Study: Homosexuality, celibacy didn't cause abuse

[The_Rock]

I went to the scan on the Bishop’s Accountability site:

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenEnglish.pdf

The document in Title 4 #67 has nearly the same wording as the Vatican document.
**It says nothing in this section like **what you posted: 'Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

So I see nothing that supports your claim in either of the sites.

 

[Insight]

I went to the scan on the Bishop’s Accountability site:

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenEnglish.pdf

The document in Title 4 #67 has nearly the same wording as the Vatican document.
**It says nothing in this section like **what you posted: 'Title 4 – 67 – (If the pedophile priest is found guilty by the tribunal, he must be transferred)"

So I see nothing that supports your claim in either of the sites.

Advanced Christianity must have made a typo, it’s title 4, #68.

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

1. If a priest convicted of the crime of solicitation, or even merely admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, the Ordinary a quo should immediately warn the Ordinary ad quem of the priest’s record and his legal status

.

It doesn’t mandate the transfer…it says one Bishop should warn the other of the priest’s record and status if he moves, which to me seems prudent.
Remember the document is dealing with lesser sins of solicitation as well, often between a priest and a grown woman.

 

[Insight]

.

It doesn’t mandate the transfer…it says one Bishop should warn the other of the priest’s record and status if he moves, which to me seems prudent.

The entire directive is referred to as a mandate, it doesn’t necessarily mandate a transfer, but transferring was the most common outcome. Preliminary Matters – 4) They will also be able to transfer him to another place, unless the local Ordinary has forbidden it inasmuch as a complaint has already been received and an investigation begun.

Most would disagree, the most prudent reaction for the Bishop when learning that a pedophile priest is molesting children in his parish is to call 911.

For example: In the Bishop Boland case; Fr. Thomas O’Brien was transferred to one of Bishop Boland’s Parishes as a result of supplying young boys with alcohol at parties and touching them inappropriately. Bishop Anthony O’Connell explained the conditions to Boland (the local Ordinary - who chose not to forbid it) in two letters later seized by court orders. Bishop Boland then placed O’Brien in a position where he had contact with some young children in one of his Parishes. When O’Brien started fondling young boys in that Parish, the Parents questioned Boland. Bishop Boland told parishioners that "we presently have no priest, teacher or youth minister in a parish or school who has ever been accused of any form of child sexual abuse.” Later, the seized documents confirmed that he did.

God Bless

 

[laszlo]

Having sex with a child is bad. Having sex with a child who has reached puberty is bad.

There are 5 million victims of the child abuse. To concentrate on the few (less than 10,000) abuses of the priest, and forget that this is a minuscule problem related to the overall abuses, is the abandonment of the victims in order to attack the Church. This is bad.

 

[Insight]

There are 5 million victims of the child abuse. To concentrate on the few (less than 10,000) abuses of the priest, and forget that this is a minuscule problem related to the overall abuses, is the abandonment of the victims in order to attack the Church. This is bad.

This is not a minuscule problem:

The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 Priests, totaling to approximately 4.3 percent of US Catholic Priests.

After additional Priests were identified, the John Jay report updated that figure to 5,375, totaling to approximately 5.3 percent or one in twenty Priests.

bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/data_priests.htm

However, the raw data of the John Jay Report was provided by the USCCB. The figures from the United States District Court are higher, about 9 percent of all Catholic Priests, almost one in ten.

richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report_2005.htm

In dioceses compelled to release internal abuse files to law enforcement or the public, the percentages of accused priests are markedly higher, bringing totals to ten percent.

bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/data_priests.htm

The Toye study also flatly blames the Ottaviani Directive and breaks down the actual costs to the RCC: “But rules requiring the reports, promulgated by the U.S. Conference of Bishops, say diocesan bishops are responsible for them. The reports carefully track the amount of money spent by the church on the crisis. Most costly to the archdiocese were settlements for victims, which between 1995 and 2000 totaled more than $21 million for 150 complainants. About $13 million was recovered from insurers, the reports indicate.

The average settlement per victim rose from $53,000 in 1995 and 1996 to a high of $227,500 in 1998, before falling to $125,800 in 2000. The 54 pages, covering 1994 through 2000, were filed in Suffolk Superior Court by the Greenberg Traurig law firm in the case of Gregory Ford of Newton versus Law and the archdiocese. Ford is suing for alleged abuse by the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. His lawsuit is one of a handful that were not halted by the $55 million settlement offer the archdiocese made on Friday. Carmen L. Durso, a member of the five-lawyer steering panel for those talks, said of the reports, ``and this from an organization that swears it isn’t practicing secrecy?’’

Susan Gallagher, a victims’ rights advocate, said of the reports last night: ``When people intentionally fail to keep documents on word processors, it’s more evidence of a concerted conspiracy to conceal crimes against children.’’ Robin Washington contributed to this report.

Ah, but there is more! On July 31, 2003, Bishop Oí Malley, a Franciscan, became the official successor to Cardinal Law as the Archbishop of Boston. Reported to be noted for his humility, compassion, and determination to get the job done, he was portrayed by the media as being a saving knight in Franciscan dress. Only nine days in office and on August 9, the new Archbishop makes a swift offer of $55 million to settle 545 sexual abuse cases. He had bought in new lawyers and quickly got up to speed on what had to be done.

Woo there, hold on a bit! Did the Vatican send us an honest man or a sly fox in Franciscan clothing? Letës see, the August 12 article above states that the Archdiocese paid $21million to settle 150 cases and Oí Malley offers $55 million to settle 545 cases. I will let you do the math to find the answer.”

AdvancedChristianity.com/Pages/CBS/Toye.htm
God Bless

 

[Dawnia]

“apart from confession” are the key words that broaden the scope, so that if the victim made one confession in his or her entire life, the document applies.

God Bless

I think you are misreading (or it could be me). There is no requirement of confession for solicitation to apply. If say a nonCatholic is being shown the Confessionals in a church and a priest at that time propositions that person, it would also be solicitation. It would not be solicitation if that priest propositioned that same person at the local bar.

It breaks down into two instances where solicitation can occur.

1. Involving the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, which may or may not be in a confessional.
2. Involving the location of a confessional, which doesn’t always involve confession.

I’m going to assume that it is in fact true that victims would be excommunicated for life (which from my understanding of excommunication is impossible) if the victim is not propositioned either during the Sacrament or near the confessionals then the excommunication clause would not apply. And if in the prior example, they were nonCatholic I don’t think they would really care if they were excommunicated.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Insight]

I think you are misreading (or it could be me). There is no requirement of confession for solicitation to apply. If say a nonCatholic is being shown the Confessionals in a church and a priest at that time propositions that person, it would also be solicitation. It would not be solicitation if that priest propositioned that same person at the local bar.

It breaks down into two instances where solicitation can occur.

1. Involving the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, which may or may not be in a confessional.
2. Involving the location of a confessional, which doesn’t always involve confession.

I’m going to assume that it is in fact true that victims would be excommunicated for life (which from my understanding of excommunication is impossible) if the victim is not propositioned either during the Sacrament or near the confessionals then the excommunication clause would not apply. And if in the prior example, they were nonCatholic I don’t think they would really care if they were excommunicated.

I hope this makes sense.

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that
person is, either in the act of sacramental 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.

(in essence - anytime)

(So the Directive basically applies when a Priest tempts a penitent)

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).

1. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of
   care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after
   they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual
   silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining
   to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to
   observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in
   all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso
   facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the
   sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to
   observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the
   force of their own proper duty. The other helpers from the power of their oath which they must
   always take before they undertake their duties. And these, then, are delegated, are interpolated,
   and are informed in their absence by means of the precept in the letters of delegation,
   interpellation, [or of] information, imposing upon them with express mention of the secret of the
   Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.

Essentially stating that the penitent is forbidden to speak about it under penalty of excommunication, that can only be undone directly by the Pope. Since the possiblility of the penitent to gain a private audience with the Pope is next to impossible, it’s secrecy for life.

sarabite.info/crimen.pdf

God Bless

 

[Dawnia]

Insight,

I see where the disconnect is. The paragraph I responded about doesn’t use the same language as the document you posted the link for. I have since read the full document and have gotten up to speed

I still stand by my assertion that a victim does not ever have to have received confession. My reason for this is that under Title V animals are listed as well as young children both of who can not receive the sacrament. The person denouncing the priest, who may simply be a witness and not the victim, does seem to be required to do so in the confessional.

Also the excommunication provision also only applies once the oath is taken. Prior to said oath the victim or witnesses may tell anyone they wish. There is a clause about having another come forward to denounce the priest in place of the victim. There is also a provision that states that once the case has been decided and published secrecy doesn’t apply to anything in the publication. Although I’m not sure how thorough the published documents are on those cases so it may or may not allow victims to go to the police without the risk of excommunication once the tribunal case has concluded.

One thing I also noticed is that if a priest has committed any of the crimes under Title V, they would be automatically removed from priestly duties according to canon law. Since that didn’t seem to happen it begs the question did everyone ignore this document or did something change?

 

[Insight]

Insight, I see where the disconnect is. The paragraph I responded about doesn’t use the same language as the document you posted the link for. I have since read the full document and have gotten up to speed

I still stand by my assertion that a victim does not ever have to have received confession. My reason for this is that under Title V animals are listed as well as young children both of who can not receive the sacrament. The person denouncing the priest, who may simply be a witness and not the victim, does seem to be required to do so in the confessional.

Hi Dawnia, there are several English translations, I picked that particular one because the wording is copy selectedable, as the other was a scan, rendering sections unselectable. I have a personal friend who is a Diocesan Judge, who informed me that the wording of the posted Vatican rendition is somewhat mitigated, or watered-down.

The directive reads; “The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent”. A penitent is typically a person who confesses sins and seeks absolution. If you are correct in your analysis, it widely broadens the scope of the directive.

Also the excommunication provision also only applies once the oath is taken. Prior to said oath the victim or witnesses may tell anyone they wish. There is a clause about having another come forward to denounce the priest in place of the victim. There is also a provision that states that once the case has been decided and published secrecy doesn’t apply to anything in the publication. Although I’m not sure how thorough the published documents are on those cases so it may or may not allow victims to go to the police without the risk of excommunication once the tribunal case has concluded.

“they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence, each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication without any declaration having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff”

“The oath to maintain confidentiality must always be taken in these causes, also by the accusers or complainants and the witnesses.”

It would be prudent to presume that the very first objective was to obtain an oath from the accuser as speedily as possible. It would certainly be sad to imagine some poor child victim sitting at a conference table surrounded by a soccer team of clergy pressuring him or her to sign an oath.

One thing I also noticed is that if a priest has committed any of the crimes under Title V, they would be automatically removed from priestly duties according to canon law. Since that didn’t seem to happen it begs the question did everyone ignore this document or did something change?

The wording in the Vatican version seems to be a little fuzzy there.

God Bless

 

[Dawnia]

It would be prudent to presume that the very first objective was to obtain an oath from the accuser as speedily as possible. It would certainly be sad to imagine some poor child victim sitting at a conference table surrounded by a soccer team of clergy pressuring him or her to sign an oath.

I believe that I read that the oath is to be gotten at the time of the denunciation. So until that point there is no penalty of excommunication. Hence it being okay to have another denounce for the victim. I’m sure the embarrassment would be enough to keep most people quiet anyway.

 

[Insight]

I believe that I read that the oath is to be gotten at the time of the denunciation. So until that point there is no penalty of excommunication. Hence it being okay to have another denounce for the victim. I’m sure the embarrassment would be enough to keep most people quiet anyway.

In the first title; “There is an urgent duty to make such a denunciation whenever one is compelled to do so by the natural law itself, on account of danger to faith or religion, or some other impending public evil.”

It seems that this would be complied with quickly.

God Bless

 

[The_Rock]

Insight,

OK, I guess you are beating a dead horse here. You have made all these arguments before on a prior thread here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131709&highlight=Ottaviani+Directive&page=15

So I regret the way this thread has been hijacked to present your personal gripes about the Cardinal.

I see when reading the above thread that this was not the first time you have quoted half a sentence in order to try to make it mean the opposite of what it really says. You might want to reconsider how this technique weakens your case for those actually seeking the truth.

 

[Insight]

Insight,

OK, I guess you are beating a dead horse here. You have made all these arguments before on a prior thread here…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=131709&highlight=Ottaviani+Directive&page=15

So I regret the way this thread has been hijacked to present your personal gripes about the Cardinal.

I see when reading the above thread that this was not the first time you have quoted half a sentence in order to try to make it mean the opposite of what it really says. You might want to reconsider how this technique weakens your case for those actually seeking the truth.

I have debated this topic before, and was endeavoring to add some insight to this thread, “Study: Homosexuality, celibacy didn’t cause abuse”. The Ottaviani Directive was clearly responsible. I have been thoroughly briefed on this subject matter by a good friend of mine who is a Canon Lawyer and a Diocese Judge. I have also discussed it at length with two friends from my Parish prayer group who have Doctrines in Theology and Psychology. There is no doubt that this is the root cause of the recent priest pedophile scandal that shook the Church.

God Bless

 

[Insight]

So I regret the way this thread has been hijacked to present your personal gripes about the Cardinal

I didn’t bother pulling up your previous posts, like you did with mine. But I just got an email from a friend who informed me that your last dozen posts are exclusively on this thread, while mine are spread out all over the forums. Whose hijacking what?

God Bless

 

[JimG]

The Catholic League provides a comprehensive analysis of the data here.

 

[Dawnia]

I have debated this topic before, and was endeavoring to add some insight to this thread, “Study: Homosexuality, celibacy didn’t cause abuse”. The Ottaviani Directive was clearly responsible. I have been thoroughly briefed on this subject matter by a good friend of mine who is a Canon Lawyer and a Diocese Judge. I have also discussed it at length with two friends from my Parish prayer group who have Doctrines in Theology and Psychology. There is no doubt that this is the root cause of the recent priest pedophile scandal that shook the Church.

God Bless

I don’t necessarily agree that this decree is what caused the scandal. The procedure itself didn’t fail to punish the priest sufficiently for their behavior. Yes the secrecy is questionable, but it didn’t prevent priests from being properly punished. The lax punishment is what the root of the scandal was about. People are PO’d at the Church that abusers weren’t punished and instead were just relocated to continue abusing.

Laying blame on one document or another without knowing if it was applied correctly does no one any good in trying to set up a system where this never happens again.

Thanks JimG for the link

 

[Insight]

I don’t necessarily agree that this decree is what caused the scandal. The procedure itself didn’t fail to punish the priest sufficiently for their behavior. Yes the secrecy is questionable, but it didn’t prevent priests from being properly punished. The lax punishment is what the root of the scandal was about. People are PO’d at the Church that abusers weren’t punished and instead were just relocated to continue abusing.

Laying blame on one document or another without knowing if it was applied correctly does no one any good in trying to set up a system where this never happens again.

Thanks JimG for the link

In the 44 page Ottaviani Directive on how to handle priests abusing penitents, when a priest molests a child, where does it mention calling the police?

God Bless

 

[Dawnia]

In the 44 page Ottaviani Directive on how to handle priests abusing penitents, when a priest molests a child, where does it mention calling the police?

God Bless

It doesn’t mention the civil arena at all. The 1962 decree (which is little more than a repeat of the 1922 decree) was not a “public” document (or even a universally followed document), so how you imagine it was the root cause is beyond me. This document only sets out the procedure for handling cases, it does not spell out the punishment. And few if any parishioners would have known there was a duty to report offending priests to the Church or of the mandate for secrecy.

Seeing how child abuse was not seen as a punishable offense in all places, this document could have done great things to make sure that priests were punished adequately for this type of behavior throughout the world. Instead, the punishments were lax and priests were turned loose on a new crop of victims instead of being removed, isolates, and my preference, burned at the stake.

 

[Insight]

It doesn’t mention the civil arena at all.

That’s the problem, the entire Mandate should have only been one paragraph explaining how to report the abuse to the proper authorities.

…how you imagine it was the root cause is beyond me.

For two reasons:

First, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani was the Head of the Holy Office, the highest authority in the entire Holy Roman Catholic Church aside from the Pope. He drafted a 44 page Directive detailing exactly how Bishops are to handle sexual abuse by Priests, particularly pedophilia. Then he sent this Mandate to every single Bishop in the entire world. This Directive was an Order of the Holy Office to all the Bishops of the world.

Second, when reading the heart wrenching accounts of the child victims, it becomes evident that this Mandate was followed to the letter.

bishop-accountability.org/accounts/

…and my preference, burned at the stake.

Or in Jesus’ suggestion: "“And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mark 9:42).

God Bless