Posted on 04/08/2010 11:36:45 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
A West Texas teen filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Archdiocese of San Antonio and Archbishop Jose Gomez alleging repeated sexual assaults by a parish priest, who he says the church's leadership should have known was abusive.
The allegations came just days after Gomez was named to a high-profile post leading the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where he is scheduled to be formally introduced to parishioners in May.
The lawsuit accuses the Rev. John M. Fiala of repeatedly sexually assaulting the teen, including twice forcing him to have sex at gunpoint when Fiala was the pastor at Sacred Heart of Mary Parish in the remote community of Rocksprings. The lawsuit alleges the incidents occurred in 2007 and 2008, during Gomez's tenure overseeing a swath of south and west Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Dr. Eckleburg—
Understand that law, in an effort to be very precise to experts, uses technical language that, when read in the full context, is very precise to experts and usually very confusing to non-experts.
You state in post 77 that:
That means a seven-year-old victim must wait until he is 28 before he comes forward with his accusations against a pederast priest. Twenty-one years of keeping his mouth shut!
Your statement is based on a misunderstanding, I trust a good willed understanding, of a portion of the law that dsc did a good job of paraphrasing into plain english in post 97, and backs up quite solidly with expert stuff in post 121, and then summarizes the problem again, though without heroic charity, in post 131.
I am a professional Catholic theologian, and while canon law is not my specialty, I have studied and dealt with enough to assure you that dsc does have a solid grasp of what the law means, and the stuff in 121 demonstrates this.
I am also happy to report that I am going to bed, and so will not be responding to any responses to this post any time soon. I will pray for you and for dsc, and suggest that you two pray for each other and go to bed as well, before you are tempted to invoke Douglas’ parting shot to a group of abolitionists after a long argument on slavery that began on a Saturday night “It is now Sunday morning, I am going to Church and you can go to hell.” Charity above all.
“Let me help you understand that verse.”
I call that pretty bold talk for a man who doesn’t understand it himself.
Okay, That’s it for me. Just exchanging messages with you, I can feel that Satan is closer to me than he was before we started.
Betcha if we’re ever in the same crowd, I’ll sense you at 20 yards.
Your opinion mirrors other Roman Catholic apologists. Hardly surprising. I guess everyone is wrong but the RCC. Again.
Your posts are vile. I guess you think you have a right to say such terrible things about FReepers.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you are closer to Satan than you think.
"Flee from idolatry."
Where have I violated the rules of the RF?
lol. Not only is that remark against the rules of the RF, but it is a terrific example of the fact that Roman Catholic apologists view any and all disagreement with their opinions as some kind of lack of understanding.
LOL. Hey. We get it. We really do. We understand you think Mary is a mediator between God and men when Paul clearly states there is only one God and one mediator between men and God, the man, Christ Jesus.
We are not ill-informed. We understand the RCC's feeble justification for its nutty beliefs and practices.
And we disagree with them, according to the truth of the word of God made known to believers by the Holy Spirit. Not by the catechism. Not by the church. Not by the pope. And most certainly not by Mary.
you think it’s Holy Mother Church, the Spiritual Bride of Christ, who is wrong.
If by church you mean the Roman Catholic church, then yes, it is often wrong. If by church you mean the fellowship of all true believers, the lively stones who make up Christ's church on earth, then no, that church is not wrong.
But nothing on earth is perfect. And that includes the church because the church is made up of men and men are fallible. Some churches contain more truth than others, as they vary according to how faithful they are to the word of God. And some have so departed from the Christian faith that they are, as the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "synagogues of Satan."
"Flee from idolatry."
“Your posts are vile. I guess you think you have a right to say such terrible things about FReepers.”
After the things you have said about Catholics, you wish to shield yourself with the mantle of “Freeper?”
It is not in the spirit of this site to practice a brand of religious bigotry not seen since the Klan last rode against Catholics. We Catholics do not attack you protestants like that. Occasionally we are provoked to some moderate response to your scalding hatred, but while we are ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with protestants in our common cause, you regularly expend huge amounts of time and energy on nothing more noble or useful than venting your spleen against Catholics.
Don’t try to tell me that your status as a “Freeper” should shield you from replies that are 2 to 3 percent as venomous as your attacks. I have to wonder if you could break your fixation on Catholics long enough for a single skirmish with our real enemy. And I know who the source of such hatred is.
“We get it. We really do. We understand you think Mary is a mediator”
See? You’ve been set straight on that one a hundred times, and you just can’t let go of it.
You don’t get even the first letter.
By the way, this two-hundredth repetition of that insulting lie is one of your near constant violations of forum policy.
lol. I'm supposed to be breaking FR RF rules by saying that Mary is not a mediator when the RCC says she is?
That's breaking the rules of the FR Religion Forum???
LOLOL.
No, that's not rule-breaking, that's debate, something with which Roman Catholic apologists have a lot of trouble.
It may be a result of all that authoritarianism that's knocked into those heads bowed to statues of Mary.
Learn the rules.
religious bigotry not seen since the Klan last rode against Catholics.
Ah, invoking racial hatred as a feeble pretense for your lack of a sound defense of your faith. Interesting. Moldy, but interesting.
We Catholics do not attack you protestants like that.
lol. You manage to capitalize "Catholics" but not "protestants."
You're too kind.
But your posts serve as a good example that all debate regarding Roman Catholic beliefs, practices and errors is considered "hate speech" by Rome.
Which, of course, is just another clumsy attempt to shut down the discussion and thus avoid any criticism or introspection at all cost.
On a profound level, everyone is wrong but God, as only God fully grasps and fully expresses the truth.
That RCC apologists would be united on the subject of your interpretation of Church law offered in post 77 is hardly surprising—law involves technical language that is meant to allow for one precise meaning to those who can understand the language and the context. All lawyers competent in a particular area of law ought to be able to come to a single basic understanding of a well-written law. dsc in post 121 gives all of the analysis necessary to cause any canon lawyer—be he catholic, protestant, or hindu—to conclude that his post 97 is a correct interpretation, and your post 77 is an incorrect one.
If you have read all of the links in 121 and care to analyze them, I will be happy to entertain arguments to the contrary, but I think a coherent detailed and compelling argument against post 121 is about as likely as some one demonstrating that the gospel of John was originally written in latin—neither would smash my faith, and but I would bet my house against either event.
Internet apologetics is largely thankless, especially on threads like this, because it takes very little effort and space to make an inflamatory statement, but it takes much time to construct something like post 121.
Moreover, as St. Bernard observes, when it comes to the apostolate, “In the end, there are three ways [to evangelize]: words, example, and prayer, and the greatest of these is prayer.” This implies that example is greater than words—and on the internet, example has virtually no place. Indeed, prayer is often largely neglected, in the interest of heaping up vain piles of words—perhaps true words, but vain none the less. How long did it take to put together post 121, and how many people will actually read all of its links? Less than five, I would guess.
It is tempting to spend much time on freerepublic and other forums standing up for the truth, but God has called me to serve him in other ways, like changing diapers, teaching class, marking papers, and splitting wood.
I will pray that you and dsc be given the grace to grow in your grasp of and expression of the truth, and ask that the two of you do the same for me and for each other.
May the Divine Mercy reign upon us all.
And yet you're here. Commenting.
All the Latin legalese in the world does not erase the fact that Crimen Sollicitationis was meant to silence the victims of priest pedophilia and threaten them with excommunication if they went to the police or family members.
And Ratzinger's letter decades later reiterated that threat.
St. Bernard might have better spent his time asking for prayers for the errant priesthood. Moreover.
Actually, by my understanding, they are threatened with excommunication if they do not report itthings off in the confessional to Church authorities. This sounds harsh, but because excommunication only applies if one has some knowledge of the law, it actually ends up compelling those who have knowledge of the law. These technicalities also applied only in the confessional, as they are directed at the sin of the priest violating the nature of this sacrament.
If your interpretation of the law is correct, and the canon lawyers’ interpretation is incorrect, you ought to be able to produce a case of some one who was excommunicated for going to the police on the subject.
You won’t find one, because it has spent most of its history as an obscure document dealing with an obscure portion of canon law. I went to a Catholic seminary that gave one of the most thorough educations in North America, and we never heard of the document or thought to much about the procedure to follow if one encountered some one who had been solicited in the confessional. That something was to be done was taught, and we were taught enough on the subject that we would be able to find the right guidance to offer guidance if the rare event came up—rare events don’t merit much time when there is so much to learn.
If you are really interested in grasping what the Church actually has to say on the subject of sex and the confessional, I would suggest looking at Canons 977, 979, 982, 983, 984, 1387, 1388, and 1390. Canon 1362 also shows that prescription in Latin legalese does not mean what you understood it to mean in your post 77. Here is a link to the code http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
St. Bernard’s example backs up his words, in that he spent far more time in prayer than he did in anything else, and I am sure spent much time praying for the errant priesthood. However, the Saint you really want in this area is St. Peter Damien. May he pray for you. And may you pray for me (and dsc as well—perhaps at least an Our Father for each of us—and I will manage a Glory be for you).
Yadayadayada.
And nothing changes. Children are still sexually abused by pedophile priests who are protected, shuffled from one unsuspecting parish to the next.
The RCC has its song and dance down pat.
However, the Saint you really want in this area is St. Peter Damien.
Damian? His reforms didn't go far enough. And as for "the saint I really want in this area" it would not be a man of the cloth. It would be a cop. Lots of them.
They may be encouraged to report the molestation to "church authorities" but according to Crimen Sollicitationis, the victims are threatened with excommunication if they report the crime to anyone outside the church, like the police or family members or teachers.
What in the Liber Gomorrhianus do you find not going far enough? Were the dealings with the Templars on the issue strong enough for you (such accusations, along with a few others, resulted in burning at the stake)? Of course, such arrangements pre-suppose a different arrangement between Church and state.
In seminary we were pointed to a certain verse which mentions millstones as being appropriate to consider—and the unanimous attitude was in favour of its enforcement. Of course none of my classmates have acted on the verse—that would have made headlines—but you haven’t either.
If you are a trained canon lawyer, it is not difficult to understand, just as a trained electrician has no problems understanding an electrical diagram. If you are an amateur, it may be a little harder.
Tell me—can you find an instance of an excommunication, or a threat of excommunication—being uttered against anyone for reporting sexual abuse outside of the confessional to anyone who is not a Church authority, or to Church authorities before they reached the age of 28? This is what you were stating the law does in your post 77, and it is either true or calumny. By citing sexual abuse generically rather than abuse of the confessional in this response, (post 175) you are continuing to confuse even the terms of the discussion—which makes discussion difficult
I may reply to your other reply (post 176) later—the two ought to be dealt with together but I do not have the time to do so now.
Did you pray for me and dsc? I prayed for you.
What in the Liber Gomorrhianus do you find not going far enough? Were the dealings with the Templars on the issue strong enough for you (such accusations, along with a few others, resulted in burning at the stake)? Of course, such arrangements pre-suppose a different arrangement between Church and state.
In seminary we were pointed to a certain verse which mentions millstones as being appropriate to consider—and the unanimous attitude was in favour of its enforcement. Of course none of my classmates have acted on the verse—that would have made headlines—but you haven’t either.
If you are a trained canon lawyer, it is not difficult to understand, just as a trained electrician has no problems understanding an electrical diagram. If you are an amateur, it may be a little harder.
Tell me—can you find an instance of an excommunication, or a threat of excommunication—being uttered against anyone for reporting sexual abuse outside of the confessional to anyone who is not a Church authority, or to Church authorities before they reached the age of 28? This is what you were stating the law does in your post 77, and it is either true or calumny. By citing sexual abuse generically rather than abuse of the confessional in this response, (post 175) you are continuing to confuse even the terms of the discussion—which makes discussion difficult
I may reply to your other reply (post 176) later—the two ought to be dealt with together but I do not have the time to do so now.
Did you pray for me and dsc? I prayed for you.
Lawyers, just like bureaucracies, make everything more complicated than it is. If a Bishop heard of abuse through confession it's understandable why the Bishop didn't go to the police. It is not understandable why the confessor was not told he must go to the police. It is not understandable why the confessor was not immediately removed from contact with young boys and girls.
This issue will never go away because it so clearly illustrates that defense of your church's reputation is more important than bringing criminals who infiltrated your clergy to justice. The victims should have been the most important concern. It's not that hard to understand.
Thanks for your posts.
Blessings and prayers on this day, Divine Mercy Sunday.
“Once you were no people, but now you are God’s people; once there was no mercy for you, but now you have found mercy.” 1Peter 2:10
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.