The Vatican's 'smoking gun' re their perverted priest protection plan

[preCRT]

They can't keep denying it now, it is out in the open. The bastards should rot in jail, then in hell:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...sh_bishops_not_to_report_abuse/?p1=News_links

Vatican warned Irish bishops not to report abuse

This image shows a copy of a newly revealed 1997 letter from the Vatican, obtained by Irish broadcasters RTE and provided to The Associated Press, warning Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police, a disclosure that victims groups described as "the smoking gun" needed to show that the Vatican enforced a worldwide culture of cover-up. The letter documents the Vatican's rejection of a 1996 Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify pedophile priests following Ireland's first wave of publicly disclosed lawsuits. (AP Photo/RTE)



By Shawn Pogatchnik
Associated Press / January 18, 2011

DUBLIN—A 1997 letter from the Vatican warned Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police -- a disclosure that victims' groups described as "the smoking gun" needed to show that the church enforced a worldwide culture of covering up crimes by pedophile priests.

The newly revealed letter, obtained by Irish broadcasters RTE and provided to The Associated Press, documents the Vatican's rejection of a 1996 Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify pedophile priests following Ireland's first wave of publicly disclosed lawsuits.

The letter undermines persistent Vatican claims, particularly when seeking to defend itself in U.S. lawsuits, that Rome never instructed local bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police. It instead emphasizes the church's right to handle all child-abuse allegations and determine punishments in house rather than give that power to civil authorities.

Signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's diplomat to Ireland, the letter instructs Irish bishops that their new policy of making the reporting of suspected crimes mandatory "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature."

Storero wrote that canon law, which required abuse allegations and punishments to be handled within the church, "must be meticulously followed." Any bishops who tried to impose punishments outside the confines of canon law would face the "highly embarrassing" position of having their actions overturned on appeal in Rome, he wrote.

Catholic officials in Ireland and the Vatican declined AP requests to comment on the letter, which RTE said it received from an Irish bishop.

Child-abuse activists in Ireland said the 1997 letter demonstrates that the protection of pedophile priests from criminal investigation was not only sanctioned by Vatican leaders but ordered by them.

"The letter is of huge international significance, because it shows that the Vatican's intention is to prevent reporting of abuse to criminal authorities. And if that instruction applied here, it applied everywhere," said Colm O'Gorman, director of the Irish chapter of human rights watchdog Amnesty International.

Joelle Casteix, a director of U.S. advocacy group Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, described the letter as "the smoking gun we've been looking for."

Casteix said it was certain to be cited by victims' lawyers seeking to pin responsibility directly on the Vatican rather than local dioceses. She said investigators long have sought such a document showing Vatican pressure on a group of bishops "thwarting any kind of justice for victims."

"We now have evidence that the Vatican deliberately intervened to order bishops not to turn pedophile priests over to law enforcement," she said. "And for civil lawsuits, this letter shows what victims have been saying for dozens and dozens of years: What happened to them involved a concerted cover-up that went all the way to the top...

Truly disgusting

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'm sorry; I hate to say it, but when I was a 16 year old I would have loved to have my teacher pop my cherry.


Oh wait... If it's gay then it's wrong... I forgot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Claims_of_inaccuracy

 

[UberNeuman]

The Religion of Piece..... of ass....

 

[Fern]

...not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police..

I don't know that you should report ALL suspected cases to police. For one thing, I think you need more than a mere suspicion to go around accusing someone of something this serious. For another, priests etc are expected to have a level of confidentiality like that of lawyers. And then's there is the not-so-small matter of lawsuits.

The letter undermines persistent Vatican claims, particularly when seeking to defend itself in U.S. lawsuits, that Rome never instructed local bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police.

I can't read the letter linked, the print is too small for me. I'd really need to read it before judging. Did the letter tell the priests to withhold evidence? I.e. does this newly found letter contradict the vatican's claims as the article claims?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

I see the "strictly confidential" header, I note it's 14 years after it was sent, and I remember the Wikileaks view:

That when powerful organizations have the secrecy to communicate, it increases the likelihood and ability for them to conspire in activities bad for society.

That leaking secret documents and reducing their confidence in that secrecy throws a monkey wrench into their plotting and might curtail some of it.

Even the best organizations seem vulnerable, as with the Catholic Church here - much less other organizations.

Wikileaks might be naive and ineffective with the idea they can have much impact, but it sure reinforces their point.

We don't seem to have figured out a better way for accountability much. Other than the Freedom of Information Act - gutted by Bush but restored now - clearly there is massive over-classification and this hides all kinds of things the people should be informed of, but there's no plan to fix that.

 

[waggy]

I'm sorry; I hate to say it, but when I was a 16 year old I would have loved to have my teacher pop my cherry.


Oh wait... If it's gay then it's wrong... I forgot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Claims_of_inaccuracy

except for the fact most of the priest were male. so you wanted your ass cherry poped?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

except for the fact most of the priest were male. so you wanted your ass cherry poped?

Right; it's gay so it's totally wrong and immoral for the older person to have sex with the younger person.


But only because it's gay.


Right?

 

[waggy]

Right; it's gay so it's totally wrong and immoral for the older person to have sex with the younger person.


But only because it's gay.


Right?

..you have issues.

i don't care if you want fucked up the ass. whatever turns you on. but having a priest abuse young kids should not be happening. then having a church cover it up is another.

it is immoral for a male or female to abuse thier position to guilt/force/talk a child (some were younger then 16) into sex.

but hey defend the church for it. the priest and those that covered it up will pay in the end.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

having a priest abuse young kids should not be happening

Because it's gay; which is wrong.

If it was a hot 23 year old nun doing this with 16-17 year old boys we wouldn't be having the same level of out rage.. .because the nun is hot... and it isn't gay.


Because gay is wrong.


Trust me, I get what you are saying.

 

[LumbergTech]

Because it's gay; which is wrong.

If it was a hot 23 year old nun doing this with 16-17 year old boys we wouldn't be having the same level of out rage.. .because the nun is hot... and it isn't gay.


Because gay is wrong.


Trust me, I get what you are saying.

we get that you are pro pedophilia ...calm down

 

[JS80]

lol dixy certainly made the thread more interesting

 

[nageov3t]

where were these priests when I was 16?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

we get that you are pro pedophilia ...calm down

I can see how you would get that from my posts, I clearly harbor homosexual tendencies which is why I consider suggesting that someone wants his "ass cherry poped" and to be "fucked up the ass" grievous insults. And as we all know a 23yo having sex with a 17 year old is gross and disgusting... When it's two dudes.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

A medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Claims_of_inaccuracy

The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old.

For people that are not catching what I'm doing:

It's called identifying the premise of the argument. Being that the outrage over a hot 20 year old nun giving some to a 16 year old horny boy would be much less, I have clearly identified the assumption on which the argument is based:

Gay is wrong.

 

[daishi5]

I can see how you would get that from my posts, I clearly harbor homosexual tendencies which is why I consider suggesting that someone wants his "ass cherry poped" and to be "fucked up the ass" grievous insults. And as we all know a 23yo having sex with a 17 year old is gross and disgusting... When it's two dudes.


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

A medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Claims_of_inaccuracy

The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old.

For people that are not catching what I'm doing:

It's called identifying the premise of the argument. Being that the outrage over a hot 20 year old nun giving some to a 16 year old horny boy would be much less, I have clearly identified the assumption on which the argument is based:

Gay is wrong.

I had been under the impression that most of the abuse cases involved young males around the 13 year old range. But most of that came from the fact that I don't really know anything about the catholic church, except that you need to eat crackers to not go to hell. It is interesting to find out that it was older boys, that does change things a bit.

Of course, if the priests were doing it to unwilling 16 year old boys, that would be just as wrong as if they were doing it to unwilling 16 year old girls, we would all be up in arms over that as well. The difference in outrage between the priests and teachers sleeping with male students is the assumption that men always want sex.

 

[Atreus21]

Because it's gay; which is wrong.

If it was a hot 23 year old nun doing this with 16-17 year old boys we wouldn't be having the same level of out rage.. .because the nun is hot... and it isn't gay.


Because gay is wrong.


Trust me, I get what you are saying.

To some extent you are correct. I don't think the anger would be as strong in the hypothetical situation you cited, but that's humanity's failure. A trusted figure of authority taking advantage of those in their care, especially sexually, is horrible.

 

[airdata]

All practicing catholics, please stand up.

 

[HumblePie]

All practicing catholics, please stand up.

Hard to do that with the altar boy in your lap.

 

[irishScott]

1. Priest rapes pubescent boys in the ass. Boys are not gay at this point, and are just doing what the Priest tells them to do in the "name of the lord."
2. People get outraged over the abuse and trauma inflicted on the kid.
3. DixyCat: It's because the priest is gay isn't it?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Awesome points!

They do a good job of identifying the assumptions on which the person writing the article is playing. Part of why the article that recontextualizes the letters, as oposed to a flat reading of the letters, is so evocative. The problem of course is that when the mandate simply says that not all cases of misconduct must be reported then identifying that the majority of sexual contact is consensual removes the false premise on which the appeal to emotion is built.


What we have left is someone abusing their power in order to get sex; Something not nearly as evocative as the implied child rape... Unless gay sex makes you particularly angry.

 

[HumblePie]

Awesome points!

They do a good job of identifying the assumptions on which the person writing the article is playing. Part of why the article that recontextualizes the letters, as oposed to a flat reading of the letters, is so evocative. The problem of course is that when the mandate simply says that not all cases of misconduct must be reported then identifying that the majority of sexual contact is consensual removes the false premise on which the appeal to emotion is built.


What we have left is someone abusing their power in order to get sex; Something not nearly as evocative as the implied child rape... Unless gay sex makes you particularly angry.

No, I find any form of child abuse "evocative" to the extreme. I could care less who was the perp or the victim in terms of identity. The act alone is one of the most vile things a human being can do.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No, I find any form of child abuse "evocative" to the extreme. I could care less who was the perp or the victim in terms of identity. The act alone is one of the most vile things a human being can do.

You sofoklis that the "child abuse" in question was consensual sex between two physically developed people, right?

Oh yea... But it was gay... Totally vile!

 

[TechBoyJK]

Awesome points!

They do a good job of identifying the assumptions on which the person writing the article is playing. Part of why the article that recontextualizes the letters, as oposed to a flat reading of the letters, is so evocative. The problem of course is that when the mandate simply says that not all cases of misconduct must be reported then identifying that the majority of sexual contact is consensual removes the false premise on which the appeal to emotion is built.


What we have left is someone abusing their power in order to get sex; Something not nearly as evocative as the implied child rape... Unless gay sex makes you particularly angry.

Why wouldn't you expect people to be more disgusted by the idea of an older male priest raping young boys?

It's not to say that a beautiful nun raping a young girl wouldn't be as bad, but did that happen? I think you are too fixated on this being a gay issue.

Many people DO think gay sex is vile. Many people DO think it's immoral. Why wouldn't you expect them to be more outraged? I personally think the idea of gay male stiny buttsex is certainly gross and disgusting. I like women, so of course I'd be more disgusted by the priest on boy action versus a nun on boy action. It'd still be child rape, imho, but I think one is more gross than the other.

 

[Craig234]

Why wouldn't you expect people to be more disgusted by the idea of an older male priest raping young boys?

It's not to say that a beautiful nun raping a young girl wouldn't be as bad, but did that happen? I think you are too fixated on this being a gay issue.

Many people DO think gay sex is vile. Many people DO think it's immoral. Why wouldn't you expect them to be more outraged? I personally think the idea of gay male stiny buttsex is certainly gross and disgusting. I like women, so of course I'd be more disgusted by the priest on boy action versus a nun on boy action. It'd still be child rape, imho, but I think one is more gross than the other.

You need to separate your disgust for the sex from your respect for equal rights.

 

[Craig234]

1. Priest rapes pubescent boys in the ass. Boys are not gay at this point, and are just doing what the Priest tells them to do in the "name of the lord."

Uh, IMO boys are not sexualized, haven't been to puberty, but are 'gay' already.

 

[HumblePie]

You sofoklis that the "child abuse" in question was consensual sex between two physically developed people, right?

Oh yea... But it was gay... Totally vile!

Physical development has nothing to do with it. Mental does. There have been cases of girls as early of 9 years old becoming pregnant after being violated at such an early age. Obviously they are "physically" developed enough to have a child physically, but that doesn't mean that they should or that it is even right for them to.

As for a pedophile, physical development in reproductive terms doesn't even matter to some. As long as there is a hole to plug, it's all fair game to them. Which is wrong.

We have laws because they are there to help protect people who may not be mentally developed enough to make sound decisions that could possibly have repercussions that affect the rest of their life. If you have a problem with that then move to another country.