Posted on 01/27/2002 8:52:51 PM PST by churchillbuff
What kind of tripe is this? It’s a “secret directive”, but you
know all about it? Maybe secret extra-terrestrials told you.
Folks, if true, that means Rightuvu who is posting as Earthling
may in fact be ….
Sincerely, DANATTYANO Barnacle
( DANATTYANO – Diplomatic, And Not About To Tear You a New One)
99 posted on 1/29/02 11:51 AM by Barnacle
___________________________________________
The poster said, to be exact:
"...The current Pope apparently approved a secret directive to
dioceses around the world to report pederast priests to an
internal church court instead of to the one everybody else has
to stand before...."
And now, I'll be happy to give you the article that poster was referring
to:
____________________________________________
| By Melinda Henneberger New York Times News Service January 9, 2002 VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican has issued new rules saying it will try priests accused of sexually abusing children in secret ecclesiastical courts and oversee the cases directly from Rome. The rules, quietly issued, are intended to "protect the rights of the accused," according to a high-ranking Vatican official. Critics say the rules could instead add to the impression that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to conceal abuses rather than address the pastoral needs of victims. The new rules do not preclude civil prosecutions but will decide on the accused priest's future in the church and whether he would be relieved of his ministry. Because the policy is new and has not been openly discussed, questions remain about how it will work in practice. It does not, for instance, spell out whether a bishop must inform civil authorities if a priest is found guilty. The problem of pedophile priests has been an expensive embarrassment to the church. Pope John Paul II has acknowledged as much publicly and apologized to victims of sex abuse by priests in the past. One of the largest awards given in a sex abuse case involving a priest was made two years ago in Dallas, where the diocese had concealed the abuse of boys who were later awarded $120 million in damages by a civil court. "Some U.S. bishops have been complaining about the financial burden" of defending priests in sex abuse cases, said a Vatican official who called the changes "procedural" and long overdue. Sometimes, he said, local church officials "just want to cut them loose" to minimize their liability. He said the Vatican is trying to make sure that these priests are not fired, essentially, without due process. Several critics in the church, none of whom wanted to be quoted by name, said the new rules are unfortunate because they seem to focus on protecting potential perpetrators rather than their victims, who have long complained that the church's steps to address the problem are inadequate. In decades past, priests accused of pedophilia were sometimes allowed to go to confession, get counseling and be transferred to other parishes, where they often found new victims. After the scandals of recent years, church officials have taken steps to rectify the problem. But one American church official said the emphasis of the new policy shows "they still don't get it." At the Vatican, hopever, the changes are seen as a way to make sure cases that might be hushed up on the local level are reported to Rome. Those in favor of the new policy feel that these cases are more likely to be taken seriously in Rome. Not all priests who have been accused of sexual abuse are guilty. In one such case, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the archbishop of Chicago, was wrongly accused by a man who later recanted. The cardinal died of cancer in 1996. The way the new rules were issued, though, did give the impression that secrecy was a concern. Pope John Paul II issued two documents on the matter in 2001, but neither was made public until being published in Latin in the yearly volume of the journal of record of the Holy See. They were first written about by the Catholic News Service. In the pope's order, he defined pedophilia as one of the "graver offenses" against church law, and expanded the already significant influence of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger by giving him responsibility for issuing specific guidelines on how to deal with the problem. After the pope approved the new rules, Ratzinger sent a letter to all bishops and heads of religious orders on the change. Attached to the letters were cover sheets specifically asking recipients not to divulge the information contained in the letter. The new rules also set a 10-year statute of limitations, beginning on the victim's 18th birthday, in pedophilia cases. Copyright (c) 2002, Chicago Tribune |
Now take that foot out of your big mouth and apologize to
those around you.
And for God's sake, stop protecting those that practice the
protection of pedophiles. They did not protect innocent children,
nor were they making any attempt to.
Thanks.
Jesus doesn't hope they rot in hell. He hopes they repent before its too late!
Wishful thinking!
Rightuvu said, “The current Pope apparently approved a secret directive to dioceses around the world to report pederast priests to an internal church court instead of to the one everybody else has to stand before. ”
What’s so secret about this directive? It’s printed in the New York Frickin’ Times. Some secret!
A quote from the article you posted says “The new rules do not preclude civil prosecutions…” This may be news to you, but that is in fact the same court “everybody else has to stand before.”
Here’s another quote from your own article, “Not all priests who have been accused of sexual abuse are guilty. In one such case, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the archbishop of Chicago, was wrongly accused by a man who later recanted. The cardinal died of cancer in 1996.”
I remember that case well. Cardinal Bernardin had to endure that insult as he was dying. That illustrious press of yours had to eat a lot of crow when that Bozo recanted. It's a good example of why you not be so anxious to Deep_6 somebody.
As to your statement, ”And for God's sake, stop protecting those that practice the protection of pedophiles.”
I reply; Stop attacking my Church! And, withdrawal your accusation of me of protecting pediphiles!
Deep_6, you are really starting to get on my nerves.
What have I written to you and yours in Post #98 and others?
“I also believe a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, even if he is a Catholic priest. And if someone is guilty, to send him to the bottom of the sea, without parole.”
How can your warped mind misconstrue that into “ protection of pediphiles”?
If there are any apologies to be offered here, you should for your wild accusation and for putting words in my mouth. You fight like a Liberal. Are you sure you’re at the right site?
Here’s another question for you. Why don’t your posts go to the end of the line? Now that you’re beginning to annoy me - that is too. Is that something you do on the DU?
Sincerely, SDBNSTATYNO Barnacle
( SDBNSTATYNO – Still Diplomatic, But Now Seriously Thinking About Tearing You a New One)
Those name should be put on billboards, not simply newsprint.
Those priests have committed the most mortal sin; they have
stolen the youth and soul from a child.
Those priests have been protected continually, for years and
years, by the cloth they wore. No person would easily attempt
to as much as suggest that a child is telling the truth, if accusing
a priest of such a deed.
Your citing of that quote regarding one "lie", is ludicrous. You
are perpetrating the myth propagated by pedophiles, that
a child will lie about such a personal and private matter.
I have a bulletin for you, bub. Kids don't lie about it. When a
young child reveals that some misconduct has taken place, you will
do irreparable harm to that child by suggesting that the child is
lying.
Children have gone to their parents with such information; their
parent have gone to the Church, rather than police, and they
were denied justice. Those that take their case to the police
and file reports, are usually shunned by their entire congregation.
And the police cannot dig too deeply into the clergy's background,
since the clergy have certain privileges of religion that keep the
details of their life private.
The church has dealt with the issue by moving the priests to other
locations, not by removing them from clerical representation.
It's ugly, and I can understand your quest to protect your religion.
But your time would be better spent by demanding that your
clergy take immediate action to clean their own house.
I stated in a prior post [and I'll repeat it now]:
|
The problem isn't "an overwhelming number of pedophiles in clergy." The problem is the protection of those pedophiles that are members of clergy, by both Church and State. That, is the problem. And blaming the media for putting the spotlight Where can a child turn, if that child cannot trust even those that Fix the damn problem and stop trying to hide the fact it exists. |
A quote from you on another thread shows your real colors. You are one sick puppy for sure.
I should have known you were more than just a Catholic hater. I’m done conversing with you. Now, you’d better get back to your same-sex friend.
The Holy Spirit selects the next Pope and makes His will known throught the electors.
[Pat Buchanan, is that you behind that moniker?]
My comment that you have taken such diligent effort to
locate, regarded the topic of equal treatment under law
of all benefits provided by this Nation's funding. Those
that you suggest should be denied, have likely paid more
into this Nation's coffer than you.
Your hypocrisy and tunnel vision is apparent. You have
a right to it; I would never deny you that Liberty.
It's unfortunate you do not take the same consideration
for those around you.
Thanks
I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post, but you hit a hot button with me. There are not too few priests because priests can't marry. There are too few priests because young men, at the Parish level, have seen so much confusion in the day to day workings of the Parish and the lack of consistency in explaining what the Church TRULY teaches. Why would a young man want to pledge his life to something about which there is so much confusion. And another problem for many years was the administration of major Seminaries. The liberal priests and nuns who ran them would work HARD to get the more conservative candidates to drop out and would keep those who were more liberal and in many instances the homosexuals. It wasn't until JPII was able to replace some of the more egregiously liberal Bishops who ran the Seminaries that this began to change. And if you look at the numbers, there has been a slight increase in the last few years, it will just take a while to replace at the rate the older priests are retiring and dying.
And there have come to the fore a few truly orthodox Orders of priests and nuns which are thriving despite the conventional wisdom that they couldn't possibly attract candidates because they are SO backward! Amazingly they are the ones which are growing the fastest!
Besides, the Church already has the availability for married men to work closely with priests in their Parishes. This is the Ordained Diaconate, and there are many in this country; my sister's husband was for all intents and purposes the Assoc. Pastor of the Parish at which my husband's brother was the Pastor for many years. And my late father in law was also a Deacon. There are many things a Deacon can do to relieve the day to day workload of the priest in a Parish, freeing him to do the truly Pastoral things he is supposed to do. Deacons can perform Marriages and Baptisms, can do myriad administrative things which the priest shouldn't have to do anyway. All those guys who want to be priests, but want to be able to marry should just consider being Deacons. The only catch is that the Church will not ordain you to the Married Diaconate unless you have the PERMISSION OF YOUR WIFE! This is because there is a HUGE impact on the family when the man is THAT preoccupied with something outside the home. And if you consider that, think about what the wife of a priest would have to endure day to day. Her husband would almost never be around because his job is to tend to the spiritual needs of the people of his Parish. How do you think that would make HER feel? It would be a rare woman who wouldn't become embittered by it, and that would make for a decidedly unhappy and preoccupied priest. And I don't think you could compare it to Protestant churches because they have so many people employed to take care of the things most priests end up doing because the Parish usually does not have the income to hire all those people.
Sorry, but the Catholic Church is not a democracy. If it was, people would be voting on doctrine, in addition to bishops. Then it would be nothing more than another Protestant denomination.
Law is not conservative in the true sense, as Fabian Bruskewitz or Thomas Doran are. Law is a CINO -- conservative in name only.
Let's be fair. You post as if Catholic priests are the only ones doing this. Just as many rabbis and Protestant ministers and youth leaders do it, too. It's just that their stories end up in a little paragraph on page 30-something of the newspaper, if at all.
That's not true. This was not issued infallibly, as this has nothing to do with the types of matters of faith and morals that the Holy Father can speak infallibly on. So your sarcasm is misplaced here.
And so oncologists who have never had cancer are "ill equipped to fully understand experientially the rigors of" suffering cancer and can "spout platitudes regarding behaviors in" cell growth, "but have very little 'internalized' connections to comprehend that advice, emotionally, spiritually or familial wise."
That is why they call in other mental health professionals who have faced death, and cancer treatment victims who are personally experienced in settings like "support groups" to gain strength from others to fight the disease that THEY have NO capacity to give.
You cannot defend the indefensible. Stop trying.
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.