Pope Francis covered up McCarrick abuse, former US nuncio testifies

I agree they should be excommunicated, but I think they should be defrocked as well. Until modern times, the punishment for this type of deviancy used to be severe. The priest was defrocked and turned over to the local authorities.

To allow predators like this to stay in the priesthood is to me unthinkable. If the Church were not to laicize them then along with retaining their status as priests they would continue to receive money from the faithful in the form of a salary, medical care, pension, housing, etc.

Nope. Sorry, as much as I respect Dr. Hahn I don't agree with him here.

Yes there is a universal call to holiness, but the clergy have a higher calling that the average person. So many saints have said that priests must be especially pure. If they betray their calling and prey upon those given to them to guide in such a vicious and self-serving manner I say out on their ears.

 

I was really surprised at something he siad. He said that it was only recently he realsied there was a problem and that it was only up until then he more nor less hero worshipped Pope Francis. I suppo e this could be so. It warns me of the dangers of operating out of a closed box and not understanding that many, good, holy well meaning Catholics continue to think Pope Francis is the best thing since sliced bread.

I suppose quite simply they have somehow missed events. A bit like one of those old Japanese soldier lost in the jungle still fighting the Second World War; bless them.

Maybe this ignorance is not so bad, I might wish I were out there in the jungle with them.

 

This whole grizzly buisness seems to have taken on a life of it's own. But now that Cardinal Dolan has weighed in asking for an inquiry Pope Francis's strategy of staying quiet and hoping it will all go away seems shot to total pieces.
I mean Dolan the Rebel; who'd have believed it?

If Dolan of all people has gone over the tide has totally, totally turned on this.

Bless Carinal TImothy Dolan ; he has done the Entire Church a huge service.


http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/com...ayed-by-apparent-papal-inaction-on-mccarrick/





Even loyal bishops are dismayed by apparent Papal inaction on McCarrick
by Michael Davis
posted Saturday, 6 Oct 2018

Cardinal Dolan (Glynnis Jones/Shutterstock)
Pope Francis is facing criticism from some surprising places in the US

To the surprise of many Catholic commentators, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York has emerged as a leading voice in the calls for a full Vatican inquiry into the decades-long cover-up of Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct. A consummate insider well regarded by three consecutive popes, Dolan has nevertheless told the press that he is growing “impatient” waiting for an apostolic visitation – that is, a formal investigation ordered by the Pope. For that reason, he has appointed a former federal judge, Barbara Jones, to review his archdiocese’s protocols relating to sexual abuse.

Cardinal Dolan was joined in his call for papal intervention by a prominent layman with close ties to the Archdiocese of Washington. John Carr, director of Georgetown University’s Initiative for Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, told a panel that the Holy Father “has been too slow to understand and act on the moral and spiritual consequences of abuse”. Carr went on to say that the “isolation, institutional protection and lack of connection to anguish of survivors and their families have often led to a lack of empathy, urgency and action” among Church leaders.

Carr’s appeal is especially striking given his links to several once-powerful bishops. He worked for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on Capitol Hill for 20 years, where he advised Cardinal Bernard Law, the late Archbishop of Boston and the focus of the Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” investigation, which sparked the abuse crisis of the early 2000s.

He also worked closely with McCarrick, whom he called a “friend … and a great supporter of my work”. More recently, he has collaborated with McCarrick’s successor, the embattled Cardinal Donald Wuerl. Carr called Wuerl a friend, too, and applauded his request that Francis accept his resignation. “Defending past choices is no substitute for owning and personally apologising for past actions that harmed the vulnerable,” said Carr.

Carr might not be a household name the way Dolan is, but his credentials as an insider are impressive. It is one thing for pundits who have been consistently critical of Francis to condemn the Holy Father’s inaction – indeed, Carr made a point of warning against “those who seem to use the suffering of survivors to settle scores or to advance their own ideological agendas or their opposition to Pope Francis”. But for men distinguished for their loyalty to the Holy See to criticise a Pope in public demonstrates how profoundly this crisis is changing the Church. Dolan and Carr’s “impatience” is no doubt exacerbated by enormous pressure from the laity, who want their bishops to adopt a “full mobilisation” mentality. There can be no business as usual, they say, until McCarrick’s enablers are brought to justice and abusers are purged from the clergy.

Among them is Justice Anne Burke of the Illinois Supreme Court. She and her husband Edward, a Chicago alderman, are one of the country’s leading political power couples. In addition, Burke serves on the US bishops’ National Review Board (NRB), which the bishops convened following the sex abuse scandal of the early 2000s. The lay-led NRB advises the bishops’ conference on all things relating to “child and youth protection”.

Until last week, Anne Burke was also a Dame of Malta. Then Peter Kelly, president of the Knights’ American Association, sent a letter to its members in the US telling them: “It is not the mission of the Order of Malta to participate in the debate concerning the current crisis … Therefore, official participation of members in the public debate regarding the aforementioned issues – beyond condemning abuse in general – is not helpful and could interfere with our work.”

Burke wrote Kelly an angry response, excerpts of which were published in the Chicago Sun-Times. “I feel that I cannot remain silent and I no longer wish to be a part of a Catholic organisation that is unwilling to take a stand on these issues,” she said. She also took a shot at Cardinal Dolan, calling his investigation “unbelievable” and “nonsense”. “Why would anybody trust this when [Jones] is working for the archdiocese?” she asked.

Burke’s discontent is shared by many of the laity, and it is difficult to say exactly what measures the bishops might take to mollify them. Given the Vatican’s conspicuous refusal to investigate McCarrick’s network – and the Holy Father’s refusal even to deny claims that he knew about the former cardinal’s transgressions – some Catholics have inevitably come to believe that the hierarchy will do only the bare minimum to fight corruption.

Powerful prelates such as Dolan, members of the US Catholic establishment like Carr and even quasi-independent groups like the Knights of Malta are now bearing the brunt of the laity’s rage. Significantly, this is already beginning to estrange the papacy from its American allies. From now on, when Pope Francis’s “ideological opponents” in the United States speak out, his friends may not be so quick to leap to his defence.

 

I think that you'll find that excommunication carries with it automatic laicisation. An excommunicated priest would no longer be a priest (impossible since he is no longer a Catholic) and would not therefore be a financial burden on the laity.

 

I don't think that is true and that doesn't seem to be Dr. Hahn's position. If anyone would know I think he would.

Excommunication doesn't make you not a Catholic anymore. It is simply a barring from the sacraments (hopefully temporarily) with the exception of confession. Excommunication is meant as a means to lead a penitent back to leading a lifestyle in line with Church teaching. It is never meant to be a permanent barring from the Church.

 

Yes, I know, but an excommunicated priest is clearly no longer a priest and Scott Hahn obviously didn't think that he needed to state the obvious.

 

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

EXCOMMUNICATION. An ecclesiastical censure by which one is more or less excluded from communion with the faithful. It is also called anathema, especially if it is inflicted with formal solemnities on persons notoriously obstinate to reconciliation. Two basic forms of excommunication are legislated by the Code of Canon Law, namely inflicted penalties (ferendae sententiae) and automatic penalties (latae sententiae). In the first type, a penalty does not bind until after it has been imposed on the guilty party. In the second type, the excommunication is incurred by the very commission of the offense, if the law or precept expressly determines this (Canon 1314). Most excommunications are of the second type. Among others identified by the new Code are the following:

"An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic excommunication" (Canon 1364). "A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes them or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See" (Canon 1367). "A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See" (Canon 1388). "A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic excommunication" (Canon 1398).
There are three principal effects of this penalty, so that "an excommunicated person is forbidden:

to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Eucharistic Sacrifice or in any other ceremonies whatsoever of public worship to celebrate the sacraments and sacramentals and to receive the sacraments to discharge any ecclesiastical offices, ministries or functions whatsoever, or to place acts of governance" (Canon 1331).

 

Thanks Fatima. This is indeed true.

 

Excommunication and laicization are not the same thing. A priest can be laicized and not excommunicated. A priest can be excommunicated and not laicized.

Here are some examples where priests were excommunicated, but not laicized.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/11/try_the_priest.html

https://aleteia.org/2018/02/10/aust...d-for-breaching-the-seal-of-the-confessional/

 

I never knew this. It confuses me, but very interesting. So I suppose defrocking is the really big stick...and excommunication I suppose does not mean you are no longer a member of the Church, just that you are not in communion with it..you can't recieve the Sacraments?

I think I understand.

So then if a priest is excommunicated he cannot say mass but still gets his dough?

 

Correct. An excommunicated priest could still collect his paycheck, etc. Excommunication is meant to be a temporary penalty to get yourself back on track. It is not meant to last for any extended period unless the person it intransigent. It results in the temporary removal of one's ability to receive the sacraments. Priests can also suffer other canonical penalties such as suspension. Laicization on the other hand is the total removal of the priest from the clerical state. It is the "nuclear option". Excommunication is a kick in the pants. Laicization is a kick out the door.

Of course laicization is not always a penalty. A priest in good standing can ask to be laicized for any number of reasons.

 

In the film of the life of St Thomas Beckett , Richard Burton starring, they did the full medieval ritual of bell, book and candle. It is a very dramatic ritual. I think this stuck with me as the nuclear bomb of things. I see it is not.

Thanks, I understand better now...

 

Well, as with many things, it has been softened though the centuries. In the middle ages if one committed a serious sin the penalty might be to do penance for months or even literally years before absolution was given.

Today we expect to just get our absolution immediately no matter what the sin. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing as back then many people who were truly contrite may have died before they were absolved.

 

From Christopher Altieri in Catholic World Report: https://www.catholicworldreport.com...study-of-mccarrick-files-unlikely-to-satisfy/

Analysis: Pope’s ‘thorough study’ of McCarrick files unlikely to satisfy
ROME, October 6th, 2018 — The Press Office of the Holy See released a communiqué on Saturday afternoon, offering the first direct response to the 11-page letter of “testimony” published in late August by the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.​

The Vatican communiqué promises “to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.” The subject of the effort to ascertain “all the relevant facts” is to be “the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick.”

In other words: we are in essence looking at a promise to review documents on file.

The Holy See promises the review will be “thorough”, though it says nothing about who will be conducting the “thorough study” or with what precise mandate, let alone what powers of discovery — if any — those tasked with the “thorough study” are to have. The paperwork review will be “combined” with the information gathered during the Archdiocese of New York’s preliminary investigation, which the Archdiocese forwarded to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

It is hard to say what the “thorough study” promised by the Vatican will be.

For one thing, “The entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick,” could be very vast, or relatively thin, depending on what construction one puts on the word “regarding”.​

Read the rest here: https://www.catholicworldreport.com...study-of-mccarrick-files-unlikely-to-satisfy/

Basically, all the accused will be investigating themselves, disseminating what information they want to release and which dead/retired popes or prelates they can get away with pinning the blame on.

 

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/10/0...ou-canon-law-guys-really-need-to-get-on-this/

BUMPED: Canon Law 1339 and 1340 Explain Pope Benedict’s Actions Vis-a-vis McCarrick – You Canon Law Guys REALLY Need To Get On This

(I posted this September 1, but apparently it didn’t get any traction, so I’ll try again in light of the open letter to Archbishop Viganò just released by Cardinal Ouellet. To say that Ouellet’s letter is nauseating to read is the understatement of the quarter.

THE CANON BELOW EXPLAINS EXACTLY WHY POPE BENEDICT’S SANCTIONS AGAINST MCCARRICK REMAINED VERBAL “DOWNSTREAM” OF POPE BENEDICT’S DESK. IT IS A QUESTION OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND DUE PROCESS.

Just coming off the Kavanaugh fracas, this point of jurisprudence and civilized society SHOULD be in the forefront of everyone’s minds.)

Vatican Website Link Here

CHAPTER III.

PENAL REMEDIES AND PENANCES

Can. 1339 §1. An ordinary, personally or through another, can warn a person who is in the proximate occasion of committing a delict or upon whom, after investigation, grave suspicion of having committed a delict has fallen.

§2. He can also rebuke a person whose behavior causes scandal or a grave disturbance of order, in a manner accommodated to the special conditions of the person and the deed.

§3. The warning or rebuke must always be established at least by some document which is to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.

Can. 1340 §1. A penance, which can be imposed in the external forum, is the performance of some work of religion, piety, or charity.

§2. A public penance is never to be imposed for an occult transgression.

§3. According to his own prudent judgment, an ordinary can add penances to the penal remedy of warning or rebuke.

With regards to 1340.2, an “occult transgression” means a transgression not publicly known. This provision exists as a sort of “innocent until proven guilty in a canonical court” protection of the accused. We are all familiar with this important aspect of jurisprudence. It seems likely that Pope Benedict XVI knew, or was at least afraid that he could not get a conviction against McCarrick, precisely because of the law of OMERTÁ that reigns among the sodomitical coven that has infiltrated Holy Mother Church, ESPECIALLY inside the Vatican.

With regards to 1339.3, this explains why all communications “downstream” of Pope Benedict were likely done verbally. Canon Law, which Pope Benedict knew and followed assiduously, clearly says that the written documentation of such a rebuke would have been drafted and deposited in the Secret Archives, presumably in the Curia in Rome, and from THERE, all transmission would have been verbal, precisely because 1340.2 states that those penances imposed on someone not yet tried and convicted in court had to remain confidential.

THIS, folks, is a perfectly plausible response to the tendentious argument that McCarrick openly celebrating Mass and otherwise appearing in public somehow suggests that there were no warnings, rebukes, or penances imposed upon him by Pope Benedict XVI. There were, but McCarrick, knowing that the Rule of Law provided for a presumption of innocence and due process, AND McCarrick knowing that he would be protected and enabled by all of the other sodomite bishops and Cardinals, FLAUNTED and OPENLY DISOBEYED the sanctions made by Pope Benedict because he knew he could get away with it, and stick it to his enemy Ratzinger at the same time.

 

Pope Benedict XVI on purifying the church from the filth within ---

«the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies on the outside» but «is born from the sins within the church». He linked these events to the message of the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Portugal during the last century, claiming that «We delude ourselves if we think that the prophetic mission of Fatima has come to an end».

In the interview book “Light of the World”, the Pope also supported the media and their role in the affair «The media would not have been able to provide those reports if the sin had not existed in the Church...as long as it is a matter of bringing the truth to light, we should be grateful». A lesson of great humility, which seen from the outside could be even better understood inside the Church.

 

Sexual Abuse and the Third Secret – A Timely Reminder

https://www.catholicfamilynews.org/blog/2018/7/2/sexual-abuse-and-the-third-secret-a-timely-reminder

 

IMPURITY AND APOSTASY ARE BED-FELLOWS

 

Ouelet shoots at the messenger in servile "sincere" letter, calling archbishop Vigano to return to full communion with pope...Hei, Vigano is not excommunicated! Ouelet trespasses what is civilized dialogue and makes it extremely difficult to find a solution..? Ouelet Must Go, Now! Even if Francis manages to keep the papacy for now...at nearly 82...The messenger is not the guilty. The guilty are the Vatican guys. Do they realize how the people think of them?

If pipe Francis believes he could protract the investigation for months...he is just wrong. Even the MSM liberals are criticizing him now