| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/21/2009 4:58:04 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 12/20/2009 3:22:36 PM PST by Alex Murphy
In 1922, the Vatican promulgated an instruction to do with what it called crimen solicitationis (the crime of solicitation within the confessional) and what it called the ‘‘worst crime’’ - the sexual abuse of children. The document was issued in Latin. No authoritative version was produced in English.
The document was circulated only to bishops and under terms of strict secrecy.
A new version of the guidelines was produced in 1962, but this, according to the Murphy Commission, was unknown within the Dublin diocese until some time in the 1990s.
Desmond Connell, the former archbishop, told the commission he had never seen the 1962 document, nor had he met anyone who had seen it.
John Dolan, the chancellor of the diocese and a monsignor, whose job is to ensure that the administrative records of the diocese are kept safe, said he didn’t know that ‘‘lurking in the very end, at the very back [of the decree crimen solicitationis], was a little paragraph on the ‘‘worst crime’’.
He was unaware of the 1962 document until an Australian bishop discovered towards the end of the 1990s that it was still valid. Until then, he did not know of any guidelines by the Vatican on the issue of clerical child sexual abuse.
The Murphy Commission commented on how ‘‘unusual’’ it was, ‘‘whereby a document setting out the procedure for dealing with clerical child sexual abuse was in existence but virtually no one knew about it or used it’’.
In 1996, victims of clerical abuse hounded the bishops into devising a ‘framework document’, setting out guidelines for dealing with allegations of abuse. John Dolan said: ‘‘They [the authors of the framework document] did not feel Rome was supporting them in dealing with this issue ... they were meeting an onslaught of complaints, and Rome was pulling any particular solid ground that they had from under them’’.
The 1922 and 1962 Vatican instructions on dealing with allegations of clerical child sex abuse demanded absolute secrecy in the conduct of investigations. T he secrecy was so pervasive that, to some, it seemed to demand that the complaint also be kept secret from the state authorities.
Cannon 1341 states that the bishop is to ‘‘start a judicial administrative procedure, for the imposition or the declaration of penalties, only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed’’.
The Murphy Commission notes: ‘‘This canon was interpreted to mean that bishops are required to attempt to reform the abusers in the first place." In Dublin, efforts were made to reform abusing priests by sending them to therapeutic centres. But, according to the commission, ‘‘the archdiocese seems to have been reluctant to go beyond the reform process, even when it was abundantly clear that the reform process had failed’’.
But, more tellingly, the commission stated they ‘‘could find very little evidence, particularly in the early decades of the commission’s remit, of any attempt by church authorities to restore justice to the victims’’.
I t says the question of harm to the victims never seemed to have been considered by the archdiocese.
In considering whether a person is guilty of the ‘‘worst crime’’, canon law states a person must have ‘‘deliberately’’ violated the canon law. In considering the issue of guilt under canon law, the Canon Law Society of Britain and Ireland has commented: ‘‘Among the factors which may seriously diminish their imputability (guilt) in such cases (cases of clerical child sexual abuse) is paedophilia ...
‘‘Those who have studied this matter in detail have concluded that proven paedophiles are often subjected to urges and impulses which are in effect beyond their control .. .because of the influence of paedophilia (the abuser) may not be liable, by reason of at least diminished immutability (guilt) to any canonical penalty or perhaps to only a mild penalty, to a formal warning or reproof or to a penal remedy."
The commission says it ‘‘finds it a matter of grave concern that, under canon law, a serial child abuser might receive more favourable treatment from the archdiocese or from Rome, by reason of the fact that he was diagnosed as a paedophile’’.
What all this says is that the issue is not just a matter of negligence or complicity in clerical child sexual abuse on the part of individual bishops - it is the culture of the Catholic Church, a culture shaped by the church authorities in Rome and transmitted and refined in dioceses.
A culture that hides the Church’s own guidelines concerning what it itself rhetorically said was the ‘‘worst crime’’; that caused the Vatican authorities to pull the ground from priests who were trying to draft guidelines on abuse; that prioritises the abusers over the abused; that has been essentially indifferent to the harm caused to abuse victims; that regards paedophiles as objects of sympathy and compassion.
A few more episcopal resignations, with a presumption that these settle the matter, is just a continuance of the culture of denial of the Catholic Church’s institutional and cultural complicity in the criminality of clerical child sexual abuse.
The Holy Roman and Apostolic Church is the problem.
Wow, another article about child molestation by Alex Murphy. I thought Coleus got banned for posting these about Protestants.
There was a person named Coleus who was posting similar about Protestants, but for some reason the religion mederator decided that was unfair and banned him.
You miss the point. Are you really saying there's no difference between an article that appears in the National Review and one that appears in The Nation? Of course there is--each is driven by a different agenda, and it colors one's view of the material; that was no unbiased report. If you look at the other piece I excerpted, you can see the magazine's editorial bias. You may blithely accept anything someone publishes at face value just because "every" newspaper has an agenda, but you'd be a fool to do so.
That article wasn't satire. Please--show me the satirical part.
And it's obvious that Vincent Browne's op-ed isn't intended as fiction. BTW, I looked up "Vincent Browne" on the internet and he seems like an Irish journalist who doesn't have any particularly sinister connections (except perhaps for the fact that he's a barrister!).
Uh, I wasn't talking about Vincent Browne's op-ed. I was talking about the short story about the novelist getting a bad review. I'll copy the link for you, but it's, like, right there on the site.
(Of course, since that's fiction, and you claim the other is satire, maybe this article is meant to be "satire," too?)
You're spinning like a top, and it does you no credit. Why not just admit to the type of publication excerpted from? Because it would reveal you have an agenda, too, and the petulance over 'Catholics' posting things you don't like is obvious--you REALLY think that a single person on FR is unaware of the Catholics' priest pedophile problems, and you're simply trying to share more knowledge?
I don't have a dog in this fight, and it's obvious what's going on to me. There's not a thing wrong with your having your position, but please don't post something like this post I'm replying to again--I don't care if you think I'm an idiot, but please don't talk to me like you think I am, because I'll rip your obvious bunk apart every time, ok?
P.S. Unintentionally may have implied you posted the article. All points stand, though, as you support its posting.
Thanks for the info, Mark. There's a whole lot of [excommmunicated] FReeper Catholics out there who'd rather denounce me than denounce their own priests, based on their own posting history.
Really?
Also, is Alex so insecure in his own beliefs that he must attack the Church? This obsession of his (posting Catholic articles, and posting threads about the sins of others) is deeply troubling. Maybe he should speak to his pastor about his need to attack Catholicism, and its implications for his own spirituality.
Coleus hasn’t been banned, he’s still an active FReeper.
Very nearly all of the anti-Catholics are so insecure in their beliefs that they must attack the Church.
Calvinist predestination is nothing more than a cosmic lottery. Unfortunately, none of the participants in the lottery have any idea how many winners there will be and they are horrified that they will not be a winner. So, to convince themselves that they are a lottery winner, they set out to defame those who disavow such idolatry. I cannot imagine the daily dread they must endure.
Don’t forget that in Ireland hatred between Catholics and Protestants is near pathological. Granted it’s not as bad in the Republic of Ireland as it is in Northern Ireland, but it’s still bad.
I've been personally involved in getting several ephebophile priests removed from my own diocese, and therefore feel qualified to denounce you, Alex.
Also, you fall right in with the homosexuals and liberals in continuing the slander against the Church that it has or had a pedophilia problem. It does not. It relaxed its prohibitions on admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, and a cohort of homosexuals have passed through its ranks over the past 4 decades, and the homosexuals did what homosexuals are wont to do.
So in Christian charity, I strongly suggest you cease this grave sin of detraction and slander, and stop implying the Church has a pedophile problem. It does not. It has a homosexual priest problem, and ephebophilia is endemic to the homosexual subculture.
It's a fetish.
That is the nature of a fetish.
Dear Religion Moderator,
Could you please clarify? Is it OK to post articles in the Religion Forum about the sexual proclivities of protestant ministers, or are such postings in the Religion Forum currently limited to articles about the sexual proclivities of Catholic priests?
Thanks in advance,
Dr. Kopp
I strongly suspect these posts were reactions to prior posts about RC priests, but I could be wrong.
Actually, Alex, I stopped, for the most part, posting the details of protestant pervert pastors (except for “big name” televangelists) in the religion forum (preferring to post them over to “general,” along with the exploits of miscellaneous psychologists, teachers, and pediatricians), but I can start again if you’d like.
By the way, what did “European paedophile trolls in Africa (child sex tourism in Mombasa Kenya)” have to do with Protestant ministers (unless you know of some who are engaging, of course)? Sure wasn’t mentioned in the article...
THE RULES
Rule One: 'Rome' is the locus of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
All Else Is Irrelevant.
=========================================================== "The Rules" pretty well explain a huge 'genre' of posting on this forum.
Since I cannot read minds (only words), I cannot say for certain that any individual on this forum actually thinks according to "The Rules". However, a reasonable person, upon reading certain types of writing on this forum, would be led to suspect it.
Was a Roman Catholic poster(s) requested by the Religion Moderator to stop posting articles about sexual abuse by Protestant ministers in the Religion Forum?
If so, would it not also be appropriate for Protestant posters to stop posting articles about sexual abuse by RC priests in the Religion Forum?
Maybe, as markomalley pointed out, you could post these articles in "General" or "News" or "Bloggers/Personal" instead of the Religion Forum.
Oh, but it was. Presumably you didn't know of any priests who were involved? The last paragraph:
It is a thriving industry still in parts of South Asia, as well as Central America and those parts of Africa where tourists venture. It is also an international disgrace. The media, in particular, are hypocritical about it. A pastor or priest who abuses children is called a pedophile, molester, defiler or pervert; it makes front-page news and the media is after his blood until his church apologizes. A Briton, German or Italian is said to be “on a spree” or having a bit of “legitimate fun”: he or she is called a sex “tourist”. He’s not reported; no need to apologize either for a life ruined.
But then you have to ask yourself why a religion would want this perverted, illegal activity within it's ranks protected...
Bingo with one comment. In your writing, the One True Church omits the quotation marks and you neglected to mention that school teachers and the protestant churches (except the cults) do not claim to be the "One True Church" nor do they claim infallibility and or apostolic succession.
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.