Bishops condemn BBC abuse claim (Vatican cover up of child abuse)

[IndianaGreen]

Bishops condemn BBC abuse claim

Sunday, 1 October 2006, 21:59 GMT 22:59 UK

The Catholic Church has accused a BBC documentary of a "deeply prejudiced attack" on the Pope over claims of a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse.

Panorama examined a document which allegedly encourages secrecy in dealing with cases of priests abusing children.

It says this was enforced by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope.

The Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, said the claim was "entirely misleading" but the BBC said it stood by the programme.

'Misuse of the confessional'

The document called Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 and apparently instructed bishops how to handle claims of child sex abuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5397346.stm

[rurallib]

1. Its like the bishops are the congressional republicans

and Ratzinger is W.

[infogirl]

2. Speak to Father Flannigan of Boys Town, NE

[IndianaGreen]

5. Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger let the cat out of the bag in 2002

The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.

Boston attorney Carmen L. Durso sent a copy of the document July 28 to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, arguing that it may prove the Catholic church has been obstructing justice.

"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Durso said, as quoted by the July 29 Worcester Telegram and Gazette. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed 'a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Durso told the federal attorney.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

[daleo]

3. Can Foley run for pope?

He seems well qualified, in some respects.

[IndianaGreen]

4. The Vatican document dates back to 1962, the Papacy of John XXIII

I don't know why the UK Catholic prelates are upset with the BBC when this story was reported by the National Catholic Reporter back in 2003. The document is true, as was the fact that Cardinal Ratzo, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. was its chief enforcer.

Posted Thursday, August 7, 2003 at 2:45 p.m. CST

1962 document orders secrecy in sex cases

Many bishops unaware obscure missive was in their archives

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

Rome

A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a "smoking gun" providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.

Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.

For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.

Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the "secret of the Holy Office," today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy.

The document was itself to be kept secret. Instructions on Page One direct that it be stored in the secret archives of each diocese, and that it not be published or commented upon. Msgr. Thomas Green, canon law expert at The Catholic University of America, told NCR Aug. 4 that unlike most church legislation, Crimen Sollicitationis was never published in the official Vatican bulletin Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

[MrPrax]

6. Yup...

I wondered as well about this old news or whatever happened to that little 'smoking gun'?

As far back as 1962 the Church had a sticky note attached to each 'problem priest' file that came up for inspection by the Holy See and as the steamroller of hypocrisy that engulfs 'western values' universally got moving, the missive was a blanket policy; hide the perp, guilt and smear the victims, mumble shit about souls and how they need to conform to Church teachings.

A Church that harbours moralists like the ones that protected Eric Rudolph, has no problem instructing it's 'middle-management flock' to obstruct secular justice when it threatens the Church. The Church never admits to it's crimes whether it be a hundred years ago, five hundred years ago or yesterday.

Neither do secular governments.

The West needs a Emperor Hirohito moment -- I, as God, must surrender.

[IndianaGreen]

15. This explains why American prelates like Cardinal Law protected

pedophiles like Boston's Father Geoghan, one of the most prolific child predators in the American Catholic Church.

I wonder how many more sticky note priests, as you described them, are out there that we don't know about.

[IChing]

7. BBC Documentary claims Pope in child abuse cover-up

Daily Telegraph
Doco claims Pope in child abuse cover-up
October 02, 2006 12:00

Over 20 years, the man formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger enforced a secret 1962 document on how bishops should deal with allegations of child abuse which included a code of secrecy, enforceable by excommunication, the BBC Panorama investigation said.

Father Tom Doyle, a canon solicitor reportedly sacked by the Vatican after criticising its handling of the issue, interpreted the document for the BBC and said it was an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child abuse which emphasised total Vatican control and did not mention victims.

The program also claims to have found seven priests facing child abuse investigations living in and around Vatican City.

But the Archbishop of Birmingham in central England, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, told Britian's Press Association (PA) that the documentary "misrepresents two Vatican documents and uses them quite misleadingly in order to connect the horrors of child abuse to the person of the Pope."

>>>>snip

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20510024-5001028,00.html

forgot to add the popcorn on edit
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[katinmn]

8. ...

:wow:

[Tesha]

9. Wot a shock, ehh? Whould have guessed? (NT)

[screembloodymurder]

10. This isn't new.

I know looks can be deceiving, but the Pope looks like evil personified.

[IChing]

11. Another source on the document that Ratz enforced.

The documentary examined a secret document that apparently sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church. It claimed the document - Crimen Sollicitationis - was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.

The 39-page document, written in 1962, apparently instructed Bishops how to deal with claims of child sex abuse. This includes an oath of secrecy, enforceable by excommunication, which critics claimed could hinder an outside investigation and prosecution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6118773,00.html

[stepnw1f]

12. I Heard about this Over a Year Ago

Was the Pope given immunity here in the states?

[happyslug]

13. The actual Document in Question (English Version)

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf

[happyslug]

14. Some comments on this memo

Quick read: This is a Terrible document, first it requires some sort of PROOF of the accusation, preferring two witnesses over the testimony of one wittiness and then if only one witness is available putting the burden on the PROSECUTION to show why the accuser should be believed over the Accused (and even permitting the use of PRIOR accusations against the Accused as evidence against the Accused as evidence of prior similar action). (Sarcasm Off)

Now the language is foreign to US ears, the use of the term "Denouncer" and "Denounced" as opposed to "Accused" and "Accuser" sounds strange, but once you through that language, the letter is basically a memo on how to handle accusation of mis-conduct by priests (and other "Ordinaries", an another term of art in Canon Law). This memo is how to hold HEARINGS of the issue of whether the Priest did an act of Molestation. It thus has to cover things like who has the burden of proof (The Accuser), na dhow the proceedings is to be performs (Everyone is to swear an oath no to reveal what went on on the hearing, the Oath does NOT prohibit the accusers from filing criminal or Civil actions against the Priest or the Church, but not to reveal what went on in the Church Hearing).

Even a quick reading of the memo quickly reveals that had the memo been followed (including the review of past allegations of mis-conduct) the pedophile priest scandals of the last three decades would have been avoided (I.e. if the Bishops had followed the procedures and considered PAST SIMILAR Accusations most of the pedophiles would have ben restricted away from children after just a few accusations as opposed to the many such priests did abuse).

Remember no Court has held ANY Church liable for the pedophile acts of their priests or minsters. The Churches have been held for NOT ESTABLISHING AND FOLLOWING RULES THAT WOULD HAVE MINIMIZED CONTACT BETWEEN PEDOPHILES AND CHILDREN. It is this LACK OF SUPERVISION that the Church has had to pay millions of dollars, not any SINGLE act of Pedophilia. Pedophilia can occur in ANY ORGANIZATION, the legal issue is rarely the liability of the person molesting the child, but at what stage did the organization that molester belongs to is liable do to failure to protect the minors? Had the Bishops followed this Memo the accused priests would have had to be restricted to locations with no contact with Children. The pedophile cases of the last 30 years would have been avoided FOR THE PRIESTS WOULD HAVE BEEN DENOUNCED AND FOUND TO HAVE DONE THE ACT AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE PRIESTS.

The problem is NOT this document, the problem is the failure of the Bishops to even hold hearings on the accusation against their priests. Instead the Bishops told parents they would take care of the Priest and then just moved the accused priests around. No hearing and thus this memo did not come into play. Thus the biggest problem with American Bishops, for the last 30 years they have avoided DING THEIR DUTIES IN HOLDING THESE HEARINGS. Why no hearings, the evidence would have been clear that the Priest was guilty and the Bishop would have to discipline one of his friends. It is hard to discipline a friend than an enemy or even someone you do not know, but the failure of the Bishops to do that part of their job is why the Catholic Church is in the mess they are in, not this memo.

[Zhade]

16. Kick for the truth!

Covering up child rape is WRONG!