Vatican orders secret trials of sex priests

Irish Independent ^ | January 9, 2002 | Richard Owen and Nicola Anderson

[Happygal]

THE Vatican wants priests accused of paedophile behaviour to be tried behind closed doors in an ecclesiastical court.

It has issued new rules ordering Catholic church officials to inform it swiftly of any such accusations so that Rome can decide how they should be handled. The guidelines insist all cases should be subject to secrecy.

The rules, promoted by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, were approved by Pope John Paul II.

While the Vatican's press office often publicises documents, these rules, written in Latin and prepared several months ago, were quietly published in the Holy See's official gazette.

The guidelines contain no formal provision for referring suspects to the police, suggesting that the Church might prefer to deal with the problem through secret internal procedures.

But a spokesperson for the Irish Catholic bishops said the new rules would not stop them reporting such crimes to the gardai.

Paul Bailey, Director of the Child Protection Office of the Irish Bishops Conference, said they were obliged to report any suspicion of paedophilia to the statutory authorities under the guidelines of the Conference, issued in 1996. "As far as I know, the guidelines in other countries are similar," Mr Bailey added.

He said he had been unaware of the new documents until contacted by reporters yesterday and was unable to comment on the Vatican document until he has seen it first hand.

The rules, issued to Roman Catholic bishops by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, instruct bishops and heads of religious orders to open an investigation at a mere hint of paedophile behaviour by a priest within their jurisdiction, and to put the offender on trial behind closed doors in an ecclesiastical court if there is sufficient evidence.

Paedophilia is classed as a grave offence by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and those found guilty can be excommunicated.

[Wolfie]

I would also add that the Church's rather checkered past in this regard is precisely why somebody else should be doing the investigating.

[Stingray51]

A lot of people on this thread are totally missing the point. The obvious purpose of this new rule is to take the responsibility for stopping pedophile priests out of the hands of the bishops who have proven incapable (or in some cases, perhaps many cases) unwilling to do so. (Last week, the Boston Globe had a two-part series on Cardlinal Law's disgusting and indefensible failures in that regard.)

As far as I've read, there is absolutely nothing in this directive that has anything to do with reporting such offenses to the civil authorities, which is exactly what bishops are supposed to be doing and, in many countries, are required by law to do. This is actually a very positive development for getting rid of pervert priests. Just as Rome routinely reverses scandalous "Catholic divorces" issued by American tribunals, so too can it be expected to take a much harder line on this issue.

[patent]

>>>So, using your test, we need to be absolutely sure that the priest has no sin before we can be sure if the sacrament is valid. Or we can realize, correctly, that the state of the man performing the Mass does not affect its efficaciousness.

Similarly a sinful Protestant pastor reading the Bible to his flock does not affect the truth or efficaciousness present in the Bible. The Bible is not effective because of the pastor. It is effective because it is God's Word, God is the actor, He is the one who wrote it, He is the source of its authority and power. No sinful man can change that. Similarly, a sacrament is not done by the priest, like the pastor he is merely the human instrament. Rather, the Sacrament is perfected by Christ, and no matter how sinful the priest is, he cannot corrupt Christ's power.

He is truly unworthy of the sacraments though, as noted.

patent

[arepublicifyoucankeepit]

I became interested in this issue because there was a local priest here in Maine running a homosexual chat room (for priests) called Sebastian's Angels. A real priest went in undercover and exposed the pornographic web site. The story was available at Roman Catholic Faithful (www.rcf.org), which is a whistle-blower organization of sincere catholics who want the perversion out of the church.

So far, here in the states, the solution to pedophile and pervert priests has been to move them to a remote diocese where they are not known. Thereby supplying them with fresh victims. The problem of homo-priests is a very big one, there is also a lot of priests dying of AIDS. I believe there is lots of homosexuality at the top, covering up the perversion. Estimates from some of the homo priests in the SA chat room were as high as 75% homosexuals among priests. Makes you feel sorry for those who are sincere and playing by the rules.

[patent]

Not at all. The Church wants to immediately investigate any suspicion of pedophilia, to determine whether the charge has merit. If it does, then the perpetrator can be dismissed and turned over to the police.

Sorry, but thats illegal. You go to the police first.

Really? Care to post which law it violates? Care to post any case law on point? You are perfectly within your rights to investigate suspicions before going to the police.

If you suspect your neighbor has been killed you are free to investigate a bit before dialing 911. You could skip that an dial 911 immediately. Its your choice. No one gets locked up for knocking on the neighbor’s door to see if they are OK before calling.

patent  +AMDG

[Campion]

Opus Dei is a secret organization within the church

Opus Dei is hardly a "secret organization". They have a website. They have (in most large cities) monthly activities. I go to their holy hour for men in Nashville once a month.

[Campion]

I think people, in their zeal to hate the Catholic Church (and the chief haters know who they are), are missing the point of this.

This doesn't replace a criminal trial, and it doesn't prevent a criminal trial. The purpose of an ecclesiastical trial would be to determine if an alleged offender should be removed from the priesthood (permanently, I mean).

Proceedings in ecclesiastical courts are typically secret, as far as I know, to protect everyone involved.

As far as a criminal trial is concerned, it isn't the Church's business to initiate criminal proceedings. That's the victim's responsibility, if he or she chooses. It's the Church's responsibility to cooperate with the investigation.

[Campion]

you are simply dishonest

You are simply a bigot, and have demonstrated that abundantly on multiple threads.

[Arthur McGowan]

I think they should be tried in a criminal court like everyone else. Of course, being tried in an ecclesiastical court doesn't preclude that.

[Alamo-Girl]

For the discussion:

I don't know if there is a like statute in state law, but:

USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 4 Misprision of a Felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both

Also, an attorney told me once that he could lose his license to practice if he failed to report a felony. And a police officer I knew also said he was required to intervene in any felony in progress even off duty and had to report any felony he observed.

[sinkspur]

But ya know, a Cath apologist I just finished discussing this with would tell you an undiscovered priest is still qualified to serve communion and perform "valid" Mass behind the altar.

Rubbish, such demons are vile and not worthy to touch the Blood & the Body as they remain unrepentant for thier ongoing sin. They walk not with Christ but satan.

Well, I'm that "Cath apologist," and you are simply wrong, my friend. You don't anything about the Christ works through man, apparently.

If a validly ordained priest celebrates Mass, the Mass IS VALID and grace is conferred. CHRIST GUARANTEES THIS. Why is this so hard for you to get through your thick skull?

I don't really care if you believe this or not. But, to set the record straight for others reading this forum, let me repeat what I told you before:

The disposition of the priest has no bearing on the validity of the sacraments celebrated by the priest. Jesus acts through the priest, whether the priest is in a state of grace or not.

[Revelation 911]

So, using your test, we need to be absolutely sure that the priest has no sin before we can be sure if the sacrament is valid. Or we can realize, correctly, that the state of the man performing the Mass does not affect its efficaciousness.

Not in the least - we are however expecting these perverts in these TRUSTED, HOLY positions to enter into the arrangement and continue the service to Christ and maintain a pious walk.

A Pious daily walk does not include molesting children.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept. Indeed, a priest who just yelled at a staff member unjustly, or had a prideful thought, or told a small lie is not worthy to touch the Body and Blood.

You compare little sins to big sins and neglect where the heart lies in both.

Yelling at a staff member might be unjust, however I hazard a guess and say his retention of grace is strong. A priest whole molests boys has NO evidence of grace in his life.

A priest who just diddled a 12 year old and then gave Holy Mass and served the Blood and Body, completes the Mass and repeats the situation is violating the tenets and oaths of his position, performing blaspheme against Christ and His bride. To say he is in a right walk and a right frame of mind while performing his priestly duties is plainly assinine. Additionally, these are men which have set themselves apart from the world to serve Christ. Is serving then a duty, or a treasured honor?

Its an honor of course - No disrespect meant, but such an attitude as yours condones the behavior and makes you an apologist.

In addition, a priest in such a "walk" claims to be honoring the Altar & assert pious authority (when it fact the opposite is true) Christ is not served and satan has gained access to your pulpit. Which reinforces my claim that any Altar work by the Priest who is in such a condition is fraudulent and deceptive not only to Christ and the Church, but the congregation as well, further aiding the contention that ritualism in the sacraments, not Christ is being served.

[newgeezer]

Thanks! Now, let's hear from those who still insist one has the right to investigate suspicions before reporting a crime!

{cue the sound of crickets}

[sinkspur]

Just as Rome routinely reverses scandalous "Catholic divorces" issued by American tribunals, so too can it be expected to take a much harder line on this issue.

I'm curious which "scandalous Catholic divorces" are "routinely" reversed?

I worked in our diocesan marriage tribunal for several years. There was no appeal of an annulment granted locally; indeed, the only appeal was a marriage that was upheld locally. It was referred to the "court of appeal" in San Antonio, where it was either upheld or an annulment was granted.

I'm not aware of ANY annulments in an American diocese that go to Rome for any reason.

[newgeezer]

And Bill Clinton is a prominent American. So much for America.

Indeed.

See the problem with tarring an entire group because of the sins of one member?

Not in your example.