My Response to Moriel Ministries
I recently wrote a post in which I characterised Jacob Prasch and Moriel Ministries as unreliable. This caused a member of Moriel Ministries to respond in the post’s comment box. Their response has also been published on their website as an “Open Letter to Tysen Woodlock.” I appreciate the time and effort they have taken to set out their objections to my earlier post.
“1. A visit to National Center For Policy Analysis website (www.ncpc.org) or Baylor’s legal website (www.baylor.aceglobal.com) will reveal that Jacob Prasch referring to the squashed litigation against Joseph Ratzinger (cum Pope Benidict xvi) as a prosecution stopped by the US Dept. of Justice was correct in its terminology and details.”
I have run a Google search on both the NCPC website (using the search term “Ratzinger site:www.ncpc.org”) and on the Baylor website (using the search term “Ratzinger site:www.baylor.aceglobal.com”) and I cannot find any mention of any article on Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, let alone one that would back up Prasch’s claims. If you have an article that describes the 2005 civil action against Ratzinger/Pope Benedict as a “prosecution” then please provide a direct link.
“In Texas a civil litigation brought privately in connection with a criminal prosecution is legally referred to as a special category of ‘Prosecution’ called “civil prosecution” (Tex. Hum. Res. Code 36.001 et.sig).”
I looked up the Texas Human Resources Code Chapter 36.001 and I can see no mention of this special category of prosecution. Please provide a reference.
“The criminal case is the Juan Carlos Patino-Arango public prosecution of this indicted pedophile priest who is a fugative from justice. The 2005 civil action brought by Daniel Shea in conjunction with it against the present pope is thus legally defined as a civil prosecution. Jacob Prasch is perfectly correct in his terminology, and you are wrong.”
Okay, let me get clarify this. You are suggesting that Prasch, when he used the word “prosecution” meant “civil prosecution” – in others words he was using an alternative way of referring to the matter as a civil lawsuit? I find that claim unconvincing. It is clear from his article that Prasch was attempting to convey to his readers the idea that the Pope faced criminal charges and only got out of them through the cowardly interference of the US Justice Department, who, he suggests, should have “suspended” the “law restricting prosecution of foreign heads of state”.
I’ll quote the fifth paragraph of Prasch’s article:
The law restricting prosecution of foreign heads of state was suspended in the arrest and criminal prosecution of Panamanian president Manuel Noriega. It is our view that the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice in the wide spread sexual molestation of defenseless children is no less heinous than the cocaine trafficking and money laundering of Noriega.
Note the words in bold. Prasch here is suggesting that the Pope, prior to the interference of the Justice Department (and their failure to suspend the “law restricting prosecution of foreign heads of state”), faced criminal charges i.e. “the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice.”
I’ll quote the seventh paragraph of Prasch’s article:
“Instead of receiving a presidential reception upon arrival on American soil, Pope Benedict XVI should have been handcuffed, arrested, arraigned, criminally indicted, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If it is indeed his signature on that wicked document, Ratzinger should be convicted on the basis of prima face evidence and this evil criminal should die in federal prison with absolutely no chance of parole.”
If the “prosecution” Prasch referred to in the first paragraph should indeed be read as “civil prosecution”, why is he now suggesting Ratzinger be “handcuffed, arrested, arraigned, criminally indicted, and prosecuted” upon arrival in America? The civil suit could never have resulted in that outcome. And what of Ratzinger’s status as an “evil criminal?” This reinforces the idea that Prasch was suggesting that the Pope faced a criminal prosecution. Prasch in paragraph one wanted to give his audience the impression that Ratzinger faced criminal charges when in reality he did not.
It might be helpful to review the relevant international law at this point. From the decision which removed Ratzinger as a defendant (Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Galveston-Houston, 2005 WL 3597695 (S.D. Tex. 2005)):
“Under long-established procedure, the executive branch makes a determination to grant immunity to a head of state sued in the United States and then files a suggestion of immunity with the court.”
This is what the US Department of Justice did when it submitted a “Suggestion of Immunity” in the suit against the Pope.
The Pope would still have been immune even if the US Department of Justice had not intervened. From a recent article on Head-of-State Immunity:
Consistent with the treatment required by international law, American courts have not presumed to take jurisdiction over current or former heads of state based on their public and official acts. And from recent case law, one can discern that U.S. courts will recognize the immunity of foreign heads of state for private unofficial acts, even when the executive branch does not suggest immunity… (emphasis added)
Contrary to Prasch’s implication of controversial interference to “squash” “a prosecution”, the decision was in fact a routine and uncontroversial application of international law. No doubt, one can spin the matter to make it sound controversial, and unfortunately some media articles do just that, but the reality is far less interesting.
“2. Jacob Prasch’s report that this civil prosecution was squashed by The Justice Department is confirmed as true and was reported in multiple national publications and news mediums including USA TODAY and CBS News (references easily available on internet). The motion to squash the civil action against the pope was indeed brought by The US Justice Department at the request of The State Department for the exact reasons Jacob Prasch accurately reported.”
Prasch suggested that the US Department of Justice was involved in a controversial decision to “squash” “a prosecution,” and paragraph five and seven make it clear that he was implying that the matter was criminal not civil. There are a number of media reports that attempt to put a controversial ‘spin’ on the matter but none of them support Prasch’s implication of political interference in a criminal prosecution against the Pope.
“3. The 1962 Crimen Solicitationes instruction was indeed reissued as was reported in 2005 with the memo implimenting it signed by Ratzinger (as Jacob Prasch correctly asserts) who is now pope but then Prefect of The Congregation For The Doctrine of The Faith (in former times known as ‘Inquisitor General’). It reads: ” Grave Crimes such as sexual abuse of children will be handled by his office (the congregation) with any tribunals a Secret Pontifical proceeding””.
In 2001, Ratzinger produced a document commonly referred to as De delictis gravioribus which is known as an “implementing letter” in Roman Catholic canon law. The second paragraph contains this line: “…the instruction Crimen sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962, in force until now…” Note the words in italics. It was in force until the letter by Ratzinger was produced. You are simply wrong when you say that Ratzinger “reissued” Crimen sollicitationis. He did the opposite and brought it to an end.
“4. The Daniel Shea litigation claimed (supported by various academic legal opinions and Latin grammar and syntax lingual experts) that the document carried two aspects ; the sacrimental and the general.”
What I said was “…Crimen sollicitationis primarily applied to abuses of the confessional and thus would not apply to nuns.” Note that I claimed it primarily applied to abuses of the confessional, not solely to it.
There is some evidence that Crimen sollicitationis has a more general application. For example, Thomas Doyle is of the view that Crimen sollicitationis covers more than just solicitation in the confessional:
“The norms of Crimen were thus established as the obligatory procedures for prosecuting cases of four separate and distinct canonical crimes, namely, a) solicitation for sex in the act of sacramental confession, b) homosexual sex, c) sexual abuse of minor males or females, d) bestiality or sex with animals.”
I am not prepared to uncritically accept Doyle’s argument but I am willing to admit that it may be true that Crimen sollicitationis has general scope. This is a separate question from whether it is a conspiracy to cover up abuse. As Thomas Doyle, the Church critic that leaked Crimen sollicitationis to Daniel Shea, and a man with no incentive to protect the hierarchy, says: “The 1962 document [i.e. Crimen sollicitationis] and its predecessor from 1922 are not proof of an explicit world-wide conspiracy to cover up clergy sex crimes.”
“5. So afraid was the Vatican of this ‘smoking gun’ that contrary to your own demonstrably abject assertions that it had nothing to do with protecting pedophile clergy and only applied sacrimentally, it was the Vatican who by diplomatic means petitioned the State Department to have the matter squashed, again further confirming the accuracy of Jacob Prasch’s statement. Indeed, the pope’s own admission that the crises was handled wrongly by the Roman Catholic church supports Jacob Prasch’s conclusions, and very plainly mitigates against your own.”
I demonstrated above that the Vatican’s behaviour was consistent with the straightforward application of Head-of-State Immunity, as opposed to your implication that they were the fearful actions of a guilty party calling in political favours to avoid justice.
There is no evidence that the suit was likely to succeed. You, Prasch and Moriel Ministries seem to have concluded the worst but I can find no evidence to substantiate your conclusions.
Your suggestion that the Pope’s recent comments back up Prasch’s claims makes no sense. The Pope suggested that the matter was “sometimes very badly handled.” Prasch alleges a criminal conspiracy to cover up sexual abuse. One does not support the other.
“You have distorted the facts, spoken in ignorance of the protocals of the law where you misrepresent yourself as having an expertise you seemingly either do not, (or else have not researched the subject carefully if you do) , and as is typical in matters of religious hypocrisy, resorted to the ad hominem approach in a feeble attempt to circumlocute the shameful reality. For the record, Moriel would not define itself as “Protestant”, but merely as biblical and Christian. Indeed, many of us are former Catholics who upon reading the scriptures, by God’s goodness, came to a saving biblical faith in Jesus Christ rejecting the hocus pocus of sacrimental superstition and the sexual perversion among your clergy.”
“Your own tone and insulting demeanor warrants a response less gracious than we would prefer. It would appear that your arrogance and ignorance are eclipsed only by your apparent dishonesty. But frankly, that is precisely what is to be expected. If nothing else you are indeed par for your course. Like your corrupt pontif, you ludicrously pontificate a badly orchestrated litany of convoluted babel and expect the world to believe you; but those days are long over. The efforts of a crooked religion to whitewash its disgusting grand scale malevolence against defenseless children is futile. Just as it says in your own Latin Vulgate: “Vanitas Vanitatem, Omnia Vanitas””.
“Get Well Soon. For your own sake we sincerely hope that with a genuine repentence you will abandon your pedophilia plagued Roman Catholicism and convert to Christianity before it is too late. Your silly Novenas, necromancy prayers to the dead, icons , rosaries, and liturgical ‘Mea Maxima Culpas”, (let alone child molesting sex pervert priests) won’t and can’t save you; only Jesus Christ can. Salvation is only through Him alone , not a corrupt institution with a corrupt leader and thousands of sex criminals in its clergy. Do yourself a big favor – put down the catechism and papal encyclicals and pick up a bible before you spend all of eternity with no hope wishing you had. The real Jesus of the scriptures (not to be confused with that ridiculous plastic idol forbidden by the second of the 10 commandments that you keep on your dashboard to help you find a parking space or whatever) said: ‘Permit The Little Children To Come Unto Me”; He did not say to Rape Them.
Pax Vobiscum,
(The Ex Catholics At Moriel Who Now By God’s Grace Most Thankfully Became Christians)”
You appear to have come to the conclusion that I am a Catholic. I am not, I’m an agnostic. So most of your attack on Catholicism is irrelevant to me. Isn’t it possible that you’ve let your bias against Catholicism distort your perception of the facts?
I feel that you and Prasch have misrepresented the facts surrounding the civil suit which named the Pope as a defendant and used these misrepresentations to justify inflammatory rhetoric aimed at inciting hatred of the Pope and of Catholicism. There is plenty of room for civil and detached criticism of the Pope and Catholicism without relying upon false claims and emotive attacks.
I strongly urge you and your ministry to thoroughly reconsider all relevant facts and correct the public record.
Related Posts
- Jacob Prasch and Moriel Ministries
- Christopher Hitchens on Papal Fallibility
- Richard Dawkins Loses Last Ounce of Credibility
- Hypocrisy and the Clergy Abuse Scandal
- Is the Pope Criminally Culpable?
Comments
7 Responses to “My Response to Moriel Ministries”
Leave a Reply
Thank you for your comments.
First of all, on behalf of Moriel and myself our apologetic regrets for any mistaken assumptions
you were acting in defense of the Roman Catholic church or its adjuncts (which from your remarks does not appear to be the case).
I would point however you appear inaccurate in your position.
The Texas legal reference as cited does employ the term ‘prosecution’ in certain criminally related civil litigation.
I would also point you to article by legal editorialist of associated Press (9.20.2005)
that “Bush grants criminal immunity”. This remains in public domain (eg. godlesswonder.blogspot.com0.
Additionally the De Delicitis Gravioribus Epistilus notation of May 18,2001 – the terms are
sdrtill applicable and not rescindfed by revisions in canon law (as was found on Vatican website).
Neither does the Sacramentorum Sactitatis Tutela in 1983 revisions constitute any rescinding.
At least one source claimed investigations of a prosecutorial nature were being pursue against Radzinger since January 2005 in Harris County, Texas(annefreespirit.50megs.com – contact :
pressoffice@anticlericale.net)
The facts as reported by Moriel are not inaccurate.
Respectfully & Sincerely,
JJ Prasch
Thank you for your response Mr Prasch.
I’ll address your points one by one.
“First of all, on behalf of Moriel and myself our apologetic regrets for any mistaken assumptions
you were acting in defense of the Roman Catholic church or its adjuncts (which from your remarks does not appear to be the case).”
There is no need to apologise to me for that. I wonder whether Carol Champion is the best person to do public relations for your ministry, though, as she comes across as aggressive and emotional.
“I would point however you appear inaccurate in your position.”
I’ll gladly correct any mistakes that I have made in my public comments.
“The Texas legal reference as cited does employ the term ‘prosecution’ in certain criminally related civil litigation.”
I’ve looked the reference she cited and I cannot find any mention of the word ‘prosecution.’ Could you please provide me with a hyperlink directly to the page that substantiates your claim?
“I would also point you to article by legal editorialist of associated Press (9.20.2005)
that “Bush grants criminal immunity”. This remains in public domain (eg. godlesswonder.blogspot.com0.”
There are several issues here. The first is that the title of the Associated Press piece to which you refer to is shown by most publications as being “U.S. Says Pope Immune from Abuse Suits” (for example U.S. Says Pope Immune From Abuse Suits, U.S. Says Pope Immune From Abuse Suits, and US says pope has immunity in suit alleging coverup. It was a blogger, the so called “Godless Wonder”, that gave his post the title “Bush Grants Pope Criminal Immunity.” It was not the Associated Press nor any legal editor. The Associated Press never said anything about “Criminal Immunity.” I am surprised that you consider someone calling themselves “Godless Wonder” a reliable source of information.
The second issue is that of the real article distributed by the Associated Press, and its content. Surely you should know that you should not uncritically accept everything you read in the press, even if a story appears to provide good ammunition to fire at your ideological foes. As I have shown in my post above, when one goes to the primary references, such as the legal decision itself, it is clear that the press were, as they often are, putting a sensationalist spin on the events and that the decision by the U.S. Government, and by the Court itself, were a routine application of international law which limits the jurisdiction of domestic courts against foreign Heads-of-State. I have cited the legal decision itself and an article by an expert in international law expert to substantiate my claims but all you have done in response is to point to a post by an atheist polemicist.
“Additionally the De Delicitis Gravioribus Epistilus notation of May 18,2001 – the terms are
sdrtill applicable and not rescindfed by revisions in canon law (as was found on Vatican website).”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. De delictis gravioribus is a present part of Roman Catholic canon law. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. It implemented new norms for dealing with sexual abuse and brought an end to Crimen sollicitationis. If you want to argue that De delictis gravioribus was some sort of conspiratorial document you will have to prove your claim by citing reputable references.
“Neither does the Sacramentorum Sactitatis Tutela in 1983 revisions constitute any rescinding.”
Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela is simply the enabling legislation produced by the authority of the Pope. It is coupled with De delictis gravioribus, which sets out the new norms. As I have quoted above, De delictis gravioribus clearly supercedes Crimen sollicitationis. De delictis gravioribus says Crimen sollicitationis was “in force until now” (emphasis added.) For something to have been in force “until now” it must no longer be in force.
“At least one source claimed investigations of a prosecutorial nature were being pursue against Radzinger since January 2005 in Harris County, Texas(annefreespirit.50megs.com – contact :
pressoffice@anticlericale.net)”
There is a big difference between claims being made of investigations of a prosecutorial nature versus those claims actually being an accurate assessment of what has happened, and an even bigger difference between that and the claim that you made which was that a criminal prosecution had been launched. Anyone can make a claim but they need to back it up with a reference of some kind, and I have gone to the trouble of showing hyperlinks to all my references. You have not, so it’s hard for critically minded individuals to accept your claims. All I see is what appears to be some link to an anti-Catholic website called anticlericale.net (No taleban! No Vatican!), hardly a reliable source of information.
In an article by Kathy Shaw in 2003 inaccurately titled ‘Vatican Document Instructed Secrecy in Abuse Cases’ there is mention of Shea and another lawyer, Carmen Durso, handing copies of Crimen sollicitationis to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2003 in the hope of some kind of some kind of action against the Catholic Church by U.S. Federal Authorities. As is clear from the fact that no action was taken, the authorities clearly did not buy into Shea’s conspiracy theory.
I have gone as far as to deliberately cite a left-wing, anti-hierarchy, anti-conservative, dissident priest and Church critic with expertise in canon law as one of my sources, because he has no conceivable bias towards the Church (he has testified against them in legal actions) and is in fact the one that ‘leaked’ Crimen sollicitationis to Shea in the first place. Even that man, Thomas Doyle, doesn’t believe that Crimen sollicitationis is a conspiracy to cover up child abuse. When even the Church’s biggest critics aren’t buying into the conspiracy, it takes a very rare person to do so.
“The facts as reported by Moriel are not inaccurate.”
I beg to differ. I encourage you to read the following articles, in full, before commenting on the subject again as you appear to be seriously misinformed on the nature and effect of Crimen sollicitationis.
The first is my article on Crimen sollicitationis, followed by my article on Thomas Doyle. For a critic’s view of Crimen sollicitationis you should read Thomas Doyle’s Commentary on Crimen sollicitationis. For a conservative counter-point, you should consult Edward Peters’ ‘Smearing the Pope’. Both are .PDF files. The definitive piece of journalism on the subject, though, is by Andrew Walsh and is titled ‘Instructions From the Vatican.’
I also notice that in your latest article against the Pope (titled ‘Wanted’,) you have completely eliminated the word ‘prosecution’ from it. Am I to believe that you now agree with my critique?
Firest of all being a Christian with good Catholic Christian friends im not into inter-denominational strife,it seems the devil has most of the best minds in Christendom haggling against each other-what a sinful waste.
On the subject of pervert priests,there does not seem to be many of them prosecuted.
To me the real issue is that the men of God in the above discussion would rather be technically correct rather that stop the abuse of so many innocents.
First of all being a Christian with good Catholic Christian friends im not into inter-denominational strife,it seems the devil has most of the best minds in Christendom haggling against each other-what a sinful waste.
On the subject of pervert priests,there does not seem to be many of them prosecuted.
To me the real issue is that the men of God in the above discussion would rather be technically correct rather that stop the abuse of so many innocents.
Oh that Christ would come and restore all things, and clean up His house. And indeed He will. The time is short. May those who suffer or who have suffered at the hands of those who have operated in Christ’s own name, cry out to Jesus Christ alone, just as Peter did when he began to sink after walking a bit on the water to Jesus – Lord save me! He will hear the humble cry of those in need. May those who lead others in Christ’s own name lead in true humility and holiness and tenderness of heart (this does not mean – with cap in hand or in nice speeches; Jesus never did this). And may those leaders in lead in Christ’s name who have acted unjustly repent and seek God while they can. The time is short. He will come suddenly to His temple. What will He find there? Grace and peace to all those in Jesus Christ.
Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees. You are prepared to focus on this technicality (a tree) in order to paint as unreliable the overarching message concerning the Vatican (the wood).
In this case it becomes like the splinter and the log!!!
Hello CN
I attempted to assess the credibility of Moriel Ministries by assessing a number of their claims. It turns out that, in my view, a number of them are false. So, in regard to your criticism, I have demonstrated that the individual claims (“the wood”) are unsound, so how can the big message (“the trees”) have any integrity? After all, every big claim is made up of smaller ones and if the smaller claims are false it’s not clear how the big ones can be true.
TJW