A little known fact is that until 2001 there were explicit rules in place, issued by The Vatican, to every bishop in the world, on how to deal with allegations of abuse.
These rules included a vow of the utmost secrecy under threat of excommunication, to be sworn by clergy receiving complaints AND sworn by victims.
In 2001 then Cardinal Ratzinger, sent another set of instructions to every bishop in the world, stating that allegations were to be dealt with "exclusively" by the church
and were subject to "The Pontifical secret", which means one risks excommunication by discussing matters of abuse outside of the church.
If you are interested in copies of these documents they can be found here:
1922 an 62 instructions from rome to all bishops in the world which remained rules until 2001
Letter from Ratzinger regarding abuse and "pontifical secret"
Text of the oath sworn by clergy and victims: "I will never for any reason directly or indirectly, by gesture, word,writing or in any other way and under any other pretext, even that of a greater good, or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation or dispensation is granted to me by the supreme pontiff".
2 comments:
Well, I must admit I was one of the few Sinead "defenders" so-to-speak, way back in the day. I did not defend her action of ripping up a photo of the Pope on national TV, mind you, because I feel the office of the Pope deserves respect, even if the person holding it might not have justifiably earned respect for himself.
I suspected then that Sinead--or somebody she loved--had been on the receiving end of some sort of horrible abuse by our Church and said as much to many irate conservative Catholics I knew at the time. Boy, was Sinead hated on by them!
Now we understand a bit more of where she was coming from. Doesn't make her action right, but it sure does make it a hell of a lot more understandable given what we now know about the endemic abuse and cover-up that has happened in her country at the hands of the Catholic Church for many decades.
And if JPII's response to the victims of Maciel for decades (not only by ignoring their cries but by then adding insult to injury by holding Maciel up as an "efficacious guide to youth"!) is any indication of what kind of response the Church gave to those who tried to speak out in Ireland, I can understand Sinead's fury.
I never believed she was a hater of God. Just that she was a hater of abuse done in His Name.
Anybody else remember when the first reports on the Magdalen Laundries started coming out (sometime in the 90s, I believe?). I remember the outcry among the "conservative" Catholics I knew about how anti-Catholic the reports were and how we needed to boycott the documentary, etc. What fools those who tried to hide their heads in the sand look like now.
The true anti-Catholics are the ones within our Church who have allowed this abuse and cover-up to continue for decades while attacking and persecuting those who tried to bring the truth to light. They have done more damage to Our Church than any so-called "church-haters" on the outside ever could.
reports on the Magdalen Laundries started coming out (sometime in the 90s, I believe?). I remember the outcry among the "conservative" Catholics I knew about how anti-Catholic the reports were and how we needed to boycott the documentary, etc. What fools those who tried to hide their heads in the sand look like now.visit us www.exlcblog.info
Post a Comment