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]

Bump

[Land of the Irish]

You drop the marble (the spherical tabernacle) in the spiral on the top left and it finally rolls out from the bottom right of the monstrosity.

[dsc]

"LOL!! How will I be able to tell the difference?"

Well, perhaps instead of restraining themselves to calling you a servant of Satan, people will cut loose and tell you what they *really* think.

For instance, somebody might opine that a deacon who pimps for a married clergy should rightly be hanging upside down in a dungeon over a slow fire.

[Thorondir]

How about a dEAcoN who pimps for everything modernist, anti-traditional, homosexual, liberal and arrogant?

[Seafarer 1]

I want to suggest that you take a more measured look at your claim. The issue is not whether this horrible contagion existed prior to 1965 -- it is whether it then existed in epidemic proportions. The Church is reflective of the rest of Society, and using logic (in the absence of data -- for we do not have any data to support your claim), it is reasonable to conclude that child abuse by the clergy prior to the mid-60s was far more infrequent than after then. This is likely to be the case because there were more restraints expected of people on their passions.

What happened in the 60s? I've heard lectures by the man who ought to know: William Coulson. He is now a repentent Catholic and an authority on the breakdown of morals that occurred in the 60s as people harkened to the "new" philosophy of Carl Rogers, called Rogerianism, that Coulson and Abraham Maslow were preaching. That called for people to "do their own thing" (they called it self actualization, or self empowerment), and it immediately helped to spark the sexual revolution -- also fueled by other forces/factors, including gullible people giving credence to the absurd Kinsey Report.

Hence, I suggest that we stop thinking that the crisis we face today was just somehow underreported in times past. Yes, these things were underreported in times past -- one of the prices paid for the strong reverence people held for the clergy then. These terrors afflicted young people throughout all times since we were exiled from Eden -- why else would Christ make His millstone statement, if abuse of children was not a condition of fallen Man? But I think it is clear that we can trace the CURRENT epidemic to the 60s free love mentality -- again, the child of Rogerianism -- and it afflicted the clergy at that time terribly.

I recommend obtaining William Coulson's audiotape (it used to be available from Human Life International) -- he really puts this into perspective! One interesting sidebar he pointed out: as Rogerianism started catching on, priests and nuns were not the only predators on the rise -- psychiatrists started being arrested left and right for seducing their patients. It was professionals to whom people turned when in trouble who started using their position to exploit those depending on them. A very nasty turn of events -- and I think it really was a TURN of events, not a continuation of things. Society did change, and for the worse.

That's my reading on it, anyway -- God bless.

[sinkspur]

For instance, somebody might opine that a deacon who pimps for a married clergy should rightly be hanging upside down in a dungeon over a slow fire.

Tell me that's not the best you can do.

[dsc]

Oh, I'm not looking to get banned.

[Antoninus]

It would be naive to believe that abuse was the result of 2nd Vatican Council. It is simply more visible statistically, from that standpoint in time.

From what I've seen, no one is making that claim. The claim that we *are* making, is that sexual abuse was nowhere near as prevalent before 1960 as it was after. And the statistics do support this. Let's re-arrange them so they're a little more "honest."

1940-1959 (20 years) – 24
1960-1979 (20 years) – 445
1980-2000 (20 years) - 226

Even taking into account intangibles like fear of reporting, death of victims and abusers, etc. do you honestly think that this explains a 2000% increase? I don't.

Personally, I think the 1940s and 50s numbers are low, but not by a factor of 20. Based on what I've read, heard, and seen, I think there was most definitely a major increase in abusive priests after 1960 and that this increase was caused by a combination of factors:

1.) The "sexual revolution" of the 1960s.
2.) Increased infiltration of the Church by communist/homosexual priests during the 1940s & 1950s.
3.) Weakening of traditional Church disciplines by the improperly interpreted "Spirit of Vatican II."

Vatican II is only at fault in that its dictates were improperly used to replace traditional ways of dealing with wayward priests with "psychology" and other worldly mechanisms. I would forcefully debate any suggestion that pederasty is endemic to the celibate Catholic priesthood, as some advocates for abolishing celibacy have indicated in the past. Indeed, that's the true source of this false claim that homosexuality and pederasty were just as prevalent before the 1960s.

[PFKEY]

You just blasphemed Jesus Christ who founded this institution and the Holy Spirit who leads this institution of imperfect men.

Blaphemy:
the act of claiming the attributes of deity

Vicar of Christ (a.k.a. Pope):
one serving as a substitute of Christ.

[PFKEY]

I ask, do the concepts expressed in Matthew 23 apply only to those of Jesus time?

If we answer yes, then the same can be said for all scripture.

If we answer no, then can we draw any parellels and applications to todays denominations?

Matt.23
[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
[4] For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
[5] But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
[6] And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
[7] And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
[8] But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
[9] And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
[10] Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
[11] But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
[12] And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

[Land of the Irish]

which will likely be shot down on further investigation

Any more comments on veracity?

ON THE MANNER OF PROCEEDING IN THE CASE OF SOLICITATION

[saradippity]

Is that article you linked with an incredibly slow load? I have tried to get on through NY'er's link from another thread and now yours and it gets to 38% and stops. I am wondering if they found out it was fabricated or forged,that's probaably wishful thinking,but,any thoughts?

[TotusTuus]

Read through the first part of the document. It seems that it is specifically dealing with solicitation during, or immediately before or after, the Sacrament of Penance, i.e. Confession. In other words, it is NOT dealing in a general way with all sexual abuse by priests. Just the particular situation of a confessor soliciting from a penintent during the sacrament, which we all know involves a seal of secrecy.

I don't find this document shocking. Whether it is authentic or not, I don't see how it can or will be helpful to those who wish to use it against the Church in a court of law. Well, other than to misrepresent it to try and smear the Church in the secular press, but other than that, this is no big deal.

[TotusTuus]

Vicar of Christ (a.k.a. Pope):

"Vicar" means representative, as in representative of Christ.
"Pope" is a title which means father, as in a spiritual father.

one serving as a substitute of Christ.

Where on earth did this definition come from???

[Land of the Irish]

It seems that it is specifically dealing with solicitation during, or immediately before or after, the Sacrament of Penance, i.e. Confession.

May I suggest you read the rest of the document? Specifically:

"73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)."

[Land of the Irish]

Is that article you linked with an incredibly slow load?

It is a slow load; a .pdf file that is about 1 MB. I apologize for not posting a warning. The link I posted is from the Roman Catholic Faithful website. I don't know if you'll have any better luck downloading it from there.

[TotusTuus]

There is something about this in the new canon law, but it only applies to penitents confessing under the 6th and 9th commandments and within the sacrament of confession.

BINGO! It only took 8 posts for an intelligent reply by someone who doesn't necessarily treat The Boston Herald.com as an authoritative source. Actually it is about solicitation by a confessor during the Sacrament with a penitent.

See LoI's post 271 which links to the actual document being discussed. Durso and Shea are misrepresenting it. I think they are doing so on purpose. The hysterics on this thread show why.

[TotusTuus]

See 'Land of Irish's post 271 with a link to the actual document under discussion and my subsequent replies.

[Aliska]

Actually it is about solicitation by a confessor during the Sacrament with a penitent.

I knew that and that it only concerned the 6th and 9th commandments, and I don't know if the document makes that part clear or not. It does refer to the appropriate citations in canon law.

I didn't take the Boston Herald as gospel, but I was interested in what the document actually said when it showed up on the net because some of us had searched for it last week and came up with nothing.

[TotusTuus]

Calm down already!

'Aliska' will give you the clue in the next post. Then link to the document in post 271. Read my subsequent replies. Durso and Shea have taken you, and others, in. That was their whole point with this escapade. Legally, the document, whether authentic or not, is worthless to them.