Vatican insists it didn't torpedo Irish response to abuse crisis

As the author of this article seems unwilling or unable to also offer objective analysis of Vatican Spin, perhaps the NCR will publish reactions by those not beholden to Rome.

Just wringing hands and offering appologies hardly siffices.
What those responsile for allowing sexual abuse to continue was criminal and those responsible belong in jail. Cardinal Law, the so called American Pope, belongs in jail, not residing in regal splendor drawing as salary of $12,000 per month. And the five auxilliary bishops serving under Law belong in jail with him, not heading diocese.

Such a sweeping denial of responsibility emanating from Rome! The Vatican must have taken its response from their patron saint, Pontius Pilate. (Except that Pilate didn't resort to 11,000 words in an attempt to clear his conscience.)

The Vatican may well be right -- who am I to judge? -- but given its long failure to move effectively on sexual abuse, and its failure to more than to offer perfunctory and pro forma apologies, it is going to find it difficult to find dispassionate people who take its pronouncements seriously.

No connection?

When the Holy See says "Civil law and canon law are two separate systems, it said, and nothing in church law ever prevented a bishop or anyone else from reporting civil crimes to the police."

Will that apply when Ireland and other jurisdictions remove the clergy-penitent privilege accorded to the Seal of Confession?

What about when a jurisdiction changes its laws regarding corporations to require actual elections among actual electors (shareholders for for-profit, stakeholders for non-profit)?

I somehow think they won't abide by this statement.

I don't think a Vatican cover-up in Ireland is accurate. The believe the Church when they say that... because it was a GLOBAL cover-up, right?

POLL: Is the Vatican responsible for a global child abuse cover up?
Vote: http://www.wepolls.com/p/2239501

The Vatican has lost all credibility through-out the world. Nothing coming out of the Vatican can be trusted.

If they were truly sorry, why did JP II set Cardinal Law of Boston up in a Roman villa, and give him a $12,000 a month stipend; why is Ben16 allowing him to remain? If you're sorry, send him back to the USA to answer a lot of questions. The organization is corrupt all the way to the top.

BUT, they have only as much power as we allow them to have. If we show them disrespect they lose all power over us! It’s time to dispense with these old farts and their hocks pocus; they’ve done enough damage. They're nothing but pigs living nice lives on the money we have been giving them, NO MORE!

Balderdash..........

This is not about justifiable reparations or about assuring that the church has safe policies They do ( in united states for over a decade) Unjustifiable moral outrage about the Vatican's role in the scandal is is the latest in the effort of greedy lawyers to get their hands into , what is seen as, the deepest of pockets

I am confused: either the Vatican approved the bishops' ill-execution of the guidelines, in which case they share in the guilt of the Irish hierarchy; or they did not approve of the actions of the hierarchy, but nevertheless allowed it to remain in place with no real censure of the individual bishops involved. In either case the buck stops with the Roman Curia and its continuous pettifogging. When will they get it?

When you need a law to make you do something which obviously should be done - you are off. Why does the Vatican think if there is no WRITTEN LAW forbiding something or mandating something that everything is kosher? Whatever happened to the law written in the heart? They are playing word games. And acting like a bunch of adolescents playing gotcha games. They do not deserve any respect. They do not deserve to be believed.

Like they are so truthful that we should believe them. Like all criminals, and that's what pedophiles, ebophiles and their enablers are, they will save anything to save their butts.

"One prominent Irish victim, Marie Collins, said the Vatican's defense highlighted the need for Ireland to pass a law making the non-reporting of suspected child abuse a specific crime."

In all of these stories about the failure of bishops to report allegations of sexual abuse to the police, the "elephant in the room" is not covered in the detail that it deserves. The fact is that Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger and the head of the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a letter to all bishops, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, placing all of the bishops under "papal secrecy" in regard to allegations of sexual abuse by clergy. The penalty for the violation of papal secrecy is excommunication. These allegations were not to be taken outside the Church.

Further, the Vatican has centuries of history insisting that the civil law and its enforcers have no jurisdiction over clergy in matters that involve their bishops or the pope. Canon law and the judicial offices of the Church are to prevail. That is the subtext of the 1997 letter, in which the Vatican admonishes the bishops, while creating plausible denial of secrecy by referring to the possibility that reports to civil authorities might prevent he priest from being fully punished under canon law. What a truly byzantine method of reasoning. Let's say, Bishop X of Philadelphia reports to the police credible accusations of sexual abuse by a priest in his diocese. The police investigate and they find sufficient evidence to refer the matter to the District Attorney. The DA prosecutes and obtains a conviction. Father Z goes to jail for several years. What would hamper the bishop and the Vatican from removing forever the priest's faculties to function as a priest in any diocese in the world? Of course, the Vatican's answer is that if the priest gets off on the civil accusation, the Church will be hampered from proceeding against him. As if this is the problem. Who did the Vatican prosecute for allegations of child sexual abuse? Fr Maciel is the only one that I can think of, and the action against him was not a full canonical trial, as far as I know. Anybody else? That's what the Vatican wants us to believe when they say that nothing in the 1997 letter prohibited any bishop from going to the police with accusations.

With all due respect, we're not that dumb, or that uninformed, or that easily misled. I serve as a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. By California law, I am a mandated reporter. If I have evidence that anyone has abused a child or a disabled person, or an elder, I am required by law to report this allegation tot he police. So are my bishops. The best thing that Ireland, and other states can do is to plass the law that Marie Collins is talking about.

Once again the vatican proves its irrelevance, arrogance and separation from reality. Nothing new here folks, move along now.

The Tánaiste, Mr Gilmore cannot have it both ways. Today, in his response to the publication of the Vatican's Response he states that the Government was never concerned about the status of particular documents. But he remains convinced that the 1997 letter gave comfort to any prelate who did not want to implement the Guidelines. The Vatican's response clearly establishes the status and context of this letter and there is absolutely no evidence in the Cloyne Report that this letter was ever used as a pretext for not implementing the agreed Guidelines.
Gilmore clearly doesn't like the Vatican and obviously will not accept its bona fides in anything. His response and use of language give the impression that child abuse is a problem only for the Church.
The Response is thorough in its rebuttal of the awful charges laid against the Pope by the Taoiseach in the Dáil lsat July.
It is now up to the Government to ensure that all agencies within its own remit implement appropriate Guidelines (a very small percentage have complied to date) and it would be of benefit to everyone if it magnanimously helped repair relations with the Vatican hwich were badly damaged by the intemporate and unprecedented language of the Taoiseach.

What a surprise..... the Vatican did nothing wrong.

The only people who beleive that is the Vatican and John Allen.

I just read the headline.
I can't read Allen's reports anymore. He has completely lost all credibility reporting on the Vatican. The cost of his easy access to Vatican "insiders" has been his unwillingness to report anything negative about the Vatican.
When is the NCR going to recognize this?

His calling those who are calling for reform in the Vatican "sharks" going for blood was unforgiveable.

As Sherlock Holmes asks, "why didn't the dog bark", we too should ask why did the Vatican fail to ask very obvious questions from the beginning in communicating with the Irish hierarchy? This question hangs out there--twisting in the wind-- and remains unanswered even after today's paltry and terribly disappointing response from the Holy See. Like petty criminals attempting to cover their hind parts with puerile excuse-making and unconvincing protestations of innocence by children caught with their hands in the biscuit jar. Outraged Catholics deserved better than what we received from Rome.

We're still left with a horrible taste in our mouths, and must continue to ask the all-important question, why didn't the bishops cooperate with the Irish Government and the police from the outset when they had the chance? Were they the docile tools of the Vatican they've been portrayed to be? Why, in the minds of the bishops, did they take cover and protect themselves by looking to canon law and Rome first and not the criminal laws of Ireland? Why were the bishops so completely remiss in seeking appropriate advice from the outset on what were clearly criminal matters from their own diocesan CIVIL legal advisors, their own solicitors?

In short, what part of you must OBEY THE LAW, do the bishops not understand? The Irish prosecutor's office and other elements of the Government should demand and receive the complete file of correspondence between the Irish bishops and the Holy See from day one, and demand nothing less. For it's part, the Holy See would have made a far more credible case and put to rest the concerns of Catholics everywhere if it had simply volunteered to put the entire record out on the table for the world to see. Continuing a wall of secrecy, suspicion, and obfuscation serves to undermine any credibility the Vatican may ever have had.

The Irish Catholic Church in order to preserve it's own credibility may have no alternative to seeking complete autonomy from Rome, and establish a national Church with future bishops chosen by the lower clergy and people.

"The (1997)letter advised the Irish bishops that some elements of a draft set of sex abuse guidelines the bishops developed in 1996, including support for “mandatory reporter” policies on child abuse, could conflict with canon law."
The Vatican 9-3-2011 response:
"...the Vatican claimed that the 1997 letter was not intended to prevent the Irish bishops from reporting child abuse to the police, but to make sure that possible conflicts with church law would not allow abusers to evade ecclesial punishment on a technicality."

Uh, huh. Now, really, for anyone working within the church, would actually read 1997 letter as a "very strong suggestion" wink, wink, to not report, if you understand what is written here. Some of us will understand this very well! The ultra- pro defenders of the church will not.

No amount of Canon Law or Civil Law, for that matter, will be effective, as Enda Kenny says, in a culture of "dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and narcissism" that is at the core of the Vatican world view. The perfect example: John Paul II's mindless support of Marciel Maciel and his sexually perverted ego trip in the Legionaires of Christ. We have the culture of an all male "bonded" group of psychologically insecure and immature men who's very identity is wrapped up in being perfect, without blemish and superior to those "little people, simple people" whom they seem to believe are in such desperate need of their leadership. Thank God for Archbishop Martin and the other blessed leaders who are wired to have instant outrage at such self-serving evil and then the true courage to go "against the system" and call it out. They are our prophets today. I am also thinking of the Austrian priests and leadership who are now voicing their righteous outrage at the pathological culture of denial and dysfunction in the ancient culture of the Vatican. Pope Benedict chose to bring back the LeFevre schismatics and now look at the tidal wave of "schismatics" he and his supporters have induced. Wish Christ was at the core with the hierarchy, but perhaps they do not see the need of Him and believe they are the proper replacement.

Sorry not credible:consider this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the testimony of Msgr. Lynne in the Philadelphia sex abuse scandal:

“In the testimony, taken between 2002 and 2004, the officials portrayed themselves as hamstrung by canonical laws and edicts from Rome favorable to accused priests.”

Allen says the Vatican says, "nothing in church law ever prevented a bishop or anyone else from reporting civil crimes to the police." So, how many of the hundreds of crimes were actually reported to the police? Answer: virtually none. The question is, "Why?'. The Vatican's defense not convincing.

Thank you for your coverage in what appears to be a scandal of scandals.
I fell a deep wound in my heart for the harm that the bishops in Ireland and whomever it is at the Vatican that is enabling this continuing crises.

I do not understand how such a deep betrayal of Christ could be allowed to fester and deepen to this level.
Historically the Irish church has produced abundant vocations.
Now the bishops of the Irish church have managed to allow for a destruction of the church they have been entrusted to protect and lead. For clergy to do this unspeakable sin over such a long period and for the leaders to ignore and enable it is demonic. It is evil.
And there is no way to side step the sin. The only voice of sanity in the matter seems to be coming from the archbishop of Dublin.
I am not inspired by how the Vatican is handling the crises. And I am deeply disappointed in Benedict with this new twist in the terrible tragedy.

I hear the Vatican defending itself, indirectly implying it was the bishops of Ireland who failed. But then why did the Vatican refuse to allow bishops involved to resign? I'm hearing a mixed message.

The Vatican’s response is designed to forestall any liability on its part for abuse anywhere. The dishonesty of it is both clear and typical.

The Vatican specializes in a type of communication charitably described as deflection and evasion. Indirect statements that can be interpreted multiple ways satisfy the imperative to avoid responsibility and escape blame.

It’s like trying to grab a fistful of eels — of course there is no policy stating something forthrightly, only a long, long record of actions to the contrary. But, you see, since there is no distinct policy statement, then what actually happened is just your misinterpretation, your error. Never did they say openly, do not report to civil authorities, but the hyper-focus on secrecy and avoidance of scandal saturated clerical culture.

Those priests who actually did report to police were censured and removed from their positions, a lesson not lost on everyone else. Rev. Bruce Teague in MA and John Conley under Levada in San Fran come immediately to mind. Every priest I asked told me it was unthinkable to report to police. And the church fought hard in legislatures not to require mandatory reporting under the law for clergy.

As to canon law issues in all this, of course it was an impediment in Ireland and in the US, whose experience is illustrative:

Note Jason Berry and Gerald Renner’s book and DVD, Vows of Silence (www.vowsofsilencefilm.com), that examines the justice system of the church in detail over decades of the sexual abuse scandal.

The authors note that beginning in the fall of 1989 American bishops begged for canon law reforms to allow them more latitude in removing abusive priests.

Representatives sent to negotiate with the Vatican returned empty-handed, with the ridiculous non-sequitur that since the streamlining of canon law processes had resulted in numerous marriage annulments, similar streamlining for accused molesters “could be a threat to their rights.” (p. 130)

No response was available beyond cumbersome secret trials lasting perhaps up to ten years, and that constituted impediments in civil case discovery. Bishops were also aware of their ineffectiveness. Read where priests like Anthony Cipolla and Robert Trupia appealed to Rome, and despite compelling evidence to the contrary, had their suspensions revoked. It took years of follow-up to get these molesters removed.

Again in 1993, a delegation of American bishops unsuccessfully pleaded for reforms. JPII personally denied them greater autonomy under canon law.”You’ll get no quick fixes out of me,” he told them (p. 93).

Finally by 1994, after ignoring abuse victims, JPII allowed two changes: the statute of limitations was extended from five to ten years after the victim turned 18, and the age of minority was extended from 16 to under 18. (Never mind that an average age of survivors reporting abuse has been the mid-40’s at the earliest. And the scapegoat theory that the pope just did not know is questionable at best.)

In 1995, the church’s highest court modified canon 1044 on “psychic defect” to include a sane priest with a “general mental disorder.” IOW, at least you did not have to be judged insane to be removed.

In 1997, the pronuncio was peppering US bishops with questions about diocesan policies and procedures that could be “canonically null.” (Similarities to the nuncio's letter in Ireland to Irish bishops, in the same year as it happens.)

Fast forward to Dallas, 2002 after survivor lawsuits, the courts and the media brought episcopal negligence to the fore. Under guidance by the PR firm of R.F. Binder, bishops went into major damage control with the Dallas Charter and Essential Norms.

By 2002-2003, JPII allowed the CDF to waive “prescription” in individual cases, the canonical equivalent of statutes of limitation. The CDF could henceforth handle abuse cases using an administrative or non-judicial process.

The prime exhibit of the injustices of the Vatican’s canon law system is the case of Legion of Christ founder Marcial Maciel. Eight Legion seminarians filed a case in 1998 that was deep sixed due to Maciel’s influence with JPII; a “delicate matter” according to Ratzinger to charge someone who had done so much for the church.

Nothing for eight long years, and then no verdict on the merits. Only a face-saving slap on the hands for Maciel in 2006 “inviting” him to a life of prayer and penance.

Tom Doyle goes into detail how the Vatican revises history on the question of reporting to civil authorities. See his direct quotes from Vatican officials how priests should NOT be reported to police. But, “We never said not to report,” in its response to Cloyne is the Vatican’s latest reiteration of its self-excusing mendacity.

Revising history Vatican style
http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/revising-history-vatican-style

Again, Dietrich Bonhoeffer nails the dishonesty:

“Communicating truthfully means more than factual accuracy…There is a way of speaking which is…entirely correct and unexceptionable, but which is, nevertheless, a lie…When an apparently correct statement contains some deliberate ambiguity, or deliberately omits the essential part of the truth…it does not express the real as it exists in God.”

Telling the truth “is a matter of correct appreciation of REAL situations and of serious reflection upon them.” IOW, not whether something is distinctly in the policy manual or not.

Those in the vatican have a problem, Its accountability and honesty, How do you trust any one in the vatican, When you read letters sent to all the hierarchy, About keeping abuse secret,

but in the end the vatican, like any other entity, has to come clean. those who failed to act and address the injuries done to so many powerless may have done so without vatican cover: so? where has the vatican been since, in ireland and in so many other places? why is it acting like a corporation trying to limit liability. look to cape breton, nova scotia, for an example. there, the families of the victims are being asked to fund the compensation packages through their contributions to their parishes.

Sounds like just more "mental reservations" and Orwellian Newspeak from the Vatican!!
Actions, or more accurately, lack of proactive actions on behalf of victims rather than the perpetrators, speak louder than all their words...

My Tipperary-born father had a term for this kind of lingo: blather. The Vatican's approach is: If you can't argue from the truth or the morally defensible, bury them in legalese and obfuscation. The official church's prolonged, consistent refusal to deal the the sex abuse scandal on a human level--whether in Rome or Kansas City--is abhorrent. Pope Ratzinger will have no credibility until he takes a gaggle of cardinals, archbishops and bishops to the woodshed. Of course, that won't happen, because Ratzinger has consistently shown himself to be more concerned with preserving the "dignity" and privileged status of the clerical caste than with protecting mere children from being raped by his fellow priests. I'd love to see him don a simple black cassock and sit down, as an equal, for an honest and open conversation with the dissenting priests in his native land. That won't happen, of course, becaue Ratzinger is a fascist, absolute monarch; he does not believe in the equality of all God's children, civil liberties, openness or accountability.

I have a hard time with the response from Rome. It reads too much like another attempt to distance Rome from the actions of bishops. Rome names them; Rome fires them. But Rome has no responsibility for how they act while they exercise the power Rome gave them?

If the pedophilia problem were not so all-over-the-world there might be some reason to think that Rome just let a few bad eggs get past them in the naming of bishops. But, so many closed their eyes for so long, everywhere. That is cultural. And the response from Rome and the bishops was fumbled, slow, and too full of defensiveness, everywhere.

What does Rome need to do to help us believe and accept that they are alert to the dangers of clergy preying on children and that they have broken their own culture of silence in the face of evil and danger to children? I am serious here, because I am looking for a way past the anger and back to trust. I don't know what will be enough or what combination of actions Rome can take that lets me believe them. Oh, well. One thing would be sending Law back to Boston. That isn't enough, just a beginning, but it would be something.

"One prominent Irish victim, Marie Collins, said the Vatican's defense highlighted the need for Ireland to pass a law making the non-reporting of suspected child abuse a specific crime.
“As long as it’s not there, the church can defend its own actions as the document does,” she said."

Many years ago in CCD classes Sister Mary Margaret taught us that in order to receive forgiveness for our sins we had to repent. The Vatican continues to deny its well documented "sins" (let us say grave mistakes in moral judgment). The good Sister also taught us that power corrupts and powerful sinner is less likely to repent because he thinks he is above the laws of God. It seems the good Sister was right on. As the Vatican continues to deny it documented role in the protection of pedophile priests at the cost of innocent Catholic children, the faithful will continue to leave the Church in even more increasing numbers.

Howard

In today's Mass the readings seem to ring out.
EZ 33 7-9 If you don't speak out to disuade the wicked, he will die for his guilt; you will be responsible for his guilt.

ROM 13:: 8-10 Love one another then you have fulfilled the law. Love does no do evil to his neighbor.

MT 18: 15-20. If your brother sins against you tell him alone. If he doesn't listen, have witnesses. Then tell the church. If he still doesn't listen, then treat him as a Gentile or Tax Collector.

Wink, wink. Nod, nod.

It's truly amazing how much effort and energy the Vatican can devote to scrutinizing every jot and tittle of some theologian's writings, but claim to be ignorant of the impact of its own actions and inactions vis-a-vis the clerical sexual abuse crisis.

The law of the land should trump cannon law.
Cannon law should never have been mentioned. The Vatican letter should have said report all abuse immediately to police.

Frankly, I believe that if Interpol or some other law enforcement agency had complete access to Vatican files, this pope and many Cardinals, Archbishops and bishops in Rome would find themselves facing tribunals. This sex abuse issue keeps recurring and recurring. The point man for many years was Joesph Ratzinger. They can say this letter and that letter is out of context but the fact is that despite the press and media attention very little was done to stop the problem. Instead Ratzinger and his buddies stonewalled everything. There is and was too much smoke that there has to be fire. If the full truth was known many cardinals plus Ratzinger would be in prison.

Encouragement for those disappointed with the Church, by Leonardo Boff, Theologian

There is great disappointment with the institutional Catholic Church. A double emigration is happening: one is exterior, persons who simply leave the Church, and the other is interior, those who remain in the Church but who no longer feel that she is their spiritual home. They continue believing, in spite of the Church.

It’s not for nothing. The present pope has taken some radical initiatives that have divided the ecclesiastic body. He chose a path of confrontation with two important episcopacies, the German and the French, when he introduced the Latin Mass. He articulated an obscure reconciliation with the Church of the followers of Lebfrevre; gutted the principal renewal institutions of Vatican Council II, especially ecumenism, absurdly denying the title of «Church» to those Churches that are not Catholic or Orthodox. When he was a Cardinal he was gravely permissive with pedophiles, and his concern with AIDS borders the inhumane.

The present Catholic Church is submerged in a rigorous winter. The social base that supports the antiquated model of the present pope is comprised of conservative groups, more interested in the media, in the logic of the market, than in proposing an adequate response to the present grave problems. They offer a «lexotan-Christianity» good for pacifying anxious consciences, but alienated from the suffering humanity.

It is urgent that we animate these Christians about to emigrate with what is essential in Christianity. It certainly is not the Church, that was never the object of the preaching of Jesus. He announced a dream, the Kingdom of God, in contraposition to the Kingdom of Caesar; the Kingdom of God that represents an absolute revolution in relationships, from the individual to the divine and the cosmic.

Christianity appeared in history primarily as a movement and as the way of Christ. It predates its grounding in the four Gospels and in the doctrines. The character of a spiritual path means a type of Christianity that has its own course. It generally lives on the edge and, at times, at a critical distance from the official institution. But it is born and nourished by the permanent fascination with the figure, and the liberating and spiritual message of Jesus of Nazareth. Initially deemed the «heresy of the Nazarenes» (Acts 24,5) or simply, a «heresy» (Acts 28,22) in the sense of a «very small group», Christianity was acquiring autonomy until its followers, according to The Acts of The Apostles (11,36), were called, «Christians».

The movement of Jesus is certainly the most vigorous force of Christianity, stronger than the Churches, because it is neither bounded by institutions, nor is it a prisoner of doctrines and dogmas. It is composed of all types of people, from the most varied cultures and traditions, even agnostics and atheists who let themselves be touched by the courageous figure of Jesus, by the dream he announced, a Kingdom of love and liberty, by his ethic of unconditional love, especially for the poor and the oppressed, and by the way he assumed the human drama, amidst humiliation, torture and his execution on the cross. Jesus offered an image of God so intimate and life-friendly that it is difficult to disregard, even by those who do not believe in God. Many people say, «if there is a God, it has to be like the God of Jesus».

This Christianity as a spiritual path is what really counts. However, from being a movement it soon became a religious institution, with several forms of organization. In its bosom were developed different interpretations of the figure of Jesus, that were transformed into doctrines, and gathered into the official Gospels. The Churches, when they assumed institutional character, established criteria of belonging and of exclusion, doctrines such as identity reference and their own rites of celebration. Sociology, and not theology, explains that phenomenon. The institution always exists in tension with the spiritual path. The ideal is that they develop together, but that is rare. The most important, in any case, is the spiritual path. This has a future and animates the meaning of life.

The problem of the Roman Catholic Church is her claim of being the only true one. The correct approach is for all the Churches to recognize each other, because they reveal different and complementary dimensions of the message of the Nazarene. What is important is for Christianity to maintain its character as a spiritual path. That can sustain so many Christian men and women in the face of the mediocrity and irrelevancy into which the present Catholic Church has fallen.

Leonardo Boff

I think the failure of our leadership on this account is their unwillingness to accept institutional accountability. The first of the four assertions that John Allen identifies reflects this problem that has and continues to plague our church, as it expresses sorrow for the suffering the victims and their families "have had to endure WITHIN the Church". These simple words reflect the Vatican's unwillingness to accept any significant direct responsibility for what has happened. The Church admits something was wrong, but rather than admitting their complicity (i.e. we made a mistake and we're sorry), they make a general statement (i.e. a mistake was made within {not by} our Church and we're sorry for the suffering that was caused by the mistake they {not us} made). How can they not see that the presence of sex abuse scandals in so many countries and cultures can only be explained by a broader culture that begins primarily where our Church is connected - in the Vatican (hierarchy)? The prime minister's words demanded a response from the vatican because he considered the abuse crisis as a social sin, that called for an institutional (not just personal) examination of conscience. In effect the prime minister felt it was insufficient to describe the scandal as a mistake made "within" the institutional church, but rather as a mistake made "by" the institutional Church as a result of its culture. The new evangelization would do well to start by our Church leadership modeling the honesty and humility they ask of us in the sacrament of reconciliation, in assessing their own responsibility.

"Eamon Gilmore said he wasn’t fully persuaded"

This is typical partisan, biased political reaction by a foreign minister whose prime minister has set out to score political points on the clergy sexual abuse scandal in Ireland. It does not refute any significant point or outright reject the Vatican statement, he is just ‘not fully persuaded’, whatever that means. It is a dishonest attitude, indeed.

For many centuries, the Vatican has regularly "re-written history." They lie about what happened. Then they swear to the "truth" of their lies. All the while, they either hide or refuse to release the documents that would shed light on their lies.

Those who comment on this website regularly note that many bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and other church muckywhumps have stayed in office or been promoted by the Vatican after their many egregious offenses. One is hard-pressed to point to anyone at the level of bishop or higher who has actually been punished by the Vatican for his complicity in the clerical sexual abuse scandal.

And they wonder why we regularly refuse to believe what they say?

What could we expect from canon lawyers other that a 25 page self-justification that ignores all but legalistic self-justification?

My first thoughts on looking at that garbage were

* How recognisable the text is as wordy legalistic self-justification. It is but twenty-five pages of nonsensical quibbling over interpretations of vague statements.
* How would an honest pastor who had the welfare of others have responded? Perhaps the response might have included an acknowledgment that if earlier Vatican statements have been misinterpreted in the Cloyne Report, then responsibility for that might sheet home to the authors of those Vatican responses to the Irish bishops.

A really pastoral response to the Irish bishops might have been along the lines like this:
* ---Your initiative in defining a national policy is greatly appreciated and commended and has our full support, given that some issues regarding canon-law considerations need to be resolved. While that work proceeds, we acknowledge and support the commitment of all Irish bishops to a policy of "mandatory reporting" to facilitate cooperation with civil authorities.

it was just plain decent of the Vatican to offer the lengthy and detailed explanation
of its responses to the Irish report. It is convincing and explains thoroughly the
need to reconcile canon law and civil law--and, o Dear, once in a while to consider
what might be an accused priest's right to fair prodcedure. Mr Allen has done us
all a service, and his article lights the way to understand how media and the
rash "re-reads" from SNAP always distort the real road to serious reform--
there is nothing whatsoever to prove that Pope Benedict and his crew
have obstructed any criminal investigation in any way. Until there is evidence
the best responce, written or un-written, is simply PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
AND that is brilliantly very American.
James McCormick, a mere sheep of the flock---in sheep's clothing!!

Why is it that I don't believe the Vatican? Could it be that they've lied to us for too long? Pity!

Put outlaws in jail!!!

Make the hierarchs criminal accessories for NOT REPORTING to civil authorities the sexual exploitation of children by priests liable to long prison sentences.

That will get the hierarchs to pay attention to priests raping and sodomizing children. Then, and only then, will you see the Vatican hierarchs singing a different tune!

Enforcement is the key. Without enforcement by civil authorities the hierarchs will continue in their confused understanding that they are somehow 'privileged' to sexually exploit their 'spiritual serfs' with impunity.

Much as I sometimes detest the Vatican, maybe they are right on this one. The NCR also has to make up its mind: If the pope is CEO of the Church, the buck stops there and he has to micromanage everything. If bishops are not mere delegates of the pope, then some things are in their court and their responsibility. Of course the Vatican clouds all this by constantly interfering with the bishops. Their outrageous imposition of the new latinized ligurgy is a good example...or their prompt firing of an Australian bishop for even hinting that a discussion about women priest is possible.

Of course, all of this goes back to Vatican I. The most outrageous thing done there was not the teaching of infallibility, but the fact that cowardly bishops turned their authority over to Pius IX the tyrant, thus instantly creating two bishops in every diocese, with their authority a rag. And then Pope J2P2 demolished the Vatican II teaching on bishops and remade them the papal lap dogs.

The Vatican continues to "play defense." It would do well to kneel, bow its collective head and say "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."

And then ask the victims of abuse what it must do to gain their forgiveness and
regain its salvation.

It would be easy for the Vatican to say "sorry, we made a mistake" but the bureaucrats within Catholic HQ can't do that because it might reflect badly on them. Instead, what we are offered is a technical explanation of how the canon and civil codes are separate and function differently. Nothing much new there and nothing much of substance in this response. As with all Vatican responses to the sex abuse crisis, they are distancing themselves as far as possible from any responsibility for what happened. What happened to ALL of those reports Cardinal Ratzinger received over the years?

Too many words.

That is the Vatican's problem. The more words you use, the greater the potential for someone finding a way around the rules.

In its response, the Vatican says this: "Meeting canonical requirements to ensure the correct administration of justice within the Church IN NO WAY PRECLUDED COOPERATION WITH CIVIL AUTHORITIES."

But it also says this:

"procedures and dispositions WHICH APPEAR TO BE CONTRARY TO CANONICAL DISCIPLINE and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be HIGHLY EMBARRASSING AND DETRIMENTAL to those same Diocesan authorities."

The Vatican specifies which aspect of civil law it is most concerned with:

"In particular, the situation of ‘MANDATORY REPORTING’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature" (1.18).

But then the Vatican insists that there was nothing in its documents to prevent or discourage the reporting suspected sexual abuse of children to civil authorities:

"The Congregation for the Clergy did express reservations about mandatory reporting, but IT DID NOT FORBID the Irish Bishops from reporting accusations of child sexual abuse nor did it encourage them to flout Irish law."

Here is the way I read it: Irish bishops were told that church law (which in their minds is the same as MORAL law) was paramount. The Vatican warned them that sometimes civil law contradicted canon law. It didn't expressly forbid bishops from reporting cases of suspected child abuse, but it warned them that doing so could be "highly embarrassing and detrimental" to those who did.

In other words, as far as reporting sexual abuse goes, do it at your own peril. If it turns out that you're wrong about a priest, we will throw you under the bus. And you can kiss your career goodbye.

Tell me where I'm wrong, folks.

Once again John Allen shows himself top be a mouthpiece for the Vatican. Two questions: 1) What would you do or think if you were a bishop in Ireland and you received the letter from Hoyos? Would you believe that you were being directed to not report abuse. If I were a rising bishop, I would certainly believe that any correspondence from Rome was a directive. 2) Is this the same Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos who wrote a letter to a French bishop congratulating him for not reporting an abusive priest to the authorities and pouring great praise upon the bishop for hiding this priest? Why yes - yes it is the same one. Keep this in mind and go back and look at question 1 again. What do you really think Hoyos was doing when he wrote that letter to the Irish bishops.

You can parse the garbage all you want but all you get is so much friggin smoke that you can't tell if there is a fire. Stop parsing - there is a fire.

Point 2 of this article reiterates the Vatican claim that the 1997 letter did nothing to prevent bishops from reporting child abuse to the police.

However, the following sentence from paragraph 3 of the 1997 letter cleverly asserts the contrary: "If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities."

To be sure, bishops don't like to lose cases, especially at the Vatican. But far more relevant here, bishops don't like to be denied promotions to bigger (= more Catholics and more $$) dioceses or archbishoprics, or even to be threatened with removal from pastoral ministry (like Bishop Bill Morris in Australia).

Like it or not, that IS the way the Vatican Old Boys Club continues to operate, even when Gospel values are at stake.

Civil law and canon law are two separate systems, it said, and nothing in church law ever prevented a bishop or anyone else from reporting civil crimes to the police.
While the above paraphrased statement may be accurate, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who headed up the Congregation for Clergy in 1997 when the letter was written, in 2001 lauded French Bishop Pierre Pican's decision not to denounce Reverend Rene Bissey who was later convicted of sexual abuse, stating "I congratulate you on not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities. You have acted wisely, and I am delighted to have a fellow member of the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of other bishops, would prefer to go to prison rather than denounce his priest-son. For the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional but a sacramental relationship which forges very special bonds of spiritual paternity. ...The bishop has other means of acting, as the Conference of French ishops recently restated; but a bishop cannot be required to make denunciation himself. In all civilized legal systems it is acknowledged that close relations have the possibility of not testifying against a direct relative".
Jason Berry also reported that in 1997 "Castrillon pressured Bishop Manuel Moreno, who was bishop of Tucson, Ariz., from 1982-2003 to allow a priest sex abuser to take a pension and work outside the diocese, despite allegations that would later jolt the diocese and cost millions to resolve."
Castrillon's perspective seem to indicate the existence of a line of thought in the Vatican that would have tried to weaken a strong response on the part of bishops against clerical sexual abuse and which actually existed at the same time that Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was pursuing a much more rigorous course against predator priests.
It would seem to be helpful for the church to acknowledge and self-criticize this line of thinking which runs counter toP8T the current teaching and practice regarding sexual abuse by priests.

Ch-ching!!!$$$ Why is it almost always about the Money with the Vatican???

Deflect, Distract, Dissemble...

I am afraid all here seem to be locked in to the idea that ther are 2 conflicting legal systems. Sorry, that is so irrelevant. You simply have to
understand the cultural side of Vatican relations with subordinates. They have to need to be specific: all they need to do is vaguely suggest. Believe me thay can count with 100% reliability on the subordinate getting the right
message. So, when things blow up as they have they can point to the fact
that '''' they have done absolutely nothing to prevent the bishops from
reporting to the police ''''. BullFeathers! You simply do not understand this system from the inside.
I was recruited by a pedophile priest to the baby seminary in 1954. He was
no problem to me but my best friend called me aside to let me know that he
"had been interfered with". We both knew instinctively that any report to
the local ordinary would simply leave everything quashed. The 'scandal' being
hidden was always infinitely more important than anything else. My friend left for home and his politically in family. Some weeks later we arose one morning and were introduced to our new rector. Not a single word was ever mentioned about the former rector, nor have I ever found out where the religious community hid him. God forbid he may have been sent elsewhere and
continued his pathetic quest.
My message simply put is stuff the legalese! The Taoiseach is correct and
deserves the support of every sane Irishman. The Vatican needs to have its
nose shoved in the dirt enough so that it can finally get the scent of the
corruption it has tolerated and failed miserably to do anything reasonable
to stop. Who needs this kind of leadership? Yes it is dysfunctional and that
is being kind. This was 57 years ago and nothing has changed!

God Bless all good men of good will in the greater Christian Fellowship!
TomC

It is not just the 1997 letter, there is also this information, as reported at boston.com, regarding a 1998 speech:

"Surprisingly, the Vatican response Saturday cites a 1998 speech Castrillon Hoyos delivered to Irish bishops on dealing with sexual abuse in which he stressed that the church and its priests "should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice." The Vatican said his speech showed that civil law and church law can operate in parallel."

"The response doesn't, however, cite the rest of Castrillon Hoyos' speech, in which he resoundingly criticized the Irish mandatory reporting policy, said it should be revised and that such reporting requirements risked that "the image of the bishop can be turned into more of a policeman than a true father."

"He acknowledged that such crimes need to be dealt with quickly, but warned against "obsessive" pursuit of accused priests by bishops because of the damage it can do to the priests, whose souls, he said, were "at the center of the affair."

"If he is guilty, we must, before anything else, be involved with his conversion," Castrillon Hoyos said. "If as often happens, he is a victim of calumny, we must help him to prove his innocence and carry this cross."
The speech is a remarkable demonstration of what many victims' advocates consider the Vatican's misplaced concern for the rights of priests over the welfare of children."

It is this kind of confusing signal from Rome that left bishops confused and unable to act to protect children. This is the culture of clericalism that has to be broken.

Last year the Vatican issued a 22 page letter of apology to the Irish people and now today September 3 it issues a 25 page letter of explaination and rebutal to the Irish government. How does the Vatican and the Pope restore the faith in this nation and its credibility with the people which won't be done with two letters drafted by handlers? A strong and sincere message needs to be sent to Ireland and the world. The Pope has a “motive” for early retirement rather than hang on to his death bed as JP II did.

St. John Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests was ordained in 1815 and died on August 4, 1859. His parish for life was Ars, France a town of 250 people. He heard confessions 16 hours per day for some 300 people per day who traveled to his town for his counseling, upwards of 100,000 per year. He fasted his entire life eating only boiled potatoes and black bread. He whipped himself with a leather whip with metal door keys tied to the ends which he found laying on the streets in town. When he died he told
his assistant priest to bury him in his cassock and not to change his clothes so that no one would see all the wounds and scars on his body from whipping. He whipped himself and fasted because he believed that he could not give his confessional penitents the penance they deserved for their sins so he did their penance for them.

Pope Benedict should not resign because of the heat of public pressure, embarrassment for past decisions, nor because of guilt from the scandal but because he is the Father of his family of all priests and Bishops. Benedict could see that God needs him for the reparation for the sins of his priests. Benedict could make a magnificent public statement -- much better than 50 pages of paper in two letters -- which would mark him as Great for all of history by announcing retirement to a mountain top monastery to live a life of penance as reparation for the sins of his priests and Bishops who destroyed the faith of Ireland, Germany, America, Canada, etc.

We all know Benedict did not hand write the two letters to Ireland. They were composed by Vatican writers, circulated by email for editing among theologian staff, and then given to Benedict for a few word changes as is the practice of busy corporate executives. It is too easy for Benedict to say “We are sorry” on sheets of paper and make a legalistic rebuttal by quoting Canon law.

But Benedict could make a world statement by putting his body where his mouth is by doing as St. John Vianney did. Benedict’s “motive” would be to do the penance for his sinful priests and Bishops, which they refuse to do, as a real showing to the world of reparation for the destruction of the church and lost faith of the victims of sex abuse to begin rebuilding the faith of entire nations.

This scandal will take 500 years for Catholicism to live down. The Church is still wrestling with the devastation of the Reformation of 500 yeas ago when it lost entire countries and societies of peoples who left the faith. A dramatic statement needs to be made which 50 sheets of paper or meeting with 5 or 10 pre-selected abuse victims in a controlled setting will not accomplish. Retirement to a life of penance in a monastery
would be such a statement which could not be discounted by pundits and Irish goverment officials who already are spinning today's Vatican response.

The retirement of a Pope has not happened for some 400 years. Doing so now as reparation for these sins would show Benedict is truely sincere and not just dancing a jig around the problem. He would be putting, as St. John Vianney did, his body where his mouth is.
Pax Vobiscum, Atty. Roger M. Lindmark, Los Angeles, California