Ratzinger has some nerve
Remember how the pope let us know how simply terrible he felt about what happened to those poor dear innocent children in Ireland? Remember how the Vatican said he shared the outrage, betrayal and shame felt by so many of the faithful in Ireland? Well, if that’s true, how does he explain an order he issued in 2001?
…an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001. It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger…Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a ‘clear obstruction of justice’.
That’s the same fella, you see. The very same guy. In 2001 Ratzinger sent a secret letter to every Catholic bishop ordering them to keep the investigation of criminal activity against children secret until as much as ten years after the children were old enough to fend for themselves. The same guy. So in what sense can it possibly be true that he shares the outrage, betrayal and shame felt by so many of the faithful in Ireland? What’s he doing, dancing around the Vatican whacking himself on the bum shouting ‘who’s a naughty boy?!’ in the manner of Basil Fawlty?
I don’t think so. I don’t think he’s doing that or anything like it. I think he’s worrying about how to go on protecting the Vatican’s reputation, and pretty much nothing else. Why do I think that? Because it’s what he did in 2001, so why should we think he’s doing anything different now?
Ratzinger’s letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’. The letter states that the church’s jurisdiction ‘begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age’ and lasts for 10 years. It orders that ‘preliminary investigations’ into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the ‘functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,’ Ratzinger’s letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.
In other words Ratzinger simply declares that the church has jurisdiction over a serious crime and has the option of exercising that jurisdiction all by itself and in secret. Who knew churches had the power to do that?! Even the Vatican, which is a ‘state’ – but a state with, apparently, citizens anywhere on the globe in the form of priests. So priests have sovereign immunity and can molest children with impunity from secular law enforcement? I don’t think that’s actually legal doctrine – yet apparently Ratzinger can do that and get away with it. So far, anyway.
The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice. Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: ‘It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It’s an obstruction of justice.’
And it is entirely inconsistent with the pope’s now pretending he gives a shit about the children who were the alleged victims. The pope is simply another self-protective boss-man shielding his organization. Crocodile tears simply add insult to injury.
The letter is published on the Vatican website,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html
translation here:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm
It’s been claimed by defenders of Ratzinger that the letter refers only to the church’s internal investigations of a priest using the protection of the confessional to solicit sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis_%28document%29
The behaviour of Catholic bishops around the world, in consistently covering up sex abuse by their priests, suggests that many bishops read the Vatican’s instructions differently.
Sorry, I should also have made it clear that they further claim that the Catholic church’s own investigations do not prohibit parallel investigations by civil authorities. The Church investigation is concerned only with the breach of the “sanctity” of the confessional.
Once again, their actual behaviour suggests otherwise.
This man is so utterly despicable, it’s hard to find language adequate to express the disgust that he arouses. What is more concerning, though, is that he has a direct way of influencing our political leaders, through the power of excommunication which is such a heavy part of the secret letter. I think we should be seeking ways to disarm him. No one should have such power, especially when it is so clear that he is disposed to use it for immoral and completely evil purposes.
“I think we should be seeking ways to disarm him.”
Well I’m doing my best to destroy his reputation – that is, to destroy the automatic deference that is now (inexplicably) paid to anyone called ‘the pope.’
Thanks for those links and the information, Pete.
It absolutely disgusts me that molestation can be described as an action that one “perpetrates with a minor”. It’s an evil act done to someone less powerful, not an action performed with them. I really hope something is lost in translation there, because I’m having a hard time not yelling at my monitor.
You win the Most Hilarious Mental Image award for that one. I’m still laughing out loud.
That letter is amazing – not least because the first item on the agenda is sacrilege against the eucharist! Fiddling with children comes well behind – and when it does show up it’s treated as ‘adultery’ – powerful ‘holy’ adults messing with children is apparently not the issue at all.
The more one learns the more disgusting they are.
When one thinks about it – these religious will have most of its world-wide flock on bended knees in the confessional box this xmas-tide. The latter will be pouring out to these confessors all sins and faults committed by them and the priests will have the power to forgive their transgressions. The confessional box has a big psychological affect on its flock and the church uses it to it own advantage. A lot of abuse has also occurred behind these sinister darkened boxes.
“I think he’s worrying about how to go on protecting the Vatican’s reputation, and pretty much nothing else.”
I suspect he also has the wealth of the Vatican in mind. The costs of molestation, as awarded by juries in the US, are sizable, allowing the courts to attach property and sell it to meet the awards.
“In 2003, Doyle began circulating a copy of the document Crimen sollicitationis. The document, known in Catholic canon law as an ‘instruction’, operated from 1962 to 2001.”
A liberal Dominican priest, and expert in Canon Law, Tom Doyle, was disciplined by the Vatican for lots of reasons. I came across ‘General Blog’ and there is a wealth of information pertaining to the document – of which this very brave priest gives great understanding.
He is very highly respected by victims of clerical sexual abuse and institutional child abuse.
What’s that from? A direct quote should always have a source.
Sorry, OB.
The source is: General Blog, Thomas Doyle.
There is also very interesting youtube footage of said priest with Colm O’ Gorman – late of – One in Four.
See:
“Thomas Doyle on Crimen sollicitationis”
And the url?
Look at the first comment above, M-T – that’s how it’s done. One provides the urls.
Quote @ 19:26:14
tjwoodlock.com/blog/reverend-thomas-patrick-doyle/
Quote: youtube @:20:03:59
tjwoodlock.com/blog/thomas-doyle-on-crimen-sollicitationis/
So, do you think there’s any chance that a few countries might issue an arrest warrant for the Pope based on this? Or at the very least refuse to issue a visa to him in the future?
No, I didn’t think so either.
Huh. Yeah right.
But at least we can keep prying him away from his repuation for sanctity and Goodness – his and his church’s.
He and Index on Censorship can comfort each other in reputational hell.
Right, almost forgot. The head of the pedophile ring has a reputation for goodness. I wonder how serious his crimes would have to be to make him lose it in the eyes of his followers. Maybe someone can find a snapshot of him with a condom.
Or worse – disrespecting a wafer!
[shudder]
Lots of people in Ireland are absolutely infuriated about the following latest topic to hit a small rural town.
“A PRIEST was yesterday unapologetic about giving character evidence on behalf of a convicted sex offender. Fr Sheehy, who has known Foley since he was a teenager, was among 50 people, mainly men, to queue up and shake Foley’s hand before he was given a seven-year jail sentence, with two years suspended, at the Circuit Criminal Court, in Tralee, on Wednesday. The 35-year-old bouncer, from Meen, Listowel, had denied the charge and claimed the encounter between them was consensual.”
clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/…/priest-steps-down-after-listowel.html –
Listowel, Co Kerry, was made famous, in the past by writings of the late J. B. Keane. And because of this knowledge, people are speculating as to what he would make of the current controversy concerning the priest who shook hands with a soon-to-be convicted criminal. Thee was no sympathy given to the young female victim at all.
Not even crocodile tears were afforded her by the priest!
“So, do you think there’s any chance that a few countries might issue an arrest warrant for the Pope based on this?”
Unfortunately this is extremely unlikely. The Pope is classified as a head of state and enjoys diplomatic immunity as a result.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pope-seeks-immunity-over-sex-abuse-suit/2005/08/17/1123958097061.html
Precisely what I was complaining of – the Vatican is a ‘state’ and the pope acts accordingly.
That situation really should be ended.
The situation should surely be ended, I reckon, if continued pressure by world-wide victims was brought to bear and vociferously hammered home to the Vatican, then only then, will there be some kind of sea-change.
Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI asked US President George W. Bush, when he was in power, to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accused him of conspiring to cover up sexual abuse of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, The Vatican embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department requesting the government to grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state. Joseph Ratzinger was named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. State Department spokeswoman at the time in mid 2005, said “the pope already is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity”. It is despicable!
Seeking an appropriate reaction to Rottweiler Ratzinger’s non-attitude towards the sins of his pastoral colleagues, I think I’ve found a link that was nagging me from the back of my mind.
The Industrial Schools strongly resisted the move from funding by capitation to budget-based accounting, because that would put a stop to them siphoning off funds, both from capitation and from the children’s labours, for diversion to the Vatican. The children were regarded simply as a source of income and sweated labour, their silence guaranteed by terror. The silence and complicity of the staff was obtained by pandering to the vilest proclivities of sadism and psychotic sexuality. There was a higher organisation, the hierarchy of the church, that sanctioned and protected the system, as it also sanctioned and protected the activities of child abusers in the Archdiocese of Dublin.
There is a name for this – Organised Crime. Like its younger and less powerful sister the Mafia, the Catholic Church rules through fear and silence, preys on and profits from the vulnerable, survives by suborning the rich and powerful and has no interest or benefit other than its own parasitic survival.
An appropriate reaction here would be for Her Majesty’s Government not just to cancel Benedict’s state visit but to break off diplomatic relations with the Vatican and to expel from the country all officials of the church directly appointed by the Vatican.
Benedict was not a front runner for the papacy, but as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he had unique knowledge of the extent and details of the Church’s dirty linen, of which the two recent reports are but the iceberg’s tip. Coincidence of course,
Monies paid, by poverty-stricken parents’, to religious in Goldenbridge for the formers’ upkeep, was invariably sent directly to the Mother House in Carysfort College, which was a teacher training college for postulants’. Woe-betide poor parents’ who did not cough up amounts ordered by courts. They inevitably saw the long finger of the religious as too did their respective children in Goldenbridge.
“The children were regarded simply as a source of income and sweated labour, their silence guaranteed by terror.”
The religious sisters who ran industrial schools kept writing to the authorities to send them more children via the courts – as they were terribly afraid when numbers started to dwindle. They were so desperate — that they eventually caved in to accepting boys. Boys, only, were taken into Goldenbridge up to the ripe age of ten years old, and then after that age they went straight into boys’ only institutions. This separation of siblings caused gargantuan suffering amongst child detainees in GB, that most of them have never really bonded with their brothers thereafter – or fully recovered from the trauma of separation. I was lucky in that sense never to have had any brothers at all. But I know by association only too well the pain it has caused to my institutional counterparts.
The boys who went into boys only institutions’ (after childhood stints in mixed industrial schools) were the ones most likely to have been sexually abused by brothers’/priests’, as they would not have been streetwise like boys who went there for petty crimes – and the latter also would have had parents’ visiting them as opposed to the convent boys – who would not have had any concept of parents – being abandoned by them from very early on in life.
It is ironic that boys who went into industrial schools such as Artane, Daingean, Letterfrack, for criminal purposes, (despite the fact that all of us were tarred with the same brush) were the ones most vocal in fighting the government. They had more wherewithal than those who grew up in institutions from babyhood.
Yes the Mafia parallel has occurred to me more than once, especially in the light of that letter to the bishops.
That business of the nuns being ‘terribly afraid when numbers started to dwindle’ – which M-T has mentioned before – just makes my blood run cold. The nuns were horrified because there were fewer children who could be shunted into institutions!
It’s good that there are doctors, but if everyone on earth suddenly became perfectly healthy, that would not be a tragedy for doctors. (Not that the nuns functioned in any sense like doctors…)
Somewhat off-topic, though related to the Catholic church: has anyone seen the New York Times magazine article on Robert George? He is a conservative Catholic philosopher who thinks the Church’s positions are accessible through reason alone and are “natural laws.” I think the profile takes an excessively deferential view to him and his intellectual comrades in arms. But of course as a New Atheist pro-abortionist blah blah blah I am biased.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html?em