Pope blames the church's sins for sex scandal

[AshtonBlack]

And, now the Obama Administration has seen fit to file an amicus brief in a pedophile priest case in an attempt to protect the Vatican from the lawsuit. The Administration is arguing that the "Holy See" is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

What a waste of fucking money. I protest that our taxpayer dollars are being used to file briefs to defend the "Holy See." They have enough money for their own lawyers, and if they are immune they should be able to show it.

I could not agree more CES!

Your take on this is perfect, IMHO.

[Pappa]

What a waste of fucking money. I protest that our taxpayer dollars are being used to file briefs to defend the "Holy See." They have enough money for their own lawyers, and if they are immune they should be able to show it.

I could not agree more CES!

Your take on this is perfect, IMHO.

+many

[hadespussercats]

Coito Ergo Sum, all I can say is WORD.

[charlou]

Ayep.

Rather than shelter these criminals, why isn't the administration in support of bringing them to justice for crimes committed against its own citizens, at the very least?

[Robert_S]

And, now the Obama Administration has seen fit to file an amicus brief in a pedophile priest case in an attempt to protect the Vatican from the lawsuit. The Administration is arguing that the "Holy See" is immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

What a waste of fucking money. I protest that our taxpayer dollars are being used to file briefs to defend the "Holy See." They have enough money for their own lawyers, and if they are immune they should be able to show it.

WTF?

No really, WTF?

Obama can kiss my ass over this.

[JimC]

Gutless thinking from the State Department...

[Trolldor]

Standard behaviour from any State Department...

Fixed... unfortunately.

[JimC]

Standard behaviour from any State Department...

Fixed... unfortunately.

Probably true. The Vatican relies quite heavily on being seen as an equal player to nations, at least in many formal diplomatic senses. Perhaps one day the polite veil can be torn away, to reveal the festering visage...

[Hermit]

The pontiff said the Catholic church has always been tormented by problems of its own making — a tendency that is being witnessed today "in a truly terrifying way."

"The church needs to profoundly relearn penitence, accept purification, learn forgiveness but also justice," he said.

"Forgiveness cannot substitute justice," he said.

Brave words, and, at least on the surface of it, an apparent volte face. Except, they are not because it isn't. The importance of Ratzinger's comments lies in what he does not say. At no time between then and now has any pontiff revoked the secret policy document of 1962, known as Crimen Sollitcitationis, which in cases of paedophila within the catholic church compels perpetrator and victim alike, as well as anybody involved in investigating those cases, to perpetual silence on pain of excommunication. Not one single remark made by the popes nor any of their spokespeople can be construed as necessarily meaning that this policy is no longer operative. So far all we heard is superficially pleasant window dressing - public relations exercises in damage control devoid of any real policy change.

[Arse]

At no time between then and now has any pontiff revoked the secret policy document of 1962, known as Crimen Sollitcitationis, which in cases of paedophila within the catholic church compels perpetrator and victim alike, as well as anybody involved in investigating those cases, to perpetual silence on pain of excommunication.

I dispute this interpretation of Crimen Sollicitationis. The Catholic Church cannot excommunicate people for reporting a crime to the authorities, or for confessing a crime to the authorities. It has to be a serious breach on theological grounds for excommunication to be used. The Vatican is already guilty enough in this affair, let's not make shit up when they look bad enough simply by telling the truth.

[Animavore]

I blame sexy children.

[Hermit]

I blame sexy children.

You most likely thought you were being funny, and the onion satirised that attitude in an article eight years ago, but in 2007 at least one bishop was seriously of that opinion.

Bishop of Tenerife blames child abuse on the children
Dec 27, 2007 - 5:25 PM

Bernando Álvarez said that there are 13 year olds who are wanting to be abused, and 'if you are careless they will provoke you'

There is outrage in parts of Spanish society following declarations made over Christmas from the Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez.

His comments were that there are youngsters who want to be abused, and he compared that abuse to homosexuality, describing them both as prejudicial to society. He said that on occasions the abuse happened because the there are children who consent to it.
‘There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you’, he said.

The question arises: What is the difference between priests and pimples? Answer: pimples don't come on children's faces until the onset of puberty.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ayep.

Rather than shelter these criminals, why isn't the administration in support of bringing them to justice for crimes committed against its own citizens, at the very least?

Or, at least just not take the affirmative step to intervene on behalf of the wealthiest organization on Earth. I mean, maybe they are covered by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in which case the court should interpret and apply the law based on the facts. However, that doesn't mean the administration needs to write briefs and take up lawyer's time that the Vatican is perfectly capable of doing on its own.

[Arse]

So the Bishop of Tenerife has felt provoked by 13 year olds? Roman Polanski must be really regretting that he never got himself ordained.

[Hermit]

At no time between then and now has any pontiff revoked the secret policy document of 1962, known as Crimen Sollitcitationis, which in cases of paedophila within the catholic church compels perpetrator and victim alike, as well as anybody involved in investigating those cases, to perpetual silence on pain of excommunication.

I dispute this interpretation of Crimen Sollicitationis. The Catholic Church cannot excommunicate people for reporting a crime to the authorities, or for confessing a crime to the authorities. It has to be a serious breach on theological grounds for excommunication to be used. The Vatican is already guilty enough in this affair, let's not make shit up when they look bad enough simply by telling the truth.

Either I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, or you have not read Crimen Sollicitationis. It states quite clearly (paragraph 11 and elsewhwere in the document) that cases of paedophilia are to be kept secret in perpetuity, and that failure to do so will result in excommunication ipso jure (meaning canonical, that is to say, church law) which is cited further on.

• what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of
  care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after
  they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual
  silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining
  to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to
  observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in
  all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae, ipso
  facto and without any declaration [of such a penalty] having been incurred and reserved to the
  sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, even to the exclusion of the Sacred Penitentiary, are bound to
  observe [this secrecy] inviolably. Indeed by this law the Ordinaries are bound ipso jure or by the
  force of their own proper duty.

The basic ground on which this is said to be a theological matter is the Sanctity of the Confessional. It would seem that the catholic church has an extremely broad definition of the sacrum poenitentiae. Though not explicitly stated, but nevertheless inferred in paragraph one, any interaction with a priest under any circumstances takes place within the confines of "The holy Confessional".