Notwithstanding "a global study" taking place in the Vatican, "In particular, the situation of 'mandatory reporting' gives serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature." amounts to a rejection of the proposal by the Vatican.Seth wrote:An in that letter, Storero points out that the issue of sexual abuse is being studied at higher levels at the Vatican, and that to accept a proposed document prior to the Holy See promulgating canonical regulations on the matter, would be premature and would be prejudicial against a Bishop who took unauthorized action according to the proposal. Therefore, the Bishops of Ireland are merely (and clearly) told that "the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed." There is NOTHING in that letter suggesting in ANY WAY that the Holy See was "rejecting" the Irish Bishop's proposals, it merely states that the proposal is a "study document" that cannot become canon law without the requisite review of the Vatican. Once again cherry-picked documents are presented and then cast in a false light. As you say, this letter is from 1997, and since that time the Vatican has taken many steps to resolve the matter. This letter only tells the Irish Bishops not to hare off on their own by trying to dictate Canon Law to the Vatican, nothing more.Seraph wrote:Wherever it had no choice. Meanwhile, it keeps furiously working at putting hurdles in the way of the discovery and prosecution by secular authorities of the criminals among its ranks. This was made abundantly clear when a letter addressed to the Bishops by the Papal Ambassador to Ireland, Archbishop Luciano Storero, instructed them to withhold evidence or suspicion of child abuse from police on grounds of "serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature". This letter was an explicit rejection of the Irish Bishops' proposal for a new policy to make new policy the reporting of suspected crimes to secular authorities mandatory.Seth wrote:...the church has cooperated fully with criminal investigations and has defrocked those convicted.
In the context I used the expression, "Nothing has changed" refers to the Vatican's insistence of its clerics' standing above and beyond secular law. An exhortation to "cooperate with the civil authorities" does not amount to, nor imply, a direct and clear instruction for any member of the Vatican to report crimes committed by individuals among the clergy to secular powers. There never has been one up to this very moment.Seth wrote:This claim by you is complete nonsense, as many things have changed, including the child-safety and security policies of the church, from the top down.Seraph wrote:That letter was written in 1997, and much has been said and written on the matter of paedophilia and rapes by Catholic clergy, and the Vatican's approach to the problem since then. Many of the utterances were soothing words, aimed at assuring the flock that the Vatican has changed its attitude. In an address to the Irish Bishops in 2006, for instance, the Pope commented on the sexual abuse by his clerics, exhorting the Bishops: "to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected". Nothing has changed, though.
In that letter the Pope said:You claim "nothing has changed," but this is patently not true.In the exercise of your pastoral ministry, you have had to respond in recent years to many heart-rending cases of sexual abuse of minors. These are all the more tragic when the abuser is a cleric. The wounds caused by such acts run deep, and it is an urgent task to rebuild confidence and trust where these have been damaged. In your continuing efforts to deal effectively with this problem, it is important to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected and, above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes.
The matter of excommunicating is easy to prove. The relevant document is authored by Ratzinger himself and titled Crimen Sollicitationes. You can peruse its translation from its original Latin here.Seraph wrote:Prove it.Seth wrote:Previous pontifical pronouncements about excommunicating anyone who dares to take matters of sexual abuse by the clergy to secular authorities have never been revoked to this day,
Some pertinent points about the document:
- Ratzinger was the Cardinal in charge of that quaint Catholic institution colloquially known as The Inquisition at the time.
- The document is an official document by, and on behalf of, that institution.
- It is headed by this instruction: "To be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries." Published in 1962, it remained secret for many years.
- 1. The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in a place] other than that [usually] designated for the hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession. [The object of this temptation] is to solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after [the note has been read] or whether he has had with [that penitent] prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring (Constitution Sacrum Poenitentiae, § 1).
- what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the force of their own proper duty.
If you are asking me to prove that the threat of excommunication has never been revoked, I am sure that on reflection you will see the idiocy of the demand. Do you expect me to point out every location of every document and every speech where no revocation took place? I suggest it's more practical for you to point to locations where such revocations can be seen, and no, an exhortation to "continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence" does not amount to one such instance.
I have snipped the rest of your post because I feel I have covered your claims and objections already.
