Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy

Boston Herald.com ^ | Wednesday, July 30, 2003 | Robin Washington

[Land of the Irish]

A Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII outlined a 1962 Vatican procedure for shielding sexually abusive priests, two lawyers for plaintiffs in cases against the church maintain.

The ``Crimine Solicitationis,'' translated as ``Instructions on proceeding in cases of solicitation,'' states abuse cases are subject to the ``papal secret'' and threatens excommunication against victims who do not come forward within 30 days, according to the document given to authorities by Carmen Durso of Boston and Daniel J. Shea of Houston.

On Monday, Durso presented an English translation to U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan.

``We gave it to the U.S. Attorney because we wanted him to understand what we mean when we say this has been an ongoing conspiracy,'' he said.

Added Shea, ``It's an instruction manual for a rigged trial for a priest accused of sexual crimes, including crimes against children.''

The document, which Shea said he had been trying to uncover for more than a year and recently received from canon lawyer the Rev. Thomas Doyle, allows victims one month to make their claim known to the supervising bishop.

``The penitent must denounce the accused priest . . . within a month to the (bishop) . . . and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, warn the penitent of this duty,'' the document states.

``The confessor is the accused priest,'' Shea said.

``They're giving the priest the responsibility to tell his victim that the victim has to turn the priest in to the bishop within 30 days. If not, the victim is automatically excommunicated,'' he said, citing another passage.

A Boston Archdiocese spokesman could not be reached for comment and the Herald could not verify yesterday if the document was indeed genuine.

But both lawyers said they believed the Latin original to be authentic.

[Land of the Irish]

Bishops like O'Malley take their cues from the Holy Father, who denies the Eucharist to no Catholic.

Or even non-Catholics,e.g. Tony Blair.

[narses]

So the Church BEFORE V2 was NOT Catholic?

[sinkspur]

Whadda ya know! A real, live GANG!

[Thorondir]

You hit the nail on the head, my friend. Man! There have been so many poignant posts on this thread. That post #73 is something to keep for the archives.

Keep up the good fight, sir.

[sinkspur]

So the Church BEFORE V2 was NOT Catholic?

It was Catholic.

[Antoninus]

I also see that he went to seminary in Louvain, Belgium, but left after being ordained a Deacon.

That wouldn't be the American College at Louvain, would it? If so, it's the same school that Michael Rose exposed as a homosexual haven that chased out "rigid" orthodox seminarians in Goodbye, Good Men. Furthermore, New Oxford Review has done some yeoman work exposing them of late.

[Antoninus]

During my career in Catholic higher education, I noticed a common pattern. Liberals would usually set up these false dichotomies. The choice was usually framed as between the most ludicrously stereotyped version of clericalist, authoritarian, guilt-ridden Jansenist dogmatism (an absurd parody of anti-Catholic Protestant and liberal atheist notions of Catholicism)or the most extreme version of secularized, multiculturalist, relativism (conveniently posed in idealistic terms as "pluralism"). In most cases, "pluralism" meant the standard the anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-male liberalism that we all know so well.

Your posts are particularly brilliant tonight. Well done!

[Thorondir]

"Declared" was, perhaps, the wrong word. I'm sorry. But they are in full union with the Vicar of Christ, you say? I have serious doubts however much I love and respect you.

[Thorondir]

WOW! Group name calling now. You are moving up. How very progressive, Ultra-Lib and modernist.

[narses]

Your implication Deacon is that the "NEW" Church bears the Mark of "The Nazarene" and that what preceeded did not.

In its externals, yes it does.

Did the pre-V2 Church also "bears the Mark of The Nazarene"?

[Antoninus]

To me, an "anti-Catholic bigot" can change, if I treat him as Christ would.

Christ wouldn't stand by while his Bride was insulted by ignorant men. You're casting your pearls before swine--assuming you have any pearls left at this point. And even if you were being honest and truly trying to "change" PFKEY, how does agreeing with him on the Church being culpable further that cause? Sounds to me like he's changing you.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Very funny, Deacon Sinkspur. I worked too long near the belly of the beast to entrust my life and livelihood to an AmChurch bishop. You know darn well (were I a member of the clergy) I would be silenced and subjected to intimidation and punitive threats like the few brave priests who have dared to take on these creeps.

My post did not mention O'Malley, btw. But Kerry and Kennedy are not Catholics having committed themselves to the organized slaughter of the unborn. Public support of the unholy is grave and merits penalties. We don't need wusses occupying chairs of the Roman episcopate.

I'll take your recommendation for holy orders fraternally "in the Spirit of Vatican II" as an innovative but imprudent suggestion. Let's remember to add more authentically Catholic education for deacons.

[narses]

Well done HMBA. So Deacon, what would you reply to this post?

[sinkspur]

Did the pre-V2 Church also "bears the Mark of The Nazarene"?

In its teaching, yes. In its externals, no, unless you can find in the Gospels where Jesus wore gold.

[narses]

Changed? No, that is precisely how he and Steven Hand greeted my first post here. And many since.

[sinkspur]

Christ wouldn't stand by while his Bride was insulted by ignorant men.

Really? Jesus dealt with unenlightened men all the time without heaping contempt on them.

He saved His contempt for those who thought they WERE enlightened.

And, He did, indeed, stand by while ignorant men insulted Him.

[Antoninus]

Your implication Deacon is that the "NEW" Church bears the Mark of "The Nazarene" and that what preceeded did not.

You didn't answer the last part of this question. You didn't even approach it, actually, so I'll ask it again:

Did what preceeded Vatican II "bear the Mark of the Nazarene" or not? If not, when did it "lose the Mark" in your learned opinion?

[Thorondir]

?

[sinkspur]

Did what preceeded Vatican II "bear the Mark of the Nazarene" or not?

In its externals, no (IMO). But, you're welcome to think differently.

[Thorondir]

The rebukes of a devil are a good man's praise, my friend.