The Ya Ya Traveling Salvation Sisterhood
|
Posted:Mar 6, 2008 1:36 am
Last Updated:May 9, 2024 5:4 pm 720 Views
|
Most all of us have had . Usually in most cases boundaries are set for those as to what they are allowed to do or else they are punished in some way. That is good parenting.
Yet here is God who is also a parent that is the ultimate parent.He always knows what is best for us. Usually we as parents know what is better for our .
When our are birthed into our families they are part of our family forever. You can never say that is not my or because they were infact given life by you.
It is the same way with God. When you receive Jesus Christ as savior and you receive forgiveness of sin. Sin which the bible says separates the unsaved from God; then you are reborn it says. Born into the Spiritual Family of the creator of all things.
When your do thigs that you wish them not to do, you deal with that right? As they get older you allow them to have to find ways to resolve what they have done with a watchful eye. You even get to the point as they approach adulthood that you ask them what is the right thing to do in a situation as it arises.
But you do not kick them out of the family or say they no longer are part of the family because of their performance.
It is the ame way spiritually. God is even the better parent. Sin once separated a person from being in God's family. When Jesus is received, then that separation no longer exists. It is thrown as far as east is to west.
Now, if sin were counted against you, your life would be like a yo-yo. Saved one moment, then the next moment in need of repair. The word says that even our thoughts of something being wrong is a sinful act. It says sin separates us from God.
How could one live like that? We cant just pick and choose which action or thought is going to be the one that separates us. Sin is sin.
Thats why I asked the other day, why does Jesus mention Hell 369 times in the Gospels. It is because it is very significant. It is real. It is not to be ignored.
Then on the flip side, once Christianity begins after Christ gives atonement on the cross, there are two places in the scriptures that talk of confession of sin. One in James 5 that is dealing with believers at ought with each other and the other one is 1 John 1:9. 2 places. Thats it. 1 John 1:9, when read in the full context of the chapter is speaking to unsaved people that attended that fellowship. Gnostics that were under the belief they had no sin.
In todays fellowships that verse would be in the form of a prelude to an alter call.
Lets just say for arguments sake it was intended for believers. One whole verse in the New Covenant scriptures saying this.If this was important then it would be like discussing hell. It would be all over the place. It is not. It is in one spot. One.Think about that.
Ok, back to your family. When a does something wrong, you deal with it as you see fit. When the comes to a place of understanding that correction they do what? They appologize.They are basically repenting. They werent excommunicated from the family.They were chastised though by you.
It is the same way when we do something stupid. God deals with us. But he doesnt count something against us in a way that ostracizes us from our place in the family of God. We repent. Repent is not the same as confessing sin.
If sin were still counted then each sin would eliminate us being Christians because sin separates us from God as humans.
No, but we need to be repentive of our foolishness and rebellions that we have. God's intention is for relationship with his creations, and if we believe that sin is counted against the born again believer, then each sin has a yo-yo effect because it separates you from God. You can not pick which sin does or doesnt and god gives you winks regarding some things.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Strife as a Way of Life (Socialism)
|
Posted:Mar 4, 2008 11:56 pm
Last Updated:May 9, 2024 5:4 pm 707 Views
|
Strife as a Way of Life
Broadly speaking, there are two opposing philosophies of human relationships. One commends that these relationships be in terms of peace and harmony. The other, while never overtly commended, operates by way of strife and violence. One is peaceful; the other unpeaceful.
When peace and harmony are adhered to, only willing exchange exists in the marketplace ‒ the economics of reciprocity and practice of the Golden Rule. No special privilege is countenanced. All men are equal before the law, as before God. The life and the livelihood of a minority of one enjoys the same respect as the lives and livelihoods of majorities, for such rights are, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, conceived to be an endowment of the Creator. Everyone is completely free to act creatively as his abilities and ambitions permit; no restraint in this respect ‒ none whatsoever.
Abandon the ideal of peace and harmony and the only alternative is to embrace strife and violence, expressed ultimately as robbery and murder. Plunder, spoliation, special privilege, feathering one’s own nest at the expense of others, doing one’s own brand of good wit
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
|
Posted:Mar 4, 2008 11:40 pm
Last Updated:May 9, 2024 5:4 pm 706 Views
|
The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care
by David Gratzer
Encounter Books • 2006 • 233 pages • $25.95
Reviewed by Jane M. Orient
David Gratzer learned one of his most important lessons in medical school on his way to class. He had to wind his way around the gurneys parked in corridors of the emergency department, where elderly patients, stinking of sweat and urine, had been waiting as long as five days for a bed. That destroyed his illusions about what he, like most Canadians, had been taught was the best-run health-care system in the world.
I could identify with the author because I had a similar epiphany in 1970 when volunteering to help out in the emergency room at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York as a first-year medical student. It too was chaotic, but we did not have patients waiting for days for beds; we did not use the Canadian global budget to put a lid on total expenditures, leading to rationing by limiting supply. What became obvious to me was that the “compassionate” “liberal” ideology of wealth redistribution did not and could not help the social problems that led to most of the ER traffic.
Since 1970 more and more Americans have been funneled into the single-payer systems called Medicare and Medicaid. The waiting rooms at ERs in private hospitals are coming to resemble those of 1970s public hospitals in the inner city, while the inner-city hospitals have become even worse. Just as we’re starting to experience the type of stress so common in Canada, the pressure to finish the job of socializing American medicine grows ever more intense. While our remedies make the patient sicker, reformers suggest applying more leeches. It’s time for regular people to take a field trip to the ER.
Gratzer does a good job of explaining some basic economics. It’s all encapsulated in his graph: “Out-of-Pocket Share Falls and Per Capita Spending Climbs.” The diagnosis is too much third-party payment, not too little.
Doing away with the free-market price mechanism, essential for bringing supply and demand into equilibrium, inevitably leads to “bureaucratic displacement.” Gammon’s Law–that in a bureaucratic system, increase in expenditure leads to a fall in production–was developed by a British physician in the context of the National Health Service. Milton Friedman applied it to American hospitals, as Gratzer recounts.
Gratzer explains many important issues, such as the role of government regulation in increasing the cost of insurance as well as of prescription drugs. He debunks well-worn myths, such as the claim that infant mortality is less in countries with socialized medicine. He outlines reforms that would make the situation better rather than worse: expanded health savings accounts, permitting the purchase of out-of-state insurance, and tax equity.
An important contribution of the book is explaining why the laws of economics don’t seem to apply in medical care. For example, improved technology generally leads to lower prices, not higher ones as in medicine. Basically, “America doesn’t really have a market for health care, it seems, merely a market for health insurance.” The customer–the one spending the money–isn’t the person benefiting directly from the service. Thus normal market processes, such as the role of self-interest, are inverted.
Anyone who understands Gratzer’s account of the government’s role in the current mess will be hard pressed to see it as a potential savior. Consider a couple of paradoxes. Medicaid was supposed to help the poor, but one of its most expensive roles is to serve as “inheritance insurance” for the wealthy. One of the fastest-growing areas of legal practice involves helping the affluent qualify for Medicaid long-term care. And Medicare was supposed to protect the elderly from being financially devastated by medical expenses. Although it covers many small bills, it leaves beneficiaries exposed to potentially catastrophic out-of-pocket expenses. It’s the opposite of sound insurance.
Gratzer fills in what the American media usually omit: the uncounted costs of prolonged pain and disability for Canadians trapped on waiting lists. Allowing people to use their own money to improve their situation has been considered un-Canadian. Fortunately, the situation is changing. In a case involving what Gratzer calls “the hip that changed the world,” the Supreme Court of Canada held in favor of a Montreal physician, Jacques Chaoulli, who took on the system virtually single-handed.
Privatization and free-market reforms are breaking out in all those countries that leftists applaud for having “universal” health care–that is, universally bankrupt, mediocre, and overburdened medical systems. Gratzer looks at Sweden, South Africa, Finland, and Germany, among others.
Americans should benefit from Gratzer’s experience in Canada as well as his mastery of economics. We need to avoid descending further into the chasm of medical-care socialism. At some point, the vortex of socialism could become like a black hole, from which no escape is possible.
Gratzer’s book is a valuable contribution to the struggle to insure against that outcome.
Jane M. Orient, M.D. is executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
why did Jesus mention......
|
Posted:Mar 4, 2008 5:00 am
Last Updated:Mar 4, 2008 12:44 pm 793 Views
|
Why did Jesus mention Hell 369 times in the Gospels and then after he is glorified on the cross and Christianity then begins in the New Covenant; confession of sin is mentioned twice? Once to resolve issues between 2 christians in James 5. Then in 1 John 1:9 many believe he is speaking to unbelievers in the group. If he wasnt, that is only one scripture regarding confession of sin.
Why 369 times on Hell and then just one scripture regarding confessing of sin after Jesus rose from the dead.
Before he rose from the dead, it was jewish law and only for jews. Gentiles were not included until the atonement was given.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you
|
Posted:Mar 3, 2008 3:32 am
Last Updated:Mar 4, 2008 3:11 am 1005 Views
|
Some people seem to like this scripture. I do not believe it was ever aimed at believers. Life is a journey filled with seasons. Seasons of planting and watering and waiting.
Jesus said that those that have come to him, no one can snatch from his hand.
None of us are perfect. That is exactly why Jesus came. John the baptist called it perfectly, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. The sin has been taken away. Past, present and future. We as humans are called to do one thing regarding this. See it, admit it and receive it.
The Prodigal is the story of God's heart. God's heart towards his . It also represents our standards we place on each other.
The Prodigal left with his inheiritance. He went and did many wrong things. When he had hit rock bottom, one thing came across his minds. His fathers servants. His fathers servants were treated well. His father loved his servants and took good care of them.
This lead the into thinking...wow, they live better than me. I would be happy to go back and be a servant. It is better than what I have now.
The scripture says that It is God's goodness and Kindness that leads us to a place of repentance. This had come to that place.
So he goes home. Before he can get there,the Father sees him and comes running to him. The tells him he was wrong and please forgive me.
The father then says what? Don't do that again ? No, he says bring a robe and a ring. Kill the fatted calf. Let us celebrate our returned complet fellowship.
The was never the because he left to live in a secular way. He was always the . The Father had never closed an ear to him or disowned him. Instead the father was always waiting for the sons return. He had that party planned in his head for his sons' return.
Thats how God is with us too. He knows we are stupid. He knows we will fail. But he is not there to hold that against us. He is there to be the good father.
The word says he chastises thiose he loves. Where is the chastisement in this parable? It was self inflicted. He stepped back while his left as a boy and came home a man. Was it painful to watch although he could not see? Of course, but he is the good Father.
So where in this story is the "depart from me you worker of iniquity?" That only happens to non family members. Non-Christians.
In the scriptures after Jesus rose from the dead, and our New covenant is formed there are two places of confession of sin. Jesus, spoke about Hell 369 times in the gospels.
Yet here we are after he arose and Christianity is started and there are "2" mentions? One is in James 5 where two brothers have ought against each other. Confess your faults and i will heal you. He will heal your relationship if you confess your part in the issue. Thats all it means. Nothing regarding confession of sin to somehow be restored to God.
The other is the infamous 1 John 1:9. Written to a church where they had gentile gnostics that did not believe they even had sin. Sin that separated them from God. So he showed them that they could fellowship by becoming born again. He showed them that if they confessed this sin that separated them, then God was faithful and just to forgive them and they could be Christians. Able to fellowship in the level the others were.
Jesus talked about Hell 369 times. Yet confession of sin is mentioned twice after he is glorified. Go figure. There is a reason.
Something Else to think about....this was spoken to the Jews. Gentiles were not even included at the time this was spoken.It was still old Covenant
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Who Is "Fascist"?
|
Posted:Mar 3, 2008 2:25 am
Last Updated:Mar 4, 2008 3:15 am 1054 Views
|
Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.
Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.
Because the word "fascist" is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that "Liberal Fascism" begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.
Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.
They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.
Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.
Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.
Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics."
Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini -- as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.
Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.
W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.
Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order."
As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."
In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.
Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.
Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.
If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.
The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement.
Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is too rich a book to be summarized in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions about who is on "the left" and who is on "the right." It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
A Lesson From Venezuela
|
Posted:Mar 3, 2008 2:21 am
Last Updated:Mar 4, 2008 3:17 am 790 Views
|
People on the left often use other countries as examples of things that we should do. If other countries have a government-run medical system, then we should have one too, they say. If other countries control prices, then we should control prices -- or so the reasoning goes.
There is in fact a lot that we can learn from other countries if we look at the actual consequences of some of the things we are being urged to do, instead of just assuming that we should automatically imitate what others are doing.
Studies have already shown that the waiting time before being able to get surgery is several times as long in a number of countries with government-run medical systems as in the United States. Modern medical technology like MRIs and CAT scans are also rarer in such countries.
Venezuela is currently giving us a lesson on the consequences of price controls. The government of leftist President Hugo Chavez has imposed price controls -- and seems to be surprised that lower prices have lead to reduced supplies, even though price controls have led to reduced supplies in countries around the world and for thousands of years.
There were price controls back in the days of the Roman Empire, under the Pharaohs in Egypt, and in ancient Babylon. There is plenty of history to look at, if we bother.
Price controls under the Roman Emperor Diocletian led to a decline in the supply of goods. The same thing happened under President Richard Nixon's price controls in the 1970s. It has happened in Zimbabwe within the past year.
Rent control laws led to housing shortages in Cairo -- and in Berkeley, Hanoi, Paris, and other cities around the world.
When price controls in Venezuela led to food shortages, Hugo Chavez accused companies of "hoarding" food. The emperor Diocletian was similarly accusatory when his price controls reduced supplies, many centuries ago.
Political leaders always find someone else to blame for the bad consequences of their own policies.
Hugo Chavez has blamed foreign owned companies for Venezuela's food shortages and threatened to "nationalize" them. This too is an old political game that seldom does the people of the country any good.
What is remarkable is how little interest there is among the media and among the public in how often and how consistently this has happened in the wake of price controls.
When politicians today say that they are going to "bring down the cost of medical care" or make housing "affordable," what are they talking about other than price controls?
Do we want a shortage of medical care? Do you want to have to wait for months for surgery -- and suffer needlessly in the meantime, as people do in Canada and Britain?
Behind these wonderful-sounding political "solutions" to our problems is the notion that businesses are just ripping us off with arbitrarily set prices, and that the government can make them stop.
It makes a nice story and it can get votes for politicians who play the role of saviors. But it makes little economic sense. Why do so many businesses have losses, and even go bankrupt, if they can set their prices wherever they want to?
It is not uncommon for companies on the Fortune 500 list to operate in the red. Back during the days of the Great Depression of the 1930s, corporations as a whole operated in the red two years in a row.
They were trying to keep from going under while Franklin D. Roosevelt was denouncing them as "economic royalists." FDR knew how to win elections, even if he didn't know how to get the country out of the Great Depression.
That political lesson has been learned all too well, as much of the strident, anti-business political rhetoric of this election year demonstrates.
Now if only the media and the public had some interest in learning the economic lesson!
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Cold Water on "Global Warming"
|
Posted:Mar 3, 2008 2:14 am
Last Updated:Mar 4, 2008 3:18 am 767 Views
|
It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.
It's global warming
But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."
They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.
Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.
A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.
There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.
These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.
The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.
Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.
There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.
The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.
The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.
Those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria are unlikely to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
do you know what it is?
|
Posted:Mar 3, 2008 2:08 am
Last Updated:Mar 3, 2008 2:09 am 799 Views
|
It is sad that people buy into socialism which is a form of communism. The goal of socialists is power without looking like it is power.
It also takes away from a belief system in God.They say they are for the little guy while placing that "little" guy in a spot where they usually will not prosper, but just succeed.
The bible says that the person who does not willingly work is not thought of very highly. If a person can support themselves they should.
But in socialism they try and make the so called rich people the enemy of the poor. For some reason it is a "sin" to be wealthy and prosperous. For some reason they spew that its the responsibility of the rich to take care of the poor simply because they are rich.
God is our keeper, not any man. So they tax and tax the people and organizations for being successful. These organizations represent many jobs to many people. It hinders who these successful people and organizations are to the point that an economy does not flourish. Money is stagnated and eventually the rich find other ways to make Money besides needing workers.
They are smart and they desire to flourish while many people hold on to the little pittance that they have out of fear of even losing that. Does this remind you of the parable of the talents? That evil steward even lost that.
Prosperity takes faith. Whether its in God or in the abilities in the syatem that you work within.
But socialism destroys prosperity and it takes from many things God wishes to do in a persons life. All in the name of being punished for doing well with what you have.
Eventually because of the structure of socialism, you have but two classes as the middle class is Xed out. The haves and the have nots.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
|
Posted:Mar 2, 2008 3:46 am
Last Updated:Mar 2, 2008 3:47 am 740 Views
|
Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 46-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases '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'.
Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.
He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'
British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.
He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'
Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.
He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.
Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine .
Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.
Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'
A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.
He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.
'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.
'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'
Additional research by Jason Rodrigues
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
