Bbc Tv - Nails Benedict As Architect Of Coverup Crisis

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1081809' date='Oct 2 2006, 09:30 AM']
The 1962 document?

The article addressed more than one document.
[/quote]
I think it's the 1962, yes, I'm only on page 30 thus far.

[NewReformation]

After reading it, I must say that it very much looks like a document designed to keep any abuse by the clergy hidden from public eyes.

[Anomaly]

I guess I'm just stupid.

I don't get exactly which documents are being referred to by the BBC. If it's so clear cut, let's see what documents they are referring to.

Budge's link to a Canon Lawyer's blog pretty much says that the whole thing is much ado about nothing which doesn't make sense.

If the documents are so 'secret', why are they posted by the vatican for public access?

Truely, having only a latin version and no 'official' english version seems counterproductive and just bureaucratic habit.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1081829' date='Oct 2 2006, 10:19 AM']
I guess I'm just stupid.

I don't get exactly which documents are being referred to by the BBC. If it's so clear cut, let's see what documents they are referring to.

Budge's link to a Canon Lawyer's blog pretty much says that the whole thing is much ado about nothing which doesn't make sense.

If the documents are so 'secret', why are they posted by the vatican for public access?

Truely, having only a latin version and no 'official' english version seems counterproductive and just bureaucratic habit.
[/quote]
The document is on the BBC website.

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_09_06_Crimen_english.pdf"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...men_english.pdf[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

sigh. I can't read the print. THe first blue box area is simply stating the clergy involved cannot gossip about what they heard.

[Anomaly]

Thanks for the link.

I read the document. Quite legalistic but, to be fair here is a synopsis.

-Firstly, it is addressing the ecclisiastic crime of utilizing the Sacrament of Confession in any sexually harrassing manner.
-There is no mention regarding civil athorities. I would imagine that standard canon law is applicable.
-The confidentiality of Confession is HUGE in the catholic church and that is what is being protected but not to be taken advantage of to protect a priest using that to prey on others.
-It also states that someone who was sexually harrased in any manner by a priest, either in the confessional, in preperation for confession, after confession and disucssing it, is not bound to secrecy but must denounce the priest to certain persons with the intent to provide justice for the person but to secure punishment for the preist while keeping the confidentiality inherent to the Sacrament of Confession as strong as possible.

So, in my conclusion, quite an unfair hatchet job on the Pope and Catholics, but again, not defended very well by Catholics because they don't ever want to admit how screwed up priests and the church officials can be.

[Winchester]

[quote]It also states that someone who was sexually harrased in any manner by a priest, either in the confessional, in preperation for confession, after confession and disucssing it, is not bound to secrecy but must denounce the priest to certain persons with the intent to provide justice for the person but to secure punishment for the preist while keeping the confidentiality inherent to the Sacrament of Confession as strong as possible.
[/quote]
The person confessing is not bound to secrecy, anyway.

[quote]So, in my conclusion, quite an unfair hatchet job on the Pope and Catholics, but again, not defended very well by Catholics because they don't ever want to admit how screwed up priests and the church officials can be.[/quote]
What do you base the last conclusion on? I suppose you mean "some," since I'll gladly call a spade a spade. I favor execution of any and all child predators, including priests.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1081929' date='Oct 2 2006, 11:27 AM']
The person confessing is not bound to secrecy, anyway.
What do you base the last conclusion on? I suppose you mean "some," since I'll gladly call a spade a spade. I favor execution of any and all child predators, including priests.
[/quote]
I'll go with 'most'. It really wasn't that hard to get a good understanding of what the document was saying and wasn't saying. It was helpful that the BBC had blue boxes around certain paragraphs to make their point. But any honest reading of the entire document, including the penalties section (pgs 13 & 14 I think), pretty much clears things up and shows how the selected text was out of context. Yes it clearly says to move priests, but it says to to remove them from the temptation and from the opportunity to commit the sin as well. Yes it's clear about swearing secrecy, but it's clear that once the priest is found guilty, that his superiors/supervisors need to know what had happened while protecting the victim, etc., so that futher crimes are not committed. It's pretty clear that it's about bringing serious punishment to bear for the crimes against the victim, against the church, against God. It was pretty clear that demoting the priest to 'lay-bretheren' status was a very viable punishment.
With that document in mind, I have NO IDEA what the hell someone like Mr. L** (no name is named) and other Bishops who actually shuffled priests around from either a civil law violation or canon law violation. It was heinous crimes that were not addressed with sincerity by 'some' of the Bishops. It's not the normaitve policy of the Catholic Church that comes in question, but the normative practice that typically ignored ecclisiastical policy or even basic decency.

[Aloysius]

the bishops screwed up big time. not some, most, I agree (at least, most who came into contact with the situation because as I understand it this sex abuse crisis arose in the big time countries of western civilization like the US and European countries, not in South America and Africa and Asia... I don't know about Australia... but suffice it to say there are a large number of bishops in the world who never even came in contact with the situation). they screwed up terribly by not being able to handle a very very difficult situation correctly. they ought to have been able to, but they did not do anything right.

I think socrates' point that you meant 'some' not 'all' or 'most' was in regards to priests themselves. it was some priests that did heinous things, and most bishops which were incompetent to stop them, but most priests were not even involved in any of it.

as regrads this document, I read through it as well, it mainly deals, from what I can tell, with an abuse of the sacrament of confession. abusing the sacrament of confession is not criminal in any country that I know of, so it is the Vatican itself which ought to deal with punishment of that crime. nothing says to hide any criminal actions from the civil authorities, the bishops screwed up because they should have turned predator-priests over to the civil authorities (being sure, of course, to protect the victims as was directed in this instruction)

[Anomaly]

Actually, I was responding to Winchester and I thought we were talking about Catholics not defending or clarifying the "Church" principles very well. I wouldn't say most priests, nor most Bishops commited crimes and sings. I wouldn't say a substantial number of priests and bishops committed crimes, committed sins, and allowed further crimes by not doing the right thing. Even though it wasn't a substantial number, it is a significant enough number of priests and bishops that are slicker than calf slobber in avoiding doing the right thing.

[Winchester]

Any solution that involves "moving" the offender to anything byut a 9by9 cell (and hopefully a gallows) is pure stupidity.

The Church offers a great place to offenders. Ready access, power, authority. They are called predators for a reason. It seems that the statistical occurence is about the same for the regular population, or less. I wouldn't be surprised to see the numbers soar. It's such a good position for one of these monster to put himself into.

Had my child been a victim, the criminal and those who hid or moved him would not have had to worry about prison or lawsuits.

[Aloysius]

i got confused because it came right after Socrates's post and it went directly from "few" to "execute child predators", which I agree with but I thought it was connecting to his previous statement in a different way than it was (now I realize he was illustrating himself as one who would be an exception to your previous statement)

[Winchester]

The elephant the BBC helps hide is that the tendency of EVERY organization is to shuffle these people, or to try to reform them, or release them on parole or probation, any number of things other than protecting our children.

We need to expose this in all organizations and condemn all involved as accesories. School systems have engaged and continue to engage in these activities. Our government doesn't have the cojones to put these people away for life. Real life. As in, if their cells are still dividing, they are behind bars. No parole, no probation, no reprieve.

[Anomaly]

And another thing...
When that document mentioned 'moving' the priest, it was really talking about 'REMOVING' the priest from the situation and the opportunity to continue to commit the crime even before a full judgement was made. Again, that points to the need to keep everything confidential incase the priest is not found guilty and so there will be no repurcussions on the accusor. I think that was on page 11 or 12.

[Ellenita]

Mark Thompson, the director general of the BBC is a practising Catholic...... There has been increasingly negative reporting on the BBC concerning the Catholic church recently, including the rather distasteful camping outside the hospital waiting for Pope John Paul II to die just before Easter, and the usual liberal catholics interviewed at every opportunity proclaiming the need for a pope who will ordain women etc etc etc..... clearly there are some major internal politics going on at the BBC since they appointed a Catholic as DG.

There is also the matter of general anti-catholic feeling in English society - it's still second nature to the establishment despite what you may be told....

Edited October 3, 2006 by Ellenita