Priest accused of US abuse still working in India

[Ecoclimber]

foxnews.com/world/2010/04/05/priest-accused-abuse-working-india/

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A Roman Catholic priest was in his native India in 2007 when he was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl at his former post in Minnesota. Three years later, he is still serving as a priest in India with the blessing of his local bishop.

The Vatican weighed in Monday, saying that officials there thought Jeyapaul should be removed from the priesthood and that they cooperated with efforts to extradite him to the U.S. — even providing authorities with his exact location in India.

But they said the bishop in India refused to remove him and instead sentenced the priest to a year in a monastery after holding his own church trial.

I just don’t get this with all that has taken place. It’s just one more example and ammunition for those alleging that the Church is protecting priests who are molesters. How can a Bishop refused the Vatican’s order to remove him from the priesthood? I give up. :banghead:

 

[tm30]

“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’ And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, Religious men and women going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, Religious men and women, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”[20]

As predicted int he the 3rd Secret of Fatima, the entire Church is under attack. Pray for our Pope. Pray for our clergy. Pray for the flock.

 

[Mark77]

**The entire Catholic Church has been under full frontal attack by Satan & his minions from day one!

Jesus was crucified by the Roman Empire & the Apostles ran & hid.

The Roman Empire disappeared 1600 years ago, as has every other empire, civilization & country, yet the Catholic Church is still here, with one billion members!
**
Stop falling for the lies & deceptions spewed by every self absorbed, arrogant, egotistical, power hungry leader from Mr. Obama back to Pilate, & put your Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior!

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (MT 16:18)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[TedDC]

As predicted int he the 3rd Secret of Fatima, the entire Church is under attack. Pray for our Pope. Pray for our clergy. Pray for the flock.

From this particular story, it would appear that the Church, in the person of that Bishop, is attacking itself.

 

[JReducation]

foxnews.com/world/2010/04/05/priest-accused-abuse-working-india/

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A Roman Catholic priest was in his native India in 2007 when he was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl at his former post in Minnesota. Three years later, he is still serving as a priest in India with the blessing of his local bishop.

The Vatican weighed in Monday, saying that officials there thought Jeyapaul should be removed from the priesthood and that they cooperated with efforts to extradite him to the U.S. — even providing authorities with his exact location in India.

But they said the bishop in India refused to remove him and instead sentenced the priest to a year in a monastery after holding his own church trial.

I just don’t get this with all that has taken place. It’s just one more example and ammunition for those alleging that the Church is protecting priests who are molesters. How can a Bishop refused the Vatican’s order to remove him from the priesthood? I give up. :banghead:

The local bishop has the right to an appeal. But if he losess the appeal, he must obey. If he fails to obey he can be removed from his post and even suspended. We don’t know what card the Vatican is going to play next. We just have to wait. Don’t be surprised if the media does not follow-up on this one, because it’s not too interesting. Afterall, the Vatican is doing the right thing. It’s not a juicy scandal. I’m suprised that they at least admitted that the Vatican had cooperated with the investigation. But I’m grateful that they did.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Non_Serviam]

The local bishop has the right to an appeal. But if he losess the appeal, he must obey. If he fails to obey he can be removed from his post and even suspended. We don’t know what card the Vatican is going to play next. We just have to wait. Don’t be surprised if the media does not follow-up on this one, because it’s not too interesting. Afterall, the Vatican is doing the right thing. It’s not a juicy scandal. I’m suprised that they at least admitted that the Vatican had cooperated with the investigation. But I’m grateful that they did.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That would depend on whose definition of “right” was being used. For those not of the Catholic persuasion, it would appear that the Bishop has chosen to place church law above secular law and that the Vatican is allowing that to happen (even if only for a time as you have pointed out).

This would be the equivalent to the claims made by some muslims that *sharia *law supercedes the civil law of any country muslims find themselves in and therefore activities not considered crimes or tried under that law would be considered of no concern for civil authorities. While some *imams *disagree with this interpretation they are seen to be complicit by inaction.

What I believe it will come down to is a sort of catch-22. If the Pope tries to assure people that changes have been made/things are getting better through his actions as head of the church, then incidents such as this one will have people questioning what good his word is if he can’t require obedience to it? Conversely, if he attempts to point out as you have that there are legal procedures and processes and such that even he must respect as much as he would like to fix the abuse issue, then some of the perceived authority of the papacy will be lost in the fray and the priesthood will be still under suspicion.

One good, partial solution that I heard from a catholic family member over the weekend was that the church could declare that like abortion, child sexual molestation, or being complicit in hiding a molester or act of molestation results in latae sententiae excommunication for the individual or individuals. That’s doable, since the point about abortion wasn’t always in canon law, and it would show a more serious approach to the problem.

If anyone intends to reply saying that excommunication isn’t helpful please explain in any reply why it is helpful in the case of abortion, but not in this case. Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

That would depend on whose definition of “right” was being used. For those not of the Catholic persuasion, it would appear that the Bishop has chosen to place church law above secular law and that the Vatican is allowing that to happen (even if only for a time as you have pointed out).

This would be the equivalent to the claims made by some muslims that *sharia *law supercedes the civil law of any country muslims find themselves in and therefore activities not considered crimes or tried under that law would be considered of no concern for civil authorities. While some *imams *disagree with this interpretation they are seen to be complicit by inaction.

What I believe it will come down to is a sort of catch-22. If the Pope tries to assure people that changes have been made/things are getting better through his actions as head of the church, then incidents such as this one will have people questioning what good his word is if he can’t require obedience to it? Conversely, if he attempts to point out as you have that there are legal procedures and processes and such that even he must respect as much as he would like to fix the abuse issue, then some of the perceived authority of the papacy will be lost in the fray and the priesthood will be still under suspicion.

One good, partial solution that I heard from a catholic family member over the weekend was that the church could declare that like abortion, child sexual molestation, or being complicit in hiding a molester or act of molestation results in latae sententiae excommunication for the individual or individuals. That’s doable, since the point about abortion wasn’t always in canon law, and it would show a more serious approach to the problem.

If anyone intends to reply saying that excommunication isn’t helpful please explain in any reply why it is helpful in the case of abortion, but not in this case. Thanks.

The reason why abortion is excommunicable is because murder has always been excommunicable. What the Church was trying to do was drive home the point that this too is murder.

Moral law says that the bishop has the right to request an appeal to defend his actions. We don’t have any information except what’s in this article. We don’t know if he has asked for such a hearing. What I said was that he has the right to ask for it. If he does, the tribunal has to consider whether they want to hear the case or not, just as does the Supreme Court when a case is presented to them. If the tribunal decides to hear the case, then everyone has to wait until it is heard. This does not impair the civil authorities from doing their job regarding the priest. The Vatican already told them where they could find the priest.

This question is about whether or not the bishop acted within the law of the Church. That’s what the hearing would focus on, not on whether or not the State can arrest and charge the priest. The Vatican already cooperated with that part.

They are two differnt points of law. One is a moral point and the other is a civil point. The moral point involves the bishop, not the priest. The civil point involves the State, not the Vatican. The Vatican already did what they could. They shared the information that they had.

If the priest is proven guilty, then there has to be a canonical process to dismiss the priest. But the Vatican cannot begin that process until the civil court declares him guilty. The canon is very clear. Any priest who is found guilty of abusing a minor will be automatically dismissed from the clerical state.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Another_Mary]

Don’t be surprised if the media does not follow-up on this one, because it’s not too interesting. Afterall, the Vatican is doing the right thing. It’s not a juicy scandal.

I hope you are right about the media. Unfortunately, the first I heard about this was a news report on the radio where the attorney for the 14 year old girl was making it sound like the Church (?) Vatican (?) (not too clear on which, actually) had sent the priest to India to “cover up” and they weren’t going to send him back.

I hate the radio news because there is so little detail.

 

[lynx]

Really only one word describes these repeated situations, ridiculous. Perhaps these church trials should be done away with and the church should be more transparent with the law.

 

[lynx]

The entire Catholic Church has been under full frontal attack by Satan & his minions from day one!

What? When exactly was day one? Before or after the abuse cases? foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/16/the_list_the_catholic_church_s_latest_abuse_scandals?page=0,0

Feel free to be angry but lets give credit where it’s due, on the bishop.

Stop falling for the lies & deceptions spewed by every self absorbed, arrogant, egotistical, power hungry leader from Mr. Obama back to Pilate, & put your Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord & Savior!

That’s a pretty bold attack on Obama who didn’t have anything to do with the situation. Focus that anger on where it’s needed, keeping Churches transparent and informing the police on matters of abuse.

 

[Santi2]

I just don’t get this with all that has taken place. It’s just one more example and ammunition for those alleging that the Church is protecting priests who are molesters. How can a Bishop refused the Vatican’s order to remove him from the priesthood? I give up

To quote Bishop Almaraj of the Diocese of Ootacamund news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_re_eu/church_abuse

“We cannot simply throw out the priest, so he is just staying in the bishop’s house, and he is helping me with the appointment of teachers,” Almaraj said. “He says he is innocent, and these are only allegations. … I don’t know what else to do.”

And from Father Jeyapaul hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_ABUSE?SITE=NCGRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Jeyapaul, who continues to work in the diocese office handling paperwork for schools, said he would not put up a fight if the United States tried to extradite him.

“I am ready to go because I am innocent. I am ready to prove I did not do any wrong,” he said

 

[OriginalJS]

There are a lot of rather extreme protestations that the faith or the entire church or both are “under attack.” That simply isn’t accurate. It is certain ecclesiastical authorities, priests, bishops, archbishops and the pope that are the subject of current media attention. Most are not. The Church throughout history has, from time to time, experienced unsavory men serving as priests and in other high offices. Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. He did not say that men serving, or purporting to serve, as its ministers would get a free pass from responsibility to their flock.

 

[Rico_S]

Don’t be surprised if the media does not follow-up on this one, because it’s not too interesting. Afterall, the Vatican is doing the right thing.

But, of course, I am much more confident that the Vatican will do the right thing BECAUSE of the bright light that the “villainous” media is shining on the Church.