Pope named in sex abuse lawsuit

[otm]

mhansen:

What is this? The Selective Reading Club?

Nobody is making accusations about anybody. Read the posts again. They’re full of “if, perhaps, and allegedly.” That’s not accusing. That’s inquiring. We’re just looking for the record to be set straight and for those responsible to take responsibility.

Mike

OK, let’s try it another way. Corporation “x” makes a contribution to the last presidential election (it so happens that they made a bigger one to the Republican candidate, but made one also to the Democrat).

Corporation “x” is now accused of violating EPA rules by releasing untreated water from their food packing plant directly into the environment.

An attorney representing the Sierra Club, who has filed suit in the wrongful discharge, now wants to depose President Bush because he has made a statement that he thinks the environmental rules are too strict and that people whould not be allowed to sue under the rules, but that the EPA should work the matter out in administrative hearings instead of court cases.

That is how much connection there is between the two; Bush never knew about the specific case, he never met the president of the corporation, the discharge occured before he was preident, and he made the statement while governor of Texas, because he knew the tortilla plant in Texas was having problems, and if they got sued they would go bankrupt…

Oh, and the attorney for the Sierra club has made accusations that Bush is trying to destroy the environment, and is somehow covering up for Corporation “x”.

 

[otm]

MaryAgnes:

Again, I take exception. The Pope was not “pope” when he allegedly concealed the abuse. Having a letter that so states that fact is not merely “looking for deep pockets.”

Read what I said again, The attorney is saying that the Pope is liable. He is claiming that the liabilty is founded on an issue of Canon law (for which he has displayed vast ignorance), and he is specifically doing this to bring the Pope within the purview of the courts as head of the Church (he isn’t going to sue him as an individual, just as he is not suing the bishop as an individual) so he can sue him as representative of the Church for an act he supposedly committed while a member of the bureaucracy of the Church. If he can subpoena the Pope for a deposition, he has established a form of jurisdiction over the world wide Church.

His whole bit about this is that Ratzinger as Cardinal somehow was involved in covering this issue up. He is not trying to depose the Pope to see if he knew something about the case. He is trying to establish jurisdiction because he is assuming that the Church is one monolithic corporation.

Each diocese in the United States is a corporation, separate from other diocese’. He is looking for a bigger pocket.

 

[otm]

MaryAgnes:

What about the letters he allegedly wrote about the matter? Truth or fiction?

The letters can be obtained from whomever they were sent to, if the matter in the letter has anything to do with the case.

The letters were about Canon law, not about specifics of the case. One does not depose the Pope about that type of issue. You simply issue a subpoena duces tecum to whomever received the letter.

 

[otm]

mhansen:

Personally, I’m referring to his own study of sex abuse within the Church, the letters sent to bishops reminding them of the severe penalities should they choose to contact outside authorities, and also the well-known allegations made against the founder of the Legion of Christ, which were hand delivered to him while he was still a Cardinal.

And again, I used the word “perhaps.” You made it bold yourself. I’m not declaring anyone guilty of anything. Let’s get that straight right now. So calm down, read the posts again, do a little research, and you’ll see what I’m referring to. Thank you.

You might keep in mind that if he spoke about Canon law as a means of dealing with a priest who had violated it, and speaks of the severity of a civil system, he is not speaking of a means of covering up, but as a member of the Church inviolved with an issue that can have both civil and Church law implications. If he feels that stripping a priest of his right to say Mass and hold himself out as a priest is better than having the priest go to jail for 20 years as a pedohile, he is speaking of an issue of justice and mercy as opposed to a means of subverting the civil (or criminal) laws. Keep in mind also that he was speaking as a Cardinal (which he was) and not as an attorney (which he is not).

 

[otm]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Canon law and its processes. It is not open to the public; it is in secret. It is not bound by Anglo Saxon law - the source of our civil law (with a tip of the hat to Louisiana, which marches to a different drum). It is a process internal to the Church, and is not bound by the laws of the state or the country. It does not decide monetary damages; that is a civil suit. It does not send poeple to jail; the Church has no jails.

Ratzinger’s comments about the matters being done in secret refer to the fact that canon law trials are secret; they are not public. There is no conspiracy to cover up, but there is an attempt to render justice without creating scandal. On that he is correct; the civil trails have created scandal.

Further, the Canon law trial would not hinder an abused victim from applying to civil courts for justice as they perceive it, but it would get the issue of moving the priests around resolved. They would have nowhere to go.

Further, were there any communications between Ratzinger as Cardinal and anyone in any diocese, the attorny for the abuse victim could certainly have deposed the other inidvidual as to what was said, as they wer present at the conversation - they were the other party in the conversation.

 

[Kielbasi]

No pope, including the current incumbent is impeccable, the next perfect pope will be the first.

If Benedict XVI committed, or participated in a tort or a crime or a breach of contract in the USA, he certainly needs to answer to it, regardless of his current position.

I don’t think anyone needs to concern themselves with Pope Benedict’s due process being violated, he has more than adequate legal representation to guide him through the legal process and protect his rights, more so than the vast majority of folks would.

The office of pope carries with it certain infallibilities and privileges in the field of religion, but doesn’t have anything to do with his current liabilities and obligations.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to post a refresher course from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

• of *detraction *who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

• of *calumny *who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

The next person that posts a FACT regarding the Holy Father committing a crime of any type will be the first.

 

[maggiec]

Why is it necessary to continue this thread? No one is going to change the mind of people that are so hell bent in bringing our church down, or destroying our Holy Father.If anyone has a right to put blame it should be my family. My son and I don’t blame the Pope, our Bishop or priest. We blame the sick person that did this to him. John Paul II, of happy memory, did what he thought best, and so did our new Holy Father. You all can second guess the decisions that were made, however you don’t know ALL of the facts, none of us do, and so you have no right to blame anyone for what they tried to do to fix the problem. Even if they were wrong, it was done, I believe in “good faith”. Hind sight is wonderful. If we all lived by it we could prevent most of our problems in this world and I would never have let my son go on the retreat he was invited to. So I’m responsible too, I should have known better.
No amount of money could change all my family has been through, nor heal all of the wounds that, at times, are still fresh. Prayer and faith in Jesus is what is needed. I lost that for awhile but thank God that I found it again.
All who are so quick to blame our Holy Father and others should try and put their efforts into prayer for healing for the wounded. That would help more than any of these arguements ever will.
maggiec

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I agree. Time to bring the hammer down.

Where’s a moderator when you need one?

 

[Adonis33]

maggiec:

Why is it necessary to continue this thread? No one is going to change the mind of people that are so hell bent in bringing our church down, or destroying our Holy Father.If anyone has a right to put blame it should be my family. My son and I don’t blame the Pope, our Bishop or priest. We blame the sick person that did this to him. John Paul II, of happy memory, did what he thought best, and so did our new Holy Father. You all can second guess the decisions that were made, however you don’t know ALL of the facts, none of us do, and so you have no right to blame anyone for what they tried to do to fix the problem. Even if they were wrong, it was done, I believe in “good faith”. Hind sight is wonderful. If we all lived by it we could prevent most of our problems in this world and I would never have let my son go on the retreat he was invited to. So I’m responsible too, I should have known better.
No amount of money could change all my family has been through, nor heal all of the wounds that, at times, are still fresh. Prayer and faith in Jesus is what is needed. I lost that for awhile but thank God that I found it again.
All who are so quick to blame our Holy Father and others should try and put their efforts into prayer for healing for the wounded. That would help more than any of these arguements ever will.
maggiec

I agree. I am sorry for what you went through.

 

[maggiec]

Adonis33:

I agree. I am sorry for what you went through.

Thank you, please remember my family and all victims in your prayers that is what we need most.

 

[maggiec]

Dr. Bombay:

I agree. Time to bring the hammer down.

Where’s a moderator when you need one?

Thank you, maybe one will see this.
God bless,
maggiec