Documents found in Vatican

Documents found in Vatican
C

Clapton Fan

Registrant
Reported in The Observer here in the United Kingdom.

Vatican 'ordered abuse cover-up'

The Vatican told Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse, London's Observer newspaper has reported.
The newspaper quotes a 69-page document, written in 1962 and sent to every bishop in the world, which has been obtained by a lawyer acting for alleged victims of abuse by Catholic priests.

The document bears the seal of Pope John XXIII, and calls for "strictest" secrecy in dealing with abuse allegations within the Church.

It threatens to throw out of the Church anyone who breaks their silence.

So that these matters be pursued in a most secretive way, everyone is to be restrained by a perpetual silence under penalty of excommunication.

Read extracts from document
"It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues," Texan lawyer Daniel Shea told the newspaper.

"It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment."

German link

It was Mr Shea who discovered the secret document, which he says he was given by a clergyman in Germany who has close dealings with the Vatican.

He handed a copy of the document to US authorities late last month.

The US Catholic Church has been rocked by revelations of sexual abuse by priests.

The Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law, was forced to resign late last year after he admitted he had covered up sexual abuse by priests for many years.

It has sparked a more than 100 civil lawsuits by people who say they were abused.

Regarding the 1962 document, the Vatican has confirmed it is genuine but denied it was part of an organised cover-up, the Observer reported.

The Guardian article can be found here:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1020486,00.html

****************************************

And all that was left was hope :) .

Kirk :cool:
 
If it is true, and I have no recent to think otherwise, I am truly dumfounded.

We must also remember that family members also have long covered up the existence of sexual abuse in their midst.

I think society as a whole has preferred to sweep it under the table because soeciety does not want to know about it or its prevalence. It should also be borne in mind that if the numbers are true 1 in 3 females and 1 in 5 males suffer SA then a truly large portion of this overall society has good reason to not want to know about it or deal with it. It would seem that there are an awful lot of members of society who have good reason: more from fear of discovery of themeselves.

Just my two cents worth. To be honest when I said at the beginning I was dumfounded on forther thought I am just sick because it was to be expected of society. Can this apathy ever end?? I do not know.

What I do know is that it will not stop me in my recovery or in helping my fellow brothers here in theirs. From long experience with Ranting I know it just tires me out and inflames the rage in me; which if I am not careful, can turn on me and my loved ones.
 
I am not surprised and I know this is at the basis of any abuse whether it is a catholic church, protestant church, community organization, family, etc. It is what I experienced as a child when "you were not to break the silence" and you were to keep the secrets.

It saddens me greatly because I did at one time see the church as a stabilizing force throughout the world.

I just want leaders throughout our country and our world whether they are in churches, governement or community organizations to stand up and be leaders! I want them to do what is right for the people of the world and act as leaders should act.

Don
 
I've had a quick read of the document, and it's a stinker. Ok - it was 1962, but it laid the foundations for the cloak of secrecy that seems to still exist.

But in 1962 I bet ALL institutions operated in the same way, certainly the education system in the UK operated a policy of secrecy in the early '60s.

How many other organizations issued similar memo's ?

Dave
 
Guy This came out 6 months after i told on Father Ryan. The local parish in Hastings didn,t need a letter from Rome to know to cover up.

Dave
But in 1962 I bet ALL institutions operated in the same way, certainly the education system in the UK operated a policy of secrecy in the early '60s.
Click to expand...
I now that Hastings high school covered up the abuse of a Treacher from 1964 -70 Everone was in the cover up game. Muldoon
 
Here is a good look at this 1962 thing. The OP means he is a Dominican, and JCD means he has a doctor of church law degreee.

He has lots of courage to challenge the bishops like I have never seen before.

Bob

THE 1962 VATICAN DOCUMENT ON SOLICITATION IN THE CONFESSIONAL Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., J.C.D. August 10, 2003 The recently revealed Vatican document outlining the procedures for dealing with cases of solicitation of sex by priest-confessors has caused a swell of alarm and surprise on the part of survivors, attorneys and others. Since my name has been associated with the news reports I wish to state that I did not translate the document. I am aware of at least two separate English translations, both of which are private and unofficial. I was asked by an attorney if I could provide a copy of the document which had been cited in the May 18, 2001 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on handling cases of certain grave canonical offenses. I was not aware that the 1962 document would be circulated to the media and to other attorneys. Had I been told this I would have insisted that a commentary and explanation by a competent canonist accompany the text. Failure to do so has led to some degree of misunderstanding of the historical role of the document and its relevance to the contemporary sexual abuse crisis in the church. Although this document was sent to every bishop in the world, detailed awareness of its contents has been limited. It has come under discussion by canon lawyers and Vatican officials on several occasions in the past few years. Nevertheless the secrecy under which the document was originally distributed probably has resulted in such restricted awareness. This document was issued before the Second Vatican Council had taken place and before the revision of the present Code of Canon Law had even been envisioned. The Vatican practice of issuing special procedural rules for its various courts or tribunals is not unusual. It is also not unusual to have a special document issued for a specific type of problem which in this case was solicitation of sex in the context of sacramental confession in an actual confessional box or in the context of the administration of the sacrament outside of the traditional place. Title V of the document refers to the crimes of sexual contact with same sex partners, sexual contacts with minors, and bestiality and states that these are also to be processed according to these special norms. The document does not imply that these crimes were to have been perpetrated through solicitation in the confessional.
It must be noted that these types of sexual crimes were already included in the Code of Canon Law (1917 version). Solicitation is covered in canon 2368, 1 and sexual contact with minors and bestiality in canon 2359, 2. Ordinarily the prosecution of these crimes would be processed according to the procedural laws of the Code. The 1962 document provided special norms with an added emphasis on confidentiality because of the very serious nature of the crimes involved. It may seem to be some sort of clandestine plan but in fact it is an expansion with added detail, of the procedural laws to be followed. The existence of this document also clearly proves that the highest Catholic church authorities were aware of the especially grave nature of the clergy sexual crimes considered. This of course makes it difficult for any Church leader to credibly claim that the problem of clergy sexual abuse was an unknown quantity prior to 1984. The imposition of the Secret of the Holy Office on all involved in the processing of a case is not unusual. In fact, this represents the highest degree of Vatican secrecy and is imposed on a variety of processes and situations. It is certainly not unique to this document nor to the sexual crimes mentioned therein. The secrecy that was (and still is) imposed on parties and witnesses in canonical proceedings is intended to assure witnesses that they can speak freely. It is also intended to protect the reputations of the accused and accuser until guilt or innocence is determined. In the case of this document the seemingly excessive reference to secrecy and the dire consequences for those who violate it is primarily rooted in the fact that deals with the sacrament of penance to which is attached inviolable secrecy. Reading through the document one finds that the greatest pains are taken to protect the confessional secrecy. The almost paranoid insistence on secrecy throughout the document is probably related to two issues: the first is the scandal that would arise were the public to hear stories of priests committing such terrible crimes. The second and most serious reason for the secrecy however is the protection of the inviolability of the sacrament of penance. According to the document, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process. It seems to be stretching a bit too far to conclude that this process is a substitute for civil law action or is an attempt to coddle or hide clergy who perpetrate sex crimes. The document was written in 1962 in a style and within an ecclesiastical context common for that pre-conciliar age. It is also a legal-canonical document written in highly technical language. The
translation, though basically accurate, is also strained and awkward which can lend itself to misunderstanding. Although the objective reasons for the extreme secrecy may be understandable within the context of the time it was written, the sad fact is that the obsession with secrecy through the years has been instrumental in preventing both justice and compassionate care for victims. It has enabled the widespread spirit of denial among clergy, hierarchy and laity. The secrecy has been justified to avoid scandal when in fact it has enabled even more scandal. The press reports quote several church sources which state that this document is obscure and probably had remained unknown to the vast majority of bishops and church bureaucrats until it was cited in the new norms issued in 2001. This is probably true even though copies have been stored in church offices throughout the world. What is also true however is the fact that this 1962 document reflects a secretive attitude with regard to internal church matters that is understandable for the time it was written, but not acceptable as the preferred way of dealing with such heinous crimes. These crimes have a profound impact on the lives of the victims, yet this impact can become lost in the concern for confidentiality. The obsession with secrecy causes denial to flourish. Certainly the institutional church and its clergy and hierarchy would have been deeply embarrassed in 1962 were the public to have learned of clergy sexual crimes. This embarrassment should have been endured because it is nothing compared to the spiritual, emotional and physical devastation of the victims. Nevertheless we cannot accurately interpret and criticize this document solely by our contemporary standards based on the institutional church's disastrous handling of clergy sex abuse cases over the past few years. In other words, it is dangerous to isolate the document and strain to make it more than what is was intended to be. This is quite apart from the culture of secrecy that gave rise to the widespread policy of keeping clergy sex crimes covered up at all costs even to the detriment of the victims. If however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm. If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some of the more critical commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a
coverup. This is obviously a big if which requires concrete proof. There is also an over-riding omission in both the 1962 document and its descendant, the 2001 declaration. Both documents concentrate on prosecuting the alleged offenders and protecting the institutional church from the fallout of public knowledge of the crimes. Neither document approaches the far more challenging and important task of pastoral care and spiritual healing for the victims of these crimes. If there is a shameful dimension to either document, even the 1962 document in spite of the fact that it is now 42 years old, it is the fact that neither one gets beyond canonical legalism and concern for church structures and invokes the more fundamental value of Christian compassion for the horrendous harm done to the victims of such crimes. It should not be too difficult to see why so many have seen in the 1962 Vatican Instruction a smoking gun. Over the past 18 years but especially since January 2002 we have witnessed wave after wave of deception, stone-walling, outright lying, intimidation of victims and complex schemes to manipulate the truth and obstruct justice. If anything we have watched as the culture of secrecy ended up causing much of what its proponents hoped it would prevent. The Vatican document did not cause the clandestine mode of dealing with clergy sex abuse. Rather it reflects it and should be a strong reminder that there is a much more important value than protecting the institutional church and its office-holders and that value is the creation and nurture of an attitude and aura of openness and honesty wherein true justice and compassion can flourish as the most visible of Catholic virtues.
 
Bob,

Thank you for this. I had the impression that there was a lot of technical legalese beyond me in the document. Is the original in Latin?

I also had a sense that the welfare of victims was not the focus.

Do you know anything more about Fr. Doyle? Has he spoken up for victims before? He sounds like he is in the role of conscience to the larger body now.

Thanks,

Joe
 
Bob

Thanks for this. Father Doyle I think has stated it clearly.

When you look at a beauracracy and how they handle a directive I always believe that there is an overreaction or a complete distortion of the original intent.

I remember once, when I worked at a Major Canadian Bank, that the Chairman at the time made a comment that there seemed to be a lot of new people in the Bank. That was taken by the Beauracracy to put in place a hiring freeze which was an overreaction to an innocent remark, to the detriment of the Bank.

If what he aludes to in the bottom is in fact the case I would be more inclined to look at the so-called backroom boys to finger. But society as a whole is much the same. Ah Shit. I admire Father Doyle for what he as written.
 
This Fr. Boyle has spoken in the past about the failure of the hierarchy to respond and to fully address the problem of perverted priests. Actually, I had thought that he had resigned from the priesthood and left the church. There must be another Dominican with a similar name who did leave.

The man whom I understood to have left, worked in the Embassy of the Vatican here in the USA. I think they call it the Nunciature, not an Embassy.

He had repeatedly bitched at the authorities that this was a problem and it had to be dealt with now. My understadning was that he was rebuffed and left over it.

I will try to find out more about him. The sad thing is that already in 1962 the church authorities knew that there was a major problem with sex abuse. I had not heard of priests soliciting sex in the confessional. There were some jokes we had about that, but we thought that it was just that, a joke. Well, it was not a joke.

It is completely disillusioning to me to know that 40 years ago the problem had become so seriuos that this letter was issued, but except for saying that these priests are to be kicked out of the ministry and that people cannot violate the Seal of the confessional, nothing was done to assure us that priests were somehow screened for this sick stuff.

I was ordained in 1964. No where in my training was my sexuality addressed, how I was dealing with celibacy etc.
Had I been mentally ill even, they would not have caught it because we did not have psychological screening at that time.

The lifestyle of my congregation was very austere then, so I would not have thought much about sex or acting out sexually. One friend of mine did talk about the struggle with celibacy. We kept it quiet because we did not want to get kicked out. He left the priesthood and the Capuchins many years ago. But he did not marry. He had been engaged prior to entering the Order. At least, I did not hear of him getting married.

This news is really sickening to me. I could not tell anyone what I think should have been done. But I do know that if this crap was going on, we should have been moving on it in some very aggressive way.

Disgusted, very disgusted.

Bob
 
It's so hard to remember just how different things were in the early 60's.
Ok, it was the "swinging sixties" and free love was supposed to be the order of the day.

But for those of us who can remember some of it, I was 9 in 1962, we might also remember the way the establishment reacted to the rebellious youth of the day.
I was a big Stones fan ( still am ) and I can remember the horror they caused my parents generation.
How the hell were they equipped to deal with men having sex with children ?
They couldn't even deal with long hair !

It's still a poor excuse I know, especially as those were the people preaching (not neccasarily in the Biblical sense ) at us and decrying the lack of morals amongst the young generation, what happened to their morals ?

It was easier to hide everything, pretend it didn't exist. Maybe the problem would go away ?

It didn't though, it came back to haunt them.

Dave
 
The Pope is infallible, is He not? God's Man on Earth? Whatever.....
 
A thought or two....................

I can't help but think that many would rejoice if one of the leaders of the Church would only humble himself before the poeple,

maybe even lying prostrate on the steps of some Cathedral as he offered an apology for failing to curb the sins of the Fathers.

I would think that hearts would go out to him.

I would think that maybe even conversions would take place.

I would think that the followers would be impressed for the witness given of the Christian life.

I would think that healing could begin.

I would think that some might even offer forgiveness.

Just a thought..............or two.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top