- Status
M
markeverett49
Guest
This is a disgusting story, all the more so because it is true. I think JP II’s cause for sainthood should be derailed over this case alone (and there were many others; he was derelict in protecting children and in punishing sexually wayward clergy and their multitude of enablers.)
D
Dandelion_Wine
Guest
You’ll forgive me Mark if I don’t accept all the ‘facts’ from the National Catholic Reporter. 
M
markeverett49
Guest
There are other sources for these facts. They aren’t a secret. JP II knew about them but ignored them. Benedict finally did something, when the guy was in his 80s. How many decades would you wait before stopping a man from molesting boys? The witnesses against him were mainly priests and they went to Church authorities decades ago, but nothing was done.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I’m convinced that Pope Benedict would never turn a blind eye to abuse. There isn’t going to be any real dirt to find about him, which is why they have to invent crazy stories.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
The following (regarding actions taken about the abuse crisis) must be noted concerning Cardinal Ratzinger as he worked under Pope John Paul II:
- He worked to speed-up the process of removing guilty Priests from ministry.
- He removed internal rules regarding statues of limitations, which then allowed Church prosecution of “historical” acts that were alledged many years in the past.
- Under his Congregation a streamlined process was developed to allow for more rapid judgments in cases like sexual abuse.
- He declared a zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse.
- The Congregation he led declared that sexual abuse of minors by clerics were “graviora delicta,” or “most grave crimes.”
- There has been much mis-information about a letter that he sent to all Bishops in 2001 regarding keeping silent about abuse. The media would have us think Cardinal Ratzinger was trying to silence victims and protect guilty Priests, which could not be farther from the truth. Cardinal Ratzinger was simply reiterating Church laws concerning confidential information about the victims and Priests regarding allegations so as to protect the victims and to also allow a proper investigation into what happened without interference. People do tend to forget in all this that even Priests should be considered innocent until proven guilty and that victims must have their legal recourse in a private manner as they see fit. Cardinal Ratzinger was simply attempting to protect the rights of both victims and Priests in that horrible mess–he was not attempting in any manner to silence victims ( a vile and fact-less charge created by the media).
- As stated above, he quickly and publicly condemned the abuse as being the “filth” within the Church.
M
markeverett49
Guest
And yet he did nothing regarding the case in question, did he? No, he did not. He did nothing until he became Pope. Let us remember, he was in his previous post (CDF) for over 20 years; it is not as if he were there just briefly.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
The list I posted constructs a strong case for the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was far from weak on abuse, he was the exact opposite actually. NPR has the exact opposite reputation, sadly.
M
markeverett49
Guest
Then why did nothing happen to Maciel the whole time Ratzinger was at the CDF??? We’re talking a period of over 20 years! (Not that Ratzinger is the only one to blame in the Maciel case.)
S
seekerz
Guest
What I don’t understand is how we clung to the various traditions of the Church for centuries despite changing times and these priests were allowed to escape traditional Church justice (defrocking)?
I hear all kinds of excuses (for this crisis) about the press, the liberals, Vatican II and homosexuality, but no adequate explanation for why/when protecting the image of the Church became more important than protecting the innocent children in it - the ***traditional ***way.
Sadly now, we all have to pay in some form or the other for this error.
I hear all kinds of excuses (for this crisis) about the press, the liberals, Vatican II and homosexuality, but no adequate explanation for why/when protecting the image of the Church became more important than protecting the innocent children in it - the ***traditional ***way.
Sadly now, we all have to pay in some form or the other for this error.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I do not think either of us have enough information to answer that question. The CDF has a huge responsibility, and the Cardinal had many people under him. I have no way of knowing exactly what he did with this case, or even if he was ever truly aware of it (I do not trust NPR reporting).
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I have explained this to you before, you just reject what I have provided.
This is a complex issue, and does not have simply one answer. In some cases it was just plain horrible decisions. In most of the cases the Priests were sent to mental health professionals and then deemed to be healed and then sent back to ministry. The Church kept most of this quiet in order to protect the victims, the families, and yes even the Priests who deserved to have an assumption of innocence (as we all do). I have given much detail on all of this, but you do not want to hear it in your mind.
M
momor
Guest
It seems to me that the only conclusion is that his hands were tied until he became pope. I find that very disturbing on one hand and on the other hand I’m glad he is now pope.
M
markeverett49
Guest
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I think we need to wait and see what comes of this, it is still fairly new. We must recall that a scathing report came out of Wisconsin, only to be completely debunked a week later.
Give it time, we’ll see what response is given and whether or not the response makes sense.
The attacks on this Pope are coming quite rapidly and are ratching-up in intesity. There has to be a reason for that…
Give it time, we’ll see what response is given and whether or not the response makes sense.
The attacks on this Pope are coming quite rapidly and are ratching-up in intesity. There has to be a reason for that…
M
momor
Guest
Not true at all. It has not been completely de-bunked. Fr. Brundage had to amend his rebuttal and admit that a document (halting the trial) existed that he originally claimed did not.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
It has been debunked, but I have no desire to enter that case again. So, think as you will. My point is that we should have patience before we leap to conclusions. NCR is hardly a valid source for reports about the Church. I would like to hear a Vatican response, or least someone who knows more about this.
S
seekerz
Guest
None of what you explained addressed the matter of breaking with tradition. If priest are still required to be celibate, why aren’t they still defrocked for breaking that vow in such a vile manner? Do mental health experts, or victims & their families create Church policy or do we in fact keep the traditions handed down for millennia?
Tradition has always been a bastion of our faith; who decided that we could dispense with this particular one? I am not refusing to understand: I am disappointed and angry. We say to the wife of a man with HIV that she cannot wear a condom during sex because we can’t reframe Church teachings to suit her situation but we allow mental health professionals to reframe disciplinary policy for sexually abusive clergy? Sorry, there is just such a disconnect it doesn’t even begin to be funny…
M
momor
Guest
What is it that you question about the reporting? The facts regarding Fr. Maciel are well documented elsewhere and Pope Benedict did ‘retire’ him after he became pope. I think the reporting is actually pretty positive toward Pope BXVI. It’s Pope JPII and others close to him that are being questioned.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Nonsense. Those Priests were expected to remain celibate after they had fallen and were so-called healed of their problems. The truth is, in most of those cases we have now learned that people are easily healed of those sorts of perversions. A Catholic in pew who sins by using a condom is expected to cease using the condom and turn back to Christ. Those Priests are no different, not then, and not now. They were not defrocked because it was thought they were healed, or could be healed and that they would then remain celibate as they had vowed.
- Status