Sex crimes and the Vatican

[FightingFat]

Interestingly, the pdf is in English…Isn’t that a bit weird? Last night the programme made out it was in Latin.

 

[pnewton]

1. I don’t have another link.

44 years ago. Boy, this is cutting edge news for the BBC. I would still be interested in reading it if I can ever I can find it other than pdf (what an awful format). However, it is hardly worth getting throsm into spasms over. The level of understanding of the pedophile was woefully inadequate in comparison to today. Even now, we have a long way to go.

The point is that religious, legal or civil decisions when confronting sex crimes could only be made based on the knowledge of available at that time, not knowledge that would be gained over the next few decades. Just like impeccability is not a charism of the Church, neither is precognition.

The Catholic Church in the middle of the twentieth century was not an anolmaly in its dealings with sex crimes, but a reflection of the prevailing thougt.

 

[pnewton]

Interestingly, the pdf is in English…Isn’t that a bit weird? Last night the programme made out it was in Latin.

So a worldwide document was sent out from the Vatican in English, with a Latin title? That would be most unusual. Has anyone tested the authenticity of this?

 

[Scottgun]

44 years ago. Boy, this is cutting edge news for the BBC. I would still be interested in reading it if I can ever I can find it other than pdf (what an awful format). However, it is hardly worth getting throsm into spasms over. The level of understanding of the pedophile was woefully inadequate in comparison to today. Even now, we have a long way to go.

The point is that religious, legal or civil decisions when confronting sex crimes could only be made based on the knowledge of available at that time, not knowledge that would be gained over the next few decades. Just like impeccability is not a charism of the Church, neither is precognition.

The Catholic Church in the middle of the twentieth century was not an anolmaly in its dealings with sex crimes, but a reflection of the prevailing thougt.

Actually, the doc mentions in many places that the acts are evil and unspeakable. No argument there. My issue is that the Church had to have a policy that would address wrongdoings AND protect the seal on the sacrament of confession–an aspect completely forgotten in this debate. The recylcing of this news item (it was big like a year or so ago), is to my mind actually an attack on the sacrament by suggesting a call for cracking open the seal in order to allow secular authorities to nab criminals. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the sacrament knows this ain’t how it works.

Scott

 

[pnewton]

The first document, issued in 1962, is not directly concerned with child abuse at all, but with the misuse of the confessional. This has always been a most serious crime in Church law.

From:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5397762.stm

Why do I get the feeling that the BBC, like so many other journalist organizations have put 2 and 2 together to get 5. If the document was not even geared at handling sex abuse, but merely refered to it, of course others reading for instruction on sexual abuse would see it as problematic. This is a difficult problem: providing spiritual guidance to a sinner, while protecting the innocent.

 

[michaelmac]

In all this thread , I have seen not one word asking about the welfare of the abused child nor any thing about how Colm would be feeling after finding another child raped by a priest , The document you are all writing about scant concern for victims , A silly question if a document was not sent to every Diocese can any one explain why nearly every diocese in the world has covered up abuse of children yours michael

 

[corvidae]

One thing I would say for the document is this
Do you agree with everything the government did in 1962 and before. If you do not, why do you place faith in the government.
Is it because they can change and can try to reverse past bad policies?

This document was written in 1962 (in english?) and supposed to be kept secret. Why was it in English first of all, and second, why can the Church not change. Surely you have seen the changes in the churches policy about this. This is not something they believed was good or right, or anything like that, it was policy to try and save face.

It seems to me at least, that they have admitted their wrong, and revised the policy to make it better.

Why leave the Church you believe holds the truth because of a policy forty years ago that has since been changed?

A lone Raven

 

[manualman]

1962 folks. 1962. To understand this thing, you gotta put yourself in 1962. What did America look like in 1962? Well, for one thing, throughout the south, dudes in white sheets lynched black folks, but maybe you forgot that their OTHER stated enemy was the ‘dictator of Rome.’ Add in the Irish troubles, communism, controversies in countries of mixed Orthodox and catholic populations and the leadership of the church probably perceived that external enemies trumping up charges were a much greater threat than predators within.

This document makes total sense if you are able to extricate yourself from 2006 and enter 1962. Nobody heard of a sociopath in 1962. It wasn’t well understood.

What WAS understood was the the church faced a LOT of hostile opposition and that opposition many times had NO scruples against inventing charges meant to impugn good men. A document like this one was meant to provide a due process that preserved a priest’s good name. When the process found him guilty, it does entirely fail to understand that heinous sexual sin is not a one-time failure, but the outcome of a long slide into monstrous sin that is brutally hard to ever get out of.

The document may have been misguided in its judgements of how to resolve the issue, but I can see pretty clearly that the intent is to protect the church’s ability to proclaim the gospel in hostile territory while still providing some (albeit secret) due process for those who allege wrongdoing by a priest.

I’m sorry, but there is nothing here to shake my faith. And I DO have a kid in a catholic school.

By the way, as bad a job as the bishops did in protecting our kids, I wonder if the job they are NOW doing will do violence to us ALL. Consider, that we NOW have a system where all it takes is ONE accusation by ANYONE to put a priest on TV as an ‘accused sex offender.’ Innocent or not, that man is DONE in ministry. But I guess the church has no enemies these days. Or maybe they all have scruples…

 

[Scottgun]

In all this thread , I have seen not one word asking about the welfare of the abused child nor any thing about how Colm would be feeling after finding another child raped by a priest ,

The topic of this post is the BBC show that claims that this document proves cover-up. That is the topic we are addressing. It is odd that we are being faulted for staying on topic and also, since when does debating the claims of the bbc equal that one does not care about abuse?

The document you are all writing about scant concern for victims

I believe it does AND at the same time looks to protecting the seal of confession. Whether this was a good way to go about it is certainly debateable and which I am ill-equipped to answer.

A silly question if a document was not sent to every Diocese can any one explain why nearly every diocese in the world has covered up abuse of children yours michael

I don’t quite understand this part.

Scott

 

[bones_IV]

Out the door already? I attend Mass weekly, daily Mass at least twice a week, attend Miraculous Medal novena’s. I may struggle with faith, but I was far from “out the door already”.

I READ THE DOCUMENT!!! Please I encourage everyone else to prior to making baseless accusations. I don’t care what someone else says, I read the document word for word, I can read English and the PDF is pretty clear. I don’t buy the Arch Bishop’s defense at all, the PDF is indefensible for anyone with integrity.

You call it a lousy pretext, I call it the only way I can keep my integrity. No Church of Christ would behave in such a fashion.

Answer my question:

What if that was the policy of the middle school you send your children to? Would you remain to send them there? And isn’t Christ’s Church held to a higher standard?

To leave the Church is like a man divorcing his wife and marrying a younger woman, you’ll have the same empty feeling.

 

[Scottgun]

I would like to apologize to Saint_Michael and others. I have been too dismissive with their concerns and that was wrong. I was dismissive more out of reaction to the BBC which, frankly, has a history of anti-Catholicism. Due to that it I don’t think it is unreasonable to conclude that BBC’s concern is much less with the children abused than with the desire to detract.

But that is not an excuse to dismiss a Catholic’s concern with this document, so I am sorry for that and will try not to do that again.

I stand by my assessment that in context this document does not represent a general sex abuse policy and I highly doubt this document was consulted or factored in any of the cases that the media has highlighted, but rather the core of the crisis comes from imprudent bishops taking bad advice from secular pyschologists (notice that few even ask if they have any responsibility.)

Even if we allow for a moment that the document is wicked in some way, this does not bear on the question raised here of the Holy Spirit guiding or not guiding the church. There is an important difference between infallibility and impeccability. See Papal Infalibility.

Scott

 

[bones_IV]

Here’s an interesting news release.
UK BISHOPS ANGERED BY BBC ATTACK ON POPE

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=71831

 

[MikeWM]

The BBC is pretty anti-Catholic most of the time, it does cover stuff and is usually pretty unbiased,

Of course, and much as I defend the BBC on many issues, it does have an anti-Catholic bias. Somewhat inevitable, alas, as it is the voice of the establishment, and Britain has been very anti-Catholic for many centuries. Only very recently (historically) has the situation improved.

I didn’t watch the program, and I don’t think I will. I don’t feel like being annoyed, I’ve got other things on my mind.

Mike

 

[Saint_Michael]

Here’s an interesting news release.
UK BISHOPS ANGERED BY BBC ATTACK ON POPE

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=71831

What I’m seeing from Church leaders and in this thread is the same thing. They’re attacking the BBC for using sensational tactics to go after Pope Benedict XVI and the Church. However I’m not seeing much in the way of defending the document or trying to point out where the miscommunication is. We have one two sentence defense from an Arch Bishop as to the nature of the document and not much else.

It’s a 39 page document, surely it deserves more than a dismissal and:

*"This has always been a most serious crime in Church law. The program confuses the misuse of the confessional and the immoral attempts by a priest to silence his victim,” *

That’s it? that’s all we get from a 39 page document that seems to instruct clergy to swear an oath of secrecy in the matters of sexual malfeasance under threat of excommunication? And push the victim into discussion and not going to the police. After what we’ve been through the past five years we deserve much more than that. But again the arrogance of those leading us feel we only need what they give us, and we’re in no place to request anything.

 

[michaelmac]

The Archbishop of Birmingham can complain all he wants about the Panorama programm ,But those abused by catholic priests and nuns in great Britian do not believe a word he says , As he his still trying to keep victims from geting justice ,yours michael ps you might not believe me ,so write to him asking why the church is using the statute laws to stop victims getting justice

 

[manualman]

Is the bishop trying to keep victims from getting justice? Or is he trying to keep them from taking away the contributions that I give with intent to see them used on catholic ministry?

Justice and money are rather different. And the church only has as much money as the faithful choose to give. Any ‘justice’ that amounts to a payoff isn’t justice, it’s just another injustice. One victim gets money instead of healing and inummerous more victims receive no spiritual or physical help from an impoverished church. So sad.

 

[Scottgun]

An assertion was made that no one here has offered a defense of the document. I offered two. (And repeated them) 1). It was written specifically to address priests who abuse the sacrament of confession, and is not a general sex abuse policy. It was designed so that abusers could be disciplined without violating the seal of the confessional and 2.) No one has established a link that this document was ever used or consulted or even inspired future policy by any bishop guilty of covering up the recent sex abuse cases. The Catholic detractors are simply engaging in any-stick-to-beat-the-Church-is-a-good-one with this non-piece of evidence. The ironic thing is that this hurts the victim’s case rather than helps. They should stick to the facts: x priest did y and z bishop covered it up and should be punished and the victim compensated. Anything else is speculative conspiracy theory.

Scott

 

[antonius]

It’s a 39 page document, surely it deserves more than a dismissal and:

*"This has always been a most serious crime in Church law. The program confuses the misuse of the confessional and the immoral attempts by a priest to silence his victim,” *

That’s it? that’s all we get from a 39 page document that seems to instruct clergy to swear an oath of secrecy in the matters of sexual malfeasance under threat of excommunication?

I am neither a Briton nor a Canon Lawyer, but having read the 39-page document, I cannot say I considered any of its provisions to be sinister, scandalous, or even misguided, from a 1962 mindset. If anything, this document attempts to set forth a strictly defined method of due process within the specific context of canon law, pertaining to the narrow circumstance of sexual malfeasance within the specific environment of the sealed Sacrament of Penance. It is a stretch to construe this document as general Church policy on the matter of all sexual wrongdoing by clergy.

In the context of this formal judicial method, the demand for absolute secrecy differs little from the absolute secrecy required of grand juries or parties to federal investigations, and in fact is nothing more than a judicially imposed gag-order – hardly something scandalous. In the modern democracies in which we live, we have become accustomed to public trials and guaranteed freedom of information, based on the notion of “the public’s right to know.” It is almost as if we think of these things as our absolute rights, and automatically condemn the motives of any system that doesn’t provide us such full public disclosure on demand. Nevertheless, even our democratic model has built-in limits, violations of which also carry severe penalties. No scandal there.

The real scandal from reading this document is not in the nature of the instructions themselves, but rather that its directives regarding penalties and jurisdictional communications were often not followed. While I am repulsed by the horror of the sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy, I do not find the instructions in this document to be in any way morally corrupt or faith-shaking.

 

[DavidGonzalez]

By the way, guys, let’s please not assume that sex abuse is just a problem within the Catholic Church.
For instance, here’s an interesting site about sex abuse in the Orthodox Church (this isn’t a hate site; it appears to be kept up by the Orthodox Church itself)
pokrov.org/
Also we should put things into perspective. Let’s not forget that sexual misconduct is still higher among school teachers than among Catholic preists. Also, sexual misconduct is equally high, if not higher, among Protestant clergy. I’m not trying to bash Protestant clergy and I’m not trying to play any blame games here. I’m just a bit tired about the way in which the media sensationalizes the problerms of the Catholic Church in particular. I remember reading a full-page story in one of the local major newspapers about a retired Catholic priest who was found guilty of abusing children back in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. Meanwhile, a few days later I read a snippit about a Protestant minister in England who was found guilty about abusing up to fifty boys and girls throughout the ninties. It was just a snippit!
Moreover, two summers ago I remember hearing a snippit on the local news talk radio station about a Protestant minister luring school-aged children into sexual situations over the internet. He was caught by undercover police who were posing as 12-year-old girls. Again, I heard a single snippit on the radio and that was all. And this particular case happened in a city called Ajax, which is just a stone’s throw away from where I live.
Here’s how the Catholic league puts this into context:
catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

So Saint_Michael, please, before you pull your children out of catholic school and become a Lutheran, you have to ask yourself: are things really that much better in non-Catholic institutions? I would try to find out about that before doing anything drastic.

And by the way, they say that one in four people are the victim of sex abuse. And you know what? As extreme as that sounds, I believe it. Three years ago, when my girlfriend was still in highschool, she was abused by her grandfather at the cottage. It scarred her for life and she NEVER talks about it. She told her father, her sister, and me. That’s it. She hasn’t even told her own mother yet. And she only managed to tell me with tears in her eyes. And by the way, none of them are even Catholic. She still sees her grandfather, and tries to act naturally, but everyone tries to pretend like nothing happened.

This is a UNIVERSAL problem! It is not a problem that is confined to the Catholic Church alone.

So again, Saint_Malachy, think these things over before you do something drastic.

In love

 

[bones_IV]

The interesting thing is that the BBC itself does not seem to have a great deal of confidence in the “legs” of this story. Their hatred of Benedict is so obvious and hence they have thrown dirt on themselves.