The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:Thus priest abuse is included among what the church considers the most serious of crimes. It is precisely because of its seriousness, and admittedly because Rome was dissatisfied with the way the bishops were handling the cases, that it is so included. Look again at the list of other crimes. Unless you would want to us to believe that the church also wanted to cover-up these crimes you cannot have us believe that is why abuse by priest is included. No, Rome wanted this to be treated with more seriousness.
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.
Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
There follows the next section:
As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal.Did you get that, the case is to be referred to a TRIBUNAL, i.e. to a court. This is a place of judgment. Indeed, the next sentence reads:
The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party's legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.Thus the purpose of this procedure is to ascertain guilt or innocence and to apply a penalty to the guilty, not to cover-up a crime. This is made clear in the following section:
All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and PENALTIES, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.I can't make you read Ratzinger's letter or Crimen Sollicitationis. I've given you both in POST 27.
I suggest that it is you who should read Crimen sollicitationis. There you will find the following paragraph under TITLE NUMBER THREE: PENALTIES:
61. "He who has committed the crime of solicitation (note: again I will point out that Crimen solliciationis is only concerned with solicitation with Confession. These acts outside of Confession are not covered. At the time these were covered by the ordinary processes.) …, should be suspended from the celebration of the Mass and from the hearing of sacramental confessions or even, according to the gravity of the delict, should be declared incapable of accepting them. He should be deprived of all benefices and dignities, of his active and passive voice, and be declared incapable of all these [honors and capacities], and in the more grievous cases ALSO BE SUBJECT TO REDUCTION [TO THE LAY STATE]. Thus states the Code in Canon 2368, § 1.Ratzinger's own letter and Rome's own discourse on keeping pederast priests on the job and away from the prying eyes of parents and police.
Please show that if you can. The pontifical secret to which you constantly refer only applies to the internal canonical investigation. Nothing in Canon Law or the documents that you have presented ever prevented a victim or his family from going to the police.
That is not what the document says. It's what RC apologists say who hope to take the heat off of Rome's ungodly defense of the indefensible.
Read paragraph 13 of Crimen Sollicitationis...
"13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses. To none of these, however, is there subjection to a censure, unless by chance toward these same persons some censure has been expressly threatened upon the person himself, for his accusation, his deposition or of his violation (Excussionis?) [of such] by act. The accused, however, should be most seriously warned that even he, with all [the others], especially when he observes the secret with his defender, is under the penalty of suspension a divinis in case of a transgression to be incurred ipso facto. "
Rome swears to secrecy, under penalty of excommunication, even the accuser and anyone else involved with the proceedings, including parents.
The more light shown on Rome, the more rancid its lies become.
Rome reaps what it has sown.
Christopher Hitchens is wrong about everything regarding Christianity except one thing - Ratzinger belongs in jail.