Pope JPII backed praise for hiding abuse: Cardinal Hoyos

  • Thread starter Thread starter VitaminC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m backtracking a bit here to make sure I understand this statement clearly. JReducation, are you saying that if additional evidence came out directly implicating JPII in the cover-up that you would dismiss that evidence on the basis of his being declared Venerable?
 
JReducation said:
The seal of confession is so sacred that it can never be violated, no matter how heinous the crime that is confessed. People have confessed murder. In fact there was a movie made about a true story in Quebec, many years ago. The priest could not tell anyone what he knew. He gave the person conditional absolution. “I absolve you, if you report to the authorities.” But the person did not. In the Quebec case it was the murderer who gave himself away, because someone had seen the crime and the murderer thought that the priest had reported him and tried to kill the priest. He was caught trying to kill the priest, then the rest of the story came out. I don’t know how much of the story was edited by the film maker. But the story was actually true, as told not by the priest whio always insisted that he knew nothing. The story was told by the man, years later in prison.

To answer your question, we cannot violate the seal of confession under any circumstance, whether you’re the priest or just someone who happens to overhear the confession. Canon law is very clear that this is an automatic excommunication.

Some years ago there was a case in the USA where the police bugged a confessional. I’m not sure what they were looking for (obviously criminals), I mean whom. But Pope John Paul himself intervened and demanded that the tapes be turned over to the local bishop and that any copies of them never be used. The case went to the State Attorney who agreed that the police had violated the confessional, which is protected by international law. I don’t think any of the police got into legal trouble. If they did, it was never reported. But the tapes were never used. There is a law, I forget its name, that says you cannot oblige anyone to reveal what is said in the confessional. It works something like the attorney-client privilege. The lawyer does not have to tell the court that you committed the crime. His job is to defend you.

The priest or the bystander cannot tell what he hears in the confessional. Morally, that is more serious sin than any crime. Sins come in hierarchies, like everything else in life. Killing is much more serious than pick-pocketing, etc.

Violationg the seal of confesssion is much more serious than sexual abuse. Only Christ has the right to know what is sad in the confessional. No one else has that right. Remember the words of absolution. The priest says, “I absolve you.” He does not say, “Christ absolves you.” Why not? Because at that moment, it is literally Christ who is speaking. Therefore, since Christ is literally hearing the confession, only Christ has the right to know. Christ does not reveal our sins to others. If you overhear something that is meant for Christ alone, youu can’t share it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
As usual, you are correct. Sadly, I’m not sure this story is really about the confessional. My understanding is that in this case the bishop had information from outside the confessional, e.g. from discussions with the victims and others. Of course, even without violating the seal the Church can take steps to protect others - for example by removing the priest from situations where future abuse would be possible. I am sure there have been circumstancs where bishops and priests have had to make agonizing decisions because they could not violate the seal. I don’t think this was one of them.
 
KathleenGee said:
The seal of confession is most sacred.

I and others met the priest who had the confessional bugged. We met him in just the routine of parish life.

This priest was very traumatized, and it took him some time to get over such a profound violation of the sacred.

If a priest reveals a confession, he is automatically excommunicated.

What I am wondering, if Christ said not to touch His anointed ones, and this is referred to in Psalm 101, then what does the Church do with these ordained ministers? They can’t put them into the congregation, and it would be hypocritical to turn them loose into the general public.

I really think that John Paul II was supporting the intent of Christ, that no matter the public pressure, the Church is to protect the sacrament of Holy Orders because it is the means that provides us the Precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

But if they are chronic abusers, then what does the Church do with them?
Click to expand...
The law of the Church, since 2001, has been that any priest who is GUILTY of sexual abuse of a minor is to be dismissed from the clerical state. What does this mean?

It means that a process begins to laicize him. Does he become a lay man again? No. A deacon, priest or bishop can never be a lay man again.

What does laicize mean? It means that the person is to return to the ranks of the laity and live as a layman. But he retains all the powers that he received at ordination. However, he is forbidden to use them, except in an emergency, where he can hear a confessioin and grant absolution. Outside of that, he cannot use his powers. If he does, he will be excommunicated automatically.

How does this protect the innocent? That becomes the duty of the civil state. If the judge lets the person go or gives them a fine, whatever, he must comply with whatever state laws there are in his area for sexual offenders. He will most likely be on one of those lists online.

Why doesn’t the Church send him to a monastery? The Church has no authority to send anyone to a moanstery. Monasteries are run by religious orders. The Abbot is the ultimate authority. He has the right to accept or reject anyone sent to him or anyone who asks to live in the monastery. That’s the first problem. The second problem, even if there is an abbot who is willing to house such a deacon, priest or bishop, the man has the right to refuse to go. Since he is not a member of the order, he cannot be forced to live in the house of a religious order.

Have there been cases? Yes. There have been cases where priests were given two options, be dismissed or go into seclusion in a monastery. An abbot was found who would take the priest and the priest went to live there until his death. But he was never allowed to join the order. He lived with the monks, but was not part of the monastery. He always lived as a guest. It’s like a man without a country.

What can a priest do who hears the confession of a sexual abuser? If the abuse has already taken place, there is not much he can do except to grant conditional absolution. He can tell the perosn that his sin is forgiven if he reports to the authorities. If the person fails to do so, then his sins remains with him.

Why can’t the priest call the police? Because Christ does not share the sins of a penitent.

Is a priest who is a child abuser still a sacred minister? No human being is a sacred minsiter. Human life is sacred. Since the priest is human, his life is sacred. We cannot do harm to that life, such as take it away from him. The Church is very clear that capital punishment is rarely justified. It is emphatic on the rarely. This is a moral teaching to which all Catholics are bound. There is no way around this, if you are Catholic. The Church cannot teach error on matters of morals. Capital punishment is a moral question.

Can the preist go to jail? Yes. Can he be put to death? No. It’s immoral to put anyone to death when we have other means of protecting society.

Does the act of sexual abuse affect the ordination? No. A deacon is a deacon. A priest is a priest. A bishop is a bishop. Christ’s grace is not affected by sin. Christ is above sin and has conquered sin. Therefore, the sacraments are not in jeopardy because of sin. That’s why you do not stop being a priest, deacon or bishop.

What happens while waiting for dismissal? The priest is suspended. He cannot function as a priest. He remains part of the diocese or of his order until dismissed. He is usually asked to move out and not allowed to live either on diocesan property or a religious house and he may not engage in any form of minitry such as teaching CCD, reading at mass, etc.

This is all very painful, because there are casualties all over the place. It begins with the abused minor, his family, the family and friends of the abuser, his conferes, his superiors, the laity whom he serves, the universal Church. Many many people are hurt by one person’s sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
What happens while waiting for dismissal? The priest is suspended. He cannot function as a priest. He remains part of the diocese or of his order until dismissed. He is usually asked to move out and not allowed to live either on diocesan property or a religious house and he may not engage in any form of minitry such as teaching CCD, reading at mass, etc.
Click to expand...
Does this mean then that noone is effectively supervising him? Given he is no longer on church property.
 
xebec775 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Call the paper and let them know. I am sure the newspaper will send someone out if they’re available.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
Does this mean then that noone is effectively supervising him? Given he is no longer on church property.
Click to expand...
If a priest is suspended, he may not live within a rectory or a religious house. It is not the right of the diocese or the order to supervize him. This is a legal adult. If he gets himself in trouble, he must face the civil system like anyone else. Who supervizes child abusers after they come of court or prison? As adults they are responsible for themselves and accountable for their actions.

If someone is so mentally ill that it can be proven that they cannot supervize themselves then you can Baker Act. But even there, the courts in the USA say that this is only good for 72 hours. After that, if we’re dealing with an adult, it takes a medical team to covince the judge that the person cannot be released. If they fail to convince the judge, the person must be released.

The Church cannot imprison someone. That’s illegal in both civil and canon law. That’s why I posted that someone can be ordered to go to a monastery, but they don’t have to go and you don’t have much leverage. Neither civil nor canon law will support you.

This is particularly true if the person has already been through a civil trial and has been convicted. A court can convict you and not send you to jail. If that happens, the Church begins dismissal procedures and in the meantime you are suspended. But the Church cannot impose supervision on you. If that were to happen, the individual can turn around and sue the Church and win. Because the court has already ruled in the matter and because this is a legal adult. The courts would rule that the person’s rights are being violated. It can even lead to a restraining order against the Church. Convicted people have certain civil rights protected under the constitution of the US or the constitution of the state in which they live.

It’s very complicated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Non_Serviam said:
I’m backtracking a bit here to make sure I understand this statement clearly. JReducation, are you saying that if additional evidence came out directly implicating JPII in the cover-up that you would dismiss that evidence on the basis of his being declared Venerable?
Click to expand...
The Church cannot undo the decree of Venerable. The only thing that the Church can do is wait and see how it plays out. She does not have the authority to undo the decree. And further, if the alleged miracles are proven to be through his intercession, the Church can proceed with beatification and with a second miracle with canonization, wich is an infallible decree binding on all Catholics. The pope can also postpone the beatification and canonization. It does not affect John Paul’s place in heaven. Popes don’t put people in heaven. They just infallibly declare that a person is in heaven. But that decree can be left up to a later pope when the smoke clears up, that is if you have the miracles.

But the likelihood of anything coming up implicating John Paul is as likely as the moon falling out of the sky. To reach the decree of Venerable, there are layers and layers of investigations and tons and tons of documents that are examined not only by those in favor, but also by an entire team opposed. If the team that is opposed lays down its gauntlet, then it means that they have been unsuccessful in finding any reason why this man cannot be venerated as having lived a saintly and heroic Christian life. They don’t fold that easily.

Even when they fold, the process goes through another level of inquiry with a team of cardinals and it must pass in that circle too. Finally, it reaches the pope who reads through the two reports of the two committees. The pope must decide to make the decree or not. If he finds that the two reports are consistent with faith and morals he orders the Cardinal Prefect for the Causes of Saints to draw up the decree. That office re-examines the reports before presenting the decree for the pope to sign.

The level of scrutiny is so tight that there is no possible way that something like this would have escaped everyone’s attention.

In addition we must remember that to be a saint you don’t have to do everything right. You have to be faithful. Saints can make mistakes as long as they are not made with malice. People make mistakes all the time. Sometimes this hurts someone, but it was not the intention of the guilty person to hurt anyone. By the time you realize that you have hurt someone by a mistake that you made, the deed is done. Sometimes you can undo it, but other times you can only avoid it in the future.

I’m not saying that John Paul II did anything wrong. I’m saying that whatever mistakes he may have committed the different committees did not find any malice in them. There is nothing to take away from his sanctity. I always use the example of hitting a pedestrian who is jaywalking. You hit him, but you did not expect to see someone walking across the street in the middle of the block. By the time you noticed him, it was too late.

Do you see how this all works?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
TMC said:
As usual, you are correct. Sadly, I’m not sure this story is really about the confessional. My understanding is that in this case the bishop had information from outside the confessional, e.g. from discussions with the victims and others. Of course, even without violating the seal the Church can take steps to protect others - for example by removing the priest from situations where future abuse would be possible. I am sure there have been circumstancs where bishops and priests have had to make agonizing decisions because they could not violate the seal. I don’t think this was one of them.
Click to expand...
All that I know about the case is what you folks know. I do know this, no bishop can force anyone to reveal something that they have confessed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thanks, Bro. for your explanation.

My sister worked in the mental health and prison systems in my former state. Over 10 years ago, she told me they would be releasing many sex offenders into society without telling the public because of lack of funding.

One fellow who left ended up killing a family in Idaho and taking the little girl with him…she was rescued…but the damage he had done…horrific.

I believe P. John Paul was protecting the sacredness of the sacraments…and yes, a person’s sin affects everyone.

I would also say considering the intense sexuality of our country and how we export pornography throughout the world, the secular society itself is to blame as well for the sex abuse inside the church…our world is too, too small.

And I have lived in a diocese that had notoriety with clergy abuse…I noticed the church culture very restrained, people not connecting or getting along well with each other, people guarded talking to each other, not revealing themselves to each other…this is for real, but I prayed for guidance as it was not a good move to that diocese…and it was verified later on in the newspapers that the seminary itself had alot of sexual abuse…and created a cover up culture among the laity where cliques and insiders controlled alot and it very hard for new people to follow the Holy Spirit and doing something ‘new’. The insiders, and not the seculars, seemed to block new people doing things for the Lord…

So letting it go on also affects the laity and the church in general.

I pray that the Church not only purify itself of the impurity but also the ramifications it has caused in the ordinary, daily life and development of the local churches as well.

Likewise, John Paul II said there was a serious problem in American parishes with the ego and power issues both by clergy and lay, and this brought about alot of injustices to lay Catholics who sincerely wanted their parishes to be true Christian communities…people backed out from joining because they don’t want to be part of such behaviors.
 
KathleenGee said:
Thanks, Bro. for your explanation.

Likewise, John Paul II said there was a serious problem in American parishes with the ego and power issues both by clergy and lay, and this brought about a lot of injustices to lay Catholics who sincerely wanted their parishes to be true Christian communities…people backed out from joining because they don’t want to be part of such behaviors.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry for clipping your post for the sake of space. First, you’re welcome. I’m not an expert in civil law by any stretch of the imagination. My two areas of study were psychology and mystical theology. I did have enough canon law in novitiate and in theology to know the rules, plus you have to read and keep up. I’m “fortunate” (notice quotation marks) that I am the superior of a small house. The major superior keeps the local superior up to date and the latest developments and regulations. I must thank God every day, because I have never had to deal with this. Just the thought of being a superior in a house where such a thing would happen is enough to give me nightmares and to make every religious out there never want to serve as a superior, which would cause chaos.

The sisters have taught us this. They realized the awesome responsibility of superiors and that’s why many of them do not have a local superior for each house. But look at those communities that don’t have superiors. Look at diocesan parishes, where there is no superior, because a diocesan priest is not accountable to anyone for his daily life. The pastor and bishop are his bosses on the job, not off the job, unlike superiors who monitor the flow of the community 24/7. We are held accountable for everything from ministry, finances to how our brothers dress and what they do for fun.

If this ever happened in a house where I were in charge I would feel as if I had just had four blow-outs in one pop. I can’t even imagine what someone like John Paul may have felt like when this came at him from the USA in triple digit numbers.

He did say something that is very true about the American parish. There are too many controlling people and not enough controls.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I believe that in the USA and in Europe, but more so here, we tend to bring our American system of government into the Church and it does not fit. Even pastors and religious superiors have tried to do this and the result has been disastrous. You can’t run the Church as you do the country. The Protestants have tried this and they have kept splitting off of each other every time there is a disagreement. From three Reformation movements in the 16th century they have become thousands.

Some dissenting theologians did not help the situation at all. They began to write all kinds of books and make statements such as "We are the Church,” but they never qualified these statements. These theologians never went back and retracted or amended their statements by saying “We are all part of the Church, but the Church is governed by Peter and his bishops.”

I can testify that this is the problem that many religious orders are having and why they are dying out. Those orders that maintain the hierarchy of authority are thriving. I believe that all human beings want structure and authority. I found it very interesting that among the sexual abusers, 1-2% of religious men have been involved in sexual abuse of minors and 4-6% of secular priests have been involved. It has to do with the internal controls from the time that you enter as a postulant to the day that you die. It’s much easier to spot a dysfunctional person when you are forming them within a community where everyone is watching everyone else. A lose canon is always going to fly under the radar and that’s so unfortunate.

But I have three other brothers under my jurisdiction. But no one leaves the house without my knowledge. No one is every allowed to have a guest without permission. Everyone must be accounted for at all times. Everyone must be present for prayers, community meals, community recreation, at bed time (even if you don’t go to bed, that’s your problem), but you had better be up at 4:45. The brothers are expected to do their work outside of the house within an allotted number of hours and report back to the house by a specific time. If something happens to delay them, they must call and ask if they can stay out longer. Our brothers only visit the laity in twos. We visit our biological family once every five years. You don’t spend that much time away from the community. Transferring people every three years helps a great deal. No one can build their own little feudal kingdom. But we have had this system in place since 1209.

What I have noticed is that those communities that kept those systems, no matter how medieval they seem, they actually work to produce holy people and to minimize conflict with the laity and abuses of power, be they with children, money or other forms.

I believe that Pope John Paul was realizing that in the USA we were slipping down the same slope as secular families have slipped. Parents have yielded a lot of authority to their children, schools, the state and others. Bishops, religious superiors and pastors have followed the same line of thinking in the belief that by empowering people you make them more accountable and feel included. But accountability and inclusion, in my opinion, does not have to mean a loss of control and a loss of authority. It means a fraternal and charitable cooperation for a common good. That good is the good of the faithful who will be in that parish, school, hospital or whatever, long after the priests or religious leave.

Those are just my two cents. Don’t take them to the bank. I can be completely wrong.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
But I have three other brothers under my jurisdiction. But no one leaves the house without my knowledge. No one is every allowed to have a guest without permission. Everyone must be accounted for at all times. Everyone must be present for prayers, community meals, community recreation, at bed time (even if you don’t go to bed, that’s your problem), but you had better be up at 4:45. The brothers are expected to do their work outside of the house within an allotted number of hours and report back to the house by a specific time. If something happens to delay them, they must call and ask if they can stay out longer. Our brothers only visit the laity in twos. We visit our biological family once every five years. You don’t spend that much time away from the community. Transferring people every three years helps a great deal. No one can build their own little feudal kingdom. But we have had this system in place since 1209.
Click to expand...
That is mighty impressive.

I like it.

I dont mean to derail the thread so feel free to ignore, but Im curious, do you guys have vacations? Rest days in the week? Or are you full on 24/7 365.?

You sound like truely awesome people.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
That is mighty impressive.

I like it.

I dont mean to derail the thread so feel free to ignore, but Im curious, do you guys have vacations? Rest days in the week? Or are you full on 24/7 365.?

You sound like truely awesome people.
Click to expand...
We do have one day a week when we rest. We go on retreat for one week, twice a year. We have community recreation every day. We do take breaks.

We’re now trying to establish a new foundation Florida to serve in the pro-life ministry. I have been given permission to start the discernment process for men who would like to be Franciscan Brothers of Life. The common life will be the same, but the focus of the ministry will be the preaching the Gospel of Life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation,

When I came back home, I looked at 4 religious houses for women. I just had left working with SE Italian Capuchins, who were very open, and I must admit we had more of big family. I was their first lay missionary, an American, no less. My archdiocese backed me, and a small community of Maryknoll fathers had a stipend going for me when I came back home.

But in each house, I felt that it would not lead me to eternal life but damnation. I shared that with my former Dominican pastor and he agreed. I don’t regret it. And i have found much better spirituality among active contemplative housewives than anywhere else. I also found the Capuchins so wholesome. But some of them did indeed get caught up in Marxism…and I found out they were walking on the edge …something the bishop spoke to me about as well when I was leaving. That situation was looked at by the papal nuncio, and those errant were purified in time.

I was given permission to start a lay branch of a a religious institute years later in my former diocese. I was used to the clergy backing me up, and these were the ones faithful to the Holy Father. I was allowed to meet at the cathedral during our local church’s controversy for our gatherings, and it seemed we were having a black out of JP II teachings and communications to us by the dissidents in control at that time. I put a picture of John Paul in the chapel during our prayers and meeting space. I requested obedience, but said it in different terms. Luckily the people knew me beforehand, and the few that were having some issues with authority in general turned around and we were established.

Then I had to go to another diocese, and was given the permission to begin there by the local bishop. But it was a different culture. And people didn’t know me…I had the impression the diocese did not have the dissension we had back home. But some women came in, and one was infatuated with the other, it turns out the former knew very little of how the church operates, and she wanted this colorful personality to be in charge right after training had ended. I found out too late that the two had very poweful personalities and they were the type that wanted their way of looking at things to take over. But what blew me away was their vocality, their activism, their manipulation and misrepresentation – and how they turned things into a he said/she said…and the local clergy completely comprised me in that taking the bait.

What blew me was that there was no discernment of who was telling the truth, let alone acknowledge my appointed position…and furthermore, the jurisdiction had changed in my institute, and now we had hands-off management…Let God take care of it.

I do know pastors telling me that they have those laypeople in their parish who do not listen to anybody…the same idea of the parish revolving around their way of looking at things…very vocal, active people who get on the phone, start making the phone calls into the parish, getting people all worked up. I was a DRE in a parish, nobody in the diocese told me I was being sent to a ‘hornet’s nest’ after my former experience in that institute, and after that, no more. I was compromised again, had a layperson go in to the pastor saying this individual was misrepresenting me, but to no effect. Pastors dont like to rock the boat with uncontrollable people like that who are viewed as the pillar of their parishes.

And I think pastors as well feel compromised by their bishops. A few have told me that, and one of them was that partition that would not stand up for me in my trial. If priests stand up for better and more sacred liturgy, for the purity of faith, the condemnation of birth control, whatever stand that is not popular in the the secular eyes, they feel they will not be supported by their diocesan administrators. So compromise has its way of working down to the laity and you get the wrong people in position…and another compromise of Christ. And I believe it goes back to the bishop and superiors.

Subsequently, many lay people will refuse to be come more active in their parishes because of compromise of Christ and people working problems out in conjunction with the standard of Christ.

You also shared the disciplines of fraternal life. The Capuchins I knew ran parish missions, and their home parishes in Italy were very integrated in supporting them in many ways, so it is a different culture in that. Sometimes I think if I were a widow, I would start a new association, and I believe grace is coming some day to answer our prayers…they have already been heard in my former diocese when the bishop shut down the seminary right after he came in…and in 20 years, we had 33 studying for the priesthood…in the diocese where the culture was very different – Catholic on Catholic indifference or malice, they had one seminarian. It is now finally starting to grow.

And I think the diocesan priests, because of little or no fraternity now in the rectories, are more vulnerable, especially in such an intensely sexualized culture we live in.

American Catholic culture…I think the devout have a deep hunger for seeing other members of the church be less vocal and more committed in following Jesus, and many, even in the parish I worked in, hunger for spirituality, both for themselves, and in their administrators.

I think simplicity/poverty, less affluence can help bring about correction in our nation.
 
Excellent post Kathleen-
I think our priests are very much at the mercy of the laity especially head strong members who are in conflict with each other. Since many parishes including mine have only one priest, each pastor has to face these dilemmas on their own. They don’t have someone back at the rectory to hash things over with or to back them up when trying to keep the Church on the straight and narrow. I have seen parishioners walk all over our pastor. Now it was on smaller issues but still, he said “no do it this way” and they didn’t. He is a very holy priest but it is difficult for him to deal with high conflict and parishioners know this and I think a few take advantage. No one seems to know what obedience is anymore or to whom they should be obedient and my parish is especially devout compared to most I have known.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top