Poem of the Man-God

[adrift]

That’s what I thought, you are part of the problem. So people who see something wrong with excommunicating child victims for refusing to be silent are enemies of the Church? Has the devil already penetrated the Church this far?

)

I did not say what you imply. What I said was that you have not read the document that the intent was not what you imply that the document itself says that child abuse is evil and that what you imply what the document was about, basically to discredit someone you dislike, was used by anti-catholics. What I pointed out which is ignored is that it is a sin of detraction.
This has nothing to do with the topic but is a red herring to distract from the FACT that the Church says the Poem is a fiction. Until the Church says differently, no one should claim otherwise.

 

[Insight]

Excommunicating child victims for refusing to be silent is not evil?

1962 Vatican Document

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/…in566978.shtml

bishop-accountability.org…nprotected.pdf

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/Toye.htm

As soon as CBS News uncovered the 1962 Cardinal Ottaviani directive, damage control went into full swing, endeavoring to minimize the document’s role and significance. Understandably, these refutes cleverly omit the actual document for reader analysis and discourage further investigation. The basic facts outlined in the document null any attempt to diminish its grievous impact on child victims. It would be prudent to examine the actual Ottaviani directive very carefully to avoid being deceived by the recent explanatory articles written with the cunning ability of Michael Jackson’s defense team attorneys. The actual directive itself would make any Christian’s blood boil, regarding both the author and those attempting to conceal its true nature. Defenders of this Ottaviani doctrine claim the secrecy is only to maintain the sanctity of the Confessional, notwithstanding that the document clearly broadens the range and scope to before and after Confession on the very first page, which could entail years. Furthermore, articles attempting to diminish the significance of this Ottaviani directive claim that it does not bar the child victims from making separate charges about the priest’s sexual misconduct. On the contrary, in the event the injured party declined absolute secrecy (sought protection and/or justice from the authorities), the directive clearly mandates the molester victims be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for life. The Ottaviani directive makes this unmistakably crystal clear throughout the document.

1. It’s immediately obvious that the document was specifically designed to silence the child victims. Any attempt of the victim to communicate the abuse to authorities results in excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church for life.
   Preliminaries – 11 (restrained by perpetual silence)
   Preliminaries – 13 (accuser must be silenced)
   Title 1 – 18 (excommunication)
   Title 1 – 21 (secrecy till death)
   Title 1 – The First Knowledge of the Crime – Paragraph 23 (threaten the victim)
2. The pedophile priest is treated in a protective and opposite manner.
   The Process – Chapter 3 – 48 “The judge should paternally and gently exhort the accused”

The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 “In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth.” But notice that it’s mandatory to bind the victim.

Title 3 – Penalties – 63 (The greatest penalty possible to the pedophile priest found guilty by the outlined tribunal is being reduced to “lay-brother”, and only done when it is considered that there is absolutely no hope of recovery. - Hence the perpetual transfers of pedophile priests and multimillion dollar pay outs)

Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)

Keep in mind that any other institution, upon learning that one of its members is molesting children, would have the God given common sense to contact the authorities. The Ottaviani directive seems to be designed to make the Roman Catholic Church a safe haven for pedophiles, while cleverly and viciously repressing child victims. Notwithstanding Mark 9:42 – “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” How could those defending this reprehensible Ottaviani directive consider that this verse would not also apply to them?

 

[adrift]

Keep in mind that any other institution, upon learning that one of its members is molesting children, would have the God given common sense to contact the authorities. The Ottaviani directive seems to be designed to make the Roman Catholic Church a safe haven for pedophiles, while cleverly and viciously repressing child victims. Notwithstanding Mark 9:42 – “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” How could those defending this reprehensible Ottaviani directive consider that this verse would not also apply to them?

Again you use a translation that fits your purpose. The New American bible is a better translation.
You still haven’t read the document preferring the opinions of enemies of the church. The spokesman for the Church, Monsignor Francis Maniscalco, said it was taken out of context.
This document has nothing to do with the fiction of the Poem.

Keep in mind that any other institution, upon learning that one of its members is molesting children, would have the God given common sense to contact the authorities.

I almost miss this. Other institutions do no better. The only reason that most people do not know that non catholic ministers molest more than priest, that teachers molest more than clergy and that the number one abusers are parents is because of the bias against the Church.

 

[Insight]

I guess I wouldn’t be having Monsignor Francis Maniscalco babysitting my kids anytime soon.

There is an enormous difference regarding other institutions, they didn’t come out with Official Directives protecting the predators and condemning the child victims to a lifetime of permanent excommunication for talking.

 

[adrift]

Your links are broken.
One link is to a promoter of the Poem so uses the scandal in order to discredit and because of that it is the sin of detraction.

I guess I wouldn’t be having Monsignor Francis Maniscalco babysitting my kids anytime soon.

Sarcastic remark which only proves the danger of this fiction.

There is an enormous difference regarding other institutions, they didn’t come out with Official Directives protecting the predators and condemning the child victims to a lifetime of permanent excommunication for talking.
Reply With Quote

Again ignores that this document is taken out of context but it is what you want to see.

 

[Insight]

I see the posting abbreviated the links, I’ll attempt it again:

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/CBS.htm

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

bishop-accountability.org/downloads/CrimenSollicitationes-Unprotected.pdf

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/Toye.htm

It may not be necessary for me to address this further. After evaluation, those siding with this Directive must be a very tiny minority, quite possibly living in San Francisco or Grenage Village. To the large majority, a horrible black eye, that cost the Church It’s dignity, as well as nearly $100 million in settlements. All that money taken up in collections being used as hush money to violated child victims.

More Links:

takingfive.com/time_for_new_stand.htm

theharrowing.com/doyle-comment-11-1-06.pdf

votf.org/vineyard/Oct5_2006/bbc.html

poynter.org/column.asp?id=46&aid=43835

wanttoknow.info/050415sexcrimescoverup

bishop-accountability.org/news2003_07_12/2003_08_07_CBS_SexCrimes.htm

glenncarter.com/zzz/n3.htm

cathnews.com/news/308/42.html

snapnorthwest.org/vatican%20implicated%20in%20scandal.htm

spurgeongems.org/ptg.pdf

sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=14686

michaeldubruiel.blogspot.com/2003/08/it-begins.html

This has been a groundbreaking disaster for the Church. The significance? It was authored and signed by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, the one who placed Saint Faustina Kowalska’s life works and Maria Valtorta’s writings on the Index. “This same Cardinal also had several noted rage and temper incidents. While giving a harangue at the pulpit, the technician switched off his microphone, causing the whole congregation to give a standing ovation. In another similar tirade, the Priests listening to him turned their chairs around facing away from him.”

 

[Eliza10]

Hi, Friends.

I would like to get back to this argument - ur, discussion. I will be able to make some time this weekend. So, I haven’t forgotten.

It really matters to me. This whole question of whether the Church has ruled that it is wrong, or against the Magisterium of the Church, to read/love Poem of the ManGod because you recognize the Voice of your Shepherd in it - thats pretty important to me.

It is an easy matter for those who have not read and have not loved this work to dismiss it. I understand. Why not. It is harder to understand why some stubbornly and with such authority damn those who do (by accusing us of disobedience).

Well, more thoughts later. May God’s peace be with you, all you lovers and detractors of The Poem of the Man-God.

Eliza10

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/images/jesus_christ_on_trial.jpg

 

[adrift]

Did the media take this document out of context?

The document is about what to do with the crime of solicitation. If anyone had taken the time and open mind to read it, they would have discovered that it does not directly deal with priests that molest children. It deals with the confessional and no age is specified. This could be an adult or a child. But why would a Catholic want to put such a bad light on the Church? I understand the news media that hates the Church anyway. Why would some one want to drag through the mud a dead priest? To reveal his fault has already been establish as detraction. The sight that does this promotes the fiction of the poem. It has been seen in this thread that if questions are raised they are attacked. Cardinal Ottaviani is attacked in order to make the work genuine? It reflects badly. The Church is and has always been a place for sinners. That is why Jesus came. We are called to love. To name call and talk badly about a priest is not what Jesus called us to do. The abuse has been a scandal but so is the slanderous treatment of this priest. What is accomplished? The only reason that it is brought up in this context is to support the Poem. It actually has the opposite effect.

The answer to the question is Yes. Those who are lovers of truth will see it. Those who wish it as a weapon will not.

 

[adrift]

Hi, Friends.

I would like to get back to this argument - ur, discussion. I will be able to make some time this weekend. So, I haven’t forgotten.

It is an easy matter for those who have not read and have not loved this work to dismiss it. I understand. Why not. It is harder to understand why some stubbornly and with such authority damn those who do (by accusing us of disobedience).

]Poem of the Man-God.

Eliza10

http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/images/jesus_christ_on_trial.jpg

Hi Eliza,

I must apologize since I am one who accused you of disobedience . I have since changed my mind for reasons I do not want to go into although it still may be true for some.
It is hard to resist the temptation to make personnel attacks. It has been hard since I have had personnel remarks made against me. One should not judge what another is doing. That isn’t to say that you can’t make general comments.
This is unapproved and quite frankly I am surprised that this thread hasn’t been closed since it does promote an unapproved apparition. I trust the Church. It says its fiction.

 

[Insight]

The media certainly did not take this document out of context. Why don’t you take the time to read it? The reason it was brought up was to illustrate the mindset of the person who placed Saint Faustina Kowalska’s life works and Maria Valtorta’s writings on the Index.

Title V of the document includes the crimes of sexual contact with same sex partners, sexual contacts with minors and bestiality which are also to be processed according to these special norms. The document does not imply that these crimes were to have been perpetrated through solicitation in the confessional. It included them under the title “The worst crimes” and presumably because of their serious nature, they were included under these special procedural norms. The norms of Crimen were thus established as the obligatory procedures for prosecuting cases of four separate and distinct canonical crimes, namely:

a) solicitation for sex in the act of sacramental confession

b) homosexual sex

c) sexual abuse of minor males or females

d) bestiality or sex with animals.

It is therefore incorrect to state that the norms and procedures of Crimen Sollicitationis are applicable only to cases of solicitation for sex in the confessional

Though some have claimed that Crimen Sollicitationis applies only to solicitation in the confessional, and not to other sexual crimes perpetrated by clerics, the opposite is true. The very words of the document itself clearly establish that those acts included under the classification of “the worst crime” (de crimine pessimo) are to be processed according to the norms set forth for the crime of solicitation. This very issue was taken up by Msgr. Brian Ferme, J.C.D., in his article entitled “Graviora delicta: the apostolic letter M.P. Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.” which appeared in the book Il processo penale canonico (Rome: Lateran University Press, 2003):

While the instruction dealt specifically with solicitation and the procedural norms to be applied in judging this crime, the fifth chapter stated that the same norms were also to be observed for the “crimen pessimum (art. 71), which was understood to include paedolphilia (art. 73). In other words at the promulgation of the CIC83 [Code of Canon Law, 1983] the “graviora delicta” reserved to the CDF seemed to be those concerned with solicitation, the violation of the seal of confession and the ‘criminum pessimum” as understood by the 1962 Norms, though the actual praxis of the Congregation may have included others.

Furthermore, in a deposition of Msgr. Ferme taken in a civil case in California in 2005, he repeated this processional opinion when asked by the attorney taking the deposition about the relationship of pedophilia to the 1962 document:

Q - And according to your article, the ’62 instruction was understood to include the crime of pedophilia, correct?

A. - Correct, as was the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

Q. And that would be pedophilic acts committed either in connection with the confession or not, correct?

A. - Correct.

 

[Brian_Reeves]

o man this is probly going to get mixed responses…
ive flipped through a few pages and liked what i read.
i know little more than there is controversy surrounding it, supposedly a pope endorsed it, then it was on the index, then the index was taken away, and yeah.
i plan on reading it some time in my life.

God Bless
Mordocai

 

[adrift]

The media certainly did not take this document out of context. Why don’t you take the time to read it? The reason it was brought up was to illustrate the mindset of the person who placed Saint Faustina Kowalska’s life works and Maria Valtorta’s writings on the Index.

T

Why don’t you take the time to read it without an agenda?
To illustrate the mindset? Oh it does that, but not of the priest you malign, but of the people who throw mud. No where have I seen by people who criticize the document that it is called the worst crime. That would defeat the purpose of causing harm to the priests reputation, the sin of detraction.
An honest person reading the document can see that it has been taken out of context. An honest person would say that those involved with the document including the Pope John XXIII expected these cases to be rare.

 

[adrift]

Why don’t you take the time to read it without an agenda?
To illustrate the mindset? Oh it does that, but not of the priest you malign, but of the people who throw mud. I noted that you list this under the title “worst crimes”, that was this priest mindset. I also note that those who you quote never acknowledge that it was considered, by this document, to be the worst crime. That would defeat the purpose of causing harm to the priest’s reputation, the sin of detraction.
An honest person reading the document can see that it has been taken out of context. An honest person would say that those involved with the document, including the Pope John XXIII, expected these cases to be rare.

 

[Insight]

An honest person would not excommunicate violated child victims for refusing to remain silent and submit to molestation.

An honest person reading the document would choose not to place his/her faith and morals into the hands of it’s author, but into the Papal Order to publish as witnessed by three notable Priests and validated by a Cardinal at the Vatican.

 

[Insight]

Oh, I almost forgot:

Mark 9:42 – “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”

 

[adrift]

An honest person would not excommunicate violated child victims for refusing to remain silent and submit to molestation.

An honest person reading the document would choose not to place his/her faith and morals into the hands of it’s author, but into the Papal Order to publish as witnessed by three notable Priests and validated by a Cardinal at the Vatican.

This is not honest. Can you show anywhere that there was an excommunication of a child victim. No where in the document does it say to submit that is a malicious statement and a misrepresentation of the document.
As been shown, there was no Papal order to publish as attested to by a bishop that promoted this poem and it has been shown that at least one of the priest was dishonest and it has been shown that there was no validation by a Cardinal. It has been shown that this detraction is for the purpose of ruining reputation which is the sin against the commandment not to bear false witness.
Mathew 3:2

2
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

 

[Insight]

I see what you are doing, since the document posted by Bishop-Accountability is a scan of the original, clear enough to read, but not clear enough for a text converter, you are taking advantage of: that it cannot be directly quoted from without hand retyping. So the reader will actually have to read the original document, that you are hoping, he/she will not do.

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/CBS.htm

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131709&page=10&highlight=Maria+Valtorta

bishop-accountability.org/downloads/CrimenSollicitationes-Unprotected.pdf

advancedchristianity.com/Pages/CBS/Toye.htm

As soon as CBS News uncovered the 1962 Cardinal Ottaviani directive, damage control went into full swing, endeavoring to minimize the document’s role and significance.  Understandably, these refutes cleverly omit the actual document for reader analysis and discourage further examination of the directive.  The basic facts outlined in the Ottaviani document null any attempt to diminish its grievous impact on child victims.  It would be prudent to examine the actual Ottaviani directive carefully to avoid being deceived by the recent explanatory articles written with the cunning ability of Michael Jackson’s defense team attorneys.  These articles attempt to thwart its contents and objectives, endeavoring to have readers join the crowds cheering the child molesters dancing on automobile rooftops.  The actual directive itself would make any Christian’s blood boil, regarding both the author and those attempting to conceal its true nature.  Defenders of this Ottaviani doctrine claim the secrecy is only to maintain the sanctity of the Confessional, notwithstanding that the document clearly broadens the range and scope to before and after Confession on the very first page, which could entail years.  Furthermore, articles attempting to diminish the significance of this reprehensible Ottaviani directive claim that it does not bar the child victims from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct.  On the contrary, if the injured party sought protection and justice from the authorities, the Ottaviani directive clearly mandates the molester victims be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for life.

1. It’s immediately obvious that the document was specifically designed to silence the victims. Any attempt of the victim to communicate the abuse to authorities results in excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church for life.

Preliminaries – 11 (restrained by perpetual silence)
Preliminaries – 13 (accuser must be silenced)
Title 1 – 18 (excommunication)
Title 1 – 21 (secrecy till death)
Title 1 – The First Knowledge of the Crime – Paragraph 23 (threaten the victim)

1. The pedophile priest is treated in a protective and opposite manner.

The Process – Chapter 3 – 48 “The judge should paternally and gently exhort the accused”
The Process – Chapter 3 – 52 “In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth.” But notice that it’s mandatory to bind the victim.
Title 3 – Penalties – 63 (The greatest penalty possible to the pedophile priest found guilty by the outlined tribunal is being reduced to “lay-brother”, and only done when it is considered that there is absolutely no hope of recovery. - Hence the perpetual transfers of pedophile priests and multimillion dollar pay outs)
Title 5 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)
Keep in mind that any other institution, upon learning that one of its members is molesting children, would have the God given common sense to contact the authorities. The Ottaviani directive seems to be designed to make the Roman Catholic Church a safe haven for pedophiles, while cleverly and viciously repressing child victims. Notwithstanding Mark 9:42 – “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” How could those defending this malicious Ottaviani directive consider that this verse would not also apply to them?

 

[Insight]

Title V of the document includes the crimes of sexual contact with same sex partners, sexual contacts with minors and bestiality which are also to be processed according to these special norms. The document does not imply that these crimes were to have been perpetrated through solicitation in the confessional. It included them under the title “The worst crimes” and presumably because of their serious nature, they were included under these special procedural norms. The norms of Crimen were thus established as the obligatory procedures for prosecuting cases of four separate and distinct canonical crimes, namely:

a) solicitation for sex in the act of sacramental confession

b) homosexual sex

c) sexual abuse of minor males or females

d) bestiality or sex with animals.

It is therefore incorrect to state that the norms and procedures of Crimen Sollicitationis are applicable only to cases of solicitation for sex in the confessional

Though some have claimed that Crimen Sollicitationis applies only to solicitation in the confessional, and not to other sexual crimes perpetrated by clerics, the opposite is true. The very words of the document itself clearly establish that those acts included under the classification of “the worst crime” (de crimine pessimo) are to be processed according to the norms set forth for the crime of solicitation. This very issue was taken up by Msgr. Brian Ferme, J.C.D., in his article entitled “Graviora delicta: the apostolic letter M.P. Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.” which appeared in the book Il processo penale canonico (Rome: Lateran University Press, 2003):

While the instruction dealt specifically with solicitation and the procedural norms to be applied in judging this crime, the fifth chapter stated that the same norms were also to be observed for the “crimen pessimum (art. 71), which was understood to include paedolphilia (art. 73). In other words at the promulgation of the CIC83 [Code of Canon Law, 1983] the “graviora delicta” reserved to the CDF seemed to be those concerned with solicitation, the violation of the seal of confession and the ‘criminum pessimum” as understood by the 1962 Norms, though the actual praxis of the Congregation may have included others.

Furthermore, in a deposition of Msgr. Ferme taken in a civil case in California in 2005, he repeated this processional opinion when asked by the attorney taking the deposition about the relationship of pedophilia to the 1962 document:

Q - And according to your article, the ’62 instruction was understood to include the crime of pedophilia, correct?

A. - Correct, as was the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

Q. And that would be pedophilic acts committed either in connection with the confession or not, correct?

A. - Correct.

 

[Insight]

Her writings were presented to Pope Pius XII in 1947, who examined them for ten months. His Holiness agreed to a special meeting in 1948, in which He ordered the publishing before three Priests: Fr. Corrado Berti (Professor of Dogmatic and Sacramental Theology at the Pontifical “Marianum” Theological Faculty of Rome from 1939 onward, later becoming Secretary of the Faculty from 1950 to 1959, as well as consultant to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council), Fr. Romualdo M. Migliorini (Prefect Apostle in Africa), and Fr. Andrew M. Cecchin (Prior of the International College of the Servites of Mary in Rome. These aforementioned Priests documented this event immediately afterwards with signed testimony. The fact that the Pope did grant this audience was historically documented the next day, February 27, 1948 in L’Osservatore Romano. The Official Vatican recorder Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, inscribed that Pope Pius XII’s action as: “The kind of official Imprimatur granted before witnesses by the Holy Father in 1948. An “Official Imprimatur” of the Supreme Authority of the Church”. The Code of Canon Law - Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter I, Article I - gives the Pope full and supreme power over all levels of the Church and free use to exercise this power. The Papal order came first. Canon law prohibits this Papal order from being reversed by subordinate levels of Church authority. Canon law clearly requires that this Papal order be embraced with unconditional acceptance and submission.

Read carefully to understand Your Hierarchy. First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chp. IV, p.IX - “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 883 - "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.”

 

[Eileen_T]

Adrift & Insight

Would you like to start a new thread please, you are off topic here.