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 ...
Because if that were true, the pope would have sent out a letter
When you're an expert in Vatican affairs, you get back to me, 'kay?
Progress.
Once again, Rome gets it wrong. So wrong.
An unprovable statement. Must I continue to correct your misperceptions?
No, you’re wrong. Grace IN baptism is saving grace. There is no baptism without water baptism.
I. Born Again in Water Baptism
John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).
John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus’ teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.
John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.
Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.
Acts 10:47 - Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?” The Bible always links water and baptism.
Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.
Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.
Heb. 10:22 – the author is also writing about water baptism in this verse. “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Our bodies are washed with pure water in water baptism.
2 Kings 5:14 - Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and his flesh was restored like that of a child. This foreshadows the regenerative function of baptism, by water and the Holy Spirit.
Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord pours out His water and His Spirit. Water and the Spirit are linked to baptism. The Bible never separates them.
Ezek. 36:25-27 - the Lord promises He will sprinkle us with water to cleanse us from sin and give us a new heart and spirit. Paul refers to this verse in Heb. 10:22. The teaching of Ezekiel foreshadows the salvific nature of Christian baptism instituted by Jesus and taught in John 3:5, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-I
Thanks for admitting Crimen Sollicitationis has not been rescinded nor repealed.
Oh, believe me you’ll need to “continue to correct [Dr. Eckleburg’s] misperceptions.”
You’re bing kind by calling them “misperceptions” too.
God’s grace is what saves men; only grace. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is a sign and seal of that grace.
Once again, Rome gets it wrong. So wrong.
Thanks for showing that you're no friend of the truth.
Please don't break the FR RF rules by making this personal.
And thanks for admitting Crimen Sollicitationis has not been rescinded.
Oh, they’re more than that, all right. I just can’t say what they are without my post getting deleted.
I do not recall you ever saying you have a doctorate. Your screen name is a literary device from F. Scott Fitzgerald.
And thanks for admitting Crimen Sollicitationis has not been rescinded.
Let's bring the religion moderator in and see what he/she thinks, because I don't like your repeated false statement.
You wrote:
“God’s grace is what saves men; only grace. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is a sign and seal of that grace.”
No, baptism is used by God to give us grace.
“Once again, Rome gets it wrong. So wrong.”
No, you’re the one who get’s it wrong. Look below to see another error of yours.
Earlier, in post 146, you wrote; “Thanks for admitting Crimen Sollicitationis has not been rescinded nor repealed.”
It was not rescinded or repealed. But it was updated in 2001 and reissued by the then Cardinal Ratzinger and is thus posted on the Vatican website in at leats five languages.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER
sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church
and other Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest
REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
[Translation of the text was printed in Origins 31:32, January 24, 2001, and posted at http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle/2002/graveoffenses.doc]
In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52 of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, “[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law,”(1) it was necessary first to define the method of proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)
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.
Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission’s work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.
The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:
-Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:
1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)
-Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)
-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.
Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party’s legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.
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.
In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.
Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect
Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary
[Notes added from the Latin text]
[1] Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Constitutio Apostolica Pastor bonus, De Romana Curia, 28 iunii 1988, art. 52, in AAS 80 (1988) 874.
[2] Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine, 29 iunii 1997, in AAS 89 (1997) 830-835.
[3] Suprema Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Instructio Crimen sollicitationis, Ad omnes Patriarchas, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos aliosque locorum Ordinarios “etiam Ritus Orientalis”: De modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis, 16 martii 1962, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis MCMLXII.
[4] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1367; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1442. Cf. et Pontificium Consilium De Legum Textibus Interpretandis, Responsio ad propositum dubium, 4 iunii 1999.
[5] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 2 n. 1 et 1379; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1443.
[6] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 908 et 1365; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 702 et 1440.
[7] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 927.
[8] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1378 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1457.
[9] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1387; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1458.
[10] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1388 § 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1456 § 1.
[11] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 1 n. 1; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 2 n. 1.
[12] Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 1362 § 2; Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, can. 1152 § 3.
And by the way, everyone involved seems to believe that people are only bound to be silent about THE ACTUAL CANONICAL INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL. They can inform any secular/civil authority the want about the abuse itself or the abuser - at least that’s what the canon lawyers I know seem to be saying. So, again, you’re wrong.
Also, we can see where you’re idea that people have to be quite, “any sexual abuse claim was sworn to keep their mouth shut until 10 years after the victime reached the age of 18,” is actually based upon your minsunderstanding of the word prescription. There is nothing about a time limit on silence in Crimen Sollicitationis or in De delictis gravioribus. The word prescription means there’s a time limit to bring up charges. All canon laws have a prescription of three years EXCEPT for these sexual abuse cases against minors which have prescriptions that go TEN YEARS past the completion of the 18th year of the minor victim. Thus, if a priest sexually abuses a 14 year old child, the prescription would run out only when the victim turns 28 years old. apparently you misunderstood (I really giving you the undeserved benefit of the doubt here) what the word prescription meant.
Here’s another part of the original you apparently don’t want anyone to know about:
18. “A member of the faithful who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person by whom he or she was solicited, incurs a reserved excommunication latae sententiae, which is not to be lifted until he or she has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so” (Can. 2358, § 2)
This is written for people like you: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vKGd_r1fPcUJ:compassreview.org/spring09/6.pdf+edward+peters+canon+law+1362+prescription&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQ9zxZH733SZ7iwcFEx1VV1lb75zw
Thanks for the pings.
I can’t keep up well with all this but I appreciate the pings.
That's why indictments were handed down. That's why lawsuits were filed. That's why billion dollar payouts were made. And that's why more suits and more indictments are on the way.
All: Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."
I am not repeating a false statement, even if you wish to categorize it as such. We disagree.
Different states impose different duties on the general public, healthcare workers, etc. or others in positions of authority (such as religious teachers) to report suspected abuse. It would seem likely that much of the Catholic hierarchy's non-reporting is based on the shield of having the information received in confession. But even those laws are all over the place from state to state, especially with regard to who holds the privilege. Since the hierarchy is actively shielding these priests, who holds the privilege is of no help to the victims.
In any case, the way it often goes is that if a priest confesses to his superior that he molested Larry last week, there is no duty on the superior to report, even though the superior should know with almost certainty that the activity will be repeated. However, if the confessing priest says that not only did he molest Larry last week, but he intends to molest Larry next week as well (a fact already known to the superior), then a duty may well attach. But of course we never see confessions like that! These priests are monsters, but they're not stupid monsters.
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.