Religion
Related: About this forumVatican refused to sack priest convicted of child sex abuse, documents show
The Vatican refused to remove a Victorian priest despite his child sex abuse conviction and the pedophile wanted money to agree to be defrocked, documents obtained by AAP show.
The Vatican has still not agreed to remove Paul David Ryan, 67, from the priesthood, nine years after the Diocese of Ballarat asked he be dismissed, documents before the child abuse royal commission show.
Then Ballarat bishop Peter Connors wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2006 telling them Ryan was in jail and asking he be laicised as soon as possible.
The Vaticans response in 2006 was: The summary of the case that you have provided, while helpful, is insufficient to proceed with your request that Reverend Ryan be dismissed from the clerical state.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/14/vatican-refused-to-sack-priest-convicted-of-child-sex-abuse-documents-show
New pope, same as old pope, but better pr.
uberblonde
(1,215 posts)The part where it explains how hard it is to do when the priest doesn't request it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)'It's hard to do because we say so.'
Pretty feeble. One would think that since they actually control/set the process, they could make it happen. The Vatican has refused extradition for convicted priests. Refused to hand over files to the UN/INTERPOL.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-abuse-idUSBRE9B304620131204
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20161
Archbishop Wesolowski is a citizen of the Vatican, and Vatican law does not allow for his extradition,
HOW CONVENIENT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Law_of_Vatican_City_State
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)like it's some big deal to defrock a priest. I mean, if one comes out as gay, they get defrocked pretty quickly. But rape a kid and it suddenly becomes this horribly difficult process that the RCC just can't seem to figure out.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)It's not a court of law, I mean, the actual court of law convicted him and tossed him in jail.
It speaks volumes when the Pope considers being gay a worse crime in the church than being a pedophile, or did Monsignor Krzysztof request to be defrocked?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)except when it doesn't want to, I guess.
Frankly, it's disgusting but not unexpected.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)is also a good description of the defense of this practice by the Catholic apologists on the board. And their attempts to stifle people pointing it out by regular alert trolling (cue the inevitable alert from the usual suspect).
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thankfully I don't have to read such bullshit directly, but it's bad enough knowing that it's going on here at DU. No wonder some people keep getting timeouts.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)When the reality is that defrocked is just he lay term for laicization. Defrocking isn't a term in the Catholic cannon but one just used in everyday language to mean the same thing.
Which, of course, does nothing but deflect from the fact that the RCC will laicize a priest for being gay in about 2 nanoseconds but suddenly finds it impossible to lacize a priest that is found guilty in a court of law of raping children.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)The precious corrupt institution and its ridiculous, arbitrary rules (that could be changed at any time) MUST BE DEFENDED AT ANY COST.
rug
(82,333 posts)This was a discipline by the diocesan bishop.
Didn't you learn this in your high school seminary?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)That's news. Or bullshit.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Ryan was stopped from working as a priest in 1993 but the initial laicisation process in 1994 was never concluded.
Feel free to consider due process an excuse. You'll be far from the only one to do so.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Just wondering.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The parents of South Park are a bit concerned when Father Maxi informs them about the Young Men's Catholic Retreat and agree that they don't want their kids to go. They also decide to have a counselor talk to the boys to find out if the priest had been molesting them. Exhibiting no discretion or sensitivity regarding the topic, the counselor asks them straight out, "Did Father Maxi, at any time, ever try to put something in your butt?" Having never been abused by Father Maxi, the boys are suitably baffled by what she was talking about, and begin to wonder why she would ask them such a thing. Cartman has a "brilliant" idea, reasoning what she meant was that it could be possible that eating food through the rectum can cause defecation through the mouth. The other boys (especially Kyle) think it is stupid and disgusting, and Cartman bets him $20 it will work. Meanwhile, all the parents decide to become atheists, as a means of protest to their children being allegedly molested.
Meanwhile, Maxi has gathered a meeting of Catholic priests to discuss the problem of child molestation. Maxi is appalled by such behavior and wants it to cease entirely, but the other priests want to continue molesting the boys, but stop the boys from telling. Maxi decides he has to go to the Vatican. Once there, he quickly finds the same: priests from all over the world are molesting children. They claim the "Holy Document of Vatican Law" does not prohibit the behavior, so Maxi wants to change the law. The Cardinal tells him that the Document cannot be changed as no one knows where it is. Maxi decides to try and find it.
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Red_Hot_Catholic_Love
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/jehovahs-witnesses-face-child-sex-abuse-investigation-in-australia/2015/08/14/d8a58eda-406e-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html
rug
(82,333 posts)I see Warren has already enlightened you with South Park. I'm sure he's provided you factual information, clear of bias and spin.
Nevertheless, this document (ignoring the cloying piety throughout) explains the actual process:
http://www.leavingthepriesthood.com/The_Laicization_Process_Blog_Archive_through_November_7__2010.pdf
The issue in laicization, as opposed to removing predators from public ministry, concerns thee removal of a person ordained in the RCC from the priesthood itself.
Canon Law is very specific in that process and the pdf cites some Canons. If you're interested in this arcane, but significant, process, which is one distinct from criminal prosecution, you can start here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PZ.HTM
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The man isn't reoffending because he's IN JAIL.
It was my own denomination which inured me against civil courts instructing religious dioceses in matters of ethics and morality. It is your denomination which I find continues to reoffend, regardless of secular instruction.
Monsignor Krzysztof was unrepentant. Evidently, so is Paul David Ryan.
As for your gish gallop, try this on for size.
http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/54
rug
(82,333 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)For what that's worth.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sorry you experienced it.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)However, when it did, I left the church. So there's a silver lining.
rug
(82,333 posts)A good distinction.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)than either you or I.
That's a travesty and a crime.
rug
(82,333 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I'm on the side of the absent parishioners.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)authentic priestly identity and mission
WTF???1!1??
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)sacred power[1]
Again ...
WTF!!!!????!!!!
rug
(82,333 posts)I'd give you the link but I wouldn't want you to feel gished.
Essentially, it holds that the validity of the sacraments is dependent on the character of the priest.
That notion was refuted in the fourth century.
Sorry you're livid but that changes neither the history nor the facts.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)When I look, I find that there are those who believe that about any given denomination or alternate belief structure.
I don't aspire to change history or fact. I aspire to have persons evaluate their belief system, whatever that may be, illuminated by fact and history.
rug
(82,333 posts)You'll be happy to know the successor to the Inquisition denounced it more than 60 years ago.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Never mind. I think I don't care what you meant.
David Miscavige uses the same a similar method as the Donatists did. He declares that completed auditing sessions have been misapplied and audited badly causing Clears to go all unClear. Operating Thetans have to start over from the beginning. It runs in to a butt load of tuition donations from practioners. Just noting the parallel.
rug
(82,333 posts)Leonard Feeney was a Jesuit priest in the twentieth century who preached extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "outside the Church there is no salvation". In other words, there is only One True Church and no one who does not belong to it can be saved.
The Holy Office of the Vatican, once known as the Inquisition, now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, condemned that teaching and excommunicated Feeney in 1953. Twenty years later he was received back into the RCC (to his great relief, as he died five years later.)
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Which, aside from being centuries too late, I thought Pope John Paul II did that, sort of, but not in so many words.
Also if the teaching is condemned, someone should give Fr. Cogan a heads up.
Catechism Lessons
by Fr. William J. Cogan
Lesson 16: PRACTICAL POINTS
A non-Catholic who suspects that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God and does not investigate Her claims with a mind to join if Her claims prove to be true, cannot be saved, because outside of Christ's Mystical Body (the Catholic Church), there is no salvation.
You should try to bring others "to the knowledge of the Truth" (1 Timothy 2:4) by prudently suggesting that they take instructions in the True Religion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Than being a child rapist. That's some (papal) bull.