Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CBS news story distorts 1962 Vatican document (Analysis)
Catholic World News ^ | Aug 7, 2003 | staff

Posted on 08/07/2003 9:54:10 AM PDT by polemikos

Boston, Aug. 07 (CWNews.com) - A CBS network news report, claiming that the Holy See orchestrated a cover-up of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, is based on a gross misinterpretation of a 1962 Vatican document.

In a sensationalist report aired on August 6, CBS Evening News claimed to have discovered a secret document proving that the Vatican had approved-- and even demanded-- a longstanding policy of covering up clerics' sexual misdeeds.

The document cited by CBS does nothing of the sort.

In fact the network's story misrepresented the Vatican document so thoroughly that it is difficult to attribute the inaccuracy to honest error.

The CBS story is based on a secret Instruction issued to bishops in March 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then the prefect of the Holy Office (now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). That document sets forth the canonical procedures to be followed when a priest is charged with the ecclesiastical crime of "solicitation"-- that is, using the confessional to tempt penitents to engage in sexual activity.

[The Vatican document, in an awkward English translation, can be downloaded from the CBS News site. CBS also offers the Latin original.]

The Vatican document deals exclusively with solicitation: an offense which, by definition, occurs within the context of the Sacrament of Penance. And since that sacrament is protected by a shroud of absolute secrecy, the procedures for dealing with this ecclesiastical crime also invoke secrecy.

In short, by demanding secrecy in the treatment of these crimes, the Vatican was protecting the secrecy of the confessional. The policy outlined in that 1962 document is clearly not intended to protect predatory priests; on the contrary, the Vatican makes it clear that guilty priests should be severely punished and promptly removed from ministry.

It is important to keep in mind that the 1962 Vatican Instruction dealt exclusively with "solicitation" as that term is understood in ecclesiastical usage, under the terms of the Code of Canon Law. The policies set forth by Cardinal Ottaviani do not pertain to the sexual misdeeds of clerics, but to the efforts by priest to obtain sexual favors though the misuse of their confessional role.

It is also important to note that because solicitation takes place inside the confessional, only the accused priest and the penitent could possibly have direct evidence as to whether or not the crime took place. If the solicitation led to actual sexual activity, that misconduct could be the subject of an entirely separate investigation, not bound by the same rules of secrecy.

The crime of "solicitation" has always been viewed by the Catholic Church as an extremely serious offense, calling for the strongest available penalties. Cardinal Ottaviani stresses that any confessor who solicits sexual favors from his penitents should be suspended from ministry and stripped of all priestly privileges. These penalties apply to all cases of solicitation, whether they involve minor children or adults of either sex. The 1962 document is not concerned with all instances of solicitation; it does not concentrate on the solicitation of children.

The CBS report claimed:

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests-- anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.
That is inaccurate.

While it is true that the Vatican document threatens excommunication for anyone who discloses the proceedings of an ecclesiastical trial for "solicitation," it does not bar the priest's accuser from making separate charges about the priest's sexual misconduct. In fact the document makes it clear that during the canonical trial, the accuser should not be questioned about any sexual activity that he may have undertaken with the priest; the accuser is to be questioned solely about what occurred within the confessional.

Thus, someone who was sexually abused by a priest would be free, under the 1962 Vatican policy, to bring criminal charges against that priest for his sexual conduct, while simultaneously charging the priest with "solicitation" in an ecclesiastical court.

In fact, the Instruction from Cardinal Ottaviani stresses (in section 18) that every Catholic has a solemn duty to bring canon-law charges against a priest who attempts to solicit sex through the confessional. The importance of that obligation is underlined by the fact that a Catholic who fails to report solicitation is subject to excommunication. Moreover, the penitent remains under this solemn obligation to report solicitation even if the priest has already confessed his crime.

The document on which CBS based its distorted story is a densely worded 24-page document, couched in the technical idiom of canon law, and accompanied by a 36-page Appendix that provides the formulas to be used in an ecclesiastical trial. No careful reader could fail to recognize that this was a specialized document, providing a set of procedures for a particular ecclesiastical offense. Why, then, did CBS News draw a broad general conclusion from a tightly focused legal document? Why did the network fail to distinguish between the ecclesiastical crime of solicitation and the public offense of pedophilia? The questions are worth pondering.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; cbs; deceit; distortions; liberalmedia; mediabias; seebs; sexabuse; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: Olde School
Regardless of whether there was a coverup or not - where was Rome for the past 10, 20, 50 years to do something?!?

Believe it or not, Rome does not micromanage the affairs of each diocese. The bishops operate with a great degree of autonomy and the Vatican has had a hard enough time getting renegade bishops to do all manner of things.

It's not quite the absolute dictatorship many may imagine. The Pope's powers are mostly of persuasion. The Pope can plea for his bishops to do something, but many ignore him. He can remove them, but that is something like using a nuclear weapon.

They knew things were rotten but did nothing!

I don't think this has been demonstrated.

SD

21 posted on 08/07/2003 11:10:52 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Micromanage?!?

Why do I get the feeling that if a priest was handing out condoms or helping pregnant teenage girls get abortions the Vatican would swing into action but for a pedophiliac priest the don't micromanage?
22 posted on 08/07/2003 11:15:18 AM PDT by Olde School
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Add me to that list if you please.
23 posted on 08/07/2003 11:18:07 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (...they led my people astray, saying, "Peace!" when there was no peace -- Ezekiel 13:10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The FACT is that this instruction from the Vatican has been misapplied. The assumption is that the priest will be punished, but punishment can be anything from slaps on the wrist to punishment that fits the crime. Light punishment for severe crimes are doled out every day in the secular courts.

Your comment is intertesting, in that it seems the RCC is now the full JUDGE and JURY in these cases. And if a perv priest gets a slap, or even a pass...it's OK, "Everybody Does It"!!!
Nice defense...think it'll hold up on Judgement Day?!?!

Tell me just where the VICTIMS get relief for their petition...or recompense for their suffering...or JUSTICE in keeping another Perv in a Cassoc from doing it all over again to another kid?!?!

This little factor keeps getting LOST in all this debate!

24 posted on 08/07/2003 11:20:00 AM PDT by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Believe it or not, Rome does not micromanage the affairs of each diocese.

Doesn't ROME have to OK the expenditure of funds for things like payoffs to the families, relocating an accused perv, and all the legal bills?!?! Doesn't the dioscese have accountants, or is all the $$$ fungible?

The bishops operate with a great degree of autonomy and the Vatican has had a hard enough time getting renegade bishops to do all manner of things.

Yeah, like "Don't touch the KIDS"!!! That one seems to be tough to follow!

25 posted on 08/07/2003 11:24:07 AM PDT by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Olde School
Why do I get the feeling that if a priest was handing out condoms or helping pregnant teenage girls get abortions the Vatican would swing into action but for a pedophiliac priest the don't micromanage?

I don't know, why do you?

If a priest become a public problem, his bishop would be expected to deal with him. There are many priests and religious out there espousing all kinds of heretical ideas and very few of them ever get any kind of action. The current cause celebre of the "progressives" involves two (a priest and a nun) who after repeated warnings about teaching falsely were ordered to stop "ministering" to the "homosexual community."

The notoriety of this pair points out exactly how rare such action is. You have to really, really go out of your way to get disciplined. The priest up in Canada may have acheived this level.

Another famous case is the awful Father Drinan. He was a pro-abortion member of Congress and a priest. The Vatican, after a fashion decreed that no priest could be a congressman.

SD

26 posted on 08/07/2003 11:26:35 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
Doesn't ROME have to OK the expenditure of funds for things like payoffs to the families, relocating an accused perv, and all the legal bills?!?! Doesn't the dioscese have accountants, or is all the $$$ fungible?

I thought I said that the bishops run their own churches autonomously? Every time the diocese writes a check they don't need to get approval from the Vatican. The Vatican, by and large, assesses individual dioceses so much per year for support of the Vatican. But individual items in the budget are not generally open for review.

Yeah, like "Don't touch the KIDS"!!! That one seems to be tough to follow!

That isn't necessary. Don't be an ass.

SD

27 posted on 08/07/2003 11:30:38 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
Your comment is intertesting, in that it seems the RCC is now the full JUDGE and JURY in these cases.

Perhaps you missed where I explained earlier that this has to do with Church proceedings in church law. Civil, secular law is a completely different thing.

Yes, the Church is the judge and jury in its own ecclesial proceedings. Duh. Do you want the state deciding how to run your church.

You'd think people would read and think about the things you tell them, but they just don't.

SD

28 posted on 08/07/2003 11:32:42 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
I agree that CBS misrepresented the situation to some extent; however, unless someone can point me to where it says that when a crime against a minor has been committed it must be turned over to civil authorities, the document could rightly be construed as protecting criminals.

The reason the document surfaced in the first place is that it is being used in one of the Boston sex abuse of minors cases by catholic lawyers against the church and may well hold up in court if those victims were solicited in the confessional and the perpetrator(s) were not reported to civil authorities, which evidently they were not.

I do agree otherwise with other posters who correctly point out that the seal of confession must be upheld and thus the reason for secret proceedings.

This is coming down to a p****** contest between our legal system and church law. In the case of criminal offenses, I hope our legal system wins out.

29 posted on 08/07/2003 11:33:55 AM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olde School; Steve0113
helping pregnant teenage girls get abortions

Back in the sixties & seventies, quite a few of the liberal priests we won't be missing were doing just that.

A friend of mine's brother was told, when waiting for an annulment, to just go on and get a civil wedding & square it up with the Church later. I can visualize the steam coming out of Father Scalia's ears at that!

30 posted on 08/07/2003 11:39:30 AM PDT by nina0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: steplock
The things I learn about from all of this forum's posters!!! Thanks,
31 posted on 08/07/2003 11:43:29 AM PDT by Maria S ("..I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end" Uday H.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Itzlzha
What about the same in the cases not involving Catholic priests, which were far more numerous. Do you think that SNAP is pursung the Public schools, for instance. Do you think that the AG of Massachusetts is going after perverts in the public schools? More than that, may I ask why you expect more justice from the state than the Church? Again: during the many years BEFORE child molestation became a POLITICAL issue, law enforcment officials stayed away from such cases because it was unrewarding for them to do so. Easy to roust prostitutes; hard, hard, hard to prosecute a father was was RUMORED to be bonging his daughter.
32 posted on 08/07/2003 11:49:13 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Of course church law and secular law are two separate things. My concern, and I am guessing Itzlzha’s, is that for year’s secular law took a back seat. The church’s attitude was, “No reason to get the authorities involved, we’ll handle this.” Victims were either paid off or browbeaten or guilted into not pursuing the matter.

What the Church decides to do with someone AFTER he /she has gone through the legal system is fine. But if someone commits a crime or is accused or committing a crime he/she needs to go through proper channels- whether they are a priest, housepainter, doctor, farmer, whatever.
33 posted on 08/07/2003 12:13:21 PM PDT by Olde School
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
What protocols of "secrecy" are Dan Rather and other CBS staff who are members of secret societies bound by?
34 posted on 08/07/2003 12:21:08 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olde School
My concern, and I am guessing Itzlzha’s, is that for year’s secular law took a back seat. The church’s attitude was, “No reason to get the authorities involved, we’ll handle this.”

And as long as the Church was handling things properly, there was no problem. As has been pointed out, to no comment, the awareness of such abuse is great today versus what it was in the recent past. People did indeed keep such things "in the family" rather than involve the gov't authorities and the Church was no different.

It is, as I've said numerous times, the failure of the Church to handle this properly that is the main problem. If the offenders were dealt with in a way that removed them from any chance of repeating, there would be no scandal to speak of. Even though there was no secular charge, trial, or punishment. The Church failed to do its end of the deal in disciplining tis own priests.

SD

35 posted on 08/07/2003 12:21:20 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
How much of the old Henry II/Thomas Becket controversy is still a factor these days?
36 posted on 08/07/2003 12:32:06 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
What a surprise, the mainstream media twisting a story to bash the church. Hopefully Drudge will change his headline.
37 posted on 08/07/2003 12:34:38 PM PDT by SB00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
How much of the old Henry II/Thomas Becket controversy is still a factor these days?

Not sure I understand the question. My point was that the Church used to take care of its own, in all kinds of situations. One who entered into the priesthood for the most part removed himself from the purview of the state. The Church would educate, clothe, feed, etc. you and you would obey and serve. And if there was misconduct, the Church had ways of handling that as well.

Obviously, the Church failed to live up to its side of this unwritten contract.

SD

38 posted on 08/07/2003 12:38:37 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I didn't necessarily mean to ask in the context of what's going on now, but I was asking how much jurisdiction the Church claims over its priest. If you'll remember, the controversy between Henry II and Thomas Becket was that the King wanted clerics who committed crimes (theft/rape/murder, etc.) tried under the Crown, while Becket insisted they were subject only to Canon law, and of course Canon law was a bit easier on the offenders than the Crown. I was just wondering if that is ever a factor these days, either officially or unofficially.
39 posted on 08/07/2003 12:49:27 PM PDT by wimpycat (Down with Kooks and Kookery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; polemikos
Didn't...uh...Dan Rather REFUSE to run stories about Clinton's sex abuse episodes?

Supposedly in 1963 Dan Rather was (mysteriously) positioned closest to the "grassy knoll" spot where JFK was assassinated. After seeing film of the assassination, he is reported to have described (inaccurately) Kennedy's head going forward as if shot from behind when his head clearly jerks backwards. Dan Rather is also reported to be a member of organizations which promote global population control. CBS has never covered stories on such organizations which expose their manipulation of the political process.

Has CBS ever aired stories exposing NAMBLA or secular university professors or APA members who promote pedophilia and sodomy with minors? Has CBS ever reported in depth on the anti-Catholic agenda documented in Michael Rose's book?

Cardinal Ottaviani opposed the liberalization and modernization of "the spirit of Vatican II" which was spearheaded by the notorious liturgist and anti-Catholic secret society member (Bugnini). It should come as no surprise that Bugnini's frat brothers at CBS would leap at the chance to include Cardinal Ottaviani in their orchestrated campaign to set up the Church to take the rap for a sodomy conspiracy promoted by their organizations and clandestine societies, a sodomy conspiracy, mind you, that is so important to them they refuse to subject NAMBLA to the same investigations as those directed at the Church. CBS is so concerned about protecting children that they will expose efforts by sodomites to adopt young boys, right? When was the last time CBS ran a story on the use of teenage male prostitutes by members of the fashion industry?

CBS is essentially (by design) a front organization for the anti-Catholic secret societies which manipulate the political process in America for their own peculiar agenda. It is a propaganda corporation exposed in print by one of its own former employees. It is the American equivalent of PRAVDA and specializes in disinformation. One would doubt that CBS employs any real Catholics and , after all, why would any true Catholic want to assist such a nefarious corporation so in bed with the culture of death.

CBS has participated in public lies about the JFK assassination, about Vietnam, about the Clinton scandals, about AIDS, abortion, and organized religion. The third-rate propaganda of this cheesy tabloid outfit reflects its source of origin. The Church, the Holy Ghost, and Jesus Christ will long outlive this pseudo-journalistic den of perverts, liars, and anti-Christian secret society propagandists.

40 posted on 08/07/2003 12:55:03 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson