Oaths of Silence Forced On Fr. Brendan Smyth's Victims

[toxic avenger]

You don't get the feeling people are waiting for Benedict's letter with bated breath.They know he's not going to go all John 23rd and announce some positive change like the ordination of women ,for example.I often hear regular churchgoers say they don't believe in the literal interpretation of this or that rule of the church.How many Catholics think the Pope is infallible? 5% maybe 10% at the most.

Priests were forever decrying 'a la carte Catholics' when I was a lad.Now everybody seems to be one.Given the collapse in vocations -no priests at all in ten years on some projections - the C of I could clean up here.If they hid all those British Army regimental colours down in the crypts................

The figures are roughly equal believe and disbelieve the doctrine of papal infallibility, about 35%, the rest simply not knowing what it is. What it is not, however, is a claim that the Pope is infallible in anything other than an ex cathedra pronouncement on an article of faith where infallibility has been invoked. And infallibility has only been invoked once since it itself was made an article of faith - the 1950 pronouncement that the Assumption was considered an article of faith. So it's not the all-encompassing cloak for Popes that many people wrongly think.

Anyway, off topic...

[Chrisco]

The figures are roughly equal believe and disbelieve the doctrine of papal infallibility, about 35%, the rest simply not knowing what it is. What it is not, however, is a claim that the Pope is infallible in anything other than an ex cathedra pronouncement on an article of faith where infallibility has been invoked. And infallibility has only been invoked once since it itself was made an article of faith - the 1950 pronouncement that the Assumption was considered an article of faith. So it's not the all-encompassing cloak for Popes that many people wrongly think.

Anyway, off topic...

But what if his invocation of infallibility was faulty..?

Anyways, off topic as you say! :grin:

[SirHenryGrattan]

The view from Britain.........

Damien Thompson writing in the telly. His views on Ratzinger are interesting. Let's see how it plays out.


Damian Thompson – Telegraph Blogs



Yet there are also Catholics – and, again, I'm one of them – who are furious that a culture of secrecy has enabled a small minority of clergy to assault children: generations of children, in some cases, their crimes consistently hushed up by lazy slugs in diocesan offices who would rather expose young people to assault than damage "the good name of the Church".

As a journalist working in the Catholic media, I've encountered again and again a level of deceit reminiscent of the flunkeys of
a tinpot dictator. Charles Chaput, the current Archbishop of Denver, a lonely campaigner against episcopal back-slapping, has condemned the "clericalism, excessive secrecy, 'happy talk' and spin control" that enabled the establishment to move abusers around parishes like pieces on a Monopoly board.

Russell Shaw, the former director of communications for America's Catholic bishops, has written about the "stifling, deadening misuse of secrecy that does immense harm to the Church". But Shaw also raises the unfashionable topic of "legitimate secrecy of the kind required to protect confidential records and people's reputations".

Let me give an example. A priest I know slightly was accused of a sexual crime that he didn't commit. He was removed from his parish so quietly that his parishioners didn't know what was going on. He returned, months later, equally surreptitiously, having been cleared by police. Some of his flock resented the "secrecy". Yet it saved the career and reputation of an innocent man.

When he was the Vatican's chief doctrinal enforcer, Cardinal Ratzinger defended and enforced this legitimate secrecy. In 2001, he demanded to be sent bishops' files on accused clergy, because he did not believe the cases were being handled with sufficient rigour. He cited a 1962 document which stressed the need for confidentiality. But – and this point is crucial – Ratzinger used his new jurisdiction to act far more harshly against sex abusers than had their useless local bishops. From that point forward, writes John Allen, an American Catholic journalist, "he and his staff seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess".

[Fantasia]

and you can bet your favorite rosary beads that the parents profited again from this sordid affair. The priests were enabled time and time again by degenerate Irish PARENTS

[Q-Tours]

and you can bet your favorite rosary beads that the parents profited again from this sordid affair. The priests were enabled time and time again by degenerate Irish PARENTS

Evidence?

[Outlander]

In a statement this evening, the spokeman said it was understood by all parties that the oaths would no longer be binding once all evidence was gathered from witnesses.

[COLOR=#000000]
Read more: Cardinal Brady 'understood oaths were not permanently binding' | BreakingNews.ie

This story has been running all week, and they manage to come up with this mealy mouthed shyte now.
[/COLOR]

[Toland]

[COLOR=#000000]
Read more: Cardinal Brady 'understood oaths were not permanently binding' | BreakingNews.ie

This story has been running all week, and they manage to come up with this mealy mouthed shyte now.
[/COLOR]

Very thin, isn't it?

[sondagefaux]

Read more: Cardinal Brady 'understood oaths were not permanently binding' | BreakingNews.ie

This story has been running all week, and they manage to come up with this mealy mouthed shyte now.

Could be they're worried about the possibility of a prosecution under Section 17.1 of the Offences Against the State Act.

[Toland]

Offences Against the State Act, 1939, Section 17

Good point SF

17.1 hasn't been amended since, has it?

Very clearly written.

One grasps the intention of the legislator very easily, don't you think?

[toxic avenger]

Newsnight now.