On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

Abp. Chaput Removes Two Priests from Priestly Duties

I'm proud of the Archbishop for taking a strong stand. It needs to be done.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia announced today that Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., has made final decisions in two more cases of priests placed on administrative leave following the February 2011 Grand Jury Report. Priests on administrative leave are not permitted to exercise their public ministry, administer any of the Sacraments, wear clerical garb, or present themselves publicly as priests.
Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here


Matthew Roth said...

Their restrictions need to be more clear. For instance, they most certainly can still administer emergency Baptisms as well as hear confessions in an emergency.
Unfortunately, canon law does not have a neat term for what the archbishop is doing. He can certainly remove their faculties, but I'm not sure that he can restrict them from wearing clerical attire while still maintaining their clerical status.

Mary De Voe said...

The archdiocese of Philadelphia did not say a crime had not been committed. What the Archdiocese said was that the crime had not been substantiated which requires the testimony of two witnesses.
I am not a lawyer but I know that two witnesses establish a judicial fact, one witness is no witness. This rule changes when a person is dying, for then, his testimony is taken at face value, because the dying man has no vested interest and cannot profit from lying. I also know that only homicide has no statute of limitation, except that now, child abuse has no statute of limitation for the Catholic Church. The rule for statute of limitation was changed after the crime which is called: “ex post facto” and against Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed", that specifies that no law can be made and applied after the fact, which is exactly what has been done with the statute of limitation of the Catholic Church. The statute of limitation for child abuse in the public school is ninety days, three months, hardly enough time for the victim to heal physically but certainly insufficient time for the victim to heal psychologically. Why is the Catholic Church denied that same statute of limitation as that of the public school, by the same courts?
How can there be a “cover-up” if there were no witnesses to establish a judicial fact, (of a crime). Forty years ago, The American Psychiatric Association taught that abusers could be “cured”, and many times the “cured” was sent back into ministry by secular counselors. Their names are in the files and they ought to be charged with malpractice as well, or is there a statute of limitation for the secular counselors but not for counselors of the Church? Why is that? I want to know.
It is very evident that there were no witnesses to the crimes of which these priests are accused, or this case would have been adjudicated thirty or forty years ago. God knows and sees all and God’s Justice is perfect. God is perfect and God is Justice.

Doug said...

For 10 years we've been hearing claims like, "Forty years ago, The American Psychiatric Association taught that abusers could be “cured”..." and for 10 years I've been asking for a shred of evidence to that claim. Show me a peer-reviewed journal article, show me a research paper, show me the evidence that the massive majority of counselors who inflicted these bastards on other people's children weren't themselves ordained priests and religious.

Popular Posts