THE ABOVE INTERVIEW FROM ETWN HIGHLIGHTS THE FACT THAT THE VATICAN IS TRYING TO DIVERT PEOPLE AWAY SEXUALLY ACTIVE GAY BISHOPS AND PRIESTS BY HAVING THE COMING FEBRUARY MEETING ON “PROTECTION OF MINORS”.
The protection of minors was another issue and scandal that raised its head some 15 or 20 years ago.
The latest and biggest scandal is about the promiscuous of cardinals, bishops, priests and seminarians.
This scandal was given a thrust by the disgraceful story of ex Cardinal McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington.
McCarrick had been sexually promiscuous for decades with seminarians and young priests.
And in spite of his sex life he was promoted and promoted.
He also saw to it that many of the priests and seminarians he abused went on to become bishops too.
The Vatican knew about McCarrick and covered up for him too – because he kept sending millions of dollars to the Vatican.
The Church has addressed the question of the protection of minors. There are child protection people in every diocese and parish.
So, there is no need for the Vatican to have February’s conference on minors.
They should be concentrating on the sexual abuse of adults by bishops, priests and seminarians.
They need to discuss:
The sexual predatory activities of cardinals, bishops, priests and seminarians.
The homosexualization of the hierarchy and clergy.
The widespread presence of sexually active clerical cabals in every diocese.
The widespread phenomenon of seminaries turning into gay clubs.
The phenomenon of seminary staff having sex with seminarians.
These are the CURRENT scandals – not the protection of minors – but of course the protection of minors must always be kept at its best.
OLD BLOG WRONGLY REMOVED Hello,
We have received your appeal regarding your blog http://wisecatholic.blogspot.com/. Upon further review we have determined that your blog was mistakenly marked as a TOS violator by our automated system and, as such, we have reinstated your blog. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused in the meantime and thank you for your patience as we completed our review process.
A grave matter: Church funerals denied to priests accused of abuse, says ACP By Cian Molloy – 01 December, 2018 Is it contrary to Canon Law to insist that funerals of priests accused of abuse must take place in private chapels?
Several diocese and religious orders have policies that allow church funerals to be denied to clergy that have been accused of sexual abuse, says the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP).
Instead, requiem Masses for these priests are being held in private chapels, with no death notices published in national or local media. The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland (NBSCCCI) has had a “Guidance on the Funerals of Clerics or Religious against whom there is a Case to Answer” available for several years now. It includes considerations as to whether those who made complaints against a priest should be informed of his death; what role other priests of a diocese or a religious community should play in a funeral Mass; how the location and the timing of the requiem Mass might have a negative impact on complainants; what burial sites are appropriate; and what inscription should be put on headstones. The guidance document is not an exhaustive list, the NBSCCCI admits. It appears that several diocese and religious orders have put additional measures of their own in place. “A number of priests have contacted us to say that as a group they are being singled out and treated differently to everybody else,” Fr Tim Hazlewood, a member of the ACP’s admin team, told CatholicIreland.net. “I know of no lay person who was ever denied a funeral because of their involvement in paramilitary activity, gang violence or abuse of children, but it seems that priests who have an allegation of abuse against them are being denied public funerals.” Fr Hazelwood says the ACP has in its possession two policy documents – one belonging to a diocese and one belonging to a religious order – where restrictions go beyond what is proposed by the NBSCCCI. The diocesan guideline suggests “consideration be given to have the funeral liturgies in a private chapel and/or a time other than the usual times”. When the notorious child abuser Fr Brendan Smyth was buried by the Norbertine Order, his funeral took place before dawn and the grave was covered in concrete to stop it being vandalised.
But the ACP say there are priests who are being denied normal funerals even though the accusations against them have never been proven and are unlikely to ever be substantiated. Holding funerals in private chapels appears to be contrary to normal Catholic practice. In an online guide to Catholic funerals, prepared by St Mary’s University in London, it says “a funeral is a public event so anyone can attend”. There are also subtle differences between a church and a chapel, with a church being a centre of community worship and a chapel being a subsidiary place of worship. Insisting that a funeral take place in a private chapel is probably contrary to Canon Law. Canon 1185 states: “Any form of funeral Mass is also to be denied to a person who has been excluded from a Church funeral.” The additional guidelines seen by the ACP also suggest that no funeral notice be published of priests accused of abuse and that their requiem Masses not be concelebrated. “I don’t know about the Canon Law aspect,” said Fr Hazelwood. “But not publishing death notices is very unfair to relatives. One of the purposes of a funeral is to offer consolation to the bereaved, but this measure denies that to families.” False allegations of abuse have been made against priests in the past, as Fr Hazelwood knows to his cost. Two years he had to take a civil case to the High Court before a person making false accusations against him admitted he had been lying. He said that Church policy in this area is not priest-friendly and that there is a presumption of guilt.
The Cloyne diocesan parish priest points to the fact that the NSBCCCI operates to seven different standards: creating and maintaining safe environments, procedures for responding to child protection concerns and allegations, care and support for the complainant, care and management of the respondent, training and support for keeping children safe and quality assuring compliance with the standards. “All of these standards are audited, except for the one to do with the care and management of the respondent,” said Fr Hazelwood. “So if it’s not audited, it’s not worth the paper it is written on and priests are left in a very vulnerable position. Why does the Church treat us differently? Why do these special funeral arrangements only apply to priests and to no one else? It is not fair to priests, some of whom might be suspended from ministry for decades on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. Then when they die and they don’t get a proper funeral, their families have to live on with hurt and shame. “Those who are accused of abuse are being treated like lepers. While not condoning their actions, it is not right to single out one group of people like this. Judging them after they have died is the role of God, not the Church. We should not be distinguishing between what type of funeral we will give one group of people and not another.”
A Catholic funeral is, traditionally, a Mass celebrated asking God to allow a departed sinner into Heaven.
So logic would suggest that the bigger the sinner the more need for the funeral.
I always thought that it was very cowardly of the Irish RC Church to bury Brendan Smith in the middle of the night and to pour concrete in over the coffin so that the grave could not be attacked.
Mind you, now that the Norbertines have sold their monastery to a builder for housing it will be easier for a crane to lift a 7 x 4 concrete block out of the ground that it would have been to go coffin and bone fishing.
The questions raised here are threefold:
Should an accused but not convicted priest be given a public funeral?
Should a convicted priest be given a public funeral?
Should the Church ever treat any person or group of people al lepers?
AN ACCUSED BUT NOT CONVICTED PRIEST:
In civil law a not convicted priest is an innocent man.
However every accused priest generally has two trials – a civil one and a canonical one. So you can have a priest innocent in civil law and guilty under canon law.
And of course we have priests like Father Hazelwood who was falsely convicted.
A CONVICTED PRIEST:
A convicted priest will have been sentenced and have served his sentence – unless like Brendan Smith – he dies in prison.
If he has served his sentence he has paid his debt to society – although his victims may suffer forever.
TREATING PEOPLE LIKE LEPERS:
I think we know from Jesus’ teachings that the Church should never treat people like lepers.
Having said that, I attended one nation meeting of The Association of Catholic Priests and most of the priests there – including the ACP leadership treated me like a leper!
Was the ACP right to do that – and are they now hypocrites by saying that no one should be treated as a leper?
I think that every Catholic should be accorded a public funeral in the church they were associated with.
In the case of convicted priests maybe the funeral should be held in the cathedral and celebrated by the bishop, who makes it clear at the funeral that people are not there to memorialise the dead priest but to pray for his eternal soul.
In doing this we should be as sensitive as we can not only to the priest’s family and friends – but perhaps more so to his victims.