Child abuse: the full story at last?
The frenzy over MPs’ expenses in the UK should pale by comparison with the public reaction in Ireland to the long-awaited report this week of the Commission to inquire into the horrific extent of 60 years of child abuse by Catholic priests and order members. At least it ought to: I expect it will, I’ve only observed the unfolding story from a distance. Or could it be that the public are becoming desensitised by the subject at last? Outrage and witch hunts are hardly the right response, but even now, shouldn’t people be on the alert for more evasion? Is it just me or has the coverage trailing the report been fairly muted? The Irish Times ran a substantial backgrounder yesterday by Mary Raftery, whose RTE doc sparked the decade-long investigation. Raftery recounts a tale of official obstruction and later compromise, in the interests of natural justice and handling an almost overwhelming volume of material. This weekend the BBC in NI and on networks trailed the report. So far though, I can’t trace any more in Google news Ireland or from RTE. Notoriously, in spite of more than a decade of exposures worldwide, foot dragging has dogged the whole subject for years, not only in Ireland. At least the current archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin was savvy enough to warn on Holy Thursday that the impending report would “shock us all.”. Further action from government and the Church will be keenly awaited.
I presume the people referring to Crimen Sollicitationis have never actually the document. It is dealing with sex abuse committed in the confessional (an acutely sensitive area, given that priests may never disclose the sins of penitents), and demands secrecy in the canonical court. Please see my [url=http://ulstertaig.blogspot.com/2009/02/no-facts-please-were-irish.html]blog post[/url] about this. It did not impede people from reporting the crime to the civil authorities.
And UMH, you still have to give me your source for those translations of the Gratian decretals.
read*
[i]And UMH, you still have to give me your source for those translations of the Gratian decretals.[/i]
I don’t have to give you anything.
CO, ask the Vatican
You mean you don’t want to back up your point? Fine then.
[i]I presume the people referring to Crimen Sollicitationis have never actually the document. It is dealing with sex abuse committed in the confessional (an acutely sensitive area, given that priests may never disclose the sins of penitents), and demands secrecy in the canonical court.[i]
Catholic Observer, so the civil lawyers are wrong when they claim excommunication from the church is treatened if victims speak out?
italics fixed [/i] checking
try again [/i] checking
Catholic Observer, so the civil lawyers are wrong when they claim excommunication from the church is treatened if victims speak out?
Not sure which civil lawyers you’re referring to and the substance of their argument, but if claiming this, they would indeed be wrong.
[i]Not sure which civil lawyers you’re referring to and the substance of their argument, but if claiming this, they would indeed be wrong.[/i]
So this article is fabrication, is it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection
Not a fabrication, just misrepresentation. Richard Scorer conflates apples and tennis balls. The secrecy applied to the procedures in the internal court trials, it did not impede victims from reporting the crimes to the police. As the quoted spokesman said: ‘This document is about the Church’s internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes.’
Is the threat of excommunication upheld in the document?
Is the document designed to silence victims of abuse or not?
For anyone disclosing content under the seal of a court trial, excommunication is incurred latae sententiae. Very standard procedure – priests who disclose their penitents’ sins also automatically incur the same penalty.
“Is the document designed to silence victims of abuse or not?”
No, it’s designed to silence people from disclosing information revealed under the seal. It actually iterates the excommunication of victims of abuse should they fail to report it.
So if they fail to report it, erm how would they be excommunicated?
Are we to assume that said abusers would admit, “well I abused them, they didn’t report it, so we’ll punish them for my crimes?”
Now I know why I failed to believe this shoite as a youngster..
Excommunication was applied latae sententiae
So all those children have been automatically excommunicated?
There’s Christian justice
Nobody under 18 can incur excommunication.
CO, so black is white and white is black?
ya wa?
….and in the real world the RC church is digging a big deep hole, all the way to hell, big enough to bury all the sadistic perverts who abused under the name of Christianity.
Then surely the abuser has one month to reveal their crimes, or be automatically excommunicated?
No, the abuser was to be put in canonical court where if found guilty he would more than likely be defrocked, not excommunicated.
If victims of abuse can be excommunicated for failing to report the abuse, why is Cardinal Bernard Law still a cardinal?, Law knowingly transferred paedophile defrocked priest John Geoghan from parish to unsuspecting parish where he had access to innocent children despite documented and numerous complaints from victims and their families, but Law was not excommunicated, was not defrocked, and is in fact still an influential Cardinal who voted in the election of the last pope?
Why would a Cardinal be held to a lower standard of accountability than a victim of abuse?
Likewise, because no one under 18 can incur excommunication, the nine year old Brazilian girl pregnant with twins after being repeatedly molested by her stepfather was not excommunicated by her bishop after she received an abortion, but her mother and the doctors at the hospital where she received the abortion were.
Few nine year olds can conceive, but even of the few who can, what nine year old womb is physically capable of carrying twins to term without rupturing? A uterine rupture might well have cost the child her life, or, more than likely, her future fertility.
Do you know who there has been no move to excommunicate?
The little girl’s stepfather.
Why are we all whispering in italiics? Are the moderators having a nap and we’re all supposed to be very, very quiet till they wake up?
Law was not covered by C.S. This is a historic document which is no longer in force.
Susan,
I had read that story and it made me physically sick.
What message does that send 1. to the child
2.Other victims 3.Catholics worldwide?
CO, with or without C.S. — why is Law still a Cardinal?
RE: the excommunication in Brazil
The girl’s family was not excommunicated by the bishop. The bishop simply declared they were excommunicated. Facilitating an abortion results in latae sententiae excommunications—penalties do not apply when it is motivated by grave fear, ignorance of the law or when life is endangered. I believe that is why Archbishop Fisichella, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life denounced Cordoso.
“CO, with or without C.S.—why is Law still a Cardinal? ”
Don’t know. Can’t stand the man. He should of course get the boot. Predictably he was appointed to the cardinalite by JP2, a pope well known for very bad cardinal and bishop picks (not least the inexplicably choice of Cardinal Mahoney).
Anyway I can’t be accused of being liberal on this issue. I have long advocated the death penalty for these sorts of crimes.
[i]This is a historic document which is no longer in force.
Posted by CO[/i]
It has been reported that the document is still in force.
This was before Razi became Pope.
“The Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
and this is after he became Pope.
Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the ‘enforcer’ of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.
Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis – Latin for The Crime of Solicitation – which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.
Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.
The Guardian is wrong. The letter it is referring to, De delictis gravioribus, available [url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora delicta_lt.html]here at the Vatican’s website[/url] (in Latin) does not say that that CS is still in force (though it does refer to it). CS was issued at at time when the 1917 CIC was in force, that was abrogated under the 1983 CIC
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hundeds-of-missing-hse-children-lured-into-sex-work-says-unicef-chief-1062055.html
Sunday August 19 2007
“Almost 400 children have gone missing in Ireland from the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in the last five years — and many of them are believed to have been trafficked into the sex industry here and in Europe..Sunday August 19 2007
Almost 400 children have gone missing in Ireland from the care of the Health Service Executive (HSE) in the last five years — and many of them are believed to have been trafficked into the sex industry here and in Europe.”
So whats changed?
http://www.paddydoyle.com/vaccinetrials.html
“The letter below deals with Vaccine Trials carried out on babies and children in institutional setting in Ireland during the 1960’s and 1970’s.”
Pigeon Toes
Are you really drawing a comparison between this and the depraved sexual abuse of young innocent children by clergy in the Catholic Church?
Abuse is abuse.
If you cannot see the distinction, then I suggest that you may need to examine your conscience (and your sense of logic)
If you can see the distinction, then you may need to examine these things.
Good heavens, I thought this thread would deal with the grim reality of the rape of children by clergymen. Instead we have people arguing the finer points of documents written in Latin.
I actually wish the Catholic Church had excommunicated me when I was a child. I would have been spared many years of emotional and intellectual abuse by this organization of self-serving and arrogant celibates.
My hope is that the 21th century will see the belated demise of this and other frightful institutions who place the interests of their hierarchies above the lives and well-being of little children.
Sorry for my lack of diplomacy but I’m sick to death of the hypocrisy of these people. Their only gods are power and prestige.
Big Maggie
If all you suggest was true I would be with you in this.
But you know there was a recent armed struggle or the tactical use of human suffering and there are still people walking the street who think that that was just and deserving on those at the other end of it. Some were little children, some were parents and grandparents. How about a little consistency against all those who abuse, not just celibates, priests or otherwise.
“It seems okay for you to abuse adults”
Mr O Connell, what adults have I “abused”?
There is obviously a very clear distinction in an opinion held by me, and to which you have the right of reply.
Are you really drawing a comparison between this and the depraved sexual abuse of young innocent children by clergy in the Catholic Church?
If you cannot see the distinction, then I suggest that you may need to examine your conscience (and your sense of logic)
Again, Mr O Connell, it is my opinion that you are aggravating. That hardly constitutes “abuse”. Are you going to abuse my human right to hold such an opinion?
And I don’t believe I am “The Chosen One” either..
Pigeon Toes
bastard
Do you recall the word?
That amounts to abuse as you now seem to have realised. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
And I don’t believe I am “The Chosen One” either..
That’s because you’re not.
John,
“How about a little consistency against all those who abuse, not just celibates, priests or otherwise.”
I hope I am. It’s simply that in this instance we’re dealing with child rape by clergymen. We can debate other issues elsewhere.
Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Mary picked up a stone and threw it. Jesus said “I hate it when you do that mother”.
Pigeon Toes
bastard
Do you recall the word?
That amounts to abuse as you now seem to have realised. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
No, i still am of the opinion that you are an aggravating bastard.
And I don’t believe I am “The Chosen One” either..
“That’s because you’re not.”
How do you know?
Is it because you are?
One would have thought that you would have been able to ascertain my gender.
“You’re some gentleman”…
Guess we can’t expect a “loaves and fishes” scenario around Derry any time soon then…