Bbc Tv - Nails Benedict As Architect Of Coverup Crisis

[Laudate_Dominum]

yikes! busted Budge.

[Guest Rick777]

Budge, today is not your day.

[Theoketos]

[quote]Think about it why did every bishop in the world follow the same trajectory when it came to sex abuse in the Catholic Church, suppressing it, moving the priests and more? It had to be orders from the top....[/quote]

Now, I am closer to this scandal then I care to think about (n.b. not perpetrating in any but suffering), so I will have to severally disagree with this. The are too many Bishops that caused great scandal, but there are also some heroes.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1080867' date='Oct 1 2006, 02:44 PM']
I didn't bother translating the whole thing.

It's about abuses in the celebration of the sacraments.

Thanks for finding yet another reason for us not to believe you.
[/quote]


Yes but is it a super secret letter about abuses in the celebration of the sacraments?



*looks for secret Vatican decoder ring*

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1080855' date='Oct 1 2006, 03:26 PM']
Think about it why did every bishop in the world follow the same trajectory when it came to sex abuse in the Catholic Church, suppressing it, moving the priests and more? It had to be orders from the top....

Anyhow I have found the original letter in question right on the Vatican website...

Copy and PASTe this one into your address bar, wont work as a direct link...hmmmmm

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.htm
[/quote]
Reading the letter further, I'm guessing this is the alleged tidbit:

"Delictum contra mores, videlicet: delictum contra sextum Decalogi praeceptum cum minore infra aetatem duodeviginti annorum a clerico commissum."

It reads:

"A crime against morals, viz., a crime against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (adultery) with a minor under 18 years of age committed by a member of the clergy."

The problem is that this is addressing an abuse of the sacrament of Confession, not the crime itself. Cardinal Ratzinger merely ordered that the ecclesial aspect of the crime remain in the hands of the Church (which is perfectly licit, just as you would not try someone for murder in a civil court, but in a criminal court). There is no reason at all to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger was ordering the crime itself to be hidden, but only that he reserved the right for the ecclesiastical body to deal with the ecclesiastical crime. There is also no reason to believe that the abuse had not already been reported to proper civil authorities.

Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that he was dealing with an actual case and not merely with canon law theory.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Raphael

[Laudate_Dominum]

busted.

[img]http://www.panama-guide.com/images/articles/20060326174727837_2.jpg[/img]

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1080893' date='Oct 1 2006, 03:10 PM']
Reading the letter further, I'm guessing this is the alleged tidbit:

"Delictum contra mores, videlicet: delictum contra sextum Decalogi praeceptum cum minore infra aetatem duodeviginti annorum a clerico commissum."

It reads:

"A crime against morals, viz., a crime against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (adultery) with a minor under 18 years of age committed by a member of the clergy."

The problem is that this is addressing an abuse of the sacrament of Confession, not the crime itself. Cardinal Ratzinger merely ordered that the ecclesial aspect of the crime remain in the hands of the Church (which is perfectly licit, just as you would not try someone for murder in a civil court, but in a criminal court). [b]There is no reason at all to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger was ordering the crime itself to be hidden, but only that he reserved the right for the ecclesiastical body to deal with the ecclesiastical crime.[/b] There is also no reason to believe that the abuse had not already been reported to proper civil authorities.

Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that he was dealing with an actual case and not merely with canon law theory.
[/quote]

Sorry, but child molestation is not an ecclesiastical crime.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1080921' date='Oct 1 2006, 03:00 PM']
Sorry, but child molestation is not an ecclesiastical crime.
[/quote]
I believe what Raph was saying was that besides the criminal dimension (not necessarily child molestation, but perhaps statutory rape, or in some countries legal intercourse), there is also the fact that this activity involves a severe ecclesiastical crime as well.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1080921' date='Oct 1 2006, 04:00 PM']
Sorry, but child molestation is not an ecclesiastical crime.
[/quote]

It is if it is done by some one with authority in the Church. Now, clearly it is not solely an ecclesial crime, and as such should also be punished by the state. However, there are ecclesial demensions (such as formal excommunication) that the Church must deal with.

Edit

Or whatever the eloquent L_D said.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1080858' date='Oct 1 2006, 02:32 PM']
Think about it why did every bishop in the world follow the same trajectory when it came to sex abuse in the Catholic Church, suppressing it, moving the priests and more? It had to be orders from the top....[/quote]
Poor, poor Budge. Why do you hate Jesus because of Judas? Why do you hate Jesus because of Peter? Why do you hate Jesus because of all the apostles that failed Him?

If your plan of attack on Catholicism is to disprove a your belief in an impeccable pope, you will fail. Jesus is the core of Catholicism. The pope is a man. We never claim him to be impeccable. The Truth in the Church will remain untainted regardless of who is sitting in Peter's chair.

Even if your dreams of a corrupt pope come true, the Church would replace him. What we, the Church, won't do is replace the Truth with a compromised version of it brought on by public pressure or polls.

Others have addressed this issue specifically. As a news junkie, I will you give you this advice, "Never believe what comes from the mouth of the BBC. Verify anything they say against at least 3 reliable sources."

[quote]Its always interesting to me how certain documents are only available in Latin...

{not English, Spanish, or Italian even}
[/quote]
Someone with a deeper understanding of why Latin can correct me, but as I understand, Latin is still used because it's considered extinct. It is not as readily influenced by modern language trends, like introducing slang. And of course, there are the historical reasons too.

[Anomaly]

Is the document saying that a priest shouldn't be reported to the local civil athorities, but should be reported to the Vatican instead, since it's an ecclisiastical issue?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1080944' date='Oct 1 2006, 04:28 PM']
Is the document saying that a priest shouldn't be reported to the local civil athorities, but should be reported to the Vatican instead, since it's an ecclisiastical issue?
[/quote]
I'm trying to translate it, using a couple different translation engines, but some words are unable to be translated. It would be nice if stuff would be written in English, or in some language more familiar than Latin.

[Guest FrancisServusChristi]

[quote name='Budge' post='1080696' date='Oct 1 2006, 11:07 AM']
[img]http://img.dailymail.co.uk//i/pix/2006/09/pope300906_228x424.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


A report so accurate they got his name wrong.

Joseph, not Thomas Ratzinger.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1080923' date='Oct 1 2006, 05:05 PM']
I believe what Raph was saying was that besides the criminal dimension (not necessarily child molestation, but perhaps statutory rape, or in some countries legal intercourse), there is also the fact that this activity involves a severe ecclesiastical crime as well.
[/quote]
Exactly. I'm saying that there would be two different cases here. One would be criminal according to civil law and should be dealt with accordingly, the other criminal according to canon law and that is what Cardinal Ratzinger would be dealing with in this text. It does not mean that he was saying that civil authorities should keep their noses out or that the Church should hush up about the incident. It merely means that what relates to the canon law is a matter to be tried in ecclesiastical courts and reserves that right.

It's like if a man commits a single murder over two different countries (traveling from one country into the other). Both countries would have a claim on him. Now, if this happened between Austria and Germany, Germany might file a brief stating that it retains the right to charge the criminal in its own courts. That doesn't mean that Germany is keeping Austria from trying the criminal, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are keeping information from Austria.

By the way, Latin is the official language of the Church out of tradition, but also, I supsect, because it is a very logical language and not easily manipulated or misunderstood by those who know it.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Raphael

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='FrancisServusChristi' post='1080971' date='Oct 1 2006, 05:02 PM']
A report so accurate they got his name wrong.

Joseph, not Thomas Ratzinger.
[/quote]