Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[Libero]

Since when have we decided that a moral issue is one that can be compromised; since situational ethics wormed its way into moral theology?

There seems to be sufficient evidence on that, if not compromised, then ignored. We virtually never hear about celibacy for heterosexual people. It is accepted as the norm amoung todays youth to have sex out of marriage, that you should as soon as you turn 16 / 18. I am not stating that any sin should be ignored, but why is it that homosexuality is so important? The fact that it is in comstant discussion here also says something. Has homosexuality ever been as important to the church as now? The church should start preaching all teachings equally, that is sufficient compromise. It is obvious that some teachings are not preached as others.

 

[felra]

ncjohn:

By the way Felra, with all due respect, I’ll make you a deal…I’ll not question your orthodoxy since I have no mindreading powers if you’ll return the favor. People can disagree on things without being less Catholic than you.

Peace to all,

Deal …but, only if you promise to challenge me if you EVER read me making outright appalling statements regarding an official Church Instruction approved by the Pope, implying that such an instruction is akin to spreading a gospel of hate, such as I have exampled and highlighted below:
**

I for one** am appalled**

. …and I are devastated to see him so distraught over such a misguided decision.

I just don’t understand how we can continue to profess the gospel of Love of Neighbor while spreading such hatred and deciding that the way God made someone isn’t good enough for us. This is a sad day indeed.

Lord forgive us for we know not what we do.

This statement however is the exact fallacy of the entire argument. It presumes that all homosexuals are prone to the problems that are involved here and further that homosexual men are less able to remain celebate that heterosexual men.
**

“The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the Instruction after soliciting advice from all of the world’s bishops, from psychologists, and from moral theologians.”

“The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.”

 

[YinYangMom]

ncjohn:

To the best of my knowledge this is a matter of Church discipline and is not being advanced as an infallible teaching. My research so far, though not extensive, does not indicate anything else.
Peace to all,

Poster Thomas More provided a good response toward that in another thread (post #32):

*Some things in the Catechism are not at all infallible and could change, for example it’s statement that “the genesis of homosexuality remains largely unexplained.” …

But when the CCC states something definitely and then cites a Council, or an ex cathedra statement from a Pope, or the consistent and clear authority of Scripture, or an explanation that the teaching is infallible by the ordinary magisterium . . . well then you can hang your hat on it.*

Poster Catholic2003 stated the same in this thread (post #5):

*The Catechism is not an infallible document. It is not even per se a magisterial document; it was written for catechesis.

If you can find a given teaching in the Catechism, the footnotes should indicate where you can find the applicable magisterial documents. And if those referenced documents are infallible, then the teaching is infallible.*

Poster Awalt presented a very good point in the second thread I referenced (post #6) when he said:

*1. In the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere in the front, Pope John Paul says among other things, “The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms.”

1. In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum also in the front, the Pope says "The [CCC]…is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.*

So it looks like we’d have to look at the footnotes in the quotes I provided earlier to see which of those came from infallible documents to determine which were protected by the Holy Spirit at the time.

One thing I’ve learned from reading those threads and others on the matter of infallibility and the magesterium is that while some things can and may change, they usually do, and will, change for a deeper understanding - they will not be reversed.

 

[YinYangMom]

otm:

In another thread, I asked who is going to do the house cleaning, and what assurances do we have that the house will be clean when it is done? If we have gay bishops (and I suggest ony a fool would say that we don’t), assuming they don’t resign for the good of the order (anyone seen any letters of resignation floating, other than age-related, of recent?), if they are not already “outed”, will they dare to raise a hand against even a celibate homosexual priest? Let alone an active one?

And what of the bishops who are not homosexual, but have made no record whatsoever about the issue, other than, perhaps, a hand wringing statement or two; are we to suppose that sudeenly they will grow a backbone?

I think not.

That may leave us with some who seem to have some sense of the issue; but they may be somewhat hamstrung by Canon law as to what they can or cannot do.

I suspect that this may come off somewhat like the Mandatum; those who will won’t need to, and those who need to, won’t.

That is my concern as well. That the Pope signs this document is not news, as the policy he is signing is not new.

What would be ‘news’ would be a declaration from the Pope that this document will now be enforced and have him outline how that will be done, and in what timeline.

I’m not holding my breath for that.

 

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

This also creates problems for me. All men serving in God’s ministry are one with the holy spirit are they not? Why then are some peoples views about what to do bout homosexual seminarians different to others, if their conclusions are both formed from the same holy spirit? Why would the church consider one attitude better than the other, just because there was a majority attitude between the bishop’s means nothing. I am not even that sure it would have been a huge majority. There are many high ranking clergy men who would not agree with this ban, are they not revealed things by the holy spirit? What about all of the homosexual priests who have done a wonderful job, they have overcome something beyond what some people can understand (that is what you would believe from this thred) they have truly used the holy spirit to hep them? So I suppose we should just ignore them?

Individual priests, bishops and cardinals do not have the protection of infallibility. But when they are called together by the Pope to research a matter on faith and morals - as a body they are protected - that is why as Felra pointed out:

“The Congregation for Catholic Education prepared the Instruction after soliciting advice from all of the world’s bishops, from psychologists, and from moral theologians.”

in this situation the proper revelation of the Spirit was discerned. Yes, it’s quite possible that some of the bishops in this congregation are gay themselves, it’s possible they may be heterosexual but personally believe celibate SSAers should still be allowed to be priests, but when all was said and done, when all the documents, testimony, statistics were presented and reviewed, the proper conclusion - according to the will of God - was drawn (again cited by Felra):

“The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.”
**
This is why if/when the pope signs this document he pretty much seals the deal as authentic and accurately discerned.

On that, the rest of us faithful will be directed to get with the program pretty much, as with all other church teachings which are difficult for us to agree with given societal pressures to view those issues from a secular perspective. We must obey and work toward understanding and acceptance.

 

[Libero]

On that, the rest of us faithful will be directed to get with the program pretty much, as with all other church teachings which are difficult for us to agree with given societal pressures to view those issues from a secular perspective. We must obey and work toward understanding and acceptance.

But this is the whole point, is the issue really made hard due to societal issues. I believe not, issues such as priests being not allowed to be married, and the ban on condoms are societal. However the fact that a homosexual priest should be denied a vocation to the priesthood due to stereotypes is plainly ridiculous.

 

[ncjohn]

YinYangMom:

Poster Thomas More provided a good response toward that in another thread (post #32):

*Some things in the Catechism are not at all infallible and could change, for example it’s statement that “the genesis of homosexuality remains largely unexplained.” …

But when the CCC states something definitely and then cites a Council, or an ex cathedra statement from a Pope, or the consistent and clear authority of Scripture, or an explanation that the teaching is infallible by the ordinary magisterium* . . . well then you can hang your hat on it.

Poster Catholic2003 stated the same in this thread (post #5):

*The Catechism is not an infallible document. It is not even per se a magisterial document; it was written for catechesis.

If you can find a given teaching in the Catechism, the footnotes should indicate where you can find the applicable magisterial documents. And if those referenced documents are infallible, then the teaching is infallible*.

Poster Awalt presented a very good point in the second thread I referenced (post #6) when he said:

*1. In the Apostolic Letter Laetamur Magnopere in the front, Pope John Paul says among other things, “The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms.”

1. In the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum also in the front, the Pope says "The [CCC]…is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium*.

So it looks like we’d have to look at the footnotes in the quotes I provided earlier to see which of those came from infallible documents to determine which were protected by the Holy Spirit at the time.

One thing I’ve learned from reading those threads and others on the matter of infallibility and the magesterium is that while some things can and may change, they usually do, and will, change for a deeper understanding - they will not be reversed.

And again, with all due respect, I say this: to the best of my knowledge, and no one yet has shown anything to disprove this, this action has not been done in any way as an infallible teaching. I am not stupid or uneducated, and obviously neither are you. I’m sure then that you understand the difference between infallible teachings and Church disciplines.

Like this ban, the Church could decide tomorrow to remove the celibacy ban or the ban on priests being allowed to marry, or any number of other “disciplinary” items. These are not matters of Faith and Morals. They are Church teachings that they believe are of benefit for whatever reason.

This particular teaching may last for all eterninty, and conceivably someone could come up with “proof” that none of the Apostles were gay and therefore come to a conclusion that God never intended for gay men to be priests. That has not happened at this time however, and just as I’m allowed to believe that the Church might be better served by allowing married priests, I am also allowed to believe that banning celibate gay men is not in the interests of the Church.

That doesn’t make either of us more or less Catholic or more or less “orthodox.” It just means we have different opinions. You happen to be blessed that the current Pope agrees with yours. While I’d like to see unity and believe there can always be “win-win” solutions to problems, that can’t always be in this lifetime, and apparently this is one of those times.

My main problem with the whole thing is the “dancing with joy in the streets” I’m seeing as some holy, dedicated, loving men are being demonized because of they way God made them. Even if one thinks this is the proper decision, it should be with great sadness that it should have to be invoked, not with joy. “Love is patient and kind. It does not boast or envy…” Love always seeks to lift up rather than tear down. I have always looked to the Church to do this, and maybe the Church is trying as it seeks a “greater good.” An awful lot of her people though are rejoicing loudly in another’s sadness. I think of how sad we were as Americans to see the images of some of the Arab world rejoicing after 9/11. There are those who are shuddering the same way now.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.

 

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

But this is the whole point, is the issue really made hard due to societal issues. I believe not, issues such as priests being not allowed to be married, and the ban on condoms are societal. However the fact that a homosexual priest should be denied a vocation to the priesthood due to stereotypes is plainly ridiculous.

If you look at the history of the Church with regard to councils and commissions you’ll find they’re general called in response to heresies milling around the community at large (society)…so, yeah, the fact that homosexuality is being promoted as acceptable among our society, and that the church just underwent horrendous scandal at the hands of priests with SSA made it necessary for the Church to gather, yet again, on the matter to come up with basically the same ruling as before.

Again, my surprise isn’t that the document will repeat previous positions…I’m more concerned about enforcement this time around.

 

[YinYangMom]

ncjohn:

no one yet has shown anything to disprove this, this action has not been done in any way as an infallible teaching.

As I said, you can look at the footnotes of any of the teachings outlined in the CCC with regard to homosexuality to determine which of those teachings are infallible. Since I’m fine with accepting the entire CCC as “true as can be at this time” I don’t care to spend my time looking into each reference, but since you do have that concern, then perhaps you can invest the time to determine whether or not the position is infallible. I’m sure there are several other people on this board who would be most interested in your findings.

Like this ban, the Church could decide tomorrow to remove the celibacy ban or the ban on priests being allowed to marry, or any number of other “disciplinary” items. These are not matters of Faith and Morals. They are Church teachings that they believe are of benefit for whatever reason.

This particular teaching may last for all eterninty, and conceivably someone could come up with “proof” that none of the Apostles were gay and therefore come to a conclusion that God never intended for gay men to be priests. That has not happened at this time however, and just as I’m allowed to believe that the Church might be better served by allowing married priests, I am also allowed to believe that banning celibate gay men is not in the interests of the Church.

Celibacy in the priesthood and married priests are indeed disciplinary and can change. The position on homosexuality cannot, as it is intrinsically disordered, and that is one of those non-negotiable God-determined rulings (not man-determined)…and since the position on homosexuality in general cannot be reversed, then there’s no way the discipline position with regard to it can change. The Church can never make a policy which is contrary to natural law.

That doesn’t make either of us more or less Catholic or more or less “orthodox.” It just means we have different opinions. You happen to be blessed that the current Pope agrees with yours. While I’d like to see unity and believe there can always be “win-win” solutions to problems, that can’t always be in this lifetime, and apparently this is one of those times.

For the record, up until a year ago, the church positions on many matters did not agree with mine. Through the grace of God and much research, I have come to understand, accept and appreciate the Church’s wisdom and guidance. I am thankful the Church stands strong against the prevailing winds surrounding her. Because of her steadfastness I have a better shot at heaven now than I did a year ago. She has been my beacon.

My main problem with the whole thing is the “dancing with joy in the streets” I’m seeing as some holy, dedicated, loving men are being demonized because of they way God made them. Even if one thinks this is the proper decision, it should be with great sadness that it should have to be invoked, not with joy. “Love is patient and kind. It does not boast or envy…” Love always seeks to lift up rather than tear down. I have always looked to the Church to do this, and maybe the Church is trying as it seeks a “greater good.” An awful lot of her people though are rejoicing loudly in another’s sadness. I think of how sad we were as Americans to see the images of some of the Arab world rejoicing after 9/11. There are those who are shuddering the same way now.

I don’t see anyone dancing with joy over this. The entire subject is quite personal, quite trying, quite confusing. And no one is being demonized by the Church. Every Church reading you can get your hands on with regard to homosexuality is written with compassion and charity.

It is a sad thing that this policy even needs to be stated. A true Catholic homosexual, being properly educated on Church teaching with regard to homosexuality would not seek the priesthood in the first place. Actually, no man should seek the priesthood, as it is a calling, not a career to be pursued. But the homosexual, at least, even though living celibately, should have respect for the Church in her wisdom to protect him and support him in his path toward the Kingdom.

There are many, many ways a celibate man and woman can devote their lives to the Church and the mission of Christ without entering priesthood or becoming a nun. There are the Knights of Columbus, St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Apostles of Divine Mercy. Every parish has ministries which need faithful people to direct and manage them…certainly life-long commitments which would be well suited for any celibate or married member of the Church.

Keep in mind our position on earth is not the end goal - it is our position in Heaven on which we must keep our sights.

Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.

Amen.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by otm
Men who’s natural attraction is to women are going to be able to live in a community of men as celibates with no temptation to sexual activity with other men in the community for the simple reason that they are not sexually attracted to them.

Homosexual men living in community with other men, are living with the people they are sexually attracted to; it stands to reason that their sexual attraction, if it were natural, would lead to problems. Given that it is disordered, one would think that there might be evidence that it would lead to more problems than if it wasn’t (and yes, I realize that is not proof, just logic).

Applause. This logic says it all.

 

[Libero]

If you look at the history of the Church with regard to councils and commissions you’ll find they’re general called in response to heresies milling around the community at large (society)…so, yeah, the fact that homosexuality is being promoted as acceptable among our society, and that the church just underwent horrendous scandal at the hands of priests with SSA made it necessary for the Church to gather, yet again, on the matter to come up with basically the same ruling as before.

Given that, this also brings me back to my previous post, why is homosexuality taking the podium, why is it so much more important than other teachings of the church?

I don’t see anyone dancing with joy over this. The entire subject is quite personal, quite trying, quite confusing. And no one is being demonized by the Church. Every Church reading you can get your hands on with regard to homosexuality is written with compassion and charity.

WHAT if you need evidence for this, then just look at the thread, one poster even chose to state that he loved catholicism for the decision and that it was great news; also referring to people with SSA as ‘homos’.

Another poster writing: I can’t say enough how relieved I am to hear this news!!!

 

[YinYangMom]

Libero:

Given that, this also brings me back to my previous post, why is homosexuality taking the podium, why is it so much more important than other teachings of the church?

WHAT if you need evidence for this, then just look at the thread, one poster even chose to state that he loved catholicism for the decision and that it was great news; also referring to people with SSA as ‘homos’.

Another poster writing: I can’t say enough how relieved I am to hear this news!!!

Why is homosexuality taking the podium?

1. Because the U.S. is reeling from the sex scandal
2. The U.S. faithful want to be assured what happened before no longer happens - ever
3. The U.S. faithful is looking to Rome to speak on the matter
4. Rome is responding to the faithful

REGARDLESS of the argument whether or not homosexuality was the root cause of the scandal, in reflecting on the scandal, homosexuality did come up which raised a separate question as why there were any homosexual priests in the first place.

People wanted an answer to that question, along with why women can’t be priests and why people in Africa can’t use condoms and why stem cell research is so bad…

The church is examing her teachings.

A decision seems to be coming close on the homosexual priest matter so it’s taking the podium. The focus will shift to some of the other issues as those are examined (if they get examined).

ONE poster in this thread of 220+ posts used the term ‘homo’ and one other expressed their ‘relief’…so that qualifies as everybody is dancing with joy??? Hardly.

I, too am relieved that the Church remains true to Christ’s teachings under grueling pressure. No, I’m not dancing, and it’s not really ‘joy’ as much as it is relief and reassurance.

remember last week’s first reading:

Isaiah 55: 8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
As high as the heavens are above the earth,
so high are my ways above your ways
and my thoughts above your thoughts.

 

[catsrus]

I heard on the news last evening that there is a bill before the house called The Child Prtection Act with an ammendment to it (oddly enough) calling for ANY anti homosexual speech to be termed “hate” speech and will subject a person disagreeing with the “lifestyle” to prosecution.
Maybe someone here could post this. I don’t know how to move it from the net to here.
The news anchor on CBS) reflected that this may cause a real problem for Christians.
Let’s hope Bush vetos it in this form.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Libero:

Very clever Dr. Bombay, however I think you’ll find that it is thought of in most societies that murder is far worse than homosexuality. They are very different issues, to compare them is wrong. You will know that you can be executed in the United States for murder, you cannot be executed for homosexuality, does that not tell you something.

If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. --Leviticus 20:13

It seems God once thought a homosexual act was worthy of death.

Does that not tell you something?

But, fine. Since you didn’t like my use of murder, how about:

**Lying **is such a complex matter constantly chaning in todays modern world, only recnetly has it come truly into the eyes of everyone (as the age of the church goes). No one can claim they have a truly good understanding on the matter. Also, the church does not have the best track record of listening to liars, and then taking into account what they have to say. There are no figures in the catholic church that can voice an opininon on **lying **that does not conform completely to the established belief, without being strongly contradicted, forced into silence, or being told they are wrong. There are no **liars **figures in positions of authority in the church, that can talk about the issue to benefit the church.

So…what other sins deserve special status in the Church besides homosexuality? What benefits could the Church gain by listening to those who oppress the poor, gossips, the covetous, back biters, etc?

After all, if the Church needs to take into account what obstinate sinners have to say, why should one group of sinners be placed above another?

 

[contemplative]

## So why can’t seminarians do the same ?

A fat lot of good that will do

It was, after all, priests whose zippers were not zipped - not (usually) seminarians. Geoghan, Porter, Gauthe, were all priests - not seminarians.
These names are all too familiar to me. Yes, I read all the news stories and books. Yes, I was in pain when abuse story after abuse story came out. I hurt for the victims. I hurt for the families. I hurt for the parishes and dioceses. I hurt for all those reading the stories. I hurt for the good priests and bishops. I hurt for families. I hurt for my family as they went mostly without knowing. I hurt for God and His Church.
This does not make sense.

If Paul Shanley or John Geoghan had been required to renew their dedication, that would have meant only that they would have done so, then got up to their usual antics.
This seems logical and I suspect there is a more than a snake or two still hidden under the rock.
All the Pope is doing, is plastering over a massive problem in the same ineffectual and useless way as the US bishops did when they sent offenders for therapy time and time again. It’s a toss-up which of the two remedies is more laughably inadequate - except that the victims of this gigantic episcopal incompetence are most unlikely to laugh .

When will the bishops (Popes included) stop being so short-sighted ? How many scandals will it take, and how gigantic do they have to be, to kick the bishops in the rear end sufficiently hard for them to see that superficial reform is not going to be any good ?

If priests and bishops have “a serious personality disorder” - what is the Pope doing, leaving them in their positions ? Water over the dam? What possible reason can there be to retain them, while not allowing men of the same kind to proceed ? Again, water over the dam? If seminarians can be barred from ordination - there is nothing to stop priests and bishops leaving positions they already occupy.It is my hope that all those priest and bishops who may be in to religious life for the gay thang will see that the party is over and leave…maybe those disordered bishops and priests will resign or retire early. I am hoping and praying on one particular religious at this time. ##

 

[contemplative]

I said in a previous post…

It is my hope that all those priest and bishops who may be in to religious life for the gay thang will see that the party is over and leave…maybe those disordered bishops and priests will resign or retire early. I am hoping and praying on one particular religious at this time.

I got myself out of bed and took my computer out of standby to take back only one of my comments. I am NOT hoping and praying on one particular religious at this time…well maybe I was but not anymore…God’s will be done…not mine. I am very sorry for my comment.
There is hope for all of us.
I think that the Church understands the flavor of the priesthood must change but it cannot and will not extract that which is already in the mixture. The mix is made but it is always changing and future ingredients will be different.

 

[Libero]

Why is homosexuality taking the podium?

1. Because the U.S. is reeling from the sex scandal
2. The U.S. faithful want to be assured what happened before no longer happens - ever
3. The U.S. faithful is looking to Rome to speak on the matter
4. Rome is responding to the faithful

But once again I am writing the same thing. In three of your posts you have written US. The US catholic church is not the GLOBAL catholic church, the pope is being influenced to make decisions that will effect the church accross the entire world, because America did not see and stop the problem quick enough. Secondly, Why is nothing else taking the podium? The pope has been in office quite a time now, and this is perhaps the first thing he has done in his role as pope that has caused big conversation. This action has consequences not many others he has made do. It is a shame that the church always seems to be going on about homosexuality.

 

[Libero]

If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. --Leviticus 20:13

It seems God once thought a homosexual act was worthy of death.

Does that not tell you something?

But, fine. Since you didn’t like my use of murder, how about:

Would you want homosexuals to be put to death, because God wrote it? I don’t like your use of murder, because I don’t like murder full stop. This is one part of catholicism I really don’t like, why would God murder someone, when he could just have easily have put them on the path to righteousness? The words forgive them father for they know not what they do could have been very relevant there.

So…what other sins deserve special status in the Church besides homosexuality? What benefits could the Church gain by listening to those who oppress the poor, gossips, the covetous, back biters, etc?

After all, if the Church needs to take into account what obstinate sinners have to say, why should one group of sinners be placed above another?

I have never said that the people have to be sinners, I would intend for them to be chaste people, these people would not be sinning, but could help the church understand the issue, even more so than it does now, a person who themselves is overcoming homosexuality could spread the experience in a positive way for the church.

 

[contemplative]

##

%between%

Until the culture of clericalism is corrected, bishops will simply do again what they have done already. Until the clerics can get out of the habit of taking the laity for granted and of treating them as second-class citizens, we are doomed to repeat this cycle of corruption - coverup - pretence at healing - corruption for the indefinite future.
I don’t feel that some bishops can continue on with their bad behaviour in light of all the communication today (including something like these forums). It is up to people - laity like you and me to get the word out. It is so easy to do. We would be remiss not to.
Or is the measure directed only against seminarians ? If so - what will that achieve, if there are already clerics who are gay ? The measure will then be a perfect example of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. And what is the good of that ?

This is too little, far too late; it’s the equivalent of giving a cancer sufferer a decongestant.

I understand your concern but if you think about it…if you want change it must start somewhere. This is simply a start. Give it a chance. I believe it is in the right direction.

Maybe the Pope should do something stunningly revolutionary - and meet with some of the victims. He is, after all, meant to be a pastor. His predecessor didn’t bother - although he had plenty of time for almost everyone else. If he were to meet them, that could well do a great deal of good, not least because it would send some kind of signal that the faithful were not being trashed for the greater good of Catholicism, Inc. If they are under his jurisdiction - then he has a duty of care towards them.

Did Pope John Paul II ever meet with victims of abuse and their families? Maybe just one?

 

[Subrosa]

ByzCath:

Would be nice to read the whole article but I will not register.

Hi ByzCath -

Here is a whole article you can read.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39700

Pray for the full recovery of Orthodoc who had a heart attack recently.

Subrosa