Belgian police raid archbishops' tombs

[RandomGuy]

Zoinks. :wow

Vatican 'astonished' at Belgian police raid

By ALESSANDRA RIZZO, Associated Press Writer Alessandra Rizzo, Associated Press Writer – 22 mins ago

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican said Friday it was astonished and outraged that Belgian police investigating priestly sex abuse had conducted raids that also targeted the graves of two archbishops.

The Vatican summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to convey its anger over the raids, which also included the home and offices of the retired archbishop of Belgium. The ambassador was called in for a meeting with the Vatican's foreign minister.

In a statement, the Vatican said any sinful and criminal abuse of minors from members of the church must be condemned and repeated that there is a need for justice and amends.

But it added, "The Secretariat of State also expresses astonishment at the way in which the search took place." It expressed "outrage over the violation of the tombs."

On Thursday, police raided the home and former office of former Archbishop Godfried Danneels, taking documents and Danneels' personal computer. Police and prosecutors did not say if Danneels was suspected of abuse himself or simply had records pertaining to allegations against another person. He was not questioned.

Investigators also opened the graves of archbishops in the St. Rombouts Cathedral in Mechlin, north of Brussels, looking for possibly incriminating documents, said Jean-Marc Meilleur, spokesman for the Brussels public prosecutor.

Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, Belgium's current archbishop, condemned the search of the cathedral, saying that is stuff for "crime novels and 'The Da Vinci Code.'"

Separately, police seized the records of an independent panel investigating sexual abuse by priests, some 500 cases in all. The victims are mostly men now in their 60s and 70s.

This also drew the condemnation of the Vatican, which said it regretted the violation of the confidentiality due the victims of child abuse.

The Brussels prosecutor's office said the raids followed recent statements to police related to the sexual abuse of children within the church.



It was the latest development in a sex abuse scandal that has shaken the Roman Catholic Church in Europe and beyond for months.

Reports of rape and other sexual abuse of minors in seminars, schools and other church-run institutions have piled up. Victims have come forward accusing priests of abuse and bishops of covering up crimes in order to safeguard the church's name.

News of the Belgian raid was welcomed by the U.S. victims group SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

In a statement released late Thursday, it said: "This raid is precisely what's needed, not just in Belgium but in other church offices across the globe." It urged police and prosecutors to "use their full powers to gain access to and control over church records that likely document the crimes and cover ups."


-------------------------

I really hope the people who covered up criminal acts get prosecuted.

It seems, that might actually include the present pontiff. So be it.

[Winehole23]

I really hope the people who covered up criminal acts get prosecuted.For better and for worse, investigators are more likely to discover evidence incriminating the institutional enablers than the perps. Let the chips fall where they may.

This guy came clean: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/17/ireland-catholic-abuse-pope-cardinal.html


It seems, that might actually include the present pontiff. So be it.Were you referring to this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7573404/Pope-Benedict-accused-of-delaying-unfrocking-of-sex-abuse-priest.html

[EVAY]

For better and for worse, investigators are more likely to discover evidence incriminating the institutional enablers than the perps. Let the chips fall where they may.

This guy came clean: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/17/ireland-catholic-abuse-pope-cardinal.html

Were you referring to this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7573404/Pope-Benedict-accused-of-delaying-unfrocking-of-sex-abuse-priest.html

I just read this WH, and find myself unsurprised but nonetheless saddened by one more reported incidence of this pope, and most of his hierarchy, seemingly more concerned about the institution of the Church, as opposed to the Church itself, meaning the people of the faith.

[Winehole23]

I just read this WH, and find myself unsurprised but nonetheless saddened by one more reported incidence of this pope, and most of his hierarchy, seemingly more concerned about the institution of the Church, as opposed to the Church itself, meaning the people of the faith.You know of others?

Please share them, EVAY. There's no other recent thread on this I can recall, so any relevant factual details you could supply would be nice.

[Winehole23]

It's never gonna get taken up, but maybe now would be a good time for Roman Catholicism to consider laicizing its priests.

[Winehole23]

kXD6Gtinvbc

[EVAY]

You know of others?

Please share them, EVAY. There's no other recent thread on this I can recall, so any relevant factual details you could supply would be nice.

What I meant was that this pope has been slug-like in his acknowledgement that all of the bishops who just 'moved along' the pedophiles in the priesthood were wrong to do so.

He knew it was going on when it was happening, as this most recent revelation proves. But even before this, everyone who knew what Radzinger's post (job) was prior to the papacy knew that he would be cognizant of all of these allegations and how they were being 'swept under the rug'...all in an attempt to 'protect' the Church, just as his reasoning was in the quoted letter.

That is what I mean by the statement that he and his hierarchy have repeatedly misinterpreted the proper focus of 'protection'. Rather than the institution needing protection, as he and his out-of-touch 'princes of the Church' proclaim, the focus should have been on protection of the most innocent and powerless members of the Church, i.e., the youngsters.

[EVAY]

It's never gonna get taken up, but maybe now would be a good time for Roman Catholicism to consider laicizing its priests.

Well, you are right about that, although I assume that what you mean by 'laicizing' is removing the requirement of celibacy. Wouldn't they not be priests if they were really laity, by definition?

As I see it, the problem is not the celibacy requirement (although I oppose it...the earliest priests were able to marry), but is the lax standards for acceptance into the priesthood.

The need for priests has been so much greater than the availability of men who would accept the job that the Roman Church stopped throwing out seminarians who were only questionably fit for the life they were entering.

[EVAY]

None of this means that all priests are perverts. Clearly, most are not.

But it does mean that the hierarchy of the Church cares more about scandal than it cares about the well-being of its young members.

That, in my mind, is pathetic and evil.

[boutons_deux]

The estimate is about 4% of priests and brothers are pedopiles. Don't know what the estimate is for homosexuals.

There's nothing special about the Catholic Church, or any bureaucratic organization. Anything goes is acceptable to defend the organization, no matter who or what gets hurt, while individuals in that organization maybe highly moral and ethical. It's the fundamental fact of group or mob morality and ethics in contrast with personal morals and ethics.

This is also fundamental principle of conservatives, as seen on the Repug-packed SCOTUS. The institution always is preferred vs the individual.

The supremacy of the individual was one of the "ideas of America" that make America so special and recognized around world, but conservatives are dead-set against that idea.

Pedophile priests are criminals, should be in prison.

Too bad this guy wasn't a priest:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/man_gets_175_years_in_child_porn_case_97211789.htm l

[MiamiHeat]

so whats the vatican gonna do with all this anger?

harsh words and whine about it?

thats about all they CAN do

[ElNono]

Ain't you glad the crusades are over?

[ploto]

Protestant clergy who can marry have incidents of pedophilia and homosexuality, as well. Celibacy has nothing to do with making someone a pedophile.

While I abhor how the church hierarchy has dealt with this situation, I have never been shocked that people who know they have these tendencies would turn to religion.

[jack sommerset]

Protestant clergy who can marry have incidents of pedophilia and homosexuality, as well.

Sick fucks are everywhere.

[EVAY]

Ain't you glad the crusades are over?

:lol

[Yonivore]

Wasn't there some priest or saint that predicted the pontiff after John Paul II would be the last?

St. Malachy (http://www.lindseywilliams.org/index.htm?LAL_Archives/Is_Benedict_XVI_Next_-_to_-_Last_Pope.htm~mainFrame)

Well, if they're gonna make that December 21, 2012 deadline, they better get to dying or something...

If the Cardinal Senate, or whatever they're called, that elects the Pope were smart, they'd elect a healthy teenager to the position next time and keep him sequestered.

[The Reckoning]

St. Malachy? more like..St. Malarkey.

[Winehole23]

Well, you are right about that, although I assume that what you mean by 'laicizing' is removing the requirement of celibacy. Pretty much. Like a lot of other faiths do.


Wouldn't they not be priests if they were really laity, by definition?Sure. I'm not against the vow of chastity in principle, I just don't think it's working out too well institutionally for Roman Catholicism, and honestly, I think it would work better vis a vis the sexual predation issue (and probably in other ways too)if priesthood were restricted to women.



As I see it, the problem is not the celibacy requirement (although I oppose it...the earliest priests were able to marry), but is the lax standards for acceptance into the priesthood. A very good point. I hear our all-volunteer fighting forces have recently been lowering their standards too.


]The need for priests has been so much greater than the availability of men who would accept the job that the Roman Church stopped throwing out seminarians who were only questionably fit for the life they were enteringMore men would be available to serve if the sacrifice were scaled down a little bit. We're full circle now.

Circumcision of the heart, espousal to the Christ and putting away natural physical pleasures isn't for everyone. (Human nature, especially for us dudes.)

[EVAY]

Pretty much. Like a lot of other faiths do.

Sure. I'm not against the vow of chastity in principle, I just don't think it's working out too well institutionally for Roman Catholicism, and honestly, I think it would work better vis a vis the sexual predation issue (and probably in other ways too)if priesthood were restricted to women.


A very good point. I hear our all-volunteer fighting forces have recently been lowering their standards too.

More men would be available to serve if the sacrifice were scaled down a little bit. We're full circle now.

Circumcision of the heart, espousal to the Christ and putting away natural physical pleasures isn't for everyone. (Human nature, especially for us dudes.)


I don't know if it is true or not, but a Jesuit once told me that chastity requires complete abstinence from sex, whereas celibacy, which is the vow that most diocesan priests take (as opposed to members of religious orders who may be priests or brothers - on the male side) requires only that they not MARRY.

Of course, Jesuits have been known to split the occasional theological hair from time to time. But that is what he said.

[EVAY]

^^^According to the same Jesuit, the celibacy requirement came about because so many priests were ending up with estates that they wanted to leave to their families instead of to the church.

Thus, by forbidding them to marry, any children would be born 'out-of-wedlock' and unable to inherit, so the Church would obtain whatever worldly goods came of the priests' works and life.

Remember, they weren't called "Princes of the Church" for nothing. Most bishops, for example, had extensive land holdings.

Part of the reason for the Reformation was the almost obscene wealth accumulated by some of the religious institutions. Made the princes and kings ( see Henry VIII) cranky, and jealous.