http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
Expulsion threat in secret documents
Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)
Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday August 17, 2003
The Observer
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases
of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the
secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception
and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims
has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to
every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest'
secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who
speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of
making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are
to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as
strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any
commentaries.'
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic
Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which
translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional
relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the
instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an
obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute
animals (bestiality)'.
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way...
restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the
strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy
Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for
victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to
US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the
clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.
He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and
would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an
international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is
a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for
deception and concealment.'
British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic
priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as
'explosive'.
He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically
covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to
prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the
lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to
prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'
Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides
roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse
was a modern phenomenon.
He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the
actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic
Church in England and Wales.
Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse
when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the
police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he
moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine
children.
Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer
claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his
failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.
Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether
Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply
it. If not, can he tell us why not?'
A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders
were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the
document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.
He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary
procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It
does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked
about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today.
It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved
in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in
England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which
would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor
was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly
stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed
by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who
heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran
the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in
Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly
an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic
Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.
'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous
policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another
issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been
seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such
intimidation is the exception and not the norm.
'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation
then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a
blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires
concrete proof.'
Additional research by Jason Rodrigues
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:20:17 GMT
"infidel" <someone@no-spam> wrote in message
news:guF%a.39005$bo1.30156@no-spam
>
> "jg" <jg@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:60F%a.38966$bo1.13956@no-spam
> >
> > "infidel" <someone@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:j_D%a.38882$bo1.18610@no-spam
> > >
> > > "bihr" <bihr_pilsner@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:0219b08649015388d45a379f8a0f13ae@no-spam
> > > >
> >
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
> > > >
> > > > Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
> > > >
> > > > Expulsion threat in secret documents
> > > >
> > > > Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)
> > > >
> > > > Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
> > > > Sunday August 17, 2003
> > > > The Observer
> > > >
> > > Try this !!!
> > > http://carolinanavy.com/fleet2/f2/zreligion/Islamhall/cas/3239.html
> > > FA
> > > I.
> > >
> > That could be why those sickos have nothing to say about paedophilia in
> > christian churches but want to bomb tourists for drinking in a Bali pub.
> You
> > gotta admire the way they stick to their book, a bit like the way
Mormons
> > are unshakable in their indoctrination without analysing a word of it.
> >
>
> "Most muslims are not terrorists.
> Most terrorists are muslims."
> Fact!!!!
> FA
> I.
Dir yapp, sure mait ... remind me to put my thinking cap on when I read your
posts ... your too deep for this NG ... have you ever considered turning on
the lights in that cob-web infested, vacuous space between your ears ??
How's this for an authentic document from the Vatican files ??
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf
"infidel" <someone@no-spam> wrote in message
news:j_D%a.38882$bo1.18610@no-spam
>
> "bihr" <bihr_pilsner@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:0219b08649015388d45a379f8a0f13ae@no-spam
> >
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
> >
> > Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
> >
> > Expulsion threat in secret documents
> >
> > Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)
> >
> > Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
> > Sunday August 17, 2003
> > The Observer
> >
> Try this !!!
> http://carolinanavy.com/fleet2/f2/zreligion/Islamhall/cas/3239.html
> FA
> I.
>
That could be why those sickos have nothing to say about paedophilia in
christian churches but want to bomb tourists for drinking in a Bali pub. You
gotta admire the way they stick to their book, a bit like the way Mormons
are unshakable in their indoctrination without analysing a word of it.
"jg" <jg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:60F%a.38966$bo1.13956@no-spam
>
> "infidel" <someone@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:j_D%a.38882$bo1.18610@no-spam
> >
> > "bihr" <bihr_pilsner@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:0219b08649015388d45a379f8a0f13ae@no-spam
> > >
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
> > >
> > > Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
> > >
> > > Expulsion threat in secret documents
> > >
> > > Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)
> > >
> > > Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
> > > Sunday August 17, 2003
> > > The Observer
> > >
> > Try this !!!
> > http://carolinanavy.com/fleet2/f2/zreligion/Islamhall/cas/3239.html
> > FA
> > I.
> >
> That could be why those sickos have nothing to say about paedophilia in
> christian churches but want to bomb tourists for drinking in a Bali pub.
You
> gotta admire the way they stick to their book, a bit like the way Mormons
> are unshakable in their indoctrination without analysing a word of it.
>
"Most muslims are not terrorists.
Most terrorists are muslims."
Fact!!!!
FA
I.
Sounds like the Jesuits were in on the protocols.
"bihr" <bihr_pilsner@no-spam> wrote in message
news:0219b08649015388d45a379f8a0f13ae@no-spam
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
>
> Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
>
> Expulsion threat in secret documents
>
> Read the 1962 Vatican document (PDF file)
>
> Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
> Sunday August 17, 2003
> The Observer
>
> The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases
> of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
> The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the
> secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for
deception
> and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims
> has described it as 'explosive'.
>
> The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to
> every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of
'strictest'
> secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those
who
> speak out with excommunication.
>
> They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of
> making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions
are
> to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as
> strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any
> commentaries.'
>
> The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic
> Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which
> translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
>
> It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional
> relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the
> instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an
> obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with
brute
> animals (bestiality)'.
>
> Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way...
> restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the
> strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy
> Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
>
> Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for
> victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to
> US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the
> clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.
>
> He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and
> would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an
> international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It
is
> a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for
> deception and concealment.'
>
> British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic
> priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as
> 'explosive'.
>
> He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically
> covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to
> prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the
> lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to
> prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'
>
> Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides
> roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse
> was a modern phenomenon.
>
> He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about
the
> actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic
> Church in England and Wales.
>
> Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse
> when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the
> police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge,
he
> moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing
nine
> children.
>
> Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer
> claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his
> failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from
Rome.
>
> Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether
> Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he
apply
> it. If not, can he tell us why not?'
>
> A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders
> were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the
> document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.
>
> He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary
> procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex.
It
> does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked
> about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures
today.
> It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy
involved
> in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church
in
> England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which
> would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor
> was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to
me.'
>
> Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly
> stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed
> by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and
who
> heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which
ran
> the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
>
> Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in
> Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is
certainly
> an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic
> Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.
>
> 'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a
continuous
> policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another
> issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been
> seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that
such
> intimidation is the exception and not the norm.
>
> 'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation
> then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a
> blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires
> concrete proof.'
>
> Additional research by Jason Rodrigues
>
>
