Pope lifts pontifical secrets

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
xenoview's picture
Pope lifts pontifical secrets

Pope lifts 'pontifical secret' rule in sex abuse cases


Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
@wtf? "But new papal

@wtf? "But new papal documents on Tuesday lifted restrictions on those who report abuse or say they have been victims."

The new Papal documents will no longer blame the reporters or the abused for being reporters or being abused. THIS IS THE MOST INSANE COMMENT I HAVE EVER HEARD. You will not be blamed if you report a preacher, unlike before when we would tell you to shut up and be quiet on threat of excommunication. AM I FUCKING HEARING THIS RIGHT?

Because the Church will no longer excommunicate you for speaking out. transparency is enhanced? SERIOUSLY???

IN CALIFORNIA, THE POPE HAD NO CHOICE. Priests have been mandated reporters for years. The laws of a country can hold the clergy responsible whether or not the clergy agrees with the laws. The Pope has nothing to do with the laws of the land.

"Currently, clergy are considered mandatory reporters in about half of all states. But even those laws vary because of the unique nature of pastoral care. Some states that include clergy as mandatory reporters exempt pastors from that requirement if abuse is disclosed or discovered during “pastorally privileged conversations.”

Steps for reporting suspected abuse also vary by state. Anyone concerned about a child’s safety or welfare can file a report voluntarily. Some states have even changed the laws to make all adults, regardless of their profession, mandatory reporters."

FUCK THE POPE - WE DON'T NEED HIM. Once we begin tossing the assholes in Jail, he will have to go along with the program---- which seems to be exactly what he is doing.

Fleeing in Terror's picture
The US bishops had to fight

The US bishops had to fight for permission to follow the mandatory reporting. What about the rest of the world? They don't matter because they aren't American?

boomer47's picture
The pope has ben dragged

The pope has ben dragged kicking and screaming to that point. Now the old cunt tries to claim the moral high ground?

Willing to bet the age of consent in the Vatican remains at 12.

Also willing to bet the church still believes canon law trumps civil law, whenever they can get away with it.

Also willing to bet remaining Vatican secrets would boggle the mind -------

Here a mixture of fact and rumour:

The Vatican does not allow autopsies of deceased popes. It is widely believed that Pope JohnPaul 12 was murdered in Sep 1978, only 33 days after being made pope .

There are heaps of conspiracy theories. Me? I have no idea, but a lean towards Occam's razor.

Rumours; there are apartments within the Vatican which have frescoes of pornography, painted my masters. Wouldn't be surprised, especially after the Borgia and Medici Popes. After all, the Vatican is only really the papal place and grounds.

The fantasy of the Vatican as a state*** only began in 1929, with the Lateran treaty with Mussolini. Since then it has become a de facto state, even though it lacks the most aspects of statehood, such as citizens .

Fun rumour; That there is a chest of marble penises hidden '"somewhere in the Vatican" .Allegedly removed and replaced by fig leafs at the order of Pius X1., Makes sense I believe Pius X1 wore bathing trunks when bathing. He didn't like looking down on the unemployed.


***My reference on the Vatican as a state ; "The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse" Geoffrey Robertson QC.

Fleeing in Terror's picture
old cunt - I find that very

old cunt - I find that very offensive.

boomer47's picture
@Mrs Paul

@Mrs Paul

"old cunt - I find that very offensive."

it was not my intention to offend you. However, I do not resile from my use of that language ,which I tend to use only when heartfelt, to make a point.

To refrain from saying anything because it might cause offence is a form of censorship. In my country the are laws against hate speech. I do not support such laws.

You may be as offended as you like.

I probably haven't expressed myself clearly. Below is a Youtube link to public comments made by Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry on free speech.

I think we may need to agree to differ


Tin-Man's picture


Personally, my view is that if a person allows himself/herself to be offended by something I say, then that is HIS/HER problem. Not mine. This whole "politically correct" atmosphere that has been developed over the past couple of decades is utterly ridiculous and downright annoying, in my opinion. Worse, it has created a generation of overly-sensitive self-entitled snowflakes who get their poor wittle feewings huhwrt simply because of a word somebody might use. When I was growing up, I remember being told many times, "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can never hurt you, " whenever somebody called me a name or otherwise insulted me. Or, better yet, I was told, "Stop being such a baby. Now go back outside and keep playing." Nowadays, though, it seems like the primary response is to take the kid to therapy and put them on meds for PTSD. Sheesh!.... *rolling eyes*....

(...*looking back over post*... Yikes! What the hell pushed my button??? And to think I was having such a nice day, too... *sigh*... *climbing down from soap box*...)

Grinseed's picture
@ Cranky

@ Cranky

I am rather fond of cunts, thogh I prefer almost any other euphemism. Fanny pussy puchi etc

To associate them with disagreeable old men or their offensive words, ideas and thoughts and who wear suits, uniforms, or religious vestments, is an unfair comparison and interferes with my delicate libido.

Though I support your right to freedom of expression, I am sure we may need to differ.

Grinseed's picture
@ Cranky

@ Cranky
Does this "pontifical secrecy" include the confessional? I am assuming it doesn't but I ask one with better knowledge on the matter.

boomer47's picture


I haven't been practising Catholic for 50 years. (An atheist only for the last 30 odd years) However, both parents remained chronically catholic until death.

My ex wife wife returned to the Church. She had a couple of priest friends who came for dinner often.

One friend was your common or garden variety parish type priest . Didn't like him. I thought he was ignorant and mindlessly dogmatic. He thought I was 'spiritually proud'. The other was very different; A Passionist, , trained in theology and apologetics. We had some great discussions. He was also probably the closest thing to a truly good man I've ever met.

No, the church has not changed its rule of the seal of confession. |A priest may not reveal anything said in confession, to anyone, under any circumstances. It MUST be thus, or people would no longer trust the confessional. That would mean less control of its flock by the church.

I think the churche has shot itself in the foot with the secrecy surrounding child abuse in the church. People generally no longer trust the church. Unfortunately for the church ,'people' includes law makers. Laws have begun to be passed making it an offence to conceal knowledge of a crime told in confession. It hasn't been tested in Australia yet as far as I know, but it's only a matter of time.

Historically, the Catholic church has wielded enormous temporal power; it could ,and did dethrone princes. Henry V11 is classic example. The church's refusal to accede to Henry's request for an annulment was political, not religious. The church underestimated Henry, and England became Protestant. The significance of that change cannot be underestimated.

The church has always taught that canon law ALWAYS trumps civil law. For centuries, no cleric of the Catholic church could be tried by a civill court , for any reason whatsoever. They could only be tried by an ecclesiastical court ---the church has over 1500 years of precedent for its secrecy.

PLUS the church was powerful in its own own right until the the nineteenth century, when the papal states were dissolved. The last time a pope unilaterally executed a person was in 1848, I think.

Fleeing in Terror's picture
You have some errors in there

You have some errors in there. The Australian lawyer in the book I referenced goes on at length about "Misprision of felon" and that it was a crime to protect felons. You can read it if you speak legal. I don't know about the confessional part.

It was Henry VIII. The Pope didn't dare annul the marriage. He was surrounded by the wife's relatives. They would have killed him.

England is an island. Henry could get away with it.

The monarchs are also "ordained by God" and ontologically changed. They were fighting the Pope for millennia over who had religious authority in their countries. Henry was just more successful than most.

The vatican is still running on a pre WWI mindset.

Fleeing in Terror's picture
No. I don't think so. The

No. I don't think so. The reference books that I have been posting everywhere go into the details of the legal aspects of the pontifical secret and how it applies.

The Australian canon lawyer and the sociologist published two documents. The first is a legal report entitled “Canon Law – A Systemic Factor in Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church.” (Free download from National Catholic Reporter) written for the Australian government. The second is the lay version “Potiphar’s Wife.” (Buy on line for real money). I verified the information with the author of the second book and the legal firm from the movie Spotlight. A third is “Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church; An Interpretive Review of the Literature and Public Inquiry Report” another free download through the Center for Global Research; School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT Both books thoroughly document how the vatican ORDERED the bishops to protect the pedophiles starting 100 years ago.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/university-report-lifts-li... & mansplaingod.me

It seems that Francis is correcting some of the 100 year old error. I don't know enough law to know how much.

Cognostic's picture
@Grinseed: My understanding

@Grinseed: My understanding is that the way the law reads for many states in America (Not all Unfortunately) they apply to preachers even in the confessional.

No one needs permission from the fucking Pope to arrest these assholes toss them into jails, identify and register them as sexual offenders, and never allow them to be near children again. The fact that some states are enacting laws to protect children by mandating clergy to report is a move towards recognition of the problem and fully supported.

Fleeing in Terror's picture
Another article on the

Another article on the subject. I was going to re-read and post here, but Xenoview scooped me.

boomer47's picture
"It was Henry VIII. The Pope

"It was Henry VIII. The Pope didn't dare annul the marriage. He was surrounded by the wife's relatives. They would have killed him."

Just so; the reason for refusing the annulment of Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was political, not religious.

No,I don't speak legalise. However, Geoffrey Robertson is a renowned international jurist and expert in Human Rights . .I found his book easy enough to understand and convincing. However, to be fair, I need to disclose that I had a barrister (trial lawyer, like a US ADA) friend look at the book and he disagreed with Robertson. T'is always thus with lawyers. Here my opinion is provisional , not dogmatic. Just like my position on the existence of god(s)

I do not claim to be an expert in canon law. The views I have presented are to the best of my knowledge.

Having said that, ,I'm obliged to say I simply do not trust Catholic apologist sources, be they laity of any ilk of clergy.

Mikhael's picture
I believe ibsprak as a very

I believe ibsprak as a very valid voice here when i say,

fucking FUCK the Catholic church

Tin-Man's picture
Seems to me that if somebody

Seems to me that if somebody "finds something offensive", then maybe they should stop looking for things to offend them.... *shrugging shoulders*...

boomer47's picture


Just in case you haven't heard this, below is a clip blinked is a from Tim Minchin. If it doesn't connect due to the language, it's called "the pope song"


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.