FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: 1985 letter: Pope Benedict resisted pleas to defrock pedophile priest
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(04-09-2010, 03:41 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office."
I believe the priest at this time was 90 years old and sick.  He died the next year.  I hope he repented for his sick homosexual molestation and sodomy of deaf boys.

The article is a hit job.  The priest was suspended.   Laicizing him would do nothing.  The person at fault was the local ordinary.  Perhaps stripping him of his bishopric would have done some good.

I think you are referring to the pedo-priest in Wisconsin.  The priest referred to in this article was in California and was only 38. 

(04-09-2010, 06:13 PM)Roy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry.  But this is disgusting:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...f-priest/1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm

Isn't it?  His bishop should have restricted him and removed his faculties.  You don't need Rome to do that, just a bishop.
So do you think the attorney in this video clip about this story is correct or incorrect?

sometimes I wonder if there are really any Christians left in this world... people who recognize that humanity that Christ came to redeem even in the worst people on earth.

here's a couple good articles on why pedo priests SHOULDN'T BE defrocked.  Yes, they shouldn't be placed in active ministry in any capacity that would put them in contact with the young.  but the fact of the matter is, we are the Church that Christ left behind to show mercy to all, even those whose past sins disgust us.

No Forced Laicizations: http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/commen...orced.html

the main point is this:
Quote:While drawing on the experience of U.S. bishops in confronting sexual abuse, the report made a case against the U.S. policy of "zero tolerance" for clerical abusers. It suggested that the church and society are better off when abusive priests are kept in the priesthood but away from children.

Finally, minors would be at greater risk if the Church laicizes a priest who is guilty of the sexual abuse of a minor. If a priest is laicized, he is thrust back into society without the safeguards, spiritual help and human support which the Church should provide.

Dulles on the rights of accused priests: http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/commen...cused.html

It is up to the civil authorities to detain men, priests or not, who are dangers to children... and we certainly need to work with them to the best of our ability (without betraying legal confidences or the seal of confession)... but so many of these cases being drudged up are ones in which the civil authorities failed to do anything.  often the accusers and their families refused to make the charges so as to avoid public embarrassment and all that.  what are we to do with them thenHuh?  they are our responsibility unless they voluntarily leave the Church.

do we throw them out on the streets demanding that they fend for themselves?  is that really the best way to protect children?  who is more likely to offend again, a priest who has been defrocked and has no friend in the world?  stripped of the only thing that might have been a redeeming act for him, a means of grace to fight against his twisted desires?  or a priest who is under intensive watch from their bishop, living perhaps in a monastery somewhere away from active ministry with the public, with private masses as their comfort, as something that strengthens them in their resolve.

we need to stop standing with the crowd and agreeing to stone these people.  we need to stand up and DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND as our Savior did; as the Savior of the very worst offending pedophile priest did.  YES, be as transparent as we can be in reporting crimes to civil authorities... but this latest wave of scandals isn't getting mad at us for failing to report to civil authorities, who were already involved before the CDF got the cases; it's bloodlust, they're demanding that we strip these people of their only recourse to try to overcome their disgusting sins.

basically, they view the priesthood as a job, and the Church as a corporation.  it is not, the priesthood is an indelible mark on the soul; and every single one of these men, defrocked or not, will approach the judgement seat of Our Lord with Roman collars around their necks (and many Roman collars will burn for eternity, mind you).  so for the remainder of their life, as many of them as possible need to be taken under the watchful maternal eye of the Church... put in positions with no contact with children, assigned official monitors who can drop by unannounced and keep them under watchful eyes.  when the civil authorities do not lock them up, we shouldn't make them GREATER RISKS TO CHILDREN by DEFROCKING them.

but as much as I'd like to shout this till I'm blue in the face, I'm afraid in this day and age no one will take notice and put down their stones... the stoning will continue.  heck, the blind hatred that has a hold of so many hearts might lead them to turn their stones at me just for speaking up and saying this  but in any event, this is likely some of the stuff Ratzinger had in mind if he stalled the defrocking of priests (and I also heard John Paul himself was usually disbelieving of even some of the most credible accusations, and Ratzinger's hands were certainly tied by JPII at the time)... no one in the Church will draw a line in the sand now, they'll just defrock more readily.  and because of this, children will be less safe.
the offenses committed by this man after he was no longer a priest speak to my point.

in any event, Fr. Z rips this case apart here:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/ap-throwi...alifornia/
(04-09-2010, 11:03 PM)Aloysius Wrote: [ -> ]sometimes I wonder if there are really any Christians left in this world... people who recognize that humanity that Christ came to redeem even in the worst people on earth.

here's a couple good articles on why pedo priests SHOULDN'T BE defrocked.  Yes, they shouldn't be placed in active ministry in any capacity that would put them in contact with the young.  but the fact of the matter is, we are the Church that Christ left behind to show mercy to all, even those whose past sins disgust us.

No Forced Laicizations: http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/commen...orced.html

the main point is this:
Quote:While drawing on the experience of U.S. bishops in confronting sexual abuse, the report made a case against the U.S. policy of "zero tolerance" for clerical abusers. It suggested that the church and society are better off when abusive priests are kept in the priesthood but away from children.

Finally, minors would be at greater risk if the Church laicizes a priest who is guilty of the sexual abuse of a minor. If a priest is laicized, he is thrust back into society without the safeguards, spiritual help and human support which the Church should provide.

Dulles on the rights of accused priests: http://www.opusbonosacerdotii.org/commen...cused.html

It is up to the civil authorities to detain men, priests or not, who are dangers to children... and we certainly need to work with them to the best of our ability (without betraying legal confidences or the seal of confession)... but so many of these cases being drudged up are ones in which the civil authorities failed to do anything.  often the accusers and their families refused to make the charges so as to avoid public embarrassment and all that.  what are we to do with them thenHuh?  they are our responsibility unless they voluntarily leave the Church.

do we throw them out on the streets demanding that they fend for themselves?  is that really the best way to protect children?  who is more likely to offend again, a priest who has been defrocked and has no friend in the world?  stripped of the only thing that might have been a redeeming act for him, a means of grace to fight against his twisted desires?  or a priest who is under intensive watch from their bishop, living perhaps in a monastery somewhere away from active ministry with the public, with private masses as their comfort, as something that strengthens them in their resolve.

we need to stop standing with the crowd and agreeing to stone these people.  we need to stand up and DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND as our Savior did; as the Savior of the very worst offending pedophile priest did.  YES, be as transparent as we can be in reporting crimes to civil authorities... but this latest wave of scandals isn't getting mad at us for failing to report to civil authorities, who were already involved before the CDF got the cases; it's bloodlust, they're demanding that we strip these people of their only recourse to try to overcome their disgusting sins.

basically, they view the priesthood as a job, and the Church as a corporation.  it is not, the priesthood is an indelible mark on the soul; and every single one of these men, defrocked or not, will approach the judgement seat of Our Lord with Roman collars around their necks (and many Roman collars will burn for eternity, mind you).  so for the remainder of their life, as many of them as possible need to be taken under the watchful maternal eye of the Church... put in positions with no contact with children, assigned official monitors who can drop by unannounced and keep them under watchful eyes.  when the civil authorities do not lock them up, we shouldn't make them GREATER RISKS TO CHILDREN by DEFROCKING them.

but as much as I'd like to shout this till I'm blue in the face, I'm afraid in this day and age no one will take notice and put down their stones... the stoning will continue.  heck, the blind hatred that has a hold of so many hearts might lead them to turn their stones at me just for speaking up and saying this  but in any event, this is likely some of the stuff Ratzinger had in mind if he stalled the defrocking of priests (and I also heard John Paul himself was usually disbelieving of even some of the most credible accusations, and Ratzinger's hands were certainly tied by JPII at the time)... no one in the Church will draw a line in the sand now, they'll just defrock more readily.  and because of this, children will be less safe.

I agree, people often forget (well, Catholic people anyway, the non-Catholics would never think of this) there is the issue of confidentiality if you are to defrock a priest.
(04-09-2010, 06:49 PM)Roy Wrote: [ -> ]So do you think the attorney in this video clip about this story is correct or incorrect?


It might help if we could see the text of the letter in the original Latin.
Fr. Z says he has a friend who is going to give him that soon, at which time he'll be able to further examine it with special expertise (as he has experience writing similar documents in Latin and understands the style in which they're written)

he indicated a suspicion that this particular letter might have been a FORM LETTER sent regarding all priests who request dispensation from the priesthood.  ie, this wasn't just a case of forced laicization, the man in question actually requested to leave the priesthood, and it may be that all priests who left the priesthood (there were a lot at the time) were sent a form letter saying that one should avoid scandal to the faith, et cetera.  so this particular letter may simply have not included any knowledge of this specific case, but may have only been dealing with the request for dispensation received from the man himself who was already not acting as a priest.
actually: here's the letter in Latin if you can make it out: http://www.wdtprs.com/images/10_04_09_Ch...a_AP01.jpg
Pages: 1 2 3