S
SteakNPotatoes
Guest
That is one frightening document.
- Status
B
Black_Knight_MI
Guest
Oh yeah… it’s really frightening…especially when someone uses it to purport that it means something that it doesn’t. This is anti-Catholic trash.
You make assumptions that you have no evidence for. That policy was fixed long ago, and I saw an article on it somewhere on here. But since some folks don’t have the God-given good sense to use the search feature here to find the truth, but I sure can…
Post on thread on same article.
Another, different thread.
A whole thread on Vatican policies on Gay Priests.
and another.
Oh Look MORE!
All I had to do was use the search engine.
But let’s have a look at what the church has said in response.
Bishops Defend Pope Against BBC Attack
Say News Report Is Misleading
LONDON, OCT. 2, 2006 (Zenit.org).- The bishops of England and Wales are accusing the BBC of misrepresenting two Vatican documents that the news organization says Benedict XVI used to cover-up the sexual abuse of minors.
According to the prelates, the program “Sex Crimes and the Vatican,” broadcast Sunday by Panorama, the BBC’s investigative news show, is unwarranted and misleading.
The program claims to have uncovered secret Vatican documents that imposed silence regarding all claims of child abuse, and accused then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – now Benedict XVI – of shielding priests from investigation in his previous role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
One document mentioned is “Crimen sollicitationis,” (The Crime of
Solicitation, 1962) issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office – future Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – which was made public in 2003.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, archbishop of Westminster, sent a letter today to Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC “to express the enormous distress and alarm of the Catholic community” regarding the program.
“No one can deny the devastating effects of child abuse in our society and the damage inflicted on the victims and their families. This is particularly shameful if such abuse is committed by a priest and it is of course legitimate to portray heart-rending elements of this evil,” the cardinal said.
The letter continues: “However, your program sets out to inflict grave damage on Benedict XVI, the leader of a billion Catholics throughout the world. It is quite clear to me that the main focus of the program is to seek to connect Benedict XVI with cover-up of child abuse in the Catholic Church. This is malicious and untrue and based on a false presentation of Church documents.”
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, who is also president of the episcopal conference of England and Wales, said that he “cannot understand why no one from your corporation made any attempt to contact the Catholic Church in this country for assistance in seeking accurate information about this matter.”
“I must ask if within the BBC there is a persistent bias against the Catholic Church. There will be many, not only Catholics, who will wonder if the BBC is any longer willing to be truly objective in some of its presentations,” he said.
(Cont’d)
B
Black_Knight_MI
Guest
Unwarranted attack
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, and chairman of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, also issued a statement today in which he states that “as a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be ashamed of the standard of the journalism used to create this unwarranted attack on Benedict XVI.”
“Viewers will recognize only too well the sensational tactics and misleading editing of the program, which uses old footage and undated interviews. They will know that aspects of the program amount to a deeply prejudiced attack on a revered world religious leader. It will further undermine public confidence in ‘Panorama,’” he added.
According to Archbishop Nichols, the program’s attacks against Benedict XVI are “false and entirely misleading.”’
“It is false because it misrepresents two Vatican documents and uses them quite misleadingly in order to connect the horrors of child abuse to the person of the Pope,” he said.
**The archbishop continued: "The first document, issued in 1962, is not directly concerned with child abuse at all, but with the misuse of the confessional. This has always been a most serious crime in Church law. The program confuses the misuse of the confessional and the immoral attempts by a priest to silence his victim.
"The second document, issued in 2001, clarified the law of the Church, ensuring that the Vatican is informed of every case of child abuse and that each case is dealt with properly.
“This document does not hinder the investigation by civil authorities of allegations of child abuse, nor is it a method of cover-up, as the program persistently claims. In fact it is a measure of the seriousness with which the Vatican views these offences.”**
“Since 2001,” added the prelate, “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took many steps to apply the law of the Church to allegations and offences of child abuse with absolute thoroughness and scruple.”
A BBC spokesman announced today that the corporation’s management will respond to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s letter.
ZE06100208
It really helps if you get the facts straight.
Blackie
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham, and chairman of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults, also issued a statement today in which he states that “as a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be ashamed of the standard of the journalism used to create this unwarranted attack on Benedict XVI.”
“Viewers will recognize only too well the sensational tactics and misleading editing of the program, which uses old footage and undated interviews. They will know that aspects of the program amount to a deeply prejudiced attack on a revered world religious leader. It will further undermine public confidence in ‘Panorama,’” he added.
According to Archbishop Nichols, the program’s attacks against Benedict XVI are “false and entirely misleading.”’
“It is false because it misrepresents two Vatican documents and uses them quite misleadingly in order to connect the horrors of child abuse to the person of the Pope,” he said.
**The archbishop continued: "The first document, issued in 1962, is not directly concerned with child abuse at all, but with the misuse of the confessional. This has always been a most serious crime in Church law. The program confuses the misuse of the confessional and the immoral attempts by a priest to silence his victim.
"The second document, issued in 2001, clarified the law of the Church, ensuring that the Vatican is informed of every case of child abuse and that each case is dealt with properly.
“This document does not hinder the investigation by civil authorities of allegations of child abuse, nor is it a method of cover-up, as the program persistently claims. In fact it is a measure of the seriousness with which the Vatican views these offences.”**
“Since 2001,” added the prelate, “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took many steps to apply the law of the Church to allegations and offences of child abuse with absolute thoroughness and scruple.”
A BBC spokesman announced today that the corporation’s management will respond to Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor’s letter.
ZE06100208
It really helps if you get the facts straight.
Blackie
S
scylla
Guest
The biggest reason people leave the Church is Sin.
People want to sin and not feel bad about it, so often they look to excuses like bad priests, bad bishops, bad people and blame them for their leaving. No real Catholic would leave because of scandal, since personal behaviour of people is not the basis of our faith, Jesus is.
If someone truly has faith in God and truth they would study why they are Catholic and be faithful to the Church, instead of leave like Judas because of unbelief or leave because of a Judas.
The second reason is poor Catechesis…
They do not understand their faith, so the first time someone comes up and points out a few verses of the Bible to support their particular denomination the poorly trained Catholic gets led astray. And this happens precisely because this Catholics does not know his faith, until 1 month later when he becomes an expert on the Catholic Church.
Usually saying something like this
“I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic School and was a good Catholic until someone showed me the Bible and true Christianity”
Like the Bible is a discovery for any good Catholic, oh please, what hooey.
These are the biggest reasons for people leaving the Church, the rest leave because of indifference and convenience. It is certainly many Catholics fault that they don’t know their faith and that they haven’t taught their children\students the faith and that is really one place we need to work on.
In Christ
Scylla
People want to sin and not feel bad about it, so often they look to excuses like bad priests, bad bishops, bad people and blame them for their leaving. No real Catholic would leave because of scandal, since personal behaviour of people is not the basis of our faith, Jesus is.
If someone truly has faith in God and truth they would study why they are Catholic and be faithful to the Church, instead of leave like Judas because of unbelief or leave because of a Judas.
The second reason is poor Catechesis…
They do not understand their faith, so the first time someone comes up and points out a few verses of the Bible to support their particular denomination the poorly trained Catholic gets led astray. And this happens precisely because this Catholics does not know his faith, until 1 month later when he becomes an expert on the Catholic Church.
Usually saying something like this
“I grew up Catholic, went to Catholic School and was a good Catholic until someone showed me the Bible and true Christianity”
Like the Bible is a discovery for any good Catholic, oh please, what hooey.
These are the biggest reasons for people leaving the Church, the rest leave because of indifference and convenience. It is certainly many Catholics fault that they don’t know their faith and that they haven’t taught their children\students the faith and that is really one place we need to work on.
In Christ
Scylla
S
santaro75
Guest
All i can say is that I came back to the church on my knees. I started in the confessional and went from there. I love the sacred Mass, the Eucharist and the sacraments. I think the mass is a master piece. It is truly divine.
What I said about Gay priests was just an observation that I made after going to numerous parishes in many states and many diocese. Just an observation that I thought a little strange. Sorry if it offends you but I can tell you that I have been to many parishes in Seattle, Phoenix, Tucson, Houston and Charleston. Charleston is the only diocese that I haven’t noticed any gay priests.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
Unwarranted attack? Guy all I did was post a VATICAN DOCUMENT not the BBC report. I ddin’t even read the BBC report of the programme in question I read the churches OWN DOCUMENT!!!
Of which I have heard NO CLARIFYING argument from our leaders aside from ONE SENTENCE from an ArchBishop.
Notice AGAIN that I DID NOT link to the PROGRAM you are talking about I linked to a VATICAN DOCUMENT.
Now either read the 39 pages that I put forth as my reason for leaving the Church and come up with a valid response to the document in question or stop attacking me.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
As an officer in the USAF, I swore an oath to protect and defend the United States, an oath which obliges me to keep secrets under threat of death. Perhaps you should consider leaving the U.S. as well.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
What oath do you swear under threat of death to be in the Armed services? I was a Marine for five years with a secret clearance there is no such oath, and certainly not under the pretext to protect the military from illegal activities by keeping secret illegal actions of fellow service members. The military in fact requires you to turn anyone in and not obey illegal orders. You just made that up that oath it doesn’t exist.As an officer in the USAF, I swore an oath to protect and defend the United States, an oath which obliging me to keep secrets under threat of death. Perhaps you should consider leaving the US as well.
Now please no more nonsense either address the 39 page document or let it go. There’s no reason for sniping comments with the rolling eyes, they serve no purpose at all.
T
tequilamac
Guest
When I began teaching kindergarten in Stockton, I swore an oath to protect and defend the county of San Joaquin.As an officer in the USAF, I swore an oath to protect and defend the United States, an oath which obliges me to keep secrets under threat of death. Perhaps you should consider leaving the U.S. as well.
F
fix
Guest
Why would that document shake your faith? It seems like a very reasoned paper.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I can understand given your limited security clearance and your limited years of military experience why you would presume such a thing. However, I have the highest top secret security clearance in the nation, which involves very limited access and special restrictions. I don’t know the rank and responsibility you achieved in your mere 5 years as a Marine, but I can assure you that having over 17 years as an officer in the USAF working both nuclear and space operations, I am more aware of the oaths I’ve taken than you are, oaths which can indeed incur a penalty of death if I should deliberately violate them.
You are obviously thrusting your own erroneous interpretation onto that Vatican document if you think that is what it was about. One can only rub their eyes in astonishment at such ignorance.
Nonetheless, our U.S. military does indeed have similar provisions for conducting top secret tribunals involving top secret information. Such tribunals must be held at the security level of the information involved, the members given access to such information are bound by the same oath.
Your ignorance notwithstanding, if I turn in a person for illegal activities involving top secret information, I could not do that in an unsecure environment. The tribunal itself would also have to be top secret, and incur the same penalty of the information involved. We do indeed have provisions for this.
I work in space operations, the details of which are highly classified. However, I can give you a bogus example that might help you to understand. I worked in NORAD for many years. Let’s pretend that in NORAD, we actually do have a “Stargate” portal to alien worlds as the fictional TV show depicts. Let’s say that even the fact of such a portal is top secret, and deliberately discussing the Stargate in an unsecure environment is a grave violation of national security, a violation that can result in the death penalty.
Now imagine that a crime is committed in this top secret environment which involves top secret information. How do we legally discuss the crime without harming national security? We hold a top secret tribunal, of course. All those involved in the tribunal are sworn to the same national security oath as the top secret information involved.
Thus, the mere provisions for top secret tribunals do not mean that the tribunal itself is an attempt at some organizational cover up. That would be a bizarre and faulty conclusion. It is instead a just and legal means of adjudicating the accusation while also maintaining the security of the events involved.
That you think such a thing is nonsense tells us more about your ignorance of national security policy and procedures than anything else.
continued…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I understand you would like to control what I post on this forum, but I also understand that you do not have the authority to do so.
What I’ve plainly shown is how absurd your decision was. That 39-page document describes secret procedures to adjudicate violations of the Sacrament of Penance. For instance, if the priest were to pinch my wife’s bottom during confession, this procedures describes how the crime is to be legally and justly adjudicated, given that the sacrament itself is protected by oath, and is by nature, secretive. In the civil world, this example would not even be a crime. However, ecclesial law is unique from normal civil law, as we have our own oaths, and as such, must account for them in our own ecclesial procedures.
It seems to me you jumped to an erroneous conclusion that such secrets must necessarily prove some unjust conspiracy. That’s absurd. Our own nation has a similar need for secrets for it’s own protection, and unless you are prepared to also renounce your citizenship within the US, then your reasoning is clearly inconsistent.
That 39-page document should do nothing to compel any *discerning *Catholic to leave the Holy Catholic Church. That you claim it was your reason is your business, but I believe such a reason is untenable to anyone who has even a rudimentary capacity to reason.
Even if such a document was some supposed “proof” or “smoking gun” of illegal and immoral activity of the Holy See (which it is not), then it would still be no more reason to renounce one’s Catholic citizenship than the Watergate scandal was a reason to renounce one’s US citizenship.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
You respect your position so much you divulge it on a message board? O.K. Dave, how would the Air Force feel about this? People with top secret clearances most certainly don’t go around declaring so on message boards or talk about “oaths” they had to take under pains of death to receive said clearance. I worked in communications and had a secret clearance (not really a big deal), the guys who went to intel units had top secret clearances (highest level clearance in the military), none had to swear upon death any oath, it’s a load.
There are no oaths in the military requiring one to make an oath under threat of death. The military doesn’t work like freemasonry.
Anyone is anything on a message board…
Now either address the 39 page article or stop wasting time and internet space with this rubbish you’re posting.
There are no oaths in the military requiring one to make an oath under threat of death. The military doesn’t work like freemasonry.
Anyone is anything on a message board…
Now either address the 39 page article or stop wasting time and internet space with this rubbish you’re posting.
F
fix
Guest
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Are you kidding?
Such clearances themselves are not classified, nor are the US title codes which govern the penalties. Your ignorance is showing again.
The Marine comm guys I work with disagree with you, your opinion notwithstanding. Check the US codes on espionage if you don’t believe me. They include capital punishment.
I’ve addressed the absurdity of your claims about that document already. If you don’t like what I post, you are welcome to ignore it. It’s not a waste of my time at all.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Dave,
I think the disconnect here is that Saint_Michael jumps to the erroneous assumption that when you say that you have taken an oath “under penalty of death” is that you actually said this in your oath rather than the legal code listing one of the penalties of violating this oath (or security clearance) is the death penalty.
But then it seems that this is par for the course with him as he seems to jump many other erroneous assumptions.
I
Ignatius
Guest
People keep saying this, but I don’t see the evidence. The Church added more than 1,000,000 members in the U.S. alone. In our parish, we did a renovation to double the size of the Church two years ago and it is already standing room only.
Can you produce some numbers to prove the contention that the Church is shrinking?
God Bless.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
The oath you take is to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America. There is no threat of death. Someone with no clearance and involved in espionage can be sentenced to death.Are you kidding?
Such clearances themselves are not classified, nor are the US title codes which govern the penalties. Your ignorance is showing again.
The Marine comm guys I work with disagree with you, your opinion notwithstanding. Check the US codes on espionage if you don’t believe me. They include capital punishment.
I’ve addressed the absurdity of your claims about that document already. If you don’t like what I post, you are welcome to ignore it. It’s not a waste of my time at all.
The death penalty for espionage is simply a punishment for breaking the law. Does one being born in America take an oath to not murder someone under penalty of death by reciting hte Pledge of Allegiance? Of course not, but a murderer can find themselves on death row all the same for breaking the law.
S
Saint_Michael
Guest
Please look at the areas with the highest rates of abortion, pro-abortion voting etc… The northeast is the capital of Catholicism in America, and also home to the largest contigent of wayward Catholics.
Catholicism may still have numbers, but the amount who are CINO has vastly increased too in the past 40 years. Catholics in America are ~98% CINO if you go by those that reject contraceptive teachings, and probably 75% if you by those that reject the Church teachings on abortion.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Let us try to put some of this into historical perspective; first, A- People leaving the church; and second B; the ‘Vatican document’ with the corolary that apparently it has ‘caused’ at least one person to leave the church.
A: Historically speaking, people have ‘left the church’ since Judas. Even in late medieval to modern times, just think of the protestant explosion. Those protestants didn’t ‘grow like Topsy’; they ‘left the church’–so much so that to take an example England went from being a Catholic country to a Protestant one, and France from a Catholic country solus to one with a sizeable protestant (Hugenot) minority, etc. For that FIRST generation at least, the way that one ‘got’ protestants was from the protestants leaving the Catholic Church.
That being said, any ‘mass exodus’ in 2006 absolutely pales in comparison.
Also it must be said that while people coming INTO the church are not coming in numbers or rates seen in other centuries, they are STILL coming in and indeed, considering the huge population of the world today, they are coming in quite well, especially in comparison to other Christian groups.
Now to point B.
There have been many, many scandals in Christianity. Jesus warned us about them. I wonder what St. Michael would have done in Borgian Italy, or under Savonarola in Spain, or heaven forbid in Elizabeth I’s England/Ireland, Knox’s Scotland, Calvin’s Switzerland, or Latin American in the 19th century, Mexico in the 1920s. . . There is a lot of scandal in ALL Christianity… and in atheistic societies, in Buddhist societies, Hindu, animist, ‘neo’ Wicca, you name it.
Point is: For 2000 years we have had the Catholic Church. Nobody denies that certain people in the church have done wrong. But the TEACHING on faith and morals has never foundered. I’ve read the document–indeed, I read it the LAST time it surfaced back in 2005. This is not NEWS. It’s a vile attempt to ‘take down’ the Catholic Church by positing that the internal policies regarding a SACRAMENT which itself must involve secrecy, and particularly a policy from over 40 years ago, BECAUSE it does not IN THEIR EYES ‘conform’ with the current ‘popular’ judgment on an UNRELATED though tangential issue, somehow ‘proves’ that the Catholic Church teaches as FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE the ABUSE OF CHILDREN. And that ‘higher ups’ somehow DELIBERATELY chose to FOSTER abuse just to ‘save themselves’. Deliberately ignoring, of course, that in 1962, back when people were not falling all over themselves on Springer to tell what sins they had PROUDLY committed, or to scream for vengeance over both real AND imagined sins had been done TO them, even speaking of sins was something that people DID NOT WANT TO DO. This document was not for the protection of PRIESTS from being punished; it was for the protection of the INNOCENT who would be victimized by having what was done to them BROUGHT OUT IN PUBLIC.
Now you may be part of the population that ‘wants to know’ EVERYTHING, every single detail, 24/7, and finds any idea of keeping ANYTHING private to be signs of a conspiracy theory or a ‘repressed personality’. The point is, people in 1962 would have found the current fixation on the ‘right to know’ and the near total lack of privacy, not to mention the lack of a sense of sin and huge advancements in shameless behavior in contemporary society, to be HORRIFYING.
And so people are once again making the mistake of judging a FAITH, not by what it teaches, not by the PERSON who instituted it, but by what kind of ‘sound bite’ it makes or how ‘relevent’ it is to a CONTEMPORARY ‘teaching’.
One wonders, yes one does. What if we held the medical community responsible, for example, for their teachings back in say 1975, for example–back when the MEDICAL COMMUNITY not only believed but PRACTICED their informed opinion that pedophilia could be TREATED AND CURED.
But we don’t hear of THIS, because it wouldn’t ‘sell’. It wouldn’t demonize the church–the voice of reason and eternal teaching rather than emotion and what is ‘happening’, new, and ‘exciting’.
A: Historically speaking, people have ‘left the church’ since Judas. Even in late medieval to modern times, just think of the protestant explosion. Those protestants didn’t ‘grow like Topsy’; they ‘left the church’–so much so that to take an example England went from being a Catholic country to a Protestant one, and France from a Catholic country solus to one with a sizeable protestant (Hugenot) minority, etc. For that FIRST generation at least, the way that one ‘got’ protestants was from the protestants leaving the Catholic Church.
That being said, any ‘mass exodus’ in 2006 absolutely pales in comparison.
Also it must be said that while people coming INTO the church are not coming in numbers or rates seen in other centuries, they are STILL coming in and indeed, considering the huge population of the world today, they are coming in quite well, especially in comparison to other Christian groups.
Now to point B.
There have been many, many scandals in Christianity. Jesus warned us about them. I wonder what St. Michael would have done in Borgian Italy, or under Savonarola in Spain, or heaven forbid in Elizabeth I’s England/Ireland, Knox’s Scotland, Calvin’s Switzerland, or Latin American in the 19th century, Mexico in the 1920s. . . There is a lot of scandal in ALL Christianity… and in atheistic societies, in Buddhist societies, Hindu, animist, ‘neo’ Wicca, you name it.
Point is: For 2000 years we have had the Catholic Church. Nobody denies that certain people in the church have done wrong. But the TEACHING on faith and morals has never foundered. I’ve read the document–indeed, I read it the LAST time it surfaced back in 2005. This is not NEWS. It’s a vile attempt to ‘take down’ the Catholic Church by positing that the internal policies regarding a SACRAMENT which itself must involve secrecy, and particularly a policy from over 40 years ago, BECAUSE it does not IN THEIR EYES ‘conform’ with the current ‘popular’ judgment on an UNRELATED though tangential issue, somehow ‘proves’ that the Catholic Church teaches as FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE the ABUSE OF CHILDREN. And that ‘higher ups’ somehow DELIBERATELY chose to FOSTER abuse just to ‘save themselves’. Deliberately ignoring, of course, that in 1962, back when people were not falling all over themselves on Springer to tell what sins they had PROUDLY committed, or to scream for vengeance over both real AND imagined sins had been done TO them, even speaking of sins was something that people DID NOT WANT TO DO. This document was not for the protection of PRIESTS from being punished; it was for the protection of the INNOCENT who would be victimized by having what was done to them BROUGHT OUT IN PUBLIC.
Now you may be part of the population that ‘wants to know’ EVERYTHING, every single detail, 24/7, and finds any idea of keeping ANYTHING private to be signs of a conspiracy theory or a ‘repressed personality’. The point is, people in 1962 would have found the current fixation on the ‘right to know’ and the near total lack of privacy, not to mention the lack of a sense of sin and huge advancements in shameless behavior in contemporary society, to be HORRIFYING.
And so people are once again making the mistake of judging a FAITH, not by what it teaches, not by the PERSON who instituted it, but by what kind of ‘sound bite’ it makes or how ‘relevent’ it is to a CONTEMPORARY ‘teaching’.
One wonders, yes one does. What if we held the medical community responsible, for example, for their teachings back in say 1975, for example–back when the MEDICAL COMMUNITY not only believed but PRACTICED their informed opinion that pedophilia could be TREATED AND CURED.
But we don’t hear of THIS, because it wouldn’t ‘sell’. It wouldn’t demonize the church–the voice of reason and eternal teaching rather than emotion and what is ‘happening’, new, and ‘exciting’.
- Status