Pope Francis issues motu proprio on reporting abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter angel12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It IS good news to see this. I also think it shows a good deal of thought went into it.

Unfortunately, no rule, law, requirement, or statement can adequately address all possibilities. Theodore McCarrick would have been the metropolitan archbishop in charge of investigating sex abuse by brother bishops under the pope’s norms issued today.
 
All of those things have been in place in my Diocese for over a decade. I am sure many other US Diocese are also compliant. 💟
 
My understanding is that there are provisions that account for that but for every mouse trap…
 
Right:
Art. 8 – Procedure applicable in the event of a report concerning a Bishop of the Latin Church

§1. The Authority that receives a report transmits it both to the Holy See and to the Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province where the person reported is domiciled.

§2. If the report concerns the Metropolitan, or the Metropolitan See is vacant, it shall be forwarded to the Holy See, as well as to the senior suffragan Bishop by promotion, to whom, if such is the case, the following provisions regarding the Metropolitan apply.

§3. In the event that the report concerns a Papal Legate, it shall be transmitted directly to the Secretariat of State.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, that’s why I said it is a good thing. There is no rule, or procedure that will prevent these situations on there own. It will take the commitment of the clergy and laity along with their vigilance.
 
So the Pope has stated abuse should be reported… ok… good to know that it has been taken care of…

I cannot begin to describe the frustration and anger I feel at things like this.

Just words…
 
What type of action could Pope Francis do that would not make you feel frustrated and angry? I’m honestly asking as I want to know what others are looking for from the Church in this area.
 
Sure. It is common sense. When there is rampant abuse in Chile he could have taken action BEFORE blaming the accusers. He could have instead of given several speeches comparing vigano to Judas and satan, addressed the issues brought forth. He could have not promoted those “rumored” to have abuse problems into his Curia. But more recently and concretely he could have not intervened in the US bishops attempts to combat the problem only to then after the summit on abuse charge bishops conferences with being responsible for this in his 8 point plan.
He also could provide swift and concrete action with current clergy and formation of clergy. Instead of getting together a committee to explore female ordination *diaconate or fiddling with the concept of married priests, both positions pushed by the left, he could first start with basic theological formation of priests and weed out the sexual deviant, and weak believers in trade for orthodox and traditional theology…

I guess I’m disappointed but not surprised by the lack of concrete action. I’m far more horrified by the laity who when presented with words instead of actions applaud the Pope for his “steps” this particular phenomenon feeds into the misconception that these problems were in the past and not ongoing.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
All of those things have been in place in my Diocese for over a decade. I am sure many other US Diocese are also compliant. 💟
Click to expand...
Also in the Australian Church. Mandatory training of all people involved with children and the vulnerable and certification has been going on since before the Royal Commission started in 2013. The National Catholic Safeguarding Standards have been in the works since then and is set for final release this year.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Sure. It is common sense. When there is rampant abuse in Chile he could have taken action BEFORE blaming the accusers.
Click to expand...
I think you aren’t recognising the extent of the culture of cover up in place and the power of occult secrecy and lies to keep it hidden. It’s not just shown in the Church’s crisis but in institutional systems worldwide. We know for a fact that it was known before Vatican II the extent of what was going on because it was at that time that one Cardinal Ottaviano re issued an order (Crimen Sollicitationis) that actually forbid reporting of clergy crimes to anyone outside a carefully ordered hierarchical framework of ‘cover up’.
 
This document is less than it appears to be. Most of this is already what a diocese should be doing.

A CBS new reporter criticized this document as having the Church investigate itself. But…it only makes sense to do so, in case there is a lawsuit. He stopped short of hitting the central issue, it is a conflict of interest for the Church to investigate itself.

PF says that local civil laws have to be followed. So far, those directives are obvious and non -controversial. What I think is missing: how to handle a person who has been accused (should they be suspended?); sexual abuse is not limited to people under the age of 18 – ever hear of rape?-- and the “due process” of investigation is vague; and the Pope has said nothing about his favorite subject – clericalism-- or what everyone is waiting to hear about – homosexuality in the priesthood.

This is not the solution to the global clerical sex abuse crisis.
 
Last edited:
In the U.S., much of this law is already policy in the dioceses so it won’t change things much in the U.S. and western world in general. I think it was meant to bring the rest of the world in line, such as Africa and Asia.

The law itself seems to be getting a mixed reaction from abuse survivor groups so far. And with most policies like this, it will only mean as much as those in the Church want it to mean. It comes down to people willingly following the law, and as we have seen at all levels of the Church hierarchy, including the Pope, there is serious doubt that there is equal application of policies like this to all clergy.
 
Emeraldlady said:
We know for a fact that it was known before Vatican II the extent of what was going on because it was at that time that one Cardinal Ottaviano re issued an order (Crimen Sollicitationis) that actually forbid reporting of clergy crimes to anyone outside a carefully ordered hierarchical framework of ‘cover up’.
Click to expand...
I am unfamiliar with that prohibition. Have I always missed it?

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

Dan
 
Weserthy said:
In the U.S., much of this law is already policy in the dioceses so it won’t change things much in the U.S. and western world in general. I think it was meant to bring the rest of the world in line, such as Africa and Asia.
Click to expand...
Journalists in the United States have proven largely oblivious to this. This is similar to what the USCCB has already done, except for a more centralized role for the Metropolitan. But, contrary to popular belief, there is a lot more world that is notAmerica.
 
It was addressed in the recent Australian royal commission into sex abuse. A Vatican priest named Tom Doyle testified at the commission on Crimen soliciting and its requirements. I can’t figure out how to link to his document directly as I’m on holidays and using a new tablet but if you google it and refer to paragraph 18.

THE 1922 INSTRUCTION AND THE 1962 INSTRUCTION
“CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS,” PROMULGATED BY THE VATICAN
Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.
October 3, 2008
 
Last edited:
Good old Fr. Tom Doyle. I wouldn’t call him “a Vatican priest.” Be that as it may, yes, he is correct that in the course of the process outlined in that document, the people involved had to maintain secrecy.

Prior to the process, no one had to swear an oath to not say anything to certain persons nor would a person have been punished if, for example, a priest assaulted him/her in the confessional and he/she talked to a friend about it or reported it to the police or whatever.

Dan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top