Posted on 01/09/2002 4:37:58 AM PST by 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.
I don't really know how pedophilia is covered under state statutes. But it seems to me it would be a felony. And at the federal level, pedophilia certain seems to me to be a violation of civil rights, a terrible one at that.
The idea of rumors being investigated by the church sounds great to me, but I don't see how they could avoid reporting it to the authorities if they find evidence that it happened.
BTW, I'm not anti-Catholic at all. Half of my family are Catholic - one is a deacon.
I agree. It is a sick and twisted individual who does such things.
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 does not need evidence of grace in order to validly perform sacraments. It is not about him, it is about Jesus.
My point was that any serious sin makes us unworthy to receive Communion. But such sin does not make a priest no longer a priest, until such a determination is made by the Church.
Does this mean that a priest can consecrate the Eucharistic elements but be unworthy to then consume them. Yes.
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?
Again I agree that such a person is violating his position. I never said he is in a "right walk" and in a "right frame of mind." I said that he is still a valid priest and can perform sacraments.
Of coruse I believe that such an individual should be removed from the priesthood as well as jailed. But we can not, until this determination is made, put into doubt every sacrament performed by every priest in the world. It is the recipe for chaos.
When a man is made a priest, he is changed. He is capable of acting as a channel for Jesus to make His sacraments present for us. If we have to wonder about the state of the soul of each man, then we could never be sure of any sacrament. That's why the state of the soul is entirely irrelevant. It is Jesus acting, not the priest.
Its an honor of course - No disrespect meant, but such an attitude as yours condones the behavior and makes you an apologist.
Why thank you. You did mean that I attempt to explain and defend the Faith, right? I am not apologizing for the behavior of a pedophile, or excusing it. It repulses me. But that is not the issue at all. Whether a priest's sacraments are valid or not depending on whether he sinned or not is.
SD
Amen Jesus - I would ENCOURAGE such a sinful man to read Gods Word.
Similarly, a sacrament is not done by the priest, like the pastor he is merely the human instrament.
whom the Church has charged with holding a high degree of piety and grace
Rather, the Sacrament is perfected by Christ and no matter how sinful the priest is, he cannot corrupt Christ's power.
He can however, blaspheme the Altar and Godly works through his sinfulness. This being known only between God and the pedophile priest, the decption then being foisted upon the Church and the congregants as both have made the presumption the man performing the Altar work is Godly, humble, pious and full of grace.
I think a party who doesn't wish to have their marriage annulled can appeal to Rome.
SD
No, the congrgants have made the presumption that the priest is validly ordained. Period. It is you making assumptions about the state of grace of the priest which is not Catholic doctrine.
Yes, such a priest does blaspheme the altar with his presence. And you note that it is only known between God and the priest. Your idea makes the entire congregation a victim as well, denying them God's sacraments. The Church does no such thing.
SD
You have nothing good to say about any Catholics anywhere in any context (except and unless they apostatize and become fundamentalists like yourself), and you accuse us of "automatic knee-jerk reactions"?
And also with you.
SD
There wasn't a problem in the past, but here is the problem expressed by Boston's Cardinal Law- "Our dependence in the past on Roman Catholic judges and attorneys protecting the Diocese and clerics is GONE."
No one expects the diocesan marriage tribunal!!!
Darling, you made an allegation, but you know full well its wrong. There is no law to support what you said. So you just call me dishonest. Nice. There is no law that says you have to go to the police with merely a suspicion, and in fact the police get rather annoyed with certain calls at times, made by people who have no real basis for their complaint.Sorry. I thought about spending some of my time looking for links, or even the newspaper article I mentioned before. However, I've seen too many of your posts, and you are simply dishonest, and I don't feel like wasting my time with your outrage.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?
Alamo-girl found the relevant Federal statute, quite quickly it seems. (There are similar state statutes). She is entirely correct, you do not have a responsibility to report on a mere suspicion. You do when, as she noted you “hav[e] knowledge of the actual commission of a felony.” Actual knowledge, not mere suspicion. You were wrong, you know it. Oh well. But hey, I am dishonest right? Keep repeating that, maybe someone will believe you were right. (and thanks for the statute Alamo-girl).
Then it will be tried as well in the civil courts. What is your point?THE Vatican wants priests accused of paedophile behaviour to be tried behind closed doors in an ecclesiastical court.Sorry, that won't wash. This is illegal behavior.
patent +AMDG
Thanks! Now, let's hear from those who still insist one has the right to investigate suspicions before reporting a crime!chirp. chirp. Did you read the part about actual knowledge? Do you realize that term means something different then suspicion?
chirp chirp.
patent +AMDG
First of all, the charge of "misprision of a felony" assumes that the violator is aware that a felony has been committed. Notice that the law does not speak of mere "suspicion". IOW, the law assumes that some investigation has already occurred to establish that a felony was actually committed, and the person(s) doing the investigating have willfully chosen to conceal the crime.
The people Alamo-Girl describes are officers of the court, and they would function under a different set of rules than civilians.
Let me bluntly ask you this question: if your wife were raped, and did not want to press charges, did not want any publicity, and did not want to talk to the police -- would you report the rape anyway, in violation of her wishes?
Remember, not to do so is misprision of a felony.
\\ It's Catholic moral doctrine, and does not need to be repeated in the decree we're talking about because it is supposed to be assumed by everyone, that everyone, including bishops, including priests, is required to obey the civil law of the jurisdiction in which they reside, unless and until it requires them to sin.
No one is suggesting that they not report it. Indeed, they would be obliged to report it if they were to find such evidence. The purpose of the investigation is precisely to look for evidence, so as to weed out false charges that would unjustly destroy the priest's reputation.
LOL. That was good.I worked in our diocesan marriage tribunal for several years.No one expects the diocesan marriage tribunal!!!
patent +AMDG
How charmingly Christian -fortunately, I understand you are not representative of most Catholics.
I managed a civil conversation with SD and patent - you however prove difficult. Rather than insult, I will direct you to SD's posts, patents and my own - perhaps then you will discern exactly where I was coming from.
Assuming you bother, and still fail to grasp the concepts set forth, I'd suggest a therapuetic high colonic, as you are surely in the dark.
Blessings to you though, I pray that only graceful men (& women) serve Christ in the capacity of Priest or Pastor & the demons who abuse such a sacred position are exposed, legally addressed and find the peace and grace Christ promises.
Well, you're right about that. I was just never aware of anyone (other than one of Bobby Kennedy's kids ex-wives) who would take it that far.
Let me bluntly ask you this question: if your wife were raped, and did not want to press charges, did not want any publicity, and did not want to talk to the police -- would you report the rape anyway, in violation of her wishes?
If I'm an officer of the court, do I have a choice?
Besides, if my wife could for even a moment be so irrational or selfish, it would quickly pass. We are one flesh.
However, when I made it, you had been told THREE TIMES the rationale behind the Cathoic understanding of the validity of the sacraments apart from the priest's moral status.
You seemed to be "not getting it" on purpose.
Sorry.
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.