|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 3, 2011 21:47:29 GMT
Leon Podles (who is quite critical of the Pope and the Vatican authorities in many respects of their handling of clerical abusers) thinks Pope Benedict is correct in stating that some forms of proportionalist (i.e. relativist) moral theology in the 70s and 80s were used to justify clerical abuse. Examples are given, for those with strong stomachs. This, I think, relates much more to the American than the Irish situation - they have a stronger intellectual component, ours was based much more on the idea that Father can do no wrong. www.podles.org/dialogue/the-pope-and-proportionalism-382.htm
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 13, 2011 15:28:01 GMT
The Irish Times yesterday had a report of a meeting in connection with the visitation held by Cardinal murphy-O'Connor at a hotel in Drogheda. It gave the distinct impression that a concerted effort is being made to push the liberal analysis of the abuse scandals on the visitors. (For example, one speaker cited the Stanford Prison experiment in a context which seemed to imply that differentiation between clerics and laity automatically leads to the former tyrannising and abusing the latter - though the report does not make this completely clear). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experimentwww.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0112/1224287331246.html[article by Patsy mcGarry] PROBLEMS “of arrogance, or power and feelings of superiority’’ of priests, the ‘’architecture of hierarchy’’ in Irish society and “the disenfranchisement of women’’ were among explanations offered by speakers in Drogheda for the clerical child sex abuse problem in Ireland and elsewhere in the Catholic Church. In approximately 70 minutes, 12 people spoke briefly in an atmosphere which was always frank and open, occasionally robust but never hostile. One woman suggested that “the Pope should stand down as an act of atonement to those who were abused’’ while a man pleaded on behalf of priests who no longer can “engage in any meaningful way with children”. “My son’s godfather is a priest. He can’t even take him to the pictures,’’ he said. Approximately 100 people attended, most of them older people and most of them women. It was organised by the former Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor as part of his Apostolic Visitation to Armagh archdiocese. ...Of the 12 speakers, three were women and three of the 12 chose to give their names. Pat Clinton insisted on the importance of the visitation taking on board academic studies, such as one undertaken at Stanford University, on the uses of authority and how this could lead to ‘’the engineering of a false consensus’’ that allowed Nazi officers to listen to classical music after a day’s work in a concentration camps. Michael Hickey said that one common thing the last 10 years in Ireland had illustrated was that “the archtiecture of hierarchy was unfit for purpose right across the board”. Psychotherapist Carol Burke appealed for ‘’re-education around sexuality, from top to bottom”. END
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2011 13:35:53 GMT
According to the IRISH TIMES yesterday (Monday 16 January) in 1997 the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy specifically overruled a proposal by the Irish bishops that clericaloffenders should automatically be reported to the secular authorities. One bishop (speaking to RTE on condition of anonymity) states that he regards this, and regarded it at the time, as basically mandating a cover-up. Apparently a RTe documentary on this is being broadcast. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is specifically mentioned as responsible for the statement. This decision was, of course, totally outrageous. It was well known that the Congregation for the Clergy handled clerical abuse badly, and that matters improved after the issue was taken over by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I thought this was due to Cardinal Herranz taking a strict interpretation of the "presumed innocent till proven guilty" standard, but this appears to refer to persons whose guilt is admitted. Here are a few points that come up: (1) What was Castrillon thinking of? Possibly he was influenced by the fact that he comes from Colombia, where, as in certain other countries, the authorities cannot be trusted to investigate accusations fairly - but given the notorious statement he made a while back about a French bishop who failed to turn over an abusive priest to the French authorities having acted like a true father, it seems that he really does believe in some exaggerated view of clerical solidarity. [A comparison might be with the wretched Mgr Sheehy in Dublin. David Quinn's article in the IRISH CATHOLIC about Mgr Sheehy's version of "compassion" provoked a furious letter from someone arguing that what was involved was a cover-up by the powerful, pure and simple, and compassion had nthing to do with it - but what this doesn't explain, and Quinn's analysis does, is why Mgr Sheehy said in writing at the time that it was self-evidently outrageous and cruel to suggest that a notorious repeat offender should be handed over to the civil authorities. A simple cover-up would not entail this level of self-righteousness, and Cardinal Castrillon, alas, appears to have a simliar mindset.) (2) Given Cardinal Castrillon's prominence as a patron of traditionalists, what price that this will produce yet more claims that liturgical traditionalism embodies the clericalism which lay behind the cover-ups, and that if we wish to get rid of clericalism, cover-ups and abuse traditionalism must therefore be suppressed? (Cf numerous letters in the TABLET.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 19, 2011 12:12:02 GMT
This last post from Hibernicus is a very good one, insofar as there is a need to focus on the personality of Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos. Aside from being the authority responsible for child abuse, he also had responsibility for catechetics and later, the traditional Mass. We can see evidence of his judgement in relation to abusing clerics. Though the traditional Mass is not relevant to this discussion, insights into Cardinal Hoyos' judgement are. I have a couple of short observations:
1. While Cardinal Hoyos held the dual mandate as prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, there was very little movement on the traditional liturgy;
2. Cardinal Hoyos rushed through approval for the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2006. Right now, the Institute may face apostolic visitation due to lack of prudence in presenting candidates for ordination and for general political tendencies; and
3. It was Cardinal Hoyos who recommended the lifting of the SSPX bishops' excommunications with the disaster that brought. Almost certainly he went against the advice of Mgr Perl and Mgr Calkins of the PCED on this matter.
It seems the Cardinal was a man of great physical courage as Archbishop of Bogota (or wherever), but no man for nuance.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2011 12:21:17 GMT
I think that should be Cardinal Castrillon, Alasdair. In Spanish-speaking countries the mother's surname is added to the end of the name, but it is the father's name which is the primary surname - so Francisco Franco Bahamonde was General Franco, not General Bahamonde. Any more news about the possible visitation of the Institue of the Good Shepherd? This is the first I've heard of it, but given the claim on RORATE CAELI that Fr Aulagnier opposes saying the OF in principle - which is a hard position to maintain if you're in communion with Rome - it was probably to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2011 12:32:43 GMT
Here is Leon Podles' blog with an outline of the story. (Note - in linking to Mr Podles I do not endorse all his views, or those of his commenters). www.podles.org/dialogue/the-buck-stops-at-the-top-399.htmHere is another revealing post from the same blog. Podles notes that when John Allen interviewed Francis Cardinal George of Chicago recently, the Cardinal (while taking a stance which Podles regards as pussyfooting on whether bishops should be held to account for their failings) did say that bishops should use their power as governors to punish clerical abusers. Podles then reprints several online comments on this article by people who deny that bishops should ever punish anyone under any circumstances. (Bear in mind that John Allen works for the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, which is the principal"radical liberal Catholic" US paper, so these people are unlikely to be traditionalists - indeed, at least one of the commenters implies that he opposes the idea that bishops should ever punish - remember we are talking about punishing priests who rape children - because he suspects such a power to punsh would also involve excommunicating those who hold heterodox doctrines!) www.podles.org/dialogue/should-the-church-ever-punish-401.htm
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 19, 2011 12:40:04 GMT
I think that should be Cardinal Castrillon, Alasdair. In Spanish-speaking countries the mother's surname is added to the end of the name, but it is the father's name which is the primary surname - so Francisco Franco Bahamonde was General Franco, not General Bahamonde. Any more news about the possible visitation of the Institue of the Good Shepherd? This is the first I've heard of it, but given the claim on RORATE CAELI that Fr Aulagnier opposes saying the OF in principle - which is a hard position to maintain if you're in communion with Rome - it was probably to be expected. The point about Cardinal Castrillion's name is correct - I was taking the easier one to spell. A lot of the material I have seen on the Institute of the Good Shepherd has been in French.
|
|
|
Post by shane on Jan 19, 2011 23:05:39 GMT
Does anyone here believe there to any serious possibility that the Catholic Church in Ireland could end up with its liberties seriously curtailed, or even proscribed (either formally or effectively)?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2011 10:32:28 GMT
I think that is a real possibility - both because the scandals will promote increasing hostility to the Church (and because a more secularised society will treat Church doctrine on various matters, notably sexuality, as an infringement of public liberties; we are seeing signs of this in some recent events in Britain where Evangelicals have been prosecuted under anti-discrimination laws for trying to observe, or merely for publicly expressing, their beliefs on sodomy) and because "liberal" elements within the Church will argue that traditionalists are not merely mistaken, but criminals and lunatics whose mere existence fuels abuse. It is increasingly common in certain Western countries to redefine religious liberty as "freedom of worship" (i.e. you may participate in religious services, but not form associations based on your beliefs or try to influence public policy). In the nineteenth century certain "liberal" states justified persecuting the church (e.g. prohibiting the formation of religious orders, imposing restrictions on episcopal authority over priests and laity) by claiming that they were not in fact persecuting Catholicism but vindicating the rights of individual Catholics against clerical tyranny. It is also worth bearing in mind that the version of Irish history assimilated by the most recent generations of the state-forming administrative classes in this country has as its central myth the view that Ireland only became "modern" and shook off poverty, backwardness and sexual repression by breaking the influence of the Church, and that this task must now be finally and definitively completed. [This is a "myth" in the sense that the older view that all Ireland's problems stemmed from British rule and any shortcomings of the new state were due to the residual effects of British oppression, with Oliver Cromwell and the landlords as all-purpose villains much as John Charles McQuaid and the priests are now, was a "myth" - something which did contain factual elements but was advanced as an overarching explanatory narrative explaining how things got to be as they are, and how they should develop in the future. In this version of history Sean Lemass and Mary Robinson take the places of Parnell/Pearse/de Valera in the former myth, and Ivana Bacik's KICKING AND SCREAMING with its call for general secularisation corresponds to those 1950schristian Brothers textbooks about how when Ireland fully recovered its Catholic heritage it would become a religious light to the nations and a picture of prosperity.] When hte people who run the state define their identity not merely without deference to catholicism but in active opposition to it, things look pretty bleak. This is one reason why in the C19 and C20 the Church made such efforts to form a catholic professional class through the schools run by the major religious orders - precisely to guard against such a situation.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2011 10:47:05 GMT
Philip Lawler has an assessment of the RTE documentary here - he accepts that the criticisms of Castrillon are accurate but thinks it is too harsh on Pope Benedict [Cardinal Ratzinger as then was]. www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8940 Here are his detailed criticisms - I offer a few comments: EXTRACT •The program fails to recognize that in addition to protecting children from abuse, the Church has an obligation to respect the canonical rights of accused priests. In at least some cases, Vatican officials may have had good reason to halt disciplinary proceedings: a possibility that “Unspeakable Crimes” does not even consider. [YES, BUT THIS DOES NOT FACE UP TO THE WILLINGNESS OF CURIAL OFFICIALS TO INTERVENE EVEN ON THE BASIS OF FLIMSY TECHNICALITIES AND WHEN A DEFENDANT WAS OBVIOUSLY, EVEN ADMITTEDLY, GUILTY.] •Similarly, the documentary pays no attention to the problems that could be created by mandatory reporting of sex-abuse charges in countries whose regimes are already hostile to the Catholic Church. In many nations the Vatican has a legitimate reason to be concerned about handing a priest over to the workings of the local justice system on the basis on an unproven allegation. [THIS HAS SOME VALIDITY - PRESUMABLY ON THE BASIS THAT A POLICY SET AT THE CENTRE WOULD SET A PRECEDENT WORLDWIDE - BUT AGAIN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CASES INVOLVING COUNTRIES WHERE THIS DOES NOT APPLY, AND PERPETRATORS WHO ADMITTED THEIR GUILT AND WERE MERELY DISPUTING THE PENALTY INVOLVED.] •Moreover the program does not mention the disciplinary actions that diocesan bishops could take at their own discretion. Bishops could remove priests from active ministry if they chose to do so; they did not need Vatican approval. [BUT THE PRIESTS COULD HEN APPEAL TO THE VATICAN - AND I SUSPECT CURIAL OFFICIALS DISCOURAGED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES IN PART BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO HANDLE LARGE NUMBERS OF APPEALS WHICH WOULD GUM UP THE MACHINERY. THIS ALSO, BTW, EXPLAINS WHY THEY ARE SO RELUCTANT TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST WELL-DOCUMENTED CLAIMS OF HETERODOXY AT DIOCESAN LEVEL] •”Unspeakable Crimes” revives charges against Cardinal Ratzinger that were raised early in 2010, regarding cases that arose in Wisconsin and California. These charges were persuasively answered months ago, as thorough research would have revealed. •The documentary does not report the important revelation, made in December of last year, that Cardinal Ratzinger had been pushing for swifter dismissal of abusive priests as early as 1988. Instead the RTE program makes the unsustainable suggestion that the future Pontiff’s attitudes changed as a result of efforts by the English-speaking bishops... END OF EXTRACT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2011 10:50:55 GMT
Another piece by Lawler following up on the one above. He notes that both the NATIONAL CAHTOLIC REPORTER ("liberal") and the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER ("orthodox") have criticised some aspects of the programme: EXTRACT Two excellent American commentators have pointed out the many flaws in the Irish documentary: John Allen for the National Catholic Reporter and Jimmy Akin for the National Catholic Register. Ordinarily the Reporter and the Register are on the opposite sides of controversial topics, so when their reports jibe, their agreement carries more than the usual force. What’s more, Allen and Akin make a number of important points. •The Congregation for Clergy, the ultimate source of the cautions expressed in the “smoking gun” letter, is just one office in the Roman Curia, not the final arbiter of worldwide policies. At the time in question another Vatican office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was also handling sex-abuse complaints, and taking a harder line. There was no single unified Vatican policy until 2001. •The Vatican never told Irish priests to cover up abuse, nor did the 1997 letter suggest that they should disobey the country’s legal requirements for reporting criminal activity. The Vatican’s reservations centered on a proposal to report all accusations of abuse—even those that were unsubstantiated. •The papal nuncio warned Irish bishops that they must respect the Code of Canon Law, which includes “due process” rights for accused clerics. If those rights were not protected, the accused priests would have grounds for a successful appeal. Thus the Vatican was reminding the Irish hierarchy about the importance of proper legal procedures within the Church. •An ominous reference to “moral and canonical concerns” about mandatory reporting was a reference to the confessional seal, Father Lombardi said. The papal nuncio was not suggesting any principled objection to reporting other evidence of crimes. These are all important points, exposing serious flaws in the RTE presentation. Nevertheless, the documentary does furnish evidence that when the Irish bishops sought to make an aggressive disciplinary effort to root out predator-priests, they encountered resistance rather than support from some Vatican officials. The RTE program includes interviews with Irish bishops, who leave no doubt that when they sat in a meeting with Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos—then the prefect of the Congregation for Clergy—they saw him as an opponent of their plans. We already know that Cardinal Castrillon applauded efforts to protect abusive priests from prosecution. At the height of the American sex-abuse scandal he told reporters that the problem had been exaggerated by the media; as late as last year he was defending a letter in which he congratulated a French bishop for hiding a priest from prosecution. When Irish bishops report that he opposed their efforts to uproot the scandal, we have every reason to believe them... END OF EXTRACT www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=760
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 16, 2011 12:41:52 GMT
Those who are following our Irish scandals may be interested in this blog, which argues they are grossly exaggerated and that legitimate safeguards for the accused are being pushed aside arbitrarily. I think he underrates the seriousness of the abuse issue but he does link to a lot of useful documentation. Here, for example, is an useful collection of material relating to Joh Cooney and hsi allegations against John Charles McQuaid: irishsalem.com/individuals/accused/john-charles-mcquaid/index.phpirishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/index.phpHere we see even Fr Brendan Hoban protesting in 2006 at Cooney's claims that references in episcopal correspondence to a "house of correction for wayward priests" indicate a coverup of clerical abuse: irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/cooney-goes-beyond-pale.phpEXTRACT from Fr Hoban's piece - full text of this and Cooney's piece to which Hoban is replying at link: So a decision of the Irish bishops to fund a centre for the care of priests 'unfit for missionary or other priestly work' or priests incapacitated through non-cultural causes was not some sort of conspiracy by 'this episcopal clique' to cover up something but a long overdue recognition that the care of priests needed to be given greater priority and needed to be properly funded. My problem with John Cooney's piece is the implication that any priest with any medical condition who went for medical treatment could well, nudge, nudge, have been involved in sexual abuse. This is an outrageous slur on such priests and deeply upsetting for them and their families. Can priests not even be ill now without a journalist drawing unfounded conclusions on the basis of a single document? END Main site: irishsalem.com/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 30, 2011 13:05:29 GMT
I have been posting about the horrible scandal involving Fr Tom Euteneur, formerly of Human Life International on the "Exorcism" thread because it involved abuse of the Rite of Exorcism. I am posting here as well as some of you may not have seen it and may be starting to come across references to it. To summarise: Fr E has admitted misconduct with one woman and has been removed from ministry by his bishop and sacked by HLI. The parents of the young woman have issued a statement saying there are other victims and Fr E systematically misused his priestly ministry. I fear this abominable conduct of Fr. E will do grave harm to the pro-life cause and to the Faith, and I daresay the mockers, blasphemers and pro-aborts are already seizing on it. We must not be disheartened, Faith and life are greater than one man's crimes. Remember our own sins and ask for God's grace. EXTRACT FROM PARENTS' STATEMENT May Our Lord's divine love and the tender love of the Blessed Virgin Mary infuse and envelope the victims, including our daughter, on their lengthy journey to spiritual, psychological, and emotional recovery. May God's grace, combined with the extraordinary strength and courage of our daughter (and other victims), our countless prayers and the tireless work of their doctors and therapists, eventually heal the victims from the abusive behavior perpetuated by Euteneuer. Lastly, believing that the resurrected Christ can bring good even out of great evil, we ask Our Lord that His Church not suffer undue harm from Euteneuer's abusive behaviors and the subsequent public outcry, but that uncovering the Truth in this case actually strengthens the Church's pro-life mission and helps us to better understand the Rite of Exorcism. May God have mercy on Euteneuer's soul. END www.fightingirishthomas.com/2011/02/beyond-grave-fathers-and-mothers.htmlwww.fightingirishthomas.com/p/links-concerning-fr-thomas-euteneuer.html
|
|
|
Post by humphrey on Apr 11, 2011 20:27:52 GMT
This is the text of an advert the Catholic League placed in New York Times on the clerical sex abuse scandal. www.catholicleague.org/nytstraighttalk.phpIt's very militant but isn't very sensitive to the feeling of abuse victims.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 13, 2011 9:56:12 GMT
It makes some reasonable points, but starting off with a broad insinuation that many claimants are extortionists is not the best way to go about it. (There may be some truth in it, but it should be placed a LOT further down the message, given that the vast majority clearly are genuine, and the evidence of cover-ups and malfeasance is overwhelming.)
|
|