Amen.
Posted on 03/13/2010 12:00:49 PM PST by presidio9
The Vatican on Saturday fought attempts to link Pope Benedict XVI to child sex abuse in a counteroffensive against the widening paedophilia scandals. "It is clearly evident that in the past few days there are some who have sought -- with a dogged focus on Regensburg and Munich -- elements to personally implicate the Holy Father in questions of abuse," spokesman Federico Lombardi said.
"It is clear that these efforts have failed," he said on Radio Vatican.
On Friday, the pope's former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that when he was an archbishop in 1980, he approved housing for a priest who was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex.
Six years later, the priest was given a suspended prison sentence for child sex offences. The archdiocese said the priest in question still works in Bavaria, with no known repeat violations.
The disclosure added to a growing scandal in Germany that has already come close to Pope Benedict's brother Georg Ratzinger, a former choirmaster.
The first revelations emerged in January when an elite Jesuit school in Berlin admitted systematic sexual abuse of pupils by two priests in the 1970s and 1980s.
Among other boarding schools implicated is one attached to the Domspatzen ("Cathedral Sparrows"), Regensburg cathedral's thousand-year-old choir which was run for 30 years by the pope's older brother Ratzinger, who is now 86.
Earlier this week, Ratzinger said the alleged sexual abuse in the 1950s and 60s -- which was before his time -- was "never discussed".
However, in the latest revelations, former choirboy Thomas Mayer told German magazine Der Spiegel he had been raped by older members of the choir and that Ratzinger had violent fits of outrage during rehearsals.
"Ratzinger, I saw him extremely angry and irascible during rehearsals,"
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
There are 1.15 billion Roman Catholics.
The next largest Christian communion are the Eastern Orthodox, who nominally have 210 million members.
The third are the Baptists with 105 million, the fourth Lutherans with 87 million and the fifth Anglicans with 82 million.
The Catholic Church is thus five times larger than any other communion and more than ten times larger than most other major communions.
All men are sinners, but unlike priests we do not claim to act as Christ..
No priest makes such a claim.
Christ acts through them - but this is the nature of any ministry. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:10 - "I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."
Like Paul, Catholic priests rightly acknowledge that their ministry is not really theirs, but Christ's.
That is your doctrine not mine
From catholic answers
It's incorrect to think that only the priest offers Mass. All the faithful share in the offering, even though the priest has a unique role. He stands "in the person of Christ," the historic Head of the Mystical Body, so that, at Mass, it is the whole body of Christ - Head and members together - that make the offering.
" When the priest faces the congregation, we can forget or misunderstand that only Christ is the source and giver of all grace. ad orientem avoids focusing attention on the personality and mannerisms of the celebrant and reminds us that the priest stands at the altar in persona Christi, offering the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary"
True.
However, Scripture reminds us all that the heart is deceitfully wicked, who can know it . . .
True and well put.
INDEED.
QUITE SO.
Well, thank goodness for those laws to keep one on the straight and narrow. Had they past the law sooner he wouldn't have had to suffer so long with a bad conscience. Shame on them for not acting sooner. ;O)
"It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me" - standing in the person of Christ is not a novelty of "Catholic Answers" but a Scriptural fact.
That's the nature of the apostolic office.
As long as Mahoney fills the chair in Los Angeles, whoever is pope, is complicit in a cover up. Has he left yet?
lol. Poor put-upon pope.
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition, from 1981 to 2005 (24 years) Ratzinger was in charge of "investigating" the pederast priest sex abuse scandals.
Ratzinger tried mightily to hide, ignore, deflect and deny the scandal. And with a compliant press and a brainwashed congregation, he's succeeded to a shameful degree. So much so that they made him pope as a reward.
Amen.
That's completely false, DE.
And you know it is.
The role of the Prefect of the CDF is that of the Vatican's chief theologian.
The purpose of that office is to oversee the teaching of theology in the Church's universities and seminaries and to review the theological writings of the various bishop's conferences as well as to author theological position papers.
That, after all, was the Pope's specific professional expertise: he was a theological advisor to the German episcopate at the Second Vatican Council and he spent 26 years as a professor of theology.
The office that in normal course was supposed to deal with cases of abuse by clergy was, not to surprisingly, the Congregation for the Clergy.
In 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger - displeased by the lackluster investigative progress of the Congregation for the Clergy - requested that this responsibility be transferred from them to his own CDF, his office.
And from that point on, there was a serious change: it is from that time that we see the Church launching systematic investigations, retiring bishops, demoting and laicizing offenders, meeting with victims' groups, putting together cooperation protocols with law enforcement and agreeing on restitution, etc.
Saying that he was in charge of such investigations from 1981 to 2001 is simply false. He was in charge of such investigations from 2001 to 2005 and only because he stood up and demanded that more be done and took that responsibility upon himself.
And it should also be remembered that the Church is not structured like a corporation: it is a society.
That society is governed by Canon Law and every Catholic has certain rights under Canon Law - just because there is a rumor or an allegation about a specific priest it does not mean that he can just be summarily excommunicated, fired and laicized. Just like the accused in a secular trial, he has rights under Canon Law including due process.
It is one thing to say that there is a rumor that a specific bishop had knowledge of specific crimes committed by a priest under his supervision. It is entirely another to prove that in a court of Canon Law.
That's completely false, DE. And you know it is. The role of the Prefect of the CDF is that of the Vatican's chief theologian.
Actually, Dr. E is quite correct. This is what is stated in Wikipedia:
In office, Ratzinger fulfilled his institutional role, defending and reaffirming Catholic doctrine, including teaching on topics such as birth control, homosexuality, and inter-religious dialogue. Leonardo Boff, for example, was suspended, while others were censured. Other issues also prompted condemnations or revocations of rights to teach: for instance, some posthumous writings of Jesuit priest Anthony de Mello were the subject of a notification. Ratzinger and the Congregation viewed many of them, particularly the later works, as having an element of religious indifferentism (i.e., Christ was "one master alongside others").
The Congregation is best known for its authority over the teaching of Church doctrine, but it also has jurisdiction over other matters, including cases involving the seal of the confessional, clerical sexual misconduct and other matters, in its function as what amounts to a court. In his capacity as Prefect, Ratzinger's 2001 letter “Crimen Sollicitationis” which clarified the confidentiality of internal Church investigations into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse, became a target of controversy during the sex abuse scandal.[17] While bishops hold the secrecy pertained only internally, and did not preclude investigation by civil law enforcement, the letter was often seen as promoting a coverup.[18] The Pope was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, but sought and obtained diplomatic immunity from prosecution.[19]
Wikipedia, indeed.
Wikipedia fails to mention that when Joseph Ratzinger became the Prefect of the CDF in 1981, it was not authorized to investigate clerical abuse.
The CDF only became authorized to investigate such cases in 2001 - when Cardinal Ratzinger specifically requested that such authority be removed from the Congregation for the Clergy and transferred to the CDF. He made this request specifically because of his frustration with the slow progress being made by the Congregation of the Clergy.
Wikipedia, conveniently, forgets to mention that timeline and implies that Cardinal Ratzinger was the authority in charge of such investigations from 1981 until 2001 - which is certainly not the case.
The article also misrepresents his CDF letter of 2001. The point which that letter tried to make was that predators were using the seal of the confessional in order to cover their tracks.
As you likely know, anything you say in a confessional is a secret, and the confessor is morally bound to never break the seal of the confessional.
Predators would go to their bishop, ask to make a confession and then admit what they had done, specifically to shield themselves using the seal of the confessional.
This letter specifically affirmed that while the seal of the confessional was still inviolate, the usual privacy of ecclesiastical disciplinary proceedings could be dispensed with as long as the victim of the crime wanted to make them public.
The offender could no longer attempt to make the claim under Canon Law that his responses under disciplinary proceedings were to be treated as tantamount to the seal of confession.
Ratzinger tried FRoman Catholics try mightily to hide, ignore, deflect and deny the scandal.
Not in the slightest.
Clearly there have been a sizable number of Catholic priests who have preyed upon children and there have been a significant number of prelates who have swept these crimes under the rug.
That's not a matter of dispute.
What is a matter of dispute are wild-eyed claims that there are thousands of child-molesting priests still serving in the Church and that every bishop in the Church is involved in coverups, and that the Pope conspired to assist the predators.
The actual, documented numbers are far smaller than the media would have us believe.
This does not mean that the problem did not exist. What it means is that the focus of the scandal's coverage now has nothing to do with assisting the actual victims - it is about pushing a political agenda.
The fact is, Gamecock, you hate the Catholic Church and would like nothing better than for it to cease to exist and for every Catholic to become a Five-Point Calvinist.
Your sentiment in this matter is so strong that you will promote any misrepresentation or exaggeration regarding the Catholic Church in order to further your personal theological agenda. Even if those misrepresentations come from the Christ-hating MSM of from a fake encyclopaedia website funded by a pornographer.
For my part, I don't agree with your theology. I also know that your own communion is not without its predators and its scandals.
However, I will draw the line at exaggerating the faults of or misrepresenting the actions of your communion - because it simply is not Christian to do so.
***The actual, documented numbers are far smaller than the media would have us believe.***
Which explains the hundreds of millions of dollars shelled out by the Roman Catholic church to the victims of abuse.
But in this instance, I think the Roman Catholic apologist has blinders on. The Roman Catholic priesthood attracts pedophiles and homosexuals, and worse, it does very little to discourage them. Instead, because the problem is so historic, widespread and deep-seated, it continues unabated.
Ratzinger's 2001 letter, sent to the world's bishops, reiterated the punishment for anyone going outside the church with allegations of priest sexual abuse. It reminded the bishops that the result of someone going to a teacher or a police officer or a social worker or even to a parent with an allegation of sexual abuse against a priest would be excommunication for the accuser.
That was the purpose of the letter. It was a threat to anyone who would make public any deviant priest's conduct.
The real problem for Rome is that because Ratzinger sat on this scandal, and because men before and after him have tried to silence the victims and deny the crimes, and because men like Mahoney are still presiding over millions of Roman Catholics, and because RC doctrine instists that priests are "another Christ" (alther Christus), because of all these things the ugliness and destruction don't go away. Instead, they fester and grow and spread and continue to destroy children and families and lives and communities and churches.
The problem is endemic to who Rome says she is. Rome considers herself above reproach, even above the word of God. That hubris is at the core of this scandal. And it won't go away until Rome adheres to the Scriptures, and not the fallible pretensions of doddering sinful men who arrogantly believe themselves to be "another Christ."
Here's a recent story from AP. Ratzinger was personally at the center of this scandal which seems to know no end.
VATICAN CITY — “Germany’s sex abuse scandal has now reached Pope Benedict XVI: His former archdiocese disclosed that while he was archbishop a suspected pedophile priest was transferred to a job where he later abused children. The pontiff is also under increasing fire for a 2001 Vatican document he later penned instructing bishops to keep such cases secret. The revelations have put the spotlight on Benedict’s handling of abuse claims both when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977-1982 and then the prefect of the Vatican office that deals with such crimes – a position he held until his 2005 election as pope. And they may lead to further questions about what the pontiff knew about the scope of abuse in his native Germany, when he knew it and what he did about it during his tenure in Munich and quarter-century term at the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Benedict got a firsthand readout of the scandal Friday from the head of the German Bishop’s Conference, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, who reported that the pontiff had expressed “great dismay and deep shock” over the scandal, but encouraged bishops to continue searching for the truth. Hours later, the Munich archdiocese admitted that it had allowed a priest suspected of having abused a child to return to pastoral work in the 1980s, while Benedict was archbishop. It stressed that the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger didn’t know about the transfer and that it had been decided by a lower-ranking official. The archdiocese said there were no accusations against the chaplain, identified only as H., during his 1980-1982 spell in Munich, where he underwent therapy for suspected “sexual relations with boys.” But he then moved to nearby Grafing, where he was suspended in early 1985 following new accusations of sexual abuse. The following year, he was convicted of sexually abusing minors. The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, issued a statement late Friday noting that the Munich vicar-general who approved the priest’s transfer had taken “full responsibility” for the decision, seeking to remove any question about the pontiff’s potential responsibility as archbishop at the time. Victims’ advocates weren’t persuaded.”
Ping to 37.
I wonder how many became Born Again Christians because they left this church and went to Evangelical or Reformed churches.
Here's a RC caucus thread written by a priest about the priesthood...
"...Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with—both in his official ministry and in his personal life..."
Can you imagine how frightened and cowered a child would be when confronted by the unholy demands of a man whom the child is told is literally "another Christ" in "his official ministry and in his personal life?"
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.