Pope JPII backed praise for hiding abuse: Cardinal Hoyos

[VitaminC]

Excerpt:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - **A former Vatican cardinal who congratulated a French bishop for hiding a sexually abusive priest has said he acted with the approval of the late Pope John Paul, a Spanish newspaper reported on Saturday.

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the Vatican official in charge of priests around the world when he praised the French bishop in 2001, dragged the Polish pope into the controversy during a conference in the Spanish city of Murcia**.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702066.html

Excerpt from previous article on this letter from Reuters:

In the letter dated Sept 8, 2001, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos backed French Bishop Pierre Pican’s decision not to denounce a priest who was later sentenced to 18 years in jail for repeated rape of a boy and sexual assaults on 10 others.

reuters.com/article/idUSLDE63E2H420100415

 

[xebec775]

It is unfortanate what has happened, but seems to me to be on par with the rest of the world and how they handle these situations. Child molestors need to be brought to justice, not just child molesting priests.

I found out recently that my former next door neighbor was abusing children, and no attention in the media was brought to the organization he represented. As far as I know, there is no law suit pending, either.

The entire world needs to fix how they handle child abuse, not just the Church.

 

[JReducation]

The Cardinal said that Pope John Paul knew about his statement and I don’t see any reason why he would lie about this. Cardinal Hoyos has a reputation for being an honest man. That being said, there is historical context that we have to understand here. Peggy Noonan wrote a wonderful book about Pope John Paul. It’s very well written.

She points to one thing that many of us would not consider. John Paul came from a very different cultural context. Polish priests suffered a great deal for almost 1,000 years under different oppressive regimes. To the mind of a Pole, the very idea that a priest would sexually abuse anyone is beyond belief. These are not the priests that they grew up with. These were not the kind of priest that John Paul was or whom he admired. The men whom he admired and with whom he associated were men who suffered under the Nazis and the Communists. These were men who gave their lives for their people. It’s almost a naiveté to think that this is just the way priests are. But Noonan researched John Paul very carefully and found this to be very believable.

To people like Cardinal Hoyos and Pope John Paul this could not possibly be happening on a grand scale. In their minds, priests just didn’t do this. This was an attempt to protect all of those faithful priests, bishops and religious whom they knew, from their experiences growing up, in very oppressive situations where the clergy and the religious were the only ones who stood by the common man.

Was it a naïve way of thinking? Probably so. Was it malicious? I don’t think so. In those days when this letter was written they did not have all of the information that we have today. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[VitaminC]

To people like Cardinal Hoyos and Pope John Paul this could not possibly be happening on a grand scale. In their minds, priests just didn’t do this. This was an attempt to protect all of those faithful priests, bishops and religious whom they knew, from their experiences growing up, in very oppressive situations where the clergy and the religious were the only ones who stood by the common man.

I don’t know. Fr. Malachi Martin was writing and warning about this as early as the 1980’s, saying that some of this was ordinary pedophilia and some of it was actually satanic in origin. And he was even known to have visited with Pope JPII and gave him a copy of his book, The Keys of This Blood. Prelates in the Vatican were well aware of his writings, and they knew how brilliant Fr. Martin was, too.

In his book, The Keys of This Blood, from the '80’s, Fr. Martin wrote the following:

“Most frighteningly for [Pope] John Paul [II], he had come up against
the irremovable presence of a malign strength in his own Vatican and
in certain bishops’ chanceries. It was what knowledgeable Churchmen
called the ‘superforce.’ Rumors, always difficult to verify, tied its
installation to the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s reign in 1963. Indeed
Paul had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the
Sanctuary’. . . an oblique reference to an enthronement ceremony by
Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic
pedophilia—rites and practices— was already documented among certain
bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South
Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia
are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen
Archangel’s rites.” (p. 632)

===

And in his faction (roman a clef) book from the '90’s, Windswept House, Fr. Martin wrote the following:
(Windswept House):

“Suddenly it became unarguable that now during this [JPII’s] papacy, the Roman
Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who
worshipped Satan and liked it; of bishops and priests who sodomized
boys and each other; of nuns who performed the “Black Rites” of Wicca,
and who lived in lesbian relationships . . . every day, including
Sundays and Holy Days, acts of heresy and blasphemy and outrage and
indifference were committed and permitted at holy Altars by men who
had been called to be priests. Sacrilegious actions and rites were not
only performed on Christ’s Altars, but had the connivance or at least
the tacit permission of certain Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. .
. In total number they were a minority—anything from one to ten
percent of Church personnel. But of that minority, many occupied
astoundingly high positions or rank… The facts that brought the
Pope to a new level of suffering were mainly two: The systematic
organizational links—the network, in other words that had been
established between certain clerical homosexual groups and Satanist
covens. And the inordinate power and influence of that network.” (pp.
492-3)​

From his writings, it seems to me that Fr. Martin may have actually been tying this to the message of Akita.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t know. Fr. Malachi Martin was writing and warning about this as early as the 1980’s, saying that some of this was ordinary pedophilia and some of it was actually satanic in origin. And he was even known to have visited with Pope JPII and gave him a copy of his book, The Keys of This Blood. Prelates in the Vatican were well aware of his writings, and they knew how brilliant Fr. Martin was, too.

In his book, The Keys of This Blood, from the '80’s, Fr. Martin wrote the following:

“Most frighteningly for [Pope] John Paul [II], he had come up against
the irremovable presence of a malign strength in his own Vatican and
in certain bishops’ chanceries. It was what knowledgeable Churchmen
called the ‘superforce.’ Rumors, always difficult to verify, tied its
installation to the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s reign in 1963. Indeed
Paul had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the
Sanctuary’. . . an oblique reference to an enthronement ceremony by
Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic
pedophilia—rites and practices— was already documented among certain
bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South
Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia
are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen
Archangel’s rites.” (p. 632)

===

And in his faction (roman a clef) book from the '90’s, Windswept House, Fr. Martin wrote the following:
(Windswept House):

“Suddenly it became unarguable that now during this [JPII’s] papacy, the Roman
Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who
worshipped Satan and liked it; of bishops and priests who sodomized
boys and each other; of nuns who performed the “Black Rites” of Wicca,
and who lived in lesbian relationships . . . every day, including
Sundays and Holy Days, acts of heresy and blasphemy and outrage and
indifference were committed and permitted at holy Altars by men who
had been called to be priests. Sacrilegious actions and rites were not
only performed on Christ’s Altars, but had the connivance or at least
the tacit permission of certain Cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. .
. In total number they were a minority—anything from one to ten
percent of Church personnel. But of that minority, many occupied
astoundingly high positions or rank… The facts that brought the
Pope to a new level of suffering were mainly two: The systematic
organizational links—the network, in other words that had been
established between certain clerical homosexual groups and Satanist
covens. And the inordinate power and influence of that network.” (pp.
492-3)

The point is not what Fr. Martin said to the pope. The point is that the Holy Father and Cardinal Hoyos could not wrap their heads around this. To them, the very idea was unthinkable. “These were sins of isolated individuals.”

We have to remember here that if John Paul II had been guilty of deliberately turning his back on this sin, there would have been no way that he would have been declared Venerable. The fact is that he is Venerable and that the Church has declared that he led an exemplary and heroic life of virtue. There are miracles attributed to his intercession. One of them seems fairly certain. The study of his life is now closed and cannot be reopened.

It’s interesting, because one of the people who defended his cause was Peggy Noonan. I use her as a reference, because she has not been very kind to most bishops on this issue. She’s not taking sides against the Church or for the Church. She comes across as a very devout Catholic, I’ve heard her talk, and has an honest reporter who analyzes her subjects.

Her analysis and those who cooperated with her on the study of John Paul agree that his first reaction was one of disbelief.

However, we also see him evolving as the reports become more frequent and numerous and it is he who ammends canon law to expedite the process of dismissal and the punishment of such priests and religious in 2001. Many say that it was Cardinal Ratzinger. But that is not possible. A Cardinal cannot ammend Canon Law. The pope is the only Law-Giver in the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger was assigned to take charge because the bishops needed help. After his ascencion to the Chair of Peter he has continued on this mission, because he is familiar with it. Unfortunately, he cannot dedicate all of his time ot this; so the ball passes to Cardinal Levada.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[baylee]

The Cardinal said that Pope John Paul knew about his statement and I don’t see any reason why he would lie about this. Cardinal Hoyos has a reputation for being an honest man. That being said, there is historical context that we have to understand here. Peggy Noonan wrote a wonderful book about Pope John Paul. It’s very well written.

She points to one thing that many of us would not consider. John Paul came from a very different cultural context. Polish priests suffered a great deal for almost 1,000 years under different oppressive regimes. To the mind of a Pole, the very idea that a priest would sexually abuse anyone is beyond belief. These are not the priests that they grew up with. These were not the kind of priest that John Paul was or whom he admired. The men whom he admired and with whom he associated were men who suffered under the Nazis and the Communists. These were men who gave their lives for their people. It’s almost a naiveté to think that this is just the way priests are. But Noonan researched John Paul very carefully and found this to be very believable.

To people like Cardinal Hoyos and Pope John Paul this could not possibly be happening on a grand scale. In their minds, priests just didn’t do this. This was an attempt to protect all of those faithful priests, bishops and religious whom they knew, from their experiences growing up, in very oppressive situations where the clergy and the religious were the only ones who stood by the common man.

Was it a naïve way of thinking? Probably so. Was it malicious? I don’t think so. In those days when this letter was written they did not have all of the information that we have today. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Try proving this to the world. I’m surprised I haven’t heard this report in the news yet. When it does, the you-know-what is going to hit the fan.

I don’t know how to defend this.

 

[JReducation]

Try proving this to the world. I’m surprised I haven’t heard this report in the news yet. When it does, the you-know-what is going to hit the fan.

I don’t know how to defend this.

The only thing that is going to happen will be that the Ven. John Paul II will be beatified sometime in the next few years and his holy persona will become available for public veneration. Will this make everyone happy? I expect that it won’t. But as our Holy Father Francis told our first friars, our mission is not to please the world, but to conquer the souls of Catholics, not by what we say, but by the way that we live.

You know what? Our Holy Father Francis was never wrong on this point. For 800 years we have lived within a Church that was stained by the sins of men. We began with a simple band of 11 men in 1209. Today we are 1.7 million Franciscan men and women around the world. God has not abandoned us. Only those who have abandoned him have been lost.

If we can grow from 11 brothers in a town hidden in the Umbrian highlands to 1.7 million in 114 countries around the world and over 100 branches of the same Order all inspried to be faithful to the Church, regardless of the stains on her robe, then there must be a merciful and loving God who has aligned himself with the Church. Over 800 years, several million men and women Franciscans have remained faithful to the Church, despite our sins and the sins around us.

When I ask myself why, I can only come up with one answer. Grace has done it all, not us. Grace has kept us faithful to the Church and has allowed us to see her as she truly is, a beautiful and spotless virgin. Grace allows us to look past the stains on the wedding gown and to see the bride.

The grace of fidelity is not just for Franciscans, as we well know. It is for everyone who asks for it. It was given to many men and women: Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Avila during the Protestant Reformation; Maximilian Kolbe and Edith Stein in the concentration camps; Pius X during the era of Modernism; Mother Teresa of Calcutta in the dark holes of the poor; and Giana Molla at the birth of her daughter.

Grace does not need justification. It only needs witnesses.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[serrevin]

Try proving this to the world. I’m surprised I haven’t heard this report in the news yet. When it does, the you-know-what is going to hit the fan.

I don’t know how to defend this.

my friend there is no way to defend this. the good brother’s argument that “priests didn’t do this and that’s why the pontiff turned a blind eye to the destruction of young souls” this doesn’t seem to wash with you. it won’t wash with anyone with an objective mind. this idea that it hindsight is 20/20 is such a foolish argument. what did paul say when the corinthians were allowing sexual immorality in the church in 1 corinthians? Did he say “well you know incest is a bad thing but considering your historical/geographical context i can understand. hindsight is 20/20”

what foolishness! paul responded in outrage and as an apostle he charged the leadership to deal with the sin IMMEDIATELY.

There is no defense for the rcc’s actions in regard to this situation.
none

 

[MariaTheresa]

Does anyone really believe this?

Rumors, always difficult to verify, tied its
installation to the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s reign in 1963. Indeed
Paul had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the
Sanctuary’. . . an oblique reference to an enthronement ceremony by
Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic
pedophilia—rites and practices

Isn’t this kind of stuff the same old nonsense that people like the KKK have always said about Catholics ?

…the Roman Catholic organization carried a permanent presence of clerics who
worshipped Satan and liked it; of bishops and priests who sodomized
boys and each other; of nuns who performed the “Black Rites” of Wicca,
and who lived in lesbian relationships . . . every day, including
Sundays and Holy Days, acts of heresy and blasphemy and outrage and
indifference were committed and permitted at holy Altars by men who
had been called to be priests. Sacrilegious actions and rites were not
only performed on Christ’s Altars…

You don’t need black masses and satanic rituals to be a pedophile or to behave as a homosexual. This just sounds like Catholic urban legend.

 

[Sonic]

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702066.html

reuters.com/article/idUSLDE63E2H420100415

Two things already bother me about these articles. In the first one:

At the Murcia conference, the cardinal said that Pican did not denounce Bissey because the priest had told sins in the confessional, where secrecy is respected under the law.

I have to ask how anybody would know this information without the seal of the confessional being broken (Unless, Bissey voluntarily gave this information himself). There’s not enough information in these articles to know if this is so, or to even prove Bissey mentioned these particular sins in the confessional.

The second article (even though they are both cited from Reuter’s) gives a slightly different reason.

In it, the cardinal said relations between bishops and priests were not simply professional but had “very special links of spiritual paternity.” Bishops therefore had no obligation to testify against “a direct relative,” he stated.

I’m wondering if this is indirectly referencing French law. I remember reading some place that family members were not required or allowed to testify against their relatives. That’s beside the point. I’m not sure which explanation is exact.

This incident was not mentioned in the first article, but for some reason is mentioned in the second…

He conducted the talks that led to the January 2009 decision to readmit the four banned bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X to the Church, which caused an uproar when it emerged that one of them, Richard Williamson, had denied the Holocaust.

The controversy was highly embarrassing to Pope Benedict, who said he did not know about Williamson’s views, even though they could easily be found on the internet.

Two months after the incident, Benedict folded Castrillon Hoyos’s commission into the Congregation and the cardinal retired.

It’s interesting that the Cardinal retired after this incident. This information doesn’t sit well with me.

 

[JReducation]

Two things already bother me about these articles. In the first one:

I have to ask how anybody would know this information without the seal of the confessional being broken (Unless, Bissey voluntarily gave this information himself). There’s not enough information to know if this is so, or to even prove Bissey mentioned these particular sins in the confessional.

The second article (even though they are both cited from Reuter’s) gives a slightly different reason.

I’m wondering if this is indirectly referencing French law. I remember reading some place that family members were not required or allowed to testify against their relatives. That’s beside the point. I’m not sure which explanation is exact.

This incident was not mentioned in the first article, but for some reason is mentioned in the second…

It’s interesting that the Cardinal retired after this incident. This information doesn’t sit well with me.

Let me speculate on the point of the confession. I’m speculating, because I was not there. If a priest confesses to his bishop, which is not recommended, or to his major superior, that person cannot reveal what he has heard. He can withhold absolution. But he cannot tell or report to the authorities.

The peninent can later tell someone else that he confessed to the bishop or to his superior. This may be the case here. But the bishop or the superior who heard the confession, even if they denied absolution until the person turns himself in, has to deny that he know anything. That is an absolute and iviolable law. Violating that silence would be a greater sin than the sexula abuse itself. There are very few sins that are greater than breaking the seal of confession, even for legal reasons. I may never be done. You may never even admit that you know anything. It’s not a lie to deny any knowledge of something that you heard in the confessional. The rule not only applies to the confessor, but also to anyone who overhears a confession.

If you overhear a priest confession that he sexually abused a child, you may not report it. You are bound by the seal of confession as is the priest. The law is very clear on the sacredness of the seal and it applies to all of us who hear anything that goes on in a confessional.

The other point regarding the transfer of the SSPX case to the Sacred Congregation of the Faith and the retirement of Cardinal Hoyos, there is a lot of speculation. But the truth is that Cardinal Hoyos did a good job in that post. He did not have the authority to go any further than he had gone with the SSPX. It was a matter of living with the situation the way it was or transferring it to Cardinal Levada who has more authority than Hoyos.

Regardless of who was at the head of that Congregation, they would not have the power that the Prefect for the Faith has. I’m not so sure that the change was made because of Hoyos. It’s like taking something out of the hands of the State Department and putting it into the hands of the Department of Justice. The State Dept cannot prosecute, but the Dept of Justice can. If you exhaust the powers of an office, you either settle for the status quo or you hand it over to another office.

Everyone wants to make a connection between this tansfer of the case and the retirement of Cardinal Hoyos. Who knows? But the fact was that Cardinal Hoyos’ office did not have any more ammunition to solve this problem.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sonic]

The other point regarding the transfer of the SSPX case to the Sacred Congregation of the Faith and the retirement of Cardinal Hoyos, there is a lot of speculation. But the truth is that Cardinal Hoyos did a good job in that post. He did not have the authority to go any further than he had gone with the SSPX. It was a matter of living with the situation the way it was or transferring it to Cardinal Levada who has more authority than Hoyos.

Regardless of who was at the head of that Congregation, they would not have the power that the Prefect for the Faith has. I’m not so sure that the change was made because of Hoyos. It’s like taking something out of the hands of the State Department and putting it into the hands of the Department of Justice. The State Dept cannot prosecute, but the Dept of Justice can. If you exhaust the powers of an office, you either settle for the status quo or you hand it over to another office.

Everyone wants to make a connection between this tansfer of the case and the retirement of Cardinal Hoyos. Who knows? But the fact was that Cardinal Hoyos’ office did not have any more ammunition to solve this problem.

You’ve stated part of the reason why that information doesn’t sit well with me. It’s as if the article is insinuating that the Cardinal’s statement was motivated from being retired (either out of malice or to save his reputation). This may not be the case, but some people may take it that way. After all, we often see former cabinet members make statements about presidents after being removed or replaced from their positions.

 

[JReducation]

my friend there is no way to defend this. the good brother’s argument that “priests didn’t do this and that’s why the pontiff turned a blind eye to the destruction of young souls” this doesn’t seem to wash with you. it won’t wash with anyone with an objective mind.

First of all, this is not my argument. I was paraphrasing Peggy Noonan’s research on the matter. Second, the souls of these youngsters were never in danger. For a soul to be in danger the person must engage in sin voluntarilly, with fulll consent, and full understanding of the gravity. If we believe that these youngsters were morally culpable, then we have to step back and reassess if they were violated or if this was consentual. Third, it is very undestandable that John Paul, who came from a very different world of priests would not have imagined that this magnitude of abuse was possible. This was not what he was familiar with.

As I said above, as the stories came out in greater numbers, he then turned and edited Canon Law in 2001 and handed over the athority to deal with this to the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The Sacred Congregation for the Faith has greater authority than the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. The point that Noonan made was that John Paul was completely taken by surprise, because these were problems that he had seen in isolated cases, not in large numbers. But she also states that when he realizes the numbers involved, he takes legal action and reorganizes the structure to deal with the problem. The truth is that since he did this in 2001, the numbers of abuse have subsided to less than 1% of what they were prior to that. In 2009 we had had 9 reported cases in the USA. One is one too many. But the point is that he did do something that worked. The cases that we’re dealing with did not happen after 2001. They are 20 or more years old.

this idea that it hindsight is 20/20 is such a foolish argument.

Actually it is not a foolish argument. It happens all the time. Haven’t you ever looked back on a situation and realized that had you known then what you know now you would have done things differently?

what did paul say when the corinthians were allowing sexual immorality in the church in 1 corinthians? Did he say “well you know incest is a bad thing but considering your historical/geographical context i can understand. hindsight is 20/20”

This is a misapplication of Paul’s writing. No one said that the abusers were justified by culture or history. The statement was that Pope John Paul was caught completely off-guard because of his culture and history. But John Paul was not an abuser or complicit. As I said above, he made important changes to address the problem.

what foolishness! paul responded in outrage and as an apostle he charged the leadership to deal with the sin IMMEDIATELY.

There is no defense for the rcc’s actions in regard to this situation.
none

You cannot penalize those who have done no wrong. You’re making a statement about the RCC. A few bishops and a small percentage of priests do not make up the 2 billion Catholics in the world or the 500,000 priests in the world or the 3 million religious brothers and sisters in the world.

There is no defense for sexual abuse. I agree with you. As you say, Paul charge the leaders to deal with sin immediately. This is what John Paul did through Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. This is what Pope Benedict is doing through Cardinal Levada’s office. Things are moving as quickly as they can move.

There are somethings that are inviolable. One of those is the Sacrament of Holy Orders. You can suspend a priest immediately, which has been done in many cases. But you can’t dismiss a priest unless you have proof that he deserves dismissal. An accusatioin is not proof. You have to investigate the veracity of the accusation. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is not a toy or some symbollic act. It’s very serious business. The Church has to be just to the victims and at the same time protect Revelation.

I am glad that I don’t sit in Pope Benedict’s chair or even that of Cardinal Laveda. It’s a very tough place to be. You owe children protectioin. This is absolute truth. But you are also bound by the Sacrament. You can place the priest on a shelf, report him to the authorities and even walk him over to the police station. But you cannot dismiss him untill you have proof that there is just cause for dismissal.

This is what we’re saying when we say that John Paul was not hiding the problem. He was simply blind-sided by it. There were no precedents for it. He had only seen isolated cases, not hundreds of allegations at one time. But again, in 2001, he did change the law to expedite the process and the trials. The old system was too bulky and took too long. It also depended too much on the local bishop, but did not provide them with specific guidelines. The law of 2001 gave the bishops the guidelines and the support that they needed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

You’ve stated part of the reason why that information doesn’t sit well with me. It’s as if the article is insinuating that the Cardinal’s statement was motivated from being retired (either out of malice or to save his reputation). This may not be the case, but some people may take it that way. After all, we often see former cabinet members make statements about presidents after being removed or replaced from their positions.

I think it’s the way that the article is written. It doesn’t seem unreasonable either that Cardinal Hoyos would say, “Hey wait a minute. Don’t shoot me. The Holy Father knew what I had written or said.”

If Cardinal Hoyos wrote the letter to whomever the bishop was and suddenly the lions were all over him, it stands to reason that he would say, “Wait a minute . . .” You see what I mean?

The situation has gotten so bad that people are looking for fault now. They don’t wait for errors to surfface. There are people out there who are connecting dots and coming out with wrong conclusions. I believe that this too is nor hypervigilance when you discover a problem of this magnitude. As human beings we tend to become very sceptical even when the truth slaps us in the face. That’s why I don’t point the finger at the media as many people do. I also understand that it’s human to become sceptical when you have been hurt and when your trust has been violated.

What these men did had a ripple effect. It was like throwing a stone into a pond. It begins in the center by hurting these children, but it ripples outward. People’s trust is violated. The families of these children are hurt. The good deacons, priests, bishops, religious brothers and sisters who make up the overwhelming majority in ministry are placed under a microscope. Civil servants were dragged into this, as was the case in Ireland. We can go on and on.

I don’t underestimate the damage for one moment and I understand how people become hyper vigilant and how the media begins to wonder if there is more. That’s its job.

The problem is that when driven by passion, man can also commit grave injustices in his attempts to right a wrong. This is why I always tell people that it is important to approach this topic only after you have spent a lot of time in contemplation. You must have inner silence so that your soul can respond according to the Will of God, not according to your passions.

I know, because I have had to spend many hours in front of the Blessed Sacrament over this issue. I am very hurt by this. Put yourself in the position of those of us who are religious or clergy. We are hurt, ashamed of what our confreres have done, disappointed, angry, and we feel helpless. Where do we begin to help those who have been hurt?

In order to help those who have been hurt, I have to leave my own indignation aside and place myself in the hands of the Blessed Mother and ask her to pray with me for inner silence, the kind of inner silence and peace that she had at the foot of the cross. If it were not for this silence, I would not be able to discuss this with you folks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KathleenGee]

I finally got basically through the chapter on the Church by S. Catherine of Siena of ‘The Dialogues’.

Priests are to recall that they are the ministers of Christ’s blood, that they should have charity for all, be detached from material possessions and pray into the night having the Lord as their delight.

We are to pray to the Lord for the priests. We are not to abuse the priests no matter how bad their sins.

It is the duty of the superior to correct an errant priest and to reprove him, not gently admonish him. Errant priests need to be seriously reproved. She speaks of superiors who are afraid to reprove for fear of what will happen…loss of material goods or stature in the eyes of the public…

Of those who are in very serious sin, they should be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, their own sins go into the laity. I look at some Catholic laity today who are public figures and it makes me wonder…so much scandal.

She speaks of superiors that move such priests from monastery to monastery, and infecting each place with ‘filth’.

I find her admonitions fitting for today.

 

[Sonic]

I don’t underestimate the damage for one moment and I understand how people become hyper vigilant and how the media begins to wonder if there is more. That’s its job.

Yes, and in this day and age the desire to be informed immediately is a result of our new technologies. What accompanies instant news is often the desire for an instant solution. People need to be aware of this. There are no simple quick solutions. This is one reason I don’t post that often in response to articles here.

One can argue that desire for instant news also motivates the news media to meet that desire. There was a study about the reporting of the Kennedy assassination and other catastrophes. That study found that the instant reporting actually amplified the feeling of urgency and contributed to the misinformation of the event. In the past, people were accustomed to receiving their news daily or even weekly. Starting with television, instant news reporting often reports information and then leads the viewer to sort out what is fact and what is merely… what we used to call in the military… the fog of war. Good reporters used to get all their facts sorted out before reporting the story.

So, you make a very good point. Here is another perspective. If someone is familiar with the study I mentioned, I would be grateful for a link to information about it.

 

[JReducation]

I finally got basically through the chapter on the Church by S. Catherine of Siena of ‘The Dialogues’.

Priests are to recall that they are the ministers of Christ’s blood, that they should have charity for all, be detached from material possessions and pray into the night having the Lord as their delight.

We are to pray to the Lord for the priests. We are not to abuse the priests no matter how bad their sins.

It is the duty of the superior to correct an errant priest and to reprove him, not gently admonish him. Errant priests need to be seriously reproved. She speaks of superiors who are afraid to reprove for fear of what will happen…loss of material goods or stature in the eyes of the public…

Of those who are in very serious sin, they should be removed from the congregation. Otherwise, their own sins go into the laity. I look at some Catholic laity today who are public figures and it makes me wonder…so much scandal.

She speaks of superiors that move such priests from monastery to monastery, and infecting each place with ‘filth’.

I find her admonitions fitting for today.

This what makes Catherine such a great theologian. Her writings are timeless, because what she says is revealed truth. Truth is never outdated. Even though she is very stern, one can also see the gentleness under her words. She is genuinely concerned about virtue, not about getting even. That makes her very different from many of us today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TiggerS]

This particular incidence re Cardinal Hoyos is not something that I have been following, I read this article (see quotation box below) from Catholic Culture this morning. From what I have read and my own quite personal opinion is that Church authority had no idea until the more recent years of what they were really dealing with, including an understanding at today’s level of poedaphilia and implications. This can be a reason for the failure of Church authority to act effectively, but not an excuse. We cannot excuse ourselves as The Catholic Church from what has happened, and I don’t thing we should try. It is a massive and shocking failure on our part that has had a dreadfully negative affect and effect (putting it mildly) at the time of the offences on innocent children and may well affect them negatively and psychologically for the rest of their lives though now adults.
Be the above as it may, by examining and discussing reasons for the failure - and I dont think at the core they are public as yet - we can look to the future with some hope. I keep wondering if at the heart of our failure has been a desire to project a certain image of The Church and to protect it as prime focus.
We are indeed a “hospital for sinners and not a club for saints” and now this is underscored publically and shockingly.
It is very correct that those who have been guilty of poedaphilia in The Church and amongst our priesthood is minimal compared to those who are good,devoted, selfless and holy priests. But it is a very sad fact that the light of these good priests somewhat pales publically compared to the public light shone upon our priesthood and those guilty of poedaphilia. It is an overwhelmingly appalling crime to have occured anywhere in our priesthood and it occured too often in the past - and that Church authority, through ignorance, at times covered up such crime(s).
%between%

Catholic Culture
Catholic News

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6048

“…The Holy See Press Office has confirmed the authenticity of a 2001 letter in which the then- prefect of the Congregation for Clergy praised a French bishop for not reporting a priest who had committed abuse to civil authorities.
In acknowledging the letter by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the Vatican conceded that the penchant for covering up sex-abuse complaints extended to the Roman Curia-- at least prior to 2001, when then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger persuaded Pope John Paul II to refer all such cases to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for disciplinary action. Father Federico Lomardi, the director of the Vatican press office, remarked that the Castrillon Hoyos letter “is proof of the timeliness of the unification of the treatment of cases of the sexual abuse of minors on the part of members of the clergy under the competency of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, to guarantee rigorous and coherent action, as effectively occurred with the documents approved by the Pope in 2001.” …”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Cardinal hailed bishop for hiding predator priest: report (Reuters)
• French bishop lauded for shielding priest (AP)
• [Vatican disses one of its own on sex abuse (National Catholic Reporter (Vatican disses one of its own on sex abuse | National Catholic Reporter))
• Fr. Lombardi on Letter of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (VIS)
• [Document Exclusif (Golias) (http://www.rtl.fr/fiche/5937685500/...d-hui-je-ne-denoncerais-pas-plus-qu-hier.html)
• Pierre Pican (Wikipedia)
• René Bissey (Wikipedia)

 

[JReducation]

Yes, and in this day and age the desire to be informed immediately is a result of our new technologies. What accompanies instant news is often the desire for an instant solution. People need to be aware of this. There are no simple quick solutions. This is one reason I don’t post that often.

One can argue that desire for instant news also motivates the news media to meet that desire. There was a study about the reporting of the Kennedy assassination and other catastrophes. That study found that the instant reporting actually amplified the feeling of urgency and contributed to the misinformation of the event. In the past, people were accustomed to receiving their news daily or even weekly. Starting with television, instant news reporting often reports information and then leads the viewer to sort out what is fact and what is merely… what we used to call in the military… as the fog of war. Good reporters used to get all their facts sorted out before reporting the story.

So, you make a very good point. Here is another perspective. If someone is familiar with the study I mentioned, I would be grateful for a link to information about it.

I had never thought of this in the way that you put it; but it makes sense. We live in a fast food society. Everything happens in an instant. Therefore, we want answers and solutions just as quickly. I never though of it that way. I can see why people get frustrated. They don’t realize what has happened to them. They have been turned into machines that process information in gigabytes per second, because information is delivered that way. Unfortunately solutions don’t come that way.

I’m remembering a young man with whom I worked. He came with a problem. After the third meeting he said, “Thanks Brother, I think everything is OK now.” I knew that was not the case. The problem was huge. But he has somehow put his brain on fastforward and had made himself feel that he was fine. Two years later he came back and the problem had magnified.

When you put things on fast forward, you run the risk of doing more damage.

Thanks for that enlightening post.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sonic]

Thanks for that enlightening post.

Your welcome, and the same thanks from me to you. You’re posts often give me pause to think. Get it… pause?

Have a good night!