Read more: A smoking gun letter reveals Vatican directly ordered pedophiles be protected
A New York Times lead editorial on Thursday has stated that a 1997 letter from the Vatican to Irish bishops (see below) makes clear that cover ups of pedophile priests was tolerated by the Vatican despite their denials to the contrary.
The Times wrote: “Throughout the mushrooming scandal, Rome officials have denied trying to foil secular law by allowing child-abuse allegations to be shrouded in halfhearted diocesan inquiries and cover-ups.
“But the newly discovered letter undermines those claims and reinforces evidence of foot dragging that still has not been adequately addressed by the Vatican.”
The letter, written by the Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland took issue with an Irish bishop’s advisory group recommendation to report pedophile priests to police.
It was signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland.
The letter instructs Irish bishops that their new policy of reporting of suspected crimes "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature." and said such decisions to go to civil authorities could be overturned.
The Times wrote that “The letter from the papal representative rejected a 1996 decision by Dublin church leaders to respond more candidly to the suppressed scandal in Ireland by ordering that child-abuse allegations be referred for criminal investigation.
The “strictly confidential” letter from Rome — leaked this week amid continuing inquiries into the Irish scandal — emphasized the priority of in-house handling of pedophilia cases under church, not civil, law.
This was hardly the needed prescription for what an Irish government investigation eventually described as “endemic” abuse of thousands of children over decades by rogue priests who were routinely shielded from criminal penalties.”
The Times notes the case of one of the worst abusers “It was disclosed recently, for example, that Tony Walsh, a notorious abuser of children who was convicted and defrocked in a secret church court in Dublin in 1993, got his collar back a year later when a Vatican court believed his appeal and reinstated him as a priest. He was eventually imprisoned after raping and molesting scores of youngsters.”
The Times points out that “Rome officials insist that the letter from Rome is outdated, misinterpreted and superseded by tougher church rules.
However, they say present day rules do not go far enough. “Unfortunately, the latest policies of the Vatican do not mandate the zero-tolerance reforms that ranking officials in the United States and elsewhere were forced to proclaim as the scandal demoralized church faithful worldwide.”
The Times concludes by saying that “It is commendable that Pope Benedict XVI has been apologizing and promising a firmer hand. But current Vatican policy, updated last year, offers merely a nonbinding advisory — not a firm mandate — that diocesan officials should report crimes to police.
This is cold comfort to worried Catholic parents or anyone else relying on the rule of law.”
TEXT OF LETTER:
APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE
IN IRELAND
N. 808/97
Dublin, 31 January 1997
Strictly confidential
Your Excellency,
The Congregation for the Clergy has attentively studied the complex question of sexual abuse of minors by clerics and the document entitled “Child Sexual Abuse; Framework for a Church Response”, published by the Irish Catholic Bishops Advisory Committee.
The Congregation wishes to emphasize the need for this document to conform to the canonical norms presently in force.
The text, however, contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature”.
Since the policies on sexual abuse in the English speaking world exhibit many o[f] the same characteristics and procedures, the Congregation is involved in a global study of them. At the appropriate time, with the collaboration of the interested Episcopal Conferences and in dialogue with them, the Congregation will not be remiss in establishing some concrete directives with regard to these Policies.
To: the Members of the Irish Episcopal Conference -their Dioceses
For these reasons and because the above-mentioned text is not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document, I am directed to inform the individual Bishops of Ireland of the preoccupations of the Congregation in its regard, underlining that in the sad cases of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchical recourse against his Bishop.
Asking you to kindly let me know of the safe receipt of this letter and with the assurance of my cordial regard,
I am Yours sincerely in Christ
+Luciano Storero
Apostolic Nuncio
Read more: A smoking gun letter reveals Vatican directly ordered pedophiles be protected
41 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.Felicia | Jan 24, 2011, 04:36 AM EST
Irish Central and NY Times have been noticeably in the forefront about what has been happening in the Catholic Church. It troubles me though that comments are made to close down the Church because of the actions of a few. In that case the Boy Scouts should be disbanded because of their over 1200 cases of sexual abuse or maybe even get rid of our teachers since there have been more cases of them having sexual relations with students than the priests. The lastest case about a teacher in Oakland allowing 2nd graders to have sex in the front of the class is sickening to put it mildly. The Catholic Church isn't privy to pedophilia, it's in every religion. But it just seems that the New York Times and Irish Central have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. I am not condoning the actions that the Church has taken and agree that the rules do not go far enough but isn't it time to bring to the forefront the good things the church does in the world also? But maybe I am asking too much of the news media!
Searlit | Jan 23, 2011, 07:18 PM EST
eiriamach, you're welcome. This issue is extremely important and has been ignored for too long. I am glad there is finally some action taking place to protect children. The children are helpless and need adults, who care, to see that violence perpetrated against them won't be allowed to happen, anymore.
eiriamach | Jan 23, 2011, 01:58 PM EST
Searlit, thanks for the support! There's just too much about the posting personnel situation that I do not understand, and I'm not willing to rely on my own guesses, so I just stay with what I think is right. I suffer from an occupational hazard--enjoying debate--but also I find the topics compelling. Ian Elliott writes in the 2009 Report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church that the Christian Brothers have a mandatory reporting policy in place. And I finally found the RTE video (Mick Peelo et al.) and watched it, and it's good to know that progress continues in Ireland and, I hope, elsewhere as well.
Searlit | Jan 23, 2011, 01:31 PM EST
eiriamach, I'm glad you didn't give up, like jacersagain said to. Although, jacersagain is, overall, such an agreeable sort.
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 08:47 PM EST
Jacersagain, apparently Peelo reported his impression of the nuncio's intention, rather than the nuncio's subtle, nuanced statements. The words you quoted misrepresent the nuncio's actual statements to the point of falsification. I'll withhold judgment about whether that is a "lie," but if Peelo is a journalist, the "no uncertain terms" phrase is irresponsible at the very least. I do not find any similar distortion in the NY Times article. The lesson I take from this is that if you do not wish your remarks to be misrepresented, be straightforward and direct, not subtle.
jacersagain | Jan 22, 2011, 06:01 PM EST
éiríamach, a chara, – níl mé ag dul isteach i gcomórtas leat ar an ábhar seo, ach seo leat an bréag mór: (here is the big lie:) I quote Mike Peelo’s statement (hopefully verbatim) in the WYB believe programme: “Would You Believe has obtained a ‘Strictly confidential’ letter that the Vatican sent to the Irish Bishops in 1997. This letter tells them in no uncertain terms that the Vatican doesn’t approve of their new guidelines and it certainly doesn’t want them reporting all allegations against priests to the Irish police”. I’ve read the letter in black & white, as I’m sure you have and as anyone who searches online for it can. Peelo lied. The Vatican responded, diplomatically saying so too. The letter does not tell the Irish Bishops that the Vatican doesn’t approve of its new guidelines. It does not tell them not to report all allegations against priests to the police. Suckers, like ICentral’s Patrick Cooper above and the New York Times newspaper believed Mike Peelo’s lies and have spread them. Satan is truly alive, even using some journalists’ words. éiríamach, éirigh as.
barneyjo | Jan 22, 2011, 04:40 PM EST
@jacersagain - I have posted elsewere as agreed - Barneyjo
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 03:20 PM EST
OK, jacersagain, but what "lies" do you refer to? I've given reasons why I find the NY Times article to be a reasonable treatment of the papal nuncio letter. I also have respect for your opinion, as well as Carroll09's learning and the interests of other posters on this issue. Yet there is plenty of room for us to disagree about the meaning of the letter since we can all read and understand--perhaps somewhat differently--what we read. In response to your 2:50 post, I would rescind my 2 most recent comments, but not my earlier ones because I still fail to see the "lies" and "misleading" nature of the articles you mention. If Carroll09's advanced understanding of canon law and theology lead him to a better than I can achieve on my own, then I'd expect him to explain his understanding convincingly to those of us who are less learned. (I would still assess the logic of his or anyone else's explanation, however.)
jacersagain | Jan 22, 2011, 02:50 PM EST
eiriamach – let’s put this debate back in its proper perspective please? You are undoubtedly learned in your posts and I have much respect for what you write but I have to say that these posts are going way off tangent on the subject – i.e. that Mike Peelo on the WYB program, Patrick Cooper on ICentral above and now the NYT have all issued lies in relation to the Nuncio’s letter, thus misleading the public at large on what it actually said. The Vatican has publicly stated so, Carroll09 (clearly someone well versed in Church matters, possibly ‘a man of the cloth’ even) has said so and I, simply a man of the street, have said so. This is the issue at the heart of this debate – misleading headlines by media people. Other than that, we are all agreed that the perpetrators of child abuse should be punished.
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 10:39 AM EST
One more consideration: if the Catholic Church really intends to keep pedophiles out of the priesthood, there's no better thing the Church can do than mandatory reporting of all child abuse evidence against priests. Would Tony Walsh or the other serial pedophiles documented in the Murphy Report have applied to a seminary if they knew that their bishops would NOT protect them from the law while giving them access to children?
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 09:50 AM EST
I also believe that we should be thankful to the news media, as well as to Irish Central, for keeping the spotlight on this problem. Another fairly obvious point that the reports I cited make is that only with media attention will sexual abuse of children diminish.
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 09:45 AM EST
Carroll09, now that you and I agree on our interpretation of ONE point in the papal nuncio's 1997 letter, the point of our disagreement is also clear. As I wrote below, "Benedict and all who have defended the Vatican's handling of abuse cases should also vow that pedophile records held by RCC everywhere will immediately be placed in the hands of local police, now and always." I await RCC's response that it will comply either with mandatory reporting law or with the moral law by providing all sexual abuse information in diocesan files everywhere to local law enforcement. Why should this not happen?
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 09:33 AM EST
Jacersagain, when the right to privacy is in conflict with the right of victims to protection and justice, I give precedence to victims' rights. I understand that there is a widely shared reluctance to disclose such matters. The ISPCC NGO Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Oct. 1997, reported that "More worryingly, only 44% of all adult respondents [to survey] said they would tell the authorities if they knew about physical abuse of a child. Only 51% said they would tell the authorities if they knew about sexual abuse of a child." Both the SAVI report and the ISPCC report, however, advocate reporting of all sexual abuse information to civil authorities. The ISPCC report makes a particularly strong case: "Mandatory Reporting is an essential measure in preventing child abuse, in breaking the silence and secrecy necessary for child abuse, in highlighting the real size of the problem and in giving the child care and protection system the political and professional will to develop realistic and appropriate responses in preventing child abuse and neglect and in protecting children.... The ISPCC knows of no child-centred argument which can negate the need for Mandatory Reporting.... [W]aiting any longer for the introduction of Mandatory Reporting may place a whole generation of children at unnecessary risk and calls on politicians of all parties to take a position of leadership on the introduction of the measure." Both reports are available on the 'net.
jacersagain | Jan 22, 2011, 08:20 AM EST
Barneyjo & eiriamach – let’s put the power of misinterpretation in another context, using the words of the letter that barneyjo quotes from >>> "The files of (a person like you and me and everybody else) ... are altogether private; their forced acquisition by civil authority would be an intolerable attack upon the free exercise of (private expression) in (any country)." ... "We should be clear and resolute, for failure in this regard might initiate a movement toward a most unfavorable precedent in law and - no less importantly - frighten and upset not a few (people) whose files are perhaps less than flattering". <<< It makes sense to me, whatever context you place it in, to avoid misinterpreting and misrepresenting a truth. May I suggest that we stop the rumbling, jumbling semantics and stick to the truth? ... Lest we all be exposed!! :-)))
eiriamach | Jan 22, 2011, 07:30 AM EST
Barneyjo, I've read the letter you quote, and you're certainly right. It clearly opposes cooperation with police and demands that clergy adhere to a conspiracy of silence about child abuse within the Church. It's a mockery for the letter to invoke freedom of religion. What nation would protect the freedom of a religious organization that is determined to violate its just laws?
barneyjo | Jan 22, 2011, 07:05 AM EST
On the subject of letters and what they do (and do not) say. There are other letters also in the public domain which are, unlike the 1997 Irish Letter absolutley clear in content and purpose. Letters such as the one from Cardinal Oddi who was from 1979 to 1986 Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy, to Bishop Moreno of Tuscon Arizona. This letter is a reply to Bishop Moreno's original letter seeking guidance on how to deal with a "Troublesome Priest" In his correspondence, Cardinal Oddi says, "under no condition whatever ought the afore-mentioned files be surrendered to any lawyer or judge whatsoever." Oddi said "The files of a Bishop concerning his priests are altogether private; their forced acquisition by civil authority would be an intolerable attack upon the free exercise of religion in the United States" He further added;"We should be clear and resolute, for failure in this regard might initiate a movement toward a most unfavorable precedent in law and - no less importantly - frighten and upset not a few priests whose files are perhaps less than flattering," In this context the letter to the Irish Bishops can legitimately be viewed in an entirely different light.
Carroll09 | Jan 22, 2011, 06:10 AM EST
Eiriamach- you have quoted well that the nuncio's letter "SIMPLY WARNS" the bishops...because "IT COULD" generate problems. I made precisely that point in my last point - the nuncio was expressing the reservations of the Congregation for Clergy, which is just one part of the Roman Curia. The same congregation raised concerns about the U.S. bishops' document and these were overturned - so, as you say, the nuncio's letter "simply warns". The bishops were free to accept or reject it - but if canonical problems arose, they could not say they weren't warned about it. Again, contrary to what is being reported, the letter does not state that there is a problem with reporting cases to the civil authorities.
Don3736 | Jan 22, 2011, 12:01 AM EST
So much for sainthood.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 09:45 PM EST
More than 25 pages of the Irish bishops' "Framework" document deal with church procedures subject to, and heavily footnoted with references to, canon law. Please notice, Carroll09, that the papal nuncio's letter cites no specific canonical problem or error in the entire "Framework" document! The nuncio's letter simply warns the bishops not to implement their mandatory reporting policy because it could generate problems--unspecified and unexplained problems--for canonical proceedings. The Irish bishops had no guidance at all from the nuncio for revising their procedures, no help from the Congregation for the Clergy, no explanations, and therefore no way to proceed effectively against abuse. I can well understand the frustration of Monsignors Alex Stenson and John Dolan and the anger of victims and victim advocates, like Maeve Lewis, of Ireland's One in Four victims' group, who said, "We know from bitter experience that the letter's threat to overturn any punishments imposed by the Irish church was real and perversely executed in the case of Tony Walsh."
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 09:39 PM EST
Carroll09, again you mention "possible problems of canon law" in the Irish "Framework" document, but now you focus on "internal," i.e., church procedures for dealing with abusive priests, procedures subject to canon law. But the nuncio's letter clear links the bishops' mandatory reporting procedures--their EXTERNAL cooperation with civil authority, not their internal procedures--with problems of canon law. I suspect that you are alone in the universe in your belief that the nuncio's letter takes "a tough line on abuse." If one can take a tough line on abuse while stroking the ego of a dangerous serial pedophile and sending him home for a long holiday in an Irish monastery, then, sure, the Vatican tried to do that.
Robbiepdunn | Jan 21, 2011, 08:46 PM EST
Is it not about time that the Catholic church in Ireland was closed down. How much more evidence do we need. It is a rotten organisation right up to the popes. If it was any other organisation it would have been closed down years ago, but the tolerance continues so nothing has changed. The other major fact is all the land and properties that is in their possession belongs to the people of the parish and Ireland it is not theirs to sell or dispose of. It is a crooked organisation and has nothing to do with any God Robbie Dunn Brisbane Australia
jamthecat | Jan 21, 2011, 08:12 PM EST
"Beware false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves; ye shall know them by their fruits." Fits the Catholic Church to a "T", don't it? And yet there are still people who will do anything they can to protect those who not only committed criminal actions against children but those who helped them get away with it. Maybe those who blame the messenger for the message should read another passage from Matthew 7 -- beginning with verse 21. But then, that might mean admitting they've been supporting evil.
ciarrai | Jan 21, 2011, 07:59 PM EST
Protect those pedophiles and everyone will come back to the Church. I don't think so.
Carroll09 | Jan 21, 2011, 06:00 PM EST
I have pointed out several times that canon law did not prevent bishops, priests, parents or victims from going to the civil authorities. Also, as I have said, the Congregation for Clergy raised concerns with regard to mandatory reporting - it doesn't say don't go ahead with it, but rather that if you do, there could be problems with canon law. It is not a threat either - in the case of the American bishops' similar document on norms re abuse, the objections voiced by the Congregation for Clergy did not prevail; so the Congregation was giving its opinions on the document, but it certainly was not a threat. The concern with regard to how the Church dealt internally with abuse, i.e. possible problems with canon law, were legitimate: the primary concern being that when a bishop does take action against an abuser his sanctions should stick and carry force, not risking the possibility of abusers appealing to Rome because some action contrary to canon law was applied. Civil law is no different in this respect - we expect to be advised if, as has happened, new laws are enacted which create legal loopholes where criminals can get off the hook on a mere technicality. In actual fact, the letter suggests a tough line on abuse - what it is clearly warning bishops about is avoiding anything which could hamper current efforts to bring abusers to justice.
haikued2 | Jan 21, 2011, 05:52 PM EST
Odd, IrishCanuck, are you saying that no married clerics are pedophiles? You haven't checked the facts very well have you. I agree that the Church has to look carefully at it's celibacy rules, but changing that won't cure pedophilia. The other issue that may go hand in hand, but is denied by many, is the issue of gay priests. At some point the Church has to clarify and perhaps modify its duplicity in that regard. Isn't life marvelous. Social issues change, mores change and we all have something to write about.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 04:09 PM EST
Carroll09, you have not explained the problem of canon law that Storero refers to in his words "In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature." What problem of canon law does mandatory reporting raise? Withholding evidence of crimes against children raises serious problems of a moral nature, as I explain below, and if canon law does not allow reporting to civil authorities, then canon law needs revision ASAP.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 04:04 PM EST
Carroll09, two considerations: 1) anyone can be falsely accused, and when false accusation happens, damage to reputation can occur as well. We all bear this risk; perhaps we have all been falsely accused at some time. This is not a reason to suspend the usual operations of law; rather, it is a reason to get on with the investigation and trial that should exonerate an innocent party. 2)It is a universal ethic of journalism, as far as I know, that the media do not publish names of minors who are victims of sexual assault, at least not while victims are still alive. Gardai will not make public these names; they conduct investigations with great discretion when children are victims. Victims do sometimes refuse to report crimes against them because of the trauma involved in testifying and being subject to cross-examination. None the less, the importance of preventing subsequent assaults on children should motivate others who have knowledge of these crimes to provide full disclosure to law enforcement even when victims cannot or will not testify. I cannot imagine a case in which someone refusing to provide evidence believes that the result will be "protection of others into the future" as you say. How can NOT reporting a crime protect others? The moral law requires anyone with knowledge of a crime against a child to give evidence to legitimate civil authorities. Considerations of charity may preclude putting a victim through the trauma of testifying, but we are all morally obligated to use civil law to protect each other so far as we can, and giving information to the Gardai serves that purpose.
Searlit | Jan 21, 2011, 03:14 PM EST
eiriamach, I, also thought that same passage you cited from the letter sounded like a threat to the Irish bishops, when I read it. The hierarchy and the secretiveness are colossal problems.
Carroll09 | Jan 21, 2011, 03:12 PM EST
No, eiriamach, I have not been inconsistent in my argument. The problem was not with reporting abusers (as I said, it was never a problem even in canon law); mandatory reporting was possibly a problem however. The Irish bishops themselves recognised that mandatory reporting could pose difficulties - not just because of the damage it could do to the good name of a priest who is found to be innocent (mere suspicions were to be reported to the Gardai, and suspicions, as we know are all too easily aroused in some people). The other consideration was the difficulties such a policy could pose from the point of view of the victims - the bishops' document notes that victims who wanted to remain anonymous might refrain from coming forward because their anonymity could not be guaranteed if the Gardai were to be brought in to investigate. There was also the risk of opening old wounds and traumas in victims who only told Church authorities of their abuse in order to prevent the abuser abusing others - i.e. their motive was not to get revenge or to punish the abuser, but to seek protection of others into the future. The Murphy Report recounts several such instances. There most certainly were legitimate moral concerns, which, despite what some might like to have us believe, were not solely aimed at saving the skins of our bishops or to protect abusers.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 12:41 PM EST
katiemac, even if you were right about the "bias" of the NY Times--and I do not agree that the Times harbors a bias against the RCC--it would still be completely IRRELEVANT to the question of whether the NY Times accurately described the papal nuncio's letter. You are engaging in the kind of 'damage control' attempt that I find so inappropriate at this point in the history of the sexual abuse scandals. If the Times is biased, nothing follows from that situation--neither the truth nor the falsity of anything written in the Times about RCC. You still need to show specifically how the Times misinterpreted or provided a biased reading of the letter in question. If you can do that, then I will not object to your charge of "bias." But until you do that, you are just name-calling.
MikeRock | Jan 21, 2011, 12:39 PM EST
Good Old New York Times! Keeps hammering away at the Catholic Church.
IrishCanuck | Jan 21, 2011, 12:38 PM EST
Katiemac that was spoken by a true RC who probably is in an agreement with the Popes cover up. If the Catholics would allow there priests to marry this would not happen. We know it and they know, now all they have to do is get the Pope to know it or better still get rid of the Pope and we won't have to be on here discussing this terrible thing.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 12:23 PM EST
Carroll09, it's clear in the letter, even if Mr. Cooper misunderstood, that the nuncio expressed concern that decisions made by a bishop acting under canon law (eg., to defrock a priest found to have abused a child) could be overturned by the Vatican if the Irish bishops also carried out 'mandatory reporting' to Gardai. This part of the nuncio's letter reads like a threat, especially when he suggests that such an outcome could be "highly embarrassing and detrimental" to the decision makers. Now, it is inconsistent of you to argue BOTH that the letter did not prohibit reporting abuse to civil authority AND that it was necessary for the Irish to refrain from mandatory reporting in order for canon law to work justice. You cannot have it both ways, Carroll09. Either the nuncio hinted/suggested that the Irish mandatory reporting procedure violated canon law OR he had no reason to raise concerns about the mandatory reporting procedure messing up the decisions made by those applying canon law to the same cases--which is it?
Carroll09 | Jan 21, 2011, 11:47 AM EST
Congratulations, Irish Central (and, indeed, NYT) for yet another fine distortion of the facts. Mr Cooper quotes the letter from the Nuncio: that reporting suspected crimes "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature". Mr Cooper then puts words into the mouth of the Nuncio saying, to conclude the previous quotation, that "such decisions to go to civil authorities could be overturned". The letter actually says nothing of the sort. The concern was with other bishops who followed the channels already provided in canon law to deal with cases - i.e. the existing law must be followed in order to prevent miscarriages of justice. Canon law, it must be noted, did not (then or now) prohibit reporting crimes to the civil authorities. We have had cases in Ireland where murderers or gang bosses have gotten off scott-free as cases collapsed because the law was not followed in dealing with their crimes. That was the concern of the Vatican- that if an abuser was tried (within the Church, as indeed by civil law) under terms contrary to the existing laws, cases might well have collapsed. Furthermore, nowhere does the letter forbid bishops from reporting abusers to civil authorities. Not to mention the fact that it only expressed reservations about mandatory reporting (which the bishops' own document had also raised) - it was not an order that crimes could not be reported to the civil authorities. If it were, then such an order would itself have been absolutely contrary to canon law, which, as I have said, never prevented a bishop from reporting crimes to the civil authorities.
IrishCanuck | Jan 21, 2011, 11:15 AM EST
eiriamach, I agree with you, I think that the RCC needs to rebuild and I would get rid of the Pope. I also agree with ocannan, but I think that all the religions not just the RCC should get rid of this hollier than thou attitude.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 08:04 AM EST
I have not done anything like thorough research on this issue, but there are a few things I've noticed on my quick trips through the documents, and they have helped shape my judgment on the matter. First, very few allegations of sexual abuse involved the use of the confessional. But on occasion, when a victim or his/her parent reported a case of abuse to a supervising priest or bishop, the priest would encourage the reporting person to make a sacramental confession on the matter. When the sacramental seal of penance is in place, the priest cannot speak of the case to anyone; thus the silence of the priest is protected. Second, reading through some of the US and other case histories, I was saddened by the number of times I read a sentence like this: the committee was unable to interview this alleged victim because he/she committed suicide X years after the alleged abuse. The damage, it seems to me, is as irreparable as a suicide. RCC needs to deconstruct itself down to its foundations, discover anew what its foundations truly are, and begin to rebuild. This is a prescription for more than "healing." It requires a truly new beginning in Christ-like love and openness to the concerns of the laity.
eiriamach | Jan 21, 2011, 06:57 AM EST
jacersagain, have you read or looked at the document that the Irish bishops sent the Vatican, to which the papal nuncio's letter responds? It is available on the 'net. Its scholarship in canon law is impressive, and while I am not qualified to find any errors in it, surely canon law scholars at the Vatican were qualified. The nuncio's letter specifies NO ERROR except the general warning that mandatory reporting would likely violate canon law and lead to unfortunate consequences and the promise that sometime in the future a procedure would be forthcoming. This response left the Irish with no alternatives but to scrap their procedure (thereby violating civil and moral law) or to defy the Vatican and continue to implement it. Mandatory reporting to gardai or civil authorities is STILL not part of procedures articulated by any church source. So in terms of interpretation, I find the NY Times' and Peelo's interpretation to be reasonable. I think that most people who look at both documents would reach the conclusion that the Vatican told the Irish not to report cases of clerical abuse of children to civil authorities.
teddybear | Jan 20, 2011, 06:36 PM EST
How in the name of God are these so called "men of God" allowed to get away with such attrocities???
jacersagain | Jan 20, 2011, 04:42 PM EST
eiriamach- I might be one of those whom you say appear to be defending the Vatican’s stance elsewhere on IC. I assure you I have not; what I have been at pains to highlight are the distorted and untruthful interpretations of the ‘Strictly confidential’ letter presented in the ‘Would You Believe’ TV program by the reporter, Mick Peelo. For example, he states quite clearly in the program that the letter warns the Irish bishops not to report child abusing priests to the Vatican. I’ve read the letter and it does not say that at all, anywhere in it. Indeed the Vatican issued its response earlier this week pointing out this very fact. So Peelo spoke a lie during the program, thus spreading a huge, worldwide misinterpretation of the letter, one now picked up and spread further by the NYT. I agree with the rest of yr post btw, well put. And another btw: the process of change inside the Vatican started in 2001, on foot of the Irish Bishops and other bishops in Scotland, England, Wales and other countries fighting their battle with the Vatican on behalf of victims of abuse.
eiriamach | Jan 20, 2011, 08:44 AM EST
Elsewhere on IC, some people are still trying to defend the Vatican's handling of abuse by priests. When will it end? Damage control is not what is needed. What is needed? Read the current pope's words when he visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem. They show that he is capable of dealing with a tragic history, and he should do so now in response to the current disclosures. At Yad Vashem he spoke about Holocaust victims in words that could also apply to abuse victims: "May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten! And may all people of goodwill remain vigilant in rooting out from the heart of man anything that could lead to tragedies such as this!.... The Catholic Church ... feels deep compassion for the victims... — their sufferings are hers, and hers is their hope for justice... one cannot help but recall how each of them bears a name. I can only imagine the joyful expectation of their parents as they anxiously awaited the birth of their children. What name shall we give this child? What is to become of him or her? Who could have imagined that they would be condemned to such a deplorable fate! As we stand here in silence, their cry still echoes in our hearts. It is a cry raised against every act of injustice and violence." Benedict and all who have defended the Vatican's handling of abuse cases should also vow that pedophile records held by RCC everywhere will immediately be placed in the hands of local police, now and always. (Note: I am not comparing child abuse with genocide, only 'appropriate words' with 'damage control.')
ocannan | Jan 20, 2011, 08:29 AM EST
i think its time the catholic faith is restored to god and stop the man made machine