[Bishop] Adamec irked at loose lips in diocese [,planning to punish good straight priest]

Thank you for the links and the information. God bless!

As you seem to be in an pro-active mood, and assuming you wish to remain under the God ordained authority and in compliance with RCC canon, and someone was wondering what might be done to resist coverups, well, here's the RCC canon law on bringing a suit within the church. There is an exceptionally well done hyperlinked version of the 1983 RCC Code of Canon Law here.

My brief perusal found this section on bringing a suit under canon law, (copy below but without hyperlinks). There is more to this than just the section below, but it should give you an idea and you should definitely visit the links.

CHAPTER I : THE PETITION INTRODUCING THE SUIT

Can. 1501 A judge cannot investigate any case unless a plea, drawn up in accordance with canon law, is submitted either by a person whose interest is involved, or by the promotor of justice.

Can. 1502 A person who wishes to sue another must present a petition to a judge who is lawfully competent. In this petition the matter in dispute is to be set out and the intervention of the judge requested.

Can. 1503 §1 A judge can admit an oral plea whenever the plaintiff is impeded from presenting a petition or when the case can be easily investigated and is of minor significance.

§2 In both cases, however, the judge is to direct a notary to record the matter in writing. This written record is to be read to, and approved by, the plaintiff, and it takes the place of a petition written by the plaintiff as far as all effects of law are concerned.

Can. 1504 The petition by which a suit is introduced must:

1° state the judge before whom the case is being introduced, what is being sought and from whom it is being sought;

2° indicate on what right the plaintiff bases the case and, at least in general terms, the facts and evidence to be submitted in support of the allegations made;

3° be signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's procurator, and bear the day, the month and the year, as well as the address at which the plaintiff or the procurator resides, or at which they say they reside for the purpose of receiving the acts;

4° indicate the domicile or quasi-domicile of the respondent.

Can. 1505 §1 Once he has satisfied himself that the matter is within his competence and the plaintiff has the right to stand before the court, the sole judge, or the presiding judge of a collegiate tribunal, must as soon as possible by his decree either admit or reject the petition.

§2 A petition can be rejected only if:

1° the judge or the tribunal is not legally competent;

2° it is established beyond doubt that the plaintiff lacks the right to stand before the court;

3° the provisions of can. 1504 nn. 1 - 3 have not been observed

4° it is certainly clear from the petition that the plea lacks any foundation, and that there is no possibility that a foundation will emerge from a process.

§3 If a petition has been rejected by reason of defects which can be corrected, the plaintiff can draw up a new petition correctly and present it again to the same judge.

§4 A party is always entitled, within ten canonical days, to have recourse, based upon stated reasons, against the rejection of a petition. This recourse is to be made either to the tribunal of appeal or, if the petition was rejected by the presiding judge, to the collegiate tribunal. A question of rejection is to be determined with maximum expedition.

Can. 1506 If within a month of the presentation of a petition, the judge has not issued a decree admitting or rejecting it in accordance with can. 1505, the interested party can insist that the judge perform his duty. If, notwithstanding this, the judge does not respond within ten days of the party's request, the petition is to be taken as having been admitted.

[end excerpt]

I think you see where this would lead.

If you were so inclined, a possible methodology would be to:

- study the relevant sections of canon law
- prepare a 'draft' suit
- have it reviewed by a canon laywer
- revise and or file the suit

Exactly what such a suit would allege, depends on you...presumably provable cases of homosexual behaviour, abuse, and/or cover-up of same. I assume laicization of the offending bishop is what you'd be seeking.

I would be willing to help dig up the relevant sections of the canon law, if you wished, but I'm not competant for much beyond that leg work, and what is alleged is not for me to say.

Poly I think that Hospital duty is what the Bishops have given as an assignment to known abusers..they have not considered the implications of that ...The young man who's sexual abuse I feel responsible for waas given over by me to the care of the hospital chaplin....I liked the priest..I thought I was giving the boy a positive role model..the boy ened up trying to kill himself

I have heard the priest was removed from the area after another abuse claim in a local parish where he was assigned because of the shortage.

God bless you in your attempt to clean some of this up...the devil is having a heyday..

Ps Your Bishops actions would make HIM very suspect..he has something to hide IMHO...sounds like he has been a part of the coverup BIG time