Replies

Dr. Eckleburg, you don't know what you're talking about...

But I'm sure you didn't read this document, either

You evidently didn't know that...But I wish you would quit running on and on for months about things you don't know anything about...

It is painfully apparent that even though you were posting on this two months ago, you still have not read the actual document which you call the "global authority" encyclical. You have evidently relied on some skewed press summary...

Mrs. Don-O. You take great liberties with the rules on this forum.

Not only have I posted from the entire encyclicial, I have stated that I actually paid hard-earned cash to buy a copy of this idiotic and dangerous treatise written by a man whose agenda is antagonistic to liberty, democracy and the welfare of the majority of this planet.

I also encouraged others to do so because the most damning evidence of Ratzinger's communism is his own words in black and white. Perhaps you missed my suggestion, so I'll refrain from offering you the same snarky comments you made to me about "not knowing what you're talking about."

The rest of your screed is just that.

Believe whatever propaganda you wish. This country is still a republic. For now, anyway.

Certainly the encyclical IS dreadful.

That one paragraph is sufficiently dreadful.

However, the duplicity evident in the document makes it more dreadful.

Almost as dreadful in some respects . . . it seems impossible for even some of the non-rabid clique, more rational Roman Catholics et al

to read the encylical with anything resembling the standard dictionary Non-Roman Catholics et al use.

That’s incredibly mystifying.

How is it that Alice’s Rabbit Hole has sooooooooooooo much influence over the basic perceptions of so many RC’s?

Horrifically puzzling, at best.

I sincerely apologize for my incorrect assumption. You did read Veritas in Caritate; I was out of line; and what I said was seriously wrong.

I'm quite taken aback. Please forgive me.

I can only say that since you've read the document, it's got to be possible to sort out the other two sources of difficulty, namely:

to what extent you simply have a straight-out disagreement --- which is always worthwhile and respectable, and
to what extent you've run into common problem areas which might have led to misunderstanding.

I'm not trying to be to obscure here; I'm just trying to find out where the specific disagreements are coming from on the Veritas document.

The main areas of misunderstanding --- in my experience--- come from the assumption

that the word "society" means "the state"
that "global" solutions mean that localism and liberty are not applicable (talking about subsidiarity here), and
that what is asked of "the Church" is the same as what is asked of "civil society" (which, again, is not necessarily "the state.")

In my opinion, these are the areas where clarification would be needed.

On the other hand, concerning Crimen and the Pope's 2001 letter, I see a clear misunderstanding. Nobody was forbidden, let alone "threatened with excommunication," for speaking publicly about being sexually assaulted by priests. That is absolutely flat wrong.

It has at all times been the responsibility of those involved (victims and witnesses of crime) to bring charges and prosecute the perpetrator (we're speaking of civil and criminal trial), and it has always been the responsibility of the (local) bishop, IN ADDITION TO THIS, to apply ecclesiastical penalties (canonical investigation and trial).

These are separate issues. Crimen applies to canon law, not secular law; and your stated opinion that this applies, in any way, to civil or criminal proceedings is simply incorrect.

Let me show you how this works. When there’s a credible allegation against a priest, three things have to happen, and fast:

the victim needs to bring criminal charges against the abuser,
the bishop must cancel all the accused man's priestly assignments, and
the bishop must forbid him, in any case (assignment or no assignment) to function as a priest (this is what we call "the loss of priestly faculties.")

Please keep in mind that this is what the bishop must do, locally. (It's exactly what mine, Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, did immediately when he was given credible information this past April that a priest had abused a teenager back in the 1970's.) It is not the job of the Vatican, it is not done in Rome, it is not the responsibility of the Pope, it is not related at all to Crimen Sollicitationis, and it is entirely different from laicization (which is done in Rome). And by the way, it is not called "defrocking."

"Laicization," which the part that does happen in Rome (since 2001) and which means being dismissed from the clerical state, has little relevance to the abuse cases. Laicization simply means the man is dispensed from his vows, such as the vow of celibacy and the vow of obedience to his bishop, and has permission to live "as a layman."

When you think about it, you realize that laicization means less restriction (no vow of celibacy) and less supervision (no vow of obedience.) The vast majority of laicizations are not connected to crimes of any sort, they're requested by the priest himself because he doesn't want to have the responsibilities of the priesthood anymore.

I hope I'm making myself clear here. In abuse cases, laicization is not actually what you want.What you want is for the bishop to cooperate with the cops, put an end to the alleged abuser's assignment and his faculties, and insist that he stop violating his vows of celibacy and obedience. You don't just release him from his vows.

It's this confusion between the bishop's duty, and "the Vatican's" duty, which has enabled news outlets like the New York Times to make wrongly-directed charges against the Pope concerning, for instance, the Milwaukee case.

Let me repeat: cancellation of all assignments, and suspension of all priestly faculties, is something that happens locally. It is not the same as laicization, it does not happen in Rome, it does not involve the Pope, and it is the responsibility of the Bishop.

Bishops are responsible for the many ghastly and shocking instances of negligence, cover-up, transfer and reassignment ("pass the trash"), etc. that happened especially in the 1970's and '80's. It is shocking and appalling, in some cases criminal, and in some cases (God knows) damnable.

"You take great liberties with the rules on this forum."

And you take great liberties with your nonexistent authority to police the forum.