Posted on 04/08/2010 11:36:45 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
I am quoting sources here. Just assume it.
This is the second time you’ve tried to use Catholic documents to “prove” a lie, and the second time your lie has been debunked. I don’t know whether it’s just that everything you know about Catholicism is wrong, or whether your hatred for the One True Church is such that you do not care if what you say is true.
It comes out the same either way, and either will lead you down the same broad road.
I’m going to present a little readily available information for the benefit of anyone who might be misled by your remarks.
The document’s obscurity meant it had not had the impact being attributed to it, and in any event, it dealt only with canonical procedures. It did not order anyone not to cooperate with civil or criminal investigations.
The Latin expression crimen sollicitationis refers to a sexual advance made before, during or immediately after administration (even simulated) of the Sacrament of Penance, also known as “confession.”
Crimen sollicitationis (Latin: the crime of soliciting) was a 1962 letter from the Holy Office giving procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. The lamestream media usually say that the oath of secrecy about the conduct of the trial is intended to silence victims, contrary to what the instruction clearly states.
Except in connection with the sacrament of Penance, canon law imposed no legal obligation - though a moral one might exist - to denounce clerics guilty of engaging in or attempting a homosexual act; but the procedure described in Crimen sollicitationis was to be followed also in dealing with such accusations. And any gravely sinful external obscene act with prepubescent children of either sex or with animals engaged in or attempted by a cleric was to be treated, for its penal effects, as equivalent to an actual or attempted homosexual act.
De delictis gravioribus, published in 2001, brings Crimen sollicitationis in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, replaced the 1917 Code that governed in 1962.
Canon Law when Crimen sollicitationis was issued required anyone whom a priest solicited in confession to denounce him within one month, and ordered that such a priest be subjected to a serious ecclesiastical punishment (Canon 904).
Crimen sollicitationis indicated the procedure to be followed between a denunciation and the possible infliction of a penalty.
The document’s title, “Instructio de modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis” (Instruction on procedure in solicitation cases), indicates that it was composed to indicate how to carry out a canonical investigation into accusations of solicitation. It described the procedures to be followed in each phase: reception of a denunciation; the course of the investigation, summoning the accused, sentencing, and the possibility of appeal.
Section 11 of Crimen sollicitationis outlines the required confidentiality of the investigation into accusations of the crime of solicitation. The document imposed absolute confidentiality on the trial’s proceedings (explicitly excepting “what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect,” meaning public portions of any verdict), both during its conduct and after any concluding verdict had been put into effect: “As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called “the secrecy of the Holy Office”) in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.”
“These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.”
Interviewed for a television program in 2006, canon lawyer Thomas Doyle described the tight secrecy demanded for the procedure as “an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy, to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by churchmen.” However, in the study of the instruction that he revised less than two years later he stated: “According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities.”
John L. Allen, Jr. has said the secrecy was aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed, and for free finding of facts.
Get it? The “secrecy” is the same sort of thing civil courts do in not publishing the names of the victims of rape, to protect their privacy. It also protects the reputation of the accused, but if convicted, penalties are levied, up to and including laicization.
One more time: It dealt only with canonical procedures. It did not order anyone not to cooperate with civil or criminal investigations.
Here are some sources:
Allen, John L. (2003-08-15). “Explaining ‘Crimen Sollicitationis,’ ” National Catholic Reporter.
“It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops.” http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0815.htm.
“The 1962 instruction Crimen sollicitationis: Caught red-handed or handed a red herring?” by John P. Beal in Studia canonica, 41(2007), pp.199-236 http://www.vatican.va/resources/Beal-article-studia-canonica41-2007-pp.199-236.pdf
1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases: Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives by John L. Allen Jr., 7 August 2003 in National Catholic Reporter. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
“The 1922 Instruction and the 1962 Instruction Crimen sollicitationis promulgated by the Vatican” by Thomas Doyle, October 3, 2008. http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/2008/2008-10-03-Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20documents.pdf
Presumed victims. But do you really think justice can be obtained when a school child was victimized by a teacher twenty years ago? School districts as a matter of common practice purge their personnel files. A school district in Michigan is unlikely to be sued for an incident in Oregon, even though the perp was a former employee.
But I do not cotton to the idea of trying for justice many years after the fact. The trail of evidence is too thin and the testimony of witnesses is not useful.
Why did you fail to acknowledge my note 97, in which I showed that your accusations in note 77 were utter nonsense?
How many of your accusations have to be debunked before you start to wonder if you have anything right? Or is there any number that will serve to wake you up?
He's a flunky, alright. The Vatican's flunky.
Your defense of the indefensible is just more of the same. The documents say what they say. They were sent to whom they were sent. They were received. They were read. And they were followed.
Laws were broken and lives were destroyed by men who consider themselves to be "another Christ."
Ratzinger needs 1) to repent and 2) a good lawyer.
lolol. That may be one of the funniest directives I've read on FR. Yes, sir. Right away, sir. Surely we're all more than happy to accept your word for anything you say to be true. lol.
“did you read the article? it stated the priests threatened them if they told anyone at the time of the abuse”
Well, I guess we have to believe it, because if we extend to the priest the same presumption of innocence we desire for ourselves, we will be accused of a “cover-up.”
Here, this is a nice, round stone, hand-sized, just right for throwing.
Take it. There’s no need to wait for any investigation. There’s no need for any careful consideration of fact and allegation. The priest is accused; that’s enough.
Here, take this stone and chuck it hard, right at his head.
I answered your post 97.
Reading skills: D-
Here, take this stone and chuck it hard, right at his head.
If the molested child were mine, it would be more than one stone and it wouldn't be "chucked" at his head.
You wrote "Catholics on these threads are very capable of understanding the written word."
To which I responded with the commandment of God that we are not to make graven images and bow down to them and serve them.
And apparently, Roman Catholics do not understand those written words.
“The documents say what they say.”
Yes, and what the documents say is nothing like what you’re insisting they say. You take the words, “This water is cold,” and insist that they mean, “Purple armadillos gavotte in the tequila sunrise.”
Against such obdurate disregard for reality, reason herself is helpless.
Does false witness in the face of the truth come from God?
Don’t think so. What, then, or rather who, animates you in this irrational vendetta against followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
Don’t bother to answer. It was a rhetorical question.
“Surely we’re all more than happy to accept your word for anything you say to be true”
You fail to understand the simplest statements. The meaning is not that you should “accept my word” for anything, but that I don’t want to be falsely accused of “plagiarism” for failing to include scholarly citations of sources—a silly, time-wasting game your ilk like to play.
“Just assume it.”
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ." -- 2 Timothy 2:1-3"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
“I answered your post 97.”
No, you didn’t. You ignored the fact that you were shown to be wrong about your accusations in 77, although basic human decency required to you acknowledge it, and instead changed the subject by advancing a ludicrous misreading of another Catholic document altogether.
That’s not an answer; it’s just weaseling.
“Reading skills: D-”
This from someone whose answers fail to display the most minimal comprehension of the issues under discussion? From someone whose entire strategy consists of advancing falsehood after falsehood, then going personal?
Guess they’re right. There’s humor to be found in anything.
“— 2 Timothy 2:1-3”
Gimme a chorus of “Lord, Lord.” (Matthew 7:22)
Ah, if only that were true. Sadly, many Roman Catholics on this forum are only concerned with the former and completely oblivious of the latter.
“Just assume it.”
Yes, Forrest, “just assume” that “I am quoting sources here.”
I know it’s a fiendishly subtle concept, but there is a difference between assuming that I am quoting sources here and assuming the truth of whatever I say.
But I tax you unduly. Deuced unfair of me.
bump to myself
“Your defense of these pedophile priests is disgusting.”
I didn’t realize I was speaking with a prophet.
Had I known that you could divine the guilt or innocence of this priest before investigation or trial, I would never have dared to match mere fact and reason against Divine Revelation.
“If the molested child were mine, it would be more than one stone and it wouldn’t be “chucked” at his head.”
Sure, and if he turned out to be innocent, well, that would be okay too, because, I mean, well, he was a Catholic, right?
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.