Posted on 01/18/2011 9:23:23 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
DUBLIN -- A 1997 letter from the Vatican warned Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police - a disclosure that victims' groups described as "the smoking gun" needed to show that the church enforced a worldwide culture of covering up crimes by pedophile priests.
The newly revealed letter, obtained by Irish broadcasters RTE and provided to The Associated Press, documents the Vatican's rejection of a 1996 Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify pedophile priests following Ireland's first wave of publicly disclosed lawsuits...
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
Both of you have wandered off into the weeds.
An excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic, but a very bad one who can't practice any element of his faith until he formally, explicitly (sometimes even in writing), repents to a church authority with faculties to forgive the offense in question. (Which authority depends on the offense.)
Neither the Pope nor any other human can undo a valid baptism, since it's Christ through the Holy Spirit who baptizes.
The whole question of "was Hitler excommunicated" or "why didn't the church excommunicate Hitler" is a silly one. Hitler was perhaps juridically* a Catholic, but certainly not a Catholic communicant after 1918. Denying him privileges he didn't exercise (and of which he was completely contemptuous) is a meaningless and futile gesture. And canon law automatically took care of that gesture anyway through his acts of murder against priests and religious.
Moreover, an excommunication is meant to spur someone to repentance. Do you think it would have worked in Hitler's case? I certainly don't, and I see no evidence from any aspect of his career that would lead me to believe otherwise.
*Someone who has "defected from the faith by a formal act," e.g., by professing another religion -- Hitler described himself as a "pure heathen" at one point -- is excused from various aspects of canon law which bind only Catholics. However, it's a stretch to say that even they "aren't Catholics anymore," because they can typically return to the faith simply by repentance and confession. As I say, there's no way to unbaptize someone.
It’s still excuses.
The church should have taken the action.
I know Protestant denominations who have removed people from membership rolls as an official act and statement by the church that they will not tolerate that kind of sin in their congregation, even when the people tried to beat them to the punch and asked to be removed.
They felt that the fact that the person asked to be removed in anticipation of the official action of the church was irrelevant and they did it anyway, so that people knew where they stood.
It leaves NO doubt about where the leadership of the church stands on the issue, unlike the situation we have here with the RCC where who knows what is going on with the Vatican’s position on homosexual and pedophile priests.
It sends the message that they really don’t care and that all they’re doing is looking out for their best interests.
The Catholic church should have taken a stand and made it official with Hitler. Presuming that the action would not have made any difference is showing that they know what’s in the heart and mind of the person and nobody can know that.
The Catholic response to not taking action is that of giving the sinner time to repent. However, here they decided without knowing the heart and mind of Hitler, that he was beyond repentance. What a gutsy assumption to make.
Not that I think he would have changed, but Saul was converted.
It would do the RCC a lot of good to be consistent in how it applies its policies. They would save themselves a lot of trouble, trouble they bring on themselves.
Oh look a bunny.
The copy I read was on the Globe and Mail. But I forget how I got to the link in the first place.
We don't operate that way, and I'm glad we don't operate that way. "They will not tolerate that kind of sin in their congregation" smacks of every kind Pharisaism and casting the first stone. I'm sure it makes everyone whose sin *is* tolerated feel really good about themselves.
the RCC where who knows what is going on with the Vatican’s position on homosexual and pedophile priests.
Anyone who reads the catechism knows where we stand on that.
The Catholic church should have taken a stand and made it official with Hitler.
It was already "official". Latae sententiae excommunication is as official as it gets.
Presuming that the action would not have made any difference is showing that they know what’s in the heart and mind of the person and nobody can know that.
If Hitler wanted to repent, he knew where and how to do it. Why, btw, is expelling someone because you "won't tolerate their sin in your congregation" not declaring that you know what's in their heart and mind?
Amen!
Wow. So our reaction to pederasty among priests is the "pure evil" around here? Stunning.
The letter reaffirms Crimen Solicitationis which orders RCC officials NOT to go to the police if sexual abuse by a priest has been reported to them.
Is that how you want public schools to handle the possible sexual abuse of your children? A child goes to his teacher and says his gym teacher has molested him and you don't think that teacher should go to the police with that information?
The RCC is pathetic. It has been caught red-handed covering up the despicable sins of its priestcraft, yet deluded RC apologists STILL declare Rome is correct to keep this sexual abuse hidden.
Like mold, what you simply cover up, you get more of. No wonder people are leaving the Roman Catholic church in droves.
Wake up and protect your children.
When I lived in Ny I have even voted for the same conservative candidate for what we believe to be the greater good.
Christ taught us about the wheat with the tare. Also the the goat with the lamb in the church with the weeding out of the good from the bad in the Gospels.
But when you state this: "No way I’d lend any support to an organization that behaves like this. That would make me complicit by showing my approval and agreement and support of those actions."
Life is more complicated than your simple statement. As you know nowhere does the Catechism advocates abuse or murder.
Yet you put your self into a so called higher moral ground about people who atttend a church where some do the opposite of what the church stands for in life and eternity. But the same token of thinking can be we are part of an organization that condones wholesale murder everday with documents in this the Roe vs Wade Government we live in today. You do pay taxes. You are a citizen of this government. As such with this higher moral ground do you stop paying your taxes and move from this country by this standard("make me complicit by showing my approval and agreement and support of those actions.")
It's one thing not to be Catholic but to go on with So called higher moral ground to attack a whole Church because of a few people which is not what the church stands.
Life is more complicated than this simplistic statement.
May 2 Peter 3:18 to you!
Praise Jesus!
No, it’s a squirrel.
I totally agree that the report about bishops facing repurcussions was a distortion of the letter. It does seem likely the media is adding more to the letter than what is there. The only part of the letter that warrants careful examination, IMO, is the instruction against mandatory reporting to civil authorities. I agree that the letter does not say to never report to civil authorities or to remain silent. However, I still can’t quite grasp what was so wrong about the Irish bishops policy of mandatory reporting.
It seems like the local Irish position was too be very cautious and involve the police in every potential case. What is so bad about that? To me, that seems like a prudent position. Let the civil authorities, who are trained detectives, determine if anyone wrongdoing actually occurred. By notifying the police, it wouldn’t automatically mean that priests would be arrested and tried in a court of law. Instead, it would just open an official investigation. If the police determine there was no crime, then noone would be arrested, so embarassment would be minimal.
It does seem like the Church is too concerned about appearances and avoiding bad publicity. While, this certainly isn’t a smoking gun, it does give the impression to skeptics that the Church wasn’t as serious as it should have been in protecting victims.
Martin Luther
Why not post it as a thread, and add your own commentary to it?
But I thought the Catholic church claimed to follow the Bible and that Paul's theology was their theology.
1 Corinthians 5 1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."
(((GASP)))
"Report the priest to the police."
We can't have that, can we? Better to ignore our "subjective" suspicions, deny the victim's accusations, protect the priest at all cost, gather the wagons around the dissolute church and continue to trash those who dare to object.
Just what constitutes "suspicion" to Rome?
If and when a child comes to his parents with a complaint of sexual abuse who then go to a church official and say "Our child was molested by a priest," that "suspicion" should trigger a police investigation.
But not in Rome. Rome "handles" the accusation with secrecy and cover-ups and years of hiding and destroying evidence and shuffling guilty priests from one unsuspecting parish to the next.
The more RC apologists defend this criminal behavior, the more Rome is revealed to be a "den of dragons."
"Behold, the noise of the bruit is come..."
Thank you Brother. Nothing like getting up reading about this evil and wanting to punch some jerk in the nose.
What absolutely astounds me about this is the post from Alex that notes the 1922 instruction on this "problem". 88 years later and they still can't get it right. How hard is it to do the right thing, turn the evil bums over to the police and throw them out on the street.
Why anyone who reads a Bible would even go near this church is beyond me. All those who have the courage to overcome the systematic conditioning of dependence that this church is built on deserve our respect.
lol.
Q. What do you call a RCC pederast priest?
A. Father.
Q. What do you call a Protestant pederast minister?
A. Inmate.
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.