No confusion. When a bishop asks the Vatican for help with a pederast priest (which means releasing that bishop from the restrictions put upon him by the Vatican, including going to the police) and when that bishop is met over and over with stonewalling, dismissal and a refusal to act, then it becomes clear a crime has occurred which includes aiding and abetting a criminal, conspiracy and covering up a crime.
Worse, it's possible to wonder if the Vatican permitted these criminals to continue sexually abusing children because basically the Vatican doesn't think this is really a problem. Merely the prerogative of an "another Christ."
Because the Vatican is so clearly guilty here and has so little legal standing in these cases, it comes out with the outlandish (and pretty darn hilarious) defense that churches and parishes and bishops are all independent and autonomous of Rome. lol.
If only.
I'm just trying to find out where the specific disagreements are coming from on the Veritas document.
We can eat a seven-course dinner of steak and baked potatoes and blueberry pie, but it only takes a pinch of arsenic added to the Bearnaise sauce to kill us. Truly, the devil is in the details. Lenin couldn't have written it better.
In the case of Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical, it's a lot more than a pinch. Amid all the sweet longing for daffodils and world peace, there is at its heart, corruption and enslavement to a one-world power.
Wonder who Ratzinger hopes that will be?
67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
And now begins the equivocation, the backtracking, the further explanation which denies the black and white written words read with our own lying eyes.
Frankly, I'm weary of this game. It's pretty pathetic when "conservatives" fall for this line straight out of the Communist Manifesto...
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries." -- Karl Marx"...In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
There is an authority that has more than global reach, God’s Kingdom, but some do confuse that with the U.N. at times.
"No confusion. When a bishop asks the Vatican for help with a pederast priest..."
There's your confusion right there. The bishop's responsibility when he has a pederast priest on his hands is (1) to cooperate with cops and criminal investigation. (2) To terminate the priest's assignment (e.g. whatever his "job" is: assistant pastor, campus ministry, whatever). (3) To suspend his faculties (his permission to hear confessions, celebrate Mass, minister the sacraments, any time, anywhere.)
He does not need the Vatican's "help" for any of this. It is the bishop's job to do this without delay. Period.
Is there any part of that that remains a question for you?
Abp Weakland's complication was that the Deaf School pederast (Lawrence Murphy) was very ill and living in a care facility (not even in his diocese, Milwaukee, but in the Diocese of Superior), and Weakland wanted to make sure that wherever he was buried, he wasn't buried as a priest. So he wanted him laicized, meaning, he wanted him released him from his vows. The dying Murphy didn't want to be laicized. And there was the sacramental matter to be resolved by the Vatican.(This is a question of whether Confession was abused. Again, this is not the criminal matter: this is the canonical matter.)
None of this has anything to do with the guy being criminally prosecuted, terminated from assignment, or suspended from priestly faculties. It has to do with the ecclesiastical (not secular) question of whether his funeral arrangements are going to be those of a cleric or a layman.
The criminal matter was to be dealt with, totally and completely, in Wisconsin, USA. Not by the Holy See. Not by the Vatican. Not by some guy at a desk at the Piazza del S. Uffizio, Roma, Italia.
All the Holy See would have a hand in, would be the technical question of the dispensation of vows (laicization), which would determine whether he would have the status of clergy or laity.
When contested, laicization requires a canonical trial. Murphy contested it. A canonical trial was in fact initiated, and Murphy died while a defendant in that trial. Do you get that?
A good afternoon to you.
Mo' later, on Veritas.