CDF official details response to sex abuse

ESCAPE CLAUSE:
"In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of confession,..."
http://www.avvenire.it/Chiesa/intervista+pedofilia+scicluna_201003130801...

More lame DAMAGE CONTROL from Rome, which, by the way FAILS to cover Teutonic countries and their HIERARCHS. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Memo to Scicluna:
WHO trained you in the CDF, given the fact that Joseph Ratzinger has been the boss since 1981?
How stupid do you think people are?
Spare us the REVISIONIST history, you're only digging the hole DEEPER, cuz now we're back to documented systemic knowledge of clerical perverts since 1922:
http://www.richardsipe.com/Doyle/Commentary%20on%201922%20and%201962%20d...

Why can't the whole transcript be printed? Most shocking is that between 1975 and 1985 no instances of abuse were brought to the CDF for investigation. I also thought that the discusssion on statute of limitations is particularly interesting. Here's the version from the Vatican Information Service:

PROMOTER OF JUSTICE AT DOCTRINE OF FAITH ON PAEDOPHILIA

VATICAN CITY, 13 MAR 2010 (VIS) - Given below is the text of an interview, published today by the Italian newspaper "Avvenire", with Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, promoter of justice of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, concerning the investigative and judicial activities of that dicastery in cases of "delicta graviora", which include the crime of paedophilia committed by members of the clergy:

Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna is the "promoter of justice" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He is effectively the prosecutor of the tribunal of the former Holy Office, whose job it is to investigate what are known as "delicta graviora"; i.e., the crimes which the Catholic Church considers as being the most serious of all: crimes against the Eucharist and against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance, and crimes against the sixth Commandment ("thou shall not commit impure acts") committed by a cleric against a person under the age of eighteen. These crimes, in a "Motu Proprio" of 2001, "Sacramentum sanctitatis tutela", come under the competency of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In effect, it is the "promoter of justice" who deals with, among other things, the terrible question of priests accused of paedophilia, which are periodically highlighted in the mass media. Msgr. Scicluna, an affable and polite Maltese, has the reputation of scrupulously carrying out the tasks entrusted to him without deferring to anyone.

Question: Monsignor, you have the reputation of being "tough", yet the Catholic Church is systematically accused of being accommodating towards "paedophile priests".

Answer: It may be that in the past - perhaps also out of a misdirected desire to protect the good name of the institution - some bishops were, in practice, too indulgent towards this sad phenomenon. And I say in practice because, in principle, the condemnation of this kind of crime has always been firm and unequivocal. Suffice it to recall, to limit ourselves just to last century, the famous Instruction "Crimen sollicitationis" of 1922.

Q: Wasn't that from 1962?

A: No, the first edition dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.

Q: Norms which, however, recommended secrecy...

A: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right - as everyone does - to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.

Q: Nonetheless, that document is periodically cited to accuse the current Pontiff of having been - when he was prefect of the former Holy Office - objectively responsible for a Holy See policy of covering up the facts...

A: That accusation is false and calumnious. On this subject I would like to highlight a number of facts. Between 1975 and 1985 I do not believe that any cases of paedophilia committed by priests were brought to the attention of our Congregation. Moreover, following the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there was a period of uncertainty as to which of the "delicta graviora" were reserved to the competency of this dicastery. Only with the 2001 "Motu Proprio" did the crime of paedophilia again become our exclusive remit. From that moment Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, "sine acceptione personarum". Therefore, to accuse the current Pontiff of a cover-up is, I repeat, false and calumnious.

Q: What happens when a priest is accused of a "delictum gravius"?

A: If the accusation is well-founded the bishop has the obligation to investigate both the soundness and the subject of the accusation. If the outcome of this initial investigation is consistent, he no longer has any power to act in the matter and must refer the case to our Congregation where it is dealt with by the disciplinary office.

Q: How is that office composed?

A: Apart from myself who, being one of the superiors of the dicastery, also concern myself with other matters, there are the bureau chief Fr. Pedro Miguel Funes Diaz, seven priests and a lay lawyer who follow these cases. Other officials of the Congregation also make their own vital contribution depending upon the language and specific requirements of each case.

Q: That office has been accused of working little and slowly...

A: Those are unjustified comments. In 2003 and 2004 a great wave of cases flooded over our desks. Many of them came from the United States and concerned the past. Over recent years, thanks to God, the phenomenon has become greatly reduced, and we now seek to deal with new cases as they arise.

Q: How many have you dealt with so far?

A: Overall in the last nine years (2001-2010) we have considered accusations concerning around three thousand cases of diocesan and religious priests, which refer to crimes committed over the last fifty years.

Q: That is, then, three thousand cases of paedophile priests?

A: No, it is not correct to say that. We can say that about sixty percent of the cases chiefly involved sexual attraction towards adolescents of the same sex, another thirty percent involved heterosexual relations, and the remaining ten percent were cases of paedophilia in the true sense of the term; that is, based on sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. The cases of priests accused of paedophilia in the true sense have been about three hundred in nine years. Please don't misunderstand me, these are of course too many, but it must be recognised that the phenomenon is not as widespread as has been believed.

Q: The accused, then, are three thousand. How many have been tried and condemned?

A: Currently we can say that a full trial, penal or administrative, has taken place in twenty percent of cases, normally celebrated in the diocese of origin - always under our supervision - and only very rarely here in Rome . We do this also in order to speed up the process. In sixty percent of cases there has been no trial, above all because of the advanced age of the accused, but administrative and disciplinary provisions have been issued against them, such as the obligation not to celebrate Mass with the faithful, not to hear confession, and to live a retired life of prayer. It must be made absolutely clear that in these cases, some of which are particularly sensational and have caught the attention of the media, no absolution has taken place. It's true that there has been no formal condemnation, but if a person is obliged to a life of silence and prayer, then there must be a reason...

Q: That still leaves twenty percent of cases...

A: We can say that in ten percent of cases, the particularly serious ones in which the proof is overwhelming, the Holy Father has assumed the painful responsibility of authorising a decree of dismissal from the clerical state. This is a very serious but inevitable provision, taken though administrative channels. In the remaining ten percent of cases, it was the accused priests themselves who requested dispensation from the obligations deriving from the priesthood, requests which were promptly accepted. Those involved in these latter cases were priests found in possession of paedophile pornographic material and, for this reason, condemned by the civil authorities.

Q: Where do these three thousand cases come from?

A: Mostly from the United States which, in the years 2003-2004, represented around eighty percent of total cases. In 2009 the United States "share" had dropped to around twenty-five percent of the 223 cases reported from all over the world. Over recent years (2007-2009), the annual average of cases reported to the Congregation from around the world has been two hundred and fifty. Many countries report only one or two cases. There is, then, a growing diversity and number of countries of origin of cases, but the phenomenon itself is much reduced. It must, in fact, be borne in mind that the overall number of diocesan and religious priests in the world is four hundred thousand, although this statistic does not correspond to the perception that is created when these sad cases occupy the front pages of the newspapers.

Q: And in Italy ?

A: Thus far the phenomenon does not seem to have dramatic proportions, although what worries me is a certain culture of silence which I feel is still too widespread in the country. The Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) offers an excellent technical-juridical consultancy service for bishops who have to deal with these cases. And I am very pleased to observe the ever greater commitment being shown by Italian bishops to throw light on the cases reported to them.

Q: You said that a full trial has taken place in around twenty percent of the three thousand cases you have examined over the last nine years. Did they all end with the condemnation of the accused?

A: Many of the past trials did end with the condemnation of the accused. But there have also been cases in which the priest was declared innocent, or where the accusations were not considered to have sufficient proof. In all cases, however, not only is there an examination of the guilt or innocence of the accused priest, but also a discernment as to his fitness for public ministry.

Q: A recurring accusation made against the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not reporting to the civil authorities when crimes of paedophilia come to their attention.

A: In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law

Q: And what about countries where bishops do not have this legal obligation?

A: In these cases we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused. Furthermore, we invite the bishops to give all spiritual - and not only spiritual - assistance to those victims. In a recent case concerning a priest condemned by a civil tribunal in Italy, it was precisely this Congregation that suggested to the plaintiffs, who had turned to us for a canonical trial, that they involve the civil authorities in the interests of victims and to avoid other crimes.

Q: A final question: is there any statue of limitation for "delicta graviora"?

A: Here you touch upon what, in my view, is a sensitive point. In the past, that is before 1889, the statue of limitations was something unknown in canon law. For the most serious crimes, it was only with the 2001 "Motu Proprio" that a statute of limitations of ten years was introduced. In accordance with these norms in cases of sexual abuse, the ten years begin from the day on which the minor reaches the age of eighteen.

Q: Is that enough?

A: Practice has shown that the limit of ten years is not enough in this kind of case, in which it would be better to return to the earlier system of "delicta graviora" not being subject to the statue of limitations. On 7 November 2002, Venerable Servant of God John Paul II granted this dicastery the power to revoke that statue of limitations, case by case following a reasoned request from individual bishops. And this revocation is normally granted.

I guess our former Democratic President Harry Truman knew a little more about ethics than does, in the words of a friend, the "Rat Pope." Harry was able to recognize when " the buck stops here." The buck now stops at the Vatican. Yet , they are not taking responsibility for the mishandling of the scandal and deepening their own crisis of leadership. All the denial reminds me of a quote from another American President, " you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can not fool all the people all the time." I think the denials first from local bishops then from the US Bishops and now from Rome illustrates a total failure of ethical leadership. The implosion of this leadership is about at big bang level right now, yet we see the denials coming from people with very weak personal characters. These men do not have the depth of character that it takes to clean a toilet much less their own contribution to the filth in the Church. Who will be asked to fall on his sword next to protect leaders at the pinnacles of Catholic Power? What other group can now have a Vatican investigation to understand how they are living their faith to prevent us from seeing how the men of the curia live their faith? Do the men in the vatican have enough character to focus on themselves and their own Bishops who are at the bottom of this mess?

Let's see last week it was the scandal of male prostitutes supplied directly to men working in the Vatican. Then of course if we go back through the years of all those nephews of the Popes and other high and not so high bishops. Then there were the priests that were told to give up their women and children so that they could keep their membership in the clergy. They were not even asked to perform fathering for the children they sired! Of course it is the same very sinful men that attempt to shame catholic couples into believing that use of the birth control pill is wrong even if the good sense of 90 % of the catholic faithful tell the Bishops by their actions that it is not wrong. Then there were the two Vatican committees of theologians, scientists and philosophers that told Pope Paul that the ideas of the church about this pill were wrong. There was the full page add in the New York Times by nearly 100 Catholic theologians that told catholics that they could still practice the Catholic Faith and practice Birth Control after Paul refused to change. Then of course there are the issues of bringing up children, clothing them, educating them and seeing to their needs. Seems all Catholic theology below the belt can not be trusted because of all the hypocrisy. Seems that the "Rat Pope" condemned the carriers of so many theologians that were able to think at levels and in a breadths Cardinal Ratzinger, himself, was unable to reach. Was envy the bases for his condemnation? With envy there are so many murderous thoughts and feelings. Cardinal Ratzinger murdered the minds and carriers of these men and he is now caught in the flimsy defense mechanism of denial about the sex scandal He Himself tried to hide. We have had weak characters as Popes before, but this one is a dilly.

R. Dennis Porch, MD

The statistics re priests' abuses is under reported to the Vatican as affirmed due to the culture of silence that is prevailing. I wonder why they only emphasize the sexual abuse of children, what about the abuse of women? I think the Vatican is strongly defending the Pope in this resurrected issue.

This is good news in a miasma of bad news and human suffering, in part perpetuated by the Vatican and the world's bishops. It's about time the Pope got tough. Even Jesus tells us to render unto Caesar - in other words, to live within the laws of the society. And that means reporting these crimes to the authorities, no matter what. And to add my two cents worth, I think the Church's twisted approach to human sexuality (not withstanding wonderful teachings like JPII's Theology of the Body) and the all-male priesthood just makes all this that much worse. At least 3 generations in my family have been affected by a priest's sexual abuse almost 80 years ago, so I know from personal experience this s--- is very real and absolutely must be dealt with.

Fact check:
<>

Other news outlets report this bird was still working as a priest till last week.

This morning's NY Times (16 March) carries a brief story on Cardinal Sean Brady of Ireland, who while admitting that he extracted a vow of silence from two abused children, and never informed the civil authorities of the case, refuses to resign his position until the Pope orders him to. Hardly the action of a staunch and forthright Christian, it seems to me, and raising once more the crucial question of what the Church (we Catholics, in other words) is meant to do when its leaders betray it.

Unmentioned in this article, but widely reported elsewhere, is the the charge of Fr. Thomas Doyle OP that then Cardinal Ratzinger, while Archbishop of Munich, "must have known" about the re-assignment of a priest-offender there, because Ratzinger, according to Doyle, is "a micromanager." The exact opposite is true. The constant complaint about Pope Benedict is that he concentrates on reflection, prayer, and writing, leaving governance in the hands of a frequently absent Secretary of State who has no control over the curia. I was incardinated for 15 years in a German diocese with 1500 priests and can testify that the norm in Germany is that the Vicar General runs the diocese on a day-to-day basis, not the bishop.

The Vatican still refuses to take any responsbility for the sexual abuse scandal which has rocked the church. The Vatican is the biggest cover-up in the whole abuse situation. It is the Vatican who sent directives to bishops to keep all scandals within the church secret. It is the Vatican who has secret files about abusive priests. It is the Vatican who has excused all bishops from having anything to do with the sex scandal. It is the Vatican that has no transparency. It is the filth in the Vatican that needs to be addressed.

Spin doctors, all.

During morning prayer, I had the saddened thought of Pope Benedict, being falsely accused.

Our church is being tried in so many ways, which makes it easy for all manner of misconduct from all sides.

Though I do not agree with all the popes views, I do not appreciate him being falsely attacked.

While I certainly don't think that celibacy leads to or promotes sexual misconduct, I do feel that as we move forward, we as a church could consider removing it as mandatory in becoming a priest.

As for the sex abuse cases, we need to realize that they must be rooted out, and tried as a lay citizens.
Accept it or not, there is a new day dawning, let us always go forth in prayer, to serve one another, not exploit nor oppress one another.

As Harry Truman said "The Buck Stops Here." Archbishop Ratzinger was in charge of his diocese and no one else should be his fall guy. Cardinal Law was in charge of the Boston Diocese and he was given a promotion. How can the Vatican say Benedict has been pursuing this aggressively?

And Cardinal Law ..... ??

Quotation:
"Msgr. Scicluna noted that a very small minority of the world's 400,000 priests were sexual perpetrators."
Question:
What is "a very small minority"?
In Austrian church media it was reported that in a period there were 17 sexual abuse cases within the church while 510 sexual abuse cases outside the church during the same period. 17 of 510 is 3,33 %.
In an interview to the Austrian weekly newspaper "Furche", Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin admitted that 3 % of the perpetrators were priests.
(Striking similarity of figures!)
But only about 0,1 % of adult men are priests. This means that a priest is about thirty times more likely to become a perpetrator than a average man.
How long will Vatican representatives continue to lie?

"False and calumnius"? Maybe in some cases, certainly not all. The New York Times of this date published an article which not only names the priest, "Father H" but, more significantly, details the time frame and events surrounding the priest's going to Munich for "therapy"(1980), his reinstatement into pastoral activity, subsequent charges and conviction ending with his removal from priestly duties which exposed him to children and youth only on Monday, March 15, 2010.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger approved the transfer to Munich and, regardless of the self-accusation of the Vicar General of full responsibility for approving the priest's return to ministry he is not solely responsible, the Cardinal Archbishop is also responsible.

The priest, according to the Times was liked and respected in his current ministry. He may well have "repented and reformed". The Archbishop (Ratzinger) may well have been unaware of the priest's return to ministry and the Vicar General may well have been personally responsible. Even in this "best-case scenario", the elements of the systemic nature of sexual abuse of children and youth are present. Ratzinger may have been "ignorant", but does this amount to "innocence"? What competent "manager" and "caretaker of the children" knowing that a sexual abuser was in his domain would not require careful supervision and periodic reports on that supervision, whereabouts, therapy progress, and activities of the priest? "Caseload" is not an excuse. Where does the hierarchical "ambit of authority and responsibility" cease? Ratzinger seems to be a fiend for control, Fr.T Doyle noted Ratzinger's bent towards micromanagement. It is not only hierarchically offensive to excuse "the boss" but personally inconsistent.

Which is worse, an Irish bishop who forced children to take an oath to tell noone about their being abused and let the abuser loose among the children, an archbishop who knowingly had an abuser within his ambit of authority and responsibility and let him loose among the children or a Vicar General who allowed an abuser loose among the children? Does the fact that one of them became pope alter the guilt? "I didn't know" is not the same as "I didn't care" but with a pastor/manager it does not mean "I am innocent" or "I am not responsible".

Just a reminder:

Scicluna was the person sent by Ratzinger to get depositions from people who claimed they were raped/sodomized/molested by Maciel. While in the process of collecting these depositions, he was suddenly called back to the Vatican. All they will say is that he obtained between 20 and 100 depositions claiming rape/sodomization/molestation by Maciel. From what we've learned in the meantime, who, beside me, is willing to bet the rent that it's a helluva lot closer to 100 than 20!.......... And that was a truncated effort.........Another wager: from what we've read in this article, who believes there's a miter in Scicluna's future? (Hope he cleans off his nose before installation.)

It seems like an honest effort is being made to cope with this tsunami of claims of sex offenses. That is, as far as they are able after centuries, probably, of sweeping such matters under the carpet. It looks like that is not possible any more.

What a terrible attempt at spin control as well as yet another try at rewriting history.

"False and calumnious?" Indeed!

This is the leadership of the Roman Catholic that is being discussed here and yet you say, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, that,

"In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law."

Msgr. Scicluna, the facts show that no matter the country, bishops have consistently and regularly failed in their moral responsibility to protect the "Lord's little ones."

While what is being discussed above relates specifically to child abuse, the moral imperative to protect children, young girls, boys, older adults, vulnerable adults and women religious in countries worldwide was always there.

Gestures are futile when what has been missing has been any pastoral concern for the victims/survivors of sexual abuse.

No pastoral concern, no accountability, no transparency and no justice.

There have been more than sufficient "documents" coming forth from the Holy See when what the people of God should be hearing is when an investigation of the church structures that permitted and condoned such reprehensible behavior, up to and including rape and sodomizing of children, will commence.

In the United States the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was forced to take action because of the weight of public opinion. Some bishops choose not to follow the USCCB's recommendations and the USCCB has no authority to compel adherence. In twenty or thirty years the programs now in place can be evaluated.

However, accountability and transparency for the present and the future does not absolve anyone for the mortal sins and horrific crimes of the past. Nor are those mortal sins and crimes mitigated by the passage of time. Nor should they be. No matter one's station in life, all are accountable for their actions.

And yet an individual like Bernard Cardinal Law is rewarded? For what? Toughing it out? Biting the bullet? Keeping the wagons circled?

One need only read what has been reported in numerous civil investigations including grand jury reports like the 2005 Philadelphia Grand Jury Report, the tens of thousands of documents forced into the public venue in the United States from places like the Archdiocese of Boston, Massachusetts and the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

In Ireland there are at least three reports that I can think of -- the Ferns Report, the Ryan Report and, most recently, the Murphy Report.

Should it be said that the church has lost her way?

No, that is not quite accurate.

The institutional Roman Catholic Church has lost its way.

The hierarchy, those men, supposedly the leadership of the church, have definitely lost their way and saddest of all, they have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear.

Pentecost cannot come too soon.

Let us pray,

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com

At this point in time it seems that to FINALLY provide procedures for reporting sexual abuse cases is like closing the barn after the horse has left... What have they been thinking?

What a crock! There is NO DEFENSE of Ratzinger's behavior on this issue, nor is there a defense of the actions of other Vatican bureaucrats. These men participated in criminal behavior. Period. No amount of lies, propaganda or half-truths will change their words or actions and make them free from blame. They have no excuse for their immoral and criminal behavior. The hierarchy is most definitely doing what they always do: lie and create half-truths that only make the injustice of what they are responsible for all the more painful to those they have abused. Let the imperial model of Catholicism CRUMBLE from its' own rot and corruption. It can't be saved! They have only one goal in Rome and that is to preserve their own power. This is not of Christ. It is shameful. Let it crumble and implode from it's on decay. They have betrayed Jesus and the People of God. They do not deserve our respect nor our financial support.

Absent in these defenses is any explanation of why bishops who allowed abusive priests to continue 'in ministry' (even if limited) not only maintain their own positions, but often climb the hierarchical ladder.
Additionally, Msgr. Scicluna's comment that "In some English-speaking countries, but also in France...our guidance in these cases is to respect the law," indicates severe moral miopia, and limited expectation of ecclesial responsibility especially since the duty of abiding by the law is described as "onorous."
Meanwhile, in other countries bishops are 'encouraged to invite' victims -who typically are deeply traumatized- "to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused." That a bishop hesitant to discipline a priest seen as a son would ask a child,adolescent or woman to denounce a father-figure shows clearly how little the Vatican understands.

Aahh! But what they fail to mention is that if a priest CONFESSES his sins to the bishop, the bishop can take no further action because of the seal of confession.

Spin, spin, and more spin from a Vatican lackey!!

Sexual abuse is not about sex or about attraction to a particular sex. It is about control and power over another, humiliation of another, manipulation and forced submission of another to a power that is evil.

The Vatican is stupid about what sexual abuse is in all truth. For all of these years many in positions of leadership in the RCC knew about these abusers and pedophiles and served the abusers and pedophiles by moving them around to other countries and enabled them to abuse thousands of children. They brought the victims to trial and accused them of lying in case after case. They also made the abused sign that they would keep the abuse silent!!! The Vatican now claims innocence of any wrongdoing as they are caught in wrongdoing.

Why are abusers still priests? Because they are old is the excuse the Vatican gives? Being abused by a priest changes the life of the abused forever and the age of the abused makes no difference in the memory of the soul.

There is so much filth in the Vatican now and this spin is more filth upon the filth and enabling of abuse in the Church. They need to repent, repent, repent! They need to get honest and stop with this nonsense of defending the head of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, whose orders kept many abusers in the Church around the world able to continue to abuse our children!!! When will the Pope admit his actions in the CDF caused more to be abused? What will it take for honesty to prevail over the spin of protecting the Pope and an evil policy?

"Several Vatican officials rejected the idea that priestly celibacy is connected to sexually abusive behavior. The pope himself said March 12 that "sacred celibacy" was a priest's expression of the gift of himself to God and others."

This knee-jerk reaction of certain hierarchy members just may be a warning to others not to dare challenge the wisdom of obligatory clerical celibacy. It looks like "hiding our heads in the sand" to me. Has anyone researched the psychological development of men and women who commit themselves to celibacy in their twenties? A fifty-year-old man is certainly not the man he was when half his age.

Perhaps the kind thing to do is to consider making celibacy optional to our priests and others as well. Yes, it's a can of worms to those in power in the hierarchy: families, income, divorces, etc. among the clergy. Celibacy increases control and power over those subject to them. Yet, I believe that we owe empathy to our priests. Several of the apostles (including Peter) were married men. To dismiss an objective analysis of the effects of celibacy on the finest men in our community does not seem to me to be fair.

JR

When will the hierarchy ever understand that this is NOT the Middle Ages, when governments bowed to the Vatican? Today to stonewall, to cover up, to deny that the Church was complicit in hiding perpetrators from civil authorities shakes the faith of the body of believers.

Until the church becomes proactive about this problem, it will only get worse. Wait until Latin America starts revealing its horror stories...

Now that you believe this, would you like to buy a cute bridge across the Golden Gate? I can get it for you very cheaply.

These boys do know how to circle the wagons when it comes to protecting one of their highly-placed clerics.

Here we go again! Rome will issue orders & the sheep of world will follow. I believe it's time to 'clean house' --- beginning with Benedict! Start over!

"The official, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, a doctrinal congregation official from Malta who deals directly with cases of priests accused of abuse of minors, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the allegation that Pope Benedict had covered up sex abuse crimes was "false and calumnious." To believe this statement, one would have to be brain-dead or delusional.
""It is evident that over recent days some people have sought, with considerable persistence, ... elements that could personally involve the Holy Father in questions of abuse. To any objective observer, it is clear that these efforts have failed," Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a written commentary. This statement coming from a member of the Jesuit order that has been implicated in serial sexual abuse throughout the world!
To any objective observer this Holy Roman Catholic institution has no credibility or moral authority to speak or to be believed on any matter involving TRUTH. This house has to be condemned-------we are way past opening the windows to let in fresh air; the entire household needs to be replaced, it is toxic!

Well, what else could the PR Spinners at the Vatican do? Naturally they are going to try to "Defend" their Boss. Pope Ratzinger knows he is guilty of criminal unpriestly behavior for the simple reason that he enabled and protect sexually predatory Catholic clergy. Why else did Ratzinger seek, and was granted, US Executive Immunity From Prosecution by Former President George W. Bush? What I cannot understand is why this Pope and all the Catholic Hierarchy, are not being brought before the International Court of the Hague for "Crimes Against Humanity"?

In countries where there is no legal obligation to report sex abuse accusations, Msgr. Scicluna said, "we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused."
I truly don't understand this thinking. If a child is raped isn't this enough incentive to investigate it and treat it as a crime requiring one in good conscience to report it to the authorities? When does a bishop have more responsibility to his "priests" over his "laity"? Are they not supposed to be equally his flock? It seems to me that most organizations whether priests, doctors, lawyers, etc. tend to protect their own until such time that the larger organization perceives it will begin to suffer more damage by its protection of the specific individuals. Then they start voicing all the things that they will do to see that this will not occur again. It shows that we are all basically the same when confronted with a crisis. Morality is not automatically better practiced by religious organizations over secular ones.

“The official, Msgr. Charles Scicluna, a doctrinal congregation official from Malta who deals directly with cases of priests accused of abuse of minors, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the allegation that Pope Benedict had covered up sex abuse crimes was "false and calumnious."

Was sexual abuse of a minor in Germany a crime when Joseph Ratzinger became aware that a certain priest had abused a minor? If so, was he not obliged by German criminal law to inform the appropriate civil authorities? Was his failure to do so not in itself a criminal act? By failing to do so, did he not sin gravely by denying the victim justice?

Has anyone suggested to Charles Scicluna, that in order to forestall criminal charges being leveled against churchmen in countries from which he is adjudicating canonical cases of sexual assault against minors, he ought to inform these churchmen to immediately report these acts to their civilian authorities? Failure on his part to do so constitutes a grave sin of omission by denying the victims justice!

Charles Scicluna's article clearly and emphatically shows the corruption present at all levels in the Vatican, starting at the top. Vatican officials including Charles Scicluna, are so "under the gun" from Benedict16 that to even hint at the real truth causes them their jobs and sacred titles, which, in the Vatican scheme of things is more important than truth-telling. There is so much fear of Benedict worldwide that no priest-monsignor-bishop-archbishop-cardinal dares to be quoted saying anything other than what Benedict needs to and expects to hear them say.

The saddest part of all is that there are people who will read Scicluna's "Litany of Lies," and believe it and defend it!

The bottom line of Scicluna's twisted, distorted point-by-point denial of the Pope's accountability in the Priest Sex Abuse Scandal is that the Vatican has NO INTENTION of telling the truth and making the facts of the sordid, sleazy, unconscionable 'Pope John Paul/Pope Benedict16 cover-up' available to Catholics throughout the world. To do so would cost Benedict the papacy and John Paul the sainthood that Benedict wants, above all, to bestow on him.

If the Vatican wants to give an accurate account of their part in the Priest Sexual Abuse cover-up, they should hire an independent agency to give an unbiased and accurate account of how the Vatican DID do all that they have been accused of. However, when asked about such an account, Vatican sources report that they are not familiar with the words, “unbiased” and “accurate.”

All in all, this “Year of the Priest” has been most interesting. No--more than that: it is absolutely amazing that allegations of sexual abuse by priests in countries throughout the world would surface in THIS particular “Year.” It could only have happened through the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Is there just a glimmer of hope in all this? I believe so. It seems that the Lord IS with us!

I do not believe this for one minute. Why did this not come out when this scandal was first exposed in Boston. I can't believe the bishops of the Catholic Church can say they are innocent. Give me a break.

Nothing new here.     The Vatican continues to rearrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship and generate paper.
.
According to news reports coming out of Germany,   the priest referenced in this article who was accused of abuse and moved to another location in 1980 on Ratzinger's watch,   was later charged (1985) and then convicted in civil court in 1986 after abusing again.     He was sentenced to 18 months in jail plus a fine.     He was not suspended from ministry or his latest parish assignment until this past Friday (2010) after being outed by secular media investigation.     It appears that Msgr. Scicluna and CNS have finessed the wording of the facts to leave a more favorable impression of what was actually a lengthy timeline of thirty years.
http://open.salon.com/blog/lost_in_berlin/2010/03/15/germanys_catholic_s...
.
The papal-hierarchical system of governance is unraveling at the seams,   yet these men pigheadedly refuse to acknowledge their own ongoing malfeasance,   investigate themselves,   seriously discipline their own brotherhood   and   reassess their norms for priests.     Instead,   they have dug a muddy hole for themselves and just keep digging.
.
It's a pathetic sight.     They can no longer generate enough distractions to make this mushrooming scandal go away.     Still,   they close ranks.     How many will be ordered to fall on their swords to protect the now tainted papacy?

Judging from this and many other articles and comments, is it fair to say that because of a failure of admission of guilt by the pope, other prelates, etc., Benedict has lost his Magesterium? Is this now a question of "do as I say, not as I do," at the highest levels of the church? This is all very puzzling!

I wish that for one day everyone around the world would boycott the Roman Catholic Church. it is doable via facebook and twitter. Maybe it should be on Pentecost?

march 20, 2010

KINDLY PUBLISH

I have read the terrible TERRIBLY HATRED and bigotry in the comments on this page against the Holy Father of my Church - Pope Benedict, and against my Church in general for which I feel called as a catholic christian to respond to and before any of you start 'firing back' .. take some time to meditate on my words, not knee jerk emotions which dont go anywhere.

It is very painful and humbling what has occurred, but it is good that this terrible scourge has come to light. It is good that justice is being done. It is good Pope Benedict has taken this problem to heart for years and is handling it AND WHATEVER YOU ARE TRYING TO PUT OUT THERE.. WE KNOW DIFFERENT.

Coming from a catholic family where there was abuse not by a priest but by an 'uncle' - I well know what abuse means. I well know because my brothers suffered it. Did my parents know - of course not. My brothers would have thought they would not have been believed if they said it, until it broke after my parents death thankfully.
This is also true in so many of these cases - so noone in their right mind has an issue with what abuse is and how terrible it is...

However painful the present moment is .. my Church is being purified..--
and I like many are grateful. The media, being media who needs to make money, has jumped on like this never before.. would the media do the same if we were Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus - I doubt it .. Somehow the good old Catholics just get it time after time.. well its enough .. so you can all stop now --- already!!!

None of you have the right to speak of my Pope the way you do, or my Church..- who gave you that right including the so-called Sr. Joan Chisteter.... who often speaks against the Pope and is well known for her left wing ideology- we real catholics do not listen to her.. not on your life.. or Christopher Hitchens ..!! anyone who knows who he is wouldnt spend time reading his articles.

I'd like to remind you of what Jesus said 'he who hasnt sinned..throw the first stone'.. I would therefore ask all of you, including those of other Faiths.. who are reading this, surely your are not all perfect) to start throwing that stone.... - if not do something positive - pray if you believe and if you dont, start thinking good thoughts but then maybe you are all perfect and it is just we catholics who are not?

The media has done a terrible disservice in publishing people like Christopher Hitchens - a vile aethiest who hates the Catholic Church and hated Mother Teresa..-- and the National Post did a disservice to itself by publishing this man front page.. Even the US refused to air the anti Mother Teresa movie he made ... Hitchens is a hateful aethiestic Brit who works for Vanity Fair..and works hand in hand with Richard Dawkins and like minded non believers.- they are a team -- so balanced reporting - no way! He/they have an agenda! ---obiously what is going on here is a true orchestration between Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, and some people in the US and Canada -- to 'get the Pope and the Church'.. this is truly what this is about..

You priests and sisters who have not defended your Pope take heed..

Much humility has been learned in our Church from what has happened, much soul searching and new laws put in place...
But I also expect the same from every single other non-Catholic Christian Church and other, and every group of other Faith and family and I expect that there be no crime, no immorality, no sin practised by any of them..
well that is what you are all saying isnt it!!!!

This is not to belittle the terrible terrible offenses.. -- by the small percentage who actually committed them - wherein it is also proven that homosexuality and pedeophilia do go hand in hand and this is a fact..

So I ask what about the homosexual prostitute men in Toronto and throughout Canada- who solicit youth? What about the fact that Canada is imposing laws (just as Britian) like never before, to force children to accept homosexuality..i mean force..-- yes force!!!!!!! why are they forcing homosexuality/lesbianism on children? can you answer that one.. do you have children?

The new government - church power will 'enforce it' in september in their schools to our children!!
So what about this eh? does anyone have an answer..-- and what about the fact of late that these 'children' who were told by the then Director of Education Kathleen Wynn in Ontario in a recent speech in front of youth 'that it is ok to come out''.. I am talking about kids here..-- and what about the fact that if a child or an adult in our society says anything against gays can be charged!!! yes while you throw your stones at us you better start looking over your shoulder and do any of you have children>?
well guess what's coming up..-- can you just envision what is coming..
and when we see married men with a man who the children are now told is the 'husband' - under what law will the child or youth be protected...
if they react against something or someone who tries to 'impose' no correction ' is imposing' their beliefs on them'by law'.. think again folks you are hitting the wrong bag..

The number of child abusers (priests) has gone down and this has been proven by the numbers given by the Vatican...- but the media and some of you have decided to really try to hurt our Church by exaggerating and lying...
Guess what .. you wont.. so take your hate somewhere else because little of what I have read from any of you is comforting to those who have been abused or to their families..priest or not..

The spin doctors must be working real hard to keep the pot boiling.. but guess what ... your spinning in vain..--

It was said that the day would come when satan would wage war against the Church..-- I can now see I am witnessing it..

My advice. -- to any of you ..- go and start praying! if you want to do something useful.. but I also want you all to watch what happens come september in this country...
the spiritual battle has only begun..

Thank you for this cry from the heart.Prayer is the answer.Jesus is with us.

I do not believe a war is being waged against the Catholic Church, only the criminal priests and their protectors.
Jesus weeps every time an innocent child is molested by anyone, let alone the men whom he called to be protectors and shepherds of children.

For me, the issues surrounding the experiences of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and others is heart-wrenching and abominable. I have seen firsthand in pastoral ministry and even in my own family the horrible effects of this abuse; a deep abiding sense of shame, and so much more. Its outcome in family and friendships is often crippling. I have reached out and listened for many years to this pain and sought to find ways to mediate God’s healing love. There were times I was successful.
That being said, I understand the anger and mistrust when victims, their families and friends feel they are battling a Church that, in all appearances to some, seems to stand in silence. I also understand the overwhelming embarrassment and bafflement of other clergy, religious, and lay people who feel caught in the middle of abuse charges of a few that go back decades. This bewilderment grips authentic and faithful ministers at the core of their call, who they themselves feel victimized in the public tussle to seek the truth. As the victims, in all truth, can ask the Church, “Why was I abused by your priest,” so the Church of today, her congregations, lay leaders, religious and clergy are also asking the same question. At the same time, the media chatter hangs like a cloud over us all who can never do such a thing. We want to say too, “We did not abuse you, one sick person did, and like you, we wish it did not happen.” The silence of victims over many years, the silence of victimizers, and our silence reveal our common shame.
I have been searching for a biblical icon to understand what God is doing in the midst of this scandal. Recently, I went to a spirituality convocation and heard the words of Sr. Mary Catherine Hilkert, O.P. She refers to the discipleship of Mary Magdalene in relation to the disciples themselves. She says that the passageway to authentic discipleship was experienced through deep and heart-wrenching human drama in their friendship and love for the Lord. His death on the cross ushered in His absence, and the end to a dream and vision the disciples based their hope and lives. This absence prior to his resurrection, the “great silence”, caused an enormous void within all who knew Him. The disciples grieved by acting out through fear and even betrayal, as was the case of Peter. The women were portrayed differently. They grieved for their Lord and sought to express this grief through their lonely, painful vigil in front of the cross as Jesus hung suffocating to death. They faced the horror and wished to ritualize healing by bringing perfume to anoint His corpse in order to remove the stench of death.
In one way, through the efforts of brave victims and others to bring this scandal to public scrutiny, through the struggle of the Church of today to face the horror, we are all grieving, and perhaps that is one doorway to a renewed discipleship today. Often the grief of victims and their families is over a lost childhood and faith, taken by betrayal. Healing comes in giving voice to a long standing pain and the accountability of the Church that shows its remorse over and over again. In our Province, our grief may be our lost innocence. Healing toward a new discipleship for us is a vigorous transparency and responsibility to the victims of some confreres, a deeper sense of justice imbibed with a new sense of humility. I pray we may reach out to all victims with the healing of Christ, uncovering the precious gift of forgiveness.

Very simply. The priests, bishops, cardinals etc.

1. Quit playing CYA
2. Accept responsibility
3. APOLOGIZE to the Laity for the abuse of trust
4. DROP the infallible nonsense (so obviously NOT TRUE)
5. Allow priests to marry

CLEAN UP YOUR OWN HOUSE!

I feel for so many of those hurt by the abuse of priests in the church; I feel also for their families who have been betrayed by those they trusted. I feel for the great majority of good and faithful priests who have to live with shame caused by those abusers as they face their people each day at the altar.
I feel sorry for those angry and bitter writers pouring out their venom in columns like this, without any restraint or concern for the truth.
But I do share their anger at those authorities who try to cover up abuse which they permitted by their denials and their refusal to act and remove the perpetrators from positions involving opportunities for further abuse. In spite of assertions of not knowing and blaming subordinates, they had the responsibility and they had the power to stop it.
I find it remarkable that the Murphy report notes that in many cases the victims' families were more concerned for the perpetrator and more anxious that he be prevented from continuing the abuse than about any punishment or financial compensation.