Sex Crimes Cover-Up By Vatican?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJSHJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

I know this article is old but I just recently read this in another thread and the allegations are very serious.

Does anyone have any proof that Cardinal Ottaviani wanted the victims of abuse to be silent under the threat of excommunication?
It is pity that the document is there and there is a secrecy by CBS not showing us the document. If it exist, I do not doubt that it exists, I want to see him, and CBS, which accuses the Vatican of Secrecy if Keeping Secrecy with the document in his hands and transcribing what he wants as if the readers were dumb.

So much for Secrecy.

I understand perfectly well the document. Those were the times when priest were considered close to God and no priest would leave the priesthood to marry and the Church was considered highly Saint.

These cases were treated with great secrecy so as not to offend the Christians and that the victim, may not be subject of discrimination, etc. But the case is NOT that the Vatican condoned those sins and that the Vatican did nothing to solve the case.

CBS’ conclusion is that the Vatican was approving the pedophilia, which is absurd. The Vatican was doing what it knew best, according to His norms, confession, prayer and Eucharist and penance.

Now, we know better, that these were not good strategies and that those priests needed psychiatric treatment.

But take the conclusion that the Cardinal condoned pedophilia is like to state that CBS condoned all the sexual behavior of his staff (which is kept under secrecy).
 
This seems to be the relevant document
vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

The CBS artile says that the alleged victim is subject to this silence, enforced by excommunication. However, I am not sure of that. The document says that the victim is subject to excommunication if s/he does not report abuse of the confessional by a priest.

It seems the requirement of silence is laid on those involved in the investigation.

BTW, since the CBS article is eight years old, the News forums are the wrong spot for this discussion (despite its importance.) I agree this needs to be discussed, but perhaps Apologetics would be more suitable. The News forums are for current events.
 
I’ve seen some biased reporting, but that has to be some of the worst. In what purports to be a straight news story (instead of an editorial), the first paragraph outright declares that “the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican,” the very thing the Church denies is true. And the only authority the author has is that a plaintiff’s lawyer (who stands to make millions by suing the Church) told him so.

It’s telling that there’s no actual reference to the document by name, and thus, no way of seeing for yourself what it says. But the document being referred to is * Crimen Sollicitationis*.

It’s absolutely a lie that it’s “a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.” Instead, it’s related to the crime of solicitation – in which a priest makes sexual advances during Confession. It’s not limited to advances towards children, but any sexual advances during the Sacrament of Confession.

Most of the time, of course, the conduct in question isn’t even illegal. That is, the document wasn’t written as a cover-up of a civil crime, but as a procedure for quietly investigating whether or not a priest was desecrating the sacraments by using the confessional as a place to hit on parishioners.

And what’s made secretive isn’t the sexual abuse itself, but the proceedings of the Church tribunal. In other words, you can’t talk about the trial, or use information derived from the trial to either humiliate or vindicate the accused priest or the accuser.

An accuser is still completely free to go to the police – read the document here, and see if it says anything to the contrary. So no, the plaintiff’s lawyer is lying, and CBS News is going along for the ride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top