Via Kalamalka Rainbow, I found the following story describing the Vatican's orders to cover up criminal wrongdoing on the part of clergy members.
Perhaps the most vile aspect of it is this document written in 1962, and reinforced as recently as 2001 by then-Cardinal Ratzinger:
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.
There are two aspects to this document that disturb me greatly. First is the fairly clear instructions it makes with respect to "covering things up" - either by oaths of silence, or quietly moving the accused elsewhere. The moral justification of this kind of action is nonexistent. In any other situation, it is called callusion, or "accessory after the fact" - whatever. For all intents and purposes, it appears to instruct senior members of the R/C hierarchy to cover up a criminal act.
The second aspect of the whole thing that really smells rotten is the presupposition that the R/C church is somehow above the laws in the lands where it is operating. In North America, and most of Europe, for example, molesting children is a crime - and quite rightly so. Here we have the Vatican instructing its hierarchy not only to conceal the crime from the lawful authorities in those lands, but worse it then goes on to describe a quasi-judicial process to be applied within the church in such situations.
I cannot even begin to express my outrage at the arrogance that this shows. Not only has the church effectively declared itself outside 'secular law', they have then tried to cover up that nonsense with a tepid attempt at creating their own "law" to be exercised within the church - outside of the public eye.
Judging from this, just about every Bishop (or higher) that moved a priest after allegations of abuse started to surface is at the very least an accomplice in a crime so reprehensible that they, as well as the perpetrators, should face the full force of the law for their actions, and the actions of those they attempted to protect.
Can, or should, the world take seriously the "moral teachings" of Pope Ratz, or the rest of the church hierarchy when they are so full of their own hypocrisy that they cover up and ignore the criminality of their own members?
2 comments:
Some information on rape laws in Canada that apparently, do not apply to those who hide behind the shield of religion: "Sexual intercourse with a person who has not reached the age of consent is known as statutory rape. The age of consent for sexual intercourse varies depending on state law, but is no higher than 18 in any state. Under most state laws, the younger the victim is, the greater the punishment. Statutory rape laws traditionally treated men or boys as the prospective offenders and young women or girls as prospective victims. However, some jurisdictions have enacted gender-neutral statutory rape laws. States also typically treat sexual intercourse as rape if the victim is considered incapable of giving consent for a reason other than age. For example, if a person has sexual intercourse with someone who is drugged or asleep, or who is mentally retarded, that person may be found guilty of rape.
In Canada, traditional statutory rape laws have been replaced with specific laws against a variety of sexual offenses concerning children. For example, the Criminal Code provides that any person who, for sexual purposes, touches any part of the body of a person under the age of 14 is guilty of the offense of sexual interference. The charge cannot be defended by claiming consent by the minor or mistake concerning the age of the victim. However, if the accused person is between the ages of 12 and 16 and the victim is less than two years younger than the accused and consented to the activity, it is not considered a crime."
Most perpetrators of rape are charged and tried under the criminal justice system and serve jail time if convicted. What is different about the rape of children by "trusted" religious leaders?
See Sections 150.1 through 161 of the Criminal Code for details of what BC Waterboy is talking about.
Canada's rape laws are gender neutral.
In my view, the Vatican document raises two very important issues:
1) Complicity on the part of church hierarchy.
2) The relevance of the Church in the discourse over topics such as sexuality.
Clearly in both cases, the R/C Church can be held up as imposing a double standard of behaviour and legal status.
I think that it is significant to note that when evaluating the statements and proscriptions that a politically vocal Pope is making today.
Post a Comment