When I saw John Paul's burial tomb little did I know that he would one day be a saint. I felt that it would come but ....wow.

JPII was a living saint in the eyes of many before he passed away. His beatification, though due him, will come as no surprise to most of us.

As some of you know, I am neither a believer nor someone who grew up in the Roman Catholic tradition. So perhaps I come to this discussion burdened by both prejudice and ignorance. But, I have a problem with the phenomenon of sainthood in general and modern-day saints in particular.

I am sure that John Paul was, at his core, a good and decent man, but I recall (from the perspective I mentioned at the outset) having a number of quarrels with stands he took as Pope. The Pontificate is, in this increasingly secular age -- if it is anything at all -- a political role, and JPII was a very conservative politician, setting back (or at least not moving forward) the status of women, Gay folk, and people afflicted with HIV/AIDS.

I guess it's the mystical aspect of beatification and eventual canonization I don't "get." Surely creation includes innumerable "good and decent" people as deserving of this "brass ring.". Why does JPII's celebrity (yes!) give him an inside track, especially in light of the many ways in which he squandered the opportunity that good fortune and political acumen provided him to improve the world?

BankStreet, saints are human beings, not angels, not God-like creatures, and not perfect. Faithful persons are not canonized because of their social or political stands or because they are “good and decent people.” They are chosen, according to our teachings, because they have “practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace.”

I would agree that John Paul II’s views on homosexuality did not have the opportunity to blossom to recognition of what modern science has taught us. The same could be said of Abraham Lincoln, who gave full citizenship to black men yet refrained from allowing the same for women of any race. Still, most of us consider Lincoln to have been a great man.

Saints come from the same ranks as all of the rest of us; they have foibles, weaknesses, and personal problems. I once had a priest argue with me that Joan of Arc was mentally ill because of the voices she heard and that she was sinful because she dressed as a man. He did not argue that she was not a saint though.

But ... how many millions can be said to have "practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace" (including non-Catholics, non-Christians, and even non-believers)? Why single out one man, who has had the advantage of visibility ("celebrity") for this veneration? I guess it ismy "Quaker heritage" (I qualify the usage because I have no heritage of Quakerism, having been a member of the Society of Friends for only ten years), with its tradition of egalitarianism (and absence of clergy, for that matter) that powers these observations.

John Paul II is the exception rather than the rule. Most saints are not celebrities, and when they are canonized it might only be mentioned in the Catholic Review, but not the mainstream press. Part of the process of canonization is that miracles have occurred after the faithful has asked the departed to intercede for them. So that fact would usually limit the candidates to people of some reputation. One isn’t going to pray to someone they have never heard of. Here’s a list of saints canonized last year. As you can see none of them were famous or powerful:

Saint Camilla Battista Varani, a nun of the Poor Clares.
Saint Giulia Salzano, a nun and a teacher.
Saint Candida Maria de Jesus Cipitria y Barriola, a nun of the Daughters of Jesus.
Saint Stanislas Kazimierczyk, a priest and a teacher.
Saint Andre Bessette, a priest from Montreal.
Saint Mary MacKillop, a nun and a teacher.

We have Jewish saints, like Anne, the mother of Mary. The Church also recognizes saints of the Orthodox churches. But you won’t see protestant saints for the mere fact that Protestantism is a heresy. “Saint” and “heretic” are mutually exclusive.

Pius XI wrote of “the heresies begotten by the Reformation,” that “in these heresies …we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”

Usually saints are from religious orders, but not always. Joan of Arc was not. Elizabeth Ann Seton was a wife and mother, and an Episcopalian living a yuppie lifestyle. Eventually she converted to the true faith. She founded a school for girls in Emmitsburg Maryland and later founded the Sisters of Charity. Outside of Maryland and the lucky girls who attended Seton High School she was a relatively unknown figure until she became the first native born American saint in 1975.

I suppose we could have a Quaker saint. Any suggestions?

Bank Street,

Your issues with Pope John Paul II (women, gays, HIV, etc.) are issues with Catholic doctrine more than they are with him. Practicing and faithful Catholics start at very different premises in these arguments than do people who are secular.

The most obvious example is that sex is meant to be shared only between a married couple, and that sex is to be open to the creation of new life. This is why Catholics believe that gays shouldn't marry (or have sex), artificial birth control is illicit, and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of disease is the wrong approach. None of these positions are popular in the 21st century, and even many who self identify as Catholic disagree with some or all of them, but they are logically consistent when you start from different premises, and they are the beliefs of the Church.

And I think Catholics would greatly dispute your claim that the pope is primarily a political figure. He is the leader of the Catholic Church, which is a religious organization. While the Church does often cross over into politics (as many non-political organizations do), the pope does so much more than that. You just don't see the non-political stuff because it doesn't affect you as a non-believer.

UpperFells, “Practicing and faithful Catholics” are as diverse in their opinions on these matters as are others in our society. While the view that human sexuality is a gift for procreation is widely accepted it is not near so widely practiced. The Pope has recently conceded that the use of condoms to prevent the spread of disease is acceptable. This is a new view for the church, and good evidence that the church continues to change her views in the light of modern science.

I agree that the Church’s views as taken from the Catechism are logically consistent. Catholic laity, however, are rarely consistent. They continue to masturbate, divorce, and practice contraception while throwing stones at loving and committed same sex partners. In the view of the Church all of these practices are woven of the same cloth. Straight laity seem to think a few Hail Mary’s are good enough for themselves while suggesting damnation for their gay brothers and sisters.

Despite the fact that the church is a religious organization the Pope is still a political leader. He is the head of state of the Holy See, an absolute monarch. As such his political and social commentaries are of significant interest to non Catholics and non believers. To say otherwise would be similar to saying that state Delegate Emmett C. Burns, the pastor of Rising Sun First Baptist church is only a pastor, and that his divisive homophobia does not influence his political life. We all know that is not the case.

Dana,

I'm afraid that there is so much wrong and inconsistent in your reply that I don't even know where to start.

Practicing and faithful Catholics shouldn't have diverse opinions on matters of doctrine. If they sin, then they should realize that and seek forgiveness. And if gays and lesbians sin, then they also seek forgiveness. Just because Catholics sin doesn't mean that they should support others who sin. And if "Catholics" are consistently and repeatedly doing the things that you said, then I would question if they are truly practicing and faithful Catholics.

And you should read what the pope actually said about condoms and HIV instead of just what the media reported. He outlined an extremely specific set of circumstances under which use of a condom might be licit, but don't expect the Catholic Church to start support condom distribution in Sub-Saharan Africa.

If you don’t know where to start UpperFells just start at the beginning. What did I say that was either “wrong” or “inconsistent?”

Was it my first statement that practicing and faithful Catholics have diversity of opinion on the matters that you had mentioned of “women, gays, HIV, etc?”

You can start right here at this blog and see that Catholics disagree. While now there is only one anonymous poster and myself who both post regularly and are practicing and faithful Catholics there have been others (Ravensfan, Pattycakers, Mr. Fuchs, and others) in the past and we have never walked in lockstep. Nor are we required too as Catholics. This diversity is evidenced, too, in online Catholic forums like http://forums.catholic.com and http://forum.catholic.org , to do otherwise would be a gross avoidance of our responsibility as free persons to form our own consciences. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches:

“1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law….”

And “1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience.”

Your notion that Catholics “shouldn't” have diverse opinions on matters of doctrine runs closer to Christian fundamentalism, shall and shall not, than it runs toward Catholicism. Any serious reading of Augustine, John of the Cross, or Teresa of Ávila will show that the road to purification is a matter of personal growth and introspection, not following do’s and don’ts. St. Augustine prayed “Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet.” Was he, too, wrong and inconsistent?

Explain what you mean when you write “… you should read what the pope actually said about condoms and HIV instead of just what the media reported.”

Is there some way to know what he said outside of learning it from the media? Isn’t that why the Vatican has a Press Office and Vatican Radio?

I read what he said, “(the Church) "of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

That statement is quite in line with what I said in my previous post. It is also in line with the above quote from the CCC about formation of conscience. I suspect that Father Joseph Fessio, editor-in-chief of Ignatius Press, would agree. He explained the pope’s comment as meaning “in an individual case the use of a condom could be an awakening to someone that he’s got to be more conscious of his actions.’’

Clearly the pope, the CCC, and the priest quoted above are talking about our decisions as they relate to free will and conscience. Their manner of thinking reflects that of the Doctors of the Church that I listed above; Augustine, John of the Cross, and Teresa of Ávila. It is their examples I prefer to use in forming my personal theology, not the third grade Sunday school do’s and don’ts.

John Paul II maybe a Saint. Most Saints have the ability to recognize Evil and Evil people. JPII, more or less states that in his 1993 Encyclical Letter “The Splendor of Truth”. It states in the 5th paragraph. “No one can escape from the fundamental questions: What must I do? How do I distinguish good from evil? The answer is only possible thanks to the splendor of truth”

Yet, JPII covered up evil and protected evil folks even declaring one of them “an efficacious guide to youth’’. http://www.podles.org/dialogue/subito-sancto-398.htm

I pray for the grace to understand how anyone who refused to accept all the warnings Jesus sent deserves to be a Canonized Saint.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Frank, please explain why you think that JPII should not be canonized. The website you directed us to is a little off the wall. The author clearly dislikes our former pope and even compares him to Hitler. So if you could step away from that cesspool and give us some good doctrinal reasons why he should not be canonized please do.

Frank as has been pointed out the website is worthless. If you want to make a case using, as Dana put it, good doctrinal reasons I'd appreciate it. Otherwise I can only take it as further proof of your allowing your emotions and anger to cloud your judgement.

Dana and Anonymous: I picked Leon Poodle dialogue because it mentioned an obvious example of how JPII was influenced by evil. My childhood readings of the life of the Saints gave me a perception -- correct or not that canonized Saints recognized evil and were repugnant. In my humble opinion JPII openly protected, praised and adored Maciel. These misguided actions alone should exclude him from becoming a canonized Saint. In no way does that say he is not a Saint in the eyes of God.

In my reading and understanding of 1993 Encyclical Letter “The Splendor of Truth”. It is my perception that JPII says one thing for the Catholic Faithful yet acted or lead or manages the Curia and Priest outside of his definition of Truth. I believe he encourage his staff and rewarded them for covering-up Child Sex Abuse Internationally. These actions and Cardinal Law are additional examples of why he shouldn’t be a canonized Saint.

USA today; “Vatican is always right -- or wrong -- on sex abuse” http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/01/sex-abuse-vatican-pope-irish/1 is in my opinion why many good reasonable and rational catholic and non catholic folks may differ. Somehow, we can read the same information and different, even a 180 degree separation on ideas. Dana explanation to Upper Fells Point stated that fact very well.

Thank you for contributing for I find it helpful.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Benedict XVI said in 2007 "Sanctity does not consist in never having made mistakes or sinned. Sanctity grows in the capacity for conversion and penance, of willingness to start again and, above all, in the capacity for reconciliation and forgiveness."

It has always been my understanding that saints are individuals that are looked up to. If saints aren’t representations or manifestations of spiritual aspirations, then I have been poorly instructed. When I was a boy we were groomed to revere the saints and martyrs. If this is incorrect then the following point of view rests on poor education. As a catholic boy, reared in a devout catholic family, I attended a catholic grammar school until grade 8. I then attended public schools, but participated in the Catholic Youth Organization of my parish for a period of time. I cannot testify to the modern understandings of the church today as I have broken form the catholic organization due to the fact that I am a struggling survivor of a predator-priest. I have read Frank’s postings and noted other individuals’ responses. When I was a practicing Catholic I experienced the sacrament of “Penance” at least weekly where I would confess all of my sins to the priest. I believe it is referred to as the sacrament of “Reconciliation” today. My instruction into the sacrament of Penance was that all offenses against God (sins) must be stated as well as the number of times for each offense. If the number could not be recalled with exactness then the very best recollection had to be confessed. Nothing could be held back. There was a spiritual reason that nothing could be held back. The sinner (me) had to be sincerely sorry for the offense and sincerely committed to never sinning again; therefore a complete and full confession was required. We are human. I am human. I always needed to go back to Confession. Individuals, struggling with their own human imperfections and aspirations to be better than what they are presently, deserve compassion as well as mercy. But, compassion and mercy come after the full confession. Forgiveness came only after I made my full, honest confession. When my confession was completed, I was given some act or action to perform as my atonement for my offenses. Those actions in all cases were to recite some prayer or prayers for a given number of times. To atone for my offenses against God I was given the gift of the sacrament of Penance which consists of three components to insure my genuine sorrow for the offense(s) and my reconciliation to my God. I had to name every offense and the number of times each offense occurred, and I had to perform some act of atonement.
No Pope has confessed the full truth of child abuse and the full extent of the architecture for maintaining predator-priests over many, many years and in many different countries. The documented truth of child abuse is extensive and global, and there are many more undocumented cases due to shame and fear. My experience with a predator-priest occurred in the early 60’s, and yes I did tell someone about it. I told my parish priest who instructed me that nothing could be done, but that he would make sure that it would never happen again. I am quite sure that since the early 60’s the church has known about predator-priests.
Today, as opposed to 1978, the laity has a glimpse of the scope of the problem of predator-priests. This sin occurred in numerous countries with many priests and bishops being involved. Only naiveté or blind worship would believe that the popes would not have accurate knowledge of the problem, especially given the destructiveness of this issue. If one were to argue that the pope was buffered from this knowledge because this issue was handled by some lower level church official, I would shake my head in disbelief. The Pope comes from the body of Cardinals. You do not become a cardinal by not knowing what is going on in the church. Cardinals are experienced men in the church. I am a believer that the Pope is the most experienced man in the church.
This said, I am wondering, “How can any pope, since the early 60’s, be considered for sainthood or beatification?” It must be the miracles. How many miracles are required for beatification or sainthood? If it is the miracles upon which testimony is given, then I offer in contrast, the testimony inherent in the many tears wept and suppressed of the many victims of the many predator-priests and those who conceptualized and maintained the infrastructure through which those predator-priests moved. This sin of child abuse is not just the sin of the individual predator-priest. Since there was a structure within the church through which these predator-priests moved, there is a participatory responsibility on the part of the church. If the church has sinned, then who is to atone for the sin, if not the Pope? Atonement requires a full confession. How holy is the maintenance of the veil of secrecy behind which predator-priests hide?

Survivor, I think you miss the point entirely when you say that “no Pope has confessed the full truth of child abuse.”
First, we are required to confess our own sins, not those of our friends, our employees, or our subordinates. I have been a business manager for many years. By your view I would have to “confess” for every employee who stole or cheated and for every employer who evaded taxes. I had a moral obligation to act in all of those instances, but not to “confess,” for the simple reason that those sins were not mine.

The second point you miss is that confession is confidential. You cannot know what I have told my confessor and you surely cannot know what John Paul II told his confessor.

Next you ask “If the church has sinned, then who is to atone for the sin…?”

The “church” cannot sin. Organizations do not commit sin, people do. Sin is specific to a person, not a group. When American Soldiers murdered civilians at My Lai it was not the U.S. government that sinned. When National Guardsmen murdered students at Kent State it was not the National Guard that sinned, it was individual guardsmen.

Frank - I couldn't really read the letter. Any chance you have a better link to the letter. The article doesn't really provide enough information and I'd prefer to see the actual letter since both sides have a vastly different intrepetation. If I had to guess it's probably in between.

In my opinion the real issue needs to be making sure all that can be done is being done to prevent future occurences (even one is one too many). What is in place to protect victims and make sure a fair and objective investigation into all accusations can be made by civil authorities as well as the church. And of course reaching out to past victims so they can get over the pain and get it behind them.

Dana: Benedict’s opinion which you and I may or may not agree on is just an opinion. But, I feel JPII actions supporting international conspiracy protecting predators, not children, covering-up, silencing theologians, disregarding Vatican II, taken liberties with his own Encyclical on Truth, etc. -- demonstrated a lose of Trust in God, Jesus teachings, etc. This man doesn’t deserve to be canonized. Yes that is my opinion. Apparently, it is not Benedict and others.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Survivor: I think I made a mistake for the above entry was sent about 10:00 pm 1/19 but not posted when sent before your well done entry. Also, Dana response was well done. But, I recall the concept of sins of commission and omission. Somewhere in JPII Encyclical “Splendor of Truth” he uses the same concept. JPII and I agree. Thus, I believe his behavior in the Child Abuse Scandal demonstrate as he stated: something like -- how some live a lie, rather than tell a lie.

Furthermore, JPII and his old boy’s network forget about the Sacramental Tradition of Penance as defined by the Council of Trent when opposing Statutes of Limiataions. They believe the rules are for the laity, not the old boys, similar to Truth. Christ teaching are put aside to gain power and secure revenues. Again, JPII example of living a lie, losing Trust in God, ignoring Jesus teaching, etc. should disqualify him from becoming a canonized Saint.

Anonymous: Irish Cover-up letter: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Ireland-Catholic-Abuse.pdf and Today’s News: Vatican letter to Tucson reveals cover-up mentality: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/103256/20110120/vatican-letter-to-tucson-reveals-cover-up-mentality.htm

Thank you.

Frank, I usually skim over a post before I read it thoroughly, so when I read your comment that “Christ’s teachings are put aside to gain power and secure revenues” I thought you were writing about your own organization, SNAP.

The front page of SNAP’s website asks for money in two places, as though one were not enough. Rather than seeking justice, as it purports to do, it seeks lawsuits. Occasionally they address the issue of criminal prosecutions but the emphasis is clearly on seeking money for accusers. It is all about the money. In order for it to be worthwhile for attorneys the money is always sought from the hierarchy, not the accused predators. SNAP’s attempt to put blame on the deepest pockets has become a business and it has been blinded to justice. Donations to SNAP have declined by almost half since 2005 and are now to the point that the salaries of the three key directors consume over half (53%) of their total revenue. These figures are based on the latest IRS filing available, 2009.

Dana, you have clearly presented the critical difference between you and I when you write, “The ‘church’ cannot sin.” It goes to the heart of the today’s reality. I do the church can sin just like BP can sin, just like nefarious banks can sin, and just like many large corporations can commit offenses against God through their predatory behaviors that exploit and ensnare. I believe that sin is not exclusive to Catholics. “Sin” is an expression found in Roman Catholicism that describes in a particular way and perhaps individualizes what in the general scope of ideas is known to be ‘evil’.
After my life and formative years of training in the Roman Catholic Church, I became quite aware that the Catholic religion has a propensity for abstraction. Many times I became engage in conversation with many priest and seminarians about the teachings and structure of the Roman Catholic Church. These conversations ultimately became quite involved and intricate. I do not what to duplicate such here, but I believe this issue of predator-priests, a conscious choice to organize protection of predator-priests and the maintenance of secrecy that puts children at risk, is a serious matter.
You, Dana, have provided the simplicity around which this issue revolves and perhaps crystallizes what is morally impaired in today’s societies. When you write, “Organizations do not commit sin,” you distinguish yourself from me and other survivors who think (rather believe) like me. There are too many examples in today’s history of individuals coming together (organizations), planning actions that benefit themselves at the cost and degradation of others. The most recent example is the actions of BP and all other organizations responsible for the death and vast destruction around the epicenter of the Gulf of Mexico. The actions of organizations that precipitated the financial meltdown that has and is causing so much human suffering is another demonstration humans collectively acting in a sinful manner. In past history, consider the exploding Pinto cars. To compile such a list, one must first believe that organizations can sin, that organizations can consciously plan actions that are known to break one of the Ten Commandments. Yes, I believe that organizations can and do sin, can and do evil acts, and do these evil acts, consciously. The belief that organizations cannot sin, removes those organizations from spiritual accountability. I (and if I must stand alone, then let it be so) do not relieve any organization from its spiritual accountability. It is my belief, that The Roman Catholic Church has the potential to sin and has done so. Consistent with my belief, is that it should atone for its sin.
Regarding the confidentiality of confession, I am well aware that priests pledge to die before revealing what is said in the confessional. I was told of instances where such a sacrifice was required and made. Your point is well taken that individuals are afforded confidentiality so that even the most grievous of sins can be confessed so that the soul may be reunited with God through atonement and forgiveness. There is a discourse concerning the role of the priest in the confessional when murder and other ‘capital’ crimes or sinful thoughts of doing harm to others are confessed, but again, as stated before, the Catholic religion has a propensity for abstraction.
A characteristic trait that I believe runs throughout Jesus’ message as he spoke publically and was challenged by the Pharisees was the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It was my intention to put forth the spirit of the sacrament of Penance as opposed to the technicalities. Admittedly, you cannot convey the spirit without having some technicalities to frame out the presentation. There exists enough ground work to speak plainly. The spirit of the sacrament of Penance< as I understand, is the reunification of the fallen soul to God, that this reunification process consists of a full confession of the offense together with the number of times the offense occurred and an act of atonement that not only demonstrates the sincerity on the confessor but in the best of situations offsets the offense that was committed in the first place. This last aspect of ‘offsetting the offense’ is terribly difficult to implement on an individual bases. I think prayer was considered a functional substitute (but that’s another extended discourse for another time).
I am pleased, Dana, that you have provided me with a qualifying distinction for those who grapple with the issue of the sin of child-abuse within the Roman Catholic Organization. Those who believe that the Roman Catholic Organization cannot sin relieve that organization from all spiritual responsibility regarding child-abuse. Since there is no evidence that Pope Paul II ever sexually abused anyone, then beatification and sainthood are not only open but welcomed by many. On the other hand, for anyone who does believe that the Roman Catholic Organization can sin, then the Pope as the head of that organization along with all others significantly involved in the conception and maintenance of the organization which benefited predator-priests at a heavy costs to Roman Catholic children need to atone, which means they need to confess. Regarding the confidentiality of this said confession, I consider the notion that the best act of atonement is that action which offsets the offense that was committed. The opposing action of secrecy is publicity. The Church kept a dark secret that harmed many, many faithful in direct and indirect ways. The ripple effect of this dark secret is vast and unmeasured. What offsets the sinful secrecy is public description of the structure through which predator-priests (clergy) moved and the identities of known predators (past and present) within The Roman Catholic Organization.

Dana, you have clearly presented the critical difference between you and I when you write, “The ‘church’ cannot sin.” It goes to the heart of today’s reality. I do believe the church can sin just like BP can sin, just like nefarious banks can sin, and just like many large corporations can commit offenses against God through their predatory behaviors that exploit and ensnare. I believe that sin is not exclusive to Catholics. “Sin” is an expression found in Roman Catholicism that describes in a particular way and perhaps individualizes what in the general scope of ideas is known to be ‘evil’.
After my life and formative years of training in the Roman Catholic Church, I became quite aware that the Catholic religion has a propensity for abstraction. Many times I became engage in conversation with many priest and seminarians about the teachings and structure of the Roman Catholic Church. These conversations ultimately became quite involved and intricate. I do not want to duplicate such here, but I believe this issue of predator-priests, a conscious choice to organize protection of predator-priests and the maintenance of secrecy that puts children at risk, is a serious matter.
You, Dana, have provided the simplicity around which this issue revolves and perhaps crystallizes what is morally impaired in today’s societies. When you write, “Organizations do not commit sin,” you distinguish yourself from me and other survivors who think (rather believe) like me. There are too many examples in today’s history of individuals coming together (organizations), planning actions that benefit themselves at the cost and degradation of others. The most recent example is the actions of BP and all other organizations responsible for the death and vast destruction around the epicenter of the Gulf of Mexico. The actions of organizations that precipitated the financial meltdown that has and is causing so much human suffering is another demonstration of humans collectively acting in a sinful manner. In past history, consider the exploding Pinto cars. To compile such a list, one must first believe that organizations can sin, that organizations can consciously plan actions that are known to break one of the Ten Commandments. Yes, I believe that organizations can and do sin, can and do evil acts, and do these evil acts, consciously. The belief that organizations cannot sin, removes those organizations from spiritual accountability. I (and if I must stand alone, then let it be so) do not relieve any organization from its spiritual accountability. It is my belief, that The Roman Catholic Church has the potential to sin and has done so. Consistent with my belief, is that it should atone for its sin.
Regarding the confidentiality of confession, I am well aware that priests pledge to die before revealing what is said in the confessional. I was told of instances where such a sacrifice was required and made. Your point is well taken that individuals are afforded confidentiality so that even the most grievous of sins can be confessed so that the soul may be reunited with God through atonement and forgiveness. There is a discourse concerning the role of the priest in the confessional when murder and other ‘capital’ crimes or sinful thoughts of doing harm to others are confessed, but again, as stated before, the Catholic religion has a propensity for abstraction.
A characteristic trait that I believe runs throughout Jesus’ message as he spoke publically and was challenged by the Pharisees was the distinction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It was my intention to put forth the spirit of the sacrament of Penance as opposed to the technicalities. Admittedly, you cannot convey the spirit without having some technicalities to frame out the presentation. There exists enough ground work to speak plainly. The spirit of the sacrament of Penance, as I understand, is the reunification of the fallen soul to God, that this reunification process consists of a full confession of the offense together with the number of times the offense occurred and an act of atonement that not only demonstrates the sincerity on the confessor but in the best of situations offsets the offense that was committed in the first place. This last aspect of ‘offsetting the offense’ is terribly difficult to implement on an individual bases. I think prayer was considered a functional substitute (but that’s another extended discourse for another time).
I am pleased, Dana, that you have provided me with a qualifying distinction for those who grapple with the issue of the sin of child-abuse within the Roman Catholic Organization. Those who believe that the Roman Catholic Organization cannot sin relieve that organization from all spiritual responsibility regarding child-abuse. Since there is no evidence that Pope Paul II ever sexually abused anyone, then beatification and sainthood are not only open but welcomed by many. On the other hand, for anyone who does believe that the Roman Catholic Organization can sin, then the Pope as the head of that organization along with all others significantly involved in the conception and maintenance of the organization which benefited predator-priests at heavy costs to Roman Catholic children need to atone, which means they need to confess. Regarding the confidentiality of this said confession, I consider the notion that the best act of atonement is that action which offsets the offense that was committed. The opposing action of secrecy is publicity. The Church kept a dark secret that harmed many, many faithful in direct and indirect ways. The ripple effect of this dark secret is vast and unmeasured. What offsets the sinful secrecy is public description of the structure through which predator-priests (clergy) moved and the identities of known predators (past and present) within The Roman Catholic Organization.

Survivor, you are drifting out of context. I was responding to your assertion that “no Pope has confessed the full truth of child abuse.” When you say that BP sinned it is obvious that you are using a very loose and secular definition. That’s not what we are discussing when we talk about what goes on in the sacrament of penance. It is not a distinction, as you say, between what I believe and what you “and other survivors” believe. If that were so you and other survivors would be marching into the confessional to confess the sins of your employees or subordinates, even those who live thousands of miles away and whom you have never met. I don’t think you are doing that. But that’s what you expect of Popes and Cardinals.

You are confusing the obligation to take responsibility with the obligation to confess one’s sins.

Again I want to emphasize that we cannot know what our neighbors have said in the confessional. So even with a loose and secular definition of sin you cannot say with certainty that ““no Pope has confessed the full truth of child abuse.” Only his confessor and God know the answer.

Dana: You can tell we are Catholic by are training. Training is used deliberately as opposed to education. Your comment is a knee jerk reaction rather than your usual well thought out intellectual responses that I have come to expect and respect. Or, it may be an effort to avoid the subject.

Perhaps, it is a related point for I recalled a conversation 2 or 3 years earlier with a theologian about JPII becoming a Saint. The theologian said JPII would be canonized a Saint as soon as possible for the revenue stream. The religious paraphernalia alone was to big a commercial opportunity to turn down. He reminded me of what a priest friend says: “the only time Jesus got angry was when he was in church”. If I recall correctly Jesus anger had something to do about commercialism in temple.

Survivor: Your response was brilliant. I have trust in the Catholic Faith, but fear the Catholic Church. Sadly, many don't know the difference. But, the following comment keeps me active.

“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
--Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, before the Knights of Columbus, June 1972

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

I think the commercialism is in your SNAP temple Frank. As I showed earlier 53% of their income goes to three corporate officers. My response to “survivor” was brief because his error was very simple; we had been discussing sin as it relates to reconciliation and he or she turned it around into some kind of corporate or organizational sin. That has no place in the Catechism as far as I know.

Sin is a personal act. If a Pope or a Cardinal or a parent or the victim herself approved, failed to hinder, protected, or failed to disclose a sin then of course that would be sin also. Men and women of good will should assume that the Pope or the parent has confessed this sin and sought reconciliation. Paul teaches that we are to expect the best of our brother, not the worst. So to assume that a person has failed to confess his sins is an act against charity. That act is very clear when “survivor” states the unknowable “no Pope has confessed the full truth of child abuse.”

Maybe that isn’t clear to you because you just don’t like John Paul II. But look at it another way. If someone were to say to a SNAP member whose parent had never called the police: “Your parent has not confessed the full truth of your child abuse,” I think you would see the obvious errors. The first error would be to assume that the parent had not confessed. The second would be the assumption that the parent knew the “full truth.” I don’t think you or “survivor” would make those allegations against the parent but you have no problem attacking John Paul II with such nonsense.

What is a lie about Vegas is the truth about reconciliation: What happens in the confessional stays in the confessional.

Pope John Paul saw men of evil and promoted, rewarded, covered up, and praised them. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children were sexually abused under his watch. He should have known and if he didn’t -- God only knows why. Pope John Paul II non action brought scandal to the church and for that alone he shouldn’t be a canonized Saint. It is that SIMPLE.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops, like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
--Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, before the Knights of Columbus, June 1972

Fine Frank. We'll just continue to disagree.

I don't think he knew as much as you say. It's just one of those things where people have convictions that can't be reconciled to the equally firm convictions of their neighbors.

God bless and keep you Frank.

FYI: In Good Faith reader sent me this info. 1984 Tuscon Letter to not report. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/Vatican/Documents/1984_01_31_Oddi_to_Moreno_Priest_Files_R.pdf

Sex abuse scandals line John Paul's road to sainthood http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/103226/20110120/sexual-abuse-pope-priests.htm

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

The first document, Frank, speaks for itself. An unnamed priest was drunk and took liberties with women and the Vatican says that the wrong action was taken. That notwithstanding they choose not to willingly supply records to civil lawyers. That’s a move any organization would take.

Maybe you can tell us the name of the priest that was redacted from the document. Also you can tell us what he was accused of besides being drunk and taking liberties with women on or before the date of the letter, January 31, 1984. The letter is signed by Cardinal Oddi, a man who has no stains on his reputation of any kind. So Cardinal Oddi believed the man to be a drunk and a womanizer and he said so. Explain how that becomes an international conspiracy to cover up child abuse. I just don’t get it. Neither sex nor children are mentioned in the letter.

Assuming you can provide that information, and here I mean criminal charges on or before that date, then please show how it leads to direct knowledge or involvement by either Cardinal Oddi orJohn Paul II (also on or before 1/31/1984).

The second link is just an opinion piece by an unnamed author.

Dana: We see what we want to see. I see civil meaning non church. I think you see it meaning civil as opposed to criminal.

However, it is not hard to reason that the accumulation of Vatican documents (reference in 1 below and numerous others) demonstrate an attempt to place Church Canon Law over International and Government Law. I think it extends to having Canon Law trump Dogma and our Sacramental Tradition. I have witness this in Church Testimony before the Legislature. Previously, we have had dialogue on the Augustine, Aquinas and Council of Trent definition of Penance. Which, I believe we each followed our conscience and God is please.

Regardless, I feel it is the accumulation of documents that placed preventing SCANDAL, over protecting vulnerable children and adults. That led to the SCANDAL

Since John Paul II failed to prevent SCANDAL. He doesn’t deserve to be a canonized Saint. In no way do I contend he is not a Saint in the eyes of God.

----------------------

1. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AtAGlance/church_docs.htm Pope Pius XI (6/9/22) - Latin and English, Crimen Sollicitationis (The Offense of Sollicitation), by Cardinal Ottaviani, approved by Pope John XXIII (3/16/62) - Latin and English, on and on.

Protect Kids, Not Predators! -- snapmd@comcast.net

No Frank, I used the word “civil” because that is what was in the letter. I assumed nothing else about it. I don’t know who the priest was so I don’t know and have no way of finding out until you answer my questions. All I can tell from the letter is that he is accused of being a drunk and a having taken liberties with women. It doesn’t say what kind of “liberties.” But it is very clear about “women,” not girls or children and no mention of molestation of any kind. So please explain why you are using this letter to support your view and please answer my previous questions.

Also Frank, I don’t understand the purpose of your link at the end. I am concerned however by a statement at the top of the Pius Xi document from 1922 says:

“[Note from BishopAccountability.org: This is an English translation of the Latin original, Instructio de modo procedendi in causis sollicitationis (Rome, 1922).][This text is] to be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.”

That tends to leave the impression that the document is some kind of secret document that the Vatican has been hiding. The translation is a simple cut and paste from the Vatican website.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

This was translated in 1962 by the Vatican, not the “bishop-accountability.org” people who try to give the impression that it the part of some Dan Brown like international conspiracy.

That said, all it really says that could possibly have any interest to SNAP is that the proceedings are to be kept confidential. That isn’t really any different than keeping the investigation of yours or my marriage annulment secret.

“Civil”, years of translating Latin in high school I learn you translate the word or words in content and within previous contents of the author or something like that greatly influences it proper translation. So your legalistic interpretation may be true, but it is a different than mine. I remember dad telling to take Latin because it taught you how to think and see how words have many different meanings depending on content, etc. So, I am staying with what I said and completely understand you..

Who cares who the particular priest is? I have over 350 names of clergy that have abused before coming, in or after leaving Maryland. Each is a horror story. The name is not important. It is the ATTITUDE of our church which is not a law firm; it is supposed to be a FAITH Community. There was no concern for the faithful or pastoral care. Whether drunk or not, molestation of a girl or liberties with a woman? Their ATTITUDE is WRONG. Yes, I know that legal stuff about attitudes. My language, not legal stuff. Attitude is like wind, you can only feel and see the effects. The effects are the SCANDAL.

I used the letter without reading for someone sent it to me and I thought I was given Anonymous another example. I was trying to provide full disclosure.

Reference to the Latin originals was one reasons the list of Pius and other document with the mention of Child Sex Abuse as early as 1922. You may know there are over 60 church documents go back over 1500 or more years. They contain concerns, procedure, rules, regulations, etc. they may have follow for a Pope or so, but then go back to the same protect the old boys stuff.

How do you know the Vatican post is the original? Many believe they have a habit of revisionist history, burning libraries, books, etc.

“Civil” is making reference to show no matter how well meaning people are. We are influenced by ways we may or may not realize. It was an attempt at full disclosure.

I understand the secret statement was on the original documents found in I think a Boston Civil suits for that was reported. It was in a Civil Court releases the way many of these documents are found and will continued to come to light.

Again, we disagree. Yes, I believe this is a conspiracy theory, like the wind and I guess attitude. The visuals are the international cover-up, promotions of protectors of abusers, praising of evil men, continuations of words without action, growing worldwide disclosures, fighting of legislation to protect children around the world, on, and on.

Feelings, I am not up to going into that now. It is very depressing

Children and adults are hurting and raped while you and I have this civil dialogue.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Frank I am sorry to say that Dana raises many valid points most of which you have not addressed. You make accusations like "Many believe they have a habit of revisionist history, burning libraries, books, etc." but fail to support it with anything from a credible source. In fact some of your documents appear to be giving false impressions which hurst the credibility of your argument. You believe there is some great conspiracy and cover up. That causes you to look at documents in a way that makes your point. Your on the issue objectivity is clouded. I’m sure some of that is due to what you’ve seen & heard. Consider this so far the only questionable documents were the ones you used. The only misleading ones were the ones you presented as Dana pointed out.

Most of the litigation SNAP fights for is civil which is about money for trial layers SNAP’s biggest contributors, not criminal designed to get justice for victims and punish offenders. You still also want to paint a picture that nothing has been done which is not correct either. If you were arguing more needs to be done I’d agree. Even one instance is too many.

Your attacks on JPII do nothing to protect kids which is part of the phrase in your sign off. In the end it was you not Dana who decided to start this dialogue with your posts on this thread. For you to try and shame her with that comment “Children and adults are hurting and raped while you and I have this civil dialogue” was uncalled for.

Maybe it’s time you asked yourself is what you’re doing protecting kids or simply trying to exact vengeance for what you perceive as the failings of the church. I hope it’s the first, but there are times that I am not sure it isn’t the second.

“Children and adults are hurting and raped while you and I have this civil dialogue”. It was intentionally used to give another many for the word civil. It was meant to expand the meaning of the word from civil or criminal court to civilization or civil people, etc.

Documentation: After I retired I gave away nearly a hundred books on the history of graphics and print from the caveman drawings to modern technologies. Many of these books had scholastic and academic accreditation. It was a theme or what I would say was common knowledge that information in the form of tablets, books, manuscripts, etc. was deliberately destroyed. I would estimate at least half reference the church as being the prime suspect. This theme has also been on the history channel. Honestly, I am too old to verify what can so easily be substantiate.

The cut and past remark was particularly humorous. Perhaps, because of my technical background for at one time I work with Top Secret material that was hand stamp in early distribution until the Official Documents were printed for distribution to many. Sometime some of the original internal documents never received the Hand Stamp.

Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse, by Thomas P. Doyle , Richard Sipe, and Patrick J. Wall.

Some of the remarks help me recall how I used to thank GOD. They make it so easy for I simply went in a lab and proved my point. But, I was in an objective field, rather than this subjective one. Most my knowledge was gained by research, observations and applications. I am severely dyslexic so demonstrating is my strength. Others did the writing.

Our lab is the world, all these country reporting is not an accident. If you think it is? You are not paying attention.

The same results from country to country, continent to continent are a sign of a worldwide conspiracy, cover-up, etc. The saying goes something like: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck. It is a duck.

If John Paul II didn’t know about the cover-up he shouldn’t be a canonized Saint for no other reason than is lack of knowledge help create the Scandal. And, if he did know and did nothing, he doesn’t deserve to be canonized for the faithful deserve better. Well that is my opinion.

Other questions are not answered for I believe you are assign busy work or redundant to questions already answered before. Intellectual, reasonable, rational, open minded folks who are paying attention should realize the obvious.

What do you think Benedicts is going all over the world to apologies for?

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Sorry Frank, I just can’t take comments like “(t)he same results from country to country, continent to continent are a sign of a worldwide conspiracy,” seriously. It sounds far too much like a bad novel or a worse movie.

I think it is wrong for you to say that John Paul II should be penalized for what he didn’t know. There is neither logic nor justice in that statement. It is quite a different matter if he did know and did nothing. But that is not the case. He did act. He may not have acted as you or I would have liked but we were never in such a position to make those decisions. He put then Cardinal Ratzinger in charge of investigating thousands of cases through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, thus streamlining the process and making it more accountable. It may not have been enough for you. But to say he did nothing is simply dishonest.

Finally I thank Anonymous’ defense of my character where he wrote “For you to try and shame her with that comment “Children and adults are hurting and raped while you and I have this civil dialogue” was uncalled for.”

It is a good example of how people who don’t always agree care for one another as Christ commanded us. For that I am grateful.

Attitude of the Church
I found the following piece of history posted on the internet. I must confess, I went looking for it. It is complete enough in itself and therefore I make use of it in its entirety. Its purpose is to recall the Catholic Church’s history with Galileo. This history lesson reveals shadings and nuances of ‘attitude’ that perhaps still permeates at least some halls of the Church. Accordingly, it took the Church 350 years to officially confess its mistake. This would be 350 years after the death of the man who was greatly harmed by the holy Church. He of course never received the Church’s apology.
Monday, September 10, 2007
1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642

In 1610, Century Italian astronomer/mathematician/inventor Galileo Galilei used a telescope he built to observe the solar system, and deduced that the planets orbit the sun, not the earth.

This contradicted Church teachings, and some of the clergy accused Galileo of heresy. One friar went to the Inquisition, the Church court that investigated charges of heresy, and formally accused Galileo. (In 1600, a man named Giordano Bruno was convicted of being a heretic for believing that the earth moved around the Sun, and that there were many planets throughout the universe where life existed. Bruno was burnt to death.)

Galileo moved on to other projects. He started writing about ocean tides, but instead of writing a scientific paper, he found it much more interesting to have an imaginary conversation among three fictional characters. One character, who would support Galileo's side of the argument, was brilliant. Another character would be open to either side of the argument. The final character, named Simplicio, was dogmatic and foolish, representing all of Galileo's enemies who ignored any evidence that Galileo was right. Soon, Galileo wrote up a similar dialogue called "Dialogue on the Two Great Systems of the World." This book talked about the Copernican system.

"Dialogue" was an immediate hit with the public, but not, of course, with the Church. The pope suspected that he was the model for Simplicio. He ordered the book banned, and also ordered Galileo to appear before the Inquisition in Rome for the crime of teaching the Copernican theory after being ordered not to do so.

Galileo was 68 years old and sick. Threatened with torture, he publicly confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun. Legend then has it that after his confession, Galileo quietly whispered "And yet, it moves."

Unlike many less famous prisoners, Galileo was allowed to live under house arrest. Until his death in 1642, he continued to investigate science, and even published a book on force and motion after he had become blind.

The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960's and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake spacecraft had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.
[askville by amazon: Sources: http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/faq/galileo ]

From a secular point of view, John Paul II becoming a saint or not has no direct bearing on the real protection of my grandchildren from predator-priests. But as Frank tries to point out, ATTITUDE, is critical to behavior. How the Church behaves reflects its attitude. Without getting into deep theological and philosophical discourse, can it be agreed that religions have symbols? Collectively all of these symbols manifest the spirit of that religion. The saints are symbols, and yes they were real people and the belief is that, as saints, they are still interactive with the living. I agree with all of this, but want to focus on the function of symbols. Saints symbolize behaviors to which the faithful aspire. Perhaps I am wrong in this understanding. But, if I am correct, then John Paul II should have at all times and at all costs, protected the children. I am a bit rusty on my recollections, but did not Jesus speak somewhere ‘Bring unto me the little ones [the children]’ or something like that to demonstrate how loved and precious children should be. The Church is going to do what it is going to do, and the Church has acted poorly in the past. There is no guarantee that the Church is going to do the right thing now. There is plenty of information now made public to question John Paul II’ s actions regarding child abuse by predator-priests and how they were handled. The problem of child abuse was far too vast in global scope for the Vatican to be ignorant of the issue and how it was being handled. It was going on for far too many years.

The following cut and pastes come from Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia:
Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of The Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete came to oppose vehemently the return of sexual abusers to duties as parish priests. He wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood could not be cured and should be defrocked immediately.
Claims that Pope John Paul II was responsible for shielding priests have been supported by the retired Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos and theologian and former Ratzinger colleague, Hans Küng.
The other fact to place on the table is the waiving of the traditional 5 year wait time before sainting.
It all appears rushed and questionable, and given some of the Church’s dark history in the past, I would be worried about the motives of some Church officials. From my point of view, the Church’s history for contrition is not a good one. Why can’t the Church wait until all is known about the full extent of the past child abuse and the complete description of the mechanism which protected and kept secret so many predator-priests for so many years in so many places? Why not wait? What is the rush?

Slow and Steady Progress
. . . Martin Luther King Jr. noted that “History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.”

http://www.jaimeromo.com/blog/archives/336

-----------------
How You Can Support Victims of Abuse
The pope said in a NY Times interview, “We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred.” Let me break it down.

http://www.jaimeromo.com/blog/archives/333

-----------------
Thank God for those who stand up to the archdiocese
MASSACHUSETTS -- Boston Globe -- January 25, 2011

I WAS so upset the other night that I could only pace restlessly for a while before I saw the next patient. I had just evaluated a young woman in the intensive care unit who had overdosed. She said that she couldn’t live any longer with the sexual abuse that she had sustained at the hands of a priest.

She believes her parents signed an agreement with the archdiocese when she was in her teens that therapy would be paid for by the church and that the secret would remain just that: a secret.

This flies in the face of the statement of the archdiocese that was published once again last week: “Assuring the safety of our children, fostering the healing process, and restoring trust are fundamental and ongoing commitments of the Archdiocese of Boston.’’

I care deeply about spiritual matters, and spent years in seminary before medical school. But today, I can only say: Thank God for individuals such as victims’ advocate Mitchell Garabedian and institutions such as the Globe who stand up to this publicly and don’t back down. Thank God that God exists outside of the church.

Christ believed that power was not a ticket to privilege but a license to serve. Would that the church more consistently believed the same.

Dr. Jeffrey Rediger, Belmont
The writer is a psychiatrist.

-----------------

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Frank I find your explanation of what your comment about children raped and hurting while a civil dialogue is conducted to be at best a misrepresentation on your part. It's intent was to shame in an effort to get out of a the corner you were in as it regards to your links and support. Most of the post is a long winded attempt to avoid answering legitimate questions raised. I can only take that two ways you can’t answer them or don’t want to answer them. Either way it diminishes what you say. You haven’t answered them all simply blown a lot of smoke as well as used appeals to ridicule and

That the same problems that came out in the US happened in other parts of the world is no surprise. The only surprise is that it took as long as it did to be made public after it happened in the US. No one that I’ve seen has attempted to justify what has happened or deny that the church is guilty of terrible sins of abuse and covering it up. Despite you claims of conspiracy and record altering you provide no credible evidence to support it,

“If John Paul II didn’t know about the cover-up he shouldn’t be a canonized Saint for no other reason than is lack of knowledge help create the Scandal” According to the book you mentioned the scandal and cover ups existed before JPII so how could lack ok knowledge help create something going on before he was pope? To even suggest that lack of knowledge is the cause of the scandal shows your own inability to look objectively at things. If you were arguing that the process should be slowed down because of the scandal and it isn’t clear what JPII ‘s knowledge was that would be a different matter. You seem to have already judged him guilty and likely would dismiss any evidence to the contrary as altered.

For that matter what has this entire discussion have to do with protecting kids? Shouldn’t you be more focused on that? Shouldn’t the real pressure on the Vatican be to make sure what has been said is now done and that it goes even further to do everything possible to prevent such sins in the future and make sure that anyone committing them or covering them up receives proper criminal punishment?

Survivor, the church was in most respects quite wrong about Galileo. But it is not in the least bit germane to this issue. Yes of course the church erred in that situation just as she erred when Joan of Arc was condemned. But to turn centuries old mistakes into a broad generalization about the church’s “attitude” is foolish.

You posit that what you have labeled the church’s “attitude” is somehow reflective of the attitude of a particular man. It is as though decisions of Urban VIII have somehow shaped the moral judgment not only of an institution, but of each man who wears the red slippers.

Your opinion that “John Paul II should have at all times and at all costs, protected the children” is a lovely platitude. But it is as meaningless as saying that the President should have “at all times and at all costs” protected those children in this country that have been abused, or every other crime victim for that matter.

The letter that Frank provides from Dr. Jeffrey Rediger says:

“She believes her [the victim’s] parents signed an agreement with the archdiocese when she was in her teens that therapy would be paid for by the church and that the secret would remain just that: a secret.”

I don’t know if that statement is true. But if it is true it means that the victim’s own parents sold her out for a few pieces of silver; the cost of therapy. But the lawyers whose contributions support SNAP are not interested in suing the parents who sold out their kids, or prosecuting them for child abuse and neglect. Those parents are second in guilt only to the perpetrators themselves.

SNAP and the moneyed lawyers don’t go after the worst offenders: They go after the deepest pockets.

Anonymous: Let’s see if I got this right: You are upset about this statement: “Children and adults are hurting and raped while you and I have this civil dialogue”. But seem to have no problems with 2000 years of our church leaving children in harms way by protecting predators. Pope Benedict and his side kicks rushing JP II canonization to judgment. JPII was a man who lack of truth, leadership, care and concern for children. He brought on the Churches biggest Crisis or Scandal in history. He appointed, praised and broke bread with many evil men who under his watch did evil. Benedict said the evil was in the church an on, and on and on. My judgment is you are in denial or blind like JPII.

Dana: I apologize if I upset you. Honestly, that wasn’t my intention. Yes, I was upset about your parsing the sexual liberties with a woman saying something like she wasn’t even a child. Perhaps, this feeling is because it almost the same language used in 2010 with 4 local survivors from Child Protective Service of Arch of Baltimore. (FYI: Their rapes were 20 to 30 years ago.). Church contended the girls were 17 when they were raped, not 14 to 16. There must be some legal thing about 17. I thought you were thinking like the church with your brain or legalistic purposes. I feel this is a time when caring and concern action should come from the heart. The church accepted the fact the girls were raped, but had to argue about their age. I just don’t get it.

Here is somewhat of a repeat from previous entries. SNAP Leadership are very underpaid. This is a professional opinion based on being President for 2 years and on the Board for 10 more years of a local Profession Business Organization that had about 125 members who paid over $100 per year dues for member to the International. The international office leadership salaries were better than SNAP is now in the mid 90’s. I think your remarks on this subject demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge on professional value. It is like you are not in touch with realistic compensation for value offered. SNAP is an organization where the membership pays no dues. Their availability, help and guidance is on a par if not better than the leadership and members received.

If you want to be idealistic and realistic you should look into church finances. I am told from those in the know it makes your SNAP concerns look like the boys scouts compared to the mafia. There maybe more than one reason Governor Keating used that term. Some think the church protects the curia now; and in the past the clergy the way mafia treats wise men. Yes, I think JPII had a couple of bank Scandals. Recently, I think the Vaticans Bank has money laundering allegations.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Dana, because you say something is foolish does not make it so. I hope all readers of these postings will make their own judgments concerning foolishness and compassion or lack thereof. I hope they will judge for themselves whether or not organizations can commit sins and whether or not the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church has, or has not, demonstrated a certain attitude throughout its history. I hope that they will look for themselves to see what that attitude is.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that the Church ‘was in most respects quite wrong about Galileo,’ but you missed the point about the 350 years before the Church admitted officially its wrong behavior. What is relevant here is the attitude toward making severe mistakes and being extremely reluctant to own that mistake publically. Dana, you focused attention on one man, Urban VIII, who injured Galileo; but then you added Joan of Arc whom I believe had no connection to Urban VIII. So, we have identified two errors of consequence. I am sure you would argue that two errors, no matter how grievous, do not constitute an attitudinal pattern. I agree that two do not make the case, but I did not intend to compile an extensive list to make my point. If individuals want to find what truth is to be found in our discourse; they will have to do some research on their own. They will have to do some of the work themselves. I invite them to do so. To return to the Galileo point, while you focus on Urban VIII, the history of the inquisition is not a story about only one man. It took many to implement the inquisition.
Another aspect of attitude that threads itself throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church has already been clearly stated by you, Dana. ‘The “church” cannot sin. Organizations do not commit sin, people do.’ Later you add to your guidance of my understanding with, ‘You are confusing the obligation to take responsibility with the obligation to confess one’s sins.’
First of all, you correct, if you believe that I do not separated responsibility from confession or confession from responsibility. Both are essentially tied together especially if atonement is (and it must be) united with responsibility and confession. All three are critical aspects of each other. Your responses, Dana, strike me as focusing on one item or another of the communication while missing the message that is want to be conveyed. The idea that ‘The “church” cannot sin,’ has manifested itself all the way up to right now. One might refute, “That’s not an attitude; that’s a fact.” For those who believe that The Church cannot sin, I cannot change their minds and my point will be lost. Not a problem. My mother believed absolutely that the church cannot sin. She also believed that all priest were holy. Until modern society begins to understand that organizations of individuals can and do orchestrate evil acts, then we all will have to suffer more abuse from those organizations, and the collective sin will be relieved of all responsibility, therefore free to repeat the process over and over again. Perhaps the individual sin is to stay connect to such an organization?
The other distressing element in your consciousness is reflected in the words ‘if it is true it means that the victim’s own parents sold her out for a few pieces of silver; the cost of therapy.’ My gut tells me that these are words can only be spoken by someone who only intellectualizes about the experience of child abuse. I just can’t imagine those words coming out of the mouth of a survivor of a predator-priest. Gosh, these words are hurtful. They are also dismissive. They dismiss the fact that other priests who were not the predator-priests worked with the families and that ‘holy color’, that black and white symbol for a man of god was worn. I can only imagine the soothing, angelic voice that was used, and contrition abounded. Maybe not, I wasn’t there, but it is hard for me to believe that the parents ‘sold out’ their daughter unless they were sophisticatedly enticed to do so by the Church as a matter of established procedure executed by the individual priest(s) who populated that particular parish.
I don’t speak from an intellectualized point of view. I experienced it. I told a parish priest what happened to me and he managed the situation just fine from the church’s point of view. I was silenced. I wanted to go to the police but was persuaded that more harm would come to me and the priest would walk free anyway. I was promised that the Church would make sure that this predator-priest would never hurt anyone else. I was a boy not old enough to drive a car. I don’t believe the Church (through its agents – priests) kept its promise. This occurred in the early 60’s. Look to Portland, Oregon and you will find that in 1952, a parent of a victim came forth and accused a priest in the parish there. It was managed in a quite similar fashion. It was kept secret and nothing was done until 2002.
As for your juxtaposing of the Pope to the President and my statement, which you reframed as ‘the President should have “at all times and at all costs” protected those children in this country that have been abused.’ You indicated that it is ‘meaningless’ to have such an expectation or make such a statement. Quite the contrary is true. Every citizen expects the government, through its laws, to protect at all costs the children of this society. The President is the head of the executive branch and the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law of the land. We have clear laws for child abuse and punishments for those found guilty. There are laws that govern certain individuals like teachers and doctors who do not report known child abuse. It is the responsibility of the President and the executive branch to ensure these laws are enforced. In contrast, The Church has blocked and attempts to block every attempt to enforce those child abuse laws on the Church. The Church has kept and still keeps known child abuse offenders secret. Yes, I hold the executive branch of the United States of America and the President responsible for the protection of our children. Absolutely. That said, there are mechanisms in place that demonstrates the executive branch is doing its job, and doing it far better than the Roman Catholic Church.
There is nothing more I can bring to this conversation. It is difficult for me to talk about child abuse, predator-priests, and Papal responsibility as the Head of The Flock, amid intellectualizations and rationalizing arguments from people who were safe in their homes, safe in their beliefs. I do not wish my experience on anyone, but I wish those who never had my experience would have a more open heart. Let the Church canonize John Paul II. The Church is going to do what it wants anyway. God knows the truth. I hope he or she facilitates that the truth will someday be completely revealed and be seen in the public light.

"Survivor," I was abused as a child (not by a priest) but long ago stopped labeling myself as a “survivor” or “victim.” Your assumption that I am “someone who only intellectualizes about the experience of child abuse” is incorrect and your “gut” is in error. This is a public forum and I have refrained from bringing that whole aspect of my past into the discussion for two reasons. One reason is that I have forgiven the transgressors out of love for the living Christ who said “they know not what they do.”

But another potent reason is that I will not bring public judgment upon people who ought to have known but didn’t, or who should have acted, but for some reason chose the wrong side. Those days are long past and the people who did bad things have had to live with themselves and their guilt. Yes, God will judge them. Just as surely I will beg God to show mercy, again, because “they know not what they do.” Their children and grandchildren should not be burdened with sad memories. I would not do that to innocents. So I just let it go one day, the same way that I gave up smoking, I realized it was bad for my health so I just dropped it.

Many years later I was married. And as is customary in the Catholic Church I went to confession just prior to the ceremony. My new in-laws and others laughed about the length of time I spent in the confessional. That was about thirty years ago. On that day I learned that I really was the “nice girl” that my mom raised me to be, and that I need not confess the sins of others. That gave me back my dignity.

I am sorry that you find my words hurtful. They are not however, as you say “dismissive.” My words come from decades of inner turmoil, of anger and resentment, and eventually my own “dark night of the soul.”

We disagree, nothing more, about the desirability of John Paul II’s canonization.

You and Frank seem to want to make it personal, about me. That’s a SNAP strategy that they use against “victims” and “survivors” who don’t toe the line and act suitably outraged against the deep pockets.

Frank, addressing me you said:

“Yes, I was upset about your parsing the sexual liberties with a woman saying something like she wasn’t even a child.”

She wasn’t. According to the letter it was about a woman. I asked you for clarification. Are you still stroking your fantasy or are you ready to explain your accusations?

Frank now you are using the same tactic on me. I never said I was satistfied with what has happened. I never even hinted at it. That is your attempt to put me on the defensive and avoid answering questions. As a Christian you shouldn't be making judgements. Something you should keep in mind before you respond.

If one assumes this has been a problem for 2000 years then how can you lay all the blame on JPII? If you are going to say the Pope is ultimately responsible for the conduct of all Cardinals, Bishops, Priest etc then wouldn't all Popes share in this? For that matter why spend so much time on this? How does this help protect children? Sorry but your posts sound more like someone out for revenge than someone intersted in protecting children. Your entire focus, like SNAPS, appears to be in that way. I'm sure you are involved with more and your views are likely colored by what you've seen and heard. When you provide links they are questionable sources or propaganda sites at best.

From my last post

"If you were arguing that the process should be slowed down because of the scandal and it isn’t clear what JPII ‘s knowledge was that would be a different matter. You seem to have already judged him guilty and likely would dismiss any evidence to the contrary as altered.

For that matter what has this entire discussion have to do with protecting kids? Shouldn’t you be more focused on that? Shouldn’t the real pressure on the Vatican be to make sure what has been said is now done and that it goes even further to do everything possible to prevent such sins in the future and make sure that anyone committing them or covering them up receives proper criminal punishment? "

Dana: I remarked in this entry. “You can tell we are Catholic by are training. Training is used deliberately as opposed to education.”

I have been very blessed for I have been surrounded by folks that were problem solver and solution expert. There were major disagreements which were solved in civil manners. Except with dealing with Catholic Church I have wasn’t exposed to the name calling and ridiculous accusations you use at times. I feel you are way too good and intelligent for this behavior. So, I just ignore them because at times you have presented a learning situation for which I am grateful. You have a true gift to express yourself far superior to mine.

Now, that being said: the Irish document and Tucson are just the latest. The agenda of protecting the predator, church, etc. Rather than administer to the faithful was obvious in the Tucson letter as well as many others. This is our church not a mafia lawyer folks went to looking for truth and care and concern. These letters demonstrate there were no actions for pastoral care or care and concern for the survivors. Regardless if they were children or adults as if this minor detail should make a difference to a church—law firm maybe, God’s representatives on earth, NO. This attitude is throughout numerous documents. Another example which recently comes to mind is the Brett Apostolic Letters which I believe was previously discussed.

"The following is from Apostolic Delegate Letter to Bishop Walter W. Curtis, DD, and December 21, 1966 regarding Father Laurence Brett. Which states the church self protection attitude that thread throughout numerous other documents including Tucson and the Irish?

“The Sacred Congregation of the Council” has written to me. Under the date of December 5th . . . The Holy See notes that neither the Ordinary nor diocese of Bridgeport are obliged in strict justice to meet the expenses in the illness of the young man. . . . However, in a larger non-judicial sense the authorities on the Church have a responsibility for the actions of the priests subject to them. . . . Vatican’s suggestion that it is not the Bishops job to protect the faithful. "Most Catholics think . . . that bishops . . . should protect the faithful . . . if acceptance of responsibility in such a case becomes publicly known, you might be vulnerable in any number of other situations." It is the Catholic Church that made Lawyers their Master demonstrating for all to see a loss of Trust in God and the Faithful.

Brett--page 12

http://bishop-accountability.org/docs/bridgeport/rosado/history/ex_04_Rosado_007519_007533_R.pdf

Furthermore, I should have been more challenging and simple ask: Why do you want to the name of the priest? Like it may make a difference? If you don’t know I don’t know, you are not has intuitive as I believe you are.

Also, the churches finances makes SNAP publish and legal respectable. These lawyers work for results. They have produces thousands of documents that demonstrate the above mentioned attitude, international cover-up, exposed hundreds, if not thousands more predators and protected children. Your self judging fixation and remarks on this is not becoming of person of your status.

Anonymous: Thanks for telling me I was boxed in a corner. I didn’t know it. I considered many of your question ridiculous and not worth answers. When I did answer last summer, you couldn’t handle the Truth and said it was OK to stop.

We all know JP II will be a canonized Saint for the Vatican again will put money over their rules and regulation as they did for protecting predators. They made an exception to the canonization process for JP II to gain the height of his revenue source. I think saint paraphernalia is the new paradigm for revenue, as was Luther time indulgences.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

What on earth are you talking about Frank?

Please cut and paste the “name calling and ridiculous accusations” that you accuse me of. That is a preposterous comment Frank.

You ask “Furthermore, I should have been more challenging and simple ask: Why do you want to the name of the priest? Like it may make a difference? If you don’t know I don’t know, you are not has intuitive as I believe you are.”

It makes a difference because the letter had absolutely nothing to do with children. If you could supply the name we could see if he was somehow connected to abuse claims. You don’t know the name, fine. So now what we both know is this:

The letter is about an anonymous priest who liked liquor and grown women. It has nothing to do with child abuse; it is just another example of the bishop-accountability.org folks trying to accuse the church with innuendo and nothing more.

Dana: I have provided 3 Vatican documents that show the church instructed or advise its bishops not to cooperate with authority to protect the faithful. Results being tens of thousand if not hundreds of thousands or more children and adults were and are being sexually abused with few if any clergy reported by our Church, worldwide.

May I assume you believe this fact demonstrates there is something wrong in the Vatican? If not I understand why you play the church game of trying to act like there is a difference between the rape of children and adults. Dana, I don’t understand why the name of one priest is important. You have Brett and the Irish documents, plus the worldwide example of the not reporting implementations. My attorney friends would say you are on a slippery slope.

How do you explain why the church seldom if ever reports a predator?

You are right St. Joan of Arc is the best; our oldest daughter is named after her. However, my theologian friends think Meister Eckhart is God’s favored.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

Tomorrows News today—reminds me of when my wife I visit our son’s family in Japan—we were home before we left—according to Eastern Standard Time.

Catholics need more than ads to come home

Eric Hodgens --January 28, 2011

Cardinal George Pell is thinking about adopting Catholics Come Home - a TV advertising program launched in Chicago in December 2009. Well-produced ads invite Catholics who have given up the church to come back and try it again.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/catholics-need-more-than-ads-to-come-home-20110127-1a6s6.html

Some may believe this article elaborates the worldwide lost of faith in the Catholic Church continued under JPII. Yes, it circumstantial evidence, which may not hold up in the court of law but certainly ranks high in the application of common sense.

Regardless, if you accept all documentations or not most folks recognize that when few in any predators are reported by the church internationally it demonstrates the application of protecting predators first, faithful second, both adults and children. Yes, sometimes adults are not vulnerable, other times they are; my experience and observation from the church is that what they want us to believe adults are not vulnerable when it comes to sex.

Another example of truth by observation is the worldwide practice of the Catholic Church passing predators from parish to parish, state to state, country to country. I guess it didn’t come from the Holy See for I am not aware of any document stating the practice. Or, is this policy threaded in the Brett documents? Knowledge from observation certainly substantiates this practice. Again, it may be circumstantial evidence, but it is a valid premise and most folks would say its common sense with the international verification of this practice.

Brett Documents -- http://bishop-accountability.org/docs/bridgeport/rosado/history/ex_04_Rosado_007519_007533_R.pdf

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

What I asked you to provide Frank was not more documents. What I asked for was for you to cut and paste the “name calling and ridiculous accusations” that you accuse me of. If you can’t do that then retract that calumny.

One can hardly say that asking for clarification of a document is a “slippery slope” Frank. You couldn’t answer the question so I’m content with that. You are the one that asserted it as evidence. It was lousy evidence. It was about an anonymous man who liked women and liquor.

You ask: “If not I understand why you play the church game of trying to act like there is a difference between the rape of children and adults.”

First you really have to stop accusing me of saying things I never said. If you could cut and paste my words along with the other things you accuse me of saying it would be appreciated. Otherwise add it to the retraction of your calumnies. The letter we were discussing had absolutely nothing to do with “rape.” It suggested that the priest “took liberties” with women. Those liberties were never described and there is no suggestion that he did anything illegal. So who exactly are you accusing of rape?

Frank if you considered my questions ridiculous and not worth answers why not say that instead of trying to put me on the defensive. All you are doing now is the same thing attempting to avoid answering them. I can only assume it's because the answers wouldn't paint a picture you want to think about. I don't ever recall any time saying it's ok to stop. If I did it was certainly not because you made your point. Unless that point was to confirm my suspisions of your organization. LIkely it was because I didn't want to say something I would regret later.

Since you won't answer my questions I can only assume that the impressions I have based on what you post are correct. I don't expect an aswer but why do the vast majority of your documents go back at least 30 or more years? We all know what happened then and no one has ever defended it. What has been done is question your organizations and your motives. Something you always side step answering.

I'm sorry to say but your attitude suggest someone more interested in retribution and vengence then the welfare of children. At the end of the day it's obvious you have already made up your mind about the entire situation and will agressively attack anyone who challenges that view. I actually feel sorry for you because you've let your anger get the better of you and control your actions. Your need to see offenders from from decades ago punished exceeds what should be your concern over making sure todays children are protected. Your little saying is a lie. You should consider changing it to punish offenders now. That actually sounds more like what you are after.

Dana: The cut and paste is not going to happen. I have played your “hop through the loop biscuit game long enough”. I am not taken the time to go through months of stuff. I have adopted an approach my father taught. When you deal with some types of folks the best approach is to mirror back their style. Like it or not that’s how I am now responding with you. You have earned this status. In the past this methods has achieved a growth opportunity for both parties.

Get over the the one letter. Disregard it and look at all the other documents and facts. The rest of the information is so overwhelming the one in question is unnecessary. But, you want to play the “I got you game”. So, maybe you are right one that letter, so I will say that for peace. Does it change the church actions of not reporting? No, it doesn’t.

The fact is the Holy See is still directing a non reporting approach. They have their paid lobbyist working hard to weaken civil laws on reporting and protecting children. It is just as obvious that the Holy See has a transfer out of here to anywhere policy. And, the Vatican Bank is in trouble again.

You know if you what to look at a parallel handling of a situation review the Roman Catholic Church’s history on slavery. Like Child sex abuse for thousand years or more they said the right thing and perhaps here and there did the right thing, but then fell back to the habit of looking the other way. They were followers in stopping slavery, similar to the tack they are taken with child prevention. Yes, they said the right things, but did or are doing little or nothing concrete to stop it.

It is the Faithful’s job to make RCC leaders, not followers of nations in protecting children!

Dana: Part II – I wrote the above Thursday around 6:00. I decided to pray, meditate, read some Meister. My thoughts after prayer are: I think my attitude is correct, but, there maybe some displaced anger from my current work with a survivor in crisis. That I have been using this format as a distraction, and I may play your cut and paste game in the future,
.
The survivor has been referred to another survivor who is an expert in this type of crisis with a history of success. I have book a trip for next week to Disneyworld for my prayer told me: I needed some R and R. Maybe that why my mother taught me to pray? Sometime you really like the answers!

I will pray for you and hope you will pray for me.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

"They have their paid lobbyist working hard to weaken civil laws on reporting and protecting children"

Why the concern over civil law. Shouldn't you be focused on criminal law? The only reason I can think of is there is no money in it for the trial lawyers who fund SNAP.

Frank I can't speak for Dana but I will pray for you and all the victims of abuse. That they receive the comfort and healing from God and the ability to forgive and move on with their faith and life. Not for the sake of the abusers or the church but for their own sakes. In the end it's my faith that allows me to keep in mind that while it is possible to escape justice in this world, a far greater punishment awaits those who do.

No Frank, if you are going to accuse a woman of “name calling and ridiculous accusations” you are obligated to prove your assertions or to apologize.

Whatever it was good that your father taught you acting like a gentleman was obviously absent from the lesson. Yes, I will pray for you.

Anonymous: Thank you for the prayers.

Ops, I made a mistake. It is criminal laws that the Maryland Catholic Conference Lobbyist successful fought to reduce and/or eliminate clergy reporting in 2004 and 2010. Also, other states Catholic Conferences Lobbyist have successfully defeated reporting in other states. One wonders why the Catholic Church opposed reporting if it their objective was to protect children. This substantiates my burden of proof for the premise they want to protect predators.

Dana: My father is laughing in heaven. Dad’s premise was the more intelligent, more educated, more set in their ways--she or he would have the shortest time before whatever I was mirroring would continue. You maybe champ! Now, you may cut and paste your remark.

Thanks for confirming my opinion that you are very bright and intelligent. Also, no apology is expected.

Protect Kids, Not Predators!

snapmd@comcast.net

http://www.snapnetwork.org/

I have never apologized for being bright and intelligent Frank, though I have often concealed it, for the sake of coquettishness.

Frank I can't comment on the comment about Catholic Lobbyist fighting to reduce and/or eliminate clergy reporting in 2004 and 2010 without some more information. You didn't really give me any information on what the laws would have been or who it was doing the lobbying. Did SNAP lobby with as much resorces as they do for civil law changes?

Regardless of what the church does or does not report that does not preclude victims from reporting abuse.

I've never said the church has done everything it needs to do yet. There is more than one issue to deal with. Those cases which have happened and trying to bring those to justice who did the abuse or helped abusers with inaction or actions. The other is what gets done to make sure abuse gets reported or better yet doesn't happen. In both more work needs to be done.