Posted on 03/27/2010 3:29:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
What must it feel like to have lost 50 years of your life? For that is what 61-year old Arthur Budzinski has endured.
Five long decades of personal pain.
And he has to rely on others to speak of his anguish.
It is made worse by the fact that no-one has been held to account for the sexual abuse he says he suffered as a child while at the Roman Catholic St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin.
Arthur and around 200 other boys are said to have been sexually abused at the school by Father Lawrence Murphy, a Catholic priest.
He says he and others told members of the clergy back then that they were being watched, touched and exploited by Fr Murphy.
No-one listened.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
You mean Weakland? He's retired and thoroughly disgraced already. His own monastery didn't even want him back.
"Cover it up" isn't entirely accurate, though -- stuff was apparently known about this publicly, through court records, back in the 1970's. It wasn't a secret. Murphy was removed from the scene and apparently from active ministry but no further canonical action was taken against him.
That's Weakland's fault; not Rome's. He had all the authority he needed to pursue the case.
Excuse me? Care to explain that remark?
Sure, but you asked a legal question and I attempted to answer it.
It's an irrelevant question in this case, because the police knew of the reports.
“I just don’t want to hear it from hyper-Calvinist Catholic haters, because their motive does not originate in Christian charity.”
this is the second time someone has mentioned Calvin. I follow the Bible through the holy spirit not some man. I don’t even know who Calvin is. This scandal needs to be made open and known so the victims can be healed. To me, that is charity.
‘I don’t even know who Calvin is.’
And yet you are participating on a thread about denominational disputes?
yes why?
Why are you participating? Beats the heck out of me.
because it was hushed up for nearly 70 years and needs to be made public so it will no longer happen
We'll just chalk up Roman Catholic ignorance of RCC actions to the secrecy the RCC demands of its members.
Here's is the letter Ratzinger sent out in 2001 where he affirmed CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS (pay special attention to paragraphs 11,13 and 42a) all of which is still in effect, still threatening excommunication for anyone who takes these accusations of priest sexual abuse outside the church.
"...It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age..."
Did you get that? Secrecy is invoked for 10 years after the victime reaches 18. Not even 10 years after the crime occurred. So if a child is seven years old when he's molested by a priest, he must wait 21 years before he can go to someone other than a priest with his accusation.
There ya go again . . .
trying to confuzzz the faithful
with annoying UNRUBBERIZED facts.
Sigh.
/s
Hey, you've made progress from your original statement where you claimed Cardinal Ratzinger actually wrote Crimen Sollicitationis. Remember when you said this?
In 2001, in his role as chief Inquisitor, Ratzinger authored the letter “Crimen Sollicitationis”
I'm happy to have offered you the information to correct that misperception.
Now, let's move on to the next correction you've been offered several times. I've gathered them here for your convenience. You repeat:
Here's is the letter Ratzinger sent out in 2001 where he affirmed CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS (pay special attention to paragraphs 11,13 and 42a) all of which is still in effect, still threatening excommunication for anyone who takes these accusations of priest sexual abuse outside the church.
Again I will respond to you with my three previous posts:
1. "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] The secrecy was required of the members of the tribunal, not the victims.
3. Crimen Sollicitationis remained in effect until 2001 when the Vatican published a new set of procedures for prosecuting especially grave canonical crimes, including certain sexual crimes committed by the clergy. Two official documents were issued. The first was an apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II, known by its Latin title Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, by which the actual norms were promulgated. This letter, dated April 30, 2001, was followed on May 18, 2001 by an official document that set forth the norms. This latter document was signed by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Both documents refer to certain serious canonical crimes and among those is sexual abuse by clerics. These documents represent revised procedures to be used by Bishops and major religious superiors in response to allegations of clergy sexual abuse.
At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine "more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments" and in order to make special procedural norms "to declare or impose canonical sanctions," because the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical codes were promulgated. De delictis gravioribus
Protestant clergy go to jail.
Catholics get unloaded on another unsuspecting diocese.
That was the point of Ratzinger's letter to the bishops -- to remind them of the secrecy that was to continue to surround any sexual abuse accusations; to remind them that the victim and every one involved with any sexual abuse claim was sworn to keep their mouth shut until 10 years after the victime reached the age of 18.
It's pretty astounding Roman Catholic apologists apparently miss what actually transpired. The RCC was about to be prosecuted as an entity and the pope in particular as obstructing justice. They are not stupid. The words of Crimen Sollicitationis are damning. Any private corporation putting out that document would be behind bars for decades. So what does Rome do? Rome issues a few bulletins and has RC apologists mouth a few platitudes saying that "of course we didn't mean to obstruct justice; of course children should go to the police with their accusations of sexual assault by priests...of course we want to get to the bottom of these terrible crimes...yadayadayada."
And nothing changes.
Because if that were true, the pope would have sent out a letter, not like the one he did where he reaffirmed Crimen Sollicitationis, but instead a letter which clearly and unambiguously rescinded, nullified and erased for all time the pitiful and illegal restrictions put upon the victims in Crimen Sollicitationis.
Keep defending the indefensible. It shows where the heart of the RCC resides.
Yep.
A priest sexually abusing children is not serving God.
I'll let you figure out who he is serving - and why he and his master must be condemned.
You wrote:
“Only one Master can be served.
A priest sexually abusing children is not serving God.”
I agree.
“I’ll let you figure out who he is serving - and why he and his master must be condemned.”
His master is already condemned. Satan ain’t gettin’ outta hell any time soon.
lol. And still more evidence from you that yours was not in English Lit.
And by "baptismal regeneration," the RCC means membership in the RCC. That's why even ex-RCs who disavow their past affiliation and are now members of a Protestant church are still considered by Rome to be Roman Catholic. lol. They're a stubborn bunch.
snort
II. Baptism is Salvific, Not Just Symbolic
Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.
Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.
Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”
John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.
Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after learning of Jesus?
Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?
Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.
Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.
Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias’ phrase “wash away” comes from the Greek word “apolouo.” “Apolouo” means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.
Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.
1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.
Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.
Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.
Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.
There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.
Heb. 10:22 - in baptism, our hearts are sprinkled clean from an evil conscience (again, dealing with the interior of the person) as our bodies are washed with pure water (the waters of baptism). Baptism regenerates us because it removes original sin, sanctifies our souls, and effects our adoption as sons and daughters in Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah’s ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase “not as a removal of dirt from the body” is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.
Again, notice the parallel between Heb. 10:22 and 1 Peter 3:21: (1) Heb. 10:22 – draw near to the sanctuary (heaven) / 1 Peter 3:21 – now saves us. (2) Heb. 10:22 – sprinkled clean, washed with pure water / 1 Peter 3:20-21 – saved through water, baptism. (3) Heb. 10:22 – from an evil conscience (interior) / 1 Peter 3:21 – for a clear conscience (interior). Titus 3:6 and 1 Peter 3:21 also specifically say the grace and power of baptism comes “through Jesus Christ” (who transforms our inner nature).
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.
Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.
Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with” referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).
Mark 10:38 - Jesus says “are you able...to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?,” referring to His death.
1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-I
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.