Question about disciplining bad priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok I did finally find an english copy of DE DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS. I don’t know if I can put the link here or not, so I will get in touch with a moderator before I do.

I guess my disbelief in the existance of Crimen Sollicitationis was due to the fact that no matter how much I may not be in union with Rome, I didn’t want to believe that the popes knew what was going on in regards to the abuse scandal.

Do you remember as a child when you first learned about the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus?

That’s kind of how I feel now about the fact that the document *Crimen Sollicitationis * does indeed exist and isn’t just a ploy by those wanting to destroy the RC church. 😦
 
40.png
gelsbern:
I guess my disbelief in the existance of Crimen Sollicitationis was due to the fact that no matter how much I may not be in union with Rome, I didn’t want to believe that the popes knew what was going on in regards to the abuse scandal.

Do you remember as a child when you first learned about the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus?

That’s kind of how I feel now about the fact that the document *Crimen Sollicitationis * does indeed exist and isn’t just a ploy by those wanting to destroy the RC church. 😦
Click to expand...
Gelsbern,

I don’t know the roots of your contention, but I’m glad to see that you are at least positively-minded and like to assume the best regarding the Popes, whom I understand you are not in communion with. I commend you for that, that is, your reluctance to be overly negatively critical of those whom you have other issues with being in communion with.

I would expect that takes great respect and humility on your part. I’m not trying to flatter you. Rather, hopefully I’m getting you positively minded to perhaps present how this new view regarding the “crimine solicitationis” effects your view of the last few individuals holding the Bishopric of Rome.

But maybe that’s for another thread…but it would be interesting to know. Perhaps we could all learn something from the discussion that may ensue?
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Also did you know this document was not known about by anyone until CBS new broke the story in 2003

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

This is the same CBS news that had documents about George W. Bush if I remember correctly.

Finally IF the document was truly issued in 1962, that would mean the Popes knew what was going on which would make it difficult to explain the responses in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107086
Click to expand...
Gelsbern, I’m gonna read those 2 links. And I want to finish reading the crimine solicitationis. It will be tomorrow or later before I can respond to those 2 links, but I’m looking forward to reading them.

All this sex abuse scandal and the Church’s reaction to it is important for Catholics to know about. And I for one believe it’s important for Catholics to know the truth about it and related issues that form a full-orbed picture of the topic, so our high regard for the Church won’t be shaken to the end of us becoming dissenting Catholics, or some other result that I won’t dare to type out.

-Rob
 
40.png
gelsbern:
That’s kind of how I feel now about the fact that the document *Crimen Sollicitationis * does indeed exist and isn’t just a ploy by those wanting to destroy the RC church. 😦
Click to expand...
Mr. Gelsburn,

Have you read the “Crimine Solicationis” document? As promised, I did finish it. It’s only 14 pages printed out at the link I gave in the opening post. I suggest you read it, especially if you think it’s a “blueprint for deception” as is claimed by the lawyer quoted in the CBS article.

I suppose that since you’re Catholic, you have an appreciation for the Church having internal matters to handle, which in a way makes it rougher on criminals, because they stand to not only face civil penalties, but also ecclesiastical penalties. With that said, this documen “Crimine Solicationis” is, like Cameron said, a document dealing with how crimes in and around the context of Sacramental Confession are to be handled:
PRELIMINARIES
1. The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacrimental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in a place] other than that [usually] designated for the hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession [The object of this temptation] is to solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after [the note has been read] or whether he has had with [that penitent] prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring (Constitution Sacrum Poenitentiae, 1).
Click to expand...
2. [The right or duty of addressing] this unspeakable crime in the first instance pertains to the Ordinaries of the place in whose territory the accused has residence
Click to expand...
*You can read the document, in fact, I think it will set you at ease regarding your primary contention, which appears to be that the Magesterium was somehow seeking to cover up the crimes of priests.

Far from the truth, in fact. They were aware that these types of things happened, perhaps had no idea that they happened as much as they did, but this is one example of procedures being put into place (according to already existing Canon Law) to handle them, in order to preserve the fragile and shameful nature of these crimes.

The document is very clear in how the process is to proceed, and that there are to be at least 2 witnesses gathered to collaborate whether the charges are consistent against the accused. Everything is to be written, signed, and notarized.

How many “cover-ups” do you know of, that call for witnesses and notarized testimonies to??

Need I say more…? Well, the penalties are, for instance, much like the penalties today. When the accused is found positively guilty (which is not always the case, obviously) they can be suspended from celebrating Mass, hearing sacramental Confessions, etc. and any number of penalties, depending upon the graveness and particulars of the case.

A little more in the next post
 
Mr. Gelsburn,

I perceive that some of your contention may be based upon how the records of the denounciations against the accused and the Acts of the Inquisition were to be archived away in the “secret archives.” Well, 3 things regarding that:
  1. They were put away to safeguard the privacy of the accused, because in the event that the denounciation didn’t result in enough evidence, and witnesses didn’t give consistent testimony, it is very likely that the accused would be in fact innocent of the alleged crime.
  2. They were put away to safeguard the privacy of the victim. This is mentioned in a few places, even so far as to safeguard the privacy of the witnesses. Prudence must govern when and where to meet with witnesses who are to give testimony, so as to not cast shame on them, or arise suspicion. (ie. some people could think…"why are Mary and Elizabeth going to meet with that man?)
  3. In the event that the denunciation does not result in an Inquisition (trial), the files of the proceedings up to that point will be on record in the archives. That is very useful, because it serves as official documentation in the event that the same priest is accused again of similar misdeeds. The file can be pulled and referenced, and it may be of particular help to see that the accused has a history of “being accused.”
From the Crimine document…
Once the inquisition is open, and if the denounced priest is a religious, the Ordinary can prevent him from being transferred before the conclusion of the process.
Click to expand...
For the most part, there are three areas which such an inquisition must cover, and they are:
Click to expand...
a) the past history of the denounced person;
b) the consistency of the denunciation;
c) other persons solicited by the same confessor or, however conscious of the crime, whether any of them, as not rarely happens, have been persuaded [to make the denunciation] by those denouncing.
Click to expand...
30. Therefore, as to what pertains to the first letter (a), the Ordinary at the same time as he has accepted some denunciation of the crime of solicitation, if the one denounced, whether from the secular clergy or is a regular (cfr. n. 4), which residence in his territory, should try to find out from the archives whether other accusations against him are on record, even of a different type; and, if by chance he had previously been living in other territories, he should seek, even from the respective Ordinaries, and, if [he is a] religious, also from the regular superiors, whether they have anything which can aggravate the situation in any way.
Click to expand...
*I hope that helps some. Those archives can be very useful.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Also did you know this document was not known about by anyone until CBS new broke the story in 2003

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

Finally IF the document was truly issued in 1962, that would mean the Popes knew what was going on which would make it difficult to explain the responses in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107086
Click to expand...
Hopefully, in response to the CBS article linked there, I hope that Cameron Lansing and myself have said enough there to address that claim of it being a cover-up or a massive document meant to protect the racketeering Romanists.

In regards to the CAF thread there, yes, I see that these 2 threads are similar in primary topic (ie. sex abuse scandal), but the question asked in the thread you linked there was
Is there any evidence that Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger knew about it and advised a cover-up?
Click to expand...
To which, I’d hope we would all reply in the negative, like those in that thread did. The (secondary) question here in my thread is…basically,* was Crimine Solicitationis an effort at an organized cover-up*?

Crimine Solicitationis itself, from my standpoint at least (after reading the entire document) serves to cast doubt on the “cover-up conspiracy theory.” You may agree, after reading it for yourself.

The Pope and Magesterium knowing what was “going on” back in 1962 is entirely different than them trying to “cover it up.” In fact, it looks like they applied Canon Law to deal with it, and punish the offenders, and in regards to crimes in the context of Sacramental Confession, there had to be measures taken to protect the Seal of Confession. Seems to be an entirely Catholic thing to do. Probably that’s why CBS doesn’t like it.

However, we’re talking about 2 different time frames here… 1962 era and the Ratzinger/John Paul II era. But, it seems like the whole conspiracy theory leans heavily on Crimine Solicitationis.

Anybody have reports that the CDF under Card. Ratzinger tried to organize a cover up? Or that John Paul II himself tried to cover something up?
 
Hope I’m not just carrying on a conversation with myself here!

Anyways, I found a couple things regarding the “Papal response” to the sexual atrocities here in America.
  1. In April, 2002, Pope John Paul II called the American Cardinals to a special meeting regarding the sexual abuse topic. Here’s the link to the opening address of the Holy Father for those series of meetings.
  2. There’s many news articles regarding that 2002 weekend meeting, but they’re all about the same. Here’s the link to one.
  3. In a 22 p. letter to all the priests back in March 2002, the Holy Father briefly alluded to the sexual sins and resulting scandal here in the U.S. Here’s the link for an article discussing that.
Ok, this is all very nice to know, that the Pontiff, though it may be the Bishop’s primary duty to deal with this here in America, it’s good to know the Pontiff has made some sort of effort to address the issue.
 
Nope, I am reading along. I am still trying to figure things out.

Oh I did get permission to post the link to the translation of De delictis gravioribus

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

I guess I am trying to figure out at this point how much the Pope’s knew.

Like I said, if Rome knew about the abuses and knew about the coverups, it is a huge HUGE disappointment to me. Even if they knew about the abuse and didn’t know about the coverups it would still be disappointing. Up until this thread, I had firmly believed that the Popes were kept in the dark by the Bishops about the whole thing until it made it into the mainstream.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Nope, I am reading along. I am still trying to figure things out.
Click to expand...
Gelsbern,

Glad you were able to post that link here! I’ll try to read it, honestly it will be a week or so, but I do want to read it.

Here’s a short article that discusses the U.S. Cardinal’s meeting with the Pope and Vatican officials back in 2002, you know the one that I had a couple links about above. One Cardinal, Chicago Cardinal Francis George, gives some insight on what is being discussed, and a “zero-tolerance” policy.

Also, this is very relevant to the issue as a whole, though not to the “Vatican cover-up” topic. It’s a Catholic Answers Live Radio broadcast where Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe is the guest, doing Q&A on the topic of sexual abuse in the Church. Here’s the link to where you can search for the show. Select July 2004 there in the top middle, and it’s on July 16, 2004 (yes, the one about the “John Jay Study”). It’s a good show, and he takes some good questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top