I just read your article in the Columbia about the Knights vs. the KKK.
The KKK are AMATEURS in anti- Catholic rhetoric. It wasn’t the KKK that has me fleeing the Church in Terror after 50+ years as a very active Catholic; it is the CATHOLIC writers, especially Bill Donahue.(supported by bishops & cardinals. I had heard the Knights as well, but your website says no, unless he is off the books) Half the time through your article I didn’t know if you were describing the Knights or the KKK.
It is pope Francis & the bishops insisting Catholics are foreign invaders beholden only to Rome. It is the Bishops and pope insisting they can’t turn over criminal records on pedophilia to law enforcement citing SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. It is Francis essentially proclaiming to the UN that – we are a nation of pedophiles in diplomat speak.
The bishops were under direct orders from the vatican not to turn over the records on pain of IMMEDIATE EXCOMMUNICATION!
RATHER THAN ADMIT THEY COULD BE CAPABLE OF MAKING A MISTAKE, THE POPES WROTE CANON LAWS THAT EFFECTIVELY TURNED THE CHURCH INTO A ‘LEGAL’ WORLDWIDE, CHILD PROSTITUTION RING! – I.E. DETAILED DOCUMENTATION THAT THE MOST DANGEROUS MENTAL HANDICAP IS THE MALE EGO. (Confession is good for the soul, unless you are the pope then it is a great evil. Incidentally, I found this out AFTER I fled the church in terror. I had a lot more time to research since I was no longer in church 3-4 days/week.)
May 27, 1917 was the 100 year anniversary of the beginning of ‘legal’ pedophilia in the Catholic Church; because that was the day that pedophilia became a “crime” with NO PUNISHMENT! The law made secrecy about pedophilia paramount and all cases had to be handled directly by the vatican; which had no provisions for punishing them.
I knew that the incompetence of the Church over the pedophilia crisis and everything else could not possibly be accidental. It had to be deliberate. After fleeing in terror from the Church this year, I found the documented evidence. The Australian canon lawyers published two documents. The first is a legal report entitled “Canon Law – A Systemic Factor in Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church.” (free download from National Catholic Reporter) The second is the lay version “Potiphar’s Wife.” (buy on line for real money) They are both enlightening and explained a lot of things I had seen in the Church that didn’t make a bit of sense before.
Both are useful tools to document the legal remedies that can be taken to stop pedophila. (Now I see where Marino got the inspiration to create his legal drug pushing rings!)
(It is astonishing the things people believe when they are desperate. “Our Ghost shirts will stop the bullets of the troops!’, “Trump digs coal”, A wealthy, thrice married casino operator who brags about molesting women, will usher in a new era of Christian moral domination. Only if you are a firm believer in those essential conservative values – Might makes Right and I’ve got Mine – Screw You! – literally And of course the Catholic bishops ordered us all to vote for him.)
After WWI, the pope, one of the very few surviving absolute monarchs, is watching all the other crowned heads roll. He is seeing the stupidity of the other crowned heads blasted in the press and watching a new technological communication marvel, radio, starting to be implemented. It can spread information at the speed of light over the world. He is also an absolute believer in divine right of kings and the clergy. The big theological concept is called ontological. Essentially, the idea is, when a man is ordained, he becomes mystically incapable of doing anything wrong. (papal infallibility). In this mindset of infallibility combined with the mortal terror of possibly being the next head to roll, the first code of Canon Law was created. (i.e. schizophrenic)
In 1917, with no experience, qualifications, system of justice, or facilities, the vatican decided to handle matters in house. The REQUIREMENT of the law was for the bishops to CURE the pedophile, of course, with no medical training and no means of punishment.
So with over 1800 years of experience and records of bad priests raping children to the contrary, the vatican in 1917, totally convinced of the popular theology of ontology, decided that its priests were incapable of raping children and wrote their laws accordingly. If what they believe about being magically transformed were true, THEY WOULDN’T BE RAPING CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE! Or lying or stealing, etc. and wouldn’t have needed the law at all. Ontology wasn’t keeping priests from raping children for over 1800 years, why would it do so now? Oh, yes, BECAUSE I SAID SO!
I had a boss like that. Of course placing a piece of plastic over a slope will hold up several tons of soil and parking lot IF YOU SCREAM LOUD ENOUGH!
Of course, it would be lovely if that were true. A ceremony and a prayer, transforming you into a person who would always do good. Rather similar to the rite of exorcism. But their own records showed the opposite; it made no difference in behavior.
Corollary - The sacrament of marriage. If this were true, and a religious ceremony with vows had the power to transform believers, then EVERY Catholic marriage would be a loving and holy partnership between people always able to provide for their children instead of husbands using their wives heads to split the 2X4 stud in the wall, throwing them on the couch with the resultant miscarriage, re arranging their teeth, and ‘giving’ them to their friends to be raped! After all the mindset of the “pro life” movement is only MEN have the right to kill un-born children with impunity and the women in their lives too while they are at it. And if you complain, we will take away your access to medical care and really rack up the death rate. That’ll learn you to get uppity! (Father was really big on the sermons how men protect women – I haven’t talked to a Catholic yet who has heard a homily on Domestic Violence – course not that is your right as husbands – gotta defend marriage)
A very wide gulf separates wishful thinking from psychotic delusion. It got worse.
Again the radio, the pope would have remembered what happened the last time a technological breakthrough in communication happened; the printing press rapidly spreading the writing of Martin Luther. But what seems to have been the first thought in Pius XI head the first year on the throne, 1922? Oh, no, now everyone will know we rape children! I really think the Church needs to examine the psychological repercussions of its celibacy requirement and the lead content in its drinking water.
So, Pius XI incorporated an Instruction called Crimen Sollicitationis. (Remember, the Church has no real legislature; the pope’s word is LAW. They all continually remind us that “The Church is NOT a democracy.” We all pay ‘taxes’ however.) This was a SECRET LAW with a big note on it for it to be kept in the secret archives of the curia for internal use only. Think about that for a minute. THE LAWS, WHICH EVERYONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING, ARE LOCKED AWAY IN A SAFE AVAILABLE TO LESS THAN 300 PEOPLE
“The law, imposed the “Secret of the Holy Office” on all information obtained by the Church in its inquiries and trials for soliciting sec in the confessional, homosexuality, bestiality and the sexual abuse of children. The Secret of the Holy Office was a permanent silence that bound not only the bishop and those involved in the canonical inquiries and trials, but victims and witnesses who were sworn to observe that secrecy, on pain of AUTOMATIC EXCOMMUNICATION from the Church, which could only be lifted by the pope personally.” (Canon Law – A Systemic Factor in Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church –by Kieran Tapsell paragraph 24)! In the Church Roman Law, a “trial” starts the moment the ‘law, bishops” are told about the accusation and the investigation begins. So as soon as you tell the Church Authorities, they cannot tell ANYONE on threat of immediate excommunication.
“In 1962, John XXIII expanded Crimen Sollicitationis to include priests who were members of religious orders. “ (Canon Law – A Systemic Factor in Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church –by Kieran Tapsell paragraph 27) (Why? Did he have evidence of a problem or did he want to expand the population of pedophiles? Me 45 years in = one generation of pedophiles)
The Instruction, Secreta Continere 1974 (57 years in - > 1 generation of pedophiles)
270. In 1974, Pope Paul VI issued his Instruction, Secreta Continere which replaced the secret of the Holy Office with the “pontifical secret”. The reach of the secret of the Holy Office was expanded by Pope John XXIII in 1962 by applying it to the sexual abuse of children by priests who were members of religious orders, increasing the reach of that secret by some 50%. His successor, Pope Paul VI, directed that the pontifical secret should cover all allegations to superiors about sexual abuse by members of religious orders who were not clerics. That included all the teaching and nursing orders of brothers and nuns throughout the world. The effect of that was to increase its reach by a further 250% for those in the Church accused of the canonical crime of the sexual abuse of children.
It is ironic that in the decades that experienced the greatest number of cases of the sexual abuse of children (1960 and 1970), these two popes promulgated laws that significantly increased the coverage of the Church’s highest secrecy classification to cover them. (Cause or effect? Me)
(footnote )231 In 1970 there were 270,924 diocesan priests, and 148, 804 religious priests in the world. Assuming that these ratios were similar going back to 1962 (in the United States they seem to be constant going back to 1965), the effect of Pope John XXIII’s reissue of Crimen Sollicitationis was to extend the reach of the pontifical secret by some 50%. In 1975, there were 259,332 diocesan priests and 145,452 religious priests in the world, a total of 404, 703. At the same time there were 70,395 religious brothers and 968,526 religious sisters. However, with Secreta Continere in 1974, Pope Paul VI increased the coverage of the pontifical secret by a further 250%. It should be said, however, the most of the religious in this case were nuns against whom allegations of sexual abuse of children were rare: http://cara.georgetown.edu/caraservices/requestedchurchstats.html (Accessed 7 August 2015) (Totals 968,626 female religious to 475,098 male religious a ratio of over 2:1 me and my calculator)
Religious brothers and nuns were not covered by Crimen Sollicitationis, but there were equivalent provisions in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law for dealing with their sexual abuse of children. Confidentiality was not imposed on their cases until Secreta Continere in 1974.
Some Church spokesmen claimed that no one knew about Crimen Sollicitationis. The evidence before the Murphy Commission was that Archbishop McQuaid of Dublin (1940-1971) had used the 1922 document in the case of Fr. Edwards in 1960, and that during his time as Archbishop, the document was well known to senior Church figures and was “well thumbed”, but there was no evidence that the Archdiocese had received a copy of the 1962 document. In the United States, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago in court evidence said that the 1962 document was taught to him in the seminary, and Bishop Madera said that it was discussed at a meeting of clergy with Archbishop Manning of Los Angeles in the early 1960s.224 According to Fr John P Beal, the general nature of the procedures were dealt with in manuals of moral theology and canon law taught in seminaries, for continuing formation after ordination, certainly from the late 1930s onwards. The Spanish canon lawyer, Aurelio Yanguas in 1946 said it was “universally known” amongst clerics. Beal says that not long after the 1962 document was disseminated, the study of canon law in seminaries declined, and it then “gathered dust” in the archives until it was mentioned in SST 2001.225 (We can’t teach sex ed in schools, but no issues giving pedophiles detailed instruction in how to avoid the law in seminaries. me)
There were significant differences between the secret of the Holy Office and the Pontifical Secret.
Crimen Sollicitationis provided for automatic excommunication for breach of the secret of the Holy Office. Breach of the pontifical secret imposed a punishment to fit the crime, but excommunication was not excluded.
Most importantly, Secreta Continere extended the pontifical secret to cover not just the information obtained in the Church’s internal proceedings about such matters, but the allegation to the accused’s superior.
The pontifical secret was also imposed on other matters, INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS OVER THE CHOICE OF BISHOPS, CARDINALS, MEMBERS OF THE ROMAN CURIA, AND THE REPORTS OF PAPAL LEGATES (WHY NOT JUST HANG A SIGN ON ST. PETERS – HELP WANTED – PEDOPHILE PREFERRED! ME!)
The instruction Secreta Continere was not repealed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.235 SST 2001 and its revision in 2010 specifically incorporated the pontifical secret into the Substantive Norms in Art 25 and footnote 31 and Art 30, footnote 41 respectively.
The preamble to Secreta Continere is instructive:
…..All these matters are always an obligation in conscience, and, in the first place, the rigid observance of secrecy in view of the discipline of the sacrament of penance, and in the second place, the secrecy of office or, as it is called the trusted secret, in addition to papal secrecy which is treated of in this instruction. Since we are dealing WITH PUBLIC MATTERS WHICH AFFECT THE GOOD OF THE TOTAL COMMUNITY, it is evident then that when, or for what reason, or for what gravity secrecy of this kind must be imposed, is to be determined, NOT BY ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF HIS OWN CONSCIENCE, but for him who ACCORDING TO THE LAW HAS THE CARE OF THE COMMUNITY. (WHICH COMMUNITY? IT CERTAINLY WASN’T THE LAITY OR THEIR CHILDREN THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT! ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR THE MAFIA? THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE IS ALL WE HAVE TO LIVE BY) On the other hand, those who are bound by such secrecy should not of themselves be obliged by a law existing apart from themselves, but rather by an imperative of proper human dignity, in other words, they should think it an honour for them to observe secrecy due to the public good. (WE AREN’T PART OF THE PUBLIC! WE ARE JUST CHATTEL THAT EXIST SOLELY TO MAKE THEIR DEPRAVED LIVES EASIER)
But the other significant matter about the preamble of Secreta Continere is that it purports to take away the bishop’s and religious superior’s right to follow their “conscience” on matters covered by the secret, including reporting to the civil authorities. ) (THE BISHOPS ARE ALSO PART OF THE CHATTEL THAT MUST UNQUESTIONINGLY OBEY THE VATICAN)
The persons bound by the secret are set out Art II (1) of Secreta Continere which provides: “The following are under the obligation of observing papal secrecy; 1) Cardinals, bishops, prelate superiors, major and minor officials, consultors, experts and ministers of lower rank who are concerned with the treatment of questions which are subject to papal secrecy.”
Art. II (4) provides that even those who come across the allegations and information by accident are bound by the secret.
The bishop has to know of the “extrajudicial denunciation” because Canon 1717 provides:
“Whenever an ordinary has knowledge, which at least seems true, of a delict, he is carefully to inquire personally OR THROUGH ANOTHER SUITABLE PERSON about the facts, circumstances and imputability, unless an inquiry seems entirely superfluous.” (THE BISHOPS DON’T CONSIDER THE POLICE SUITABLE PEOPLE TO INVESTIGATE CHARGES OF PEDOPHILIA?!)
The 1983 Code of Canon Law (66 years = 1.5 generations of pedophiles)
The 1983 Code of Canon Law repealed the 1917 Code and with it Crimen Sollicitationis. Between 1983 and 2001, the 1983 Code and Secreta Continere regulated the Church disciplinary system for clerics and any reporting of child sexual abuse allegations to the civil authorities was prohibited.
No limitation period existed prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the canonical crime of child sexual abuse. SST 2001 extended the 5 year period, as did the 2010 revision, but even having any limitation period is worse than what existed before 1983. There is no limitation period under canon law for soliciting sex from an adult in the confessional, suggesting that the Church regards this as more serious than the sexual abuse of children outside it.
1984: Letter from the Congregation for the Clergy to Archbishop Moreno
Archbishop Moreno of Tucson, Arizona had written to the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome, about disciplinary action taken against a priest. The complaints against the priest did not include sexual assaults on minors, but things like drunkenness and womanising. But in relation to handing over his files to civil lawyers, the Congregation stated in a letter dated 31 January 1984,
“…under no condition whatever ought the afore-mentioned files be surrendered to any lawyer or judge whatsoever… The files of a Bishop concerning his priests are altogether private; their forced acquisition by civil authority would be an intolerable attack upon the free exercise of religion in the United States …(GETTING DRUNK AND WOMANIZING ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A CELIBATE PRIEST’S RELIGION?!)
In 1996, the Irish bishops drew up a protocol that required mandatory reporting of all allegations of child sexual abuse to the police, and sent it to the Holy See for approval. On 31 January 1997, the Holy See refused the request, and advised that mandatory report was inconsistent with canon law, AND IT WAS IMMORAL FOR A BISHOP TO REPORT ANY PRIEST TO THE POLICE. It further threatened that if Irish bishops did report such crimes to the police any canonical proceedings instituted over child sex abuse could be declared invalid by Rome. (the vatican has a very WARPED SENSE OF MORALITY me (79 years in = 2 generations of pedophiles)
In about 1996, the CDF started to claim that it still had jurisdiction to deal with child sexual abuse under Crimen Sollicitationis. In a letter dated 18 May 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the CDF specifically said that Crimen Sollicitationis had been “in force until now”. (ALLOWS HIM TO PROTECT HIS BROTHER) (SO, IN 2005, THE CARDINALS WERE SO IMPRESSED BY HIS ABILITY TO PROTECT PEDOPHILES, THEY ELECTED HIM POPE!) (88 years = >2 generations of pedophiles)
In 2001, by his motu proprio, SST 2001, Pope John Paul II changed the procedures for dealing with child sexual abuse by clerics under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and confirmed that the pontifical secret applied to all such cases in accordance with Secreta Continere. SST 2001 did not apply to religious brothers and sisters, and disciplinary procedures against them continued to be covered by the 1983 Code of Canon Law and Secreta Continere.
The 2010 Revision of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (93 Years in = 2.5 generations of pedophiles)
On 21 May 2010, Pope Benedict XVI revised the procedures under Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, (“SST 2010”) and expanded the pontifical secret to cover cases of clergy abuse of intellectually disabled adults and those who possessed child pornography. (New HR benefit to increase the ranks of ‘clergy?’ –me) The new procedures did not affect disciplinary procedures against religious brothers and sisters. The Reporting Dispensation and its Limitation
Likewise, Art 16 of SST 2010 provides that whenever a bishop “receives a report of a more grave delict, which has at least the semblance of truth”, he is to conduct a preliminary investigation and communicate the matter to the CDF.
On 12 April 2010, the CDF announced that it would instruct bishops to comply with civil laws requiring reporting, which was a dispensation from observing the pontifical secret in such cases. (This keeps the bishops out of jail with the resulting bad publicity. Benne Dick learned that not everyone believes in pedophilia as an important HR benefit from the back lash when he proudly proclaimed to the planet that Christ is the Great Penis in the Sky to Which You Must Sacrifice Children)
It was limited, however, to those civil jurisdictions that had reporting laws. Very few countries have them to cover most cases of the sexual abuse of children.
The Reporting Dispensation (93 years in = > 2 generations of pedophile)
On 12 April, 2010, the Holy See issued a document called “A Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations”, which it said was “an introductory guide which may be helpful to lay persons and non-canonists”. It explained the various procedures, and then said that:
"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed."
There is nothing in canon law that suggests that it can be changed by issuing a “guide to lay persons and non-canonists”, and indeed, the Vatican spokesman, Fr Lombardi admitted as much in his explanatory statement on 15 July 2010 published on the Vatican website. There is no exception in the revised norms of SST 2010 to allow reporting to the civil authorities. The words in the Guide to “lay persons and non-canonists” about reporting crimes to the appropriate authorities were not incorporated into the revision. It would have been a simple thing to do, by adding the words “except for reporting such matters to the civil authorities where the civil law requires it,” to Art. 30, imposing pontifical secrecy, but they are not there. (PUBLISH LIES TO THE LAITY SAYING THAT THE CIVIL LAWS WILL BE FOLLOWED WHILE STILL ORDERING THE BISHOPS TO KEEP IT HIDDEN)
The pontifical secret as imposed by Art 1(4) of Secreta Continere is a permanent silence, and it applies to all allegations to superiors of child sexual abuse by clerics and religious and all information obtained by the Church through its preliminary inquiry and any subsequent trial under the 1983 Code of Canon Law or under the disciplinary provisions of Canons 694-700 dealing with religious. It permanently prohibits the publication or communication of any such allegations and information even after the trial has ended, including the judgment of the canonical court.
2001: Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy Congratulates French Bishop
In September 2001, Cardinal Castrillón wrote to Bishop Pican, who had been given a suspended jail sentence by a French court for covering up a serial paedophile priest, and congratulated him for not reporting the priest to the police, and stating that bishops should be prepared to go to jail rather report priests to the police. He said he was sending a copy of his letter to all the Catholic bishops’ conferences to encourage them to do the same. He later said that the letter had been authorized by Pope John Paul II.
The Church effectively imposed the equivalent of the seal of confession on any information that the Church obtained through its internal inquiries about these four canonical crimes in his revised historical introduction to SST 2001, Pope Benedict XVI said that strict confidentiality was imposed originally because cases of soliciting in the confessional involved the seal of confession. He then said:
“Over time and only analogously, these norms were extended to some cases of immoral conduct of priests.”
Pope Benedict never explained why it was necessary to extend the strict confidentiality – the equivalent of the confessional seal – to homosexuality, bestiality and the sexual abuse of children when none of them had anything to do with confession. Further, for some reason, the secret of the Holy Office was not imposed on the other sexual delicts in Canon 2359§2: adultery, debauchery, pandering and incest with blood relatives or affines in the first degree. (He wanted to protect his pedophile brother. Me)
The instruction also envisaged that these priests could be transferred to another territory to avoid “scandal”. These provisions reflected the twin concerns of the Holy See at the time: the avoidance of “scandal” and treating priests differently because they had been “ontologically changed” when they were anointed by God at ordination. The creation of a de facto privilege of clergy through the back door of secrecy had begun. (WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! What did the bishop’s VIRTUS (anti-pedophile) class stress as how to spot a pedophile? THEY BELIEVE THAT THE LAWS DON’T APPLY TO THEM. WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! – That describes the entire church hierarchy. Rather subtle on the bishop’s part on how to avoid the evil of the canon law.)
(“ontologically changed” = certainly LEGALLY changed. They could no longer be punished and were guaranteed of a lifelong income. “ontologically changed” = code for pedophile. Me)
The theology that a priest is someone special reaches back to before St. Augustine, (300’s) but it seems to have reached a peak around the early 1900s, and was personified in the 1905 beatification by Pope Pius X and 1925 canonization by Pope Pius XI of the French priest, John Vianney, who proclaimed, “After God, the priest is everything!” Pope Benedict XVI in his letter to priests in 2009 quoted these words with approval. It seems that the Church had accepted as orthodoxy, Lord Acton’s worst heresy that “the office sanctifies the holder of it.”…
In 2002, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, who currently heads Pope Francis’s committee of Cardinals to reform the Curia, repeated Cardinal Castrillón’s assertion in his letter to Bishop Pican: that bishops should be willing to go to jail rather than report a paedophile priest to the police.
The imputability defence: a priest or religious cannot be dismissed for paedophilia because he is a paedophile. Canon 1321 which embodies this defence still stands in the Code unchanged. There is nothing in SST 2001 or its revision in 2010 that modifies it. (Other cardinal – pedophilia doesn’t exist. It isn’t a recognized disease – THEN WHY DO THEY GET TO CLAIM ‘INSANITY’!)
On 31 January 2014, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child requested the Holy See to abolish the pontifical secret over allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and to impose mandatory reporting. On 22 May 2014, the United Nations Committee against Torture requested the same thing.
On 26 September 2014, Pope Francis responded to the report of the requests by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. He rejected the Committee’s request.
The stated reason for the rejection of the United Nations request was that it would interfere with the sovereignty of independent nations. Mandatory reporting under canon law would only interfere with the sovereignty of independent nations if those nations had domestic laws prohibiting the reporting of such crimes to the civil authorities. No such country exists. (I.E. No longer ashamed or afraid of negative publicity – proudly proclaiming to the planet – WE ARE A NATION OF PEDOPHILES! Me)
Had bishops or religious superiors been free under canon law to report clergy sex crimes against children in those countries that had no or inadequate reporting laws, one would have expected Pope Francis’s response to have said so, because the United Nations Committees would have been operating under a misunderstanding of the effect of the pontifical secret.
The fact that Pope Francis made no effort to correct any misunderstanding by the United Nations Committees confirms that the pontifical secret does prevent reporting to the civil authorities in those countries that do not have such reporting laws.
There is a very strong connection between law and culture. Laws are a reflection of the dominant culture in the society when the laws are passed. But their very existence deepens and perpetuates the culture that gave rise to them in the first place. Law has this effect in civil society, but it is likely to be stronger with canon law because of the Church’s teaching that the popes, who promulgate canon law, are the Vicars of Christ.
The Church’s overturning of its 1500 year old tradition of handing over clergy sex abusers of children to the civil authorities taught those lower down in the Church ranks that child sex abuse was no longer a crime to be punished by the civil law, but was no more than a “moral failure”.
The Church saw itself as the “societas perfecta”, perfectly capable of protecting the community from sexually abusive priests. There was a theological reason behind the attachment to secrecy – the protection of the faithful from a loss of faith by reason of the conduct of its priests.
It was impossible to achieve that purpose because the 1917 Code of Canon Law and Crimen Sollicitationis introduced the “pastoral approach” to clerical sexual abuse by requiring the bishop to try and cure the priest, and to resort to dismissal only if it was impossible to cure him. The secret of the Holy Office imposed by Crimen Sollicitationis had the effect of keeping child sex abuse by clergy hidden from the civil authorities, while attempts were made to “cure” the priests. The treatment programs failed, and more children were abused as a result.
In 1980, Pope John Paul II, soon after being elected, abolished the simpler method of dismissing a priest by administrative decree. The only way in which a priest could be dismissed was by the judicial method, which was rarely used because of its complexities.
In 1983, Pope John Paul II promulgated a new Code of Canon Law that considerably exacerbated the difficulties that bishops had of dismissing child sexual abusers amongst clergy:
It imposed a Catch 22 defence: a priest cannot be dismissed for paedophilia because he is a paedophile. A diagnosis of paedophilia had the same effect as a diagnosis of insanity in civil law. Two serial paedophiles in Ireland, Fr Tony Walsh and Fr Patrick Maguire had their dismissals by a Dublin canonical court overturned in Rome because they were diagnosed as paedophiles. Under canon law, the more children a priest abuses the less likely can he be dismissed.
The most serious impediment of all was the 5 year limitation period. Crimen Sollicitationis had no limitation period, but under the 1983 Code, if a child did not complain within 5 years of the abuse occurring, the canonical crime was “extinguished”. The end result was that there were virtually no canonical trials for paedophile priests after 1983.
Fr Thomas Reese SJ, in a report to the 1992 USCBC wrote that the 1983 Code of Canon Law makes it “almost impossible for bishops to dismiss priests for sexual abuse.” At the various inquiries in Australia, Cardinal Pell, Archbishops Hart and Coleridge, Bishop Malone and Fr Brian Lucas agreed with that assessment.
Under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the same principles applied to the dismissal of religious brothers and nuns.
THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE THAT THE CHURCH COULD ADOPT WAS TO TRY AND CONVINCE THE PRIEST OR RELIGIOUS TO RESIGN AND TO CONSENT TO DISMISSAL UNDER CANON LAW. Fr Brian Lucas dealt with about 35 priests in trying to convince them to agree to dismissal in the period 1990-1995/96, and he regarded what he was doing as being outside the canonical system. He was not successful in most cases. UNLESS A PRIEST IS DISMISSED, HE IS ENTITLED TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE CHURCH UNDER CANON LAW. THE SAME APPLIES TO RELIGIOUS BROTHERS AND NUNS. UNLESS THEY ARE DISMISSED THEY ARE ENTITLED TO REMAIN AS MEMBERS OF THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY AND TO BE SUPPORTED BY IT.
In 2015, the Holy See seemed to confirm the limitations on reporting in the case of Fr Mauro Inzoli, accused of abusing dozens of children over a ten year period. He was dismissed by Pope Benedict in 2012, but Pope Francis reinstated him and applied the practice of the CDF… (FRANCIS IS WORSE THAN BENNE DICK! 98 YEARS IN = 2.5 GENERATIONS OF PEDOPHILES)
Secrecy was imposed on penal trials under the 1917 Code of Canon Law.276 Likewise, the documents relating to such trials were to be kept in the secret archive, and were to be systematically destroyed. The reason behind this was said to be:
“…to protect the secrecy of criminal trials in moral matters, protect the reputation of delinquents by destroying artificial memory of the crime, and to ‘prevent scandal and avoid unjust, unnecessary and embarrassing attacks upon the Church, by making it impossible for such documents to fall into the hands of her enemies.’” (LIKE THE LAITY!)
These were no empty threats. The experience of appeals to Rome suggested that the Vatican appeal courts were more concerned with procedural niceties than the substance of the matter. If the Irish bishops did report sex abusing priests to the police, and a prosecution failed or did not proceed, any canonical disciplinary proceedings against the priest was also likely to fail because of the breach of the pontifical secret. (Of course the civil trial can’t proceed, the church has all the evidence) 1998/1999 Cardinal Castrillón Meets with the Irish Bishops)
In 1998, according to the Irish Television program, Would You Believe, “Unspeakable Crimes”, Cardinal Castrillón (vaticans congregation for the clergy) met with the Irish bishops at Sligo in Ireland. The Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell insisted on the right to report clergy sex abusers to the police. But Cardinal Castrillón disagreed, saying that it was the policy of the Holy See to defend the rights of the accused priest. Bishop Michael Smith was interviewed on the program, and he said that the Colombian Cardinal and his Congregation regarded the sexual abuse of children as no more than a moral issue between the individual priest and his bishop. They did not understand that there was criminality involved with serious effects on children and their families. At a later meeting to discuss the letter, one of the Irish bishops made a note: “We have received a mandate from the Congregation for the Clergy asking us to conceal the reported crimes of a priest.” (82 Years in = 2 generations of pedophiles – The child has NO RIGHTS)
8 September 2001: Cardinal Castrillón’s Letter to Bishop Pican
A court in the French city of Caen handed Bishop Pierre Pican, 66, a three-month suspended prison sentence for concealing knowledge that a priest in his diocese, the Rev. René Bissey, had sexually assaulted a number of boys. According to the report in the New York Times, the bishop regretted that the court's decision had set a precedent limiting the Roman Catholic clergy's right to keep “professional secrets”.
Cardinal Castrillón, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, wrote to Bishop Pican in these terms:
“Most Reverend Excellency I write to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy entrusted with aiding the Holy Father is his responsibility for the priests of the world. I congratulate you on not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities. You have acted wisely, and I am delighted to have a fellow member of the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of other bishops, would prefer to go to prison rather than denounce his priest-son. For the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional but a sacramental relationship which forges very special bonds of spiritual paternity….The bishop has other means of acting, as the Conference of French Bishops recently restated; but a bishop cannot be required to make the denunciation himself. In all civilized legal systems it is acknowledged that close relations have the possibility of not testifying against a direct relative. …This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate matter, will forward a copy of this letter to all the conferences of bishops...”
In a radio interview later, Cardinal Castrillón justified his actions, saying the late Pope John Paul II authorized him to send the letter.
29 April 2002: Archbishop Herranz Address to the Catholic University of Milan
Archbishop Julian Herranz (later Cardinal; I SAID THE FASTEST WAY TO A RED HAT WAS TO DEFEND PEDOPHILES!) was head of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, that is, he was the Church’s most senior canon lawyer. In an address to the Catholic University of Milan, he is reported to have said,
“When ecclesiastical authorities deal with these delicate problems, they not only must respect the presumption of innocence, they also have to honour the rapport of trust, and the consequent secrecy of the office, inherent in relations between a bishop and his priest collaborators,” Herranz said. “Not to honour these exigencies would bring damages of great seriousness for the church.” (TRUST OF THE LAITY THAT THEIR CHURCH WILL PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN IS CONSIDERED WORTHLESS!)
16 May 2002: Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras in 2002 was not a member of the Roman Curia, but he was a prominent Cardinal, and was seen as a leading Latin American candidate to succeed John Paul II. He is now in charge of a group of senior Cardinals appointed by Pope Francis I to reform the Curia. At a news conference on 16 May 2002, he stated,
“Paedophilia is a sickness, and those with this sickness must leave the priesthood. But we must not move from this to remedies that are non-Christian. … For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop. We are totally different, and I’d be prepared to go to jail rather than harm one of my priests. I say this with great clarity. We must not forget that we are pastors, not agents of the FBI or CIA.” (DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HARMING CHILDREN!)
18 May 2002: Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ in La Civiltá Cattolica
Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ was Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at Rome’s Gregorian University and a judge for the Apostolic Signatura, considered the Holy See’s Supreme Court. He is thus well qualified to come within the canonical authorities “learned persons”, referred to in Canon 19. He wrote an article for La Civiltà Cattolica, a journal considered quasi-official since it is reviewed by the Holy See’s Secretariat of State prior to publication. Ghirlanda wrote:
“Certainly it does not seem pastoral behaviour when a bishop or religious superior who has received a complaint informs the legal authorities of the fact in order to avoid being implicated in a civil process that the victim could undertake,”
Fr Murphy’s case, involving the abuse of 200 deaf mute boys, is indicative of the unacceptability of these statements that it should be up to the victims to go to the police. These boys were under the care of the Church, and quite apart from the fact that they were children, their capacity to report was severely handicapped.
But the statement is even more unacceptable in the light of changes made to the Graviora Delicta or Substantive Norms in SST 2010. The revision expanded the matters to be dealt by the CDF. They included cases where a priest sexually abuses a person “who habitually lacks the use of reason”. Such cases are now covered by the pontifical secret. And the same comment can be made of the extension to include the possession of child pornography, whose victims, the children in the photos or videos, would have no idea that the priest had them in his possession.
2002 and 2010: Monsignor Maurice Dooley
Monsignor Maurice Dooley was a senior Irish canon lawyer who was widely reported as expressing views in 2002 and 2010 that bishops could not report allegations and evidence that they had gathered about clergy sex abusers to the police without breaching canon law. According to a report in the Belfast Telegraph of 20 March, 2010:
“Mgr Dooley's views were clearly no different in 2002 when he said: ‘A bishop swears allegiance to canon law. If there was a real conflict, he would simply have to maintain canon law, even if there was a chance of going to jail…A bishop's relationship with a priest was similar to that of a parent and child,’ Fr Dooley said. ‘As a parent, you are entitled to protect your child or even to conceal him from punishment’.” (THIS IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT IS TO BE A GOOD PARENT = #1 TEACH THEM RIGHT FROM WRONG – NOT HOW TO BE MASS MURDERERS AND PSYCHOPATHS.)
2005- All the Cardinals got together and elected the man most likely to expand their abilities to rape and pillage – Benne Dick!
Monsignor Dooley repeated that view in 2010 (Footnote 353 http://www.fifavideos.com/Colm-OGorman-and-Monsignor-Maurice-Dooley-The-Last-Word-with-Matt-Cooper__F9wtljHDT-c.html at 5.56 (Accessed 16 July 2013). At that time in Ireland, there was an obligation to report these allegations to the police because misprision of felony was not abolished until 22 years later in 1997. Brady’s behaviour is explained by the teaching that canon law was “quasi divine”, and that he was obliged to obey canon law where it conflicted with civil law. Marie Keenan also refers to the culture of “blind obedience”, and quoting Joan Chichester, she says: “…‘blind obedience’, once theologised as the ultimate step to holiness, is itself blind. It blinds a person to the insights and foresight and moral perspective of anyone other than the authority figure.” Keenan continues: “Loyalty and obedience to the institution and to the pope influenced the bishops’ decisions when it came to the handling of child sexual abuse.” Marie Keenan: Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church, Gender, Power and Organizational Culture, at loc 6214-6219.
Monsignor Scicluna’s statement is another good example of the use of “mental reservation”.373 Cardinal Desmond Connell, the former Archbishop of Dublin, explained “mental reservation” to the Murphy Commission, as deceiving someone without telling a lie:
“….there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realizing that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be ….”
[Catholic theology says that it is permissible to use “mental reservation” to avoid “scandal” and to preserve “professional secrets”: Catholic Catechism http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm par 2489 and 2491 (Accessed 7 May 2013) and Catholic Encyclopaedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm (Accessed 7 May 2013). The “scandal” to be avoided in this case was the role of the popes in the cover up of child sexual abuse through canon law.] (THIS IS WHY THE CIVIL COURTS REQUIRE YOU TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. IT IS A SCANDAL THE CHURCH TEACHES THE OPPOSITE!)
At a Vatican briefing on 15 July 2010, Monsignor Scicluna said:
“Confidentiality of canonical proceedings is never an impediment to the duty to denounce [crimes], and is never to the detriment of obedience to civil law.... [But] it is not the task of the pope to give indications about civil law. The indication to obey the law of the state was already stated by St. Paul.” (Which they all blatantly ignored.)
Monsignor Scicluna’s statements are partly true and partly false, and the false parts can be “mentally reserved”, and the true part then asserted without telling a lie. In this particular case, the pontifical secret did not prevent:
The victim or other direct witnesses of the abuse from reporting the abuse to the police.
A bishop or religious superior from reporting abuse committed by a lay person who was not a religious brother or nun, for example a lay teacher in a Catholic school. Sexual abuse of minors by such persons were not canonical crimes or “delicts” covered by the pontifical secret.
Reporting where the bishop or religious superior witnessed the abuse because his knowledge did not come from an allegation, but from his own eyes.
To that extent Scicluna’s statement is true. But it is false to the extent that bishops, religious superiors and those involved in canonical investigations could report “extrajudicial denunciations” of child sexual abuse by clerics and religious to the (Art 1(4) Secreta Continere) or “reports” to the bishop of such matters (Art 13 of SST 2001 and Art 16 of SST 2010).
Monsignor Scicluna represented the Holy See before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on 16 January 2014. Scicluna was asked by Committee members why Church policy did not provide that in “all cases these crimes should be reported”, and not just where there were reporting laws. His answer was that every local Church has the duty to educate people about their rights and to “empower” them. In other words, he was repeating Cardinal Castrillón instruction in his November 1998 letter to the Irish bishops that it was up to the victims to report the matter to the police, not the Church.
On 18 July 2014, Bishop Scicluna, (HE GOT PROMOTED FOR LYING ME) was interviewed by the Italian paper, La Repubblica. A report in the Malta Independent says that he was asked why it is not obligatory to report allegations of child sex abuse in the Church to the police. Scicluna gave a similar answer to what he had given to the United Nations - the church insisted on following domestic law, and in any case “one must not hinder the victim from reporting the case.” He did not explain how Church reporting such allegations to the police would hinder the victim doing so.
Scicluna did not say that bishops or canonical judges were free to take to the police any allegations of child sexual abuse against clergy or any information that they had obtained from their canonical inquiries, but his restatement of the policy enunciated by Cardinal Castrillon to the Irish bishops suggests that he knew they were so prevented by canon law.
On 25 March 2010, Fr Federico Lombardi SJ, the Vatican spokesman, issued a statement on the notorious Fr Lawrence Murphy who sexually assaulted some 200 deaf mute boys in the United States. In the course of discussing this he said:
“…Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither Crimen nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities.”
Fr Lombardi’s statement was also an exercise in mental reservation for the same reasons as Monsignor Scicluna’s statement was. In his case, there was some additional mental reservation when he said that the Code of Canon Law did not prohibit reporting. That is true. He mentally reserved the fact that the pontifical secret is not found in either the 1917 or the 1983 Codes, but in Secreta Continere and SST 2001 which are not part of the Codes.
On 3 September 2011, the Holy See published its 11,000 word formal response to Ireland..
The Vatican Response then makes an extraordinary statement in the light of the plain words of both Crimen Sollicitationis and Secreta Continere and the barrage of statements from Curia and other cardinals and the Church’s most senior canon lawyers, particularly in the period 2001/2002 rejecting any suggestion that bishops should report cases of abuse involving priests to the civil authorities:
“It should be borne in mind that, without ever having to consult the Holy See, every Bishop, is free to apply the penal measures of canon law to offending priests, and has never been impeded under canon law from reporting cases of abuse to the civil authorities.”
The statement has all the hallmarks of mental reservation, (FLAT OUT LIES) which the Catholic Catechism says is justified to avoid “scandal” and revealing “professional secrets”. If the statement refers to bishops receiving an allegation of abuse by anyone other than a priest or religious brother or nun, (for example, a lay teacher in a Catholic school), then it is true, because Secreta Continere only applied to canonical crimes or “delicts”. Child sexual abuse by non-religious lay persons was not a canonical crime. If it refers to the bishop having first hand evidence of abuse, because he caught a priest in flagrante delicto, in bed with a child, it is also true. If it refers to what the bishop found out in the course of a canonical investigation, it is false. If the Holy See’s statement means that bishops could reveal what they had discovered in their inquiries they were required to carry out under canon law, then it flies in the face of the plain words of Crimen Sollicitationis, Secreta Continere and the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and SST 2001 and SST 2010, and the opinions of Curia cardinals and canon lawyers. It makes the whole concept of the pontifical secret meaningless. And in support of its statement, the Response quotes another letter from Cardinal Castrillón of 12 November 1998, as if it really supported its assertion about the bishops never being impeded from reporting.
“I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice and charity towards all.” (my emphasis)
In other words, no obstacle should be put in the path of the victims to go to the police (ignoring of course, that under Crimen Sollicitationis they would have be sworn to secrecy). But that has never been the issue. The issue was the obligation under civil law for bishops to report under the misprision of felony laws where they then still existed. This response says nothing about that, and Cardinal Castrillón’s other public statements made it clear that bishops should be prepared to go to jail rather than to report one of their paedophile priests to the police.
The Response then continued,
“In 1996, apart from cases relating to misprision of felony, the reporting of incidents of child sexual abuse to either the relevant health board or the Irish police was not mandatory. Furthermore, misprision of felony was removed from the Irish Statute Book by the Criminal Justice Act of 1997” Child sexual abuse was almost always a felony – reporting was mandatory. Misprision of felony was removed from the Irish Statutes by the Criminal Law Act 1997 of 22 April 1997, coming into effect three months, later on 22 July 1997. At the time the Storero letter was written on 31 January 1997, there was mandatory reporting under the misprision of felony law. The Holy See’s response did not mention the date in 1997, when misprision of felony was abolished. It had also mentally reserved the fact that at the time of the Storero letter, misprision of felony was still part of the law of Ireland.
Some three months earlier, on 20 July 2011, the Vatican spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi had repeated this statement about Irish law. In reference to the Storero letter, he said:
“Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in the letter that is an invitation to disregard the laws of the country,” Father Lombardi added. “The objection the letter referred to regarded the obligation to provide information to civil authorities (‘mandatory reporting’), it did not object to any civil law to that effect, because it did not exist in Ireland at that time (and proposals to introduce it were subject to discussion for various reasons in the same civil sphere).”
The statement that such a law “did not exist” in Ireland as at 31 January 1997 was false. The proposals under discussion were to require some professionals in a confidential relationship to report, similar to the proposals for mandatory “welfare” reporting to child welfare authorities in Australia for children at risk. That had nothing to do with the obligation to report under the existing misprision of felony law at the date of the Storero letter. The instruction from the Vatican in 1997, through Archbishop Storero, was to breach Irish law in the case of allegations of sex crimes against children by priests.
[In New South Wales where there was an obligation to report all cases of sex abuse to the police, Church officials found a way around canon law that would have done any tax avoidance accountant proud. The bishop would refer the victim to Fr John Usher, a social worker, for counselling. He or another counsellor would then report the matter to the police. Counselling was not part of the “internal church process” laid down under canon law. The New South Wales Church officials should be given full credit for their creativeness in finding a way around the pontifical secret. https://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/transcriptsinquiry/Exhibit%20226%20Statutory%20Declaration%20of%20Monsignor%20Usher.pdf (Accessed 10 September 2013).]
[Castrillon: That is not so clear. You are making a statement that seems very clear. If it were so, it would be veryclear. (As incoherent as Trump) As Prefect of the Clergy, I had meetings with scientists and a group of scientists who say that paedophiles do not exist. There are people who commit acts of paedophilia. But the sickness of the paedophile does not exist. (then they wouldn’t have the ‘insanity’ defense in canon law! )And for that reason when a person makes a mistake and often it is a tiny mistake, and this person, this accused person confesses his crime and acknowledges his crime, the bishop punishes him with what the law permits. There is a suspension, he is taken away from his parish, and he shows correction, and then he is sent to another parish. That is not a crime. It is not covering it up. It is following the law, like civil society does in the case of doctors and lawyers. They are not struck off for all eternity. (YES, THEY ARE. THEY ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO PRACTICE!)]
I knew none of the canon law on pedophiles until this month. I was just watching my Church and seeing more and more incompetence: The law in the last paragraph, and the previous anti-women priest document, the previous entity in possession of the vatican declaring Christ to be the Great Penis in the Sky to which you must sacrifice children, the Sin Nod on the ‘Family’ held by a group of supposedly celibate old men, based on a survey that violates all principles of proper statistical data sampling, Franics, - pedophiles – no biggee, the ‘mercy prayer’ that reads – Don’t Worry. Christ forgives you for being female. – The ‘new’ translation of the Nicene Creed – Christ died for us MEN = a core belief of Christianity is that the sole is located in the penis. The vatican SOP – gather pedophiles from around the world, turn them loose on the streets of Rome AND PROMOTE THEM!
Wondering, is there ANYONE in the vatican with even an IOTA OF COMPETENCE or is the-
OH-MY GOD! THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE VATICAN WOULD CONSIST OF PEDOPHILES HIDING OUT FROM EXTRADITION!
God purged the idol worship from the Israelites by having the old generation die off in the desert over 40 years.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 100 YEARS OVER 2 AND A HALF GENERATIONS!
You are a bishop in charge of a pedophile. The only authority you have over them is to transfer them. You are under orders to ship all the evidence in the case to the vatican.
FORGET THE RECORDS – SHIP THE GOD DAMMED PEDOPHILE TO THE VATICAN!
They would also self select and congregate. How fast would the word spread through the child pornography links? If you become a priest you are GUARANTEED A LIFE LONG JOB THAT YOU CAN’T BE FIRED FROM AND A LIFE LONG PENSION. For the last 100 years every pedophile would gravitate to the Church like light into a black hole and the SAFEST PLACE WOULD BE THE VATICAN. The records in the press show them helping each other out to get there. At this point, it would be the government of the pedophile, by the pedophile, and for the pedophile AND THEY MAKE NO PRETENSE OF HIDING IT!
The Bishop’s VIRTUS training for the LAITY stresses this. WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! The sign of a pedophile is A FIRM BELIEF THAT THE LAWS DON’T APPLY TO THEM because they are special! You just described the entire Church hierarchy! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
Throughout all of this the vatican has been insistent that the only qualifications for priesthood are male and breathing. So our Ontologicalist firmly believes that by waving his magic and holy penis, the universe and GOD will obey his orders! The one quoted in Potiphar’s Wife was all about the power trip!
Quote from a friend – “These new young priests who grew up under JPII are very “devout” They firmly believe in “celibacy.”” They want to get rid of female altar servers as ‘evil.’ Other quote from Potiphar’s Wife – “My bishop will take care of me!” WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!
Jesus explains how the keys to heaven were in the hands of the Temple before the transfer to the Church. Luke 11:52: “Woe to you lawyers! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wished to enter.” The inheritance will be taken from Israel and given to the Gentiles. The last sin nod was all about who could be excluded from the Church. Why would he have bothered to die for us if the point was to prevent people from having the chance of salvation? The moment you start thinking of the key to heaven as a means to exclude anyone, you have thrown them away.
Because of course the key to heaven is a penis. How could anyone doubt that? The transfer of the keys started with the Reformation. With the passage of these laws, the vatican threw away the keys to the kingdom. The only “Keys to Heaven” they cared about were the keys to the vatican men’s room.
The situation is rapidly getting worse. I was watching the rot creep from the top down. As part of the PA bishop’s lying about the anti-pedophile bill PA 1947, I found out about a totally deranged thug called Bill Donahue of the “Catholic” League. He is beyond a parody of every anti-Papist meme from a paranoid “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” KKK Protestant. He stated the only purpose of the bill was to “Stick it to Catholics” So he firmly believes that pedophilia is a right and privilege exclusive to Catholics?! He quotes “sovereign immunity,” Francis’ explanation of the vatican’s right to rape children. So Donahue’s objection to the bill was that the civil authorities could rape children with immunity and take the privilege from Catholics! No Fair! I fled in terror over his other essay, Women’s Moral Descent, the theme of which is that men have the right and moral obligation to determine which women deserve to be raped.
This nut case is funded and endorsed by the bishops and cardinals; the same lying and depraved thugs who endorsed the lying and depraved thug for President. The same bishops and cardinals whose most important qualification for their positions is to swear unquestioning loyalty and adoration for the pope’s ontologically perfect penis and the paganism and pedophilia for which it stands.
The joke is on Donahue though. As his penis hasn’t been ontologically endowed with the LEGAL right to rape children his ass can still get nailed to the wall when he is caught. You have to be ordained to obtain the right to rape children. He would make the perfect cardinal, firmly convinced that his dick is god and enthusiastically in favor of pedophilia. That of course is the prime requirement for a red hat. He already backs Francis to the UN. His reply to the report was essentially – Of course the pope has the right to create laws to make pedophilia legal.
I REALIZED THAT I WAS A MEMBER OF AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING AN ORGANIZATION OF MEN WHO LITERALLY BELIEVE THEIR DICKS ARE GOD AND HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY RAPE ANYONE THEY PLEASE. HOW SAFE ARE THE SCHOOLS IF THE MEN IN CHARGE ACTIVELY PROMOTE RAPE OF CHILDREN? RUN!
My sister left in the 80’s. Why would I stay in an organization with no women in authority?
I called my daughter up crying telling her the entire church clergy consisted of depraved perverts totally dedicated to worshipping their dicks. Her response was “Duh, Mom. I’m sorry you had to figure it out in such a painful manner.”
They have another online survey prior to their next 2018 SIN NOD on (pant, pant, drool) YOUTH. Francis already dropped 6 incredibly vulnerable refugee children into the world’s largest collection of unrepentant pedophiles, so he is providing the entertainment. I wouldn’t let any child of mine into the lair of creatures who prefer pedophiles to women WITHOUT AN ARMED GUARD!
The survey is open until November 30, 2017! Chance for a Twitter style message at the end to tell them exactly what you think of them. GO FOR IT AND TELL THE REST OF THE WORLD! THEY ARE HIDING THE SURVEY AGAIN!)
None of the bishops will say a word. Did they complain about the previous entity in possession of the vatican proudly proclaiming to the planet that Christ is the Great Penis in the Sky to Which you must sacrifice children. No. Their response – Wow! What a Theologian! What did they complain about? The fact that they could no longer terrorize believers who have been traumatized by a failed marriage by withholding Communion. Did they complain about pedophiles saying Mass? No.! They must all take vows to create as much misery as possible in addition to their oath to the pope’s penis! They are the greatest collection of depraved morons the world has ever seen!
How did this all start? The pope was terrified someone might know of a mistake!
The standard Goofus and Gallant lesson in engineering: The famous structural engineer who had designed an elite skyscraper. A college student called and asked him questions about the design and the effect of a sideways wind as opposed to a straight on force. When he hung up the phone he realized – Oh No!, the occupied building was in danger of coming down in heavy winds. He immediately called his insurance carrier for assistance in negotiating and the calculations for a retrofit. With the insurance lawyers handling the negotiations, they IMMEDIATELY started the retrofits and prepared to calmly evacuate the building in case of high winds. Problem rapidly fixed with minor inconvenience and no lives lost.
The Goofus version – the 1800’s bridge with the supporting metal poorly cast and containing holes. No. problem, we’ll fill the holes with tar and paint! That’ll be perfectly fine. After all, if no one can see the problem, it doesn’t exist! A two year old could have predicted the results, the trestle came down in a rain storm under a fully loaded passenger train.
I remember the story in the paper years ago. The couple were leaving a winter party and searching through an unheated parking garage trying to find their car. The wife was wearing a thin party dress and high heel shoes and was shivering. This would have Special Forces begging for mercy. After close to an hour, she begged her husband to ask the parking garage attendant to drive him around in the golf cart to find their car. He furiously consented and glared at her the whole way home. He would rather put his partner through misery and doesn’t give a dam what his wife thinks of him, than admit to a stranger he couldn’t find their car. (What was that father is always saying about of course the man will ALWAYS take care of his wife and family first.)
The church hierarchy would rather THE ENTIRE WORLD BELIEVE THEY ARE TOTALLY DEPRAVED PREDATORS AND MORONS THAN ADMIT THEY COULD MAKE A MISTAKE! THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING PEDOPHILES JUST SO LONG AS THE MONEY KEEPS ROLLING IN AND THE PRESS QUITS ASKING THOSE IRRITATING QUESTIONS. FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!
This all coalesced for me right before Veteran’s Day. The day we honor all those who braved the horrors of death in trenches of WWI and other wars to defend their countries. Contrast with the bishops who won’t risk their cushy jobs and pensions to defend children from vile predators.
The excommunication is irrelevant. Like shoving people into gas chambers, if you are sacrificing children to the god between your legs, you are too far gone for excommunication to make a bit of difference. It is already obvious none of them has even bothered to read the Bible. If they had, they would know that NOTHING pisses God off more than sacrificing children to false idols and I’M NOT HAPPY EITHER!
I’m female so it makes no difference to me. They don’t believe I have a soul in the first place.
Vatican City –AKA Simon’s Center for Sexual Psychopaths - 110 acre WALLED city with 6 known doors containing 200-800 proud pagan pedophiles holding the faith of BILLIONS hostage.
Now what else did you mention in your article?
The 1963 Inter Insigniores by Pope John XXIII states the Christ never called women to be part of the Twelve. The Bible was written to preserve the imagery of the twelve sons of Israel. Just as Israel had at least one daughter, Christ had women as part of his ministry from the beginning, proclaiming the word. Mary, Elizabeth, the Samarian woman at the well, Mary the sister of Martha – at the feet of the Lord with the other Disciples, Mary Magdalene, etc. The twelve is an artificial construct as after the death of Judas, they had two other alternates who had been with him from the beginning to make a full set for the required Jewish symbolism. (I HAS A DICK = THEREFORE I IS HOLY VOLUME I)
The first sentence of John Paul II’s 1994 Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a bald faced lie. It states that ordination has been reserved for men alone since the beginning. Romans 16 has long list of people, including women listed as apostles, deacons, and coworkers. The secular authorities agree. Pliny the Younger could find only women deacons to question about this puzzling new religion. My translation is from 1978. Apparently, he never read the Bible. (I HAS A DICK = THEREFORE I IS HOLY VOLUME II)
In addition to the above documentation that the Church hierarchy considered the Catholic Schools their own private brothel, when I moved from the Lutheran Midwest to the Catholic East, I heard tales of Catholic School teachers that would have had a public school teacher run out of town. My sister dated a man whose claim to fame was that he was expelled from public school and had to enroll at the Catholic School instead. (He lived in Sioux Falls, SD as far as I know the only city in SD with a non-native American Catholic School) The Bart Simpson effect – I’ve got another whole essay on the Catholic Schools. Let’s see, I believe you said something about the Knights protecting the Catholic schools – .) “I call upon members of this Order everywhere, “ he wrote, “to rally in defense of the Catholic schools.” (where they can be raped with impunity) WHAT ABOUT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN IN THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS? (secret, unholy compact to destroy our …Catholic school system = THE VATICAN! – not the KKK forcing children out of the Catholic Schools and into the Public ones.
Racsim – It wasn’t the klan who called out across the parking lot to the group of immigrants “LEARN ENGLISH!” it was one of the leaders in our congregation. Last I checked the Catholic Church is a WORLD WIDE Church. Your meetings with the Hispanic and other non Caucasian Knights chapters must be interesting. Has blood been shed yet? How many go wearing “Make America Great Hats?”
Nativist beliefs – This Bishops joined right in with the KKK endorsing Mr. Build a Wall and make Mexico Pay – AMERICA FIRST! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! “Those who build walls are NOT CHRISTIAN! AMEN TO THAT! “larger belief in an open and diverse nation” You make another funny.
“Sentinel against the kind of rapid social change that many Americans found unsettling” – yeah! Trump was elected, now we will have GOOD judges. Likely the same anti-Catholic ones your article was just complaining about. “There is only one way left for us to defeat this infamous law, and that is THROUGH THE COURTS.” – Good luck with that now. You just cut your own throat. Maybe I should try the KKK next. See if they are more concerned about your own children then you are. See how much fun you have with Trump’s judges then. Better hurry. He has been busy and the slots are filling fast
“gain wide political influence and sway elections” .. “instrumental in electing” Catholics are the largest religious group in the US – Ex-Catholics are the second largest religious group – Trump went to see Bishop Dolan = ALL YOU CATHOLICS – VOTE FOR TRUMP HE EQUALS FAMILY VALUES – like RAPE – With our Groper in Chief – Abstinence isn’t a choice; it is a PRIVILEGE revocable by any male a woman may have the misfortune to come across; because a woman’s body must ALWAYS be available to worship a man’s penis.
“undermine civil government” = the Trump voters. Drain the Swamp – Trash the government –That public land is mine – State’s Rights of the Confederacy – The Gubbermint aint got no right to tell me what to do
“Klan paid for his lawyer” – like the church pays for the lawyers for the pedophile?
“K OF C RESISTANCE” – Not from what I have seen.
“We see about us the fruits of irreligion, and we see that they are bitter fruits. It is clear to us that if the seeds of irreligion,” are sown and resown, our nation will reap a dangerous harvest indeed. “the victims of a small and prejudiced group sought our aid, the didn’t seek in vain.” = Your own children – You make real big funny.
“The world knows no greater mockery than the use of the blazing cross, the cross upon which Christ died, as a symbol to install into the hearts of men a hatred of the brethren while Christ preached and died for the love and brotherhood of man.” (but not for women – they don’t have souls – the Creed says so – because we took a Greek word that means BOTH genders and translated it to men only)
MOCKERY OF CHRIST – THE PREVIOUS ENTITY IN POSSESSION OF THE VATICAN PROUDLY PROCLAIMED TO THE PLANET THAT CHRIST IS THE GREAT PENIS IN THE SKY TO WHICH YOU MUST SACRIFICE CHILDREN. I never think of it as anything other than – That which declared its dick god and offered our children in sacrifice to it.
I WILL LITERATELY BE DAMMED IF I WORSHIP THE GREAT PENIS IN THE SKY TO WHICH YOU MUST SACRIFICE CHILDREN!
Did you know that the Knights have TWO ladies auxiliaries? When was the last time either was mentioned in the Columbia? The letter our local chapter got in the 50’s said in effect– you can have a lady’s auxiliary if you can’t avoid it. Trying to start ladies auxiliaries in other towns we got – WOMEN CAN’T HAVE AUXILIARIES BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO MEN! (even though the bylaws said we could only ASSIST the Knights.) It was female. I got rid of it! Another one bites the dust – WOO HOO! Another one bites the dust! WOO HOO! In the choice between worshiping the God who said,”Whoever causes one of these little ones to fall, it would be better if a millstone was tied around his neck and he was drowned in the deepest ocean.” or the god between your legs, it is NO CONTEST. You will choose to worship your penises and you are all so PROUD of this. It is not the KKK telling us the Knights are a bunch of thugs – IT IS COMING OUT OF YOUR OWN MOUTHS
VERILY IS SAY UNTO THEE, THY DICK IS NOT MY GOD
The KKK trashing the Church! – They are rank amateurs. You make a funny. This is at least the 3rd letter I have written to the Knights to complain.
Coming this fall – Men Explain Religion to Me - Subverting God to promote greed, torture, rape, xenophobia, misogyny, pedophilia, etc. or how ISIS won the White House
FEETS DO YOUR THING!
Mother of Knight
This page is copyright 2018 by Mansplain
Back to home