Vatican asked Irish bishops not to report clerical abuse to the police

Ah but didyou not realise that women have got multi-tasking down pat!! We'll give her a fair hearing I'm sure!! As regards the "Holy Spirit", I have to agree, which makes it even more shameful that those in church authority cant (or wont) see or recognise that fact, whilst the likes of you and I and others can!! Is there hope in that d'you think?

barneyjo - Thanks for the msg over on Pee Cooper’s page (I'd alaways have more time for Cathy's pages than Patrick's). Yes, I can certainly understand your position, and your “discreet but respectful distance” and I respect that ‘cos I’m not far away from that position meself. I think it is unfathomable to ask “Where is Christ?” in the policies you speak of but I’m bluddy sure His other third, the Holy Spirit, is - and I can’t argue a whit with that wise third part of St. Patrick’s shamrock. >>> Speaking of ‘pages’ or blogs: beejo, have you noted that ICentral’s Megan Finnegan, she who goes to Mass and listens, who is marrying herself to her Tim and who loves a drrrrink in NYC on Paddy’s Day, is about to launch a discussion on religion on her ICentral site? See you there on her pages - that is, of course, conditional on Megan having time to blog discussing religion while prepping for her wedding.

@jacersagain - you have been kind enough to give my views on these matters a fair hearing, as I hope you would accept that I have accorded you the same courtesy. You will have seen that I have referenced the "Tuscon" letter in another post, in the context of the direction/advice given by a senior member of the vatican hierarchy to a Bishop in Arizona. The letter from Cardinal Oddi, to Bishop Moreno could not be more clear to my mind as to the counsel given and the course of action that the Bishop should take. I accept that there is a significant difference in the timeline in which these letters were sent. However, I am sure I am not alone when I say that I can recognise considerable co-terminocity between the content and themes of the two documents. This adherence and reliance on the use of "Legaleese" apparent in both letters are in large measure, the reason why I feel compelled to keep that "discreet but respectful distance" that I spoke of previously. It is not something I wanted or would have chosen for myself, but I am bound to ask the fundamental question "Where is Christ" in the policies, rationale or actions of senior Catholic Clergy across the world, which have been laid bare before us all!!

The documentary on this story was aired by "Would you Believe!" It was a great, informative documentary. I encourage you all to find it. Now, any apologies by your bishops, high-ranking, high-hatted Vatican Clericats*, or the even the Pope will come across as really being disingenuous and lame. *I define a "Clericat" as a fossilized Vatican official, who seems to have 9 lives. They are the ones, who are stuck with the old, Vatican delusion, found in Pope Pius IX's, "Syllabus of Errors," that the Vatican is a law to itself and is not legally responsible to ANY world government. According to the Church, it is an "ERROR," complete with the threat of Eternal Damnation, not to believe the rants proclaiming Vatican spiritual-superiority, found in his INFALLIBLE, Papal Encyclical called, "The Syllabus of Errors." If you don't believe me, Google it! Read it for yourself, and then, hopefully join a movement to bring the Vatican Clericats into World Court to answer for orchestrating world-wide, Pedophile Coverups.

The saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink" comes to mind at this juncture. There are still too many closed minds at this point in time, hence my deduction that the Church body has a further fall to endure. And anyway, Irish History clearly shows that faith can not only survive but also thrive in a situation where the formal presence of a church structure is minimal. I refer to the Penal times in Ireland where there was a minimal (and in some parts of the country no-existant) clerical presence. Yet the faith survived for over one hundred years. I am confident of my own faith and of my own relationship with Christ. I know where the boundaries of responsibility lie related to that faith and I now trust my own awareness of those responsibilities. I am prepared to acknowledge the spiritual authority of clergy to bring the sacraments to myself and my family; however in terms of a moral authority to direct me in how I live my life, it is at that point I reserve the right to judge for myself the correctness of what I think do or say. I believe I can forgive others, and in turn be forgiven by a just and loving God for any wrongs done, or offence caused, be that knowingly, or unknowingly!! (oh and the screenname is just that - Barneyjo!!)

Well barneyjo ((what a fabulous screen name! – I still don’t know if it’s a Bernard or a Jo (ie Josephine) or both conjoined; no matter.)) I think your last reply is fantastic; it goes with my grain. But I would urge you not to distance yourself from the Church that you & I know well. It is only by being involved that we of the Church can make the necessary changes happen universally. Which is why I support (though not involved in, Mea culpa!) the ideals of the VOF in Ireland.

Yes the life and work of the church will go on, but........if its nature remains the same as I have now come to understand it to have been, for all the years of my life as a practicing Catholic, then I for one will be maintaining a discreet but respectful distance. I am content that I will not subscribe my loyalty to a "business" structure. I think the change in mindset will come eventually, but I am saddened when I reach the conclusion that there are those within the Church Hierarchy who still "dont get it"; that the church doesnt belong to the upper echelons of the clerical elite, but it is the church of the Faithful; thats you and I and millions like us across the world who for a start, wish to see the Hierarchy practice what they preach; to adhere to the strictures of Canon Law if they feel they must, and stop bending or fracturing (though not breaking) its strictures when it suits or for reasons of expediency. My understanding of the definition of the word "Catholic" is to imply a universality or equality for everyone and everything. I will take a lot of pursuading to be convinced that the church and faith in which I was raised is anywhere near to becoming that model of universality for all who wish to be part of it.

(... more) Yes, barneyjo, I agree Bishop Smith placed great personal experiences before us on TV, speaking with great honest eyes and exasperation at times. I also listened to the other contributors – the unidentified mother of an abused son; Dr. Bryan Maguire (abused as a child but a fervent Catholic despite his horrible experiences, an excellent Voice of the Faithful in Ireland rep); Dr. Karen Keenan (psychotherapist, intimately involved in child abuse advisory panels and cases, very sensible in her contributions); David Quinn (highly respected Catholic journalist, who does not mislead); Cathy Molloy (theologian) and especially I enjoyed Fr. Aidan McGrath (an Oblate priest and a Canon Lawyer), all alongside Bishop Smith’s enlightening comments. Almost all of them spoke in the context of the ‘Strictly confidential’ letter as presented to them by Mike Peelo. The actions of the Vatican officials beggar belief sometimes to most of us but, in reading the letter, I realised just how tied were the hands of bishops, cardinals and even that of Popes under Canon Law. As canonical lawyer Fr. McGrath said, laws can change. I just wish they would change faster in respect of this issue. No wonder the then Archbishop (later Cardinal) O’Connell reportedly banged his fist on the desk while arguing his case with Cardinal Horos at that meeting in Sligo. I wish the mindset of Vatican officialdom would change faster. Children’s’ lives are at stake in this matter, even today. The life and work of the Church will always go on, as promised by Christ.

Say barneyjo, don'tcha think it's a bit ridiculous for us to be discussing this topic under two different IC articles? I'd rather stick here with Cathy's article because Patrick's article over the other side is rubbish. Anyways, while we both agree on a common cause in discussions of this nature, we are having differences of opinion between us – a healthy thing I hafta say; it promotes healthy learning discussion. I appreciate your respectful comments very much, and I listen to what you say, thank you. (More...)

@jacersagain - I watched the program myself, and I paid particular attention to the comments of Bishop Michael Smith in his pieces to camera. I have to say his statements are somewhat at odds with your view and interpretation of the letters significance. The Bishop stated quite clearly that at a meeting of the irish bishops in Sligo which was also attended Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, Arch-Bishop Connell very forcefully sought to make the Cardinal aware of the very difficult position that the Irish Bishops had been put in by the Vatican. And those comments are coming from a Bishop who was present at that meeting.

Well now that I’ve read the ‘Strictly confidential” letter, I understand this 'Would You Believe' TV show a bit better. I now see it for what it is... a blatant misrepresentation by the presenting news reporter, Mike Neelo, of what the letter was about. The person who wrote the letter, Archbishop Storero, wrote it in his capacity as the Ambassador of the Holy See (the State of the Vatican City) to the Irish Republic, to “Your Excellency”, a term used in diplomatic circles world-wide to another of diplomatic, or in this case, of a certain level of religious standing. It does not name of the addressee. In the last paragraph of the letter, Archbishop Storero uses diplomatic language in saying “... I am directed to inform (the bishops of Ireland) ... (that) ... the Code of Canon Law (as of then) must be meticulously followed...” In these simple words, it is clear that he was merely a messenger and that therefore no blame should accrue to him for the letter’s significant message, something, IMO, the TV reporter meticulously misled us viewers to believe. The significant parts of the letter are clear and they have said nothing whatsoever to stop Irish Bishops or priests from reporting abuse, completely contrary to what journalists are leading people to believe. The significant parts deal solely with advice to follow Canon Law, or if they choose not to, to face being in an emabrassing position of losing their case under the Law (as it stood in 1996/97). The advice was primarily made to ensure they did not lose their case on behalf of the abused by taking a wrong turn in their pursuit of justice for the abused. In other words, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about achieving justice... the one proposed by the Irish Bishops at the time didn't exist at that time.

haikued2, Nobody is saying that all priests are paedophiles, but just read Bernadett's comment posted just over your own. The Vatican state as a stae was a convenient barrier to misdirect, but the Roman Catholic Church is the main culprit where the victims have been Roman Catholic. Do you think Bernadett is lying about the priest who knew what his " friend " was doing and wouldn't because of that misplaced loyalty take action? Do you imagine that there weren't other priests whose loyalty was to their criminal friend and not to the abused children? People in every walk of life committ crimes - that includes people in police forces, armies, political parties and every other job or profession. And very often they close ranks and protect their erring colleagues - even sometimes when the offence is a major crime. The Roman Catholic Church - its popes, cardinals, bishops and priests are not above suspicion and some have covered up crimes and protected the criminal. It's a fact of life!

my sons abuse took place in 82 a well documented case in the murphy report.On the day we found out we went first went to the priest superiour who told us he knew what the priest was doing but he would not be reporting it to his bishop or the police as he felt he would be leting his friend down,so started our long battle with the church and now 27 and a half years my son still has not received any compensation the battle for justice goes on . To hear about what happened in Rome let me tell you they knew about things long before the famous letter.

While I have expressed my views on this below, I do think that a perspective has to be provided. Much of the reporting would give the impression that all priests were/are pedophiles and all Catholic kids have been victimized. Simply put: NOT TRUE. From what has been researched the percentages are very low. NO JUSTIFICATION for how it has been handled or for the crimes themselves, but once again the media and others are painting with a very broad paint brush. In the US, when an Army Major who had been radicalized and committed an atrocious act of slaughter at Ft Hood, the Media had a hard time dealing with his political/religious motivations and clearly said "all Muslims are not jihadists"...that is what I am saying here: the vast majority of Catholic priests are not pedophiles and do protect their flocks...just keep it in perspective.

The Vatican has given its response to the TV program. “Concerning a 1997 letter from Archbishop Luciano Storero, Apostolic Nuncio, to Irish bishops (remarks by Fr. Lombardi) In the course of a recent television programme in Ireland, mention was made of a letter written in 1997 by Archbishop Luciano Storero, then apostolic nuncio to Ireland, to members of the country's episcopal conference. That letter has been given biased treatment by some media outlets, who have presented it as proof of an instruction, from the Vatican, to cover up cases of sexual abuse of minors. The letter – written on the basis of indications received from the Congregation for the Clergy – concerns a document produced by an advisory committee of the Irish bishops, highlighting certain problematic aspects therein and indicating the need for a deeper examination which also takes account of similar situations in other countries, and which had to be conducted through dialogue and collaboration with the episcopal conferences of the countries concerned. In the first place, it must be noted that the letter does not in any way suggest that national laws must not be followed. Furthermore, the letter rightly emphasises the importance of always respecting canonical legislation, precisely in order to ensure that guilty parties do not have justified grounds for an appeal and thus producing a result contrary to the one desired. Finally, it must be stated that the letter was written prior to the norms of 2001 which unified responsibility in this field under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a move which has certainly led to clearer guidelines and more effective procedures.”