www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Vatican response to American Bishops Clergy Abuse Policy

An interesting article. Don

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021017&cat=news&st=newspopepedophiliadc

I can't believe what the Vatican just did. What a slap in the face of American bishops. For all you eastern Catholics who need proof of what an oppressive, dictatorial tyrant can do, look no further than Rome. I am so glad I do not have to live under that oppressive regime.

If this results in several bishops repenting and retiring it will be a positive. If not, it's difficult to evaluate the good or ill of this rejection.

Dan Lauffer

Dear jporthodox,

An uncle who is a former MP priest said the same thing about living under the MP!

I take it you are Orthodox?

As someone who has read widely on Orthodox spirituality, let me assure you that there is no law or regulation in Orthodoxy that says an Orthodox Christian is not allowed to be courteous or respectful when discussing the religion of other people ie. Rome and Catholicism.

FYI

Alex

Ah yes. Oppresive. And if the American Bishops refused a priest an appeal (what if he were innocent?), the American laity would complain about the "medieval Church" out of step with America. Yada, yada, yada.

I, for one, am glad that Rome rejected this document. It was poorly thought out. Moreover, this document is born of fear of litigation and the desire to regain positive public opinion, not in a desire to follow the Will of God.

I watched a LOT of the footage of that bishops' meeting in Dallas. Out of all those bishops, ONLY TWO stood up and mentioned that SIN was at the root of this problem: The Most Rev. Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and the Most Rev. Ibrahim N. Ibrahim of Detroit for the Chaldeans.

Now, if you want me to discuss the root cause of this problem, you'll have to email me, because the politically incorrect things I would have to say would cause the Administrator of this board to get his BVDs in a knot.

Dear NDHoosier,

And there is no rule or regulation that says you shouldn't be respectful and courteous toward the Administrator at all times either, Big Guy!

And he didn't pay me to say that either . . .

Alex

I am also glad that this document was rejected.

This document appears to have been written merely to protect the bishops and that is unacceptable. As it stands those priests who are falsely accused are more-or-less assumed to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent. The document also does not properly address the needs of those who are victims (beginning with simple due process of the law and including counseling and whatever is necessary for healing). Further, it does not address what to do with guilty priests. Certainly they are to be removed from ministry but the Church has an obligation to call them to repentance and offer forgiveness (Christ offers forgiveness even to those who are guilty of the most horrible and sinful crimes). Finally, the document does not address what to do about the bishops who transferred these priests from parish to parish knowing of their behavior.

Discussions on this topic are most welcome, as they are quite necessary for the future health of the Church. Please remember that Forum rules demand Christian charity at all times (this means no personal accusations and concentrate on the cause and solution of the problem rather than the sins of specific individuals).

Dear jporthodox:

There are two "flaws" cited by the Vatican in temporarily withholding the required "recognitio" for the Dallas Policy adopted by the USCCB this June:

1. "lack" of due process; and
2. a "need" for a clearer definition of "sexual
abuse."

#1 The Dallas Policy fails to recognize the basic procedural rights of priests accused of sexual misconduct to have the allegations substantiated before punitive measures are taken. This is against the provisons of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church AND, of course, is against U.S. laws.

#2 The Dallas Policy was adopted in a hurry to mollify the nationwide clamor of the laity for a sweeping solution to the sex scandals that rocked the US Catholic Church. The USCCB had apparently missed to address the finer points in the Policy, like what constitute(s) "sexual abuse?" For instance, may "embracing" a Parishioner signify "touching with sexual intent?" Or, will the USCCB adopt the definitions of Federal and State criminal statutes?

To resolve this problem, Rome proposed to create, and will create, a Commission composed of Vatican and USCCB representatives.

Is this a "slap on the face of the American bishops?" NO!

Is this "dictatorial" and "oppressive?" NO! and NO!

You are Orthodox and you may not know the internal workings of the Vatican.

And you have no right to judge or pre-judge Rome and the USCCB.

AmdG

Dear Amado,

Actually, you've put your finger on precisely why communion with Rome is a "good thing" as Martha Stewart would say!

Rome has intervened in the life of the U.S. Church to correct something that certainly needs to be corrected.

The Ecumenical Patriarch actually excommunicated the Jerusalem Patriarch for a canonical infraction not too, too long ago.

I would like to put the question to our Orthodox friend, jporthodox:

What is more "repressive," to correct bishops in communion with you, or to excommunicate them?

Just wondering . . .

Alex

Have you been watching a "Living w/ Martha Stewart" marathon, Alex? That's the second time you quoted her in as many days! :p

Dear Mikey,

My wife watches her make cakes. I've been hearing about her financial investing methods

When down in the U.S., I picked a journal "Is Martha Stewart Living?"

They had a picture of someone who looks like her trimming off the branches of a small bush and then gluing them back on . . .

I think she's a great lady. And she's of Slavic background - what can I say?

Alex

Dear Admin:

I agree that an accused priest should not be presumed guilty under Church policy. However, for the safety of all, the accused priest should be removed from all contact or possible contact with minors immediately. Simply moving the priest to another parish where he is not known is no longer a solution and was a cowardly response by some bishops. On this point, all seem to agree that bishops can't behave as some of them did in the past. In moving priests without saying a word to the authorities, some may well have aided and abetted the crime of pedophilia in its commission.

Although "due process" and "presumption of innocence" are generally concepts within the criminal justice system, it nevertheless seems just to apply them generally in our own dealings within the Church. False accusations do happen, after all. And when they are of such a horrible nature, they can really be profoundly hurtful to the accused.

What disturbs me most is that historically some bishops failed to report allegations of improper behavior involving children to the police. Now, if the Church fails to adopt a policy making an affirmative duty on Church officials to report alleged abuses, then it is possible that government may step in and establish such a duty for them. In such a case, the Vatican would have no say at all. (School officials already have a duty to report allegations in many locales, and an extremely well crafted regulation applying the same duty to other institutions, such as churches, would not necessarily incur serious debate under separation of church and state.) For this reason, it is best to come up with a set of fair and comprehensive "house rules" wihtin the Church to guide bishops.

This is a serious issue. Debate is good. It is important to come up with guidance that is fair to all involved.

Also, I think we do have to look for the role of forgiveness in Church policy. The criminal justice system may well send some of the guilty priests to jail, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pray for their conversion and for the healing of their victims. And we still need to pray for the bishops and priests who want to do the right thing - for the good shepherds who are out there and who have sacrificed much to serve the faithful.

P et B!

Hello:

I think that what the document needs to address is the distinction between the civil/criminal judicial process and an eclessiastical judicial process for accused clergymen.

I think these two proecesses must remain independent because, in principle, they should seek two different things.

The civil/criminal process will seek a settlement between the parties involved and/or the conviction of a suspect.

An eclessiastical judicial process will not seek settlement, it will seek healing, it will not seek conviction, it will seek discipline.

Since I watched some of the Dallas debate over C-SPAN, I thought the discussion was kept at an extremely worldly level.

Someone at Rome seems to think in the same way.

But yes, that is what authority is for. It is better to have the authority to say: "what you did is incorrect/incomplete, so go back and rework it", than not to have the authority and then having to say: "what you did is incorrect/incomplete, so go to hell".

Shalom,
Memo.

Where can H.G. Mar Ibrahim's remarks be found?