Posted on 02/26/2010 1:08:31 AM PST by Gamecock
So I have a question about terminology.
Some of our Catholic FRiends get upset when we Prods use the term Roman Catholic, insisting that the term is derogatory, insulting, etc.
What I would like to discuss is why do Catholics complain about the term Roman Catholic, when the term is in such wide use inside of the Catholic church?
Thoughts?
Well, since Pope Benedict XVI never authored such a letter, I do not see your point. Oh wait, you're just making stuff up again to try to smear the Catholic Church. Next time, use one that hasn't been debunked on this forum so many times.
I understand that you keep trying to change the subject from the fact that there are upwards of 260 sexual abuse of minor claims against protestant churches per year, and that this represents just the "tip of the iceberg." But a fact is a fact.
How about 838 protestant ministers committing sexual abuse against children?
Pretty desperate.
Looks like we Protestants know more about your pope that some Roman Catholics do.
In 2001, in his role as chief Inquisitor, Ratzinger authored the letter “Crimen Sollicitationis” which restated the requirement for secrecy regarding any accusations of sexual abuse made against any priest. He re-affirmed that anyone taking complaints outside the church (say, to local police authorities or parents) would be excommunicated.
The letter, sent to every bishop, was rightly viewed as a cover-up.
Ratzinger was then accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by Roman Catholic clergy in Texas, but he quickly asked President Bush for diplomatic immunity against prosecution which was granted.
Same old, same old. Parents, you cannot say you haven't been warned.
Yep. Upon threat of excommunication which we know, to a Roman Catholic, means they are damned.
Time after time after time. As lives, families and faith are being willfully destroyed.
YOu ought to get your information about the Catholic Church from someone who actually knows the truth and is not unwilling to say it. According to the Catholic Church, excommunication, in the sense of a formal proceeding, is not a penalty, but rather a formal proclamation of a pre-existing condition in a more or less prominent member of the Catholic Church. When such a person commits acts that in themselves separate him from the communion of the faithful, particularly when by word, deed, or example he or she "spreads division and confusion among the Faithful", it is necessary for the Church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement, which informs the laity that this is not a person to follow, and notifies the clergy that the person, by their own willful acts, has separated from the Church and is no longer to receive the sacraments, with the exception of Reconciliation if they turn from their ways. The decree may also indicate the mode of Reconciliation required for re-entry into the Church, specifying whether the local bishop may administer the process or it is reserved to the Pope. Excommunication is never a merely "vindictive penalty" (designed solely to punish), but is always used as a "medicinal penalty" intended to pressure the person into changing their behavior or statements, repent and return to full communion.
Excommunicated persons are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity (for instance, as a reader if a lay person, or as a deacon or priest if a clergyman) and from receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments, but are normally not barred from attending these (for instance, an excommunicated person may not receive Communion, but would not be barred from attending Mass). Certain other rights and privileges are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office.
Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired.
In the Catholic Church, formal excommunication is normally resolved by a statement of repentance, profession of the Creed (if the offense involved heresy), or a renewal of obedience (if that was a relevant part of the offending act) by the excommunicant; the declaration of the reconciliation itself, by a priest or bishop empowered to do this; and then the reception of the sacrament of Reconciliation. In many cases, this whole process takes place within the privacy of the confessional and during the same act of confession.
If Michael S. Rose's book is any indication -- and, please note, we've not seen ONE post contradicting the book's claims on this thread -- then the problem is more than just top-down. It's at all levels. To quote George Meredith, "We are betrayed by what is false within."
The problem is cultural, not religious. Rose does not indict the Church, but identifies and condemns the outside influences that is harming it. From the editors notes:
Nor is this problem restricted to Catholics! The assault on Christian orthodoxy and masculine authority - as well as the aggressive promotion of the gay agenda - that Rose documents in this book are proceeding apace in Protestant denominations too. That makes Goodbye, Good Men essential reading not only for Catholics who want to save their Church, but for everyone who wants to defend Christianity from assault by those who would subvert its message from within.
Rose sees the Church as actively addressing the problem in his book; Priest: Portraits of Ten Good Men Serving the Church Today. Rose goes on to paint a very positive picture of Pope Benedict XVI in Benedict XVI: The Man Who Was Ratzinger and
One only sees what they want to see E
You've been denying charges of rampant child abuse by protestant ministers all along. Remember? You claimed there was no child abuse and that protestant sexual misconduct pertained mostly to adults. Now suddenly, when I show you over and over and over cases of protestant ministers molesting children, you suddenly change your tune. What gall.
As usual, you’re replying to the wrong person.
I wasn't responding, I was advising. You're welcome.
Let's see if that's the case:
In 2001, in his role as chief Inquisitor, Ratzinger authored the letter “Crimen Sollicitationis”
Strike one. Crimen Sollicitationis was written by Cardinal Ottaviani in 1962. As of 2001, it is no longer in effect, being replaced by Pope John Paul II's Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Cardinal Raztinger authored De delictis gravioribus in 2001. It says nothing about victim secrecy.
He re-affirmed that anyone taking complaints outside the church (say, to local police authorities or parents) would be excommunicated.
Strike two. The secrecy was required of the members of the tribunal, not the victims.
"The document dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.
"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."[6]
Some interpret the secrecy about the procedure as a cover-up of scandalous conduct. This view was presented in a BBC documentary film Sex Crimes and the Vatican.[7] of 1 October 2006.
Others see it as aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed: "It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops."[8]
Ratzinger was then accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by Roman Catholic clergy in Texas, but he quickly asked President Bush for diplomatic immunity against prosecution which was granted.
Strike three. That's like accusing President Bush of war crimes for civilian casualties in Baghdad - pure political theater, for those who like that kind of thing.
In short, your information is incorrect and/or malicious agitprop. Nothing of substance at all.
For some the only way to look tall is to stand next to short people. When no one shorter can be found they try to make the tall ones stand in a hole they have made for them. Its all so sociopathic and pitiful.
Cardinal Raztinger authored De delictis gravioribus in 2001.
Which was simply a slight revision of Crimen Sollicitationis. If anything, it was even more stultifying than the original.
It says nothing about victim secrecy.
Of course it does. It's very reason for being was secrecy.
The secrecy was required of the members of the tribunal, not the victims.
That's the logic of Rome -- deflection by omission. Secrecy was required of the victims and of anyone making the claim. That means the victim had to ONLY approach the church with his accusations, not the police, school authorities, or even his family. The same secrecy was imposed on the victim's family under threat of excommunication.
That's like accusing President Bush of war crimes for civilian casualties in Baghdad - pure political theater, for those who like that kind of thing.
Theater? It's that kind of willful ignorance of the facts that permits this tragedy to continue unabated. The pope was rightly accused of a cover-up because he was hiding decades of sexual abuse by pederast priests all over the globe.
He was not exonerated. He plead diplomatic immunity and the case could not go forward.
malicious agitprop
Protect your children. God punishes those who would destroy them.
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.