Monday, March 11, 2019

WILL WE SEE A POPE ARRESTED AND PLACED ON TRIAL AND CONVICTED?


The Church has teachings which call homosexuality "disordered" which is viewed by many secularists with great power to be hateful or hate speech.

The Church has teachings which say only men can be ordained priests, only heterosexual couples can be married and abortion and artificial contraception are immoral all of which are viewed by secularists with great power to be discriminatory and dangerous for women, gays and society.

The Church has its own societal system to include laws, canon laws, and historically has taken care of internal issues relating to illegal behavior of clergy through in-house means carried out by the pope and bishops. This is viewed by many in the Church and powerful secularists as cover-up and punishable by prison sentences.

Thus, we have now entered a new phase in Church/State relations where the state is exerting its authority over the Church to try and convict the hierarchy and it may well reach the papacy itself as these secularists, as powerful as they are and with victories in hand a Cardinal in Australian already in a maximum security prison and a French Cardinal given a suspended sentence after he was convicted of cover-up.

It is not inconceivable that Mr. Ted McCarrick, a former cleric and cardinal, could well be placed on trial somewhere in the USA and convicted and sent to prison for actual sex abuse, similar to what has happened to Cardinal Pell.

The only safe place for popes and cardinals is the nation of Vatican City unless this small nation is conquered by Italy which could happen.

If my memory serves me correctly and John Nolan can correct me, when Pope Benedict went on his triumphal pilgrimage to England, there was a certain atheist calling for his arrest for crimes against humanity.

Is it likely that Pope Benedict has chosen to remain in the Vatican to prevent such a thing happening to him even as an "emeritus?"

Thus Sandro Magister, that great Vaticanista has a sobering article this morning in LaStampa, an Italian newspaper:


After the Cardinals Pell and Barbarin Verdicts. Church Under Siege, Stunned


Pell

In Australia, Cardinal George Pell (see photo) has ended up in prison. In France, Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon, has been given a suspended sentence of six months in jail. And it is not out of the question that other prominent cardinals and bishops could soon end up under the judgment of secular tribunals, charged with having committed or “covered up” sexual abuse against minors.
For the Catholic Church, this opens questions of noteworthy gravity, in the face of which it is showing that it is by no means confident that it knows what to do.
In particular, the following three questions.
1. A SPECIAL TRIBUNAL TO TRY THE POPE?
Both Pell and Barbarin have been found guilty on the basis of questionable proofs, both in a second trial after the first had ended without a guilty verdict. For Barbarin, even the prosecutor had asked for acquittal. Both say they are innocent, and have asked for an appeal ruling.
Meanwhile, however, within the Church, the former was prohibited, when the trial was still underway, from the exercise of his public ministry and from contact with minors. And a few days ago the latter announced his resignation, certain that the pope would accept it.
In Pell’s case, it has been communicated that the congregation for the doctrine of the faith will open a canonical process. And it is likely that the same thing will happen with Barbarin.
But what kind of process? And how? Along general lines, concerning bishops presumed guilty or negligent in matters of abuse, Pope Francis published in June of 2016 an apostolic letter, “Come una madre amorevole,” in which - as he explained afterward at the press conference on the way back from Ireland on August 26 2018 - “it was said that for trying bishops it would be good to set up a special tribunal,” one for all. Soon, however, Francis himself maintained “that this was not practicable,” and opted to resort to a jury set up for each case. As in the case - he presented by way of example - of Guam archbishop Anthony Sablon Apuron, convicted at first instance by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith but whose appeal has been taken in charge by Francis himself, with the assistance of a commission of canonists.
In all this the procedures continue in any case to be uncertain. Last November Francis forbade the episcopal conference of the United States to put to a vote the creation of an independent organism of laymen charged with conducting the first hearing on bishops under investigation. But the alternative solution upheld by Cardinal Blase Cupich and through him by the pope, that is of assigning the first investigation to the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of the defendant, is also far from being codified, in spite of the fact that it was presented again by Cupich himself at the Vatican summit of February 21-24, dedicated precisely to how to combat the plague of sexual abuse.
Against Cupich’s proposal it is objected, among other things, that entrusting the first investigation to the metropolitan - or to another bishop - of the province of the defendant risks putting the judgment back into the hands of clerics who often belong to the same coterie and therefore are tempted to assist each other.
But there’s more. If there is uncertainty on how to proceed with regard to a bishop presumed to be guilty or negligent, what is to be done when the one under accusation is the pope himself?
In effect this is what is happening. Pope Francis has not yet responded to those who - like former nuncio in the United States Carlo Maria Viganò - have accused him of supporting and promoting to the end then-cardinal Theodore McCarrick, in spite of the fact that his multiple abuses were known to him. And he continues to keep quiet more than six months after having promised journalists at the press conference on the way back from Ireland, on August 26 2018: “Study, and then I will speak.”
Meanwhile, weighing even more on Francis is the case of Argentine bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta, his friend and spiritual son since he was undersecretary of the Argentine episcopal conference, promoted as bishop of Orán in the summer of 2013, who later resigned for unspecified “reasons of health” in the summer of 2017 but was promptly elevated by the pope, in December of that same year, to the Vatican post custom-made for him of “assessor” of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, in spite of the fact that very detailed charges of bad behavior by Zanchetta had been sent by churchmen of the diocese of Orán to the competent authorities, in Argentina and Rome, on several occasions from 2015 to 2017.
On this too Francis is keeping quiet. The only decision that has been made known is that on Zanchetta there has been ordered from Rome a preliminary investigation in Argentina.
And if this investigation, reported back to Rome, should confirm the responsibility of Pope Francis, it will remain to be seen how the imperative of a fair trial might be reconciled with the norms of canon law, which at canon 1404 establishes that “the First See is judged by no one," but at § 2 of canon 1405 specifies that "a judge cannot review an act… by the Roman Pontiff without his prior mandate."
2. A REGULAR OR “ADMINISTRATIVE” CANONICAL PROCESS?
In the case of McCarrick, last February 15 the congregation for the doctrine of the faith ruled for his reduction to the lay state, at the end of a penal process of the administrative type, meaning simplified and abbreviated.
The congregation almost always proceeds like this, by the extrajudicial route, in the thousands of cases that come under its jurisdiction in matters of abuse. With McCarrick, this made it possible to arrive rapidly at the sentence of reduction to the lay state, before the summit convened at the Vatican from February 21 to 24. But this brought along with it - perhaps deliberately - a grave disadvantage: the impossibility of reconstructing in a judicial setting the network of complicity and of favors, up to the highest levels of the hierarchy, that McCarrick enjoyed for years, from those who nevertheless knew of his misdeeds.
Not to mention the incomprehensible delay in the publication of everything that turns out to be documented, concerning McCarrick, “in the archives of the dicasteries and offices of the Holy See.” The announcement of the publication of these documents, as also of the results of the preliminary investigation that had led to his removal from the college of cardinals, was made last October 6. And the following day Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the congregation for bishops, confirmed in a letter to the former nuncio Viganò that McCarrick had in effect been under confidential “restrictions,” since 2006, against traveling and appearing in public, “because of rumors around his behavior,” restrictions that he had never obeyed. But since October 6 more than five months have gone by, and still the dossier has not been published as announced.
So then, what procedure will be adopted by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith in the canonical process against Cardinal Pell?
Given that the congregation will wait in any case, before issuing its own ruling, for the result of the appeal process requested by Pell in Australia, the preliminary hearing of which is set for June 5-6, one must keep in mind that which the Holy See customarily does in cases of this kind, that is when it proceeds by the administrative route after a secular tribunal has already issued its verdict.
In cases of this kind, the Holy See is accustomed to take as its basis for judgment the findings of the secular tribunal. And therefore, if in the potential process of appeal the Australian verdict is again for conviction, this will usually be followed by an ecclesiastical conviction as well, with the reduction of Pell to the lay state.
This is why it is likely that Pell’s attorneys will insist that the Holy See not adopt an administrative procedure for their client, but a regular canonical process, more unshackled from the results of the Australian trial. In other words, more autonomous, more free, more sovereign.
3. EXONERATION OR CONVICTION, BOTH AT A STEEP PRICE
And what will happen when the Holy See has issued its ruling on the Pell case?
If it is of conviction, on a par with what may be decided by the Australian appeals court, it is taken for granted that there will be applause from secular public opinion, as also from the champions of “zero tolerance” within the Church.
But protests will also be raised by those who will point out in this a defeat of the elementary rights to a fair trial, seeing the inconsistency of the accusations, as also a ruinous act of submission by the Church to the secular powers.
If instead the sentence is of acquittal, contrary to the one that may be decided by the Australian court, there will be those who will admire the autonomy - and the courage - of the Church in evaluating the effective absence of proofs in support of the accusations and in deciding as a result.
But there will certainly be heated reactions on the part not only of secular public opinion, but also of those sectors of the Church that in any case judge as irredeemable the bishop who may have been simply accused of “covering up” abuse,  no matter if he is later acquitted in court.
This, for example, is what has been written in black and white with regard to Cardinal Barbarin by former magistrate of the interdiocesan tribunal of Lyon Pierre Vignon, who publicly called for his resignation last summer, before the second trial against him had been completed and after a first trial had ended with acquittal:
“I have been asked repeatedly how I would react if the cardinal were to be declared innocent by the tribunal. The reply is very simple. The conscience of a Christian need not wait for the sentence of a tribunal to know what must be done. If Cardinal Batbarin is not convicted, in any case he is no longer the person who can present himself before victims.”
And this is also the message of the film “Grâce à Dieu,” the subject and target of which is none other than Cardinal Barbarin, released shortly before the tribunal of Lyon was to issue its sentence.
Returning to the case of Cardinal Pell, there are some who are even afraidthat the Australian government - under the pressure of public opinion - could interpret an ecclesiastical acquittal of the cardinal as an implicit condemnation of the judicial system of Australia, and as a result break off relations with the Holy See and push for its expulsion from the association of sovereign states.
Whether this dramatic outcome proves true or not, they are times of siege, these, for the Church.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Thus, we have now entered a new phase in Church/State relations where the state is exerting its authority over the Church,..."

No, the State is exercising its legitimate authority to investigate civil crimes and impose sanctions according to civil laws. The Church operates within civil society and must be subject to legitimate civil laws.

"The Church has its own societal system to include laws, canon laws, and historically has taken care of internal issues relating to illegal behavior of clergy through in-house means carried out by the pope and bishops. This is viewed by many in the Church and powerful secularists as cover-up and punishable by prison sentences."

The internal system did not work. It is "viewed" as a cover-up because, in some cases, it WAS a cover-up. This is not some excess being carried out by "secularists."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I am glad to read that you think the pope can be legitimately put on trial and convicted by an international secular tribunal for crimes against humanity and running a syndicate that promotes hate and discrimination based solely on these two things:

The Church has teachings which call homosexuality "disordered" which is viewed by many secularists with great power to be hateful or hate speech.

The Church has teachings which say only men can be ordained priests, only heterosexual couples can be married and abortion and artificial contraception are immoral all of which are viewed by secularists with great power to be discriminatory and dangerous for women, gays and society.

Thanks for confirming my thesis!

TJM said...

PF believes in Global Warming and Socialism, so he's safe.

Dan said...

Heck, Francis just willingly turned over the Catholic Church in China to control by the State. Seems like he wouldn't mind.....

Anonymous said...

"I am glad to read that you think the pope can be legitimately put on trial and convicted by an international secular tribunal for crimes against humanity and running a syndicate that promotes hate and discrimination based solely on these two things:"

Your words, not mine.

I am surprised to discover that you think the civil authorities do not have the right to prosecute members of the Church for civil crimes.

Victor said...

It is the same old story of State vs Church that has been from the beginning of Christianity. The State can be a religion when it offers/imposes on people a world view including a morality. The state has regularly overstepped its bounds by being a religion, especially since the Enlightenment. In this sense the State and the Church are enemies. It becomes a question of power as to which religion will prevail.

In the past, the state did often work with the Church. In the case of perversions like we are seeing now with its same sex attractions, the Church had its trials and the guilty were handed over to the state which had its own ways of dealing with this, sometimes not very gently. Today it is the State that is the perversion, enforcing its religion of perverted world views and morality on its subjects and on the Church. One may claim this is democracy, but democracy has never been the source of Truth.

rcg said...

I am not sure that is a bad thing. It seems to me that the bishops were simply not trained on how to deal with it and there was no system in place to train them, help them administer it, and oversee them. I also belive that there are two very sad human failings at work: one that has a belief that God will change and stop a person from these sorts of sins and second that there are cultures where it is not unusual to for uncle Jack to molest the nephews and nieces so people simply learn to cope. Ironically, people hold their Faith hostage to God acting in those dark moments to save to child or to cure the priest of his perversion. When He does not appear, Faith is abandoned. Of course these issues are almost never really secrets, but only denials, and the people who know but fail to act also fail the Socratic moral imperative twice even as the fail Christ.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

This will get the lefties who post here all fired up! Islam in the Lex Orandi

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/03/islam-in-lex-orandi-of-old-roman.html#.XIaGvyhKjyQ

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A@11:45 --I do not believe members of the hierarchy should be found guilty of crimes they did not commit, such as Pell and Barbarian. There is a political message being sent to the Church that goes beyond legitmate civil laws governing the crimes that said prelates were falsely accused.

But the issue remains, which you can't seem to understand, that if the state makes laws mandating prosecution for hate crimes and discrimation against women, gays and the like, even the Pope could be placed on trial for not changing our teachings in the area of sexuality to accommodate governmental laws.

President Obama and most of the Democrat party would prosecute clergy who don't provide insurance for abortions. You agree then that these clergy or institutions should be charged for breaking the law evidently and want the Church to accommodate he state. That is sad. You must be Democrat.

TJM said...

Democrat = fake catholic, no credibility on matters of faith and morals

Dan said...

Hmmm... now that Obama and politicians are mentioned, it occurs to me to ask "when will the state prosecute members of itself?"

rcg said...

Cardinal Pell was found guilty by the government of Australia of committing a crime of molesting two boys. I will admit to being very skeptical of the evidence that I have read, but I understand the Australian judicial system doesn’t release a lot of details so I have to rely on the jury and judges until it is established that I can’t. I may be one of the few who found his responses to the police interview unconvincing.

Anonymous said...

"--I do not believe members of the hierarchy should be found guilty of crimes they did not commit, such as Pell and Barbarian."

Neither do I.

"But the issue remains, which you can't seem to understand, that if the state makes laws mandating prosecution for hate crimes and discrimation (sic) against women, gays and the like, even the Pope could be placed on trial for not changing our teachings in the area of sexuality to accommodate governmental laws."

The State can make whatever laws it wants. Laws already exist outlawing discrimination against women, gays, and the like. Have there been any prosecutions based on these laws? If you find that there have, please inform us.

"President Obama and most of the Democrat party would prosecute clergy who don't provide insurance for abortions."

Neither President Obama nor the Democratic party can prosecute anyone. You're inventing impossible scenarios in order to maintain an invalid point.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I did not know the president and Congress cannot pass laws that when broken prosecutors could not charge and convict law breakers, interesting! My 9th grade Civics class was lacking and the political science classes in college too!

Anonymous said...

The President does not pass laws. Congress does.

Refresher course here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

Prosecutors, such as District Attorneys) not the President and Democrats/Republicans, engage in prosecutions.

Your memory of your 9th grade Civics class has miraculously returned.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I did not know the president couldn’t sign laws.

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

LOL. A law that passes both houses of congress does not become law if the president vetoes it. So though the president does not initiate legislation he can stop it. Also, executive orders are laws enacted by the president unless CONgress overrides them.

The President is the head of the executive branch and the DAs are his subordinates. They serve at his pleasure. He can fire them if in his view they are engaged in spurious or ill advised prosecutions.

So you need to sharpen your Civics skills.

Anonymous said...

The President signs laws. The President does not 1) pass or 2) implement those laws. He can sign or veto the bill. If he exercises the veto, Congress may or may not vote to override the veto. If it does vote to override, the bill they passed becomes law. A President may also ignore a bill, neither signing nor exercising the veto. "If the President takes no action at all, and ten days passes (not including Sundays), the bill becomes law without the President's signature."

From USConstitution.net "First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law."

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh,

You know, when you're in a hole, you should stop digging. The president, as head of the executive branch, implements and enforces the law. Congress does neither. You also failed to comment on executive orders, which sua sponte, becomes the law unless overridden by veto proof legislation.

Clericalism on steroids

rcg said...

The president does not pass a law but is required to enforce it, although he can be pusillanimous about it (thank you, Latin). Even if he does not sign a law, it can become enacted after ten days if congress is still in session.

Dan said...

Anonymous is so smart, I get all my facts from him.

TJM said...

Dan,

Ya, Anonymous is a sharp. Just ask him.

Joe Potillor said...

A question that I think needs addressing is Rome's in house governance... What mechanisms (if any) exist to get rid of bad bishops, or even bad popes? Besides papal fiat, what means are there to solve this problem?

The pope at present has a dual role as a head of state (for which prosecution can't come), and a Bishop (for which prosecution could come)....If the state were clear in this distinction, and had the evidence to back up their claims, I suppose that one should be held accountable even if he be the pope.

Relying on the gov't means playing ball with the gov't s rules......

John Nolan said...

The Pope, as a Head of State, cannot be arraigned by any national jurisdiction. The 'pope emeritus' does not enjoy the same protection. Augusto Pinochet, a former President of Chile, was arrested in London in 1998 and held for 18 months before being released without charge.

Some have suggested that sexual equality laws passed by national legislatures could be used to compel the Church to ordain women. However, the Canon Law of the Church is separate from, and not subject to, the law of the land.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

I seem to recall some European nation tried to charge Catholic priests who gave sermons reiterating the Church's teaching regarding the immorality of homosexual acts, with "hate" crimes. Do you recall this?

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Dan at March 11, 2019 at 4:16 PM said: "Anonymous is so smart, I get all my facts from him."

As well you should, Dan, because Anonymous only deals in facts, don't ya know, and he will tell you so as he fights to the death to ram his point of view...(oh, sorry) "facts" down your throat if you keep engaging him.

That's just the way he rolls.

He's what's known in psychological circles as a "right fighter." That's someone who will never, ever come to agreement with someone in a discussion (as someone playing win/win does) but is someone who gets great satisfaction playing win/lose...and you must ALWAYS be the loser.

That's just the way they roll. :-)

God bless.
Bee
P.S. On familyresource.com it says this about "right fighters":

People who are right-fighters, (or those who are driven by the need to be right), have their value or worth literally attached to the outcome of being right. On a very deep level, a right-fighter believes that if she is not agreed with then she is not valuable, lovable and/or worthy. The "right-fighter" desperately believes (unconsciously) that others must agree with her to feel ok about herself. Being a right-fighter causes you to depend upon others for your self-esteem and worth.

Right-Fighting is an acceptable form of violence or aggression. Because the right-fighting pattern usually ends up one sided and includes a winner and a loser, the effects are similar to those of physical abuse. Learned submission on the part of the children and often the other parent/spouse is inevitable. "Right-Fighting" is in fact a form of emotional abuse. A right-fighter parent is particularly harmful to children because the child is made to feel like the "loser" and that his or her opinions are not valid or important. Right-fighting is a direct reflection of low self-esteem. And unfortunately the low self-esteem of one steals the development of strong self-esteem of others.

Mark Thomas said...

"Survivors" groups, and otherwise, who are vicious anti-Catholics, but portrayed by the news media as "serious-minded" watchdog groups whose anti-Catholic voices are to be taken seriously.

The same anti-Catholics who trashed Pope Francis and the sexual abuse conference in Rome performed the same hatchet job upon Pope Benedict XVI.

The liars in question hammered for years at Pope Benedict XVI.

They had gone as far as to attempt to have Pope Benedict XVI, and additional Churchmen, arrested by the Hague for having committed supposedly "crimes against humanity."

Hague Is Asked to Investigate Vatican Over Abuse

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

By Laurie Goodstein, NY Times

Human rights lawyers and victims of clergy sexual abuse said they would file a complaint on Tuesday urging the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate and prosecute Pope Benedict XVI and three top Vatican officials for crimes against humanity for what they described as abetting and covering up the rape and sexual assault of children by priests.

The formal filing of nearly 80 pages by two American advocacy groups, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, marks the most substantive effort yet to hold the pope and the Vatican accountable in an international court for sexual abuse by priests.

In addition to Pope Benedict XVI, the filing asks the court to prosecute Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state; Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the previous secretary of state and the current dean of the College of Cardinals; and Cardinal William Levada, who is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office designated to receive cases of clergy sexual abuse that are forwarded by bishops.
==========================================================================

Pope Benedict XVI accused of crimes against humanity by victims of sex abuse

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse

===================================================================================

International Criminal Court declines to pursue 'crimes against humanity' case against Vatican

Jun 18, 2013

A prosecutor of an international court has opted not to pursue a case against multiple Vatican officials for crimes against humanity related to the widespread clergy sex abuse of minors within the Catholic church.

The case was brought to the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands in September 2011 by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the abuse victims advocacy group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, who made public the decision Thursday.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

How many years Church has been asked to clean the filth from within her? Total silence was an answer... What a SHAME... And they call themselves Apostles of Christ? Sodomy comes straight from the devil... so, what they expect next? That God will tolerate their grave SIN within His Holy House...

God will use now the civil authorities and other means to clean the filth from His House... and AMEN to that!!!

You can not serve two Masters...

P.S. I am Catholic and I still can not believe all these I am hearing, coming from the church... What a pain...

TJM said...

MT,

LOL - you are using Laurie Goldstein, left-winger and rabidly pro-gay and pro-abortion, from the New York Slimes to make your point. Here's a little something you should know about that left-wing slimeball:

Examples of media bias are too numerous for me to comment on with any regularity. But sometimes I read things so egregious that I have to say something. An outrageously biased piece appears in a recent New York Times article by Lydia Polgreen and Laurie Goldstein.

The article concerns the rift in the Anglican communion (about which I have recently written) and a theologically conservative Bishop from Nigeria. The bias begins in the headline of the piece, “At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian.”

Notice, first of all, that the headline suggests that a Nigerian is somehow the cause of the current controversy. Yet everyone knows that the crisis in the Anglican communion is owing to the Anglican churches in America and Canada that have decided to forsake clear biblical teaching on the issue of homosexuality. It is likely that there would not even be a split right now if the Americans had not decided to ordain a practicing homosexual as one of its bishops.

Notice second of all, that the Nigerian church leader is described as “anti-gay.” The authors could have said he was “traditionalist,” “conservative,” or even “pro-Bible.” But on the contrary, the authors chose a negative moniker that suggests an antipathy towards gay people as persons. The title paints a dark picture of the Nigerian bishop by excluding the possibility that the Nigerian bishop might actually love sinners while hating sin.

If you think I am being hyper-sensitive about a title, then go read the rest of this “news” story for yourself. I think you’ll see that the rest of the article bears out the bias implicit in the title.

“At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian” -Â by Lydia Polgreen and Laurie Goldstein

YOU have now ZERO credibilty here. Will you be citing Hitler or Stalin next?

TJM said...

Bee,

I have experienced the "right fighters" syndrome. Its sufferers tend to be so-called liberal priests who likely joined the priesthood because no one else was buying their bilge and they needed a captive audience.

Anonymous said...

"The president, as head of the executive branch, implements and enforces the law."

He does not pass them as Fr McDonald WRONGLY stated. No political party prosecutes law breakers as Fr. McDonald WRONGLY stated.

Anonymous 2 said...

Please pay TJM no heed. There was a thread on “groupthink” some days ago. It seems that people like TJM (whoever he is, and I really do wonder about this) want to impose their own groupthink on this Blog and will use whatever cheap rhetorical tactics to do so and to shut down conversation that does not adhere to their preferred groupthink, whether that conversation emanates from you or Father Kavanaugh or me. For independent and fair-minded people, it is TJM who has zero credibility on this Blog, not you. Contrast this with moderate and balanced voices such as that of rcg, who have a great deal of credibility with independent and fair-minded people.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. My previous post was addressed to Mark Thomas. I am unsure whether I indicated that he was the intended addressee.




Mark Thomas said...

The good news is that International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected in 2013 A.D. SNAP's (as well as New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights) attempt to imprison Pope Benedict XVI (as well as Cardinals Bertone, Sodano, and Levada).

That said, in 2013 A.D., when the ICC rejected the "crimes against humanity" claims leveled against Pope Benedict and the above-mentioned Cardinals, SNAP made it clear that they would not cease their persecution of Holy Mother Church.

Then-SNAP President Barbara Blaine said: "We’re neither deterred nor discouraged by this news."

She had made it clear that SNAP will continue to attack Holy Mother Church...to misrepresent the supposed sexual abuse "crisis" that is not a "crisis."

SNAP, and like-minded "survivor groups" have been exposed as vicious anti-Catholic shakedown artists. They are determined to exploit the "crisis" (said "crisis" peaked more than 35 years ago) for financial gain, as well as to smash Holy Mother Church to pieces.

Fortunately, surrounded by and protected by God's holy Angels, His Holiness Pope Francis has not surrendered to SNAP, and SNAP-like groups who believe that they shakedown the Church, remake the Church as they please...and imprison the Vicar of Christ.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Some years ago the (Anglican) bishop of Chester had his collar felt by an over-zealous constabulary after preaching that homosexual acts were immoral.

No Catholic bishop would do so; even the doctrinally orthodox ones are generally spineless.

The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that since homosexuals as a group are defined by their practices, criticism of the latter amounts to criticism of the former.

But then Canada is achingly politically correct. Monty Python's lumberjack song would certainly no longer be allowed.

And then there are the dubious goings-on down under. What is it with Her Majesty's overseas realms?

Cletus Ordo said...

While I have serious doubts about Cardinal Pell's guilt, I am not entirely against the idea of civil authorities prosecuting bishops. As a younger man, I would have shuddered at the idea, but I can also say that as a younger man I would also have shuddered at the idea of so many closeted perverts running our parishes, dioceses and dicasteries in Rome.

I cannot help but think of a woman I know whose son was molested by a priest the family trusted. After drug abuse, suicide attempts and other tragedies befell him, the woman did not discover what had happened until after the priest had died. She had spent a fortune on treatment centers and psychiatrists.

She finally approached the diocese and told them that she did not want to hit them with a lawsuit or a big settlement. She just requested that the diocese pay the psychiatric bills that had accumulated. The attorneys (it's always the attorneys who represent the "compassionate" side of the bishops) offered her a one-time payment of 5K with an agreement never to disclose what had happened to her son. She told them what they could do with their agreement and walked.

The only thing that is going to get this to stop is when we start seeing some high-profile bishops behind bars. Again, I don't think Pell should be one of them, but unfortunately, that seems to be the only message some of these "shepherds" seem to get.

I don't understand why Pope Francis wants to make things worse by having them "smell of sheep". Many already smell bad enough.

Dan said...

Mark Thomas, you are predictably throwing out the "liar" and "anti-Catholic" gibes, and I am surprised that I did not see "right wing trad" label in your comment, however, I am NOT lying when I say too many of us are fed up with the filth in God's temple and we are not going to take it anymore.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

CO, if a bishop is guilty I would hope the verdict would be based on evidence not a political or ideological form of revenge which seems to be what has happened to Pell.

In terms of cover up, many bishops have claimed a sort of client/lawyer privilege with their priests and were not legally required to report them. Should lawyers who know their clients are guilty but defend them nonetheless be thrown into jail tooshould laws be created that are passed retroactively?

Anonymous said...

Ex post facto (retroactive) laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

In other words, a legislature can't determine today that an action (say, milking a cow) that was legal yesterday is against the law and the person who did it (milked a cow at some time in the past) can be prosecuted.

Changes in statutes of limitations aren't "retroactive" laws. The crimes committed against minors were crimes at the time. Changes in the statute of limitations do not criminalize that which was not previously legal.

Mark Thomas said...

Dan, are you aware, for example, of the lawsuits, including one filed by a whistle blower, against SNAP?

=============================================================================================

“SNAP routinely accepts financial kickbacks from attorneys in the form of ‘donations,’ ” the lawsuit alleges. “In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church.”

==========================================================================================

Dan, feel free to throw in with anti-Catholic shakedown artists who attempted to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested for "crimes against humanity."

You are comfortable in having throw in with folks who have claimed that Pope Benedict XVI/Cardinal Ratzinger had, for decades, covered up for priests involved in sexual abuse?

Okay. Fine.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

SNAP is determined to defame any priest who is accused, not convicted, but accused of sexua abuse.

SNAP presumes each priest in question is guilty.

SNAP has expressed pleasure in regard to Cardinal Pell's arrest and trial.

Dan, as you have sided with "victims'" groups, you agree with their having denounced Cardinal Pell as a sexual abuse monster. Correct?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

YOU have zero credibility as a Catholic because you vote for the Abortion Party.

Dan said...

MT, as if it's all about SNAP. I just want the filth out of the Church. Lump me in wherever you wish, but I still don't understand why YOU seem not to care.

TJM said...

Dan,

MT doesn't care because his golden calf, PF, doesn't. PF just preens for the cameras and the adoring lefty journalists lap it up because he believes in Global Warming and Socialism.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Groupthink is a good description for modern academia which is nothing better than a PC mob. If you depart from "liberal" orthodoxy on things like abortion, gay marriage, or global warming they will either crush you or deprive you of a podium. Not very aware of your surroundings are you?

Dan said...

MT, with regards to me siding with "victims groups" all I can say is sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It depends. Amazingly, I never support a group, or a pope, or someone who claims to be a pope mindlessly.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

I am well aware of my surroundings. It is you who seems to lack awareness that so-called liberals do not have a monopoly on groupthink.

Dan said...

A2, read TJM's comment again. I don't think he was claiming that liberals are the ONLY group that exhibits "group-think" just that liberals tend to be the group that most viciously destroys those that depart from the party line. It is because they consider their opinions right and it's only compassionate to impose them on others.

Anonymous 2 said...

Dan,

I have no problem with a reformulation: “Liberals have no monopoly on group-think that viciously destroys those that depart from the party line because they consider their opinions right and it's only compassionate to impose them on others.” And the prime exhibit on this Blog is TJM himself. I rest my case.

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. In fact, in his posts TJM frequently exemplifies the psychological phenomenon of projection, of which naturally he therefore also frequently accuses those with whom he disagrees. Interesting, no?

Moreover, because I defer to the USCCB in “Faithful Citizenship” and because Mark Thomas defers to the Pope, we get attacked. And we’re the “bad Catholics” for doing something very orthodox? Sheesh! The world, or at least this Blog, is indeed topsy-turvy.


TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

If you vote Dem, your are not orthodox, you are betraying Christ and his Church. So now you are on the infanticide express being driven by YOUR party. The "Faithful Citizenship" document issued by the Democrats at Prayer aka, the USCCB, is a watered down document, and you know it. In stark contrast to "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life" published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which states:

"There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life’, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture"

This clearly undercuts the "I am personally opposed to abortion, but" argument. And your liberal buddy, Cardinal McCarrick, lied to the USCCB about then Cardinal Ratzinger's statement that communion MUST be denied to pro abortion politicians.

Modern academia is one massive, pc mob, and you know it. Speech codes, safe places, really? On most campuses there is no diversity of thought. It's the "liberal" way or the highway. Take a look at Glenn Reynold, a University of Tennessee law professors blog, Instapundit, and virtually each day there is a story on what is referred to as "liberal fascism" on today's campuses. He also ran a story in which he related how readers of The Atlantic were shocked to learn that they, the white, highly educated, urban dwellers were among the most intolerant folks in the US.

I note you never commented on Trump's introduction of an element of social justice in the US Tax Code (which I mentioned to you at least twice) when he capped the deduction of real estate and sales taxes for the rich. Were you too embarrassed to acknowledge that? I note Governor Cuomo is still trying to craft away to help his rich buddies in New York get around it, the same folks who used to say it was patriotic to pay taxes until that torpedo was launched at them

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

It seems clear that you have not read Faithful Citizenship or, if you have, that you did not understand it or, if you did, that you are being disingenuous.

And I did respond to your point on property taxes. Please go back and read the thread on "The 1970s Social Justice Church" again.

Perhaps I should post again the question about voting I asked you over a year ago and that you refused to answer (unlike several other participants on the Blog). But your refusal just confirmed for me that you will say and do (attack, cajole, misrepresent, avoid, distract, etc.) whatever seems expedient to support_your_Golden Calf Donald Trump, just as he will.

Anonymous 2 said...

As for Glenn Reynolds, I just went on his blog and cannot see the sorts of stories you are referring to. I am not denying they are there somewhere but you will need to provide more detailed citation.

And I read this in his Wikipedia entry:

“Reynolds is often described as conservative, but holds ‘liberal’ views on some social issues such as abortion, the War on Drugs and gay marriage. He describes himself as a libertarian and more specifically a libertarian transhumanist. He customarily illustrates his combination of views by stating: ‘I'd like to live in a world in which happily married gay people have closets full of assault weapons to protect their pot.’
Reynolds is a former member of the Libertarian Party.”

Just so you (and other readers) know whom you are citing as an authority.

On the merits, you are wrong to assert that “Modern academia is one massive, pc mob.” Although I acknowledge the tendency, of course, on the whole this statement doesn’t describe my own law school or my University (we just had Justice Clarence Thomas visit on Monday). Get your facts straight before you sound off, please.


Anonymous said...

TJM neither has nor wants facts. He lives in a world of his own sad making. It is a psychological pathology.