³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

That's a handy expression "he stands accused" isn't it. If I say William is an anti-Catholic bigot does that mean someone else can say "William Crawley stands accused of being an anti-Catholic bigot". Means him sound guilty, doesn't it?

And just out of interest, William, you say "When he was elected, Pope Benedict XVI promised to rid his Church of "filth"". Where precisely and when did he make this promise? Your description makes him sound like a politician post-election.

The phrase "he stands accused" is not correct in a legal sense--the Pope himself doesn't have to answer to anyone, neither under the Church's own legal system nor under any other legal system for such alleged conduct. However, in some situations church corporations may be liable if their bishops followed the Vatican's instructions to place children at risk from known abusers, so Ratzinger's role in possibly giving such instructions is of potential legal significance and not merely an excuse for anti-catholic bigots to spout off.

It's a good example of inaccurate journalism. Ratzinger used the term "filth" at the stations of the cross before he became Pope. I'm not aware of him making any election promise in respect of it.

Perhaps the overall story should be "Lazy journalists repeat each others ill informed stories and try to turn it into Watergate".

William, you misunderstand me. I am certain he was referring to abuse when he used the term "filth" at the Stations of the Cross - I'm not disagreeing on that point. It's the description of the Pope promising to rid the Church of filth after his election that I dispute. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely convinced as you know from my comments that the Pope is totally committed to dealing with the issue. My point is the way journalists put things together in their stories that have some truth in them but end up presented in a way that isn't true. In this small example, which I know you lifted from the Radio Four piece, you take a comment from before he became Pope, an acknowledgement (for once) that the Pope does take the issue seriously, and combine it into a political type election promise along the lines of "I pledge to end unemployment". This election pledge which the Pope never actually made publicly as far as I can tell, is then contrasted with the other, strictly accurate, but jourasleazy statement that he "stands accused of cover up". Of course journalists use cliches but "stands accused" is never used neutrally as a quick google will reveal.

I still think this whole thing boils down to the celibacy laws for priests and nuns. Sadly, no one within the Catholic church hierachy seems willing to debate the issue, or even impliment change.

post # 7

Bit much demanding journalistic standards from one person when you clearly do not apply the same standards to your own blog site.... and no, it doesnt matter a jot that yours is just a blog site.

You say some horrible things about people on there. Clean up your own act and maybe your complaints on here might be taken more seriously.

When I show compassion to victims of clergy sexual abuse, they call me a Saint.
When I ask why this clergy sexual abuse was allowed to happen, they call me a dissident.

I find it irksome that many journalists fail to investigate the facts at all before launching their attacks with ludicrous headlines, usually a quote along the lines "Pope covered up abuse" says lawyer who hopes to profit from the case. Take the Milwaukee case. Abuse from possibly fifties to seventies - police do little, bishop does little, finally emerges in 1990s with some action including criminal charges, suspension from priestly faculties etc. After this in 1996 letter to Rome to laicise him. and this failure to laicise him becomes the excuse for headlines accusing the Pope of a cover up. It's rubbish. and no investigation was required by any journalist who simply repeated and keeps repeating the smear.

For years the Jews were accused of everything from Christkilling, kidnapping children to drink their blood, stealing sacred hosts, controlling the markets, starting the first world war - it's all there and there's crackpots who still believe those things, including many in the Islamic world. Does that mean it's fair to go around saying "The Jews stand accused of X, Y and Z". Yes, they do stand accused, by ignorant people who haven't bothered looking at the evidence at all.

Same is true for the Pope.

And then we have Peter blaming celibacy - with no evidence to support it.

Until someone is accused is the court of law, he does not stand accused. If you wish, you may qualify it "by popular opinion" or something like that. If used the way it is here, there is something wrong.

That the Pope wants the Church to be clean is undeniable. Again, if I understand the English written here, mccamleyc's argument has been on timing.

In the academia - and at least among those who make use of their "reason", argumentation is not just an exercise; it's to arrive at the truth, based on premises, leading the the conclusion. There is nothing intellectually lacking if I admit that on this point, I may have missed the mark. It helps to clear out the "filth."

From the AP last week:

Lawsuit tries tough sell: Vatican as business
"The lawsuit intends to prove the Vatican is a global business empire, practicing in "commercial activity" in Wisconsin and across the U.S. and holding "unqualified power" over each diocese, parish and follower."



That is the best approach to getting some of the hierarchy on the witness stand.

Future Pope’s Role in Abuse Case Was Complex


Every report coming to light implicates Ratzinger as having knowledge that really should be revealed in a court of law.

Houston attorney/theologian Daniel Shea who does sue the Pope makes a claim that Ratzinger was give the job of CEO to ensure that he never had to testify.

Why anyone puts these men and their shenanigans on pedestals is beyond me.

I sure will look forward to these guys being put on trial.

Clearing out the 'filth' is like treating the symptoms but not addressing the underlying cause - the root cause....yes there are psychological/emotional consequences to taking a boy in his formative years and basically encouraging/causing sexual repression by preventing normal sexual development and behaviour .....even for those not put in a seminary it can be a challenging time! Right boys! :-) To say that it is of no consequence or is not relevant is naieve. This is only one aspect however, and to my understanding there is more to it for all involved.

LuceyQ

One of the many interesting and sinister points the Austrian article makes is that, after one of the most tumultuous abuse cases ever, involving a Cardinal abusing children, Ratzinger's letter to the clergy of Austria didnt even mention the abuser, he simply warned the clergy to fight secularist groups. (Groups who were only there because of HIS failure to take action, when he had promised Schonborn that he would.)

In that letter, Ratzinger's real motives are exposed. Paedophiles are not the problem, secularism is.

Why are we not hearing from whistle blowers inside this church? Surely someone knows something!

William, watched your programme tonight. Thought it was quite good.

romejellybeen What a show!

Let's not forget that Ratzinger's signature is on a crucial document:


The Vatican bank vaults should be emptied and the money used to pay victims.

Lucy, there's nothing crucial about this document at all. The guy had already been caught and convicted. He'd been suspended from functioning as a priest. The procedure to dispense him or dismiss him from the clerical state with which Cardinal Ratzinger had an involvement had nothing to do with cover up, nor crimes. It in no way facilitated abuse. It's a dead end red herring.

Then why was Mr Ratzinger so concerned about the reputation of the church?

"nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner"

Ratzinger appears to infer that by throwing this pervert out attention would be drawn to an explosive sunbject within this church. Whatever way you try to spin it, the quotation above still looks like a cover up. The problem for this individual priest was someone went to the police, do you think it was the church?

David - it's nothing to do with the reputation of the Church. How could not laicising a convicted abuser be about reputation? If it was about reputation you would laicise immediately like a politician showing how tough you are.

The issue was a broader one about whether it is good for the Church to laicise priests and particularly fairly young ones. It's not like sacking someone. Once someone is ordained a priest you can't undo it as such. And when you laicise an abusing priest you lose any control you might have had over them. You can't put them in a monastery.

mccamleyc A 38 year old man is middle aged not a youth. Therein lies another problem with the weird Roman Catholic priesthood that infantalizes men facilitating a culture of Peter Pan-ism and sexual immaturity. Fantasizing about living in Neverland (Vatican) and never having to grow up well, see Michael Jackson on that issue.

Man on man, this Moderation thing is paternalistic and worse than dial up.

There have been many fruitless debates in this site but debating whether a thirty eight year old is "fairly young" or "middle aged" has to take the biscuit.

Laicise? This club, this full of self importance ancient version of a star trek convention is full of self delusion. All we ask of the club/cult members is to inform society of the evidence that may or may not, deem the person fit to work with minors. Laicise? The club rules do not apply. Can I call upon those within this club to do the moral thing and release the evidence to help these poor people and their victims out? You will not burn in hell. You will be doing the right thing.

You can go on about your pixies and your star trek analogies and then end with "release the evidence to help these poor people and their victims out". What evidence? This guy was a convicted abuser. His victims had already gone to the police. Ratzinger was involved in laicising him. Now David you may think this is all a delusion- that's fine - if it is then it's precisely none of your business - it's just a club stopping a member dressing like a Klingon (K or C?) and Ratzinger is Captain Kirk. So mind your own business and leave the internal workings of the club to its members.

Live long and prosper (I'm doing that thing with my fingers now. No, not that thing, the Spock thing)

Pius V (1566-1572.)

Constitutions of August 1568

1. "Clearly it is known to the Lateran Council that clerics who have been caught sinning against nature with children must be cast out from the clergy or forced to lead a life of penance in monasteries."

2. "But lest the contagion of such a disease grow stronger, we have decided in Council that the Clerical defendants of this nefarious crime must be punished severely, that for those who do not shudder at the damnation of their souls the avenging secular sword of civil laws may surely deter them."

3. "Therefore, we intend to pursue more fully now and with more vigour what has already been decreed in this pestilence, and we deprive any Presbyter and any other Clerics, either diocesan or religious, of whatever grade, rank, office or privilege who commit so dire and unspeakable an act. Those demoted by Ecclesiastical judge or Bishop should be immediately delivered to the secular power for punishment."


It would appear that Ratzinger's "hermeneutic of continuity" does not extend to child abuse and that he decided to ignore or discontinue clearly stated Church Law (as did Popes who went before him.)

It shows the lie he told to the Irish people when he laid the blame of priests abusing children at the door of an increasingly "secular Irish society." What was the reason for this "pestilence" three hundred years ago, secularism? (It also exposes the lies of Ratzinger's apologists who disgracefully attempted to pin the blame for this problem on the reformers of Vatican II Council.)

It exposes the lie that the Church didnt know about this problem. They have known about it for at least 300 years!!

Nowhere does it state that child abusers should be moved to another parish.

Nowhere does it state that when dealing with child abusers "the greater good of the universal Church" should be considered.

Penalties and procedures for dealing with priests and bishops who abuse children have actually been in place for centuries - just ignored.

Very interesting post RJB, thank you.

#27 mccamleyc

"none of your business"
When the club members started raping and beating the children it became everyones business. I am calling on the whistle blowers within the club, to release any evidence they may have or know about, to the police.

If the church is not laicising convicted abusers then society must view all with suspicion.

BTW Thank you for reminding me I am not part of this group I will never again use the terms father, bishop, arch bishop, cardinal or pope...... I no longer recognise these titles.

Regards
David

I see that Ratzinger again refuses to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with criminals who perpetrate harm while wearing the protection of RC-ism:

Catholic order to be overhauled after founder's abuse
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

The correct action would be to wrap up the group, turn perpetrators over to the cops, liquidate assets and use the proceeds to finance planning for parenthood facilities for the poor in Mexico and elsewhere.

Doing the right thing just isn't part of the mindset of the organization is it? [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

It seems the apostle Paul says in his letters what to do when the church faces sexual perversions. It seems the Pope and the catholic church don't seem to be in unity with scripture with this issues which I thought was the whole point of being a Christian.

Sweeping scandal under the carpet is not scriptural, and neither is trying to make evil look good - may be it's time to start reading our bibles and stop relying on Popes, Bishops, Preists, Pastors, Ministers, and super anointed men who are no better than the rest of us.

I've seen the Spotlight programme and what impressed me the most is how Marie Collins's calm confidence contrasted with the flustered, defensive Bishop McAreavey (and his PR guy in the background).

It not only shows how polarised the whole debate on clerical sex abuse has become, but it also indicates how much the Church has to answer for, and how abuse survivors are standing on the side of common sense and justice.

I listened to the edition of The Report which examined the Pope's role in in a number of paedophile priest scandals. I was surprised to learn that the Roman Catholic Church has over 400,000 priests worldwide. Ridding the Church of its "filth" will be no easy task.

Post # 29

Why did this post take so long to be moderated?

David, the spurious "club" analogy, as laid out by MCC, is inappropriate drivel, as you well know. However, if we were to descend to such an infantile overview of the church then it is quite clear that if anyone is to be ejected from the club, it is people like Ratzinger, Bertone, Sodano and Levada who have clearly broken the so called, "club" rules, putting children at risk and seeing the imposition of conservative catholicism as a higher value.

When the shocking truth about the abuse perpetrated by Cardinal Gruer of Vienna came to light, Ratzinger eventually wrote to the clergy in Austria. In that letter, nowhere did he refer to the evil behaviour of their Cardinal. Instead he urged the clergy of that country to set themselves against "secularist" movements which were growing in the country.

And who were these secularist movements? They were catholics, some of whom had been abused by Gruer, who were seeking justice and attempting to have Gruer investigated by civil authorities. These people were only there in the first place because of HIS refusal to do the right thing, and be seen to be doing the right thing, as regards Gruer.

Ratzinger's letter showed exactly where he stood as regards the abuse of children.

These men obviously have no shame and no consciences whatsoever.

RJB - the Club reference was David's in post 26 when he said that discussing laicising was like a Star Trek club. I didn't start it.

And yeah, Peter de Rosa a really reliable commentator on the Church.

Thanks MCC.

Any comment on post # 28?

Secularism has been a continuing process since the Reformation. But look, I think you misunderstand the Pope when he talks about secularism being to blame. He doesn't mean some external forces to be blamed, he means an internal neglect within the Church and within individuals. It's a decline in virtue based morality. It can be linked to a legalistic form of moralism which, RJB, you know has infected seminaries for years. Sort of thing we see with Legionaries of Christ today. But really, the last man to support this sort of thing is Ratzinger - that's why I think it is such a mistake to blame him in this targetted fashion. He's not Sodano and I think you misread the power and position Ratzinger has had over the years - the sort of institutional framework in which he operated. When he could he did things, but, and Legionaries are a good example, it's been a long game.

MCC

The first complaints against Maciel were made in the 1950's (drugs and financial "mismanagement.") He was suspended. Two years later he was reinstated and his rise to power began in earnest. So did his abuse.

I am well aware of the fact that Maciel had friends in high places, including Sodano and John Paul II and that they used their power to hinder or stop investigations into Maciel and his activities.

The statute of limitations was used as the excuse to not investigate Maciel up until 1999. However, lawyers acting on behalf of Maciel's victims returned to the CDF in 1999. This time the complaint was not for Maciel's sexual abuse, but because he had granted absolution in confession to one of his victims, a crime which did not have a statute of limitations and which, if proven, carried the punishment of excommunication.

Ratzinger's response was.... to impose a statute of limitations on this crime as well! (He did this in 2001, the same year he and Bertone sent THAT letter to the world's Bishops ordering them to send abuse cases to his office alone.)

Countless men of principle from clergymen to church appointed investigators of abuse have, over the years, resigned in protest at the Vatican's intransigence regarding sexual abuse. (You yourself attempted to discredit two of them here on this very blog site, while singing Ratzinger's praises.)Even if it meant taking on the Pope himself or facing off Sodano, any man of principle would have resigned his office on principle rather than allow this criminal state of affairs to continue.

Ratzinger chose not to resign. For that alone, he "stands accused." Morally, he was an utter coward. It would have cost him dearly to stand up and be counted, I'm sure of that. The fact is, he didnt. He and the others have to go now and allow men who do not lack that courage to put our house in order.

He's yet some telling convoluted rhetoric from the Vatican's guy Lambada:

"in dealing with the onslaughts of atheism it will have increasing importance" (vol. 3, pp. 179-80).

How prophetic those words are, when we see the likes of Richard Dawkins and his fellow apostles of the so-called "new" atheism addressing thousands on college campuses, with books caricaturing the doctrines and philosophy of the Christian tradition on the best seller lists. How ripe the times are for a new apologetics!"



Sure, go after rational thinkers instead of cleaning up your mess and being accountable.

Oh my could it be the same man?

"Cardinal William Levada, as archbishop in Portland from 1986 to 1995, removed Father Joseph Baccellieri in 1992 after learning about 20-year-old complaints involving teenage boys, but allowed him to return on a limited basis under close supervision in 1994."



Victims deserve more than gibberish, perpetrators of criminal acts and those who aided and abetted them should face courts of law. Financial compensation is due to in the trillions of dollars.

post 38, now he's blaming the prod's on secularism, whatever's next?.