The purpose of this Public Forum - Part II is to publish communications sent to us, communications which require no response from us, yet, we feel that their content may be beneficial for the spiritual health of the Faithful.
We reserve the right to choose which communications will be published and to edit them as necessary for clarity. The identity of the correspondent will be kept confidential unless requested otherwise.
European voters are set aside in relation to maybe more than 80,000 rules of laws and harmonisations. We cannot change the content by putting our vote in the ballot box.
Why not insist on the principle of democracy which would say: All laws must be approved by a majority in a national or European Parliament. This does not mean that all 85,832 pieces of hard and soft law must actually be approved by members of parliaments.Those elected by the voters may delegate the more technical decisions to specialised organs.
We would still have democracy if those powers that had been delegated to the common level were able to be brought back by a simple majority in Parliament if necessary. The fact that this is no longer possible means that there is no democracy for the change of these 80,000 hard and soft laws.
[ Info expanded in  ]And, quoting from  [underlined by me, bold at source]:
The former German president, Roman Herzog, who also served as president of the German Constitutional Court and President of the first Constitutional Convention establishing the Charter of fundamental rights for the EU wrote in Die Welt on 21/01/2007 that 84 % of all German laws now originate from Brussels.References:
“It raises the question of whether one unreservedly can call the Federal Republic of Germany a parliamentary democracy at all”, he wrote and added:
“EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers", he wrote.
Herzog is right. In the European Union the vast majority of laws are still being prepared and decided by un-elected civil servants behind closed doors. Democracy has become a derogation in all 27 member states.
October 21, 2009
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi,
Permanent Observer to the United Nations
Dear Archbishop Tomasi,
I recently read the statement attributed to you and addressed to the United Nations. This of course, was the Holy See’s response to the statement of the International Humanist and Ethical Union of September 8, 2009.
I am aware that statements of this nature, when presented by officials of the Holy See, are usually prepared by staff members. In this instance it would benefit the Holy See and you as well to dismiss the staff member who prepared this report in your name. I say this because the report contains blatantly inaccurate information and reflects a level of research that is amateurish at best. There is a great deal of up-to-date data on sexual abuse by Catholic clergy available yet your writer chose secondary sources based on out of date information which of course seriously damages the credibility of the statement.
Every paragraph contains erroneous information. For example, shifting the focus from pedophilia to ephebophilia is meaningless. The root of the problem is not the nature of the sexual dysfunction of the perpetrator but the well-documented reality that the Catholic hierarchy has responded in a consistently irresponsible, non-pastoral and dishonest manner. The most reliable research data presents two facets of the problem: sexually dysfunctional clerics who have sexually abused minors consisting of at least 6% of the clergy population in the U.S., and, more important, the documented evidence that at least 66.6% of the bishops in the U.S. have, at one time or another, covered up at least one and in most cases, several instances of known sexual abuse by clerics which is criminal behavior in both Canon Law and civil law.
The statement claims that most allegations of sex abuse by clergy are from non-Catholic denominations. The source is a 2002 survey mentioned in the Christian Science Monitor. At this point this information is inaccurate in light of events between 2002 and 2009. There are no reliable statistics to support this claim. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention specifically rejected calls to create a data base. The secular media has covered claims of child sexual abuse by clergy in several denominations including the Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Assemblies of God,
The fact that there is sexual abuse of minors in other professions is important but irrelevant to the issue. The Catholic Church has a role in society that is radically different from that of the Boy Scouts, the public schools or any other private or public institution. The Church holds itself out as the source of authentic moral teaching. It asks that all of its bishops and priests be accorded complete trust and respect. It has betrayed this trust countless times through sexual abuse of the most vulnerable of its members and when called to account, has responded in a defensive and dishonest manner which has only brought further discredit to the clergy and to the entire Church. I’m sure you can see that the comparison of the Church to secular institutions is a meaningless distraction. Calling attention to sexual abuse of minors in other organizations or other religious denominations does not alter the reality of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy nor does it mitigate the responsibility of the hierarchy.
As to the Church cleaning its own house, I am quite certain you would want to know that the efforts of the
More important, the bishops’ organizational responses and their profuse public statements of apology, regret and promise of future change are rendered not only meaningless but insulting in light of the fact that many continue to place known sexually abusing clerics back into ministry. Others refuse to inform the public of the identity of credibly accused clerics and many others continue to punish the victims through abusive court proceedings. These proceedings by the way are financed by money donated by the faithful which would be better spent on help for the clergy’s victims.
Getting rid of every priest and deacon who ever abused a minor in any way is the general response of the Catholic bishops of the
The statement issued in your name contains information that is inaccurate. The more important problem for the Holy See and for the official Church however, is the tone of the statement. It reflects an adolescent level of emotional response. As such, it defeats its own purpose. Rather than lend any credibility to the response of the Holy See and the hierarchy to the vast problem of clergy sexual abuse, it further erodes what little credibility might have been left.
Fire your writers. They make you look uninformed and callous.
Sincerely in Christ,
Thomas Doyle, J.C.D., C.A.D.C.
 A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States, National Review Board, USCCB, February 27, 2004; The Nature and Scope of the Problem of the Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons in the United States, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, February 27, 2004. Part 3, 3.2.
 Brooks Egerton, “Two Thirds of Bishops Let Accused Priests Work,”
 Eric Gorski, “Southern Baptists Reject Sex Abuse Database,”
 Bob Allen, “Insurance companies shed light on extent of sex abuse in Protestant Churches,” Ethicsdaily.com, July 6, 2007; Associated Press, “A look at abuse data in Protestant Churches,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 14, 2007; William Moyer, “Child abuse by Protestant clergy difficult to document,” Binghampton Press, August 27, 2007; Rose French, “3 Insurers shed light on Protestant church sex abuse,” Houston Chronicle, June 14, 2007.
 Confirmed: Bishops Thomas Dupre, Patrick Zeimann, Joseph Ferrario, James McCarthy, Juan Arzube, Anthony O’Connell, Daniel Ryan, Keith Symons,
 Dan McCormack, Chicago (Card. George); Fr. David LeBlanc,
Copyright 2009 by The M+G+R Foundation. All rights reserved.
Past Public ForumsHOME PAGE
If the above dated image does not appear on this document, it means that you are not viewing the original document from our servers. Should you have reason to doubt the authenticity of the document, we recommend that you access our server again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload" button of your Browser to view the original document.
If you wish to contact The M+G+R Foundation, please Click Here and follow the instructions.
You may freely reproduce and distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.