Richard James2 said:Yeah, look, it’s considered strict pontifical secrecy, primarily to protect the anonymity of everyone involved in the proceedings. It only stays in effect while the process is actually ongoing, and let's be clear: this isn't some workaround or a substitute for facing justice in a secular court of law.
Look, let’s be real here: the hierarchy within the KC is built on a rigid, pyramidal structure with rules so strict they leave zero room for "accidental" ignorance. There is absolutely no way Ratzinger could have been kept in the dark about the abuse cases happening all over the globe. If he didn't know, someone failed at their job, but more likely, he was fully briefed. And if we're talking about accountability, John Paul II had to be aware of it too, given he was the boss, and Bozanic was the previous link in that entire chain of command. It’s a straight line of responsibility, plain and simple.
Just because there are guidelines in place doesn't mean they’re actually being enforced—and honestly, they aren't always. Just because a hierarchy exists, it doesn't automatically follow that every single scandal climbs all the way to the top. It doesn't work like that. We've seen plenty of examples where things just don't make it to Rome or the CDF, let alone the Pope. You can't just assume everything is being reported up the chain. Especially when you look at cases where it was blindingly obvious that a local bishop simply refused to follow the law on the matter.
Everything about this is laid out clearly by the Apostolic Nuncio. ovom pismu (pdf)
Hardly. These stories wouldn't even be on anyone's radar if they hadn't been broken by a compromised reporter at the New York Times instead of a legal expert. For me, the smoking gun is pretty obvious: the only victim advocacy group to actually step up was SNAP, which is led by some incredibly shady and discredited people.
So, here’s the deal: Look, let's get one thing straight because the media loves to muddy the waters: The Congregation for Clergy is not the same as The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith. People constantly trip over this, but it matters. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict) ran the doctrinal side of things; he wasn't running the Congregation for Clergy. Back in 1997, that role was held by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. Here is the bottom line, and I say this because the press has this relentless, predictable habit of viewing every single Vatican move through the lens of the Pope himself: Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has absolutely zero connection to this letter. It wasn't even his department. Period.
(...)
The only actual "consequences" laid out in this letter involve the sheer embarrassment a bishop would face if he botched a case, resulting in a miscarriage of justice that eventually gets overturned by Rome on appeal. That's it. Yet, Goodstein makes it sound like the letter is some sort of heavy-handed threat, implying bishops will face retaliation if they don't "obey." Honestly, that interpretation is wrong on so many levels. This isn't an ultimatum, and it certainly isn't a list of commands. It’s an advisory statement—a warning to the American bishops that they need to stick to canon law to ensure they don't commit errors that end up being struck down during an appeal. Let’s be clear: there isn't some looming threat of retaliation happening here.
Goodstein makes IT appear that The Vatican is trying to intimidate bishops into silence if they take the step of notifying the police about predators. Honestly, the whole debate over mandatory reporting hasn't even hit the table yet. Furthermore, her claim that the letter mandates "bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels"—implying they shouldn't go to the cops—is just plain incorrect. The document doesn't say any of that. There is absolutely nothing in this text requiring a bishop to keep information regarding predators under wraps.
http://jimmyakin.com/2011/01/vatican...ild-abuse.html
My bad. I just realized I'm replying to a post from a year ago. Doesn't really matter, though; I guess Austin Martinez20 felt the need to bump this thread just to push his blog, even if he didn't actually contribute anything useful to the conversation.
Can you please explain this part of the letter to me:
"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."
"
In particular, the situation of „
mandatory reporting‟ gives rise to
serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature"
Someone I personally respect, though unfortunately not very well known, is Father Gerald Fitzgerald, who wrote numerous warnings to local bishops as well as to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
"Back in
1962, Gerald Fitzgerald put together a report after being asked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which everyone called the Holy Office back then). In it, he laid out the different kinds of sexual issues cropping up among priests, specifically touching on the abuse of minors.
He talked about 'the massive issue created by priests who, due to a total lack of discipline, have turned into a major headache for Mother Church.'
When it came to priests who had 'slipped into repetitive sins... particularly the abuse of children, we feel quite strongly that these unfortunate individuals should be offered a choice: live out their days retired behind monastery walls or face full laicization.'
So, they were warned about this mess as early as '62, yet fast forward to '97 and they're still 'thinking about what to do'...
The exact same priest was sitting down with the Pope just one year later:
By August of the following year, he was meeting with the newly elected Pope Paul VI to brief him on his findings and the specific issues he saw plaguing the priesthood. His follow-up letter was blunt: "
On a personal level, I’m not optimistic about priests returning to active ministry if they’ve struggled with abnormal behaviors, especially involving minors. That said,
the practical needs of the Church have to be weighed, so reinstating priests who seem to have reformed might be an option—but only if they can be strictly guided and supervised. If there's any sign they won't change, given the massive scandal it would cause, I’d strongly advise stripping them of their clerical status entirely."
Then you've got Tom Doyle weighing in on William Levada, who eventually took over Ratzinger's old job running the Inquisition:
'I remember like it was yesterday briefing Levada in May of 1985 while he was serving as an auxiliary bishop regarding the sexual abuse crisis. I’ve personally pored over stacks of documents and sworn deposition testimony that make it crystal clear: most, if not all, bishops were fully aware that priests were raping and sexually abusing children as far back as the 1940s... and I’m only looking that far back because that’s how far I’ve dug into the files. Either way, Levada’s claim is either a flat-out lie or proof he has a incredibly narrow grasp on reality.'
And don't forget, during that whole period, Levada was actually working closely with Ratzinger...
And so on...
Basically, everyone knew, except for the guys at the top. It’s the classic "how could they not know?" scenario.
