Bbc Tv - Nails Benedict As Architect Of Coverup Crisis

[Laudate_Dominum]

busted.

[img]http://www.panama-guide.com/images/articles/20060326174727837_2.jpg[/img]

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1080893' date='Oct 1 2006, 03:10 PM']
Reading the letter further, I'm guessing this is the alleged tidbit:

"Delictum contra mores, videlicet: delictum contra sextum Decalogi praeceptum cum minore infra aetatem duodeviginti annorum a clerico commissum."

It reads:

"A crime against morals, viz., a crime against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (adultery) with a minor under 18 years of age committed by a member of the clergy."

The problem is that this is addressing an abuse of the sacrament of Confession, not the crime itself. Cardinal Ratzinger merely ordered that the ecclesial aspect of the crime remain in the hands of the Church (which is perfectly licit, just as you would not try someone for murder in a civil court, but in a criminal court). [b]There is no reason at all to believe that Cardinal Ratzinger was ordering the crime itself to be hidden, but only that he reserved the right for the ecclesiastical body to deal with the ecclesiastical crime.[/b] There is also no reason to believe that the abuse had not already been reported to proper civil authorities.

Furthermore, I see no reason to believe that he was dealing with an actual case and not merely with canon law theory.
[/quote]

Sorry, but child molestation is not an ecclesiastical crime.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1080921' date='Oct 1 2006, 03:00 PM']
Sorry, but child molestation is not an ecclesiastical crime.
[/quote]
I believe what Raph was saying was that besides the criminal dimension (not necessarily child molestation, but perhaps statutory rape, or in some countries legal intercourse), there is also the fact that this activity involves a severe ecclesiastical crime as well.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1080921' date='Oct 1 2006, 04:00 PM']
Sorry, but child molestation is not an ecclesiastical crime.
[/quote]

It is if it is done by some one with authority in the Church. Now, clearly it is not solely an ecclesial crime, and as such should also be punished by the state. However, there are ecclesial demensions (such as formal excommunication) that the Church must deal with.

Edit

Or whatever the eloquent L_D said.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1080858' date='Oct 1 2006, 02:32 PM']
Think about it why did every bishop in the world follow the same trajectory when it came to sex abuse in the Catholic Church, suppressing it, moving the priests and more? It had to be orders from the top....[/quote]
Poor, poor Budge. Why do you hate Jesus because of Judas? Why do you hate Jesus because of Peter? Why do you hate Jesus because of all the apostles that failed Him?

If your plan of attack on Catholicism is to disprove a your belief in an impeccable pope, you will fail. Jesus is the core of Catholicism. The pope is a man. We never claim him to be impeccable. The Truth in the Church will remain untainted regardless of who is sitting in Peter's chair.

Even if your dreams of a corrupt pope come true, the Church would replace him. What we, the Church, won't do is replace the Truth with a compromised version of it brought on by public pressure or polls.

Others have addressed this issue specifically. As a news junkie, I will you give you this advice, "Never believe what comes from the mouth of the BBC. Verify anything they say against at least 3 reliable sources."

[quote]Its always interesting to me how certain documents are only available in Latin...

{not English, Spanish, or Italian even}
[/quote]
Someone with a deeper understanding of why Latin can correct me, but as I understand, Latin is still used because it's considered extinct. It is not as readily influenced by modern language trends, like introducing slang. And of course, there are the historical reasons too.

[Anomaly]

Is the document saying that a priest shouldn't be reported to the local civil athorities, but should be reported to the Vatican instead, since it's an ecclisiastical issue?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1080944' date='Oct 1 2006, 04:28 PM']
Is the document saying that a priest shouldn't be reported to the local civil athorities, but should be reported to the Vatican instead, since it's an ecclisiastical issue?
[/quote]
I'm trying to translate it, using a couple different translation engines, but some words are unable to be translated. It would be nice if stuff would be written in English, or in some language more familiar than Latin.

[Guest FrancisServusChristi]

[quote name='Budge' post='1080696' date='Oct 1 2006, 11:07 AM']
[img]http://img.dailymail.co.uk//i/pix/2006/09/pope300906_228x424.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


A report so accurate they got his name wrong.

Joseph, not Thomas Ratzinger.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1080923' date='Oct 1 2006, 05:05 PM']
I believe what Raph was saying was that besides the criminal dimension (not necessarily child molestation, but perhaps statutory rape, or in some countries legal intercourse), there is also the fact that this activity involves a severe ecclesiastical crime as well.
[/quote]
Exactly. I'm saying that there would be two different cases here. One would be criminal according to civil law and should be dealt with accordingly, the other criminal according to canon law and that is what Cardinal Ratzinger would be dealing with in this text. It does not mean that he was saying that civil authorities should keep their noses out or that the Church should hush up about the incident. It merely means that what relates to the canon law is a matter to be tried in ecclesiastical courts and reserves that right.

It's like if a man commits a single murder over two different countries (traveling from one country into the other). Both countries would have a claim on him. Now, if this happened between Austria and Germany, Germany might file a brief stating that it retains the right to charge the criminal in its own courts. That doesn't mean that Germany is keeping Austria from trying the criminal, and it certainly doesn't mean that they are keeping information from Austria.

By the way, Latin is the official language of the Church out of tradition, but also, I supsect, because it is a very logical language and not easily manipulated or misunderstood by those who know it.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Raphael

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='FrancisServusChristi' post='1080971' date='Oct 1 2006, 05:02 PM']
A report so accurate they got his name wrong.

Joseph, not Thomas Ratzinger.
[/quote]

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='Budge' post='1080696' date='Oct 1 2006, 01:07 PM']
[img]http://img.dailymail.co.uk//i/pix/2006/09/pope300906_228x424.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

So...how long did you have to search to find another subject to get the flames going?

Oh and your contrasting pictures are really a clincher in showcasing good versus evil...its sure to set off the good Catholic folks here.....me, I think I'll go pluck my eyebrows.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Oh, and that thing the article mentions about competence...I don't see anything in the letter but the Vatican's claim to have competence in a canon law issue. I see nothing telling bishops not to report things to civil authorities. In fact, the competence issue seems to be referring to all the matters of abuse of the sacraments addressed. It seems clear to me why the Vatican would claim competence over civil courts in matters of Eucharistic abuses.

Now, I still haven't translated the whole thing. If you really want me to, I can, but I think that taking this letter for what it is, a letter regarding abuses of sacraments carried out by some priests and reserving judgment on those abuses (in as much as they are sacramental abuses), should be enough.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Raphael

[cappie]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1080856' date='Oct 2 2006, 04:31 AM']
"secret" letter, huh? sounds like media hype/tripe to me.

[/quote]




This is an old story first dragged up when Benedict became Pope

[Budge]

[quote]
I didn't bother translating the whole thing.

It's about abuses in the celebration of the sacraments.

Thanks for finding yet another reason for us not to believe you.[/quote]

Hey I cant read Latin.

This what I get for TRUSTING a canon lawyer.

THIS FOLKS IS THE LINK TO THE LETTER

[url="http://popebenedict16.blogspot.com/2005/04/benedict-obstructed-justice-dont-you.html"]http://popebenedict16.blogspot.com/2005/04...e-dont-you.html[/url]

[url="http://popebenedict16.blogspot.com/2005/04/benedict-obstructed-justice-dont-you.html"]LINK RIGHT HERE--CATHOLIC CANON LAWYER.[/url]


[quote]Ed Peters, CanonLaw.Info


Perhaps you’ve seen recent press stories about then-Cardinal Ratzinger's "secret letter" to all bishops in May 2001 wherein the one-time head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, allegedly ordered black-out grade secrecy on ecclesiastical investigations of clergy sex abuse allegations. Depending on which version of the story you encounter, you might also hear that leaks of Church investigations will be punished with papal excommunication, that the Church claims secret jurisdiction over such cases for ten years, etc., etc.

Folks, from where I sit, it seems much ado about not much.
[b]
First, the CDF letter is so secret that it’s been posted on the Vatican website for some time now[/b]. I noticed it months ago. It’s in Latin because it is addressed to all the bishops of the world, and it is common Vatican practice to send out important communications in one common language rather than in umpteen vernacular versions. For those whose Latin is rusty, some versions of the CDF letter include links to websites that translate Latin vocabulary.[/quote]

Stupid me for trusting a catholic canon lawyer.

Someone should write him and tell him to fix his link

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Budge' post='1081057' date='Oct 1 2006, 05:39 PM']
Hey I cant read Latin.

This what I get for TRUSTING a canon lawyer.

THIS FOLKS IS THE LINK TO THE LETTER

[url="http://popebenedict16.blogspot.com/2005/04/benedict-obstructed-justice-dont-you.html"]http://popebenedict16.blogspot.com/2005/04...e-dont-you.html[/url]

[url="http://popebenedict16.blogspot.com/2005/04/benedict-obstructed-justice-dont-you.html"]LINK RIGHT HERE--CATHOLIC CANON LAWYER.[/url]
Stupid me for trusting a catholic canon lawyer.

Someone should write him and tell him to fix his link
[/quote]


it's happened to all of us.

in the end you can't trust a lawyer, even a canon lawyer.

j/k

[Budge]

[quote]in the end you can't trust a lawyer, even a canon lawyer. [/quote]

Agreed

[cappie]

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."

Speaking on behalf of bishops in England and Wales, he accused the BBC of "a deeply prejudiced attack on a revered world religious leader".

The Catholic Church also told PA that the document in question is not directly linked to child abuse but deals with the misuse of the confessional.

It said a second document mentioned in the documentary and issued in 2001 clarifies Church law and did not hinder investigations of child abuse allegations.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, central London, and spiritual leader of Catholics in England and Wales, has written to Mark Thompson, the BBC's director-general, to protest about the program.

The Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, and Chairman of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (COPCA), has issued the following statement on behalf of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, in response to the BBC Panorama Programme, 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican', broadcast on BBC 1 at 10.15pm last night:

"The BBC Panorama programme, 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican', makes clear the suffering of those abused in their childhood. But as a public service broadcaster, the BBC should be ashamed of the standard of the journalism used to create this unwarranted attack on Pope Benedict XVI.

"Viewers will recognise only too well the sensational tactics and misleading editing of the programme, which uses old footage and undated interviews. hey will know that aspects of the programme amount to a deeply prejudiced attack on a revered world religious leader. It will further undermine public onfidence in 'Panorama'.

"There are two strands to the Panorama programme 'Sex Crimes and the Vatican'. The first is a graphic and explicit account of the evil of child abuse and the personal damage it causes to its victims. This is horrific and deeply distressing.

"Those abused as children have been grievously offended. This is especially so when the abuser is a priest. The film is a reminder to everyone of the need to work ceaselessly in the protection of children and in response to the needs of victims. The Catholic Church in England and Wales is doing so, with transparency and care, and, in every case, cooperating fully and immediately with public authorities.

"The second strand of the programme is an attack on the Vatican and
specifically on Pope Benedict XVI. This aspect of the programme is false and entirely misleading. It is false because it misrepresents two Vatican documents and uses them quite misleadingly in order to connect the horrors of child abuse to the person of the Pope.

"The first document, issued in 1962, is not directly concerned with child abuse at all, but with the misuse of the confessional. This has always been a most serious crime in Church law. The programme confuses the misuse of the confessional and the immoral attempts by a priest to silence his victim.

"The second document, issued in 2001, clarified the law of the Church, ensuring that the Vatican is informed of every case of child abuse and that each case is dealt with properly. This document does not hinder the investigation by civil authorities of allegations of child abuse, nor is it a method of cover-up, as the programme persistently claims. In fact it is a measure of the seriousness with which the Vatican views these offences.

"Since 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took many steps to apply the law of the Church tallegations and offences of child abuse with absolute thoroughness and scruple."

Archbishop Nichols added: "This statement is endorsed by the Bishops of England and Wales. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, as President of the Bishops' Conference, is writing to the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, to protest about this programme. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor's letter will be made public later this week."

Source: Archdiocese of Birmingham

Edited October 2, 2006 by cappie

[Socrates]

Well, the "secret document" nonsense may be a load of tripe, but that sure is a scaaarrrry picture of the Pope Budge posted!

Obviously, he's up to some nefarious evil!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Well, I feel vindicated. Thanks, Father Greg.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Raphael

[cmotherofpirl]

Thanks Father, for setting te record straight