Madeleine McCann: Lying To Children, Ian McEwan And Questions
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “McCann pals face new quiz”
“It is understood Jane Tanner, Russell O’Brien and David Payne, three of the Tapas Seven, may be questioned over alleged inconsistencies in their statements”
“Understood” and “may.” Such are the facts. Such is the reporting
Say the McCanns’ family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “There is no suggestion Kate and Gerry will be re-interviewed”
And “suggestion”
DAILY RECORD: “One Last Try To Get Maddie Answers”
“Staff at the resort where Madeleine McCann vanished have again been quizzed by detectives. It comes as they prepare to re-interview pals of Kate and Gerry McCann in a last-ditch bid to crack the case”
Anyone we know questioned?
“Pool cleaner Luis Antonio, the husband of suspect Robert Murat’s girlfriend Michaela Walczuch, was one of five questioned in Praia da Luz”
Any reason why they were quizzed once more?
A judicial source tells Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas: “Several police interviews have been repeated. The statements are being analysed to try to find any lead that could result in a new line of investigation”
Analysing statements, eh. Technical stuff…
In his internet blog yesterday, Gerry McCann vowed not to give up looking for his young daughter, adding: “We hope the police are similarly determined”
DAILY EXPRESS: “POLICE LAST CHANCE TO FIND MADELEINE”
“Five staff members who were at the Ocean Club complex on the night she went missing have been quizzed in recent days as pressure mounts to conclude the investigation”
Why those five? Which five? The WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER does not say
THE SUN: “Cops’ final bid to solve Maddie”
Michaela Walczuch “who denies any involvement in Maddie’s disappearance – was allegedly spotted in Zaio, Morocco, on June 15, moments after a girl resembling Madeleine was seen being dragged away by an African woman”
Three of the McCanns’ freins witll be spoken to by police.
A “source” says: “It sounded like they were concerned about timeline inconsistencies. But if you have nine people not wearing watches, it would be suspicious if their times matched exactly”
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “Lying to children”
“From white lies to whoppers, vagueness with the truth is part of parenthood. But as Katie Tait learns from one psychologist, deceiving children is never justified”
Recently I told Kitty, our youngest child, that the police car had pulled us over because she was screaming in the back of the car (in fact I was, stupidly, speeding, but partly as a result of her noise). She is now mousey-quiet on journeys. My caprice over the tooth fairy has reached such an extent that the correspondence between “Molly” and my daughter Agnes fills two whole shoe boxes.
Then there are the areas that I don’t really want them to know the whole truth about. Will they get scared if I tell them that Madeleine McCann, whose picture they have seen everywhere, was taken from her bed? What about the news stories of dogs biting children to death? Will they ever go near next door’s puppy again? To me, vagueness with the truth is part of being a human being and certainly part of being a parent. But apparently, I am deeply wrong.
Maybe Katie’s children can read the truth in her article?
THE AGE (Aus): “The private and the public”
An interview with Ian McEwan, the author: “Journalists rang him because the disappearance of four-year-old Madeleine bore a dark similarity to the plot of his 1987 novel, The Child in Time, when a father has his three-year old girl stolen from him in a supermarket”
DVDTOWN: “GONE BABY GONE”
If you’re thinking that this film was a quick knockoff inspired by the real-life Madeleine McCann case–the little girl who disappeared from her family’s Portugal vacation home while her mom and dad were at a party not far away–it’s really just another case of life imitating art. Lehane’s novel about a four-year-old girl who turns up missing under similar circumstances was published way back in 1994.
Madeleine McCann: The Voyeurs, The Gouls and The Fear
Posted: 16th, February 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,673) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
February 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
1684
Carmen Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 2:54 am
MODS AND ADMIN
__________
Carmen: Do you mean that the UK doesn’t recognize the Catholic Church nor its teachings, i.e. Seal of Confession? I’m curious what would a Catholic person do who committed a serious crime and confessed to a Priest in the UK, would the Priest have to testify under UK laws? That would be a mind-blower to any Catholic who thought they could get away with a major crime, tell a Priest in Confession for forgiveness over there …
By the way, I found a court case late last night from over here that a prisoner in jail for murder confessed to a Priest his sin and unbenownst to the Priest or prisoner it was being taped. Prosecution tried to use it in court to prove his case and it was forbidden by the Judge to be used because of the Seal of Confession.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:17 am
867
Kiwi Says:
February 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Not sure if I have missed a response from Ian but if not, I would still like to know the answer to my previous query. Ian - if you think there was no abduction, what is it you think happened to Madeleine ? why ? and where do you think she is now ?
……………………………………………………..
You know how it is when you walk along the pavement and people bump into you, or make you step off into the road ? or they walk straight out of a shop and into you like you are invisible ? and you feel like saying “…hullloooo?? walking here !! ” well - I am beginning to feel like that with Ian, see above…..
February 18th, 2008 at 8:00 am
New Thread !!!!!!!!
February 18th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Is this the calm before the storm?
February 18th, 2008 at 4:42 am
1677 CSN
{{{{{{{{{{CSN}}}}}}}}}}}}} Sure I forgive ya…I’m relieved as I couldn’t work it out. It can’t be easy trying to suss out subtleties of meaning in a second language.
Sleep well and sweet dreams
February 18th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Here is an ‘unusal’ case when after the person dies the Priest testifies
Priest breaks seal of confession over Bronx murder
Print Email Search
Search
Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Stumbleupon
What are these?
Change font size: A | A | ABy David Usborne in New York
Thursday, 19 July 2001
For ten years, Joseph Towle knew the truth about a fatal stabbing in 1987 of a young man in a Bronx park and yet he said nothing. He had information that the two men convicted in the case and sent to prison were innocent of the crime and that the real murderers had got away. Now, at last, he has told his story.
For ten years, Joseph Towle knew the truth about a fatal stabbing in 1987 of a young man in a Bronx park and yet he said nothing. He had information that the two men convicted in the case and sent to prison were innocent of the crime and that the real murderers had got away. Now, at last, he has told his story.
The secret was revealed in a federal appeals court on Monday. The witness is better known as Father Towle, a Jesuit priest. In giving his testimony and finally revealing the identity of the real killer, he was performing his civic duty. Some wondered, however, whether he has broken sacred laws of the Church in doing so.
The seeds of Father Towle’s awful dilemma were planted one afternoon in 1989, when he was asked to visit a troubled young man in his Bronx parish. That man, Jesus Fornes, told him that he and another man had killed Jose Rivera in the park two years earlier. Fornes was owning up, he claimed, because two of his friends had been wrongly convicted of the murder and were about to receive sentence.
By coming forward now, Father Towle has made himself pivotal to an appeal hearing for one of the two men convicted of the murder, Jose Morales. He, and the other convicted man, Ruben Montalvo, were given sentences of 15 years to life in prison for the murder. After hearing the priest’s belated testimony, the judge in the case indicated he would decide within two weeks whether to grant Morales a new trial.
Father Towle began to consider breaking his silence after Fornes was shot and killed in 1997. And yet he was fiercely attacked in court by prosecutors who argued that he was in breach of Catholic teaching by revealing the content of his original conversation with Mr Fornes, notwithstanding that the killer had since died.
One of the cornerstones of the Catholic faith is that nothing said in confession can ever be revealed. Confession, the Church instructs, is between the sinner and God, with the priest acting only as an intermediary. Father Towle told the court, however, that his conversation with Mr Fornes was not a formal confession, but a conversation only. He did concede, though, that after the conversation had ended, he gave Mr Fornes absolution, whereby the sins are forgiven by God.
“It was not a private confession,” the priest said later, responding to questions from journalists. “He came to me with the deliberate purpose of making it not secret but of revealing it,” he argued. “And then he did reveal it.”
Indeed he did. Mr Fornes went to the courthouse on the day his two friends were sentenced and spilt everything to the lawyer of the defendants. His candour came too late for the court, however.
Father Towle, now a priest at St Ignatius Church in the Bronx, clearly spent years agonising over the implications of the case. “Naturally, it has taken a long time,” he said. “There is nothing I am more careful about in my whole life than confession.”
Among other people who had heard the same story as Father Towle was a legal aid lawyer, Stanley Cohen. When Fornes realised that he had come forward too late to avert the sentencing of his friends, he had gone to Mr Cohen for advice on how he could save them from a life in prison. Mr Cohen said he could not prevent it and that Fornes should stay silent unless he wanted to spend the rest of his days in prison himself.
Mr Cohen also testified at this week’s appeal hearing. “I am here because I can’t sleep, I can’t eat and I can’t live with myself,” he told the court. He said it had always been “very clear that he [Fornes] had committed murder and these other men had not.”
Father Towle eventually agreed to submit a written affidavit about what he knew two years ago. Before agreeing to testify, however, he felt he had to seek the advice of his church leaders. In the end, the New York Archdiocese told him that it would be appropriate to tell the truth.
“Father Towle, given the circumstances as we understand it, was not violating any church law by testifying,” a spokesman for the archdiocese said. “It was not a sacramental confession, in which confidentiality would be absolute.”
February 18th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Carmen, is some reading if you are on the graveyard shift tonight.
The Seal of the Confessional
——————————————————————————–
Straight Answers By Fr. William Saunders
HERALD Columnist
Can a priest ever tell someone another person’s confession? — A reader in Annandale
The standard of secrecy protecting a confession outweighs any form of professional confidentiality or secrecy. When a person unburdens his soul and confesses his sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance, a very sacred trust is formed. The priest must maintain absolute secrecy about anything that a person confesses. For this reason, confessionals were developed with screens to protect the anonymity of the penitent. This secrecy is called “the sacramental seal,” “the seal of the confessional,” or “the seal of confession.”
The sacramental seal is inviolable. Quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, “…It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682) mandated that confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in the confession that would “displease” the penitent or reveal his identity.
(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock’s “I Confess,” which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)
However, a priest may ask the penitent for a release from the sacramental seal to discuss the confession with the person himself or others. For instance, if the penitent wants to discuss the subject matter of a previous confession — a particular sin, fault, temptation, circumstance — in a counseling session or in a conversation with the same priest, that priest will need the permission of the penitent to do so. For instance, especially with the advent of “face-to-face confession,” I have had individuals come up to me and say, “Father, remember that problem I spoke to you about in confession?” I have to say, “Please refresh my memory,” or “Do you give me permission to discuss this with you now?”
Or if a priest needs guidance from a more experienced confessor to deal with a difficult case of conscience, he first must ask the permission of the penitent to discuss the matter. Even in this case, the priest must keep the identity of the person secret.
What happens if a priest violates the seal of confession? The Catechism (No. 1467) cites the Code of Canon Law (No. 1388.1) in addressing this issue, which states, “A confessor who directly violates the seal of confession incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he does so only indirectly, he is to be punished in accord with the seriousness of the offense.” From the severity of the punishment, we can clearly see how sacred the sacramental seal of confession is in the eyes of the Church.
Actually, the Church’s position in this matter has long-standing credibility. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) produced one of the first comprehensive teachings concerning the Sacrament of Penance. Addressing various problems ranging from abuses to heretical stands against the sacrament, the council defended the sacrament itself, stipulated the need for the yearly sacramental confession of sins and reception of the Holy Eucharist, and imposed disciplinary measures upon priest confessors. The council decreed, “Let the confessor take absolute care not to betray the sinner through word or sign, or in any other way whatsoever. In case he needs expert advice he may seek it without, however, in any way indicating the person. For we decree that he who presumes to reveal a sin which has been manifested to him in the tribunal of penance is not only to be deposed from the priestly office, but also to be consigned to a closed monastery for perpetual penance.”
A beautiful story (perhaps embellished with time) which captures the reality of this topic is the life of St. John Nepomucene (1340-93), the vicar general to the Archbishop of Prague. King Wenceslaus IV, described as a vicious, young man who easily succumbed to rage and caprice, was highly suspicious of his wife, the Queen. St. John happened to be the Queen’s confessor. Although the king himself was unfaithful, he became increasingly jealous and suspicious of his wife, who was irreproachable in her conduct. Although Wencelaus tortured St. John to force him to reveal the Queen’s confessions, he would not. In the end, St. John was thrown into the River Moldau and drowned on March 20, 1393.
Each priest realizes that he is the ordained mediator of a very sacred and precious sacrament. He knows that in the confessional, the penitent speaks not so much to him, but through him to the Lord. Therefore, humbled by his position, the priest knows that whatever is said in confession must remain secret at all costs.
Another interesting side to this question is the obligation of the laity: An interpreter needed for someone to make a confession or anyone who gains knowledge of a confession (such as overhearing someone’s confession) is also obligated to preserve secrecy (Code of Canon Law, No. 983.2). For such a person to violate the secrecy of another person’s confession is a mortal sin and warrants “a just penalty, not excluding excommunication” (No. 1388.2). A person who falsely accuses a priest of breaking the seal of the confession incurs a mortal sin and perhaps other canonical penalties, including excommunication.
Clearly, the Church regards the seal of confession as sacred. Every person — whether priest or laity — must take the obligation to preserve the secrecy of confession absolutely seriously.
Just a note: If you have enjoyed reading “Straight Answers” for the past six years, a book, entitled Straight Answers (400 pages) is available with 100 “straight answers” about the faith. This book may be purchased directly or through mail order from the Queen of Apostles Family Gift Shop (703/354-0742), the Pauline Book and Media Center (703/549-3806), and other local Catholic gift and book stores in the area.
Fr. Saunders is dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.
Copyright ©1999 Arlington Catholic Herald, Inc. All rights reserved
February 18th, 2008 at 1:56 am
1677
False Flag
I’ve come back ,searching a trhead about Timor (1 of my battles )
And i saw your post
I apoligize ,i have no right to be rude, but sometimes,here, after having read some posters ,i began to get nervous, and just don’t trust anybody
If isend you a big virtuall kiss ,d’ya forgive me ?
I’ll pay special attention to your posts , i’m alaways trying to read what the pros are saying, and sometimes i don’t read those who really are valluabe
Till tomorrow
xx
February 18th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Could be that the staff at the holiday place had seen a lot of things before happen and no one died. Money is a good silencer and no are threats. Better to be paid off and say niltch that lose one’s life.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:32 am
1530
Marie Nicholas Says:
February 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
1515 Mods and Admins
In the US, there is something called priviledged information, isn’t there? And in France lawyers don’t have to testify against their clients. Do they have to in England ? I don’t know if in UK, a Catholic priest, or an Anglican parson would have to testify against someone who would have confessed their sins.
____________
A lawyer in the US may NOT divulge information his client tells him! The Seal of Confession in the Catholic Church is recognized world-wide! Not matter how you try to ‘cut it’ a Catholic Priest does not break the Seal of Confession or is ever ordered to!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:22 am
1675
dcb
They are very young.The memory of events will come back later on in their life I am sure of it.
They will have a sense of discomfort about madeleine”s disappearance and may be they will start asking questions.Anyhow whatever they maight have said has never been reported…for good reasons.
Must go to bed now.Sorry.
catch up with you tomorrow
February 18th, 2008 at 1:20 am
1438 CSN
“Funny , yuou didn’t ask me ,why only the British MW Staff was afraid ;)”
er….first I’ve heard that that is so……..is it ? I thought that you originally posted that all the MW staff were afraid ? No ? You still seem to me to be implying that I am not to be trusted, CSN. What have I done to cause this reaction from you ? You have always been one of my very favourite posters and it is disappointing to me.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Nite Dcb….I think were the last ones.
Sleep well
Dont think too much….
See you tomorrow
February 18th, 2008 at 1:18 am
1674
jo Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 1:16 am
++++++++++++++++++++
But 2 year olds do not lie - don’t you think that by now they would have said something to Aunt, uncle granny or whoever?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:16 am
1669
dcb
I know.
have you noticed that no info has been given about the twins and reaction right after Madeleine”s disappearance?
They would say they are too young to remember a thing etc….also they seem to be very sound sleepers.They didnt wake up when the abductor came in nor after during the big commotion….where they in the room really?
I dont know.There are many many things we dont know…
February 18th, 2008 at 1:15 am
jo
The Cortes parents haven’t given us any reason (yet) to doubt them. It is the McCann case that makes me doubt almost everybody now.
See you tomorrow.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Have to leave again. Catch up with you all Monday. Bye!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
1661
Jolie
They DO need the cash there is no doubt.
Do youunderstand why the Cortes have suddenly taken action?
They didnt know a thing about the posters.Believe me
Juan said “the cops are looking at everybody and we are all suspects,us her own parents and all our friends and family.Let the cops do their job…..”
They thought about private detectives but they cant pay for it at all…
I know gitanos can be doggy but not if there is a child involved .Nothing to compare with the mcFools
February 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
1666
Pilimary
Ok
I’m also tired
till tomorrow
Sweeet dreams
<<<<Gone
February 18th, 2008 at 1:09 am
1664
jo Says:
February 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
+++++++++++++++++++
Jo there is a lot of opinion on here that something happened before the night of the 3rd - I am only questioning that if that is the case - what on earth did they tell the twins? The twins would have asked where Madeleine was.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:09 am
1660
Pilimary
Yep
The typicall gypsies ,are very dangerous.
We also ,have here ,and i know how they can be
But not All
February 18th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Pal, I’m exhausted, and have to work tomorrow…
F… them all!!!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:08 am
CSN
Drop me a line then
February 18th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Jolie
Who knows… Everything can happen. This is an absolute madness
February 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
1659
dcb
Children should be seen not heard and not told the truth….
Who knows if Madeleine really disappeared before the 3rd?
Who knows what has really happened to the poor wee girl?
When are we going to know the truth?
etc… etc..
February 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
1657
Pilimary
I love Madrid , one day,i’ll try to return there
February 18th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Jo
yep. Tocarles los cojones a los Cortes (to touch the balls to the Cortes) has been a big mistake and a wrong step…..
February 18th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Yes, Jo. I am glad that the Cortes family is not afraid to come forward to challenge the McCanns. I only hope that they are doing it for the best of reasons and not as a way to make money for themselves. I have read on the forum that the Spanish police are looking closely at Mr. Cortes. There is not serious suspicion at this time that he is involved in his daughter’s disappearance, is there?
I’ve gotten so skeptical, that I even wonder if there is a remote chance the Cortes parents could be involved but use this protest as a way of looking more innocent–a PR move of their own. Please tell me I’m wrong to think this!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:04 am
The mcc don’t know how (dangerous) are the gipsies. Don’t want it to sound rcist (im not racist at all) but gipsies don’t joke. And don’t want to be fooled (don’twaht anybody laugh at them)
February 18th, 2008 at 1:03 am
If something happened to Madeleine before the night of the 3rd, where did they tell the twins that she was?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:02 am
1655
Pilimary
Read my last post 1656
Ya verras