From a song by Damh the Bard here ya go: Link song is called hills they are hollow.Thank you for clarifying Cyberwolf. I thought you were quoting me. That poem that is your signature came up as a Pagan saying when I googled it. What does it mean?
Would you be as fine with this if the abuse was from Muslims, Mormons or us Pagans with the same level of internal investigations and secrecy?Well if you are justifying this statement by citing the bond of secrecy in a tribunal matter, I guess you’re also upset at the US Government for having rules binding those who participate in Grand Jury proceedings from also “whistle-blowing.”
Okay this tells me you didn’t even read my post. As your in Texas and therefore NOT one of my Catholic friends here in Florence, SC. You know the ones I was talking about?I’m not cussing you out and I did look at it.
Sigh…if you’re going to debate, then atleast be honest. The PDF you link to, which is always portrayed as some kind of “smoking gun”, has NOTHING to do with the child abuse scandal. If you bothered to do some research, you would find out it is about the seal of the confessional, and what to do if a priest solicits sex during confession.There you go Tele this document was turned over by an exposed Priest as part of a plea bargain. Link I showed this to some Catholic friends who cussed me out and refused to even look at it.
What Blooming said.
How do you know this isn’t happening?From a song by Damh the Bard here ya go: Link song is called hills they are hollow.
Would you be as fine with this if the abuse was from Muslims, Mormons or us Pagans with the same level of internal investigations and secrecy?
With the Mormons it has and there temple gotted raided and just about everyone arrasted. That was one temple. If it happened among Pagans this site would explode with people posting about that strange child abusing cult.How do you know this isn’t happening?
Very few people are “fine” with any of this happening, and do want the necessary steps to be taken to punish those responsible, and prevent it in the future.With the Mormons it has and there temple gotted raided and just about everyone arrasted. That was one temple. If it happened among Pagans this site would explode with people posting about that strange child abusing cult.
My question still stands.
When I posted this on another thread I was accused of lyingVery few people are “fine” with any of this happening, and do want the necessary steps to be taken to punish those responsible, and prevent it in the future.
Some steps have been taken, they just don’t get the same press. To be a Catholic teacher, you have to take a class entirely about spotting and reporting cases of abuse, and the screening for seminarians has been increased. And accused and offending priests have been removed from power. And of course, the billions of dollars worth of settlements. Pope Benedict met with survivors of abuse and apologized.
But to insinuate that this was a top to bottom conspiracy to molest children is simply not true. A certain “movement” seemed to have infiltrated the Church, and I hope they continue trying to root it out.
Di d they fail to advise them? I missed that. It seems to contradict what the Commission says that they did not see it was appropriate to go through the government, as they were independent. How could they not know of this possibility and simultaneously deem it inappropriate?So, one wonders why, given the importance of this enquiry and the legal status of the Commission, the Papal Nuncio failed to advise the Commission on how it might acquire the information it was seeking. That would have been the act of one friendly state to another, and in the interests of justice.
Almost every Catholic I know thinks a priest that molests children, when it can be proven, should be locked away and the key thrown away. No one is fine with child abuse or sympathetic to perverts.Very few people are “fine” with any of this happening, and do want the necessary steps to be taken to punish those responsible, and prevent it in the future.
The Commission did not go through government channels because it was not appropriate. It was not appropriate because the Commission is independent and was also investigating the state’s involvement in the cover-up of abuse. The Vatican is a sovereign state. The Commission needed to know if the Vatican had documents from the Irish Church relevant to its enquiry. The Papal Nuncio is the Vatican’s ambassador in Ireland and must have been au fait with the setting up of the Commission and its brief. Join the dots.Di d they fail to advise them? I missed that. It seems to contradict what the Commission says that they did not see it was appropriate to go through the government, as they were independent. How could they not know of this possibility and simultaneously deem it inappropriate?
Yes, in fact I would be. The nature of the link you posted was a set of guidelines for how to conduct an internal investigation. Realize that not every person ever investigated is guilty. Also realize victims and witnesses will be extremely reluctant to come forward if there is a chance they will be made a spectacle of, and be open to ridicule and scorn. Thus it makes perfect sense that there be an element of secrecy - I would call it privacy - to protect, and rules like these offer that protection.Would you be as fine with this if the abuse was from Muslims, Mormons or us Pagans with the same level of internal investigations and secrecy?
I read that. That is the claim of the Commission. This only supports the idea that they knew how to get the data but,* in their opinion*, did not consider it appropriate. The Vatican had a different opinion. If the Commission did not deem it appropriate, did they not at least consider it critical enough to go through proper channels despite their opinion?The Commission did not go through government channels because it was not appropriate. It was not appropriate because the Commission is independent and was also investigating the state’s involvement in the cover-up of abuse. The Vatican is a sovereign state.
Apparently neither the Vatican nor the Papal Nuncio considered the matter critical or important enough to give the Commission the courtesy of a reply, either, even if it was only to say why they could not respond to the substantive issue.I read that. That is the claim of the Commission. This only supports the idea that they knew how to get the data but,* in their opinion*, did not consider it appropriate. The Vatican had a different opinion. If the Commission did not deem it appropriate, did they not at least consider it critical enough to go through proper channels despite their opinion?
It is in the light of the primary role of the Vatican that we must see the unwillingness of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the papal nuncio to respond to requests for information from the Murphy commission. …
The Vatican does not do things lightly. When it refused to deal with the commission except through diplomatic contacts at the level of one state to another, it was not being precious. It was asserting a claim that is crucial to its efforts to avoid the consequences of its own policies. The insistence on being treated as a state rather than as a church is the key to its claim of sovereign immunity. The context for this claim is a case in the US in which the circuit court of appeals ruled that the Vatican could be sued by victims of an Irish priest. The US supreme court is currently considering whether to hear an appeal from the Vatican, which is hoping to avoid a wave of lawsuits from victims in the US.
From the article:Apparently neither the Vatican nor the Papal Nuncio considered the matter critical or important enough to give the Commission the courtesy of a reply, either, even if it was only to say why they could not respond to the substantive issue.
The Vatican did reply through the proper channel. Addressing the problem through** proper** channels is not considered a reply. I really wish media would not slant things so. These are serious issues. This incident needs no slant and exaggeration to be seen for the tragedy it is.The Vatican did not reply** but told the Irish Foreign Affairs** department the request “had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels”.
Precisely. It did not give the Commission the courtesy of a reply - even a brief note suggesting politely that the Commission would have to apply through so-called proper channels would have been sufficient and would have established that the Vatican wished to be treated as a state and not as a church.From the article:
The Vatican did reply through the proper channel. Addressing the problem through** proper** channels is not considered a reply. I really wish media would not slant things so. These are serious issues. This incident needs no slant and exaggeration to be seen for the tragedy it is.
Diplomatic protocol is not a retreat. It is a safe-guard. I understand why it must exist in international dealing, especially when a church-state is involved.Yes, these ARE serious issues, but apparently the Vatican and papal nuncio didn’t consider them sufficiently serious enough not to retreat behind diplomatic protocol.
Precisely. The Vatican was protecting itself first and foremost.Diplomatic protocol is not a retreat. It is a safe-guard.
Protection is for all, spin as you might. The question still hasn’t been answered as to why the Commission did not seek any information, if it really was vital, through the Department of Foreign Affairs. I just do not see that asserting their independence in such an insignificant way was more vital than doing their job. I do not know the personalities on the Commission or what their motivation would have been. In any case, what happened was not a “snub”.Precisely. The Vatican was protecting itself first and foremost.
The Commission acted properly as a independent judicial body and within the terms of its remit which included an investigation of the Irish state’s part in the cover up of clerical abuse. It did not seek information through the department of Foreign Affairs because it was never given the courtesy of a reply from the papal nuncio or the Vatican that this how the Vatican wished to be approached - as a state foremost rather than a churchProtection is for all, spin as you might. The question still hasn’t been answered as to why the Commission did not seek any information, if it really was vital, through the Department of Foreign Affairs. I just do not see that asserting their independence in such an insignificant way was more vital than doing their job. I do not know the personalities on the Commission or what their motivation would have been. In any case, what happened was not a “snub”.
It did. That is my opinion. I freely admit I could be biased in that I am Catholic. I will leave you to your opinion.Christ founded a Church not a state. Perhaps if the Vatican had chosen to act out of that primary mission it would not now be being criticised as obstructive and unco-operative.