Catholic Bishops Resist Calls for Major Changes in Policy Addressing Child Sex Abuse

KansasCity.com ^ | June 16, 2011 | Judy L. Thomas

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops on Thursday resisted calls for major changes in their child sex abuse policy despite recent cases involving priests in Kansas City and Philadelphia.

Critics say those cases raise questions about whether some bishops are even following the policy, which was crafted nine years ago to address the sex abuse crisis that was rocking the church.

The critics reacted swiftly after Thursday’s 187-5 vote, which approved a few revisions, including listing child pornography as a violation of church law.

“We are dismayed that the new policy is almost identical to the current policy, despite horrifying recent evidence in Kansas City and Philadelphia that the church’s current policies are dangerously lenient and full of loopholes,” said Terence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, a group that operates an online database of accused priests.

“The policy needs to be overhauled. This is a squandered opportunity and a disaster for children, not only in the United States but worldwide,” he said.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/16/2955810/catholic-bishops-resist-calls.html#ixzz1PxzrhOa3

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don’t do other peopole’s homework.

If you are capable of reading English, read paragraphs 11 and 13 of CS which I posted.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thankfully, anyone can read CS for themselves, noting words like papal secret and under thread of excommunication.

[Petrosius]

I have read them. I have also read the entire Instruction. I have repeatedly shown how your misrepresentations are false. Show how my reasoning is wrong, if you can. Pretending that I have not answered you and repeating your false statements only shows that you cannot respond.

[Judith Anne]

Oh, really? The cross is at the heart of the OPC? Who have they hung on it lately? Baptists? Lutherans? PCUSA? Methodists? or just more Catholics?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Your confusion over the empty cross of Christ does not surprise me in the least.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It’s in black and white. And yet RC apologists STILL deny the written words.

Astounding. But not surprising. Not anymore.

[Religion Moderator]

Your confusion

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[lastchance]

I’ll type slowly so you can understand. It. Does. No. Such. Thing.

[Petrosius]

Yes, black and white. Read the whole of Crimen sollicitationis and you will see that it is about the investigation, trial and punishment of priests. The provisions about oaths are only within this context. There is nothing preventing reporting crimes to the police. If you can show so explicitly, which you cannot, then do so. Given that this was a secret instruction, the laity would not have even known of the alleged threat.

You cannot show that anyone was ever excommunicated for reporting priest abuse to the police. Nor can you explain how your false claim can be reconciled with numerous provisions requiring reporting to the police. Address these objections to your claim or admit that they provisions of CS concerning secrecy do not actually meant what you claim.

[Judith Anne]

While I understand perfectly well that two wrongs do not make a right, I wish to express that the temptation was strong...

Fortunately, the cross, whether empty or not, reminds us that even for the worst sinners, forgiveness is possible through repentance.

Thank you for your intervention.

[Cronos]

Ansel -- you are correct I’m not sure you guys are doing the Lord’s work to bring up every obscure Christian negative from all over the globe and spread it onto the internet here.

[Sidebar Moderator]

No spamming, please

[Cronos]

ok, noted. thank you