The Pope's Letter

The Raven.

The Pope's letter has been published:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0320/popeletter.pdf

He seems to be blaming the clerical abuse on 'secularization', which is ridiculous.

'4. In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to
confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid
transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social
change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional
adherence to Catholic teaching and values. All too often, the sacramental
and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as
frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected.
Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of
priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular
realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of
renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes
misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that
were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In
particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid
penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall
context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child
sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening
of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.'

His advice to clerics as regards reporting abuse to the civil authorities is very weak. There is more emphasis on 'canon law'.

'7. To priests and religious who have abused children
Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse,
continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.
Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in
recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and
consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety
norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that
they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.'

It is time also for the church to stop referring to 'grave errors of judgement' and admit that there were deliberate attempts to cover up these scandals to protect the church instead of the victims. These were no 'errors'. They knew exactly what they were doing!

The Raven.

The Raven. wrote: »

It is time also for the church to stop referring to 'grave errors of judgement' and admit that there were deliberate attempts to cover up these scandals to protect the church instead of the victims. These were no 'errors'. They knew exactly what they were doing!

Well put. How anyone can still follow this joke of a religion is beyond me. Whatever about Christianity, Catholicism represents self interest and evil. Nothing more, nothing less. It's safe to say they would rather have seen thousands of more kids molested than any of this coming to light. And they call themselves followers of Jesus?


It's time to start viewing Catholicism for what it really is: A private company. It's employees should be brought to justice as such.

Nodin

I'll have to give it another few reads before getting the torch and pitchfork out, however the OP did hit on what I thought meself.

Eliot Rosewater

One aspect of the letter is the drawing of a line between the Church and God; drawn to the advantage of the Church. Consider the opening of section 7, to those who abused:

You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents

Yet continuing on to section 11, to young people, we find:

But it is in the Church that you will find Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and for ever ... Seek a personal relationship with him within the communion of his Church, for he will never betray your trust!

This political wording is effectively playing on the separation of Jesus and the Church. It uses the trust you give to Jesus as an excuse for you to trust the Church, even though it admits earlier that the trust given to the Church was broken.

Pussyfooting around with the burden of responsibility, to be honest.

The Raven.

It is interesting what Colm O'Gorman had to say in anticipation of the 'Pastoral letter'. He wasn't far out in his expectation.

http://colmogorman.com/?p=667

Pope Benedict must not suggest the revelations of clerical crime and cover-up are part of a global media conspiracy as he has previously done. He must not seek to blame the decadence of Western society, the sexual revolution, gays, secularisation or even the Devil, as senior church leaders have asserted over the years.

The following statement by Colm O'Gorman concurs with what I said in my previous post.

He must take responsibility for the cover-up, and apologise for it. As supreme head of the Catholic Church he must use his power to enforce proper child protection across the global Church. He must also make it clear that those who fail to act to protect children will be properly held to account.

The Pope has apologised, but he has not given a strong enough directive 'to enforce proper child protection', or to state in no uncertain terms that those responsible for clerical abuse will suffer the full rigours of the civil law.

hopalong85

Op's post sums up my feelings on this.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its like every week I understand more and more why orange order member are banned from entering a catholic place of worship.

I can't believe he's trying to defend the churchs' actions. Only go to weddings/funerals/christenings but considering skipping them in future too now.

CFlower

I was most struck by the seven or more mentions of Canon Law - i.e. the in-house rules of the Church - and only one mention of the actual law, heavily qualified.

11. To my brother bishops

It cannot be denied that some of you and your predecessors failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse. Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again.


Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. (My emphasis:CF)

Clearly, religious superiors should do likewise. They too have taken part in recent discussions here in Rome with a view to establishing a clear and consistent approach to these matters. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.

The Pope is playing us for fools. The coded message to the Clergy is that business is as usual. They are to carry on relying on Canon "law" - church rules - that insist on protecting the Church, not children.

Ratzinger has been covering up child abuse first in Germany as Archbishop and then for the last 30 years from the Vatican. He has no intention in stopping now.

Overheal

In
particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid
penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.

Im not sure what he's saying here. Does he want it a law that there be mandatory church attendance or something? For example. And that is the reason for current events?

Biggins

As regards the letter, I can only say what I mentioned in AH...

* Where is there something advantageous that has been proposed as to how things are ABSOLUTELY going to be changed and done?
* Where is the section that states clearly and unequivocally that "the Catholic Church at the highest levels has always known about the clerical sexual abuse of children?"
* Where is the sections that offer help BESIDES of only getting down on our knees and just praying?
* Where is the abused being offered and given DIRECT help (not money!)?
* Where is the admission that they have said one thing and one another (even within the last ten years)!
* Where do they accept that they have done absolutely wrong, without outside reasons or excuses AND will step down because they admit they should do so because their positions have been shown to be untenable?

A complete and utter failure of a letter.
Nothing that we haven't heard before - just re-worded.
More of the same monastic speech, avoidance of anything new/substantial and grammar that belongs in the dark ages for those that like to still want to decode it like a Shakespearian play!

* No new addressing of how the victims are going to be helped - except for giving them more ruddy praying. Whoop-de-do!
* No saying who is responsible directly.
* No saying that those that have defaulted from doing the right thing, will pay a price and resign.
* No saying when they are going to own up and tell all they know.
* No further telling us of how many other cases that they have covered up in Ireland
* No saying when the rest of the country is going to have their investigations and exposure of those that so far have gotten away silently in their communities.
* No saying how many more kids/adults were sworn to secrecy and not to tell the law!
* No admission that the priests WERE following DIRECT canon rules from Rome!
* No saying that those canon rules (some of which was HIS!) were UNQUESTIONINGLY wrong!

There is loads more but one thing sadly is obvious...
It all just regurgitated schite!

As a father of four, a husband and citizen of this country - I have read the whole thing, gone away, done some work, fed kids, sat down with wife, talked and re-read the whole thing again.

After all that time - the letter still says the same damn thing.
I'm sorry, go pray, bishops bad, compares one mans nailing to a cross to decades of pain inflicted suffering(!), its the public's fault, I'm (possibly) coming to Ireland and/if not, lets hold another damn meeting!

An absolute load of cobblers!

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

Im not sure what he's saying here. Does he want it a law that there be mandatory church attendance or something? For example. And that is the reason for current events?

No, that's the closest the letter comes to an admission of guilt. Such as it is. That's the "we didn't tell the law and 'dealt with it' ourselves" bit. I think. Though it's an odd place to put it. I could be misreading it as the placement is odd if it's so. I'm really not sure now, having re-read it again in context.

Overheal

"You preferred that it be handled within the unit?"

"..Yes. I most certainly did."

The Raven.

The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations.

My understanding of that is that the Pope is saying that the Second Vatican Council programme of renewal was misinterpreted by the clergy, who consequently avoided punitive measures in respect of actions inappropriate to canon law, but that they were well intentioned though misguided.

In simple language: that the clergy meant well by not punishing the abusers, as they misunderstood the Second Vatican Council.

Just more excuses and obfuscation. Why doesn't he just hold his hands up and say 'We, the clergy, were wrong and there is no excuse for what we did' full stop!

Biggins

The Raven. wrote: »

...Just more excuses and obfuscation. Why doesn't he just hold his hands up and say 'We, the clergy, were wrong and there is no excuse for what we did' full stop!

That would be a more honest start.
What is constantly seen to be spouted however, is just more broad terminology and phrasing. More calls to prayer as if thats going to solve everything - it don't cost Rome anything either! :rolleyes: - and no definite practicable solutions that can be applied to the rest of the worlds normal daily life.
Useless codswallop yet again!

bmaxi

If anybody was undecided as to whether the RC church was organised on the lines of a political party, this letter should make their minds up.
What the Pope should have been saying was, There is no place for this behaviour in the Church, those who have partaken in abuse have no place in Holy Orders, those who have covered up for the abusers should stand down immediately. No equivocation, straight up, only then could people begin to believe that the Church cares more for the abused than the abusers. Instead it was only so much waffle.
Listening to Brady's homily in Armagh Cathedral, he seemed to place particular stress on the fact that the events happened thirty five years ago, as if to say "will you let it rest"

loldog

Looks like canon law trumps secular law every time, in other words they consider themselves a law unto themselves.

.

peasant

I feel genuinely sorry for all those involved in the church who have done no wrong, be they simple mass goer or caring priest.

The pope offers no leadership, no solutions, no way forward. Instead he asks them to circle the wagons and pray.

After this letter, any right thinking catholic will have to ask themselves if they are willing to continue with this charade.

The Raven.

peasant wrote: »

I feel genuinely sorry for all those involved in the church who have done no wrong, be they simple mass goer or caring priest.

I agree. There are genuine people in the Catholic church 'who have done no wrong', and I do feel sorry for them. However, their pain cannot compare to the horrendous suffering of the victims of clerical abuse.

The problem is that there was and is an ethos of cover up/silence in the church, even among those 'who have done no wrong'. I could never understand why this was the case, especially as their teaching was completely contrary to that.

Think of all the confessions to these priests. Think of all the horrendous crimes that have been 'confessed' to the priests for generations. Yet they were sworn to secrecy by a vow of silence. The perpetrators were 'forgiven' and allowed to carry on in their evil ways, knowing that their crimes would not be reported to the police.

Orchard Rebel

The Raven. wrote: »

He seems to be blaming the clerical abuse on 'secularization', which is ridiculous.

'4. In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to
confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid
transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social
change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional
adherence to Catholic teaching and values. All too often, the sacramental
and devotional practices that sustain faith and enable it to grow, such as
frequent confession, daily prayer and annual retreats, were neglected.
Significant too was the tendency during this period, also on the part of
priests and religious, to adopt ways of thinking and assessing secular
realities without sufficient reference to the Gospel. The programme of
renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes
misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that
were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In
particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid
penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall
context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child
sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening
of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.'

Ridiculous but entirely consistent Raven. When the bishops met the Pope in Rome, he was quoted as saying that part of the problem could be blamed on a "weakening of faith" in Ireland. This letter, by laying the blame for the environment in which sexual abuse took place at the door of Vatican II and the modernisation of Irish society, is simply reinforcing this view.

It is now clear to see that this papacy is a return to the anti-modernist Church of the late 19th and early 20th century and that Vatican II is dead in all but name. It is past time for the laity to remind Rome that the church is as much ours as it is theirs.

Liam Byrne

peasant wrote: »

I feel genuinely sorry for all those involved in the church who have done no wrong, be they simple mass goer or caring priest.

I would have agreed, but something I heard tonight worried me.

A priest used a mass to trot out thinly-veiled propaganda about forgiveness and judgement and "casting the first stone", and used the prayers of the faithful to pray for those who had "lost their way" and - most objectionably to me - "those whose reputations were being damaged".

I'd love to think it was a coincidence, since the above could apply at any time, and there's a chance that he was referring to decent priests, but I was sickened when I heard it; if he was talking about decent priests then he should have specified this if he wanted my respect.

Barring funerals and anniversaries (and those only out of respect for those who have died, and their relatives) you won't catch me inside a church again.

Sulmac

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would have agreed, but something I heard tonight worried me.

A priest used a mass to trot out thinly-veiled propaganda about forgiveness and judgement and "casting the first stone", and used the prayers of the faithful to pray for those who had "lost their way" and - most objectionably to me - "those whose reputations were being damaged".

I'd love to think it was a coincidence, since the above could apply at any time, and there's a chance that he was referring to decent priests, but I was sickened when I heard it; if he was talking about decent priests then he should have specified this if he wanted my respect.

Barring funerals and anniversaries (and those only out of respect for those who have died, and their relatives) you won't catch me inside a church again.

I had a similar experience on St. Patrick's Day, when I went (with my family) to a memorial-type service for my recently deceased grandmother.

The first thing the priest mentioned was Seán Brady's "troubles" and asked the congregation to pray for Brady (at this point I immediately lost interest and almost walked out - if only for my grandmother). He then asked everyone to pray for him twice and there was a moment of silence for him. Then after the entire service a Hail Mary and Our Father were both said for him, and the priest asked anyone who could "use the internet" to send him messages of support! When the entire thing was finished I said to my family "Why don't we just pray for Brendan Smyth while we're at it?" I said it a bit louder than I had intended to, so much so the priest overheard and gave me a disapproving look. I was glad he heard, though. :P

It was a disgusting show, and what made the entire thing worse was the fact there was not a single mention of the victims. Needless to say, the entire thing has further cemented my views on the Catholic "Church", and I will never step inside one again bar for family (or close friend) events, which I would do for anyone regardless of religion (or lack thereof).

CFlower

Overheal wrote: »

"You preferred that it be handled within the unit?"

"..Yes. I most certainly did."

Exactly. The Pope's letter reinforces that message. This is a top down hierarchy of enormous wealth and arrogance. The people who have been promoted - Bishops, Archbishops, Popes - are trusties of the system.

The life in the Vatican is limosines, cashmere, Armani and sleek assistants.

All of them have a vested interest in trying to hold on the the status quo.

anymore

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would have agreed, but something I heard tonight worried me.

A priest used a mass to trot out thinly-veiled propaganda about forgiveness and judgement and "casting the first stone", and used the prayers of the faithful to pray for those who had "lost their way" and - most objectionably to me - "those whose reputations were being damaged".

I'd love to think it was a coincidence, since the above could apply at any time, and there's a chance that he was referring to decent priests, but I was sickened when I heard it; if he was talking about decent priests then he should have specified this if he wanted my respect.

Barring funerals and anniversaries (and those only out of respect for those who have died, and their relatives) you won't catch me inside a church again.

Years ago after the Bishop Casey scandal broke - another auld Bishop who thought he could a young woman pregnant and walk away from his responsibility - a priest in Cork used the 14th station at that Good Friday's Station of the Cross, to compare Christ's persecution to the persecution of casey by the media !
Groos hypocrisy even for a priest. For the first time in my life I walked out of a Church in protest.

anymore

Sulmac wrote: »

I had a similar experience on St. Patrick's Day, when I went (with my family) to a memorial-type service for my recently deceased grandmother.

The first thing the priest mentioned was Seán Brady's "troubles" and asked the congregation to pray for Brady (at this point I immediately lost interest and almost walked out - if only for my grandmother). He then asked everyone to pray for him twice and there was a moment of silence for him. Then after the entire service a Hail Mary and Our Father were both said for him, and the priest asked anyone who could "use the internet" to send him messages of support! When the entire thing was finished I said to my family "Why don't we just pray for Brendan Smyth while we're at it?" I said it a bit louder than I had intended to, so much so the priest overheard and gave me a disapproving look. I was glad he heard, though. :P

It was a disgusting show, and what made the entire thing worse was the fact there was not a single mention of the victims. Needless to say, the entire thing has further cemented my views on the Catholic "Church", and I will never step inside one again bar for family (or close friend) events, which I would do for anyone regardless of religion (or lack thereof).

The Church does not regard ordunary people as equal to those in religous life and see them only as the justification for thier religous careers. We need to be saved and so they can justify having ' religous careers' instead of real jobs. Salvation require that ordinary people be regarded as sinners' who need to be saved.

Overheal

CFlower wrote: »

Exactly. The Pope's letter reinforces that message. This is a top down hierarchy of enormous wealth and arrogance. The people who have been promoted - Bishops, Archbishops, Popes - are trusties of the system.

The life in the Vatican is limosines, cashmere, Armani and sleek assistants.

All of them have a vested interest in trying to hold on the the status quo.

Their position in the UN as a Permanent Observer State has done nothing to dispel their own idea that they are above Secular Law.

It wouldnt be the first time the thought had crossed peoples mind that they need to be ejected from this seat.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/162301?eng=y

moonpurple

the secularization of Irish society has led to a small number of women, liberated, educated, Mary Raftery, Justine McCarthey, Aideen Sheehan, Mary Robinson,O'Connell lady who wrote the book on Fr. Mis Fortune, and others, who have lifted the rock so that the creepy cralwies from the semanaries cannot have as easy a run at youngsters as they had enjoyed ...

every cleric over 30 should resign and maybe the light of the Gospels might get through the murk and secrecy and abuse

visit www.priest.ie

and learn how some are asked..has God called you to be a priest
if they believe that God has chosen them...then why would they feel the need to answer to the local Garda station
perverse supernatural diplomatic immunity

Amtmann

As someone who stopped going to Mass as early as I possibly could, I was amused to find out today that in my old parish the Pope's historic letter wasn't even read out to the congregation by the priest because it was "too long". Instead it was summarised. :rolleyes:

The Raven.

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

Ridiculous but entirely consistent Raven. When the bishops met the Pope in Rome, he was quoted as saying that part of the problem could be blamed on a "weakening of faith" in Ireland. This letter, by laying the blame for the environment in which sexual abuse took place at the door of Vatican II and the modernisation of Irish society, is simply reinforcing this view.

It is now clear to see that this papacy is a return to the anti-modernist Church of the late 19th and early 20th century and that Vatican II is dead in all but name. It is past time for the laity to remind Rome that the church is as much ours as it is theirs.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, played a major role in shaping the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), in which he was involved as a young theological advisor. It would appear that he has since been preoccupied with curbing the tendency towards the growing liberal interpretations of Vatican II, which was designed to break free from the biblical literalism and anti-modernism of the First Vatican Council. Obviously these tendencies have been getting out of hand, and the council subsequently began to loose its grip on the mindset of the congregation.

Much of what is written, in relation to this scenario, is couched in abstruse, ecclesial language, but here is link to an article which offers a clearer insight into the situation.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505788.htm

In a more general sense, what troubled the future pope [Benedict XVI] in the aftermath of the council [Vatican II] was the impression that everything in the church was open to revision and that the secular world's political approach could be transferred to church decision-making.

He warned against the rise of anti-Roman resentment and the idea of an ecclesial "sovereignty of the people" or "church from below" in which the people determine the definition of "church." He also worried that the new confidence Vatican II had instilled in theologians was making theologians feel as if they were no longer subordinate to bishops….

On the whole, the pope has seen the council's breakthrough in terms of the church influencing the world, not the world influencing the church.

It seems obvious that Ratzinger is chiefly concerned with maintaining the Vatican’s control over the laity, and the more liberal minded clergy, than providing a rational response towards addressing the substantive issues of the clerical abuse.

It is highly inappropriate of him to use this situation as a political exercise to tighten up the Vatican II interpretation, in a public response to the disclosure of Catholic clerical abuse of vulnerable children. Vatican II has no relevance in this situation. These paedophiles are more likely to have joined the church as a safe haven in which to practise their criminal behaviour, rather than having been influenced by misinterpretation of the bible, although they may have used it as a handy excuse.

The Raven.

loldog wrote: »

Looks like canon law trumps secular law every time, in other words they consider themselves a law unto themselves.

I was about to reply, saying that they should change the name to ‘Canon Rules’, as ‘Canon Law’ has no legal standing in Ireland. However, I thought I had better check it out first to be sure. I was shocked to fine this definition in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)

Canon Law, the Canon law of the Holy Roman Church, is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code and principles of legal interpretation. The academic degrees in canon law are the J.C.B. (Juris Canonici Baccalaureatus, Bachelor of Canon Law, normally taken as a graduate degree), J.C.L. (Juris Canonici Licentiatus, Licentiate of Canon Law) and the J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor, Doctor of Canon Law). Because of its specialized nature, advanced degrees in civil law or theology are normal prerequisites for the study of canon law.

This is scary :eek:!

I then searched for other references and found very little so far except this from ‘Claims Ireland: Compensation Claims Made Simple.’

http://claims.ie/index.php?id=47

Canon law
The law of the Christian Church. Has little or no legal effect today. Canon law refers to that body of law which has been set by the Christian Church and which, in virtually all places, is not binding upon citizens and has virtually no recognition in the judicial system. Some citizens resort to canon law, however, for procedures such as marriage annulments to allow for a Christian church marriage where one of the parties has been previously divorced. Many church goers and church officers abide by rulings and doctrines of canon law. Also known as "ecclesiastical law."

‘Has little or no legal effect today.’:eek::eek: - ‘virtually no recognition’ :eek::eek::eek:???

This isn’t very comforting either! Is there any legal website that shouts it out loud and clear that ‘Canon Law’ has NO legal standing in Ireland? - Or is this not the case :eek:??

underclass

peasant wrote: »

After this letter, any right thinking catholic will have to ask themselves if they are willing to continue with this charade.

Cries the secularist.

What part of the Pope's upsets you so much?

underclass

The Raven. wrote: »

I was about to reply, saying that they should change the name to ‘Canon Rules’, as ‘Canon Law’ has no legal standing in Ireland. However, I thought I had better check it out first to be sure. I was shocked to fine this definition in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)



This is scary :eek:!

I then searched for other references and found very little so far except this from ‘Claims Ireland: Compensation Claims Made Simple.’

http://claims.ie/index.php?id=47



‘Has little or no legal effect today.’:eek::eek: - ‘virtually no recognition’ :eek::eek::eek:???

This isn’t very comforting either! Is there any legal website that shouts it out loud and clear that ‘Canon Law’ has NO legal standing in Ireland? - Or is this not the case :eek:??

Shock horror: Church has own legal system.

The Vatican is a sovereign state. Canon law does have standing in Ireland: within the church. Multi-nationals and foreign armies who operate here have codes of secrecy and rules for dealing with wrong-doing. I suppose you get your knickers in a twist about this too?