Sex crimes and the Vatican

[corvidae]

But we have already had people say that 1/2 to 1% of priest molested. That is hardly a subculture

A lone Raven

 

[Mom_of_5]

Abuse cannot be tolerated no matter who the abuser is. It is wrong for the church to cover-up the abuse but just as wrong to automatically pay anyone who claimed to be abused as they did a few years back. Rather than investigating the matter, they just paid to shut the “abuser” up. The church ran scared, opening itself up to more and more cover-up until they could no longer handle the situation when it boiled over. Sick men hid behind the cloth and bishops were too proud to admit we had allowed sick men into the priesthood. The snowball got larger and larger.

I love my faith even though I am embarrred by the actions of the priests and bishops. More has to be done to stop abuse, better methods need to be in place to keep evil men from entering the priesthood. There is a strong cry out there saying that fewer men are becoming priests…I think that is a good sign. Those who would abuse are not getting in or afraid they will be found out, so not going into the priesthood. I would prefer a married priest, to one who is sexually abusive. The church just threw out a bishop who married and several priests that were married. Why did we keep a bishop who swept crimes under the rug and even send him to Rome???There are some very serious problems to address and I don’t think we can blame it all on the the press giving biased reporting. Those of us over 60, have seen the many sides of the church. I love my faith but recognize the fact that men of the cloth are human. Those who commit crimes, no matter what the station in life, must be treated as a crimminal!

ILove and peace,
Mom of 5

 

[nby]

Celibacy is what makes a priest special. Without celibacy how will priesthood differ from any other occupation? Celibacy is meant to be a sacrifice. Our religion is based on sacrifice.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Celibacy is what makes a priest special. Without celibacy how will priesthood differ from any other occupation? Celibacy is meant to be a sacrifice. Our religion is based on sacrifice.

For one Apostolic succession, two they consecrate the Host to become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, forgive sins in Jesus name etc…(seems more than just a “profession”) Celebacy has zip to do with that, you are puting way too much emphasis on a discipline.

I’m not against celebacy Jesus was celibate, Paul was celibate it is the highest level for a man, and that option should be open to priests. I happen to think that modern day, we could fix the priesthood and attract more healthy heterosexual men with a married priesthood.

I’m not a reformer, if anything I was more traditional. But I’m also not blind to the problems, and think that a married priesthood can go a long way to bring masculinity back to the priesthood, also all male altar servers so young men can start discerning the priesthood early. Let them wearthe traditional cossack’s let them klnow they are an intrigal part of the liturgy.

 

[Saint_Michael]

But we have already had people say that 1/2 to 1% of priest molested. That is hardly a subculture

A lone Raven

I’ve heard ~2%, but that’s not where I’m getting a homosexual sub-culture I got that from books I’ve read on the subject from people with firsthand experience and that I trust.

Of that 2% what percentage are gay men molesting adolescent boys? From what I’ve read a significant portion. Plus 2% is no better than society, our priesthood should be far below that. It also depends where you look, other sites list the percentages much higher, it depends who you believe.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve heard ~2%, but that’s not where I’m getting a homosexual sub-culture I got that from books I’ve read on the subject from people with firsthand experience and that I trust.

I agree that the subculture exists in pockets around the US. But we must remember that the Church is world wide and the US and Europe while important in the eyes of the world, are not of special importance to God. It may well be that the Church is safe and sound, but the American Church needs a good overhaul.

Perhaps we have become so politically correct that we are afraid to offend the wolves, so we through them a few sheep every now and then.

 

[Saint_Michael]

But we have already had people say that 1/2 to 1% of priest molested. That is hardly a subculture

A lone Raven

americancatholic.org/News/ClergySexAbuse/

4,392 priests accused of abusing +10,000 victims. I would wager that’s a significant sub-culture. It’s 4% for priests according to a study John Jay University.

– An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.
– A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.

The most interesting statistic you will notice is not once were authorities notified in over 50 years and thousands of cases. Not once?

 

[antonius]

My problem is with the 39 page document itself, that I actually sat down and read intently, and how it fits into 40 years of cover ups and silence from our Bishops. When every case you find shows Bishops doing the polar opposite of the right thing to do, you begin to wonder about the leadership of this institution you are following, and how internal documents affected their decision making. It would seem just on odds one Bishop would’ve stopped enabling pedophiles, but it does appear from this document that they had a policy to handle matters of sexual malfeasance by clergy, and that it was to be done in “utter secrecy”.

It seems to me that one point is being wrongly taken for granted by some people – the idea that Church leaders have always understood it to be the “right” and “moral” thing to turn its matters of wrongdoing over to secular authorities; and by not doing so, Church leaders were intentionally and deliberately circumventing justice. This strikes me as a terribly invalid and anachronistic assumption. It’s a little like saying the Church was complicit in 18th century slave-trading, because surely the “true Church of Christ” would have known that slavery was immoral and would have opposed it.

The fact is that throughout its history, the Church has never considered its own moral authority and jurisdiction to be subservient to the State or to any secular government. Its determination to remain independent of State control and interference naturally gave rise to the mentality that it would handle its own internal matters privately, and that it had every right to do so. Moreover, since internal awareness of clerical wrongdoing often came to light within the inviolable seal of sacramental confession, such information would ipso facto be a matter of absolute secrecy. One can argue all day as to whether or not such a mentality was useful or harmful, fair or unfair, wise or unwise – but one cannot say that Church leaders knew it was “right” to hand over offenders to the secular justice system, and deliberately chose not to. The Church has historically resisted allowing secular governments the right of access to Church personnel files and internal documents, viewing such as a dangerous precedent endangering Church autonomy. Separation of Church and State works both ways.

At worst, we can say that this mentality was misguided and allowed too many people to be hurt – although the concept of “enabling” was hardly even known 40 years ago, and prevailing treatment methods focused on rehabilitation rather than incarceration. There is a world of difference between being intentionally deceitful and merely being wrong.

 

[corvidae]

Ok St. Michael, I will bite
Eve n from your own study that found 4% of priest were involved, it also says that the problem has dropped off dramatically since 1984. With over 75% of the abuse occuring before that. That is 20 years ago. Now, with such drop offs, and with the transparent and open policy now, why do you believe there is still such a homosexual subculture.

I know many who believe priest must be homosexual, because otherwise they would be married. This is a horrible viewpoint, and yet I believe that a great many people hold it.

Plus, how would you know they are homosexual if they do not tell you and do not act. There is a mindset that you can judge a persons sexual preference by things such as the pitch of their voice, or using their hands to talk. This is impossible, and should not be seen as proof.

So how do you know about this homosexual subculture? Also, they claim that about 5% of the general population is homosexual, but it is concentrated in certain areas, making a much greater subculture in some areas than others.

A lone Raven

 

[jdnation]

Those thinking that Church policy against offenders is not good ought to take a closer look at the so called ‘secret’ (haha) document and then realize that it wasn’t specifically about sexual abuse, but a general statement about pretty much everything that is a canonical crime! And the kicker is, the Church policy actually makes it a lot easier to prosecute than civil law!!!

" Second, the CDF letter had as one important aim to settle certain procedural questions among canonists as to which canonical crimes are “reserved” to CDF per 1983 CIC 1362, that is, which ecclesiastical offenses are considered serious enough that Rome itself could adjudicate the case instead of allowing the normal canons on penal jurisdiction to operate (e.g., 1983 CIC 1408, 1412). These canons were on the books long before the clergy sexual abuse crisis erupted, but their interpretation had been disputed. CDF’s letter cleared up much of the confusion.

Third, in extending jurisdiction over these cases to 10 years past the alleged victim’s 18th birthday, CDF actually increased the amount of time that Church officials (whether diocesan or Roman) had to prosecute these offenses. Before CDF’s letter, canonical prosecutions were complicated by unduly short statutes of limitations—the very same problem, by the way, that state prosecutions encountered in many pedophilia cases. CDF was hardly obstructing justice; it was trying to make justice more available.

Fourth, keep in mind that most ecclesiastical crimes are not crimes under civil law, and that the Church obviously legislates for the majority of cases she encounters. For most canonical offenses, then, secrecy in criminal matters (1983 CIC 1455, 1717) accomplishes several goods: 1) protecting the integrity of the investigation; 2) shielding victims from untimely or unwanted exposure; 3) protecting accused, especially the wrongly accused, from devastating publicity; and so on. Need I say that numerous civil authorities conduct secret investigations for exactly the same kinds of reasons? More importantly, though, nothing whatsoever in CDF’s letter prevents or discourages victims (or their parents) from going to the police, private attorneys, or even the press with their stories. CDF, it seems, has a lot to learn about how to obstruct justice."

More info here:
amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2006/10/bbcpanorama.html

 

[jdnation]

More:

"Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church’s internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

“Of course, a bishop couldn’t use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse,” Morrisey said. “The document simply wasn’t made for that purpose.”

Green said the document was issued by the Holy Office because it had responsibility for dealing with “serious violations of the sacrament of penance.”

Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.

Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread “mentality” that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities.

Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures.

That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to “cover up” sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, “lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls.”

Canon lawyers also note that pontifical secrecy is hardly reserved to sexual abuse. Under a Feb. 4, 1974, instruction Secreta Continere, pontifical secrecy covers: 1) Documents for which pontifical secrecy is expressly indicated; 2) Affairs dealt with by the Secretariat of State under pontifical secrecy; 3) Doctrinal denunciations and publications of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as its investigations; 4) Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith or against morals, and crimes against the sacrament of penance, as well as the procedures leading to these denunciations; 5) Acts by Vatican representatives relative to matters covered by the pontifical secret; 6) Creation of cardinals; 7) Nomination of bishops, apostolic administrators and other ordinaries with episcopal power, and the procedures related to these appointments; 8) Nomination of superiors and other major officials of the Roman curia; 9) Codes and coded correspondence; 10) Affairs and practices of the pope, of the chief cardinal or archbishop of a dicastery and of pontifical representatives."

 

[nby]

For one Apostolic succession, two they consecrate the Host to become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, forgive sins in Jesus name etc…(seems more than just a “profession”) Celebacy has zip to do with that, you are puting way too much emphasis on a discipline.

I’m not against celebacy Jesus was celibate, Paul was celibate it is the highest level for a man, and that option should be open to priests. I happen to think that modern day, we could fix the priesthood and attract more healthy heterosexual men with a married priesthood.

I’m not a reformer, if anything I was more traditional. But I’m also not blind to the problems, and think that a married priesthood can go a long way to bring masculinity back to the priesthood, also all male altar servers so young men can start discerning the priesthood early. Let them wearthe traditional cossack’s let them klnow they are an intrigal part of the liturgy.

Sorry but you contradict yourself twice. You said that celibacy is the highest level for a man, so then how can I possibly put too much emphasis on the discipline? And if celibacy is the highest level for a man then how will non-celibate priests improve the church?

 

[pnewton]

“Of course, a bishop couldn’t use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse,” Morrisey said. “The document simply wasn’t made for that purpose.”

I think this may be why this document is being used by the media to point fingers at the Vatican and the Catholic Church in its general. The only problem is that truth is butchered in the process. This type of witch hunt makes as much since as blaming the Jack Daniel distilleries for the Congressional page memos just because Foley pointed the finger at demon liquor. A criminal, when cornered, will almoast always point at someone else. It just takes some one as gullible as the BBC to believe it.

 

[bones_IV]

Jdnation, the hate, and malice, and intellectual corruption goes on and on!

 

[Eden]

The most interesting statistic you will notice is not once were authorities notified in over 50 years and thousands of cases. Not once?

You make it seem as though the rest of our society has always been open about abuse. Fifty years ago, families of children who were abused by other members of the family or neighbors or family friends (cases not involving a priest) were also unlikely to report such abuse. You are missing the cultural context in which our entire country has pushed these kinds of crimes under the table until recently. Yes, this kind of cultural denial certainly was present in the American church as well. But it was a reflection of our larger cultural denial that these kinds of things happen to children. I once read an article about a woman, now middle-aged, who at the age of 3 was being abused by uncle when her mother walked in to the room. Her mother said to her, “This never happened” and it was never discussed again. I think it’s naive and simplistic to portray the American bishops as covering up abuse by priests as a vast conspiracy, when clearly we are dealing with bishops and other church leaders who did know how to handle what was happening. If it wasn’t even spoken about, how could they have had a plan in place to deal with it or to even recognize it?

 

[Loy]

From National Catholic Reporter:

nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

Posted Thursday, August 7, 2003 at 2:45 p.m. CST

1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases
Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome

A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a “smoking gun” providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.

Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

 

[Loy]

(cont’d from previous post)

Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.

Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread “mentality” that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities.

Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures.

That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to “cover up” sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, “lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls.”

Canon lawyers also note that pontifical secrecy is hardly reserved to sexual abuse. Under a Feb. 4, 1974, instruction Secreta Continere, pontifical secrecy covers: 1) Documents for which pontifical secrecy is expressly indicated; 2) Affairs dealt with by the Secretariat of State under pontifical secrecy; 3) Doctrinal denunciations and publications of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as its investigations; 4) Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith or against morals, and crimes against the sacrament of penance, as well as the procedures leading to these denunciations; 5) Acts by Vatican representatives relative to matters covered by the pontifical secret; 6) Creation of cardinals; 7) Nomination of bishops, apostolic administrators and other ordinaries with episcopal power, and the procedures related to these appointments; 8) Nomination of superiors and other major officials of the Roman curia; 9) Codes and coded correspondence; 10) Affairs and practices of the pope, of the chief cardinal or archbishop of a dicastery and of pontifical representatives.

---

(end of article)

Here is a link to an English text version of *Crimen Sollicitationis *in non-PDF format:

usao.edu/~facshaferi/secretarium/crimensollicitationis01.htm

 

[Walt_Oliver]

A four year old article would hardly be considered news. Also, please read forum rules about quoting articles. Thread is closed.

Walt

 

[michaelmac]

I have A silly question for all on this forum ,If you was a victim of clerical abuse ,And you still had to live in exile 43 years after you abuse ended ,And you had a criminal record even though you had never commited a crime in your country of birth would you believe any one in the Catholic faith yours michael mcmanus ps and there is an arrest warrant out in the couutry of your birth

 

[iserve]

You make it seem as though the rest of our society has always been open about abuse. Fifty years ago, families of children who were abused by other members of the family or neighbors or family friends (cases not involving a priest) were also unlikely to report such abuse. You are missing the cultural context in which our entire country has pushed these kinds of crimes under the table until recently. Yes, this kind of cultural denial certainly was present in the American church as well. But it was a reflection of our larger cultural denial that these kinds of things happen to children. I once read an article about a woman, now middle-aged, who at the age of 3 was being abused by uncle when her mother walked in to the room. Her mother said to her, “This never happened” and it was never discussed again. I think it’s naive and simplistic to portray the American bishops as covering up abuse by priests as a vast conspiracy, when clearly we are dealing with bishops and other church leaders who did know how to handle what was happening. If it wasn’t even spoken about, how could they have had a plan in place to deal with it or to even recognize it?

This is quite true. Acts such as these were routinely handled “in house”, both in families as well as institutions. I can remember numerous incidents like this as a child where it was handled and then snuffed out. Bishops tended to send these priests away for a while, and later, for treatment, believing that this would cure the problem and, very importantly, preserve the dignity of the institution.