"The Vatican instructed bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.The Observer has obtained a confidential document from the secret Vatican archive. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.The 69-page 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. The document, which has been confirmed as genuine, 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 said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go.'Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue was a modern phenomenon.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 accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.Rev Thomas Doyle, a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: '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.'"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection
>>18393459Why did they do it
Sounds like the post ww2 US military occupation of japan.
1962 IS modern
>>18393459>>18393539If those priests don't fuck the asses of those altar boys, what should they fuck?
>>18393979Each other
>>18393459>Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue was a modern phenomenon.Did the modern era get redefined? Am I missing something?
>>18393459Very little from that era would surprise me anymore
>>18394023A common tradcath cope is that the boybuggering only became an issue when "the libs" took over during/after Vatican II.
>>18394194And since the documents date back to 1962, they seem to be correct.
>>18394197If the documents date back to the year that Vatican II started that indicates they're talking about claims that pre-date Vatican II you moron.The most likely answer is that no one gave a fuck about kids getting diddled prior to the 1960s. Given that as late as the 80s kids were more or less being told to shut the fuck up about it by their parents/caregivers ("There's no way a godly man like Father O'Leary would ever do *that* to a *child*!), its likely earlier cases of it were dismissed in the same way
>>18394201Vatican II was on the agenda years before the council actually gathered, retard. "The libs" were already in charge.
Oh, this thread again./his/ is filled with credulous midwits and bigoted hostile shills.OP didn't make this thread to discuss canon law, the sacramental seal, or the internal legal procedures of an ecclesiastical court. He created it in the spirit of animosity and slander.What follows is according to my own understanding of the relevant facts. I am not well read in canon law by any means.Suffice to say, nothing here actually bars anyone from reporting a crime to the police. It silences bishops from discussing these matters among one another so long as legal proceedings are ongoing both for the protection and dignity of both the victims and the accused. This same kind of confidentiality is not unknown in modern secular courts.The secret of the Holy Office, or pontifical secrecy, does not preclude the notification of secular authorities to a crime. Rather, it covers the particular acts and findings of an investigative tribunal. In fact, clergy are actually mandated reporters.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationisThere is a translation of the document from the Vatican linked in the above article.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_secret>... the procedures of the Church tribunal were covered by papal secrecy (called at that time secrecy of the Holy Office), but the crime of the priest was not: "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."An article by the same Doyle explaining in detail the technical language used in this document, which is just as arcane for the unread as secular law codes are.https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_12_Doyle_VeryImportant.htm
>>18394235conthttps://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm"... secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.""... imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.""... secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional."
>>18394210>>18394197>>18394031You're one of the credulous midwits I mentioned earlier.There being a very real culture or mentality of cover-up in certain areas of the RCC doesn't mean it was actually *licit* or mandatory. It reflects a failure of individuals and networks of individuals, not the canon law itself.>>18394023That's colloquial language, from reporters who aren't well versed in the study of classics or the academic terminology and conceit which differentiates between antiquity, the medieval era, and modernity.
>>18394235>>18394237>>18394240>The Vatican didn't explicitly order them to cover it up, powerful figures in the Vatican's hierarchy from the US to Australia just spontaneously decided to dismiss claims of clerical sexual abuse or - when dismissal became untenable - tried to buy off the accusers to avoid embarrassment.Ok, thanks r/catholicanswers
>>18393979Nothing,they're supposed to be celibate but these aren't priests but satanic infiltrators
>>18393459The Vatican does not embrace true christianity. True christians are vegans or vegetarians, and non violent. They also chanted together about being a good human in residential dwellings rather than in churches. If a town was flooded by christiani cultists, the meat markets would close, as they did not eat meat. Pliny the younger wrote this down. It's the first non-religious source detailing the christiani.
>>18394240> You're one of the credulous midwits I mentioned earlier.> It reflects a failure of individuals and networks of individuals, not the canon law itself.You may see it as simply a failure of individuals and individual choices; but some may view it in the larger them of the satanic infiltration of the church. So what was going on around that time:> 1962 OP's story here> 1963-06-29 the alleged enthronement of satan ceremony secretly held in the vatican> 1962 the start of Vatican 2 and the fundamental change that brought> 1960 the decision to not release the 3rd secret of fatima, contrary to instructions. (plus the alleged discussions of releasing a false third secret later)So again, no, at this point, no stories coming out of that era would surprise me.
>>18394499Buddhist monasteries have similar issues with homosexual pederasty. There's no satanic infiltration, it's not rocket science that a profession that explicitly demands abstinence from (heterosexual) sexual/romantic attachments is inevitably going to attract fags that just see it as a way to avoid embarrassing their devoutly-religious mother
>>18394197Read Liber Gomorrhianus
>>18394524There was a book back in 2002, which tried to tell the story about how the seminaries were being slowly taken over by the modern (pro LGBT) forces; who pushed out seminarians with traditional values, rewarded those with modern values; and (if I am remembering correctly), went as far as having regional higher-ups using seminarians as a dating poolhttps://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4609Traditionally (1000 years ago), they didn't have as much of a problem because the church was stocked with 2nd and 3rd sons of higher-class households (the 1st born getting the estate). During those times, even if celebasy was the rule, it certainly wasn't the practice, at least at the cardinal level and above.Later (at least in the US from the 40's-60's, the church was a hideout for the gays; as what was normally an anti-social behavior become ennobled through the perceived 'sacrifice' of giving up traditional marriage. But I was talking more about the spiritual war that appears to have taken place in the Vatican starting around 1960; where people who believed in both God and the Devil attempted to honestly and intentionally give the Devil power in the Vatican (the enthronement ceremony which had part in the vatican, part simultaneously in a second church, and an act of human sexual sacrifice).It all ( the items here >>18394499) all appear to be related and a continuum; at least if you believe the insiders (bishops, cardinals) who were in the authority/position to have witnessed the things they made claims about later
>>18393459Vatican is infiltrated by jews and satanists
>>18393459Catholic Church is infiltrated by SATAN
Dirty pedophiles
>>18394550>Traditionally (1000 years ago), they didn't have as much of a problem because the church was stocked with 2nd and 3rd sons of higher-class households (the 1st born getting the estate). During those times, even if celebasy was the rule, it certainly wasn't the practice, at least at the cardinal level and above.Were they gay back then as well?
>>18399064No, but that goes back to what I was saying. Under normal hereditary legal norms, the first son is the one who gets the title and the land. The 2nd and 3rd sons are expected to make decent names for themselves without access to any of the money, land, or title; so a habit started where the 2nd or 3rd son went into the church; with expectations all around that they would become bishops and cardinals down the line.So, mathematically, since you were randomly pulling from the population, you'd expect the % of gay clergy to be roughly equal to what it was in the general population. This is the opposite of the way it was in the 1940's-60's; where the church became the only place that gay men could hide in plain site while turning their lack of a wife into a virtue (giving up sex with women in the name of holiness). But back in the 1500's, there were at least a few popes with unofficial wives and houses full of children
>>18399070Was there ever a tradition where the first born son had to be sacrificed or be born out of a cuck situation? Conspiracy theorists talk about that sometimes
>>18399072I don't know enough about that to give an answer
>>18394468Catholicism's weird anti-sex thing only made sure that weirdos run it
>>18394550>>18399070We don't have any reliable evidence that it was markedly different before le satanic pedophiles infiltrated the seminaries. If you want a good laugh read one of those hagiographic '50s catholic biographies of a famous cardinal or archbishop that makes a point of noting how close they are to their male secretary lol.>YEAH BUT THAT'S THE '50sYes, and to be a cardinal/archbishop by then they would have entered the seminaries in the 1920s if not earlier.
Any form of Christianity that relies on the masoretic text is doomed for corruption. Inshallah.
>>18399210Fuck off, the Masoretic Text was literally validated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. “Hurr durr it’s a medieval forgery” is nothing more than copium.
>>18393459bro the 60s had vatican 2, tradcaths seethe at the very mention of such things. all you can do is pray for the latest pope, and honestly, Leo doesnt seem so bad so far
>>18399200>If you want a good laugh read one of those hagiographic '50s catholic biographies of a famous cardinal or archbishop that makes a point of noting how close they are to their male secretary lol.If I am remembering correctly, that became a real problem in the US; where a gay cardinal basically started a gay mafia in his diocese, where everyone promoted was part of his inner cabel>>18400608There is an interesting intersection of several famous stories, all of which seem to center around those times. A few highlights include:> Pope Pius X11 intentionally not promoting a bishop because of questions of his orthodoxy, and his association with Saul Alinsky, with those who hoped to created a "communist Catholicism". That shunted bishop would be named cardinal after Pius XII's death, and would later become Pope Paul VI> That upon receiving the 3rd secret of Fatima, the children were told to tell the church that it should be revealed no later than 1960. It was not released, and (some claim), when it later was, the 'secret' released didn't match what others claim it really said> That Pius XII was fighting against modernity; and once he was dead, Vatican 2 could go forward> That around the same time, a ceremony referred to as the "Enthronement of Satan" secretly happened inside the Vatican.For thousands of years it had been predicted that the Vatican would be taken over by the forces of evil; and it's legitimately a question as to whether the change of the church in the 60's was a result of this.
>>18394210Yes, these libs who did the Vatican II, clown
>>18400591>the Masoretic Text was literally validated by the Dead Sea Scrollsit wasn't. the DSC validate the Samaritan and the Septuagint over the Masoreticno one wants to address this because it makes christianity and judaism into LARPs:>El Elyon is the father of YHWH>YHWH is an Elohim>Melchizedek is a priest of El Elyon meaning that the religion of El Elyon predates YHWH>Jesus and the pharisees are ignorant of the Elohim so they are talking out of their ass. Jesus cannot be the son of El Elyon but if he is>then Christians identifying their God with YHWH are committing heresy
>>18399064They had kids lol
