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.

[PFKEY]

I not asking about infalliblity to begin a debate on its merits. I ask because I'm curious if VaticanII is binding.

[ultima ratio]

Vatican II was not a dogmatic council and taught nothing that is binding--other than what had already been defined as binding by earlier popes and councils.

[ultima ratio]

Ex cathedra means "from the Chair [of Peter]". No recent pope has spoken ex cathedra.

[PFKEY]

Is it safe to say that VaticanII is not binding then?

Does the Chair of Peter mean the Bishop of Rome?

[PFKEY]

Sorry I didn't see post 41.

[PFKEY]

42 I mean.

[ultima ratio]

Yes, the Chair of Peter means the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.

[PFKEY]

There seems to be so much controvery surrounding VaticanII. Are there churches that function under VI and others that function under VII?

Is it possible to find one or the other depending on one's preference?

[maryz]

I'll be back to read this thread later, but NYer had posted a link to the article on an earlier thread, which like spurred some discussion. If anyone's interested:

Look for post #20 (sorry -- I forget how to link to a specific post).

[Saint Athanasius]

You have to remember PFKEY Ultimate is a traditionalist SPXXer...

And I mean no slander towards Ultimate...

But he has different take on Vatican II... He thinks the Pope is wrong and has been wrong from Vatican II until now...

Vatican II was a binding council on all Catholics...

Ultimate doesn't like Vatican II, so he refuses to follow it like a lot of Traditionalist here on FR.

Ultimate goes to SSPXer mass that is in schism with the Church...

He will deny this, but it is true ... but you don't have take my word for it, I can send you some articles...

But I am not sure if you want to get into Catholic Church debates.

[Polycarp]

your gig is carrying your banner into battle, against homosexuals, against those who use contraceptives, against your "enemies" like Stephen Hand

My "gig" is not against homosexuals but the homosexual agenda. My "gig" is not against those who contracept but against the Culture of Death contraceptive mentality. There is a big difference, and to misrepresent what I do otherwise is slander.

I have no "enemies," not even Stephen Hand. I too work with people on a personal level, and after extensive charitable communications Steve Hand and I have hashed out our differences, resolved mutual misunderstandings, and have resumed cooperation in the battle for the Culture of Life. That would never have happened if the caricature of me that you paint were true.

I don't think little of you, Sink, I think a lot of you. If I thought little of you I wouldn't bother.

And my point about CP/OPH is still true: being a victim confers no rights on a person to in turn victimize others.

And I'm not inviting him to "pile-on." He needs to understand the history of this whole sordid business.

There is no proof that this document even exists, and if it does that this interpretation of it is correct.

Pinging him to this article, which will likely be shot down on further investigation, does nothing to help him heal or understand. I stand by my criticism.

[dsc]

"Ultimate goes to SSPXer mass that is in schism with the Church..."

If it's in schism, how come the Vatican says that SSPX masses satisfy the requirement to attend mass on Sunday?

[choirboy]

How many things don't add up here?

I just did a Google search on Crimine Solicitationis and nothing showed up. If this document really exists, I would expect that there would be a reference to it.

Since they made this public, the attorneys have a moral obligation to support its authenticity.

[sockmonkey]

Found this interesting read on Fr. Thomas Doyle:
http://praiseofglory.com/doyleabused.htm
Also, did a net search on Shea. I see that he has represented some victims of clergy sexual abuse for a fee of $1.00. I also see that he went to seminary in Louvain, Belgium, but left after being ordained a Deacon.

[sockmonkey]

OOPs, should read by Thomas Doyle.

[Onelifetogive]

More proof that satan is the foundation of this nefarious institution?

Apparently you didn't see Satan's press conference last week. He admitted that he was behind Hitler, Stalin, and Charles Manson; but he said that those pedophile priests are REALLY sick, and he didn't want anything to to do with those freaks.

[Saint Athanasius]

Because the Pope is a loving Pope, and wants his flock to come back to him... and he is trying to make restoration as easy as possible.

[SoothingDave]

Also, attendence at a SSPX Mass is only acceptable if the person is doing so for the Liturgy only and does not intend to seperate himself from the Pope. The way the Pope is regarded by the ardent SSPXers here, I can't say that is the case.

SD

[Saint Athanasius]

ditto on that!

[maryz]

I think you're remembering wrong. I posted this elsewhere, but it's relevant here (I added the year count and the averages):

The Boston Herald (7/24?) ran a summary of the Attorney General's report on the Archdiocese of Boston. According to archdiocesan records, instances of abuse reported were:

1940-1959 (20 years) – 24 (a bit over one per year)
1960-1969 (10 years) – 163 (over 16 per year)
1970-1979 (10 years) – 282 (almost 30 per year)
1980-1984 (5 years) --- 107 (over 21 per year)
1984-1992 (9 years) --- 86 (between 9 and 10 per year)
1993-2000 (8 years) --- 33 (a bit over 8 per year)

No date (whatever that means) -- 94 I don't know why the Herald broke out the years the way they did (except that I think Law started in 1984).