Vatican rejects Irish Prime Minister's criticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlueSapphire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
THE VATICAN HAS this morning denied claims that it interfered in efforts to report priests implicated in the Cloyne report into sexual abuse in the Cork diocese to authorities and criticised the Taoiseach’s unprecedented attack on the Catholic Church.

thejournal.ie/vatican-rejects-taoiseachs-criticism-over-cloyne-sex-abuse-report-217135-Sep2011/?utm_source=facebook
Frankly, not going through diplomatic channels, etc, these reports as a whole seem a witch hunt!
 
I read the Vatican response on the Vatican website. I was most unimpressed. I thought one little preposition summed it up: it said (in a document originally written in English) that the Holy See was 'ashamed for’ the actions of abusers, not ashamed of, thereby conveying the idea that the wider church, and its leadership are not accountable. I predict that the Vatican response will give little comfort to those predisposed to accept it because of its obtuse language and the excessively ponderous argument line it uses to say that it was right all along. I also predict that those predisposed to reject it will find nothing in it to change their mindset. If the Vatican wants to make progress on this issue it should try clear, direct, plain language that allows for no ambiguity and requires only the knowledge of a moderately-informed layperson to understand it. Diplomatese meets clericalese won’t do the job!
 
because of its obtuse language and the excessively ponderous argument line it uses to say that it was right all along.
that is some leap.
have you read the letter sent to the irish people from the pope. he certainly makes it clear that he believes no such thing

kandle.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Pastoral_Letter.pdf
conveying the idea that the wider church, and its leadership are not accountable
also the church is everyone who believes so you posting the wider church has to mean everybody.it again is a stretch to try and put forth the argument everyone is guilty.
 
that is some leap.
have you read the letter sent to the irish people from the pope. he certainly makes it clear that he believes no such thing

kandle.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Pastoral_Letter.pdf

also the church is everyone who believes so you posting the wider church has to mean everybody.it again is a stretch to try and put forth the argument everyone is guilty.
I meant ‘right’ in relation to the specific issue being discussed, not ‘right’ in the sense that everything every Catholic has done was right. Yes, I had read the Pope’s letter. it is a much better example of clarity in communication than the document I was talking about. I do not think all Catholics are guilty of child abuse. I do think that at each stage ‘up’ from the abusers there have been repeated (but by no means universal) failures to accept accountability for 1) the actions and 2) future safety. I think these failures are in part typical of all institutions without proper systems in place for a long time and also have some specifically Christian and Catholic aspects, such as confusion between spiritual forgiveness of an abuser and safety for children. I have yet to see any evidence that people ‘did not care’, just of foolish optimism, excessive compassion for abusers, and lack of understanding of the real impact on the children involved. I also see some continued denial in the constant efforts to persuade that there is some sort of useful distinction the be made between abusing pre- and post-pubesent children. And I’d like to see the Church send a strong signal by upping the age of consent in Canon Law from 14. So in my comments I am not condemning ‘the Church’, just making observations from the outside, where sometimes the view is better.
 
I meant ‘right’ in relation to the specific issue being discussed, not ‘right’ in the sense that everything every Catholic has done was right. Yes, I had read the Pope’s letter. it is a much better example of clarity in communication than the document I was talking about. I do not think all Catholics are guilty of child abuse. I do think that at each stage ‘up’ from the abusers there have been repeated (but by no means universal) failures to accept accountability for 1) the actions and 2) future safety. I think these failures are in part typical of all institutions without proper systems in place for a long time and also have some specifically Christian and Catholic aspects, such as confusion between spiritual forgiveness of an abuser and safety for children. I have yet to see any evidence that people ‘did not care’, just of foolish optimism, excessive compassion for abusers, and lack of understanding of the real impact on the children involved. I also see some continued denial in the constant efforts to persuade that there is some sort of useful distinction the be made between abusing pre- and post-pubesent children. And I’d like to see the Church send a strong **signal by upping the age of consent in Canon Law from 14. **So in my comments I am not condemning ‘the Church’, just making observations from the outside, where sometimes the view is better.
I agree with everything you said but the part in bold. What does that have to do with child molestation and The Church? Pre-marital sex is a sin. The act of homosexual sex is a sin. In most countries for a person below the adult age (which is really just arbitrary) to marry it requires a parent’s or legal guardian’s consent. So what would an age of consent law have to do with child molestation, in this instance and in general?

-Chris
 
I agree with everything you said but the part in bold. What does that have to do with child molestation and The Church? Pre-marital sex is a sin. The act of homosexual sex is a sin. In most countries for a person below the adult age (which is really just arbitrary) to marry it requires a parent’s or legal guardian’s consent. So what would an age of consent law have to do with child molestation, in this instance and in general?

-Chris
I think childhood extends well into the teens, and anything which suggests otherwise gives abusers excuses. I appreciate that the Church is a world-wide institution and that cultures vary, but I would prefer Canon Law to set a higher age, with maybe some way of recognising genuine cultural variation that does not exploit children.
 
I think childhood extends well into the teens, and anything which suggests otherwise gives abusers excuses. I appreciate that the Church is a world-wide institution and that cultures vary, but I would prefer Canon Law to set a higher age, with maybe some way of recognising genuine cultural variation that does not exploit children.
How does that give abusers an excuse when they know that homosexual sex and pre-marital sex are both grave sins? And how does that give priests an excuse when they, more than anyone, know that not only are they committing a grave sin by having pre-marital and homosexual sex, but they are also committing a grave sin by violating thier vow of celibacy (in the Latin rite)? I just don’t think the age of consent is relevant when it comes to child molestation, since the prohibition on pre-marital sex would preclude it anyway. But that’s just my opinion. That’s all.

-Chris
 
I think childhood extends well into the teens, and anything which suggests otherwise gives abusers excuses. I appreciate that the Church is a world-wide institution and that cultures vary, but I would prefer Canon Law to set a higher age, with maybe some way of recognising genuine cultural variation that does not exploit children.
That’s a modern day invention, by 14, barely a hundred years ago you would be in work, looking for a future spouse (if you hadn’t already found one) and be on the way to live an independent life. In the past 70-80 years the West as invented a “prolonged Childhood”, including those that historically, even in relatively modern times, are considered Adults.

Canon Law reflects that, the traditional historical age at which you went from Boy to Man, from Girl to Woman, even in some cultures nowadays this is the case, it’s not that they are limiting Childhood, it is that we are prolonging it.

How does the Age of Consent, the age upon which someone can, by their own free will, approach the Altar for a Sacramental Marriage, in anyway allow for the exploit of Children?
 
How does that give abusers an excuse when they know that homosexual sex and pre-marital sex are both grave sins? And how does that give priests an excuse when they, more than anyone, know that not only are they committing a grave sin by having pre-marital and homosexual sex, but they are also committing a grave sin by violating thier vow of celibacy (in the Latin rite)? I just don’t think the age of consent is relevant when it comes to child molestation, since the prohibition on pre-marital sex would preclude it anyway. But that’s just my opinion. That’s all.

-Chris
I guess I see part of the problem here that individual abusers (not all priests or anything remotely like it) have seen child abuse as ‘just’ another sin, requiring ‘just’ spiritual action in response. And I think a lot of superiors have seen it this way too. It is more than that because of the abuse of power involved, and the inability of children to consent. It also requires an institutional response to keep children safe. Setting a low age of consent in Canon Law (and it used to be 12!) suggests there is some sort of equivalence between sex with a 14-year old and sex with an adult. Of course, there is not, and most priests, scout leaders, teachers, fathers and uncles absolutely know that. It is important though to send consistent messages to abusers, or those tempted to it. They seek excuses to justify what they have done. But don’t get me wrong - I have no reason to think the age of consent in Canon Law has caused abuse - I think that setting a higher age helps send the right message.
 
I guess I see part of the problem here that individual abusers (not all priests or anything remotely like it) have seen child abuse as ‘just’ another sin, requiring ‘just’ spiritual action in response. And I think a lot of superiors have seen it this way too. It is more than that because of the abuse of power involved, and the inability of children to consent. It also requires an institutional response to keep children safe. Setting a low age of consent in Canon Law (and it used to be 12!) suggests there is some sort of equivalence between sex with a 14-year old and sex with an adult. Of course, there is not, and most priests, scout leaders, teachers, fathers and uncles absolutely know that. It is important though to send consistent messages to abusers, or those tempted to it. They seek excuses to justify what they have done. But don’t get me wrong - I have no reason to think the age of consent in Canon Law has caused abuse - I think that setting a higher age helps send the right message.
Most western democratic countries are attempting to remove the concept of an ‘age of consent’ does that mean that secular governments are attempting to encourage or condone child sex abuse? Are they suggesting ‘there is some sort of equivalence between sex with a 14-year old and sex with an adult’? Would such moves send a wrong and damaging message to society in general? (I believe it does send the wrong message btw)

In a Catholic understanding of things there is no such thing as
‘just’ another sin
all sin is serious to varying levels. And anyway sexual sins have always been considered as being among the more serious or Mortal sins. The turning away from sin requires more than as you put it
‘just’ spiritual action in response
it requires firm amendment of life and the commitment not to commit such acts again. Yes there were failures, terrible failures, but your understanding of these area’s does not reflect the reality.
 
Most western democratic countries are attempting to remove the concept of an ‘age of consent’ does that mean that secular governments are attempting to encourage or condone child sex abuse? Are they suggesting ‘there is some sort of equivalence between sex with a 14-year old and sex with an adult’? Would such moves send a wrong and damaging message to society in general? (I believe it does send the wrong message btw)
Well, we are at one on that - though i don’t know of any countries attempting to remove the age of consent.
In a Catholic understanding of things there is no such thing as all sin is serious to varying levels. And anyway sexual sins have always been considered as being among the more serious or Mortal sins. The turning away from sin requires more than as you put it it requires firm amendment of life and the commitment not to commit such acts again. Yes there were failures, terrible failures, but your understanding of these area’s does not reflect the reality.
When you have three main categories of sin: original, mortal and venial, then you end up with miss-Mass-on-Sunday = mortal sin = child sexual abuse. I know that this is not what the church actually teaches, but I believe it is very easy for abusers to make this sort of error. I appreciate that mine is a view from the outside and it would be hard for someone thinking as a Catholic to accept.
 
Well, we are at one on that - though i don’t know of any countries attempting to remove the age of consent.
Such idea’s are currently being debated in the U.K (Scotland in particular) , A candidate for the Irish presidential election, David Norris, also recently advocated a ‘re-think’ of the concept of consent in juvenile sexual relationships, including the place of older partners.

There is also the separate but related and developing issue in many western countries, where both partners who engage in sexual activity are under-age children but who are now not considered to have violated the concept of ‘age of consent’.
When you have three main categories of sin: original, mortal and venial, then you end up with miss-Mass-on-Sunday = mortal sin = child sexual abuse. I know that this is not what the church actually teaches, but I believe it is very easy for abusers to make this sort of error. I appreciate that mine is a view from the outside and it would be hard for someone thinking as a Catholic to accept.
While, as you know, both are Mortal Sins and thus by committing either of them a person turn their back on God and His Church, the moral gravity of the Sin of Child abuse is far greater than deliberately missing Mass; every practising Catholic should know this and be able to make this distinction.

But people will often try to find excuses to pardon themselves, you don’t have to be Catholic to do that.

Any Catholic who attempts to equate Missing Mass with Child abuse is either wilfully and deliberately ignorant or is trying very hard to excuse their own sinful behaviour. either way the objective truth of the matter remains the same as does the moral gravity of the Mortal Sin of child abuse.
 
Such idea’s are currently being debated in the U.K (Scotland in particular) , A candidate for the Irish presidential election, David Norris, also recently advocated a ‘re-think’ of the concept of consent in juvenile sexual relationships, including the place of older partners.

There is also the separate but related and developing issue in many western countries, where both partners who engage in sexual activity are under-age children but who are now not considered to have violated the concept of ‘age of consent’.

While, as you know, both are Mortal Sins and thus by committing either of them a person turn their back on God and His Church, the moral gravity of the Sin of Child abuse is far greater than deliberately missing Mass; every practising Catholic should know this and be able to make this distinction.

But people will often try to find excuses to pardon themselves, you don’t have to be Catholic to do that.

Any Catholic who attempts to equate Missing Mass with Child abuse is either wilfully and deliberately ignorant or is trying very hard to excuse their own sinful behaviour. either way the objective truth of the matter remains the same as does the moral gravity of the Mortal Sin of child abuse.
I am sure ‘most western countries’ will resist the efforts you describe. I have wondered for some time if abusers were protected out of a sense of false equivalence between different sins; ‘we are all sinners’ can be distorted in the mind of an abuser to mean their predations on children are ‘normal’. Certainly if all in positions of authority were clear about the issue in the way you are, there would be no reason for me to wonder in this way. But the so-called ‘cover-ups’ to me need an explanation which is not just saying ‘bad people’. I still wonder if confusion on this point has made a contribution.
 
Such idea’s are currently being debated in the U.K (Scotland in particular) ,
Woah Theo, I’ve not came across any such debate recently - In early 2008 a proposal from the Scottish Law Society to decrimialise consensual sex in 13 to 15 yo as long as the age gap was under 2 years was rejected by the scottish government. Since then nil unless I’ve missed something
 
When your statements provoke extreme reactions from people who are not usually extreme, the most likely explanation lies in your statements. The Church should withdraw its last document, apologise for causing confusion, and write something people can understand that makes sense. And Mr Shatter should keep the state out of the confessional.
 
The Cloyne Response - More petrol on the flames

I found this to be a very interesting analysis of the Vatican’s response and all the other documents involved. I was able to find the other documents online through a google search to confirm what is referenced in the analysis.

I did read the document from the Vatican but got tangled up in the legalisms.
Not that they are a bad thing except that they obscure the intent of what is being said.

Another interesting article: Archbp. Martin comments on Vatican response to Irish gov’t
 
The Cloyne Response - More petrol on the flames

I found this to be a very interesting analysis of the Vatican’s response and all the other documents involved. I was able to find the other documents online through a google search to confirm what is referenced in the analysis.

I did read the document from the Vatican but got tangled up in the legalisms.
Not that they are a bad thing except that they obscure the intent of what is being said.

Another interesting article: Archbp. Martin comments on Vatican response to Irish gov’t
Thanks for posting these. The person who wrote the first one clearly shares some of my concerns but knows a lot more, writes better, and works harder! Archbishop Martin does a good job promoting the ‘let’s move on’ line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top