The Great Catholic Cover-Up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thaelros
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thaelros

Guest
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html

I’m not sure what to think of this. Any thoughts?

I’m especially having trouble with this:
In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way … restrained by a perpetual silence … and everyone … is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism!
Click to expand...
 
You cannot rely on the veracity of Christopher Hinchins, the writer of the article, an atheist who had a fierce determination to destroy the Catholic Church and all religion.
 
Here is a response to Christopher Hitchin’s article that you quoted

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm

The response begins:

Response to Christopher Hitchens’ The Great Catholic Coverup
**
Christopher Hitchens’ venomous attack on Pope Benedict XVI1 is a revelation that deserves wider attention. Were it not for its appearance in the National Post, it would be difficult to believe that a reputable newspaper would publish such absurdity.

Mr. Hitchens states that in May, 2001, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger sent a “confidential” letter to Catholic bishops to remind them that anyone who disclosed “rape and torture” of children by priests would be excommunicated. He claims that Cardinal Ratzinger imposed a ten year “statute of limitations” on actions against clerical sex offenders, and was thus guilty of “obstruction of justice.”

These assertions are false…

The so-called “confidential” instruction was published by the Vatican,7 appeared in English in 2001,8 and has been on the Vatican website (in Latin) since at least the middle of 2005.**"

The article continues but I will leave you to read the remainder yourself
 
Thaelros said:
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html

I’m not sure what to think of this. Any thoughts?

I’m especially having trouble with this:
Click to expand...
I liked Hitchens. And, yes the Church made many mistakes in transferring priests, believing they could handle this within the Church. And for this reason, this scandal is continuously being pointed out as the fallacy of the faith. Of course, and I won’t repeat them, other clerics of other faiths have been guilty of sexual practices – but it’s the Catholic story that lives on and on and on.

Second, the quote from the Exorcist is taken out of context. When he referred to Satan and the Vatican he gave an example of the attempt on JP II’s life by Mehmet Ali Ağca too. And the killing of one of the Vatican’s Swiss Guard and his wife, among other things. Are there Bishops who are out of comport with the faith? Yes, that too. Satan would surely like to do his work from within. Hitchens could certainly turn a phrase, but he does take the Exorcist’s words out of context too.

I believe the offical Church position is to turn priests who commit sexual abuse on children be turned over to secular authorities as any pedophile should be – not to handle this internally.
 
Trishie said:
Here is a response to Christopher Hitchin’s article that you quoted

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm

The response begins:
…
Click to expand...
Good find, Trishie! I couldn’t help laughing at the list of the number of times this allegedly “secret” document, which never was secret, had been “exposed” before Hitchens “exposed” it!!

Another good passage, after the one you cited, is…
The passage quoted by Mr. Hitchens as ‘proof’ of his extravagant claims is not (as his readers might believe) from Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction. It is from Crimen Sollicitationis, a 1962 instruction personally approved by Blessed Pope John XXIII.16 And, contrary to Mr. Hitchens’ assertion, bishops were not “reminded” by Cardinal Ratzinger of secrecy or excommunication. A passage in the instruction simply noted that Crimen Sollicitationis had been under review, and the reference to it was understood to mean that it was no longer in effect.17
Click to expand...
Secrecy and excommunication
Click to expand...
Crimen Sollicitationis is a 54 page directive. It has not been properly translated and published by the Holy See despite the fact that it has been public for some time and is repeatedly being ‘discovered’ or ‘exposed’ by journalists like Mr. Hitchens. The document warrants careful reading, but it does not support Hitchens’ claims. In fact, it contradicts them.
Click to expand...
Virtually all of the document is concerned with the investigation and prosecution of complaints of sexual solicitation of penitents by priests in confession.18 Such procedures are difficult and sensitive because the seal of confession cannot be violated.
Click to expand...
In short, Hitchen’s is referring to a 1962 document, which was before Ratzinger’s time, which related to the clerical crime of soliciting in the confessional. It never applied to the investigation of clerical abuse in the more general sense.

I hope Chris Hitchens enjoyed his moral outrage and his readers enjoyed participating in it, and that Hitchens bought himself something nice from the proceeds.
 
As a general response to the article, please note that it was dated March 2010. You should recall that at this time, ie. several months in the spring of 2010, investigative reporters and many anti-Catholics such as Hitchens, Dawkins and Geoffrey Robertson QC, were doing everything in their power to expose any child abuse, any time, in the Catholic Church and to lay the responsibility at the most senior levels possible, particularly Benedict XVI himself. They thought they had their man.

While the substance of the abuse charges were sound, and many hitherto unacknowledged crimes came to the light, the attempt to implicate Benedict XVI and the Vatican failed. It just died away and little has been heard of it since. We can be sure that if there was any substance to it then it would not have died away, and many individuals and judiciaries would be pursuing it to the limit.

It was only a year ago, but we should be able to recall that many people were saying that this scandal would bring down the Catholic church. It hasn’t.

In summary: when you see one of these articles from 2010, or earlier, be sure that if there was something to it, we would know about it now. These accusations and reports were all thoroughly addressed at the time.
 
Julia_Mae said:
I’m sure someone already asked but: where is the copy of this letter?
Click to expand...
Trishie (#5) provides a link which explains “the letter” and refutes Hitchens’ allegations about the letter, among other things.
 
Julia_Mae said:
I’m sure someone already asked but: where is the copy of this letter?
Click to expand...
Hitchens seemed to think it was so secret that he couldn’t divulge its title or contents.

However, it is on the Vatican website, where it has been since it was published in March 2001.

EPISTULA
a Congregatione pro Doctrina Fidei missa
ad totius Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos
aliosque Ordinarios et Hierarchas interesse habentes:
DE DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS
eidem Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis
 
I found that the Hitchens’ article was a sad but useful reminder of how nasty and dishonest he was. At the time of the article he was riding a wave of anti-Catholic news, but now the wave has washed away, and he has been exposed.

Which all shows that it pays to be careful before running with the crowd.
 
I’m sorry I’m afraid I still do not understand what the document really means, could someone explain it for me.

Despite the biased report, if the Vatican article hasn’t been tampered it seems its still asking that crimes that are clergy related be kept within the Church and not be revealed to authorities.
 
Isolation said:
I’m sorry I’m afraid I still do not understand what the document really means, could someone explain it for me.

Despite the biased report, if the Vatican article hasn’t been tampered it seems its still asking that crimes that are clergy related be kept within the Church and not be revealed to authorities.
Click to expand...
As explained in the above posts and linked articles there are two Vatican documents, one from 2001 and another from 1962. The one from 1962, which Hitchens quoted and falsely attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger, is dealing with the canonical crime of soliciting in the confessional (ie. a priest using the confessional to procure sex). This is only a crime in the Church law.
 
Isolation said:
I’m sorry I’m afraid I still do not understand what the document really means, could someone explain it for me.

Despite the biased report, if the Vatican article hasn’t been tampered it seems its still asking that crimes that are clergy related be kept within the Church and not be revealed to authorities.
Click to expand...
The allegedely shocking portions refer to abuse and or abuse discoveries that occurred within the seal of sacramental confession. Hitchens, of course, believes that confessions is a stupid contrivance, but catholics have always held that what is revealed in confession can never be used against the one making the confession. This sacred seal DOES make for some moral quandries, but only because it exists. If the idea of confessional seal were abolished, sinners would never confess their crimes and priests would not be able to give them counsel on how to overcome sin in their lives, not to mention give them absolution and the Grace of the sacrament which is even more crucial to repentance.

Think about it some.
 
Leegal said:
Trishie (#5) provides a link which explains “the letter” and refutes Hitchens’ allegations about the letter, among other things.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Sorry, should have read ahead.

So the answer is:* it’s all straight off the stable floor, pay it no mind. *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top