Dear All

I have a question. On December 10th, 2002, the Coalition of Catholics and Survuvors (Boston, MA) stated publickly that among the numerous files the Archdioceses of Boston released on Dec. 3, it found a document (letter) showing Pope John Paul II himself wrote a letter, May 25th, 1999, counceling the cover-up of pedophile priests.

The letter said that "a defrocked Catholic priest who had a history of molesting boys should leave the areas where his 'condiion' was known - or stay put as long as it caused no scandal" (MSNBC News, "Smoking Gun in Church Crisis?" December 11th, 2002, Online edition).

Has anyone else heard of this letter of JPII?

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 06, 2003

Answers

Here is the part of the article:

‘SMOKING GUN’ ALLEGED

Pressure continued to build on Law after critics claimed Tuesday that had uncovered a “smoking gun” that showed that Law and other U.S. Catholic leaders who have been accused of covering up sex-abuse allegations were acting on the pope’s orders.

A group called the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors said it had come across the document from among thousands of personnel files the Boston archdiocese made public last week. A court hearing lawsuits against the archdiocese had ordered the release.

Joseph Gallagher, a co-founder of the group, said the document spelled out a Vatican policy of placing image ahead of child welfare.

In the document, John Paul says that a defrocked Catholic priest who had a history of molesting boys should leave the areas where his “condition” was known — or stay put as long as it caused no scandal.

“That would explain why other bishops have done the same thing as Cardinal Law — they’ve moved sexual offenders from parish to parish without notifying the parishioners,” Gallagher said.

The May 25, 1999, document is a translation of the pope’s order removing Robert Burns, a convicted pedophile, from the priesthood.

Donna Morrissey, a Boston archdiocese spokeswoman, said she could not comment on matters of litigation.

Roderick MacLeish, a Boston lawyer who last week released the archdiocese’s file on Burns along with those of other priests accused of sexual misconduct, said the order was noteworthy not only because it was relatively recent but also because of its use of the word “scandal.” “Now, for the first time, we’ve seen documents from the Vatican that emphasize the word that we’ve seen so often here in Boston: ‘scandal,’” MacLeish said.

“This document says he is to be relocated to another place where presumably they wouldn’t know about him, unless the bishop or the cardinal of the appropriate diocese determines it will cause no scandal,” he said. “What about the children?”

MacLeish has said the files, which a judge ordered the archdiocese to turn over, help prove a central claim in his lawsuits against the archdiocese — that the church reassigned priests accused of sexual abuse without warning parishioners.

At the time the memo was written, the archdiocese said it was aware of at least six young men whom Burns allegedly molested while he worked in Boston from 1982 to 1991.

Burns came to Boston from the diocese of Youngstown, Ohio, where his problem had been noticed.

Burns pleaded guilty in 1996 to criminal charges that he had sexually assaulted two boys in New Hampshire. He was sentenced to two consecutive four- to eight-year terms in jail.

Meanwhile, a central figure of the scandal, the Rev. Paul Shanley, posted $300,000 cash bail Wednesday. Shanley, 71, has been charged in Boston with 10 counts of child rape and six counts of indecent assault and battery for allegedly abusing boys at a church in Newton from 1979 to 1989.

A former Boston Archdiocese leader, the Rev. Thomas Daily, now the bishop of Brooklyn, N.Y., said in a sworn deposition that the church knew Shanley had advocated sex between men and boys when it promoted him to lead a parish in 1983.

It can be found @ http://senrs.com/smoking_gun_in_church_crisis.htm

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 06, 2003.

No!

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 06, 2003.

Sad, but not surprising. Many (if not all) of the bishops concerned were well aware of the allegations surrounding these priests, and yet continued to shuffle them around. I know my bishop was aware of it. It has been proven so.

Well, let us pray that the Vatican will do something about these guilty and/or homosexual bishops and priests, once and for all, and replace them with chaste, God-fearing priests that children can look up to, and aspire to. I keep this in my prayers constantly.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), February 06, 2003.

Mark, there is something illogical in the letter. A defrocked priest is a priest thrown out of church. He cannot be put here or there by church authorities, the guy is free, fired by church.

-- (alter17@river.stream), February 06, 2003.

Are you saying that the priest who has been fired should be allowed to attend a church service wherever he pleases ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 07, 2003.

What do you think? The church has some police to track the defrocked priest if he goes somewhere to church and even takes communion? Allowed or not where he is not known he is as free in a church as you or me. He doesn't have a "defrocked priest" burnt to his forehead.

-- (alter17@river.stream), February 08, 2003.

Oliver, As long as it is the prison chaplain officiating.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 12, 2003.

So Mark, do you know Joane Stacey?

-- Emil (Emil21@hp.net), February 27, 2003.

Are you saying that pedophiles are homosexuall??Abusing young boys isnt gay, its peadophilic. Just cus grant likes men it DOES NOT make him a child abuser!!!

-- Naomi Ripper (IloveAmandaHolden@hotmail.com), March 07, 2003.

A pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children, precisely because they do not possess adult characteristics. A homosexual is attracted to people who possess adult traits of his own sex. Adolescent boys are attractive to many homosexuals because (1) they have developed or are developing adult characteristics, and (2) they are naive and inexperienced, therefore easy prey. This sick approach is not particular to homosexuals. Some heterosexual adult men also prey upon adolescent girls. When the high school coach fondles a cheerleader, sorry, that is not pedophilia, whether she is legally a minor or not. And when a priest or any other adult male molests a teenage boy, that is not pedophilia either. No pedophile is interested in a fifteen year old. The secular press has labeled it that way in order to divert attention from the obvious conclusions which the truth would produce - that homosexuality, one of tthe sacred cows of the liberal secular media, is fundamentally deviant in nature.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 07, 2003.

Thank you for writing that Paul. That is exactly what I have read concerning the scandals. That there is a definite difference in pedophilia and what has happened in most of these cases. But of course, on my news channels here at home, the only word ever used is pedophilia. Very frustrating!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 07, 2003.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOULD NOT FORCE PRIESTS TO BE CELIBATE ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE WERE GIVE THE GIFT OF CELIBACY. FORCING PRIESTS TO BE CELIBATE CAUSES THEM TO ACT OUT THEIR NATURAL TENDENCIES IN INAPPROPRIATE WAYS. LET PRIESTS BE MARRIED.

-- MARIAN STRESSMAN (MSTRESSMAN@AOL.COM), June 14, 2004.

The Catholic Church does not force anyone to be celibate. Men who enter the priesthood do so of their own free will, and would not choose to do so unless they also freely accepted the nature of that vocation. What about lay men and women who are called to the single life? Does the Church's teaching about the evil of fornication cause such people "to act out their natural tendencies in inappropriate ways"?? Maybe the Church shouldn't "require celibacy" for these people either??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 14, 2004.