Convicted Catholic Archbishop sentenced

Paidiske said:

I didn't post this in direct response to what you wrote. It popped up on my FB feed and I thought it was relevant and worth sharing here.

Click to expand...

Did you read it?

It related to what I wrote.

JIMINZ said:

.
It's not a question of training, it's a matter of a man being Ordained as a Priest of the Church knows what Sin is, he knows when sin is confessed and why.

A Priest committing such sins should turn himself in and leave the Church on his own, but no they don't and when they go to confession, the one hearing their confession does nothing to stop it, the guilty Priest is shipped off to another Parish as though that is the cure for his sin.

Click to expand...

The issue of sacramental confession is a red herring. What you say is not possible in dogmatic terms. And the attempt to enforce it would fail. Not least the perpetrators or victims would never disclose if they thought what they said would be passed on to authorities and possibly even in the press the following week as a result of zealous "leakers" that exist in all the police forces world wide.

BUT
The organisational issues , reports of problems, that led to wrong decisions and cover ups now have a management policy and training and process that was sorely lacking back then. How effective they are who knows - but the archbishop would now have a path to follow.
Much of the evidence i am guessing was from complaints - and sources not barred by seal of confession.

One of the problems is most of the observers are doing this with 20 20 hindsight: what is obvious now, would not have been obvious then.

I could remind you perhaps of a decision taken just yesterday in british justice, to prosecute an individual for pervertiing the course of justice, in respect of a several year investigation in which many prominent public figures and politicians were named and shamed, for child abuse crimes that were NEVER committed.
The allegation is not the same as guilt. And smoke does not necessarily mean fire.
But alleged offenders are named none the less, some of their lives destroyed. So how can you be certain enough?

How many innocent peoples lives would you destroy in over zealous pursuit of complaints? Our entire justice system is based on the idea, better a guilty man go free, than an innocent one be condemned.

The problem is , by the time it is "obvious" there is a real problem, the world will judge it was far too late. Journalists, politicians, and forum commentators get it easy. They dont have to deal with the reality, which is far from obvious.

I do not envy anyone in the chain of command who has to decide that.
In my view the accused deserves just the same anonymity as a victim. It is a horrendous crime to be accused of. But that is not the system we have - so until we do, reporting has to errr on the side of caution. Employers have a duty of care to their employees who (may be) wrongly accused: not just the customers , accusers/ others affected.

I see in all the 20 20 hindsight from armchair commentators a classic case of "dobbins law"
"Everything is easy for those who do not have to do it."

Mountainmike said:

The issue of sacramental confession is a red herring. What you say is not possible in dogmatic terms. And the attempt to enforce it would fail. Not least the perpetrators or victims would never disclose if they thought they would read about what they said in the press the following week as a result of zealous "leakers" that exist in all the police forces world wide.

BUT
The organisational issues , reports of problems, that led to wrong decisions and cover ups now have a management policy and training and process that was sorely lacking back then. How effective they are who knows - but the archbishop would now have a path to follow.
Much of the evidence i am guessing was from complaints - and sources not barred by seal of confession.

One of the problems is most of the observers are doing this with 20 20 hindsight: what is obvious now, would not have been obvious then.

I could remind you perhaps of a decision taken just yesterday in british justice, to prosecute an individual for pervertiing the course of justice, in respect of a several year investigation in which many prominent public figures and politicians were named and shamed, for child abuse crimes that were NEVER committed.
The allegation is not the same as guilt. And smoke does not necessarily mean fire.
But alleged offenders are named none the less, some of their lives destroyed. So how can you be certain enough?

How many innocent peoples lives would you destroy in over zealous pursuit of complaints? Our entire justice system is based on the idea, better a guilty man go free, than an innocent one be condemned.

The problem is , by the time it is "obvious" there is a real problem, the world will judge it was far too late. Journalists, politicians, and forum commentators get it easy. They dont have to deal with the reality, which is far from obvious.

I do not envy anyone in the chain of command who has to decide that.
In my view the accused deserves just the same anonymity as a victim. It is a horrendous crime to be accused of. But that is not the system we have - so until we do, reporting has to errr on the side of caution. Employers have a duty of care to their employees who (may be) wrongly accused: not just the customers , accusers/ others affected.

I see in all the 20 20 hindsight from armchair commentators a classic case of "dobbins law"
"Everything is easy for those who do not have to do it."

Click to expand...

.
My point is, it isn't a matter of law, or what the law will do, but it is a matter of sin, and not only sin, but sin within the Church itself, this ought not to be so, therefore if anyone in the Church itself, does not report such sin to those in Authority, or when the sin is found out the person responsible for said sin is just moved, then the sin falls on the Church itself.

If anyone should know the affects of sin, not only on the perpetrator, but on the victim as well, it should be the Church.

Sin within the Church should not be tolerated for any reason.

A little leaven, leavens the whole lump.

Addendum, I used the word Church, I'm not singling out any one Church because we all know this happens in all Denominations.

Not so.

Why do you make a secular law higher than Gods law so obligate the reporting of it?

Gods Law is higher , so Repentance with God trumps that.
And the world of Christian Martyrs is testament to the refusal to bow to secular law when the secular bodies are stupid enough to put the two in conflict. As they seem to want to over this.

In the case of demanding breach of confession you are multiply wrong.
The seal of confession is sacrosanct. By the nature of what it is. Priests would go to jail before breach. Automatic defrocking and excommunication if they do.

At a practical level silly attempts to breach it with secular law with the demand to report will be self defeating. For the simple reason the obligation to report will mean none will confess.EVEN victims! So one of the only chances to persuade to go to the authorities will be lost.

And - for anyone who understands how the law functions - a false secular law to make confessors report can never result in a prosecution if the law is doing its job..

Why? Because not only is the evidence of the penitent only hearsay, the word of the penitent accusing his confessor of not reporting what he alleged he said is also inadmissible hearsay.
So no priest could be convicted on the un verifiable hearsay of the penitient accusing the confessor of not reporting, and who else is there that can testify in that regard? And any barrister that tried to introduce such evidence in a british court at least would have the evidence stricken with a reprimand from the bar. Rightly so.

It will of course have side effects. Like the inevitablity of media profaning the sacrament to voice record a confession in which they bear false witness of a non committed crime, then try to embarass the priest by saying he failed to report the crime of their invention. And the sooner the media get locked up for wasting police time with that the better.

I do think the church will need to bring in some measures as a rear guard action on this..
In addition to the MANY it has brought in over the last decades.

One I suggest is that no clergy should ever confess either up or down in their own hierarchy - which may already be the case- obliging the pope to have a confessor, who is only in that role. So they must go to separate diocese (or whatever) so that there can be no question that any investigation of evidence is not the result of a breach of the sacrament. And any evidence eg complaints or any discussion outside the confessional can and should result in a process of investigation. ( which is already the case) The lines are clearly drawn then on what can be acted on..

But this issue of the sacrament has had complete threads. So that is my last word on it.

JIMINZ said:

.
My point is, it isn't a matter of law, or what the law will do, but it is a matter of sin, and not only sin, but sin within the Church itself, this ought not to be so, therefore if anyone in the Church itself, does not report such sin to those in Authority, or when the sin is found out the person responsible for said sin is just moved, then the sin falls on the Church itself.

If anyone should know the affects of sin, not only on the perpetrator, but on the victim as well, it should be the Church.

Sin within the Church should not be tolerated for any reason.

A little leaven, leavens the whole lump.

Addendum, I used the word Church, I'm not singling out any one Church because we all know this happens in all Denominations.

Click to expand...

Zoii said:

Today Catholic Archbishop Phillip Wilson received a twelve-month sentence for the deliberate cover-up of child sex abuse of paedophile priests. Archbishop was found guilty of concealing the crimes of several paedophile priests including notorious paedophile Father Jim Fletcher. Archbishop Wilson concealed evidence, knowingly did not report the priests' crimes, moved the priests to other precincts where he knew the paedophile activities continued.

In sentencing, the judge said "there is no remorse or contrition showed by the offender"

The Archbishop escaped gaol and instead the judge has imposed home detention.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...lson-sentenced-concealing-child-abuse/9883610

Click to expand...

...The man has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. And the judge says he has no remorse or contrition..? Well, I'm sure he doesn't.

“Archbishop Wilson maintained his innocence throughout this long judicial process,” Archbishop Coleridge said in a statement following the court decision.

http://catholicleader.com.au/news/adelaide-archbishop-found-guilty-of-sex-abuse-cover-up

Mountainmike said:

Why do you make a secular law higher than Gods law so obligate the reporting of it?

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a Secular law, I'm saying, the Church can and do dictate things are to be done, then how they should be done.

I'm not arguing the point of Law or Crime here, no not at all, the problem is SIN, pure and simple.

The person and in this case the Priest committing the Sin should by Church Authority demand the Priest turn himself in, that would fill the bill as far as Repentance is concerned, and it would let the Church off the hook for any future lawsuits.

The gravity of this type of offence (Sin) involving who it does needs to be purged from the Church, the Sin goes way beyond just the Sin itself, it is a reflection on the Church, and a complete disregard for everything except the self gratification of the perpetrator.

The ramifications of this Sin and who is committing this Sin is on the same level as this one Paul had to deal with.

1Co_5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Everything which needs to be done, can and should be done within the Church, except the perpetrator turning himself in to the Authorities.

Mountainmike said:

In the case of demanding breach of confession you are multiply wrong.
The seal of confession is sacrosanct. By the nature of what it is. Priests would go to jail before breach. Automatic defrocking and excommunication if they do.

Click to expand...

You have made mention of a Secular law, which should not be higher than Gods Law, the laws concerning Confession have risen to that level, to where the sin should be covered at all costs, rather than the sin being exposed for what it is.

If sin cannot be controlled withing the ranks of the Church, then how can the Church expect the people to curb their desires for, the whole thing becomes a Religious sham.

Mountainmike said:

It will of course have side effects. Like the inevitablity of media profaning the sacrament to voice record a confession in which they bear false witness of a non committed crime, then try to embarass the priest by saying he failed to report the crime of their invention. And the sooner the media get locked up for wasting police time with that the better.

Click to expand...

The question then arises, has the Sin come to light?
What are the ramifications of the covering up of this Sin going to have on the Church Now?

The Media will say the Church condones Sin.

Mountainmike said:

One I suggest is that no clergy should ever confess either up or down in their own hierarchy - which may already be the case- obliging the pope to have a confessor, who is only in that role. So they must go to separate diocese (or whatever) so that there can be no question that any investigation of evidence is not the result of a breach of the sacrament. And any evidence eg complaints or any discussion outside the confessional can and should result in a process of investigation. ( which is already the case) The lines are clearly drawn then on what can be acted on..

Click to expand...

Your solution would only make the Confession of a Priest even more nefarious, cloaked in more layers of secrecy, and anonymity.

Aren't the ordinary Parishioners forced to Confess "UP" as you say, by the very nature of the Sacrament as it is?

The only thing which needs to be understood by the Church is, the Church is in the position to absolve Sin, it is not in the position to absolve a Crime.

When a Sin Confessed falls into the category of a Civil Crime, the Church does not have an obligation to absolve the one committing said Crime, and then protect the Criminal, if they do they themselves become culpable for not only that Crime, but all subsequent Crime perpetrated by that Criminal.

While there is a separation of Church and State, The Church has an obligation to uphold the Laws of the Land.

The Church must.
Mar. 12:17
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Rom 13:1-5
1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Zoii said:

Let's hope you're right and that is the reason, though I have to say the courts do take into account the defendant's mental health when making sentencing comments

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I would rely so heavily on the courts making flawless sentencing comments. Judges are just employees, and no employee is perfect.

Blade said:

Hmm I don't keep up with ANY of this. Wonder how long SOME have been praying for him. You love him as Christ loves you died for you.. gave His live for the world. I personally dont see this man as my enemy and we are to love our enemy as Christ again that same love He loves us.

Yes in this world some sins are treated worse then others. But dont be deceived. God HATES all sin. NO SIN will ever enter heaven. That tiny little lie or going 67 when we should go 65 or that STOP sign? How we ROLL through it. Obey ALL mans laws. My point is.. lets remember our SIN we do each day is not GOOD SINS vs OMGOSH really awful evil wicked sins in regards to childern. Its that BLOOD from a GOD that is the ONLY reason we get in to Heaven.

We all fall... now.. do we REMEMBER what Christ did for us or not. So we hold them accountable for never once sinning against us. David by the sweet sweet holy Spirit said.. against thee and only thee do I sin and do this evil in your sight. Some need to get the reward for the fruits they have done in this world. If they do not repent. But love them. Pray for them... we all fall..some get stuck.. cant seem to get out.. so HELP..pray for them. Your sin lol is not OK! And theres is not. Not saying you have to agree or like what ever.. remember CHRIST IN YOU...give as Peter and John did.. give away what is IN YOU..

in the end.. your free choice

Click to expand...

Some sins are much worse than others, according to Christ's teaching to us.

http://biblehub.com/mark/9-42.htm

http://biblehub.com/mark/3-29.htm

There are several more examples of how some sins are more serious and more deserving of punishment than others, but this one is also highly relevant:

Pastors-priests held to a higher standard and their wrongdoing more serious:

"But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."

Dave G. said:

I know of a priest defrocked for plagiarism and this guys offenses are far greater than copy and pasting another guys sermon IMO. He is as lost as a witch doctor, so no he should not be allowed to continue to lead people or to preach in any official standing at all.. I also feel strongly that these accounts that surface are just that, waves over the surface of a great big huge undercurrent of this stuff within that religious system..

Click to expand...

1 Tim 3: 1-7

1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,b sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

I'm not sure we need to look any further than this. Does anyone even READ the Bible anymore, any of these so-called believers doing and advocating what is so clearly wrong? I'm really wondering lately.

RestoreTheJoy said:

1 Tim 3: 1-7

1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,b sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

I'm not sure we need to look any further than this. Does anyone even READ the Bible anymore, any of these so-called believers doing and advocating what is so clearly wrong? I'm really wondering lately.

Click to expand...

Yes I am hearing you. And no, many do not read the bible, particularly members and even sometimes clergy from churches of tradition. To me this is the danger in churches of tradition actually, that the bible is in the background someplace and people really do not know the scripture there. This to me brings a whole different meaning to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ! But the modern day result is what we see happening in many churches today, people wax worse and worse without scripture as their underpinning. And ultimately you end up seeing something supporting false doctrine or at least false teaching. Of course I now have gotten off topic but it needs to be said anyway IMO.

Dave G. said:

Yes I am hearing you. And no, many do not read the bible, particularly members and even sometimes clergy from churches of tradition. To me this is the danger in churches of tradition actually, that the bible is in the background someplace and people really do not know the scripture there. This to me brings a whole different meaning to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ! But the modern day result is what we see happening in many churches today, people wax worse and worse without scripture as their underpinning. And ultimately you end up seeing something supporting false doctrine or at least false teaching. Of course I now have gotten off topic but it needs to be said anyway IMO.

Click to expand...

It's like the reformation in reverse. Detach the believers from the Word of God. If they don't know what it says, you can get them to buy anything!

RestoreTheJoy said:

It's like the reformation in reverse. Detach the believers from the Word of God. If they don't know what it says, you can get them to buy anything!

Click to expand...

It's spiritual warfare brother, very real spiritual warfare.

Anybody who thinks clergy in traditional churches don't read the Bible needs to understand the daily office a whole lot better (or even learn that it exists).

Honestly, I completely get being disgusted by this guy. But please don't flame every clergy member of every traditional church with your comments; some of us are actually participating in this discussion.

Paidiske said:

Anybody who thinks clergy in traditional churches don't read the Bible needs to understand the daily office a whole lot better (or even learn that it exists).

Honestly, I completely get being disgusted by this guy. But please don't flame every clergy member of every traditional church with your comments; some of us are actually participating in this discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes I understand. It's more the churches that have built their own books and doctrines from those books I was thinking of. I think it's something to be cautious of.

Paidiske said:

Anybody who thinks clergy in traditional churches don't read the Bible needs to understand the daily office a whole lot better (or even learn that it exists).

Honestly, I completely get being disgusted by this guy. But please don't flame every clergy member of every traditional church with your comments; some of us are actually participating in this discussion.

Click to expand...

I did not say that. I said that scripture answers the question as to what should be done, so why examine it further to have to decide what to do about such cases. That is perplexing to me.

If Archbishop Wilson is acquitted at an appeal, will people who called for his resignation change their tune, I wonder.

My take on the trial is that the judge arrived at an unsafe verdict which relied too heavily on the demeanour of the complainant compared to Wilson, and relied too heavily on the complainant's detailed recall of what was said over 40 years ago.

It is interesting to consider why Wilson would appeal when he has received a comparatively light sentence.