Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« To Coin A Dollar | Main | Diabetes, Pregnancy, Vasectomy Question »

April 29, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfbfe53ef00d83424e0f353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Observe This!:

» Popular Cell Phone Search from Cell phones: Cell phone reviews, Mobile phone reviews, Wireless ...
Search by part number, product, keyword or manufacturer ... As for the most popular cell phone form factor, the flip phone was the clear winner, ... [Read More]

Comments

Brian

Cool. I wish all of the garbage that came out of the media was filtered by sane, sensible folks like this!

Chris Weathers

Thanks Jimmy...I knew sending it to you for fisking would be helpful.

BillyHW

Well, at least they didn't bring up the Pope's Nazi past.

Benedict

I enjoy no news except the Akin Red-Letter edition.

mio

Jimmy,

I do hope you sent a copy to the author of the Observer piece, for his/her edification.

Julie

I agree with mio.

Other Paul

I agree with Bertone.

Kathryn Judson

Dynamite job! Thanks.

FYI: I'm a first-time visitor to your blog. I found you through a link to this post in a post at a brand-new blog (started last month) called Roma Locuta Est (http://voiceofrome.blogspot.com), which I stumbled onto yesterday thanks to checking my sitemeter reports. Gotta love this Internet!!!

And, by the way, Roma Locuta Est is one enthusiastic Catholic blog.

I'll be back, I promise.

Terry

"Because obviously if a Church investigation is under way, or if the ecclesiastical statue of limitations has expired, that totally binds the hands of civil authorities. We're living in a theocracy, after all. There's no point in the victim contacting the civil authorities to report the matter. They're powerless unless the Church allows them to do something here."

At which point we get the typical, obligatory response "And he said if I told anyone I'd go to Hell."

ericrazar

It is interesting to note that when you go to the vatican website i can only find the "2001 and 1962 secret but public documents" in latin when the canon law info is in english or other commonly spoken language.

I guess it is not convenient for the vatican to list more than latin version on the website for everyone to read. Just like its not convenient for the catholic church to pay out over 1.5 billion to victims over the years. Many times the settlements were done in secret.

Esquire

ericrazar,

You are a genius! It had never occurred to me before that the Vatican posting documents in Latin on its website was logically connected to secret settlements. Of course, now I see the obvious connection.

I feel so stupid for having thought the documents were posted in Latin just because that's the language they were written in and they hadn't been translated.

One observation as a lawyer, however. It is most common for the settlement of sexual abuse cases to be done in secret, and not just at the request of the defendant. That is the way that most of the settlements with the YMCA and with public school districts have been done, and either of those groups would dwarf the size and scope of amounts paid by Catholic dioceses.

Of course, they don't have documents in Latin posted on their websites, which makes all the difference in the world.

(Say, you're not a private detective or anything, are you?)

ericrazar

Esquire,

Like a typical lawyer you like to twist what a person says.

My statement about the $1.5 billion point is what they are "admitting" they paid so far because of public record. Since so many are settled in secret who knows what they really shelled out. It would not suprise me to be 10x as much.

My point was the vatican seems to have no problem with providing english and other language versions "ON POLICY" when it is convenient to them for people to follow the canon law info.


You know what I mean, make normal catholic policy easy to read for the catholic "flock", but keep the less popular issues like their child molestation "POLICY" untranslated. I would think with all the publicity this has gotten, the vatican would be more open to providing what there "POLICY" really is rather than keep the whole thing under cover like they have for over 50 years.

If you do you due diligence you would find that is was said the 1962 document copies was to be locked in each of the church pastors/bishops safe that they were sent to. Kind of makes it hard to let the other priests know what "policy" really is. Of course now we have the internet to find most of this stuff.


And of course the YMCA and american public schools would have there documents in english and not latin on there websites. Last I checked they are "american organizations" and should be in english or in the future "spanish" since we are going that way anyway.

The catholic church is supposed to be "moral world wide" organization therefore I expect openness "in all or most languages" to do the right thing not BS subterfuge like they have been doing for such a long time.


You can also see the Vatican lawyers are running scared when they have to ask President Bush for legal immuinity for the pope who is automaticly immune being a head of state. I guess they are not to up on international law to be asking in the first place. And to think these are supposed to be the smartest legal minds at his disposal. Maybe you should offer your genius services to help him out.

Finally, the catholic church will only wake up when the flock realizes they been had and will stop going and donating there hard earned money for it to be spent covering for 5% of there priests transgressions through the courts.

Esau

It is interesting to note that when you go to the vatican website i can only find the "2001 and 1962 secret but public documents" in latin when the canon law info is in english or other commonly spoken language.

I guess it is not convenient for the vatican to list more than latin version on the website for everyone to read.


ericrazar,

Why don't you browse more on the Vatican website.

If you do, you'll encounter even more documents that are in Latin and are not available in English or any other languages.

The fact of the matter is that Latin is the official language of the Church. That is all.

Have you even read the translations of those original Latin documents rendered in the various other languages such as English?

They're horrific!

They don't even convey precisely what the Latin original says.

For example, take a look at the translation errors for the most recent Motu Proprio:

Summorum Pontificum problems…. translation

Also, take a look at the translation errors for the previously released Apostolic Exhortation:

A serious problem in Sacramentum caritatis 23


As even the latter document demonstrates, these translations that have been rendered in the various languages such as English and the like were/are, in fact, atrocious!

So, why don't you first learn Latin and the difficulties of rendering an accurate translation into other languages prior to making such bold-faced, uncorroborated assumptions as you have here!

As these two instances demonstrate, the translation services of the Vatican unfortunately are greatly lacking in this competency.

David B.

ericrazar,

Why don't you try to learn Latin? Albino assassins will not kill you, and you will be able to read these super secret documents (that are posted on the Internet in a language that millions know.)!

David B.

You know what I mean, make normal catholic policy easy to read for the catholic "flock", but keep the less popular issues like their child molestation "POLICY" untranslated.

If the Church doesn't want people to read it's documents, why would it post them on the internet in any language? Your arrogant "if it's not in English then it's not really published" attitude is a joke.


"I would think with all the publicity this has gotten, the vatican would be more open to providing what there "POLICY" really is rather than keep the whole thing under cover like they have for over 50 years.,/i>"

Look out! baseless, senseless no-nothingism at 3 'o clock!


The catholic church is supposed to be "moral world wide" organization therefore I expect openness "in all or most languages" to do the right thing not BS subterfuge like they have been doing for such a long time.

Examples?

Off

Esau

If the Church doesn't want people to read it's documents, why would it post them on the internet in any language?

You're arrogant "if it's not in English then it's not really published" attitude is a joke.

Great point, D.B.!

eric razar

Esau:

Thank you for illustrating my point why the documents need to be properly translated to english by the Vatican personel themselves and not an outside group.

But you seem to read my comments with your only focus on the translation issue. What about the hiding the truth issue of the very existence of the document. Read the first few sentences of the PDF below and you see what I mean or you going to tell me that translation is misunderstood/incorrect also. But especially read the blue boxed text.


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf

Also
If the Vatican experts cant do it, then what is the point to spread the Word of God or for the pope who likes to write latin in such a way to cause confusion and differences of opinion in what a document means when translated. I could understand a mistranslation of a document passed down through the ages from Christ's time. However the authors of these documents I am talking about are still living or deceased within the past 50 years. If you couldn't get the straight translation from them, then I say it was meant to be unclear on purpose. The authors knew what they meant. There is no excuse to be unclear when the guy who wrote it knows what he meant period!!! Especially when they knew full well children's innocence was at stake.

This is equivalent to the legalese nonsense of modern laws that only lawyers can understand. There is few if any plain english contracts available. Most others you would need to pay a lawyer to interpret it for you. How convenient for the lawyer and the church to keep it unclear so they can modify the meaning as it is convenient to the situation at hand.


What it really means to me is this. IF the present and past pontiffs really thought how important those 2 documents were ( the 1962 and 2001 "Crime of Solicitation"), THey would have made sure that the documents would be translated so everyone could understand it show the churches position once and for all. I say again, They have the resources to do this translation just like he has all the the Vatican lawyers at his disposal to protect the churches interests. But of course why bother to translate them!! There were meant to be secret documents for high level church officials only. RIGHT?

Doesn't it strike you funny? Why have a law (Latin or otherwise) that hardly anyone but high church officials even knows existed (at least in 1962 when the first one was generated). If you believe it was for you own good to be kept in the dark like that then you are surely a foolish sheep to buy into it. I am glad law enforcement here in the US and Europe isn't as foolish as you and financially punishes the church's collective mis-deeds (civil court) and locks up the offending parties (criminal court) to protect our children who where sexually abused. For the church Catholic or otherwise to continue to think they don't have to inform law enforcement that a crime was committed is arrogant beyond belief.


Quote:
"The Ratzinger letter was CO-SIGNED (meaning like minded in attitude) 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 OFFENSE of paedophilia is unfounded,"
Bertone said.


WOW can you believe that. An very high level archbishop would allow a priest admitted child molester off the hook with law enforcement by suppressing those facts to them. It makes me feel warm all over that the church is looking out for an innocent child's best interests. NOT!!! Remember he said admitted abuse not ALLEGED abuse.


So tell me what would the church do to this offender?

OF course he could be excommunicated by the church when found guilty. (wow can you say slap on the wrist) OR he can be allowed to move to another parish and continue to do his dirty deeds and be later promoted (which has already been documented to happen with many a bishop's blessing) or maybe do the right thing and really turn him over to civil authorities to stand trial like every one else (cant have that happen, the image of the church would suffer so and the lawsuits would really hurt).


Ah such a dilemma for the Catholic Pope and bishops and all the other religions that don't like such sexual abuse bad press for there religious officers.


So you religious people who like to visit here and argue BS with me remember the "acts of the church" not what some Latin document says is really most telling. If the church would have done the right things years ago they would have saved face and billions of dollars in payouts. But they rather stand on there superior arrogant convictions that they are above all law but there own and sometimes maybe even there own.

Think about when you leave your child unattended with your local priest (who might be in that 4% see john jay report) and never be sure if he is really safe with him because another parish saw to it to have him moved from that parish to yours to solve there local molestation problem.

Some interesting reading:

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/minilist.htm

http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp

Esau

for the pope who likes to write latin in such a way to cause confusion and differences of opinion in what a document means when translated

eric razar:

DO you read Latin????

How can you say that the way he writes in Latin causes confusion?

The fact of the matter is that it's those who are translating his words who are the ones screwing up in the translation.

This is not the Holy Father's fault!

This is because translating from one language to another is difficult!

Have you read the Bible???

Do you think that what you read there in the English is actually and truly what it says in the original language?

ericrazar

Esau:


OK Esau enough with the translation nonsense. I was a practicing catholic until 30 years ago(i am 49 now). I even went to sunday school as a kid so yes I read the Bible. No I don't read Latin.


esau said
"This is not the Holy Father's fault!"???????????

The 1962 document was originally confidential/secret. right or wrong?? I mean in 1962 not on the internet today. I know they are both posted there today so they been declassified but they weren't in 1962.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Criminales.pdf

go look at the link above to see the confidential stamp on the english translation if you really wish to see the "facts"

Read some of the document to see how they want all parties to remain in secret about the allegations.

The POPE wrote the 2001 document!!!! right or wrong?????

He knows what he meant to say!!! right or wrong?????

He could if he wanted to clarify the translation! right or wrong? So you tell me who's fault is it that a document of that importance to the churches wellbeing isn't translated correctly? Now use your brain and be objective. Not use your "feelings" I am talking about accountability here to save the church and its image.

Maybe Ratzinger and surely Bertone think its ok to let an abusive priest go and look the other way.
Your ok with that?
right or wrong??????

it is very amusing to me that all of you take little translation snippets but leave the meat of the problem out and that is the church let priest child molesters move from parish to parish un-abatted for over 50 years and not one of you comment that you were bothered by that. EVEN with all the evidence around you and the large settlements recently awarded.

Keep acting like stupid little sheep that you are.

Esau

Keep acting like stupid little sheep that you are.

Thank you!!!!

Mt 5:11:
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:

Esquire

ericrazar,

You appear to me to be searching for a peace that I doubt you will find by engaging us on this website, but I sincerely hope and pray that you will find it.

God bless.

Brother D.

Nice try Jimmy to adulterate the facts and try to put your own spin on these HARD FACTS. You should be ashamed of your corrupt hierarchy. They are so far away from God's plan, it's disgusting! This Pope is a disgrace, saying that the Roman Church is the only way to heaven. I hope intelligent catholics are being jolted to think about what kind of system they are following!

Esau

"Nice try Jimmy to adulterate the facts and try to put your own spin on these HARD FACTS. You should be ashamed of your corrupt hierarchy. They are so far away from God's plan, it's disgusting! This Pope is a disgrace, saying that the Roman Church is the only way to heaven. I hope intelligent catholics are being jolted to think about what kind of system they are following!"


ANDRE,

FOR THE nTH TIME, YOU HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THIS BLOG!

Brother D.

Huh?

ericrazar

Esquire:

Your right I cant even get an interesting response from any of you. one or two sentence answers that say very little other than blindly follow the leader no matter what they say or do. I guess you all guys need is keep drinking that koolaid to stay happy. I see outrage and you guys see business as usual. The Pope would be proud that you never question his word.

Esau

On the contrary, I often question the Pope's word.

However, I do not question Christ's:


Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Christina

All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do

Does that tell you to question the Pope's word?

bill912

"Keep acting like the stupid little sheep that you are."

I'm so in awe of someone with such an incredible combination of intellect and charity!

Esau

Does that tell you to question the Pope's word?

That's the point.

Christina

You didn't answer the question.

Esau

Christina,

How do you interpret the passage:

"All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do"

Christina

I was asking you, but if you don't have an answer, that's ok. You're still questioning.

Esau

Huh?

Esquire

ericrazar,

I do not blindly follow the Holy Father, I do so voluntarily and with my eyes wide open. I pray that you are not judged by the same standard you seem to be applying to him.

Common Sense

eric r is right.

Just think about this next time you go to church.

http://www.godisimaginary.com/i20.htm

bill912

Another intellectual giant!

Patrick

Let's just say that the Church has been and is often evil and our enemy, like Judan and Peter himself. Then let's pray for it and love it, as we should for all people/groups. That is so simple, like God.

Patrick

Ops, that is Judas.

bill912

No, the Church is the Body of Christ. It is never evil. Some of her members may be evil, and nearly all do not live up to the standards she holds (I'm at the head of that list).

Esquire

bill912, I was wondering who that was just ahead of me on the list!

Common Sense

So bill912:

The Church is the Body of Christ and it is never evil? How about the Bible itself? You believe all of it and apply all of it to your every day life? Do you believe the Bible fully and that it is a good book that everyone should follow?

Patrick

"...the Church is the Body of Christ. It is never evil."

Then we must distinguish between the human institution, which clearly has done institutional evil, and the "other Church" which is "never evil." If we are all members of the Body of Christ then we are never evil, (how could a part of Christ's body be evil?) that is also obviously not true.

bill912

The Church is *not* a human institution; it is a Divine institution that has weak, sinful, human members.

Esau

If we are all members of the Body of Christ then we are never evil

Judas was, in fact, even an Apostle of Jesus Christ yet he committed one of the greatest evils in the history of mankind, which is betraying the very Son of God, which, no doubt, sinners in the Church have done throughout history due to human weakness and the sinful nature of man.

Just because one is a member of the Body of Christ doesn't automatically make one invincible to sin and impervious to evil.

In fact, Jesus mentions in the Gospels about those who are part of the vine (members of the Body of Christ) yet do not bear good fruit and do not abide in Him (do not persevere in the Faith and keep His Commandments); that these shall be cast into the everlasting fire.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31