Posted on 04/12/2010 8:32:32 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Children were "sadistically tormented and also sexually abused" at a Catholic monastery in Pope Benedict's native Bavaria, according to a new report commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church.
World A lawyer investigating accusations of abuse in a Benedictine monastery school in Ettal presented a final report to the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising Monday, including 173 pages of victims' accounts of abuse. "My investigations quite clearly show that for decades up until around 1990, children and adolescents were brutally abused in the Ettal monastery," Thomas Pfister said in a statement.
"The number of victims' accounts has increased significantly since the intermediary report of March 5," added Pfister, who said last month that hundreds of pupils had been beaten and some sexually abused at the school.
An archdiocese spokesman said he could not comment on the specific number of victims before a news conference Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
That is wrong. No, the first edition dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI (1922 - 1939). Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.
A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right - as everyone does - to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.
Wikipedia is just a bulletin board that anybody can post to. It makes no claims of accuracy.
Or try this...
The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated... Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times. Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome. Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself..."...In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic>) bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.
lol. If that were true, and if that were followed, there wouldn't be the hundreds of criminal cases now in the court system against the RCC and its priests.
God willling, Roman Catholic apologists will learn that the truth, however uncomfortable, is preferable to weaseling around while children's lives are destroyed.
Got it. Everyone’s wrong except Rome.
I’ve “proved it” about a dozen times. It doesn’t seem to get through to certain Roman Catholic apologists. Not my problem.
Whats the matter, all you could dredge up is hear say? The actual letter and the background information clearly refute your obsession. But why let the facts and the 6th commandment interfere with your psychosis.
You don't represent everyone, just the infinitesimal minority of rabid anti-Catholic menopausal dingbats with psychotic paranoiac delusions.
13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or these denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.
Ratzinger's 2001 letter to all the bishops clearly spelling out that the church's supposed jurisdiction and oath of secrecy run for 10 years beyond the victim's 18th birthday, regardless of the age of the victim when he was sexually molested by a priest...
...It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age...
The "prescription" is silence by all involved.
And finally, the dastardly Guardian article that dared to say it like it is...and was...
It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'. 'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication......The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.
lolol. Your language ratchets up nightly. Soon you’ll be aloft.
Post 28 proves you wrong...again.
English public schools were notorious for harsh punishments and homosexual abuse. It is certainly possible that genuine abuse took place at Ettal.
On the other hand, just because a hack lawyer says so, doesn’t meam much.
When will journalists start actually investigating claims rather than serving as fax machines for slip and fall lawyers?
See post 28.
Post 28 doesn’t prove a thing. It’s from some second-hand hack account you use.
Cite to the actual document in such a manner as shows that you actually understand the meaning of the language or shut up.
Sounds pretty clear cut. Any minor sexually molested by a priest is subject to an oath of secrecy until age 28. 2010 - 28 = 1982.
Oh come on Dr, you’re smarter than this. Paragraph 11 is CLEARLY talking about how priest are forbidden to reveal anything said in the confessional, ever. But, should the need arise is the course of a trial, this penalty is lifted ONLY during the trial. The priest is not allowed to comment on what was said in the confessional before or after said proceeding. And did you even READ paragraph 13? It says that the accusers are especially free of subjection of censure, unless related to a different matter.
Like I said, totally bogus. And since you maintain that you read Crimen Sallicitationis, you know that you are spouting bogus nonsense.
lol. The “original documents” are cited. Did you even read the post? Is this what passes for Roman Catholic discernment?
I noticed that one perpetrator with many victims is already dead. Too bad. In his case it does sound like a classic case of pedophilia with one abuser having multiple victims.
I’m glad the Church commissioned the report and hope it will encourage those who were abused to come forward.
Good idea but I think many of them are probably already dead.
"Flee from idolatry."
Kind of like asking the fox to write a report about excess feathers in the hen house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.