Vatican riven by internal battle over handling of child abuse claims

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Vatican riven by internal battle over handling of child abuse claims

Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Rome
Tuesday 16 February 2016 15.47 GMT

A battle is being waged within the Vatican over how senior clergy ought to handle accusations of sexual abuse amid signs that a special commission created by Pope Francis to handle the issue is being sidelined by senior church officials in Rome.

The rift was exposed after a report in the Guardian about a training course that was offered to new bishops last year in which a controversial French monsignor instructed them that it was “not necessarily” their duty to report accusations of abuse to law enforcement authorities if local laws did not require it.

That stance was rejected this week by Pope Francis’s point man on abuse issues, Boston cardinal Seán O’Malley, who heads a special pontifical commission to protect minors.

“We, the president and the members of the commission, wish to affirm that our obligations under civil law must certainly be followed, but even beyond these civil requirements, we all have a moral and ethical responsibility to report suspected abuse to the civil authorities who are charged with protecting our society,” he said in a statement on Monday.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/16/vatican-riven-by-internal-battle-over-handling-of-child-abuse-claims

[skepticscott]

1. Another well-orchestrated two-step by the Vatican

Take one position, then publicly walk it back and pretend to take the opposite position. The depths of moral cowardice on display.

[trotsky]

2. Agreed.

Until and unless the official policies of the RCC change, this is nothing more than crafted PR. Anyone who's been paying attention can see that's how things work.

[rug]

3. I'm sorry you're miffed that Cardinal O'Malley wants to report abusers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12216632

[trotsky]

4. Does your church require bishops to report abusers to local authorities?

Yes or no?

[rug]

5. D'uh, yes.

As does civil law.

Double D'uh.

If you want to replace rhetoric with fact, go to the website of any diocese and check its abuse protocols.

[trotsky]

6. Your church has historically and traditionally placed itself and its clergy above civil law.

It's all part of the majesty and power. D'uh.

No mandatory reporting in Italian norms for handling abuse allegations

Because a bishop is not a public official and is not charged with duties of "public service, he does not have the juridical obligation -- save for a moral duty to contribute to the common good -- to report to civil judicial authorities news he has received concerning illicit matters" of sex abuse, the guidelines said.

What’s the State of the Church’s Child Abuse Crisis?

Bishop Robert Finn, who had authority over Ratigan, didn’t alert the police then, according to court documents. (Finn would later say he had only received a verbal summary of the letter from a deputy at the time.) He also didn’t call the police several months later, when a computer technician found hundreds of lewd photos of children on Ratigan’s laptop, most of which appeared to have been taken by a personal camera.
...
Finn, who argued in court that because others in the diocese were tasked with reporting abuse he didn’t have a legal obligation to do so, was convicted in 2012 for failing to report Ratigan to the police, and given two years’ probation.

Vatican's new sex abuse guidelines don't require reporting

New Vatican guidelines aimed at fighting child abuse by priests tell Catholic bishops they should cooperate with police, but do not order them to report allegations to the authorities.

[rug]

9. I see. You haven't a songle site.

There are 195 U.S. dioceses and each one requires reporting of allegations alone of abuse.

And they do.

Instead of recognizing facts, you're invested in the narrative that the RCC is a global pedophile organization.

Your first link is from 2014.

Your second link is from 2014.

Your third link is from 2011.

This link is from today.

There's no question – reporting abuse is a must, Cardinal O'Malley says

By Elise Harris

Rome, Italy, Feb 16, 2016 / 09:45 am (CNA/EWTN News).- After recent media reports suggested the Vatican is telling bishops to cover up sexual abuse, the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors has said that reporting abuse is not just a civil responsibility, but a moral one.

“The crimes and sins of the sexual abuse of children must not be kept secret for any longer. I pledge the zealous vigilance of the Church to protect children and the promise of accountability for all,” Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, president of the commission, said in a Feb. 15 statement, quoting Pope Francis.

On behalf of himself and the other members of the commission, the cardinal affirmed that “our obligations under civil law must certainly be followed.”

Even beyond these civil requirements, “we all have a moral and ethical responsibility to report suspected abuse to the civil authorities who are charged with protecting our society,” he said.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/theres-no-question-reporting-abuse-is-a-must-cardinal-omalley-says-88192/

It's almost as if you don't want it to change.

[trotsky]

29. I don't think you understand how this "evidence" thing works.

You don't get to task me with finding and scouring thousands of websites to confirm what you're on the hook to demonstrate - namely that bishops are *required* by your church to report abuse incidents regardless of local laws.

Yes, you have that recent story, but that's not in dispute. Yes, O'Malley *says* that. But is it your church's official policy?

Your silence on that specific question tells the tale. Oh wait, thankfully your link tells us the truth:

The Vatican has emphasised that Anatrella’s involvement in the teaching of new bishops did not represent a departure on policy, and that Rome has said since 2011 that it was “important” to cooperate with civil authorities. But it still does not support across-the-board reporting of abuse in countries where such notification is not mandatory.

D'oh.

[rug]

30. Oh, but I do, trotsky. Very well.

It starts with finding it, not "You don't get to task me with finding".

And I asked you to look at any one of 195 sites, not thousands. (Hyberbole also gets in the way of observing evidence.)

Lastly, evidence does not consist of ignoring a one day old report that puts the lie to your preconceived, preferred narrative.

Confirmation bias, you know.

[trotsky]

31. Um, rug, I quoted from your very own article proving you wrong.

...Rome has said since 2011 that it was “important” to cooperate with civil authorities. But it still does not support across-the-board reporting of abuse in countries where such notification is not mandatory.

You lose. Again.

[rug]

32. Are you confused?

That excerpt appears nowhere in the link I posted.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/theres-no-question-reporting-abuse-is-a-must-cardinal-omalley-says-88192/

It's interesting you frame this as win/lose. What exactly are you afraid of losing?

[trotsky]

33. Oh good grief, it's the same story. The O'Malley quote is the same.

The difference is, the one that is NOT from the "Catholic News Agency" (no bias there, right?) admits that it is NOT required.

I want child rapists and their protectors/enablers to lose, rug. Don't you? Why doesn't your church require abusers be reported to secular authorities?

[rug]

34. Gracious of you to admit it's not my "very own article".

To answer your question, here is an excerpt from my "very own article":

However, in his statement Cardinal O'Malley stressed the importance of reporting suspected abuse and following the guidelines that are in place.

As an example, he pointed to the Charter for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which “clearly states the obligation that all dioceses/eparchies and personnel report suspected abuse to the public authorities.”

This obligation is reaffirmed every year during the USCCB's November training session for new bishops, as well as every other February when the conference runs a second training program for new bishops that also “clearly and explicitly includes this obligation,” the cardinal said.

He noted that the commission recently shared with Pope Francis an overview of their “extensive education efforts” in local churches over the past two years.

And here is the link:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/theres-no-question-reporting-abuse-is-a-must-cardinal-omalley-says-88192/

[trotsky]

35. Yeah, I saw the exact same wording and quote and conflated the two. Big deal.

What you seem unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge is what O'Malley *said* and what your church *requires* are still two different things.

If reporting is mandatory always, why hasn't George Pell been punished? Why is he serving a prominent role under Blank Frank?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218223894

What about Bernard Law? When will his punishment come?

[rug]

36. In the U.S. all dioceses are reqired to report even suspected sexual abuse. Big deal, right?

It is highly likely that policy will extend to all dioceses. Never happen, right? No big deal.

Tell you what, trotsky. I'll match your donation to the Australian crowdfunding.

[trotsky]

38. Wrong.

See below.

[rug]

40. I did. The policy is in effect and requires reporting.

[trotsky]

37. Cardinal O’Malley Sidesteps the Truth: The Vatican Still Refuses to Require Reporting

http://hamilton-griffin.com/bishopaccountability-org-cardinal-omalley-sidesteps-the-truth-the-vatican-still-refuses-to-require-reporting-of-child-sex-crimes-to-secular-authorities/

O’Malley’s response was reassuring but misleading. He was trying to obscure the dismal reality. He knows that Anatrella was essentially accurate — as of 2016, the Vatican still refuses to require reporting.

Indeed, the Vatican’s position on reporting hasn’t budged since 1997, when it nixed an attempt by the Irish bishops’ conference to include mandatory reporting in their local rules … or since 2002, when the Vatican blocked the same attempted reform by the U.S. bishops.

O’Malley witnessed the Vatican’s anti-reporting maneuver in 2002, which is why his evasive remarks this week were especially disappointing. He attended the historic meeting in Dallas in June 2002, when he and his brother bishops voted to include mandatory reporting in their newly drafted reforms (the “Essential Norms“). He likely attended the follow-up meeting in November of that year, when U.S. bishops reviewed how the Vatican had revised their Norms. Shockingly, the Vatican had deleted the requirement to report. (See the comparative texts – Norm 10 in the original became Norm 11 in the revision.) The clause was replaced with the weaker and more ambiguous rule that church officials must comply with civil law. This weakened rule is still in effect today, and its impact is significant: in the ten U.S. states where clergy are not mandated reporters, Catholic officials still are not obliged under church law to report child sex crimes.

Confusingly, however, the U.S. bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, the non-binding PR document accompanying the Norms, retains the mandatory reporting clause. This still misleads the public and some journalists. They read the Charter and assume that U.S. bishops are required to report allegations. Church officials don’t make clear that the Charter is essentially for show, and that the Essential Norms — from which mandatory reporting was deleted — are the canon laws that govern them.

Admit you're wrong and let's move on, rug. Quit defending your church at all costs.

[rug]

39. "PR document"

You know trotsky, the answer to every positive step taken is not "PR". Unless somebody really doesn't want that step taken.

[trotsky]

41. Thank you for admitting your error.

The difference between you and I is that I don't consider saying one thing, but continuing to do another, "a positive step."

[rug]

42. The difference between you and I is that I can tell the difference between a step and PR.

[trotsky]

43. I'll cheer when ALL instances of abuse must be reported to the secular authorities.

That is the goal. Anything short of it is unacceptable.

[skepticscott]

7. "Protocols" are not reality

they are what is supposed to be done, not what IS done. Of course, NOT raping children and NOT covering up for the rapist was what was supposed to be done all along, and we all know how that worked out for the RCC, don't we?

But they've written something on paper now, so everything is okie dokie, right??

[rug]

10. It's interesting you end a post about child rape with a laughing smiley.

[skepticscott]

12. Not nearly as interesting as the fact

that you can't muster a better response than that. Guess that's how apologetics goes though. You grasp at whatever straws you can when the truth isn't available to you.

[rug]

13. Speaking of grasping, I see you've resorted to ad hominems again scottie.

[skepticscott]

15. Laughing at your response and your lame argument

isn't an ad hom, buddy. By definition.

Try again.

[rug]

17. Oh, I see no laughing in this:

"Guess that's how apologetics goes though. You grasp at whatever straws you can when the truth isn't available to you."

Sounds like desperate insult to me.

[skepticscott]

19. Of course, the one being laughed at

never realizes how funny he is. Self-awareness, dude...works wonders.

[rug]

20. That's the first sign I've seen in you of self-insight.

Good work, scottie!

[skepticscott]

21. Glad you've finally admitted

your lack of perception, dude. Keep working at it.

[rug]

23. Ah. And you were so close.

You're slipping back.

[skepticscott]

8. Did I say that?

No. Falsehood on your part. Are you miffed that a Vatican representative has told priests that they don't have to report child rape to the authorities?

Anatrella was a controversial choice because he is known for his views on “gender theory”, the belief that increasing acceptance of homosexuality in western countries is creating “serious problems” for children who are being exposed to “radical notions of sexual orientation”.

Collins has also pointed to resistance inside the church to the creation of a new tribunal to investigate bishops accused of covering up sexual abuse.

The establishment of the tribunal, which was announced in July, was celebrated with great fanfare as a significant step forward by the pope to try to address the issue after decades of accusations that the church systematically turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children by clergy.

Now, months later, after it was approved by cardinals and the pope, the proposal seems to be languishing inside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the body that is supposed to handle charges of abuse that are brought to the Vatican.

[rug]

11. The aticle even mentions O'Malley's response. Miffed is indeed your reaction.

What will you do when Anatrella the reactionaery is booted? Bewail?

[skepticscott]

14. Oh, you mean like Bernard Law was "booted"?

right to his cushy no-extradition apartment in the Vatican, after protecting and enabling child rapists for decades?

your attempts at apologetics get funnier all the time.

[rug]

16. Catch up, scottie. It's Cardinal Burke you should watch.

Your shtick is getting stale. Jack Chick at least keeps it fresh.

[skepticscott]

18. Oh, Bernard Law is quite the perfect symbol

of your catholic church's enabling and defending of child rapists. If their "protocols" on reporting child rape to the authorities were worth the paper they were printed on, he'd have been handed over long ago. But Blank Frank and his cronies are scared shitless of what he knows and might tell to save his own skin.

[rug]

22. Tell me, what happened to Burke?

(BTW, your anti-Catholic conspiracres are approaching Alex Jones territory.) Do you think Opus Dei is going to kill Francis?)

[skepticscott]

24. I haven't expounded a single anti-Catholic conspiracy

So, yet another falsehood from you. Though I'm amused at the people who claim that Francis will be whacked if he pushes reforms too hard, since that means they're supporting a criminal organization that enforces hierarchical conformity by contract murder. Guess that's what religion leads people to.

[rug]

25. "But Blank Frank and his cronies are scared shitless of what he knows and might

tell to save his own skin."

Do you ever read what you write? Or are you just making up shit on the fly?

[skepticscott]

27. That's a pro-Catholic conspiracy, dude

Unless you're admitting that the RCC is doing something wrong in keeping Law in the Vatican. Are you?

Try to keep up.

[rug]

28. That's a scittie-posted conspiracy

bro.

[LuckyLib]

26. Read Betrayal -- the Boston Globe's reporting that brought down the hundreds

of priests accused of sexual abuse in Boston. It covers the country, and particularly shows the Vatican as dug in where addressing this issue is concerned:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_8?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=betrayal+the+crisis+in+the+catholic+church&sprefix=Betrayal%2Cstripbooks%2C276

Excellent book.