Letter Indicates Former Pope Knew of Abuse

[canadianguy1143]

foxnews.com/world/2010/04/01/letter-indicates-pope-knew-abuse/?test=latestnews

Key points in the article:

The head of a Roman Catholic order that specialized in the treatment of pedophile priests visited with then-Pope Paul VI nearly 50 years ago and followed up with a letter recommending the removal of pedophile priests from ministry

n the Aug. 27, 1963, letter, the head of the New Mexico-based Servants of the Holy Paraclete tells the pope he recommends removing pedophile priests from active ministry and strongly urges defrocking repeat offenders.

Yet the problem was very well-known to Rome well before the 1960s.

and the most important point:

The 1917 code of canon law criminalized sexual abuse of minors.** Five years later, the Vatican penned a document** outlining detailed procedures for handling such cases. In 1962, that document was updated and has been used in many of the lawsuits by victims against U.S. diocese and the Vatican itself.

If this article is true then I would like to know about this document that the Vatican had penned.

 

[Santi2]

From the link:

The letter shows that the Vatican knew, or should have known, about clergy abuse in the U.S. decades ago…Yet the problem was very well-known to Rome well before the 1960s. The 1917 code of canon law criminalized sexual abuse of minors. Five years later, the Vatican penned a document outlining detailed procedures for handling such cases.

I’m trying to get my head around this one because it seems to be that something was done which would make the implications redundant.

In 1962, that document was updated and has been used in many of the lawsuits by victims against U.S. diocese and the Vatican itself.

 

[markomalley]

Here.

cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf (note that there is some underlining and highlighting in the document that has an editorial quality…please try to disregard it when reading the document and concentrate on the document’s words, if you can)

Read paragraph 1 very, very carefully, though. This document applies to situations where a priest tempts a penitent in, or immediately after, confession.

The media took that and said that it was an official cover-up of any case of abuse and that’s not the case at all.

The reason that this document and the proceedings that could come of it were kept so closely held is that to protect the seal of confession.

Of course, the media wouldn’t see it that way.

 

[Santi2]

Thanks for that link, markomalley. My husband just reminded me that I should not presume the press would have a grasp of our Sacrament of Penance.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

foxnews.com/world/2010/04/01/letter-indicates-pope-knew-abuse/?test=latestnews

Key points in the article:

The head of a Roman Catholic order that specialized in the treatment of pedophile priests visited with then-Pope Paul VI nearly 50 years ago and followed up with a letter recommending the removal of pedophile priests from ministry

n the Aug. 27, 1963, letter, the head of the New Mexico-based Servants of the Holy Paraclete tells the pope he recommends removing pedophile priests from active ministry and strongly urges defrocking repeat offenders.

Yet the problem was very well-known to Rome well before the 1960s.

and the most important point:

The 1917 code of canon law criminalized sexual abuse of minors.** Five years later, the Vatican penned a document** outlining detailed procedures for handling such cases. In 1962, that document was updated and has been used in many of the lawsuits by victims against U.S. diocese and the Vatican itself.

If this article is true then I would like to know about this document that the Vatican had penned.

Why would you assume the article is true?

The secular media hates Holy Mother Church and feeds on lies. They always have an agenda, and always have an ax to grind.

Why have belief and blind faith in the profane but not the sacred?

 

[markomalley]

Thanks for that link, markomalley. My husband just reminded me that I should not presume the press would have a grasp of our Sacrament of Penance.

One thing that never fails to amaze me is how many people, who otherwise have a healthy skepticism regarding anything they read in the press, are willing to lend instant credulity to negative news about Holy Mother Church.

Don’t take that as a personal criticism…it impacts virtually all of us (myself included) to one degree or another.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Why would you assume the article is true?

The secular media hates Holy Mother Church and feeds on lies. They always have an agenda, and always have an ax to grind.

Why have belief and blind faith in the profane but not the sacred?

Both those assertions are untrue. Many are under the impression that the church is somehow owed some kind of special treatment by the media. The best thing news agencies can be right now toward the vatican is: A) Correct in the facts; B) Completely unmerciful in presenting the facts; and C) Relentless in obtaining the facts. If it does those things the Vatican will be all the better for it in the long run. You can ask St. Frances De Sale for those very things.

 

[markomalley]

Both those assertions are untrue. Many are under the impression that the church is somehow owed some kind of special treatment by the media. The best thing news agencies can be right now toward the vatican is: A) Correct in the facts; B) Completely unmerciful in presenting the facts; and C) Relentless in obtaining the facts. If it does those things the Vatican will be all the better for it in the long run. You can ask St. Frances De Sale for those very things.

If you add a (D) in there, I will agree with you

D) Ensure the facts are presented in context.

The facts indicate that the vast majority of the abuse that happened occurred in the 1960s through the early 1980s. The facts indicate that the dioceses did have a tendency to keep abuse tightly under wraps for one reason or another (that would be an interesting story on why). The facts indicate that the majority of abuse incidents were not reported until many, many years after the fact. The facts also indicate that since the mid 90s and particularly since 2002, when a diocese becomes aware of a problem, they have been very expeditious in correcting said problem.

The facts also indicate that the majority of the abuse situations in the other countries, from what I’ve seen, largely parallel that which we’ve seen in this country.

Unfortunately, those facts don’t seem to come out…or if they did, they are buried in paragraph 8 of a 15 paragraph article.

A) Correct in the facts; B) Completely unmerciful in presenting the facts; C) Relentless in obtaining the facts; and D) Ensure the facts are presented in context.

If they did that, they’d have a good story and one that would actually be beneficial.

Instead, they are just serving to chum the waters.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Both those assertions are untrue. Many are under the impression that the church is somehow owed some kind of special treatment by the media. The best thing news agencies can be right now toward the vatican is: A) Correct in the facts; B) Completely unmerciful in presenting the facts; and C) Relentless in obtaining the facts. If it does those things the Vatican will be all the better for it in the long run. You can ask St. Frances De Sale for those very things.

Unfortunately, they have done none of these. They have misrepresented the facts, especially the context of the facts. What they have done is nothing short of an outright attack on the Church for the sake of destroying the Church, which they’ll never be able to do. The Church will be around long, long after they’re gone.

A fair, balanced, factual report would’ve been very helpful. Instead, they’ve resorted to sloppy investigation, latching onto anything that looks bad, true or not. This clearly shows, I think, their anti-Catholic bigotry.

Satan is always quite willing to hide an ounce of lie in a pound of truth. I explain it this way. If I gave you a glass full of the finest wine, and mixed in a tablespoon of sewerage, would you drink it? No! Why? What would it be? Because it would be a glass full of sewerage. The same applies to the truth.

 

[seekerz]

If you add a (D) in there, I will agree with you

D) Ensure the facts are presented in context.

The facts indicate that the vast majority of the abuse that happened occurred in the 1960s through the early 1980s. The facts indicate that the dioceses did have a tendency to keep abuse tightly under wraps for one reason or another (that would be an interesting story on why). The facts indicate that the majority of abuse incidents were not reported until many, many years after the fact. The facts also indicate that since the mid 90s and particularly since 2002, when a diocese becomes aware of a problem, they have been very expeditious in correcting said problem.

The facts also indicate that the majority of the abuse situations in the other countries, from what I’ve seen, largely parallel that which we’ve seen in this country.

Unfortunately, those facts don’t seem to come out…or if they did, they are buried in paragraph 8 of a 15 paragraph article.

A) Correct in the facts; B) Completely unmerciful in presenting the facts; C) Relentless in obtaining the facts; and D) Ensure the facts are presented in context.

If they did that, they’d have a good story and one that would actually be beneficial.

Instead, they are just serving to chum the waters.

We are doing the right things about such events now. We erred in several ways in the manner we handled things then (context of the times do matter somewhat, but we are the ones who consistently proclaim that morals should not depend on ‘the times’). Since we are supposed to be examples to our critics and since we are often critical of their morals, we should expect to be soundly criticized and should bear that with patience and humility******, thus again becoming examples to our critics.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Why would you assume the article is true?

I don’t assume the article to be true. That is why I posted if its true.

The secular media hates Holy Mother Church and feeds on lies. They always have an agenda, and always have an ax to grind.

To my knowledge, Foxnews has been the most impartial of all the LSM.

Why have belief and blind faith in the profane but not the sacred?

Who says that I don’t? But we can’t bury our heads in the sand.

 

[dixieagle]

foxnews.com/world/2010/04/01/letter-indicates-pope-knew-abuse/?test=latestnews

Key points in the article:

The head of a Roman Catholic order that specialized in the treatment of pedophile priests visited with then-Pope Paul VI nearly 50 years ago and followed up with a letter recommending the removal of pedophile priests from ministry

n the Aug. 27, 1963, letter, the head of the New Mexico-based Servants of the Holy Paraclete tells the pope he recommends removing pedophile priests from active ministry and strongly urges defrocking repeat offenders.

Yet the problem was very well-known to Rome well before the 1960s.

and the most important point:

The 1917 code of canon law criminalized sexual abuse of minors.** Five years later, the Vatican penned a document** outlining detailed procedures for handling such cases. In 1962, that document was updated and has been used in many of the lawsuits by victims against U.S. diocese and the Vatican itself.

If this article is true then I would like to know about this document that the Vatican had penned.

The priest who wrote the letter to Pope Paul VI, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, was a Massachusetts native and good friend of my very saintly Great-Aunt May. She was the holiest woman I ever knew; I remember her telling me of dining with Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli before he was Pope Pius XII.

Fr. Fitzgerald told my aunt - as far back as the 1930s - that if drastic measures weren’t taken to deal with priests who preyed on children/teens, then the Church would face its worst crisis in centuries. He also understood that they couldn’t simply be “treated” and shuffled around; he knew, even then, that separation from potential prey was the only way to deal with them, and recommended laicization. His feelings on the subject were by no means secret.

If only he had been taken seriously.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Question…so how can we as lay people find out the facts of what happened, at the Vatican level, accurately, without a media spin? *

 

[canadianguy1143]

*Question…so how can we as lay people find out the facts of what happened, at the Vatican level, accurately, without a media spin? *

WG, I would think that if we knew someone who has workings with the Vatican, then possibly we could find out what happened. Problem is, how many of us, know such people.

 

[dans0622]

Here.

cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf (note that there is some underlining and highlighting in the document that has an editorial quality…please try to disregard it when reading the document and concentrate on the document’s words, if you can)

Read paragraph 1 very, very carefully, though. This document applies to situations where a priest tempts a penitent in, or immediately after, confession.

The media took that and said that it was an official cover-up of any case of abuse and that’s not the case at all.

The reason that this document and the proceedings that could come of it were kept so closely held is that to protect the seal of confession.

Of course, the media wouldn’t see it that way.

Hi markomalley,

I would generally agree. The vast majority of the document concerns solicitation in confession–it is not concerned with what happened after the act of solicitation as that would be a distinct issue. It is presumed that the vicitm of solicitation is a woman, as the document uses the feminine in regard to the victim. The document is not primarily about the abuse of minors.

However, there are a couple paragraphs at the end of the instruction that refer to the “worst crime” and the abuse of minors was included under this heading (somewhere around paragraph 70-73). This inclusion of the abuse of minors seems like an afterthought and is grouped in with bestiality, etc. The point is, abuse of minors was not seen as a pressing issue in those days and “the Vatican” was not trying to secretly deal with this problem.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

P.S. A translation of the relevant canon from the 1917 Code reads thus: “If they (clerics) engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery (stuprum), bestiality, sodomy, pandering (lenocinium), incest with blood relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.”

Dan

 

[seekerz]

The point is, abuse of minors was not seen as a pressing issue in those days and “the Vatican” was not trying to secretly deal with this problem.
Dan

I agree. Child abuse in general, quite apart from sexual abuse used to be seen as the business of parents and is still viewed that way in some parts of the world it seems.

Applying that prevailing attitude to the Church’s actions on the matter can allow one to see how addressing it might have been neglected.

What I find hard to understand/accept is why that should have been so among pastors charged with the duty of promoting truth and righteousness in and out of season. Haven’t children (disabled ones in particular) always had a special place (call it special protection if you will) awarded to them in the Church?

 

[anode]

Some corroboration of points made in this interesting thread:

1. Father Gerald Fitzgerald was the founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, an order founded to assist priests with problems such as alcoholism and, it turns out, pedophilia. Father Gerald learned the hard way that these priests were incurable. He began trying to tell as many people who would listen, and quite a few who wouldn’t, it turns out. At one point, Fr. Gerald actually tried to get funds together* to buy an island* on which pedophile priests could be stowed away to protect society–that’s how strongly he felt.
2. In the Murphy case, Archbishop Weakland wrote Cardinal Ratzinger because Murphy’s abuses appeared to violate the Sacrament of Penance. Murphy spoke fluent American Sign Language–ASL., and confession for deaf boys involved not the confessional, where no one could see their sign language, but in private audiences. It was under these circumstances that Murphy inquired as to whether they were circumcised, started talking about ‘sex education’, and ended up molesting them. Apparently abuse cases involving a violation of confession were supposed to be referred to the Congregation and not handled locally.
3. Regarding canon law provisions of 1962 and 1983, one of the memos in the documents cited in the New York Times article,

documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p37

…was composed after a meeting in Milwaukee which included Fr. Tom Brundage. There is reference to the canon laws of 1962, in which the statute of limitations in abuse cases was only* thirty days*. The subsequent laws of 1983 extended this to 5 years, still too short in Murphy’s case. The memo reports that Fr. Brundage was going to (possibly) go to Washington to request the Papal Nuncio for a waiver to proceed with Murphy’s case, as the Vatican had not responded to Weakland’s letter.

 

[seekerz]

Some corroboration of points made in this interesting thread:

1. Father Gerald Fitzgerald was the founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, an order founded to assist priests with problems such as alcoholism and, it turns out, pedophilia. Father Gerald learned the hard way that these priests were incurable. He began trying to tell as many people who would listen, and quite a few who wouldn’t, it turns out. At one point, Fr. Gerald actually tried to get funds together* to buy an island* on which pedophile priests could be stowed away to protect society–that’s how strongly he felt.
2. In the Murphy case, Archbishop Weakland wrote Cardinal Ratzinger because Murphy’s abuses appeared to violate the Sacrament of Penance. Murphy spoke fluent American Sign Language–ASL., and confession for deaf boys involved not the confessional, where no one could see their sign language, but in private audiences. It was under these circumstances that Murphy inquired as to whether they were circumcised, started talking about ‘sex education’, and ended up molesting them. Apparently abuse cases involving a violation of confession were supposed to be referred to the Congregation and not handled locally.
3. Regarding canon law provisions of 1962 and 1983, one of the memos in the documents cited in the New York Times article,

documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p37

…was composed after a meeting in Milwaukee which included Fr. Tom Brundage. There is reference to the canon laws of 1962, in which the statute of limitations in abuse cases was only* thirty days*. The subsequent laws of 1983 extended this to 5 years, still too short in Murphy’s case. The memo reports that Fr. Brundage was going to (possibly) go to Washington to request the Papal Nuncio for a waiver to proceed with Murphy’s case, as the Vatican had not responded to Weakland’s letter.

That assessment of pedophiles by Fr Fitzgerald seems to coincide with what seems to be the case with pedophiles in general. It disturbs me to think that these people don’t seem to be able/willing to stop themselves. It disturbs me to think that a truly incurable condition could indeed exist: either through innate lack of control or lack of the desire to exert control over one’s inclinations.

Easy to dismiss them as evil or sick. Harder to figure out how to avoid people from becoming like this in the first place - and since a cure seems elusive, prevention would seem to be the only remedy…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Both those assertions are untrue. Many are under the impression that the church is somehow owed some kind of special treatment by the media. The best thing news agencies can be right now toward the vatican is: A) Correct in the facts; B) Completely unmerciful in presenting the facts; and C) Relentless in obtaining the facts. If it does those things the Vatican will be all the better for it in the long run. You can ask St. Frances De Sale for those very things.

Or the Easter Bunny.

But go ahead and believe the media is unbiased and lacks an agenda. That’s at least as believable as the furry flopears with the candy eggs.