Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry  (The Observer)

Duole pubblicare - 2 articoli.
Am.
Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry 
 Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep 
allegations secret 
  Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer 
  Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' 
after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations 
into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
 The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, 
which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
 It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed 
doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the 
victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph 
Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
 Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the 
allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the 
police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of 
justice'.
 The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the 
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once 
presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.
 It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters 
ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual 
abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's 
letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where 
abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.
 The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from 
the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 
10 years.
 It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse 
should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring 
them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, 
promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be 
performed for these cases only by priests'.
 'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's 
letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 
10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the 
threat of excommunication.
 The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed 
earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of 
two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the 
alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.
 Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the 
letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not 
start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of 
justice.'
 Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of 
America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in 
which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's 
jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.
 The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who 
gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's 
opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.
 'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the 
police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of 
paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.
 Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated 
only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on 
these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they 
can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out 
about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the 
priest will get away with it,' Shea added.
 A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told 
about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we 
would not talk about it,' she said. 
The Pope, the letter and the child sex claim 
 A series of paedophile allegations against a senior papal confidant are 
haunting Benedict XVI. How he deals with them will be his first major 
test, writes Jamie Doward 
  Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer 
  Of all the matters lurking in the overflowing in-tray of the new Pope 
Benedict XVI, the long-running and emotive issue of paedophile priests 
is the most damaging - not just to the church, but to his own personal 
standing.
 The new pontiff has been accused of failing to investigate a series of 
abuse claims made against one of his predecessor's closest supporters - 
a failure which has come to be seen as typical of the Catholic Church's 
determination to keep a lid on the scandal of priests who breach their 
position of trust.
 The story goes back to the Nineties when the new Pope - then Cardinal 
Joseph Ratzinger - was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the 
Faith, the Vatican office responsible for investigating abuse claims.
 One of the most high-profile of such claims was made by Professor José 
Barba Martin, a 68-year-old professor of humanities at the Instituto 
Tecnológico Autónomo de México. He is one of nine former members of the 
Rome-based Legion of Christ who allege they were abused by the religious 
order's powerful founder, Marcial Maciel.
 Maciel, 84, set up the ultra-conservative order in 1941. Today it has 
around 500 priests and 2,500 seminarians in 20 countries. It may be 
small, but its influence is significant. Maciel, who stood down as the 
order's head in January because of his age, was a confidant of Pope John 
Paul II, who praised him as an 'efficacious guide to youth'. For 
decades, Barba Martin kept silent about the abuse claims which are 
strenuously denied by Maciel and the Legion of Christ. It says the 
accusers are 'attempting to tar the Vatican... with the stain of these 
false allegations.'
 But, in December 1994, Barba Martin saw an advertisement in a newspaper 
in Mexico City celebrating Maciel's half a century as a priest and 
picturing him with John Paul II, and decided to act. At first Barba 
Martin and other former members of the Legion attempted to raise their 
allegations with the Vatican, their case becoming a cause célèbre among 
groups trying to expose abuse within the church, and what they saw as 
the efforts of its senior hierarchy to cover it up.
 'We are modest instruments of history. We have to play our own part to 
produce a possible change,' Barba Martin told The Observer. 'The problem 
of sexual abuse within the church has been "cloned" to second and third 
generations. It has become an epidemic situation.'
 The nine filed their case before the Vatican's courts, and persuaded 
intermediaries to carry a letter to Ratzinger outlining abuse 
allegations against Maciel. According to one of the intermediaries, 
Father Alberto Athie, when confronted with the allegations Ratzinger 
simply said Maciel had brought many 'benefits' to the church and that it 
was a 'touchy problem'. The Vatican denies Athie's claim.
 On 24 December 1999, Ratzinger's secretary, Father Gianfranco Girotti, 
wrote to the men saying that their claims - many allegedly corroborated 
by each other's detailed testimonies - had been examined but, for the 
time being, the Vatican considered the matter closed. In a last-ditch 
attempt to persuade Ratzinger to change his mind, another letter was 
despatched to him in 2002 through an intermediary. It went unanswered.
 For support groups campaigning on behalf of abuse victims, Ratzinger's 
apparent reluctance to investigate the claims against Maciel was a 
crushing blow, but one that did not surprise critics of the new Pope.
 Ratzinger's role in protecting the church against scandal became 
apparent four years ago. In May 2001, he sent a confidential letter to 
every bishop in the Catholic church reminding them of the strict 
penalties facing those who referred allegations of sexual abuse against 
priests to outside authorities.
 The letter referred to a confidential Vatican document drawn up in 1962 
instructing bishops on how to deal with allegations of sexual abuse 
between a priest and a child arising out of a confessional.
 It urged them to investigate such allegations 'in the most secretive 
way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to 
observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of 
the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
 'What really bothers me about this document is the way it suggests that 
what happens in the confessional should stay in the confessional,' said 
Carmen Durso, a Boston lawyer who has represented scores of American 
victims abused by priests.
 'In the cases I've dealt with, the paedophiles frequently use the 
confessional to try and initiate contact with youngsters.' Ratzinger 
also oversaw the creation of Essential Norms, a 2002 document that 
reaffirmed the church's right to retain its authority over abuse 
allegations.
 Ratzinger went as far as to slap the wrist of a reporter who dared to 
ask him about the Maciel investigations. 'One can't put on trial such a 
close friend of the Pope as Marcial Maciel,' Ratzinger said on another 
occasion.
 Campaigners say Ratzinger's actions show he was prepared to use every 
means possible to ensure that abuse allegations were not investigated by 
authorities outside the church.
 'We know that in the past few decades the church has tried to keep the 
abuse issue hidden,' said Mary Grant, a director of a support group of 
men and women called Snap: the Survivors Network of those Abused by 
Priests.
 The organisation is now seeking an urgent meeting between alleged 
victims and the new pontiff. 'Ratzinger himself has preferred to dismiss 
the allegations as a media creation rather than address them,' added 
Grant.
 But a report by the Catholic Church itself estimated that some 4,450 of 
the Roman Catholic clergy who served between 1950 and 2002 have faced 
credible accusations of abuse.
 Another study, produced last year by the John Jay College of Criminal 
Justice on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
reported that there had been 10,667 victims of abuse over the last 50 
years in the US alone. Campaign groups say the true figure may be 
significantly higher, especially in developing countries, where priests 
known to have committed abuse in the west were quietly despatched by 
bishops desperate to avoid scandal. In addition, abuse claims in 
developing countries are more likely to have gone unreported, while 
deference to priests is such that their actions can go unchecked.
 Inevitably, lawyers have had a field day as a trickle of early abuse 
claims that surfaced in the Eighties became a flood in the Nineties. 
Already it is estimated the church has paid out hundreds of millions of 
dollars globally to settle claims. Snap estimates that anything between 
$400 million and $1.3 billion has been paid to victims, and that the 
final estimate could be as high as $5bn.
 The Catholic church's reputation has been damaged worldwide. In the US 
a 16-month investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office 
concluded in 2003 that Roman Catholic priests and church staff in the 
Boston archdiocese molested more than 1,000 children over six decades.
 Last February, Dr Kathleen McChesney of the US Conference of Catholic 
Bishops warned that many more cases were yet to come to light in the US. 
'In 2004 at least 1,092 allegations of sexual abuse were made against at 
least 756 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States,' McChesney 
said.
 Two years ago the Irish government revealed that the bill to compensate 
victims of sexual abuse by clergy could total ¤1bn.
 Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, leader of the Catholic church in 
England and Wales, was forced to appoint child protection 
representatives in every parish in a bid to quash criticism that it had 
ignored abuse claims. Between 1995 and 2001, 21 Catholic priests were 
convicted of sexually abusing children in England and Wales. Murphy 
O'Connor himself was attacked for failing to report allegations against 
Michael Hill, a priest in his charge when he was Bishop of Arundel and 
Brighton. Hill was convicted of abusing nine children.
 Now, with a new Pope in the Vatican, the hope for the abuse victims is 
that the church will start to investigate their allegations. 'I have 
mixed feelings about Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Pope,' said Barbara 
Blaine, founder and president of Snap. 'He has been so slow to deal with 
the Maciel case, but then if he brings the qualities that earned him his 
reputation as a papal enforcer to addressing the sex abuse scandal, that 
will be a good thing.'
 In what is likely to be seen in some quarters as a clear sign that the 
Vatican believes it must now confront the abuse scandal, The Observer 
has learnt that, earlier this month, shortly before he was elected Pope, 
Ratzinger despatched special envoys to several cities across the globe 
to take testimonies from Maciel's alleged victims in confidence.
 His reasons for revisiting the case, though, remain unclear. One theory 
is that Ratzinger learnt that confidential evidence will soon spill into 
the public domain and that he has decided to act ahead of this. Others 
suggest that he initiated the investigation for political reasons, to 
help boost his chances of being elected Pope.
 What is irrefutable though is that, shortly after he was elected the 
spiritual head of more than one billion Catholics last week, Ratzinger 
approached Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago. The last time 
the two men talked, George raised the abuse crisis with Ratzinger and 
pressed him to intervene.
 In perfect English, the new Pope assured George that he remembered 
their last conversation and would 'attend' to the matter. The reign of 
Benedict XVI may well be judged on whether he holds true to his word.

by each other's detailed testimonies
*LOL*
Veramente comico! :)
-Stefano

 Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry
Non so l'inglese (mi arrangio con i traduttori automatici...
benchè dovrebbero riguardarli ogni tanto..siamo nel 2005),
però conosco il giornalismo e quelle virgolette su obstructed
fanno già intendere il senso reale dell'articolo.
Tra l'altro si parla troppo spesso fuoriluogo di pedofilia
(che non è sesso con i minori, ma con bambini..cioè
pre-adolescenti...), in realtà si dovrebbe parlare di
preti omossessuali * (o efebofili) che hanno approfittato delle
confessioni (o della frequentazione) dei ragazzini.
In pratica i preti (alcuni diventati vescovi) venivano
a conoscenza che un ragazzino era omossessuale
e speravano di farla franca.
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7627
*nella maggior parte dei casi si tratta
di abusi (dato che ad un minore non è riconosciuta
la facoltà di essere consenziente...ma spesso si chiude un
occhio) fatti su ragazzini maschi già portati all'omossessualità
Ciao! 

...


 > Ciao!
Gia', mi ero dimenticato di questa formulazione innocentista 
particolarmente odiosa di CptKirk...
Am.

 ha scritto!
Io non parlo inglese e i traduttori automatici non funzionano cosě
bene da far capire se i siti che hai proposto sono seri o di parte
(come immagino).
Ciao!

 particolarmente odiosa di CptKirk...
Posso sempre peggiorare ;-)
Ciao! 

 Solo che il termine pedofilia riguarda il sesso con i bambini
Ma non diciamo puttanate per favore!
-Stefano

 wrote:

Hai ragione, in un empito di faziosita' ho scritto odiosa invece che 
ipocrita. Me ne scuso.
Pero' sentiamo la tua sul sesso con minori o adolescenti. Lo scusi, 
ancorche' illegale?
E in ambiente ecclesiastico capisci che tra educatori ed educandi  sia 
naturale far sesso? Perche' questi ultimi adescano i primi, come tu 
sostieni?
Nota che capisco il fascino degli adolescenti, ma penso che in una 
situazione di potere, l'educatore possa facilmente coartare l'educando a 
fare qualcosa che non vuole.
Ti sembra strano?
Am.

 Ti sembra strano?
Affatto!
Ciao! 

 Ma non diciamo puttanate per favore!
Scusa?
Ciao! 

 Scusa?
Hai scritto una emerita puttanata.  Se non sai cosa sia il termine
"pedofilia" prova a documentarti e non sparare puttanate giusto "per
sentito dire".
-Stefano

 ha scritto:

Usando il tuo metodo:
pe|do|fi|lì|a
s.f.
CO TS psic., devianza sessuale caratterizzata da attrazione erotica
verso i bambini, spesso associata a feticismo e sadismo
Varianti: paidofilia
Cosa diversa dall'efebofilia o dal "lolitismo".
Ciao!

 verso i bambini, spesso associata a feticismo e sadismo
Ora mi diresti dove ca**o sta nella definizione che hai indicato il
"riguarda il sesso con i bambini"?
-Stefano

 "riguarda il sesso con i bambini"?
Nel pezzo lasciato..almeno che tu non mi stia facendo le pulci
perchè è pedofilo anche chi è attratto sessualmente dai bambini ma non
ne abusa effettivamente...stavamo parlando di reati ed è chiaro
che non basta l'intenzione.
Ciao! 

 > > occhio) fatti su ragazzini maschi giý portati all'omossessualitý
Am.

>> si  tratta di abusi
Ciao!

 >>> si  tratta di abusi
Si, ho capito. Ma vi e' una contraddizione totale tra il fatto che siano 
'abusi' e che, secondo te 'i ragazzini siano portati'.
In che senso sarebbero abusi se i ragazzini sono portati?
Non stai forse dicendo che essi *seducono* i loro educatori.
E inoltre, come fai a sapere che sono 'portati'?
Lo presupponi?
Ti ricordo che la diocesi di Boston e' andata in fallimento per pagare i 
danni a questi ex-ragazzini 'portati' e cosi' in molte altre parti degli 
Stati Uniti.
E che il vescovo di Boston  e' stato richiamato a Roma per tali fatti.
Ti segnalo inoltre che un vescovo austriaco e' stato condannato per tali 
fatti.
Am.

stavamo parlando di reati
Se fosse stato vero non avresti tirato fuori quella definizione idiota
relativa solo ai "pedofili" (e non invece a chi soffre sempre di altre
parafilie legate ad attrazione erotica verso i minori).
-Stefano

 > > > occhio) fatti su ragazzini maschi giý portati all'omossessualitý
Caro fessacchiotto di un Amalric Bond, ci vorresti cortesemente mostrare
dove, nel quote da te riportato, appare qualsivoglia riferimento
all'"essere naturale far sesso" o a fantasiosi quanto fantomatici
"adescamenti"? :)
-Stefano

 In che senso sarebbero abusi se i ragazzini sono portati?
Prova a fare sesso con una 14enne consenziente :)  Se ti sbattono in
galera hai la risposta alla tua domanda :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

,


Io baderei al vizio abominevole del quote parzialissimo con  cui ti 
diverti a barare...
Am.

diverti a barare...
Barare????
Ma che stronzate vai raccontando? :)
Io ho quotato una tua domanda e gli ho dato una chiara e netta risposta
:)
O pensi che la ragazzina consenziente non sia "portata" per i rapporti
sessuali?  :)
-Stefano

 Non ti e' bastato una volta?
Cosa? Di aver pubblicamente smerdato un branco di razzisti ignoranti?
Perche' dovrebbe bastarmi? :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Cos'e' questa ragazzina ipotetica che ricorre nei tuoi sogni, Ste'?
Non provarci. Hai gia' fatto saltare per aria un 
it.discussioni.sentimenti con  i tuoi morbosi argomenti.
Basta digitare su 
http://groups-beta.google.com/
De Cesari + pedofilia
per rendersi conto.
Non ti e' bastato una volta?
Am.

 -Stefano
Gia'. *Pat pat*
Am.

 Gia'.
Vedo che sei d'accordo che e' utile smerdare i razzisti ignoranti :)
-Stefano

 -Stefano
E vabbhč, ma se invece di rispondere con "tre" parole avessi
replicato chiaramente cosa intendevi..si risparmiava tempo.
Ciao! 

 fatti.
Come sopra
Ciao!

replicato chiaramente cosa intendevi..si risparmiava tempo.
Ho replicato piu' che chiaramente: hai scritto una puttanata e poi hai
tentato di arrampicarti sugli specchi per sostenerla.
-Stefano

 L'occasione fà l'uomo (disonesto) ladro
A me, almeno in un caso che conosco molto da vicino, non risulta 
assolutamente che il pedofilo tiene conto dell'orientamento sessuale 
della vittima. Altrimenti potrebbe aspettare anni, cosa che in genere 
non fa, essendo il suo un comportamento ripetitivo.
L'occasione fà l'uomo (disonesto) ladro, e' un luogo comune che non puo' 
fare da epitaffio per comportamenti cosi' gravi.
Stai infatti parlando di violenza sessuale. E se parli di donne saprai 
bene che il violentatore al processo si difende sempre dicendo che 'ci 
stavano'.
La tua e' una variante di questo pseudoargomento, che renderebbe inutile 
e incomprensibile ogni denuncia.
Resta sapere perche' a Boston e altrove ci sono state centinaia di 
denuncie e di sentenze in giudicato, se le vittime 'ci stavano'.
Am.

denuncie e di sentenze in giudicato, se le vittime 'ci stavano'.
Per soldi? :)
E anche perche' il "ci stavano" non ti salva dalla galera? (ti ho detto:
fai sesso con una 14enne consenziente e vogliosa. Se poi ti sbattono in
galera capirai perche' :) )
-Stefano

 denuncie e di sentenze in giudicato, se le vittime 'ci stavano'.
Per mille motivi....perchè ci hanno ripensato, perchè sperano di
fare dei soldi (in Usa è quasi uno sport nazionale), perchè qualche
parente lo ha scoperto e spinto, per vendetta personale o verso la
chiesa...
Ho visto dei matrimoni iniziare come dei film e finire come dei film...
la gente cambia......specie se vuol cambiare o non è abbastanza solida!
Ciao!