speaks, first and foremost, from his humanity. I think that is why so many people are drawn to him: because he is first and foremost a person.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
It is very hard to understand why the Pope would have spoken as he did given the existence of the letter references in the BBC story. A very serious problem I think. What is the other thread called? I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...
The other thread is in Catholic News it begins with AP.
Then there is one other thread also.
 
Last edited:
This is not news that I wanted to hear. I had mostly recovered from what was discussed in the film Spotlight and then this comes along. My faith is very strong and I don’t want to leave the church, especially how in mid 2016 the Blessed Mother answered a prayer and helped my sister and cousin, who were both struggling to conceive children. The priests have got to know right from wrong and not give into the temptations from the Devil. I went to Crux Now to see if I could find any good news and look what was just reported as well.

https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2...izes-school-abuse-calls-victims-come-forward/
 
I’m very proud my Dallas Diocese for the work they’ve done to insure that something like that won’t ever happen again. I’ve also been fortunate to know some very good priests in my life. I just wish that other Dioceses could follow in their footsteps.
 
Yes, even though only a small amount of priests did the acts, the fact any have is an issue.

But it is important that our faith is not in men but in God.
 
I really don’t understand why when people are found guilty of abusing children like this they aren’t immediately fast tracked for execution. (I realize there hasn’t been sufficient evidence to convict in this instance).
 
Executing people will not solve society’s problems. That amounts to little more than revenge. We must pray for the conversion of sinners.
 
Last edited:
It would ensure child predator never hurts another kid. These people are clearly wired wrong, there’s no fixing them. It’s like expecting a wolf not to eat a deer.
 
Maximilian75 said:
have been shown to work in some cases.
Click to expand...
Some cases. I’m not willing to make that gamble.

I’d settle for moving them to a remote island that they’re never allowed to move off of and give them the tools and books to learn how to provide for themselves in that environment as well.

Predators like this need removed from society, the risk is too great to keep them in it and hope for the best.
 
Similar to what you said- island, with reform facilites and some of the stuff I earlier mentioned- chemical castration, therapy, etc.
 
The thing that truly worries me is that there are some groups pushing for the recognition of pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a severe disorder.

This is exactly how homosexuality was normalized. First they pushed for de-stigmatization, then they pushed for acceptance, and now if you make a statement that it’s inherently disordered from nature you’re basically a pariah in modern society and are labeled a bigot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top