91热爆

"Omert脿 implies 鈥渢he categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities or reliance on its services, even when one has been victim of a crime.鈥漑1] Even if somebody is convicted for a crime he has not committed, he is supposed to serve the sentence without giving the police any information about the real criminal, even if that criminal has nothing to do with the Mafia himself. Within Mafia culture, breaking omert脿 is punishable by death."

Omert脿, c. 16th century, Sicilia
A0

There aren't too many degrees of separation from the Catholic secrecy oath to that of the Cosa Nostra. Then again the CN learned their trade at the feet of the masters, Roman priests and naturally would emulate them and the business model of the very successful, super rich, super corporation, the Church. Cruelty, brutality and emotional terrorism were elements that facilitated the growth of militant religious imperialism around the globe and tie in very nicely with gangster methodology too.

Citizens everywhere, if they wish to act with dignity and humanity, should insist that no child ever again be initiated into a religious cult and that faith schools be abolished.

Most of you who claim belief have never read the bible which is quite pornographic and nasty. The stories celebrate violence, hatred, torture, incest, murder, slavery, misogyny etc.

Accept that the tales were created by primitive people to hold their tribes together. What is inappropriate today is that within our cultures these antiquated rites and beliefs continue with state sponsored protection. The extortion by the religious on the our societies must stop. Threatening to cast those who cross them into the hellfire of eternal damnation is just plain silly as there is no such thing. If you want to believe in imaginary friends fine, but let's get this crack pot stuff off the shelves as it is not reality or healthy.

Who believes?

"Preachers who are not Believers," a study by Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.
by Daniel C. Dennett



Johann Hari: The
The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil

"What can make tens of millions of people 鈥� who are in their daily lives peaceful and compassionate and caring 鈥� suddenly want to physically dismember a man for drawing a cartoon, or make excuses for an international criminal conspiracy to protect child-rapists? Not reason. Not evidence. No. But it can happen when people choose their polar opposite 鈥� religion."



Sigh, such wisdom.

FYI: Thomas More = torturer & Inquisitor

---

@ William Crawley, the blog functionality & 91热爆,
Why can't this be user friendly and efficient to use as GU Cif?


Posts appear hours after hitting SEND. Why is the 91热爆, NI, so anal is it that adults can't be trusted to participate here their own good will and that all material must be scrutinized by the corporation? How churchie!

Is this different from the Crimen Sollitationis rule which Ratzinger was responsible for back in 1962? It bound everyone involved in such cases to silence, including the victims. The Irish oath of confidentiality is hardly going to be radically different from the Vatican edict, is it?

In brief, the cover-up trail goes right back to Ratzinger himself. But I hope he hangs on in there and fights it out to the last parishioner to leave.

"Most of you who claim belief have never read the bible which is quite pornographic and nasty. The stories celebrate violence, hatred, torture, incest, murder, slavery, misogyny etc."

...and obviously true of those who claim unbelief.

I see thay are starting to blame the media.

DK

Pathetic. They still think it's "not fair".

AgainstDogma:

I think in principle that is correct, although you mean Crimen sollicitationis, which was not introduced by Ratzinger but by Ottaviani in 1962, though Ratzinger administered it from 1981 until his accession to the papacy. One of the intentions of the Crimen sollicitationis was presumably to protect a priest's reputation until the Church investigated the matter but, whatever the intention, in practice it has provided a blueprint for cover-ups. It has been seen as the 'smoking gun' to conceal sexual abuse by priests.

Ratzinger produced a document in 2001 entitled De delictis gravioribus, stating that all child abuse allegations should go directly to his office (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in Rome and be subject 'to the pontifical secret'. Ratzinger also endorsed the clause in the Crimen which states: "The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing the priest and the witnesses". In other words, Bishops could use their authority to silence the victims of alleged priestly abuse by swearing them to secrecy under pain of excommunication.

Since the last Pope was effectively guided by Ratzinger in the final years of his life, it is Ratzinger who has been at the centre of this entire issue since 1981, first as head of the CDF and later as Pope Benedict.

It is quite clear that the statement above in the vow: "I will talk to no-one about this interview except authorised priests", as far as the two teenagers understood it, implied that they should not discuss the abuse with anyone, not merely that they should not talk about the interview. It is extremely unlikely that they, or their parents, were advised by Brady or the bishop to go to the police. In other words, it was unmistakably a despicable cover-up. Don't hold your breath to hear Ratzinger admit as much in his statement to the Irish faithful this weekend.

Brian

I waited up to read your post (when the moderation process eventually let it through.)

I think you have given a very fair, well written summary of the situation and of the central role Ratzinger has played in it.

A few years ago I took part in a State tribunal hearing. We had confidentiality imposed on us throughout. One party were granted anonymity. The case was adjourned at one point for three weeks and I was forbidden from discussing the case with my boss, even though our evidence was entirely concerning policy and not issues of evidential fact.

What is unusual in the Brady/Smyth case is that the parents of the children concerned seem to have done nothing. Did they have any role in proceedings? And more importantly did they fail to report the matter to police?

MCC

Did they (the parents) have any role in the proceedings?
Yes, MCC, they did. They went to the Church authorities to tell them what their children were saying. They were told by those authorities that they would deal with the matter. They were told not to breath another word about this to anyone or they may be excommunicated (and therefore go to Hell.) Trusting those Church authorities they waited... and waited... and waited... totally unaware that those authorities did absolutely nothing except cover up what they had been told.

When the parents (or their children) eventually began to wake up to what was going on and did go to the police, people like you called them liars.

There are support groups everywhere for victims, help lines for them as society gradually becomes aware of their plight - nervous breakdowns, personality disorders, guilt, suicide, inability to trust anyone, depression etc..

But sometimes I'm more and more reaching the conclusion that the forgotten victims in all of this are the parents. I feel compassion for them, you want to attack them.

Your blogsite is trashy, insensitive, hurtful, callous, unfunny, I'd even say, heinous. Just like many of your contributions on here.

Mcc:

You say: "What is unusual in the Brady/Smyth case is that the parents of the children concerned seem to have done nothing. Did they have any role in proceedings? And more importantly did they fail to report the matter to police?"

This is not unusual at all. As RJB suggests, most Catholic parents deferred to the authority of the church, why is why the police were rarely informed at the time. Clearly, though, it was a mistaken deferral, as the Church displayed a total lack of moral authority in keeping it hidden.

You should ask another question: did the church EVER advise the parents to go to the police? If not, why not?