Posted on 04/12/2010 8:32:32 PM PDT by JoeProBono
I don’t blame the victims for not telling. And it is possible that this monastary served as a residence and school for children who did not have family. Or if they did the family was most likely unable to care for them. Think of what conditions must have been like in post WWII Germany and you get an idea of how difficult it would have been to report the abuse and for authorities to investigate it. Even if they had been inclined to do so.
As to why the monks who were not part of the abuse did not report it, I can only shake my head in sorrow.
“So, once again, your claim doesn’t apply, because it ain’t true.”
Well if you are gonna let minor details get in the way. There’s just no reasoning with you.
Pop Quiz, What other organizations conduct investigations of misconduct and/or criminal actions in confidential proceedings?
All that hear say account proves is your lack of standards and gullibility.
I think you are getting the concept of Statue of Limitations mixed up with some bizare notion of forced silence. I have a hard time believing that you have read your links. Because I don’t see how you infer what you do from the text. Of course, it would help to read the original latin not some translation from who knows where. Because we all know that that worked out for the NYT.
I know that you have an ax to grind with the Catholic Church. And I think that you and I would agree that all those who harm children, either through direct contact or through aiding and abetting and enabling, should be buried alive in a fire ant mound. And I agree with you that much of the way that the Catholic Church has handled past sexual abuse crimes is pathetic. There is much to criticize, but make sure you are being intellectually honest in your criticism. Otherwise, your worthwhile thoughts and comments are most likely to be dismissed.
And Canon 904 of the Code of Cannon Law requires the immediate reporting of any priest who solicits sexual favors in the confessional. It’s been on the books since 1741.
The report was written by the lawyer who stated he found horrific abuse. That report was commissioned by the Church. Why is that hard for you to understand?
Provide a translation that is up to your standards to lay the controversy to rest, then. You do want to do that, don't you?
The information I see here supports Dr. Eckleberg's repeated contention, that minors sexually molested by priests are held to an oath of secrecy for ten years after they reach the age of majority in most countries, which is eighteen.
If it's wrong, show us exactly where and how with a correct, sourced translation. That should be easy enough, right?
b) if the indications of the crime are vague and indetemihace or uncertain, he should order that the Acts be put into the archives, to be taken up again If something else happens in the future...42. a) if it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation he should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed;
So who decides if the accusation lacks credibility or if the crime is vague? The bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic church; those who are responsible for the perpetrator.
And what does this bureaucracy do with the evidence? It either destroys it or files it away in the Vatican archives, most likely never again to see the light of day.
If a corporation were run like this every member of it would be in jail for a looong time.
It’s certainly not hard for me to understand the report was commissioned by the church. That’s the point. You have the accused writing the report.
Generally this would be quite plausible except for the fact that the 1960s and 1970s was a rebellious and openly anti-authoritarian period in both US and European history. That serious abuse of this kind and extent would go completely unreported, not even to any of the parents or any of the friends and neighbors or to any civil authority of any type is highly problematical and at least intuitively impels a suspension of belief.
I have read the document in its original Latin, I do not need a translation. Dr. E has completely misrepresented the contents and fabricated a corroboration of her prejudice. The burden of proof is not on me.
I'm capable of reading Latin. Post the original. I really want to see where the source of the controversy between you and Dr. Eckleberg lies.
You're claiming misrepresentation and fabrication, so the burden of proof actually does rest with you.
That is mind-reading and against the rules of the FR RF.
As for "intellectual honesty," I'd settle for some plain old honesty from Roman Catholic apologists who defend the indefensible.
I have a hard time believing that you have read your links. Because I don’t see how you infer what you do from the text.
And I likewise have a hard time believing you have read any of those links. I prefer to believe that, however, than to think there are Roman Catholic apologists on this forum who are so dense they cannot understand a few simple sentences.
Of course, it would help to read the original latin not some translation from who knows where.
Of course. When all else fails, blame the translation. The last time this excuse was suggested was when we read the translation of Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical. Until, of course, it was shown that the translation was straight from the Vatican.
And yet even then that didn't stop some who still blamed the language barrier. lol. Anything to take the heat off Rome.
I have consistenly linked to the original documents or valid translations into English of those documents. You have yet to refute any point I've made. Instead, you call people names.
Maybe 'cause it happened in a society within a society where "the social tendencies" are to blame the victim of abuse and to project guilt on them?
Better to just be silent when it happens to you, and to look the other way when it happens to someone else.
Latinus lego quoque, et ego curiosus.
First of all, we aren’t on the Religion Forum.
Second of all, this doesn’t have anything to do with an encyclical.
Third of all, nothing changes the fact that your misunderstanding of both canon law and Crimen Sollicitationis has no bearing on this particular case, or cases. Those apply only to solicitation in the confessional, and therefore has no bearing on what happened at the school.
So, your reason for the failure of previous students, or teachers, at the school to blow the whistle on abuses occurring is bogus, since even if your understand was accurate, it still wouldn’t apply it these cases.
Well at face value, this is much better than what most corporations would do.
Some fairness and objectivity is needed here.
1. No entity would keep on file something that “totally lacks a foundation” such as unsubstantiated rumor, gossip, or innuendo.
2. And yet para 42 insists that even if the accusations are vague and indeterminate (which means they lack specificity of the person(s), place, nature, and extent of the allegation) that a file be kept and placed in the archives for resuscitation even decades later. Not bad at all in the then non-digital age.
The term “abuse” in the 1960s and 1970s and to this day can encompass a whole spectrum of real and perceived that would include but is not limited to such matters as disciplinary caning, or what might be considered a harsh penitence.
We stayed in one in Garmisch when I was a kid - the General Patton Hotel.
Beautiful area there. We visited in the summer - we were stationed in Italy at the time.
I am not disputing this possibility. But the timeframes even for a “society within a society” are important. Because this was the post 1960s, signaling the great coming out of rebellious, anti-authoritarian, sexually liberated and defiant youth. It is a strain of conduct that given the times was incompatible with bottling up serious personal abuse.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/crimenlatinfull.pdf
Please pay particular attention to paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for the purpose of solicitation to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, "lest the offense remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls."
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.