Posted on 06/21/2011 7:24:28 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
And it usually worked, too. Target selection was a bit wonky, though.
I’d say do it in the Vatican, but the Euroweenies probably don’t allow outdoor grilling, either.
Hmmm....the Vatican is a city-state, a country all it’s own. It can probably grill outdoors if it wants to...I may mention your idea at my next meeting of the Secret Mary Society.
For the 110th time that I have corrected you on this:
1) Crimen Sollicitationis is about the crime of solicitation within the confessional, not about the abuse of minors per se;
2) the secrecy demanded is only about the investigation, no different than that involved in a grand jury investigation. Nothing in Crimen Sollicitationis forbids the reporting of the crime of abuse, rather than the Church investigation, to the police. This call for secrecy during the investigation is particularly important given the strict seal on Confessions;
3) victims are explicitly exempted from the threat of excommunication;
4) those found guilty solicitation within Confession are subject to the most severe penalties including dismissal from the clerical state;
5) abuse that occurred outside of Confession do not even come under the provisions of Crimen Sollicitationis.
But of course you knew all this because I have corrected you on many occasions before.
Very true indeed.
Excellent points.
The RCC has no one to blame but themselves for the mess they’re in. The perpetrated it and they protected it.
Payback sucks, doesn’t it?
Galatians 6:7-9
7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.
According to Rome's Crimen Sollicitationis, all parties — victims, families, teachers, everyone — are sworn to absolute secrecy upon threat of excommunication. The “problem” is handled in-house and usually dismissed.
ROFLMAO.................atta gurrrl!!
Like a comedian who tells the same old jokes, night after night, after night, you need some new material.
The gig is up, Doc. These whoppers are getting really old.
You're right about one thing, though. It is simple.
For the lurkers..........
Crimen Sollicitationis does not apply outside the confessional, i.e. to the vast majority of abuse cases.
Ignore the shillette that posts this shtick.........
“1) Crimen Sollicitationis is about the crime of solicitation within the confessional, not about the abuse of minors per se;”
That’s not necessarily true. Title Five, “Crimen Passimum”, Sections 71-74 of the “INSTRUCTION, On the Manner of Proceeding in Causes involving the Crime of Solicitation” deals with acts of homosexuality, bestiality and sexual acts perpetrated or attempted in any way with pre-adolescent children of either sex. These acts are outside of the confessional, however the rules of “Crimen Sollicitationis” still apply including;
“13. The oath to maintain confidentiality must always be taken in these causes, also by the accusers or complainants and the witnesses. These persons, however, are subject to no censure, unless they were expressly warned of this in the proceedings of accusation, deposition or questioning.”
I've wondered about this and the only explanation that seems plausible to me is this inaction happens because this is a feminized culture that neuters masculinity.
I will admit the correction on point one but the rest stands. As you have stated, no. 13 explicitly states accusers, complainants and witnesses are not subject to censure. The secrecy is to guard the sensitive nature of the investigation. There is nothing nefarious here. The victims have always been free to go to the police to report the crime. To continually misrepresent this as some sort of conspiracy to cover-up these crimes is a most foul and gave form of false witness.
The oath that the accuser takes is the “secret of the Holy Office”. What is that and does a breach of the oath carry with it excommunication as a penalty?
Since burning flesh smells so much like burning pork I imagine the Muzzies would have conniptions as well.
If you look at the procedure as being more along the lines of a Grand Jury investigation than a trial you will understand it better and find it much less nefarious.
In any case, all this concerns only the knowledge of the investigation, not of the crime. Those involved with a criminal grand jury are under the same requirement for secrecy. Thus, there too, a witness could not reveal what he said to the grand jury but this does not stop him from making a public complaint about what the crime he witness. The secrecy only applies to his testimony.
“Thus, there too, a witness could not reveal what he said to the grand jury but this does not stop him from making a public complaint about what the crime he witness. The secrecy only applies to his testimony”
I’m sorry but that just doesn’t make sense. If one testifies about the facts of the commission of a crime before a Grand Jury they can’t then publically state the same facts to any one else until released from his oath.
It would seem that if the accuser in the “Crimen Passimum”, situation first goes before the church with the complaint he would be bound by the oath of the “secret of the Holy Office” not to divulge the facts of the complaint to any one else under penalty of excommunication since he has first divulged the facts to the church. The exception in the code is they are not under censure “unless they were expressly warned of this in the proceedings of accusation......”.
But it stands to reason that the penalty would be read when the oath is administered.
If the accuser first goes through criminal justice system, then the confidentiality of the oath in the church’s investigation is meaningless since the accusation is public knowledge.
From the Federal Grand Jury Manual:
What Is Covered By Rule 6(e)It is only testimony before the grand jury that is covered. The same rule would apply to testimony before a church tribunal.Rule 6(e) prohibits the disclosure of any information that would reveal "matters occurring before the grand jury." Rule 6(e) does not cover all information developed during the course of a grand jury investigation; only information that would reveal the strategy or direction of the investigation, the nature of the evidence produced before the grand jury, the views expressed by members of the grand jury, or anything else that actually occurred before the grand jury. Rule 6(e) does not apply to material obtained or created independently of the grand jury as long as the disclosure of such material does not reveal what transpired before or at the direction of the grand jury. Rule 6(e) also does not apply to information that has become a matter of public record, for example, by its introduction at trial.
Thanks for keeping them honest, B-D.
They seem to think everyone buys their double-speak.
All parties must take the papal oath of secrecy upon threat of excommunication - the victims, the victims’ parents, teachers, and clergy.
Where is law enforcement in all this? Nowhere.
No secrecy for the original crimes.
Such a hard distinction to understand.
************************************************************
Evidence, if it be very plain, may be accepted by the educated person, but the convert will quickly be brought back by his unconscious self to his original conceptions. See him again after the lapse of a few days and he will put forward afresh his old argument in exactly the same terms. He is in reality under the influence of anterior ideas, that have become sentiments, and it is such ideas alone that influence the more recondite motives of our acts and utterances. It cannot be otherwise in the case of crowds. - Mob Psychologist Gustave La Bon, as cited in Ann Coulters' Demonic
One would think. But then again, look at some of these and other posts by RC here on this site when these articles appear. The defense of the Church is far more important then the defense of their children.
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.