B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
The smartest thing would be for the Vatican to refuse to honor the subpoena, since that would cause a bad precedent. After that, in full disclosure, it should provide the requested information.
- Status
C
Corki
Guest
Yep, money and 15 minutes of “fame”.
It’s interesting that, in this case, the accused priest is dead, unable to be served himself or to offer any defense. But the Pope, who wasn’t even Pope at the time of the alledged abuse is a good target.
Really?!? Do you know more than what the article states about what is involved in the requested information? Depending on what they are asking for, providing it would quite likely also cause a very bad precedent.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Not if the Church wants to put the scandal behind it. Look, without a doubt, the continuing immediacy of the abuse allegations and their appearing in the news has been due to information stonewalling.
C
Corki
Guest
I disagree. The smartest thing for the Vatican to do would be to give the equivalent of “smile and nod”. Let these tactics just blow over. Giving credence to such a request will just give ammo to 50 other lawyers to try and generate more fees by trying to serve the Pope.
The continuing immediacy of the allegations is, in my opinion, due to the lawyers looking for new ways to bring old cases into “headline” status.
B
Bob_Aliano
Guest
The Vatican has stated that the Pope was not involved in any cover up, that’s good enough for me. I don’t need to have that statement “blessed” by any anti-Catholic media or lawyers. Frankly, I’m disappointed in how gracious and compliant the Church has been in those cases where the priest is long dead and there is no opportunity for a defense. If we conducted all our legal activity in this manner none of us would be safe from malicious accusation by anyone. The statute of limitations was written to prevent exactly this sort of malicious witch hunt; of course following the law by the courts doesn’t apply when prosecuting/persecuting Catholics.
S
Santi2
Guest
Each case must proceed on its own merits. The “stonewalling” in this particular matter was at Diocesan level and not by the Vatican because the CDF only dealt with the crimen sollicitationis aspects of the case which, while being a purely canonical matter, did not impede civil and criminal proceedings against the offending priest.
S
Santi2
Guest
The priest in this case actually admitted to the offence. The allegations against him was brought up by one of his victims in May 1974 and was removed from ministry in September. The Diocese only sought consultation with CDF in 1996, when they discovered that some of the abuse committed by the offending priest had an element of *crimen sollicitationis *. The CDF launched a canonical trial against the offending priest from March 1997. The priest died in August 1998.
C
Corki
Guest
I understand but, as I follow this case, it is additional alleged victims that are pushing this Vatican angle (or their lawyers). They can’t do anything about the dead priest but they still want their pound of flesh.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Actually, according to the lay members of the panel investigating the abuse scandals the diocesean hierarchies have not been gracious nor compliant. Thus, the issues continue to fester.
Admit wrongdoing; deal with the problem and move on.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
His Holiness is too holy to stoop to the level of sleek money seeking litigation secular court that has nothing to lose.
There is no cover up.
The church is not secular enforcement agency for criminal law.
The question that should be asked – what did all those in the authority that were responsible for catching criminals such as pedophiles do that not one so-called pedophile priests were properly caught and charged in court?
L
LilyM
Guest
I agree - where were the parents, teachers, doctors, police officers, welfare officials and other adults who were responsible for the welfare of these children? Why aren’t THEY being charged?
L
LilyM
Guest
Exactly all the same comments apply to my idea of seeking compensation on behalf of those who’ve suffered horribly in all sorts of non-financial ways from the GFC. Where is your righteous indignation against the politicians whose ineptitude caused THEIR suffering?
Those in government who knowingly covered up the serious flaws and abuses rampant in the mismanagement of the American economy prior to the GFC certainly need to be called accountable and receive what is due for THEIR (moral and probably also legal, some of them) crimes.
If the American economy had been managed correctly by US politicians from the beginning it would never have got this much out of control either.
So where’s your call for legal action against them?
B
BernadetteM
Guest
I know from personal experience that years ago the police did nothing to prosecute many of these pedophiles. I am not speaking of priests either.
They just made excuses that the child was too young to testify or maybe she had some problems verbalizing or it had happened before. They would rather believe the predator and his wife than the victim.
This was the attitude of officials when all this happened within the Church. Gee I wonder if I can sue the police department for not taking action or prosecute them. Guess not!
Still anger over it all.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
They just made excuses that the child was too young to testify or maybe she had some problems verbalizing or it had happened before. They would rather believe the predator and his wife than the victim.
This was the attitude of officials when all this happened within the Church. Gee I wonder if I can sue the police department for not taking action or prosecute them. Guess not!
Still anger over it all.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
- Status