Too Broad an Interpretation/Declaration of Submission

[djames99]

Ref: Church Lexicon/Code of Canon Law

"Diocesan policies must also be in accord with civil law" 

[eng.alexandria-cornwall.ca/documents/2015/10/Diocesan%20guidelines%20March%202015.pdf](http://eng.alexandria-cornwall.ca/documents/2015/10/Diocesan%20guidelines%20March%202015.pdf)

Reading through this PDF, I found this last statement concerning judicial policies in the diocese. I thought it was a bit broad and submissive, given the mandate of the Church. To be in accord with something, it agrees to relent. Never can the Church make such a public declaration. There are already man made churches today that have always adhered principally and unquestionably to civil authority.  

The extent of what it has the authority to say is:

“Diocesan policies will aid civil authority in it’s development of moral civil laws”.

When we read through Scripture, the books of Wisdom and NT has us obeying civil authority, but a caveat is provided. The entity must be one of moral virtue, and tolerated to the best we can, intrinsic wrongs notwithstanding. The whole history of the Church is a narrative of her trying to guide authority to moral governance. In this world, every entity able to reason, in collective and individual form, must be held to scrutiny. Realizing this, God established an hierarchy of Authority over the governance of His people. 

The Church clearly defines in Mater et Magistra what is required for a collective to remain morally disposed to the will of God. In it, we surmise that the 'student' is prone to error. The opening paragraph declares the titles, hierarchy and responsibilities of all concerned, the best teaching platform to realize this cause.

What can become of it? This statement then will have repercussions in the future. Perhaps it contributes to the hardheartedness of the nations today. We can see why Church advice to nations on it’s attitudes on abortion and capital punishment have so little impact. First abandoning it’s own, the Church has conceded “no contest”, and made the civil authority the teacher.

The vulnerable no longer includes those incarcerated. They are given ‘token’ acknowledgment by pastoral visitors has a showmanship policy. Now it behooves the Church to keep it secret to them that they have been sold out by this new allegience of governance and Authority.

Christ meant that our charity must come from the heart. We must substantiate our love. In the past, the Church convinced civil authority to adopt a law to pardon all first offenses, in keeping with scripture(Privilege of Clergy). It was abrogated after a couple of years. It could do the same today instead of declaring this untruth to the world. He desires that the Saints Dismas’,Pauls and Augustines of today have their second chances as well.

Why does the Church bother to ask for their intercession, or name their Churches after them? It’s a travesty and show of insincerity.

I hope that one day the Catholic community will have a serious look from the perspective of it’s mandate, and come to question how it really differs from the man made religions of today who have already designated civil authority has their god.

 

[Vico]

Ref: Church Lexicon/Code of Canon Law

"Diocesan policies must also be in accord with civil law" 

[eng.alexandria-cornwall.ca/documents/2015/10/Diocesan%20guidelines%20March%202015.pdf](http://eng.alexandria-cornwall.ca/documents/2015/10/Diocesan%20guidelines%20March%202015.pdf)

Reading through this PDF, I found this last statement concerning judicial policies in the diocese. I thought it was a bit broad and submissive, given the mandate of the Church. To be in accord with something, it agrees to relent. Never can the Church make such a public declaration. There are already man made churches today that have always adhered principally and unquestionably to civil authority.  

The extent of what it has the authority to say is:

“Diocesan policies will aid civil authority in it’s development of moral civil laws”.

When we read through Scripture, the books of Wisdom and NT has us obeying civil authority, but a caveat is provided. The entity must be one of moral virtue, and tolerated to the best we can, intrinsic wrongs notwithstanding. The whole history of the Church is a narrative of her trying to guide authority to moral governance. In this world, every entity able to reason, in collective and individual form, must be held to scrutiny. Realizing this, God established an hierarchy of Authority over the governance of His people. 

The Church clearly defines in Mater et Magistra what is required for a collective to remain morally disposed to the will of God. In it, we surmise that the 'student' is prone to error. The opening paragraph declares the titles, hierarchy and responsibilities of all concerned, the best teaching platform to realize this cause.

What can become of it? This statement then will have repercussions in the future. Perhaps it contributes to the hardheartedness of the nations today. We can see why Church advice to nations on it’s attitudes on abortion and capital punishment have so little impact. First abandoning it’s own, the Church has conceded “no contest”, and made the civil authority the teacher.

The vulnerable no longer includes those incarcerated. They are given ‘token’ acknowledgment by pastoral visitors has a showmanship policy. Now it behooves the Church to keep it secret to them that they have been sold out by this new allegience of governance and Authority.

Christ meant that our charity must come from the heart. We must substantiate our love. In the past, the Church convinced civil authority to adopt a law to pardon all first offenses, in keeping with scripture(Privilege of Clergy). It was abrogated after a couple of years. It could do the same today instead of declaring this untruth to the world. He desires that the Saints Dismas’,Pauls and Augustines of today have their second chances as well.

Why does the Church bother to ask for their intercession, or name their Churches after them? It’s a travesty and show of insincerity.

I hope that one day the Catholic community will have a serious look from the perspective of it’s mandate, and come to question how it really differs from the man made religions of today who have already designated civil authority has their god.

The Church has not made civil authority the the teacher.

Matthew 16:17-19

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[Phemie]

Admittedly, I read the document quickly, but nowhere did I see “If you get a complaint of sexual abuse of a child, report it to the police.” That’s what I would expect to see in recently updated diocesan policies, not “tell them they can go to the police.”

 

[djames99]

Christ also put the integrity of the Church in the hands of the community and the descendants of Peter. It is not a challenge for the Faithful to pick up a battering ram and test the words of her founder, the world already does that has it did in antiquity.

Why did Paul bother to correct Peter on the issue of the gentiles? We are not spectators in a bleacher, we are to be active and watchful. This is charity to the community.

 

[mikekle]

**“Diocesan policies must also be in accord with civil law” **

Somehow that doesnt seem right to me, the secular world has entirely different agendas and beliefs, why should the church even consider their laws in regards to their own policies?

Not to mention, the bible tells us to have no cooperation with evil or immoral authorities or entities, so a ‘secular authority’ that also sees fit to legally protect abortion among other things, the CC should be mindful or even respectful of civil law? LOL that would be border line blasphemous imo.

Wouldnt the secular authorities of today actually be the enemy of the church according to scripture?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, of course the policies of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall are going to be in accord with or in compliance with the provincial laws of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada. One would not execute policies that are in violation of or in opposition to the civil laws.

There may be instances where the Church could not comply with a request based on a civil law, as with a judicial order to violate the seal of the sacrament of penance, for example.

Policies dealing with the reporting of abuse or the care of vulnerable populations on the other hand should assuredly conform with the laws of the country where the Church is operating. Diocesan policies would need to reflect that just as staffing policies for a Catholic home for the aged would have to take account of licensing requirements of the appropriate oversight agencies of the civil government. As would educational facilities and child care facilities operated by the diocese.

The mutual respect and recognition for the respective systems of laws and of government operative is part of the concordat that is concluded between the Holy See and countries with which it has established diplomatic relations. Warm and cordial diplomatic relations exist between the Holy See and Canada.

The existence of diplomatic relations indicates a relationship of mutual respect and cooperation…not hostility…between the Church and the civil governments of the countries in which it operates. We assuredly do not see secular authorities as enemies. This is well demonstrated by the Holy Father who receives government officials and who pays courtesy visits to secular officials in the countries he visits.

He also observes the diplomatic courtesy of contacting the nations through whose airspace he travels when making his apostolic visits…which is a courtesy of every head of state.

 

[djames99]

*Well, of course the policies of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall are going to be in accord with or in compliance with the provincial laws of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada. One would not execute policies that are in violation of or in opposition to the civil laws.
*
You are totally against the principle of conscientious objection? The principle of charity trumps policy. Laws are not to stifle reasoning. Your loved one desires a second chance after receiving a sentencing of capital punishment. You would not extend charity to that individual.?

There never can be ‘of course’, since a course had already been pre-planned for it since the beginning of time. Your rigid view refutes scripture.

So, you agree the Holy See should have relented to all the requests of King Henry VIII? If it is only the English diocese that should do so, how do you reconcile the differences of principle between it and the Holy See?.

Further, since treason is also an offense to the law, you would also have voted against Sir Thomas More in parliament?

The Church should have concurred with the English parliamentary decision to not send aid to the starving Irish, their very subjects?

 

[1ke]

Um… What?

 

[mikekle]

Well, of course the policies of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall are going to be in accord with or in compliance with the provincial laws of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada. One would not execute policies that are in violation of or in opposition to the civil laws.

There may be instances where the Church could not comply with a request based on a civil law, as with a judicial order to violate the seal of the sacrament of penance, for example.

Policies dealing with the reporting of abuse or the care of vulnerable populations on the other hand should assuredly conform with the laws of the country where the Church is operating. Diocesan policies would need to reflect that just as staffing policies for a Catholic home for the aged would have to take account of licensing requirements of the appropriate oversight agencies of the civil government. As would educational facilities and child care facilities operated by the diocese.

The mutual respect and recognition for the respective systems of laws and of government operative is part of the concordat that is concluded between the Holy See and countries with which it has established diplomatic relations. Warm and cordial diplomatic relations exist between the Holy See and Canada.

The existence of diplomatic relations indicates a relationship of mutual respect and cooperation…not hostility…between the Church and the civil governments of the countries in which it operates. We assuredly do not see secular authorities as enemies. This is well demonstrated by the Holy Father who receives government officials and who pays courtesy visits to secular officials in the countries he visits.

He also observes the diplomatic courtesy of contacting the nations through whose airspace he travels when making his apostolic visits…which is a courtesy of every head of state.

Historically, religions and secular govts have not gotten along very good, and many times, were ‘at each others throats’ much of the time, and really that should be expected, after all, you cannot serve 2 masters, if we prioritize Gods laws, then mans laws have to come second, govts desire their laws to be the priority though.

I would be concerned if secular authorities and religions become a bit too ‘buddy-buddy’, this is usually not a good sign, it means, one of them is compromising or ‘giving in’ (going along to get along in other words), and Id bet its not the secular govt!!

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Well, of course the policies of the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall are going to be in accord with or in compliance with the provincial laws of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada. One would not execute policies that are in violation of or in opposition to the civil laws.

You are totally against the principle of conscientious objection? The principle of charity trumps policy. Laws are not to stifle reasoning. Your loved one desires a second chance after receiving a sentencing of capital punishment. You would not extend charity to that individual?

In what possible sense do you think published policy guidelines for operating a diocese touch on any of these matters?

There never can be ‘of course’, since a course had already been pre-planned for it since the beginning of time. Your rigid view refutes scripture

So, you agree the Holy See should have relented to all the requests of King Henry VIII? If it is only the English diocese that should do so, how do you reconcile the differences of principle between it and the Holy See?

Further, since treason is also an offense to the law, you would also have voted against Sir Thomas More in parliament?

The Church should have concurred with the English parliamentary decision to not send aid to the starving Irish, their very subjects?

I’m sorry if this sounds uncharitable, but your statements are an assembly of words, the meaning of which I cannot really fathom

The document you linked to is a specific set of guidelines, promulgated by the diocese’s bishop, concerning allegations of sexual assault…which is properly the jurisdiction of the secular government. The guidelines of a diocese must be in accord with civil and criminal law, as applies to anyone in society

Dioceses have lawyers precisely to be certain their policies and guidelines comply with civil and criminal law. The lawyers also assist in cases requiring advocacy for exemption from actions of a State that transgress appropriate religious freedom as, for example, regarding the inviolable nature of the seal of confession which, occasionally, is adjudicated in secular courts

Individuals don’t need a published guideline as to how they, as an individual, react; it is relatively straightforward. Organisational response is different; policy directives clarify what is to be done by individuals of the organisation in various concrete circumstances. In sum, it establishes a response protocol. Guidelines gives directives on how different scenarios are to be reacted to and in what steps action is to be taken and who is to be engaged in the organisation’s response
*The guidelines take into consideration the responsibilities of the Diocese flowing from civil and criminal law as well as from the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. They incorporate the major recommendations found in the report of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), From Pain to Hope, as well as subsequent recommendations from the CCCB and the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario. They also reflect the recommendations made in the final report of the Cornwall Public Inquiry dated December 2009. *
This statement well articulates the origin and the purpose of the published policies and guidelines; it expresses nothing more and nothing less than what I would expect a diocese in the developed world to say

A diocese, and its subordinate institutions, is to carry out its responsibilities and obligations before the law (it also has moral obligations as well as legal obligations) in protecting vulnerable people from sexual assault – and assisting anyone who claims they have been a victim of assault. In this day and age, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone would dissent on this point or say that the guidelines should be less than the law requires. In fact, in my experience, policies and guidelines of this nature exceed what the law requires

From what you are saying, I have to assume that the nature of diocesan policies and their composition is perhaps not understood by you

An example of a published diocesan policy guideline would be: “A daycare operated under the auspices of this diocese will only hire personnel who have satisfactorily passed a background investigation that complies with the norms established by the competent governmental licensing agency.”

Thus, in our hypothetical, the guideline complies with the law of the place where the daycare operates. Were this not so, the daycare would be operating illegally…which is not only going to outrage the government, it would outrage the parents who are clients of the daycare and who have entrusted their children’s very lives to people with the expectation that they have been determined competent and to be in compliance at all levels with norms of safety and welfare for operating such an institution in, for example, the province of Ontario and the nation of Canada

Most people who have worked at a certain level in a chancery have had occasion to be involved with the composition of published guidelines of various types. That the published guidelines comply with the demands of the law of the secular government is normative. If they did not, the diocese can be found civilly and potentially criminally liable, which is again why one step in the process is review by legal counsel before promulgation

How you think the published policies and guidelines of a diocese touch upon whether or not a person is subjected to capital punishment, the marriages of a king, or other things you relate in your post, is mystifying to me. Diocesan officials are too busy to draft policy guidelines about issues of no relevance or that have no application to a diocese’s function and operation. They also do not issue policies and guidelines that operate in the abstract

 

[Rau]

Ref: Church Lexicon/Code of Canon Law

"Diocesan policies must also be in accord with civil law" 

[eng.alexandria-cornwall.ca/documents/2015/10/Diocesan%20guidelines%20March%202015.pdf](http://eng.alexandria-cornwall.ca/documents/2015/10/Diocesan%20guidelines%20March%202015.pdf)

Reading through this PDF, I found this last statement concerning judicial policies in the diocese. I thought it was a bit broad and submissive, given the mandate of the Church. To be in accord with something, it agrees to relent. Never can the Church make such a public declaration. There are already man made churches today that have always adhered principally and unquestionably to civil authority.

We are speaking here about “judicial policies”. Are there scenarios you envisage where the Church would betray its higher principles were it to accede to the requirements of the law in such matters?

And in so far as obligations upon the Church in connection with sexual abuse of the young is concerned, it is inconceivable that the Church could credibly seek to operate contrary to the law.

 

[Rau]

Admittedly, I read the document quickly, but nowhere did I see “If you get a complaint of sexual abuse of a child, report it to the police.” That’s what I would expect to see in recently updated diocesan policies, not “tell them they can go to the police.”

Indeed.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Historically, religions and secular govts have not gotten along very good, and many times, were ‘at each others throats’ much of the time, and really that should be expected, after all, you cannot serve 2 masters, if we prioritize Gods laws, then mans laws have to come second, govts desire their laws to be the priority though.

I would be concerned if secular authorities and religions become a bit too ‘buddy-buddy’, this is usually not a good sign, it means, one of them is compromising or ‘giving in’ (going along to get along in other words), and Id bet its not the secular govt!!

We are talking about policy guidelines concerning how a diocese is in compliance with the laws of the secular government concerning the protection of children and other vulnerable people from sexual assault and reporting to lawful authorities alleged sexual assaults.

How could anyone want anything other than that the Church is fully in compliance with government mandates to safeguard vulnerable populations? That the Church would be in anything but full and total compliance with the law’s demand is abhorrent.

 

[djames99]

In what possible sense do you think published policy guidelines for operating a diocese touch on any of these matters?

I’m sorry if this sounds uncharitable, but your statements are an assembly of words, the meaning of which I cannot really fathom

The document you linked to is a specific set of guidelines, promulgated by the diocese’s bishop, concerning allegations of sexual assault…which is properly the jurisdiction of the secular government. The guidelines of a diocese must be in accord with civil and criminal law, as applies to anyone in society

Dioceses have lawyers precisely to be certain their policies and guidelines comply with civil and criminal law. The lawyers also assist in cases requiring advocacy for exemption from actions of a State that transgress appropriate religious freedom as, for example, regarding the inviolable nature of the seal of confession which, occasionally, is adjudicated in secular courts

Individuals don’t need a published guideline as to how they, as an individual, react; it is relatively straightforward. Organisational response is different; policy directives clarify what is to be done by individuals of the organisation in various concrete circumstances. In sum, it establishes a response protocol. Guidelines gives directives on how different scenarios are to be reacted to and in what steps action is to be taken and who is to be engaged in the organisation’s response
*The guidelines take into consideration the responsibilities of the Diocese flowing from civil and criminal law as well as from the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. They incorporate the major recommendations found in the report of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), From Pain to Hope, as well as subsequent recommendations from the CCCB and the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario. They also reflect the recommendations made in the final report of the Cornwall Public Inquiry dated December 2009. *
This statement well articulates the origin and the purpose of the published policies and guidelines; it expresses nothing more and nothing less than what I would expect a diocese in the developed world to say

A diocese, and its subordinate institutions, is to carry out its responsibilities and obligations before the law (it also has moral obligations as well as legal obligations) in protecting vulnerable people from sexual assault – and assisting anyone who claims they have been a victim of assault. In this day and age, it is incomprehensible to me that anyone would dissent on this point or say that the guidelines should be less than the law requires. In fact, in my experience, policies and guidelines of this nature exceed what the law requires

From what you are saying, I have to assume that the nature of diocesan policies and their composition is perhaps not understood by you

An example of a published diocesan policy guideline would be: “A daycare operated under the auspices of this diocese will only hire personnel who have satisfactorily passed a background investigation that complies with the norms established by the competent governmental licensing agency.”

Thus, in our hypothetical, the guideline complies with the law of the place where the daycare operates. Were this not so, the daycare would be operating illegally…which is not only going to outrage the government, it would outrage the parents who are clients of the daycare and who have entrusted their children’s very lives to people with the expectation that they have been determined competent and to be in compliance at all levels with norms of safety and welfare for operating such an institution in, for example, the province of Ontario and the nation of Canada

Most people who have worked at a certain level in a chancery have had occasion to be involved with the composition of published guidelines of various types. That the published guidelines comply with the demands of the law of the secular government is normative. If they did not, the diocese can be found civilly and potentially criminally liable, which is again why one step in the process is review by legal counsel before promulgation

How you think the published policies and guidelines of a diocese touch upon whether or not a person is subjected to capital punishment, the marriages of a king, or other things you relate in your post, is mystifying to me. Diocesan officials are too busy to draft policy guidelines about issues of no relevance or that have no application to a diocese’s function and operation. They also do not issue policies and guidelines that operate in the abstract

I’m sorry, I will not play frisbee. I will continue this conversation after receiving answers to my questions.

 

[djames99]

In what possible sense do you think published policy guidelines for operating a diocese touch on any of these matters?

Answers first.

I’m sorry if this sounds uncharitable, but your statements are an assembly of words, the meaning of which I cannot really fathom

Ok. No offense taken. The loss is mine.

 

[djames99]

… and your observation is justified and welcome. But that is as far as it can go. We are to alert our community to a perceived error, and is our duty to do so. It is not coincidental that you used the word “sense” in your post, and you are not alone in that choice of words. On man’s journey to enlightenment, the Holy Spirit plants the seeds of investigation in us. We are not expected to arrive at a conclusion immediately, but to take the lamp of hope, secure our belt of respect, before we journey to where, God willing, that final understanding resides.

From: Conscience in Conflict, Kenneth R Overberg, S.J.:
"Just as the Church holds that the Spirit infallibly guides the magisterium so that it does not propose teachings that would lead the whole Church into error, so it holds that the faithful, as a whole, have an instinct or "sense" about when a teaching is - or is not- in harmony with true faith. This special* sensus fidelium*, "consensus of the faithful", is one of the ways the Spirit protects God's people from error."

 

[mikekle]

We are talking about policy guidelines concerning how a diocese is in compliance with the laws of the secular government concerning the protection of children and other vulnerable people from sexual assault and reporting to lawful authorities alleged sexual assaults.

How could anyone want anything other than that the Church is fully in compliance with government mandates to safeguard vulnerable populations? That the Church would be in anything but full and total compliance with the law’s demand is abhorrent.

And why do you suppose for all those past decades, many people within the church that knew this was going on, decided it was best NOT to report to the secular authorities?

There had to be a good reason why this was such a big no no in those days.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

And why do you suppose for all those past decades, many people within the church that knew this was going on, decided it was best NOT to report to the secular authorities?

There had to be a good reason why this was such a big no no in those days

Even a discussion on the merits of this is, frankly, surreal to me as a cleric. A good reason? “Horrified” does not do justice to my sentiment

This is an extract from the Pastoral Letter of Pope Benedict to the people of Ireland in the wake of the abuse scandal in that country. The whole letter is worthy of reading
*1. Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland, it is with great concern that I write to you as Pastor of the universal Church. Like yourselves, I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly by priests and religious. I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them.

As you know, I recently invited the Irish bishops to a meeting here in Rome to give an account of their handling of these matters in the past and to outline the steps they have taken to respond to this grave situation. Together with senior officials of the Roman Curia, I listened to what they had to say, both individually and as a group, as they offered an analysis of mistakes made and lessons learned, and a description of the programmes and protocols now in place. Our discussions were frank and constructive. /…/

1. /…/ I must also express my conviction that, in order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children. Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future. /…/
2. To the victims of abuse and their families

You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel. At the same time, I ask you not to lose hope. It is in the communion of the Church that we encounter the person of Jesus Christ, who was himself a victim of injustice and sin. Like you, he still bears the wounds of his own unjust suffering. /…/

1. To priests and religious who have abused children

You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions. Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life. /…/

1. To the priests and religious of Ireland

All of us are suffering as a result of the sins of our confreres who betrayed a sacred trust or failed to deal justly and responsibly with allegations of abuse. In view of the outrage and indignation which this has provoked, not only among the lay faithful but among yourselves and your religious communities, many of you feel personally discouraged, even abandoned. I am also aware that in some people’s eyes you are tainted by association, and viewed as if you were somehow responsible for the misdeeds of others. /…/

1. To my brother bishops

It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.

/…/ Since the time when the gravity and extent of the problem of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions first began to be fully grasped, the Church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy it. While no effort should be spared in improving and updating existing procedures, I am encouraged by the fact that the current safeguarding practices adopted by local Churches are being seen, in some parts of the world, as a model for other institutions to follow. /…/

19 March 2010, on the Solemnity of Saint Joseph
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI*
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland.html

 

[pianistclare]

Even a discussion on the merits of this is, frankly, surreal to me as a cleric. A good reason? “Horrified” does not do justice to my sentiment

This is an extract from the Pastoral Letter of Pope Benedict to the people of Ireland in the wake of the abuse scandal in that country. The whole letter is worthy of reading
*

1. Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland,

Thank you for posting these words, Father. There is NEVER a good reason to hide such.
Transparency is the way to go in any organization. Where there are secrets, there are problems and problems take off like wildfire. The Prince of Lies is the one who loves to hide in secrecy and darkness. We are people of the Light, not people of the lie.
I’ve worked in parishes for most of my life. Where there is secrecy, there is never a good outcome. Everyone suffers. The Church has taken steps to prevent further horrific things like what these children suffered. We need to support the church and the civil authorities in ridding our planet of such evils.*
​

​

 

[djames99]

We are speaking here about “judicial policies”. Are there scenarios you envisage where the Church would betray its higher principles were it to accede to the requirements of the law in such matters?

What comes to mind is the sheer horror(to every true Catholic) of the thought that an Institute would implement policies for the common good, by the use of documents for that purpose that it knows or suspects are overwhelmingly tainted. Given some measure of human error, a very small proportion of it we could assume to be. The disposition of the Justice system now tells us that is unlikely. Only when we receive reasonable truth that we can believe it, and can now use it’s criminal record file has a bonafide document. If this is true, then I expect the Church to at least remain consistent in principle, and broadly apply it and use the same policy as it does to clergy that are charged, that is, withhold/isolate it’s/their use until it can verify that integrity. If the Church truly loves my 5 grandchildren under 10, then I trust it would. I expect the same expression of love shown by Her for my grandchildren and other people’s grandchildren when they are adults as well. My grandchildren were raised that all people of God be treated with dignity and respect.

Before promulgating this update, it knew of this travesty within the civil ministry. The work of esteemed Catholic Sr. Helen Prejean(Dead Man Walking) is well known in the diocese. It invited her to talk about her apostolate and books about the prison ministries of Canada and the US. I attended that talk. Nowhere did the Church follow up on her visit and announced an action to the reports it just received at that time, and nowhere did the government in response to a public request by her, state it would allow the Church to monitor the clean up of that system.

injusticebusters.org/05/Prejean_Sr_Helen.shtml