VATICAN CITY, June 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Sin, satanic influence and the toleration of heresy lie at the root of the priestly sexual abuse scandals, Pope Benedict XVI said today. Precisely because it is an institution erected by God to make himself sacramentally "present to all men and women," the devil is interested in destroying the priesthood, he said.
Referring to the line in Psalm 22 ("Your rod and your staff - they comfort me"), Benedict became explicit about the need for the "rod" of discipline to correct errors in the Church.
"The Church too must use the shepherd's rod," he said, "the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray."
"Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented."
Pope Benedict spoke today to 15,000 priests at the closing Mass of the Vatican's Year for Priests at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
The priesthood, Pope Benedict said, is not "pleasing to the 'enemy,'" (the devil).
"He would have rather preferred to see it disappear, so that God would ultimately be driven out of the world. And so it happened that, in this very year of joy for the sacrament of the priesthood, the sins of priests came to light - particularly the abuse of the little ones, in which the priesthood, whose task is to manifest God's concern for our good, turns into its very opposite."
With evident personal sadness, the pope again extended his apology to the victims of sexual abuse, saying, "We too insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved."
This was followed by a promise to "do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again" by more scrutiny and better formation of those who apply for the priesthood.
Statistics on the abuse scandals have found that the abuse cases are overwhelmingly homosexual in nature and occurred between the 1960s and 1980s, at time in which psychological and theological trends were against excluding men with homosexual inclinations from the priesthood.
Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was clear with a 2005 document issued from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office that had oversight on the abuse scandals around the world, that men with such inclinations should not be admitted to seminaries.
Benedict also made more subtle references to the movement from the Church's extreme left wing to open the priesthood to women and to married men. Among the opening lines of his homily, Pope Benedict laid out the nature of the priesthood, saying it is not a matter of mere functionality but a sacramental reality derived from Christ himself.
"The priest is not a mere office-holder," he said, "like those which every society needs in order to carry out certain functions."
Showing posts with label sex abuse scandals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex abuse scandals. Show all posts
Catholic Stuff: The Sexual Abuse Issue & Is Peggy Noonan Stuck in First Gear?
There has been some confusion regarding the media's misinterpretation of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's words so Father Fessio has clarified the Cardinal's remarks. Maybe, the good Cardinal, in his willingness to be open and transparent, overestimated the media's intelligence?
Jack Valero points out that the abuse problem is not only a Catholic Problem but becoming a problem of great proportions across the board and has reached American teachers, relatives, and Sweden's secular state schools but yet, the media ONLY focuses on and targets the Catholic Church.
Is Peggy Noonan stuck in first gear when the Church has moved into third gear? Has she even read SACRAMENTORUM SANCTITATIS TUTELA ? Does she realize exactly what steps the Church has done in order to address the abuse issue? She charges the Church with complacency but isn't looking at the history of what the Church has done to address the priest sexual abuse issue. Has she acknowledged anything that the Church has done to address the priest sexual abuse issue? Please, someone point out to me if she has has acknowledged the very important steps the Church has taken to address the priest abuse scandals.
Jack Valero points out that the abuse problem is not only a Catholic Problem but becoming a problem of great proportions across the board and has reached American teachers, relatives, and Sweden's secular state schools but yet, the media ONLY focuses on and targets the Catholic Church.
Is Peggy Noonan stuck in first gear when the Church has moved into third gear? Has she even read SACRAMENTORUM SANCTITATIS TUTELA ? Does she realize exactly what steps the Church has done in order to address the abuse issue? She charges the Church with complacency but isn't looking at the history of what the Church has done to address the priest sexual abuse issue. Has she acknowledged anything that the Church has done to address the priest sexual abuse issue? Please, someone point out to me if she has has acknowledged the very important steps the Church has taken to address the priest abuse scandals.
In Defense of Pope Benedict Part 2
MercatorNet states "According to the London Times, Fr Kiesle was only 31 when in 1978 he was “sentenced [by civil authorities apparently] to three years’ probation after pleading no contest to charges of molesting two young boys” ages not given, in a rectory in San Francisco. Three years later his bishop wrote to the CDF recommending that Kiesle be laicised. (As in Irish cases, however, it would seem the bishop already had powers to do this under Canon Law.)"
Please remember the social atmosphere in 1981 versus today. The same year that a letter was sent to the Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger had just become the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and had a mountain of letters awaiting him regarding various types of abuse issues within the Catholic Church resulting from the chaotic 1970's, and had new set of responsibilities on his plate. This wasn't like Cardinal Ratzinger had been in the position for many years and outright ignored the pleas coming from San Francisco. It would seem that whomever Cardinal Ratzinger took over for should take the lions share of the blame.
"The CDF letter, bearing Cardinal Ratzinger’s signature, and no doubt representing his views if not actually written by him, said the arguments for removing Kiesle were of “grave significance”, and he urged more careful review and more time, taking into account the “good of the universal Church” and the “detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age” of the priest. "
Could this have been handled differently? Maybe. But, that doesn't mean that Cardinal Ratzinger was part of a huge "cover-up" with the Catholic Church. In fact, it was the Bishops across America who were complicit in the coverup of sexual abuse allegations and listened to the advice of secular thereapists who thought there was a cure for these pedophile priests. The therapists thought the solution for the problem was to move the pedophile priests from parish-to-parish. This is outrageous!! This is unconscionable!!! I feel for all those little children who were violated. What those pedophile priests did was immoral and horrific.
"It is clear that pastoral considerations required more caution, not for the case to be buried. Didn’t the local population in San Francisco know about Kiesle already? Was he ever returned to active ministry? It seems not, but this is a crucial point that the reports don’t cover. In any case, Fr Kiesle was laicised in 1987. In 2002 he was arrested and charged with 13 counts of child molestation -- all from the 1970s, note. Eventually he served time in prison for molesting a young girl in 1995."
Plus, as Phil Lawler points out, journalists had their eyes blind-folded to the facts and ignored journalistic standards all to enagage in an anti-Catholic smear campaign. Here are some key questions and facts that Phil Lawler points out:
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
Yes, this is tragic, but that doesn't mean that there is evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger is culpable for a "cover-up". We must pray for the healing of all the children who were violated by pedophile priests. We must not let our feelings, axes to grind, political or theological differences with the Catholic Church cloud our judgement as to the reality as it relates to the sex abuse cases within the Catholic Church.
In Defense of Pope Benedict XVI
In my life, I am one of the people that has been the hardest on priests and the Church because of the sexual abuse scandal. I was not sexually abused but let’s just say I might have well have been given a flash or preview of the future into the huge cover ups of sexual abuse that was committed by priests within the Church. This is unconscionable! These priests betrayed both the trust of children and God when they abused their role as priests by committing such horrendous acts. These priests stripped away childrens’ innocence from them and misused their trust all so that they could appease their feelings. Pope Benedict has acted as swiftly as possible to remove the priests who sexually abused children. I feel that it is my duty as a Catholic to defend the Pope and his honor when his character is wrongly assassinated by both the secular community and dissenters from within the Church who seek to destroy the very foundation of the Catholic Church.
Here is some evidence to show that Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) had no part in any cover up of the priests' sexual abuse scandals:
Fr. Lawrence Murphy was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003 and is writing to clarify details and reveal the reality of the abuse cases with regards to Cardical Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI.
Fr. Murphy says:
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;
To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.
Before proceeding, it is important to point out the scourge that child sexual abuse has been — not only for the church but for society as well. Few actions can distort a child’s life more than sexual abuse. It is a form of emotional and spiritual homicide and it starts a trajectory toward a skewed sense of sexuality. When committed by a person in authority, it creates a distrust of almost anyone, anywhere.
As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.
As for the numerous reports about the case of Father Murphy, the back-story has not been reported as of yet.
In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.
Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening. CONTINUED HERE
Fr. Raymond J. de Souza responds here to the outrageous NYT article. I will not pass along that piece of hate filled anti-Catholic propoganda.
There is a HUGE cover up under way. See here:
WORCESTER, MA. A former pastor Andrew J. Bierkan, 54, at the First Congregational Church of Sutton who now heads a church in Ohio has been indicted here on charges of unnatural rape of a child and posing a child in a state of nudity. He is now pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte. (Worcester Telegram & Gazette, August 13, 2003)
Eddie Thomas, pastor of St. Luke Baptist Church in Ringgold, LA., is arrested and charged with indecent behavior with a juvenile, aggravated incest and pornography involving a juvenile. (the Shreveport Times, July 17, 2003)
South Austrailia, AUS. A South Australian police task force into child sex abuse within the Anglican Church had identified 217 victims and 48 possible offenders, police said today. However the number of victims could rise to more than 400 as investigations continued, Police Commissioner Mal Hyde said. Mr Hyde today likened the scale of police investigations into child sex abuse to those for the infamous Snowtown bodies-in-the-barrels murders in 1999. (The Age, July 16 2003)
Lake Wales, FL. The pastor at the Church of the Nazarene has been charged with sexually assaulting a male 17-year-old youth leader three times in 2001. The Rev. Gene Francis, 52, of Lake Wales, was arrested Tuesday and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, June 4, 2003)
Tuscon, AZ. The Rev. David Valencia, 47, assistant pastor of a Pentecostal church is expected in court Wednesday on rape charges issued by Pennsylvania authorities. In Pennsylvania, Valencia was an assistant pastor at Christ Church at Grove Farm, an interdenominational church that uses Anglican liturgy. The pastor of Christ Church, the Rev. John Guest, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Valencia was dismissed in late 2001 because he was found to have pornography on an office computer after he was warned about a similar incident months earlier. (Tucson Citizen, May 31, 2003)
CONTINUED HERE
ALL SEX ABUSE SCANDALS ARE BOTH HORRENDOUS AND UNCONSCIONABLE. Hmmm... But, it is becoming clear that the secular community (particularly liberals) along with Church dissidents have an axe to grind and a vendetta against the Catholic Church. The truth must be exposed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
