Pope: Belgian sex abuse raids deplorable

[ReformedBaptist]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100627/D9GJKEK03.html

Jun 27, 8:42 AM (ET)

By NICOLE WINFIELD

VATICAN CITY (AP) - The pope on Sunday called the raids carried out by Belgian police investigating priestly sex abuse "deplorable" and asserted the right of the Catholic Church to investigate abuse alongside civil law enforcement authorities.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a message Sunday to the head of the Belgian bishops' conference, Monsignor Andre-Joseph Leonard, expressing his solidarity with all Belgian bishops "in this sad moment."

The June 24 raids targeted the home and office of a retired archbishop and also the graves of two prelates. The Vatican has slowly ratcheted up its criticism of the searches, with the Vatican No. 2 on Saturday complaining they were unprecedented even under communism.

At the end of the article it says:

In his message to the bishops, Benedict stressed that justice must take its course.

But he also repeated that such crimes are handled by both civil and canon law "respecting their reciprocal specificity and autonomy."

Aside from a very distasteful commentary from the Vatican (what is deplorable is the actions of its priests, not the justice of the civil authority against them), this article serves as an example of the papacy asserting its authority over civil matters.

 

[lori4dogs]

Notice that the police raided Cardinal Danneels’ residence - a “retired archbishop” and he’s always co-operated with the courts.

There is not one bit of evidence that there is anything found hidden or that was kept from the police or the justice system. Can anyone tell me what use this was other than a publicity stunt? I doubt the Belgium civil authorities care much about child abuse (as evidenced in the atrotious handling of the two little girls left to starve to death) but hate Jesus and His Church.

"The tombs of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Léon-Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, were violated” as, reportedly acting on a tip, the authorities drilled small holes in the stones, inserting cameras to check for documents. Wonder what evidence those Cardinals gave up! I'm not surprised the Holy Father was upset with the desecration of graves. Do any of you think that us Evil Romanists would really be so stupid as to hide incriminating documents in graves?

I'm willing to bet there will be 'no evidence' produced as a result of these raids.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I didn't post the article to argue for or against the actions of the civil authority, but to illustrate to all the rhetoric of the papacy to assert its canon law.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I didn't post the article to argue for or against the actions of the civil authority, but to illustrate to all the rhetoric of the papacy to assert its canon law.

The reason it does this is because of Political Agreements the vatican as an independent nation has made with other countries called concordats. Every time they operate in a country the Vatican attempts to have that country allow its canon law.

On the other hand its interesting to note that if the catholic church was up front with its sex abuse cases this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The reason it does this is because of Political Agreements the vatican as an independent nation has made with other countries called concordats. Every time they operate in a country the Vatican attempts to have that country allow its canon law.

On the other hand its interesting to note that if the catholic church was up front with its sex abuse cases this wouldn't be an issue.

Since when should any religious organization have the right, as a sovereign state, assert its religious laws with the civil laws of that nation? By what right or authority?

Imagine that this was an Islamic group doing this and asserting sharia law.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Since when should any religious organization have the right, as a sovereign state, assert its religious laws with the civil laws of that nation? By what right or authority?

Imagine that this was an Islamic group doing this and asserting sharia law.

Well, Many hundreds of Years ago Pepin the short gave lands to the Pope to rule over. At this point the Catholic Church was not just a religious institution but became a national one as well. in 1870 most of the Papal states were taken over and it was agrred that the vatican itself would remain under Papal control there by keeping its international status. So its a bit different than islam.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, Many hundreds of Years ago Pepin the short gave lands to the Pope to rule over. At this point the Catholic Church was not just a religious institution but became a national one as well. in 1870 most of the Papal states were taken over and it was agrred that the vatican itself would remain under Papal control there by keeping its international status. So its a bit different than islam.

But that really doesn't address the question or concern...?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But that really doesn't address the question or concern...?

Well, acting as an independent nation it makes treaties with other nations allowing for the implemention of several agreements. The US does this as do all nations. When an issue comes up when an agreement is in question the state will press the issue maintaining the agreement. If the Catholic Church were only a religious institution it wouldn't be a problem but because its an imdependent nation.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Lori, whether the Belgian courts up hold the police action or disallow it is not under discussion here. What is being discussed is the pope's seeming assertion of what amounts to diplomatic immunity. And I assume the reason for the examinination of the graves is called being thorough. It's amazing how small the hole can be in order to insert a camera these days.

Notice that the police raided Cardinal Danneels’ residence - a “retired archbishop” and he’s always co-operated with the courts.

There is not one bit of evidence that there is anything found hidden or that was kept from the police or the justice system. Can anyone tell me what use this was other than a publicity stunt? I doubt the Belgium civil authorities care much about child abuse (as evidenced in the atrotious handling of the two little girls left to starve to death) but hate Jesus and His Church.

"The tombs of Cardinals Jozef-Ernest Van Roey and Léon-Joseph Suenens, deceased archbishops of Malines-Brussels, were violated” as, reportedly acting on a tip, the authorities drilled small holes in the stones, inserting cameras to check for documents. Wonder what evidence those Cardinals gave up! I'm not surprised the Holy Father was upset with the desecration of graves. Do any of you think that us Evil Romanists would really be so stupid as to hide incriminating documents in graves?

I'm willing to bet there will be 'no evidence' produced as a result of these raids.

 

[Melanie]

Since when should any religious organization have the right, as a sovereign state, assert its religious laws with the civil laws of that nation? By what right or authority?

Imagine that this was an Islamic group doing this and asserting sharia law.

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

[targus]

What is being discussed is the pope's seeming assertion of what amounts to diplomatic immunity.

That is not the case from my reading of the OP.

According to the OP the Pope "asserted the right of the Catholic Church to investigate abuse alongside civil law enforcement authorities."

To "investigate alongside of civil law enforcement authorities" does not suggest any claim of "diplomatic immunity" to me.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I am reading the pope's statement in light of the fact he is a head of state. And please note I did use the word "seeming" in my comment.
The pope's assertion gives me the impression he is placing the local RCC authorities on the same level of as the Belgian police and judiciary.
To me, his remarks sounds like statement that would be issued by Whitehall (the British Foreign Office) or by the Palace D'Orsay (the French FO) about raids on British or French diplomatic interests.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I had to google this to figure out the meaning of it. Most people no longer speak or can read Latin. The papacy kept the world in darkness for many, many years by forbidding the Scriptures to the people, and keeping them in a dead language.

So that people know what your phrase means, I learned from Wiki:

Mea culpa is a Latin phrase that translates into English as "my bad", or "my own fault". To emphasize the message, the adjective "maxima" may be inserted, resulting in "mea maxima culpa," which would translate as "my most [grievous] fault."

The origin of the expression is from a prayer of confession of sinfulness used in the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church known as Confiteor (Latin for "I confess"), of which the first evidence date from shortly before 1100. The phrase "mea culpa" appears in the prayer from the 1500s.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

If that is true, then it light of the meaning of the phrase, what do you mean?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That is not the case from my reading of the OP.

According to the OP the Pope "asserted the right of the Catholic Church to investigate abuse alongside civil law enforcement authorities."

To "investigate alongside of civil law enforcement authorities" does not suggest any claim of "diplomatic immunity" to me.

I saw it like squire did, that the papacy is equating its canon law with the laws of soveriegn nations. My question is, by what right do they do this?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Sorry, you've lead a sheltered life . But, mea culpa has made it into the English language. I've seen it used in news reports as in "today the mayor issued a mea culpa for his remarks last Friday." Remember, just because a writer steals a Latin phrase here and there it doesn't mean they are die hard supporters of The Church.
In this case, BG is saying she's really, really sorry to the maximum extent. See, good Latin but not so good English. But you're correct, I don't know what she's sorry about.

I had to google this to figure out the meaning of it. Most people no longer speak or can read Latin. The papacy kept the world in darkness for many, many years by forbidding the Scriptures to the people, and keeping them in a dead language.

So that people know what your phrase means, I learned from Wiki:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

If that is true, then it light of the meaning of the phrase, what do you mean?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sorry, you've lead a sheltered life . But, mea culpa has made it into the English language. I've seen it used in news reports as in "today the mayor issued a mea culpa for his remarks last Friday." Remember, just because a writer steals a Latin phrase here and there it doesn't mean they are die hard supporters of The Church.
In this case, BG is saying she's really, really sorry to the maximum extent. See, good Latin but not so good English. But you're correct, I don't know what she's sorry about.

Yep, it was a new one on me. Just stating the facts about the statement.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

While you are correct as to the phrase's origins. It has been secularized and natuaralized into English. No doubt, because of Latin being a language learned by educated even if not RCC folk until the 1930s.
According to my American Heritage dictionary the phrase means "An acknowledgment of personal error or fault. [Lat. mea culpa, through my fault: mea my + culpa fault]" As you can see AHD does not give any ecclesiastical meaning to the phrase.
According to Chamber's Dictionary (a British English work):" by my own fault, -- an acknowledgment of one's own guilt or mistake."
Again my point is the phrase is in standard secular usage. Therefore, one should not automatically ascribe the religious (RCC) meaning to it. Have you looked it up in a Webster's?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

While you are correct as to the phrase's origins. It has been secularized and natuaralized into English. No doubt, because of Latin being a language learned by educated even if not RCC folk until the 1930s.
According to my American Heritage dictionary the phrase means "An acknowledgment of personal error or fault. [Lat. mea culpa, through my fault: mea my + culpa fault]" As you can see AHD does not give any ecclesiastical meaning to the phrase.
According to Chamber's Dictionary (a British English work):" by my own fault, -- an acknowledgment of one's own guilt or mistake."
Again my point is the phrase is in standard secular usage. Therefore, one should not automatically ascribe the religious (RCC) meaning to it. Have you looked it up in a Webster's?

No, I haven't looked it up. But I believe you, apparantly the phrase has passed into usage.

 

[Melanie]

I had to google this to figure out the meaning of it. Most people no longer speak or can read Latin. The papacy kept the world in darkness for many, many years by forbidding the Scriptures to the people, and keeping them in a dead language.

So that people know what your phrase means, I learned from Wiki:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_culpa

If that is true, then it light of the meaning of the phrase, what do you mean?

Why....it is as I say, incidentally it is part of my daily life in so far as I attend daily Mass. The reason I put it in was I was very annoyed by a post and allowed my emotions to get the better of my post....it would not accept "bump" so I put in the mea culpa instead.

Latin is used by the RCC precisely because it is a dead language, the meanings of the words remain static unlike the organic changes of say English. Both have their place.:flower:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why....it is as I say, incidentally it is part of my daily life in so far as I attend daily Mass. The reason I put it in was I was very annoyed by a post and allowed my emotions to get the better of my post....it would not accept "bump" so I put in the mea culpa instead.

Latin is used by the RCC precisely because it is a dead language, the meanings of the words remain static unlike the organic changes of say English. Both have their place.:flower:

The post annoys me too. It annoys me that the Vatican would assert its laws into civils law. And it annoys me that the papacy continues to dodge this issue. Even the current pope should be held accountable. And if he claims his own diplomatic immunity from any nation, then he should be charged with crimes against humanity if he knew about these abuses and did nothing.

I would expect even a Roman Catholic to agree that those who perpetrated these crimes of gross pedophilia and the leaders who turned a blind eye, should be held accountable.

It is unbiblical to keep God's Word hidden from people. Something the papacy consistently does, and when given opportunity, forceably does.