Vatican letter: Irish bishops were warned in '97 not to report all child-abuse cases to police

[laconicsax]

http://www.startribune.com/world/114105409.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O%3ADW3ckUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUvckD8EQDUr

DUBLIN - A newly revealed 1997 letter from the Vatican warned Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police — a disclosure that victims groups described as "the smoking gun" needed to show that the Vatican enforced a worldwide culture of cover-up.

The letter, obtained by Irish broadcasters RTE and provided to The Associated Press, documents the Vatican's rejection of a 1996 Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify pedophile priests following Ireland's first wave of publicly disclosed lawsuits.

The letter undermines persistent Vatican claims, particularly when seeking to defend itself in U.S. lawsuits, that the church in Rome never instructed local bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police. It instead emphasizes the church's right to handle all child-abuse allegations, and determine punishments, in house rather than hand that power to civil authorities.

...

Child-abuse activists in Ireland said the 1997 letter should demonstrate, once and for all, that the protection of pedophile priests from criminal investigation was not only sanctioned by Vatican leaders but ordered by them.

[trotsky]

1. And these are the same people who lecture the rest of the world on morality.

Rotten, corrupt, nasty old men. It is hard to believe more people don't follow their conscience away from the church they run but instead continue to support them with their time and money.

[AlecBGreen]

2. prosecute prosecute prosecute

Im pretty sure the Vatican has read this from Romans 13.

"1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong (I beg to differ on this -ABG). Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason."

[laconicsax]

9. That passage seems to suggest authoritarianism.

While I commend the actions of Christians the world over who stood up to and resisting tyrannical regimes throughout history the world over, it's important to point out that in doing so, they are "rebelling against what God has instituted."

There's a passage in 1 Peter (1 Peter 2:13-16) that echoes this:

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God."

[AlecBGreen]

13. it outright requires it

this is hard for me to reconcile. Do I take Paul at his word and submit myself to all human authority, even it is morally repellant? What if it requires me to do things or accept things which I cannot bear? Was MLK Jr. breaking God's commandment by performing his nonviolent protests to bring down Jim Crow laws?

On the face of it this verse leaves little wiggle room for interpretation. Paul states unequivocally that we are to obey our government. I cant agree with this 100%. If the government requires me to do something that I think violates what I believe, I have to go with my beliefs. IIRC there was a law passed in the SW (Arizona?) that made it a crime to knowingly aid illegal immigrants. To me this violates the charity and compassion I am told to show to all. It specifically goes counter to what was said in Exodus: "“Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt."

So in this case and in all others, I have to weigh what the Bible says with what I believe to be right. I am a Christian, not a Paulian, and if two of their statements are @ odds with each other, Im going with Christ. If he is mum (as in homosexuality) I go with my gut. This is doubtlessly an imperfect way of discerning right & wrong but it works for me.

I believe in judgement ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead"), and I believe that I will be asked to give account for all my actions. I am prepared to answer with a clean conscience why I violated certain laws put down by my government.

[liberal N proud]

3. And the Pope while this went on is headed for Sainthood

[Goblinmonger]

4. And several in another thread claim him the greatest man

of their lifetime. Sometimes people can still shock me.

[glinda]

5. Two questions though. Wasn't Bennie in the position to have been controlling that? And was PJPII

becoming somewhat limited in his ability to perform duties? I remember reading somewhere back that some of the opposition to Benedict's becoming Pope was because of his meddling in things appearing to aid in cover up.
I remember reading a letter somewhere outlining Benedict's position in power concerning that. It will be interesting to see exactly who knew. My money is on Benedict being the force behind the scandal and its poor handling.

[glinda]

6. Googled and a whole bunch of stuff came up on Ratzinger.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-Benedict-accused-of-masterminding-Catholic-Church-sex-abuse-cover-up-91038229.html

[laconicsax]

11. Ratzo issued general guidelines on how to cover up child rape that were different than this letter.

[glinda]

12. He's toast. I would welcome it as He has driven many away from the Catholic Church as is.

[skepticscott]

7. Only a matter of time

Before the R/T Papal Defense Force starts another campaign on this thread..no doubt you have failed to put this document in "context"

[vssmith]

8. And John Paul II is supposed to becoming a saint?

[laconicsax]

10. Telling churches to cover up child rape is apparently saintly behavior. n/t

[DeSwiss]

14. K&R

Signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's diplomat to Ireland, the letter instructs Irish bishops that their new policy of making the reporting of suspected crimes mandatory "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature."

- So they "discover" a cover-up letter blaming a dead guy. Brilliant.

[skepticscott]

15. And inevitably

the Vatican is saying that the whole thing was taken out of context and "deeply misunderstood"

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20110119/D9KRLAJO1.html

How anyone can support this organization and still look themselves in the mirror is a total mystery...

[darkstar3]

16. I guess dead popes performing miracles helps.

[laconicsax]

17. When you say "mystery..."

Do you mean like the "mystery" of the Trinity or more like a whodunit? 'cause if it's like the former, then you're supposed to just accept that it isn't supposed to make sense and move on.

If you mean how they physicaly accomplish the task, here's an explanation:

Electrons within the atoms of a light source, once excited (let's not worry about the cause of excitation) will 'jump' to a higher energy state. When they return to their original energy state, the excess energy is released in photons, the frequency (wavelength) of which being proportional to the amount of energy. When those photons strike such an individual in question, the energy of the photons is absorbed by atoms at the surface of the person's skin, clothing (if any), hair (if any), etc. Once absorbed, the energy excites electrons in the atoms, and some of the energy is re-emitted (reflected) in the form of visible light.

Some the light re-emitted from the person strikes the reflective surface of a mirror and a percentage of that light (depending on the properties of the mirrored surface) is reflected back to the person, where it is refracted through the cornea and focused by the lens, forming an image on the back of the eye. Photoreceptor cells in the retina sensitive to a narrow frequency range absorb the photons of that reflected, refracted and focused light and convert information about its intensity and wavelength into nerve impulses sent to the visual cortex in the brain. Then, those nerve impulses stimulate discrete groups of neurons in the visual cortex according to the geometry of the observed image and in a process I don't understand well enough to summarize (meaning God did it, of course), the activation of those neurons is then interpreted as a three-dimensional image and corrected for chromatic aberration and a number of other defects owing to the inherent flaws in the eye. :hi:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DeSwiss]

19. How?

In a word: Sheep

Which raises a point which I've always found to be a curious metaphor. I speak of course, of the Shepard / Sheep -- Christian / Adherent dichotomous relationship. I mean what ultimately is the role of the shepherd? To guard the sheep from the dangers of the wild (i.e. - wolves, poachers, etc.) in favor of the certainty that it will be regularly fleeced and ultimately consumed by the shepherd.


- It seems to me that either way they end up being robbed of their coats and meat on the table......

[dimbear]

20. Why not go one step further in your analogy?

By far the best eating isn't the sheep, it's the lambs. Spring lambs.

Of course not for me, this old atheist doesn't eat lamb or veal, but there you go.