This is an extremely complex affair. Any perspective on the issue requires wading through various legal and ecclesiastical documents. More seems to have been done to set a 'fence at the top of the cliff' in the Catholic Church than in other organisations but the media's focus on the Church must have surely played a role in this. To my mind there are three outstanding matters that will need to be addressed over the next decade:

1. Identifying what can be of most relief for victims. More formal organisations could be set up within the Church, like Zimmerman House in Newcastle, to coordinate help. Various prayers and recognition of these crimes could be attached to the penance of Ember days, Good Friday, etc.
2. Accountability of bishops who have been negligent and an accompanying 'purification of memory'. There are existing remedies in Canon Law that can be explored and implemented.
3. Greater familiarity with contemporary media by the Holy See (and corresponding communication strategies)

I expect we will see many more of these articles in the coming months. But it would be good to see them morph from their present stage of denial, into something a little more positive.

>>Commentators seem to be more focused on how they can associate Pope Benedict XVI with child sex abuse in the most remote way thinkable, as opposed to actually seeking justice for the victims of abuse.<<

This is the stuff of conjuring tricks - hey, look over there, nothing up my sleeve.

The two issues are entirely different. And should therefore be treated separately by the press and by other commentators.

The issue being addressed is not remediation, but association. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask - how much did Cardinal Ratzinger know about what was going on, and how did he act upon any criminal activity that had been uncovered?

How much he is doing to rectify the situation is indeed a valid story. But a different one entirely - not to mention one that has a different angle to it, depending upon the Pope's previous involvement.

I do not like witchhunts. They tend to bring out the worst in sensationalist journalism and shock-jockery. But it does no-one any favours to attempt to muddy the waters with some "look, over there" diversion.

Incidentally, I take leave to doubt the veracity of this piece of added colour.

"However, I was horrified to hear an educated member of society recently state "Hasn't the Pope been accused of paedophilia"?"

Oh, please.

An "educated member of society" who doesn't read the newspapers or listen to the news?

I don't think so.

The bishops have cleaned up their act but only after a long time and after revelations in the media. I think that many still do not 'get i'.

Now as far as the media themselves, they have hypocritical behaviours.
Many TV and print and internet media advertise ( take money) for brothels, prostitutes, so-called 'phone sex'whilst at the sme time getting all indignant ( feigned) when women get raped because of the viewing of these materials.
There is also pornography which is acted out by young malesincluding some football players who act out scenes together as if it were out of central porn casting.
Does the media report on the huge numbers of both pedophiles and non-pedophile sex tours of south -east Asia? Womena dn men as well as boys and girls are sexually exploited by Aussies, Germans, Yanks, Canadians, Italians, Arabs etc you name it. Where is the media for the abused?

Nah. The media is only out to get Catholic priests and to lump them as 'pedophiles. Yet the majority of abuse is not pedophilic but abuse of teenagers and those in their 20s. And the ratio is around 4:1 homosexual in nature. Now the media would tell the truth because they support the homosexual lifestyle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcfDGFSpus

Mary, I too have faith in humanity; faith that it will shy away from the types of behaviour and cover-up that underpins the things you complain about.

J Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich when a psychiatrist recommended to his office an abusive priest - Hullermann - was untreatable and should be removed from the presence of children. That did not happen.

Ratzinger was Cardinal for the CDF for over 20 years, and was known as JP IIs Rotweiler. In 2001 he re-iterated the policy of Crimens Solicitations that all abuse allegation were to be kept "in house". He delayed cases, despite the pleas of local Bishops overseeing those cases, such as the case of Michael Teta -

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rome-waited-to-ban-pedophile-priest-20100403-rkb7.html

Ratzinger has tried to continue to administer the cover-up as Poope. He manipulated Irish Church hierarchy into deferring to the Vatican, and now has criticized them for covering-up as a form of secondary bullying. Shameful.

The recent responses blaming homosexuality in general (despite it having been a big part of the priesthood) is shameful, and to liken it to anti-semitism - when the Catholic church has been the biggest anti-semetic organisation in recent millenia - is despicable.

The debauched behaviour has been going on Catholic monasteries and seminaries for centuries, and was one of the factors in the bi-polar response of the German Catholic church to the rise of Hitler, as Hitler was able to criticise the debauchery as part of his divide and conquer approach.

For Webby to say the abuse was [only] "of teenagers and those in their 20s" is just weird. The issue is the long-standing debauched behaviour and denial around that. Immoral, unethical, and all based on fictitious premisses devloped into a political movement by and for the ancient Romans (that underpinned the fall of that empire, too)

Sexual abuse occurs across all cultures, religions as well as those peoples of pre-Christian times.
The Catholics bishops ( most of them) are facing up to the fact that they need to respect St Paul's instruction to us to adhere to the secualr laws insofar as they are right and just eg criminal law reporting and penalties for sex offenders. This is rendering to Caesar what belongs to Caesar as Christ taught.

I do however have a problem with obstinate club mentality thinking of a few bishops who had to be metaphorically dragged kicking and screaming into assisting the secular law enforcement authorities with these crimes against men, women, boys and girls.

I am also concerned with secualr religion haters ( particularly those who hate Catholics and the Catholic Church). They are insincere because they only focus upon priests and also overuse the term 'pedophile priests' whenin most cases of abuse ( by less than 4% of priests by the way) is that most abuse is against boys and young men. NOw secularists and the media do not report on this because of their support for homosexuality. This is the elephant in the room for the Catholic hating secularists who share much in common with fundamentalist Protestants. Time for Catholic haters to admit their hypocrisy and to widen their outrage to all offenders, not just some priests.

Most estimates are that about 33% of Catholic clergy and priests are homosexual

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

Mary and Webby,

A key issue is that the bishops, who were "minders" of the cover-ups have not been handed over to secular authorities, even if one assumes Benedict is leaning towards kicking-out front-ine priests known to have offended.

One interesting case, that as been discussed over recent similar threads, is that of Bishop Law, who was actually promoted by JP II, after a cover-up.

I tend to agree about Dawkins, Hutchens and Robertson, who probably are just trying keeping their names out in the public domain. Yet, there has been responsible lobby of more to be done, by other parts of the press: e.g., the Boston Globe and Catholic National Reporter.

Do you feel that cover-up bishops should be handed over to authorities and/or defrocked, or, even excommunicated? If not, why not?

If Benedict defrocked Law, then I (and many others?) would be less inclined to be critical of the Pope. Now that would send a clear rightful message.

The New York Times considers observers reviewing Benedict's behavour something like a Rorschach test. What do you see?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/europe/27vienna.html?src=mv

If only Benedict would take determined unambiguous firm action against the cover-up bishops. While he does not act, he looks too muck like the waywatd bishops, removed by degree only.

As many commentators elsewhere have commented, if Ratzinger's systematic and well-documented cover-up had been carried out by a senior executive of a multinational company that person would now be facing criminal charges and looking forward to several years in prison. But once again the proponents of religion demand a free pass. They're not subject to the laws of logic, after all -- why should they be subject to the laws of the lands in which they operate?

Jon J I think you need to wade through the actual documents themselves before stating something like "systematic coverup". Media reports that quote without context or even (at Times) factual reliability are not a substitute for the hard yakka of actually trawling through this stuff. Justice will not be served if we are prepared to conduct a trial 'by media'.

Justice for who, Gordo Pollo?

The accused? The abusers? Their protectors?

Or, the victims? The victims families? The Bishops and other church administrators who tried to do the right thing by the victims & their families, but were stymied by 'above'? ... or, stymied by threats of ex-communication (i.e. essentially sending the true-believers to hell!).

Here's a stymied Bishops dilemma

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rome-waited-to-ban-pedophile-priest-20100403-rkb7.html

Marry,
As Gordo Pollo says, this is an extremely complex affair, and I, an old man, admire your skill and determination to swim against the current of tendentious over-simplifications.

McReal,

justice concerns giving to each their due. This means that the facts of the matter must be ascertained. Whilst the media is right to focus attention on matters ecclesiastical there is also need for more informed reporting. If I had to rely upon secondary sources I would give more credence to John Allen than the The Sydney Morning Herald. Given the link you post perhaps you can tell me what the difference is, qua a priest's ability to reoffend, between a bishop removing a priest from ministry and having a Roman Congregation laicise that priest?

Godo Polo,

"Justice will not be served if we are prepared to conduct a trial 'by media' " - Gordo Polo

The reason there is "trial by media" is that Church prevents trial by a secular jury. Besides, several papers just report events. What is wrong with NY Times journalist's report I cited above?

The Mafia and Motor Cycle gangs have internal codes of law but those codes fall in the face of secular laws.

Jon J - "Ratzinger's systematic and well-documented cover-up" was neither systematic, documented or a 'cover-up'. You have taken a few tabloid headlines and converted them into an assumption that there is a huge conspiracy. As Gordo Pollo said, you should actually read the original documents to gain a proper understanding of what occurred.

McReal - Please give more evidence than the SMH, if you have been following the reports on the abuse crisis you will also know that the SMH has been the worse perpetrator of bad journalism and the publication of incorrect material on this issue.

Oliver - The point is that the perpetrators of the crime should have been reported to civil authorities, and I agree that where this has not been done, this was a huge unforgiveable mistake. However in regards to 'defrocking' Priests (actually the correct term is laicizing), the main reason behind this process is to allow a former-Priest to be free from his vow of celibacy. Fr Lawrence was on his death bed when the accusations came forward, what would be the point of 'defrocking' him then? Aside from that, the laicization of a Priest used to be a very rare occurrence in accordance with the Church laws at the time. Ratzinger was the one that changed this process to allow Priests to be more readily laicized in these circumstances.

Remember, all the examples given are cases that have occurred over 20-years ago. Since taking control of these cases in 2001, Ratzinger has come down very hard on sex abuse in the Church. His recent address in Rome showed that this crisis has deeply pained him, and he has promised to restore justice and peace in the Church.

I still fail to see why it is so complicated.

Gordo Pollo asserts:

>>This is an extremely complex affair. Any perspective on the issue requires wading through various legal and ecclesiastical documents.<<

Why does my perspective on the issue, that priests should be subject to the law of the land, require "wading through various legal and ecclesiastical documents"?

Makes no sense.

George wades in on the same theme.

>>As Gordo Pollo says, this is an extremely complex affair, and I, an old man, admire your skill and determination to swim against the current of tendentious over-simplifications<<

What exactly is being over-simplified here, George?

If the accusations didn't invariably meet with a ritualistic, ecclesiastic stonewall, there would be no need for speculation.

Simply stated, do you believe the accusations should be fully investigated by the courts? Or do you believe that the processes within the Church provide adequate governance?

Or is that an oversimplification?

The simple fact is that this abuse is world-wide and the protection of offenders is also world wide.
The only "complexity" is the fact that this completely blows away the story that Christianity bestows virtue....and this must be pretty hard to take for the faithful.
To the rest of us it is a case of disgusting abusive behaviour for those in a position of power. Articles such as this trying to pretend it is unfair to bring justice to evil-doers is just part of the apologists defence of their faith. ie. the Good of the Church is seen as higher than the Good of Law

Mary,

""in 1990, ... The Arizona church tribunal referred the [Reverend Michael Teta's molestation] case to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, ...

"In a signed letter dated June 8, 1992, Ratzinger advised Moreno he was taking control of the case, according to a copy provided to the AP from Lynne Cadigan, a lawyer who represented two of Teta's victims.

"Five years later, no action had been taken.

". 'This case has already gone on for seven years,' Moreno wrote Ratzinger on April 28, 1997, adding, 'I make this plea to you to assist me in every way you can to expedite this case.'

"It would be another seven years before Teta was laicised. ""

and read my post above - Tuesday, 27 April 2010 12:26:08 PM

Hullermann, etc, etc.

GordoPollo - the facts of many cases have long been sequestered in the Vatican, along with key Bishops and Cardinals who oversaw the obfuscation around the world. Victims have been secondarily abused by threats. Shameful.

It is up to Courts to “wade through” the legalities not Churches. When churches do not play by the rules of society, the “fourth estate” rightfully comes involved, hopefully, to support just civil authorities.

Mary,

Thank you for your reply.

I have simply been using the lay terminology of the press and OLO.

For me, a central concern is the bishops almost certainly have covered-up crimes and in the Law case, JP II actually promoted him. It is these bishops that have dodged the secular bullet.

Secrecy, too much autonomy and a brotherhood (same goes for the police and military) seems to act to protect insiders and keep adjudication in-house. Maybe, over the last decade, the front-line priests have been made to face secular justice, more so than previously. But, the cover-up bishops have managed escape justice. Although, not of direct implication for the abuse and cover-up of abuse cases, the Crimen Sollicitations, does give insight into how the Catholic Church will act to suppress openness and preserve secrets.

If Benedict has made strides in the right direction then that is to be commended. On the other hand, if cardinals and bishops have covered crimes, they to should face trial. “If” the last crime, was committed twenty years ago (which I doubt), outside statutes of limitation, then there should at least be ecclesiastical/career penalties. The Pope, (by way of illustration) could demote Law and send him to a small church in the Congo to humble him and where he could do penance. By way of comparison, Alexander II forced William the Conqueror into extended seclusion and the Normans were made to build Abbeys and pay reparations for the lost of life (sin) at the Battle of Hastings. Demoting bishops that escape prosecution would seem mild by comparison. If military leaders can face church judgements for sin; so too, should church leaders face secular judgements for secular crimes.

Well said Oliver.
I would add that to have any credibility as a "godly" organisation they should be aiming above and beyond the secular criminal code. What is the point of a church that barely upholds minimum ethical behaviour and expects to be taken seriously as a moral authority?

The above comments only highlight how complex this issue is. The Catholic Church should not be compared to the mafia or a bikie gang - however hypocritical you may think its members might be - the teachings of the Catholic Church are public and its activities are oriented towards the public good (I use the word oriented because there will be disagreement by commentators over both intention and effect with regard to this last claim). It operates and has operated across time and space - in Cuba and China today and behind the iron curtain in the 20th Century as much as it is a reality in Western democracies. So while the notion of releasing wayward priests to the secular arm makes sense in cases of sexual abuse, an across the board submission to the secular authorities does not make sense when the authorities are Mugabe's thugs or Castro's secret police. As regards the issue at hand, the cover-up of sexual abuse by clergy, some familiarity with Continental law is required in order to make sense of the documents (available on the Vatican website) already mentioned in these posts.

McReal - you have now posted some of the article you already put as a link but I am still awaiting a reply to my question.

They do nothing of the sort, Gordo Pollo.

>>The above comments only highlight how complex this issue is<<

You cannot fudge the issue by refusing to compare bikie gangs with the Church. The only basis of comparison that was used, is that both should be accountable to the law of the land. Their level of goodness is, as you point out, in the eye of the beholder. We are talking here of objectivity.

Accountable? Yes or no.

You insist at every turn on special pleading.

>>across the board submission to the secular authorities does not make sense when the authorities are Mugabe's thugs or Castro's secret police<<

Why not? Everybody else has to toe the line. Disliking their methods is not grounds to insist on special treatment, you have the same choice as everyone else to be there or not.

But it is easy to see from this line of argument that you fundamentally, deep down, disagree totally with the idea that the Church should be accountable to anyone but itself.

>>...some familiarity with Continental law is required in order to make sense of the documents<<

As far as I can tell, there are some documents in existence that are being used as prima facie evidence that a criminal cover-up occurred. Are these the documents you refer to? If so - or even if not - a link would help.

In any event, their scope, the rationale behind them, and their legal force should be tested in court.

On what level is that "complex"?

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

I would strongly advise reading informed commentary about the same if this document is to make any sense. Note that soliciting sex through the confessional is only one of various cases that are 'reserved to the Holy See'. For example, ordaining a bishop without the Pope's say so or attempted assasination of the Pope can also land you in hot water with Rome.

Pericles, only fundamentalists treat life as 'simple'. Aquinas may believe that God is simplicity itself but we human beings need to take manifold perspectives. Is the Church accountable to herself? Are you, in the last analysis accountable to your conscience?? The law of the land matters of course but there is room for making exceptions and that is not special pleading. If, during the 60's, you thought aiding the cause of Black Americans in the Southern USA meant dodging the KKK run Sheriff's office then, yes, it's fair enough that you avoid the local Sheriff. Nor could you say - well stay out of Mississippi - one's conscience would not allow that. Ditto for South Africa for most of the 20th Century. Examples abound. Please look a little beyond "Australia today". None of this means that bishops should not be held accountable for negligence or should not be held accountable by the civil authorities for genuine crimes.

Just to throw a cat among the pigeons I can easily imagine instances in the near future when I think the Bishops would be quite entitled to non-cooperation with the civil authorities. The new laws about abortion in Victoria that restrict doctors' rights to conscientious objection point the way.

@ GordoPollo - the question was not clear, and I think the portion I quoted would suffice -

""Five years later, no action had been taken.

" 'This case has already gone on for seven years,' Moreno wrote Ratzinger on April 28, 1997, adding, 'I make this plea to you to assist me in every way you can to expedite this case.'

"It would be another seven years before Teta was laicised. ""

Crimens Solicitations specifically demands secrecy and keeping it in house - the heart of the issue - you do your argument no good referring to it or posting it.

Pericles,
>>I still fail to see why it is so complicated.<<
Yes, I am aware of that. If you do not see the legal (different in different countries) and moral (with respect to this or that set of norms) entanglements, I do not think I could convince you, even if I knew and understood all the circumstances of all the cases you have in mind, and myself had a degree in Jurisprudence or Criminal Law.

[One does not have to have a degree in biology to see that the way “intelligent designers” understand (neo-)darwinism is an oversimplification, though even for a professional it is hard to convince them otherwise, because they approach the problem from a preconceived (naively religious in this case) position.]

>>do you believe the accusations should be fully investigated by the courts?<<
I am not sure whether you mean accusations against the pedophile or against the responsible bishop.

In case of a “cover-ups”, if the accusations are substantiated - e.g. if “there are some documents in existence that are being used as prima facie evidence that a criminal cover-up occurred” as you claim - then, of course, I do not see why the procedure involving a bishop should be different from any other case, including the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and the right to be defended by an attorney.

The same in case of pedophilia, except that because of the nature of the crime there are difficulties if nobody is willing or able to lay charges or testify, as often happens with rape or domestic violence.

>>do you believe that the processes within the Church provide adequate governance?<<
If by “adequate governance” you mean "as substitute for criminal proceedings by secular authorities" then, of course, not. If by “adequate” you mean compliant with Canon Law, then this looks like a tautology.

Thanks Ozandy for your support and for your recognition that bringing “evil-does” to justice suits both secular and Catholic agenda.

Secrecy remains a major issue for reformers. Secrecy, as evident in the Crimen Sollications or its equivalent/generalisation , must be dealt with immediately. Herein, Benedict should repeal the relevant Canons or at least not permit the paedophilia and child bashing cases to be fed into a system cloaked in oaths and excommunications for revealing evidence to secular authorities. If that is at all-to-much, then, the investigations of the likes of the cover-up bishops, should not be fed into the further cover-up Canonical legal system, where

“All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they are of the utmost importance for the common good of the Church, the precept to make them is binding under pain of grave sin” and “dealing with these causes, more than usual care and concern must be shown that they be treated with the utmost confidentiality, and that, once decided and the decision executed, they are covered by permanent silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 February 1867, No. 14), all those persons in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff…” -quotes – Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.

I simply don’t understand how Christian religionists do not see the above directives act to retain secrets unto the Church, preventing secular authorities to their jobs of bringing criminals to justice.

One can be readily drawn to conclude popes and bishops somehow feel themselves superior to twelve good men and women of the commonweal.

I appreciate the courtesy of the reference, Gordo Pollo. It is not something that I could have easily uncovered on my own.

And I think I now understand a little more of the pressures that the Church hierarchy finds itself.

Oliver has already pointed out the salient points, but the paragraph is well worth repeating.

"Since, however, in dealing with these causes, more than usual care and concern must be shown that they be treated with the utmost confidentiality, and that, once decided and the decision executed, they are covered by permanent silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 February 1867, No. 14), all those persons in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, excluding even the Sacred Penitentiary."

My question is whether this is constitutes a valid excuse.

The Mafia's "omertà" is couched in very similar terms, except that breaking their particular code of silence is fatal to the body, rather than the soul.

The Masonic oath actually prescribes the punishment for ratting on a fellow-mason, as "having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven"

Would you accept that an individual's commitment to either of the above represents appropriate justification to keep silent about a crime of which they have full knowledge?

If not, what would you see as the key difference?

And this is a cheap shot, by the way.

>>Pericles, only fundamentalists treat life as 'simple'.<<

We are not talking about "life" here, Gordo Pollo.

Just some sordid incidents that everyone agrees are, to quote the Vatican, "unspeakable crimes"

The Vatican gives you its answer to that question on its website.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/Beal-article-studia-canonica41-2007-pp.199-236.pdf

Be warned, it's been scanned in an unfriendly way for the computer monitor but it reads fine if you print it out.

Thank you again for the courtesy of a reference Gordo Pollo - it displayed perfectly adequately, by the way, so I did not need to print it out.

The document presents as an assessment of whether Crimen sollicitationis was part of the problem or part of the solution, in the handling of cases of gross sexual misconduct by priests. It was absolved from the former, but no verdict was announced on the latter.

However, I was actually more interested in your own view.

"Would you accept that an individual's commitment to [a closed-society's code of silence] represents appropriate justification to keep silent about a crime of which they have full knowledge?

If not, what would you see as the key difference?"

The Catholic Church is not a closed society so I am assuming that you are referring to the clerics?? Nor is the Catholic Church to be compared to the mafia (who are working illegally on behalf of a portion of the people to the detriment of the common good) or the freemasons (a secret scoiety of esoteric doctrines). I cannot give a simple answer to your question. If you mean that bishops should not shuffle abusing priests around but remove them from ministry and let the police handle the situation - you bet. If you mean that priests should be asked to divulge secrets of the confessional - absolutely not. If you mean that the police should be involved in any sort of crime when they themselves are corrupt (which is the case of 80% of the world) - it will depend on the circumstances. If you mean denouncing a doctor in Victoria who has not referred a woman for an abortion - well I guess the Catholic Church would have to go the way of Falun Gong in China.

Oliver,
Your quote is apparently from “Crimen sollicitationis” (http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html) issued a few months before Vatican II, i.e. almost half a century ago, and many things have changes since, even in the Church.

You might (or might not, like myself) want to read it all but if you trust Wikipedia, this is what it says:

“Crimen sollicitationis Crimen sollicitationis (Latin: the crime of soliciting) was a 1962 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (or Holy Office) codifying procedures to be followed in cases of priests or bishops of the Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents."

This would imly that it does not deal with pedophilia or pederasty (except in the brief paragraph 73. where it seems to equate them with “crimen pessimum” of homosexual acts) but with the “Seal of Confession“ (recognised then also by many secular authorities, along with medical, legal or bank secrecies); hence the “secretiveness”.

Of course, more detail - about how relevant is this old document to the current controversies - is in the link provided by Gordo Pollo.

Thanks George,

I am aware of the letter:

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/crimineextracts.htm

When I have referred to it, here and other threads, typycally, I have done so with some acknowledgement to the confessional, penance or genernalisation. Others, have argued a closer association between secrecy and child abuse:

http://tjwoodlock.com/blog/thomas-doyle-on-crimen-sollicitationis/

http://reform-network.net/?p=3006

The key issues are "secrecy" and protecting the Church of scandals and the comforting of "minders" whom the Church seem much less likely to "throw to wolves". In the twenty-first century, it is not the role of any organisation to have its own rules outside of "The Law" of the secular state. Organisations can have "policies" but that's all.

In the West especially, matters of evidence are weighted by juries after deliberations. The jury selection process proactively tries (ahem) to find members free of partiality. The jury system is a superior system to in-house chambers.

I think our OLO friends on my side of the argument are not saying "just the perpetrators and minders in "jail, stop", rather we are saying for the Church to come totally clean and that the "alledged" criminals go before a secular court to test their innocence. Even if the Church were to loose scores of bishops and a few cardinals, the exercise would ultimately be in its own interests and protect victims from preditors.

Handing of the priests is a good first step. The minders must come next.

If there is to be a Catholic Church, even skeptics and atheists, wish to see a moral and civil Church, representing those whom choose to believe

Gordo Pollo and George et al.,

If this documentary has any truth about it -and the BBC investigative reporters seem it does - then the "Bishops are putting the interests of the Catholic Church above those children" (BBC).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3335354490744010763#

The "minders" (Bishops) must not allowed to avoid justice.

Dear Oliver,

Again, your post contains pieces I can agree with and pieces I cannot: the problem is that they are too intertwined.

As for Crimen Solicitationis (CS), if you want to criticise it, I think it preferable to refer to the authorised (by the Vatican) translation rather than to extracts or opinions from second-hand sources.

I am not an expert on Canon Law to tell whether http://reform-network.net/?p=3006 is a faithful interpretation of http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html. So I cannot comment more on this - let me repeat, 48 years old - instruction on how to deal with priests who dishonour the “sacrament of confession”, except what I already wrote, noting that there are obviously other contemporary interpretations of CS by non-rebellious Canon Law experts.

[Your other link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3335354490744010763# contains e.g. a statement
“It (CS) imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church” without quoting, where in the text is such an absurdity as “excommunication of child victims” stated.]

On the other hand - returning to the contemporary situation - I almost agree with you. There indeed is a problem (that needs to be tackled, however not from the outside) with “secret sex in the Catholic celibate system” that only marginally is related to criminal pedophilia (in distinction to pederasty). This problem is usually dealt either with schadenfreude (by those overly hostile to the Church) or dismissively (by those overly loyal to the Church's traditions).

In my opinion the article http://ncronline.org/blogs/examining-crisis/secret-sex-celibate-system is neither. It is a credible description of the situation by a mental health counselor and author who earlier spent 18 years as a Benedictine monk and priest, as devastating as it must be to an unsophisticated Catholic.

Dear George,

I fully appreciate that the substratum of Canon Law pertaining to the Crimen Solicitationis makes primarily reference to the solicitation in the Confessional: An issue that goes back centuries and was lampooned by Boccaccio in some of the stories of the Decameron. Yet, I feel Father Doyle (Canon Lawyer) is asserting that in practice there is kin secrecy around all serious crimes of solicitation. The Pheonix DA seemed similarly concerned and felt that documents were shifted to clerics having immunity from soummons, to proctect the Church, before protecting the abused childern (now adults).

"Ratzinger’s document demands that all canonical cases of clergy sex abuse of minors be sent to his office under the requirement for strictest secrecy (forgiveness of a violation is reserved to the pope)." - A.W. Richard Sipe National Catholic Reporter

I don't see it is the Pope's role to keep these matters secret.

(Actually, I thought he had recently taken a tougher stance and was willing to hand over junior clerics, if not bishops.)

In these cases, each bishop's first phone call should be to secular authorities and the last thing we want is to transfer the offender. If nt, the bishops are putting Church above their community's institutions. As the Chinese say, "there cannot be two suns in the sky".

BTW, I have never suspected any of the priests I have known. My brother was altar boy and he was never touched. Regarding, "secret sex", in my teens, I did believe a rumour of about a priest in a neighouring parish having a heterosexual affair with his housekeeper. Regarding,the latter, if true, the matter was unsavoury, but does not reach the level of criminality discussed in the recent OLO abuse threads.

I do think absolution must require offenders handing themselves in to secular authorities. Also, I feel, and, this is the hard one, bishops and even the Pope should be held accountable for ant cover-ups.

Gordo Pollo,

Your perspectives having viewed the video?

Dear Oliver,

Now you jump from “Crimen Solicitationis” to the more contemporary “De Delictis Gravioribus”. I provided the link to a relatively brief article by the author of the famous and widely respected Sipe Report, who is a psychotherapist (and witness) specializing in the counseling of clergy, not an expert on Canon Law. The part you quote is almost unrelated to the rest of this article and the complete context is:

“The Council of Ancyra (Anno 315) demanded strict penalties: solitary confinement, fasts, isolation and supervision for any cleric caught having sex with a minor. Ratzinger’s document demands that all canonical cases of clergy sex abuse of minors be sent to his office under the requirement for strictest secrecy.”

Obviously, in 2001 one could not have demanded the same as in 315, when the Church’s jurisdiction was not that separate from the secular. Of course, the 2001 “stricktest secrecy” refers to the CANONICAL (my emphasis) context. Most of the cases communicated to Rome - 90% according to http://zenit.org/article-28634?l=english - are of no criminal nature as defined e.g. in Australia. There is no need for an explicit instruction to the bishops to cooperate with secular authorities when criminal charges have been laid by the victim (or his/her parents) or a crime suspected beyond reasonable doubt, or negotiate an out of court settlement, etc.; this is implicitly rather obvious. [A priest might tell the mother of a sick child to “pray and trust God”, without having to tell her explicitly to first follow doctor's inxtructions].

You see, I am getting involved in legal matters more than I intended to, since that is not a field where I feel secure. Father Doyle is not the only priest who publicly says things that are newsworthy mainly because of what he is rather than of what he says. There are other views on these matters by qualified lawyers, e.g. in http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/7112/. (ctd)

(ctd)
>> I do think absolution must require offenders handing themselves in to secular authorities<<
So did I when I wrote “If you confess stealing $100 from your neighbour the absolution is subject to you returning the money”. Since then I have been advised by experts, that absolution could not be “subject to” anything, only an instruction to do something as part of the penance, whatever the difference. I am also being told (which I believe) that a pedophile - provided he wants to confess at all - will seek confession anonymously, not to a priest who knows him (and could turn him in).

>> bishops and even the Pope should be held accountable for ant cover-ups?<<
This brings us full circle to where we started (hence a good sign to stop), so my only reaction to that would be what I already wrote.

George,

Thanks. As you suggest, I will stop covering old ground. So let us try new perspectives more focused on solutions than blame;

1. What do you feel should bishops do from now on? Is their first allegence to the State or their employer?

2. What can the laity do?

3. Is further change needed. If so, what

Regards,

O.

George,

p.s. As think I mentioned some time ago, when I was around 11-12 years of age, my parish priest threw me out of the Confessional,
because I couldn't remember if I had eaten meat of Fridays. Thus, denying me absolution.

Tap-dancing, Gordo Pollo.

>>The Catholic Church is not a closed society<<

The context here is a society that has a set of rules that it strictly applies within the group itself. The "closed" is in contrast to a society that agrees to abide by the laws of the wider community - whether Australian law for people in Australia, Chinese law for businessmen taking bribes in China, Indonesian law for people smuggling dope through Indonesian customs etc.

Which was why I cited the Mafia and the Masons. Their criminality or their esoteric doctrines are not at issue here. They have adopted a set of rules that they believe are more important than those of the broader society. It is in this environment that I suggest that the Catholic Church chooses to operate.

So, once more, again.

"Would you accept that an individual's commitment to [a closed-society's code of silence] represents appropriate justification to keep silent about a crime of which they have full knowledge?

If not, what would you see as the key difference?"

>>I cannot give a simple answer to your question.<<

Try.

Your "if you mean" responses were nothing more than evasion - let's establish the principle first, then we can examine individual cases.

Oliver,
>> Is their (the bishops’) first allegiance to the State or their employer?<<
I am really tempted to answer only by “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's” (Lk 20:26).

In other words - as I see it, but please do not want me to go into legal detail - in democratic countries there is not - or should not be - any conflict between Canon Law and Civil Law, or more vaguely, between loyalty to the Church and loyalty to the State (unlike in e.g. former Communist countries). So if the bishop breaks the law, this has nothing to do with “loyalty to his employer”.

Nevertheless, as you know, it is often the employer who tries to defend the employee (in this case either the culprit himself or the bishop who did not take him out of circulation) if the misdeed is related to his duties, and the borderline between defending the accused and covering-up in order to safeguard the "company's image" is sometimes very blurred. Also, the employer must/can offer financial compensation either when asked by the court or as an out of court settlement.

You understand these things better than I, and you probably also know that for instance the Archdiocese of LA recently paid on average 1.3 million dollars to each victim of child abuse by its “employees”, whether or not "covered-up" by a bishop. I do not think many victims of sexual abuse, or even rape, get that much from anybody.

>> What can the laity do?<<
Be vigilant, and report to the Church officials any suspected abuse, and to the police any knowledge of sexual abuseof a minor provided the informant is reasonably sure that he/she is not going to harm an innocent person. This probably did not work all the time in the past, however I am sure both the Church and police are now wiser and more attentive. (ctd)

(ctd)
>> Is further change needed. If so, what.<<
Now everybody knows what should or should not have happened, not only the Church officials. As for practical arrangements as to how prevent these things happening again, they probably have to depend on the country. Here in Germany, as I already mentioned, the Minister of Justice and the Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference are currently working out a plan of close cooperation in the future.

As to the US (that you know more about than I) there is something in http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/03/holy_week_and_the_suffering_church.html . It seems to work, since “allegations dropped by 36 percent between 2008 and 2009, and in 2009 only six allegations involved minors … also … 71 percent of the allegations were about abuse that began between 1960 and 1984.” (http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2010/20100407112508.aspx). Compare this with the general situation as reported e.g. in http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/07/us-1-10-children-juvenile-facilities-report-sexual-abuse-staff.

>>when I was around 11-12 years of age, my parish priest threw me out of the Confessional, because I couldn't remember if I had eaten meat of Fridays. Thus, denying me absolution.<<
This is most silly and tells me something about the strange Australian situation that I have not known. My grandmother told me that a priest advised her (during WWI) that “eating meat on Friday” would have to be one of the gravest sins since there are so many exceptions and exemptions that to really sin, you would have to eat it with malicious intention to offend.

Anyhow, our experiences are different: I remember, when I was about 8-9 years old I confessed the sin of pilfering (in the larder), and was scandalised that the priest did not take my sin seriously, since I heard him chuckle .

Thanks. I think we agree on most matters, except, perhaps, the status of an “employer” vis-à-vis the State (read Western democracy). You suggest cannon law and secular law are, in a sense, equivalents. I would suggest a Church (or Bank) can merely have policies of a lesser legal station. Consequently, any first call/contact should be to the police, not the hierarchy of the Church. Moreover, secret tribunals are a concern whether for clergy or police (Barrister mentioned this on your link) and documents should not be transferred to clergy with immunity to answering a summons (if this still happens today).

When in my twenties, I acted to protect (not really cover-up) a staff member (who reported to me). She was on the telephone with a frustrating customer and was over heard by the customer, to say to a colleague, “stupid women”. The customer complained to the Bank. “The” Boss wanted to fire her, wherein, I very much came to her defence, even though there were grounds for dismissal. I can see a fellow priest or police sergeant acting in the same to protect for a junior staff from dismissal for calling a parishioner or member of the public “stupid”, to save their job. On the other hand, for a serious crime, I would call the police and forget the Bank (or University now). Perhaps, the Vow of Obedience is too generalised and makes it hard to go “outside”.

We would actually agree more fully, if the first point of call to report these instances was to civil authorities than one’s employer.

Actually chances are that I didn’t eat meat on Friday because my mother was of a generation whom would have cooked fish on Friday routinely. My real OLO point was priests will withhold Confession and therefore absolution. So, the Church could do the same until such time offending priests/bishops turned themselves into Caesar.

Good larder story. I see your priest’s smile. Around a similar age, I would make-up a few small sins, because I didn’t have any real wrongdoings to report. I was just an average kid.

Apologies to Oliver and Pericles, I haven't looked at this string for several days now. Oliver - I have yet to watch the video you posted so will have to wait to respond to that one.

@ Pericles. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein? His work on "language games" represents a direct assault on the notion of Platonic essences. For example, what is the essence of a game? He prefers to speak about family resemblances. I am not as extreme as old Ludwig but whilst there are situations that can be subsumed by a general principle there are others that no philosopher has yet been able to define. Look at the debates that surround a definition of knowledge!!

Natural law trumps unjust laws: Antigone, Martin Luther King. Conscience can conflict with civil/religious authority: Acts 4:19-20.

Quid ad casum. If you wish to put forward a rule about obedience to civil authority that does not admit of exceptions then I emphatically reject that principle. Thomas More was an able jurist who loved the law but he was quite prepared to commit the crime of treason. He served the king but was God's servant first.

Just as I reject vigilantism and Star Chambers that do away with the rule of law, so too I reject the other extreme of legalism and blind obedience to whatever happens to be on the statute books.

You are concerned about bringing bishops to justice. So am I. But I am also interested in bringing justice to bishops. Are you?

Dear Oliver,
Thank you again for helping me to better formulate my thoughts.

>>You suggest cannon law and secular law are, in a sense, equivalents<<
I do not, I only claimed that there is no conflict between them, hence it does not make sense to ask which one takes precedence over which one.

I agree that secret tribunals could be of concern, however secrecy often serves not only to protect the “good name” of the Church, but also to protect the victim, or even the alleged perpetrator in case the suspicion is unfounded.

The hotline, the German Episcopal Conference opened, was contacted by over 1000 people on the first day, most of them probably victims of past abuse. It is possible that some of them just wanted to be registered for future compensation, however to me the fact that most of them did not contact secular authorities or the media signals that in spite of everything they still trusted the Church more than secular authorities or the media - dealing in sensationalism more than in justice - to act in their interests (including keeping their names and stories secret if so desired). Well, at least that is my personal reading of the fact of such an overwhelming response.

>>We would actually agree more fully, if the first point of call to report these instances was to civil authorities than one’s employer.<<
I agree with you except that - as mentioned in my last post - one has to make a difference between suspicion and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. Also, any breaking of the celibacy vow that causes a scandal, even if it does not constitute a crime (i.e. it breaks the Canon but not the Civil Law), should be made known to responsible ecclesial authorities who should act upon it, although civil authorities would not be interested, and media’s “interest” would not serve any justifiable purpose.

Sorry George, I can't let that one through to the 'keeper.

>>hence it does not make sense to ask which one takes precedence over which one.<<

As a citizen, I most certainly take exception to a separate set of laws, which a group of people within a society unilaterally decides should apply to them. If the "law of the land" does not prevail over canon law, then why should it prevail over those of any other self-described groups?

Which is the point that Gordo Pollo is taking great pains to avoid, by using extremist arguments.

>>Thomas More was an able jurist who loved the law but he was quite prepared to commit the crime of treason. He served the king but was God's servant first.<<

And was, quite appropriately, tried, convicted and beheaded for his trouble. He was defending the historical supremacy of the Church over the State, and was taken to task for it. To some that makes him a martyr - notably, of course, the Church that he was defending - but to others he was simply spitting in the face of the King's authority.

Don't forget also, that if he'd had his way the Bible would still be in Latin, and remain the sole preserve of scholars and priests.

>>Natural law trumps unjust laws: Antigone, Martin Luther King.<<

Antigone is mythological, a traveller's tale.

Martin Luther King was an activist against manifestly unjust laws. He did not however seek to hide from those laws, by claiming that they did not apply to him.

>>Just as I reject vigilantism and Star Chambers that do away with the rule of law, so too I reject the other extreme of legalism and blind obedience to whatever happens to be on the statute books.<<

So which do we have here, Gordo Pollo, underneath your rhetoric?

Are you likening our courts to the Star Chamber, as a reason that priests should be protected from them?

Or are you pleading that the statute books are in error, and your priests' activities should be seen as a form of protests against their unjust nature?

As regards the Star Chamber I was actually referring to abusive processes undertaken outside the scope of the civil law.

Your defence of Henry VIII against Thomas More is an apology for state terror.

Your dismissal of Antigone doesn't cut it either. Literary figures are of the greatest importance in Moral Philosophy.

Pericles,
>> If the "law of the land" does not prevail over canon law, then why should it prevail over those of any other self-described groups? <<

First of all, there is one Canon Law and many “laws of the land” depending on the country, including those of Nazi Germany or Communist countries. So Canon Law cannot universally prevail or not prevail.

I presume you have in mind e.g. contemporary Australia (or USA or Germany). Consider the two implications:

If there is a conflict between what the Canon and Civil Laws require, then the Canon Law should prevail.
If there is a conflict between what the Canon and Civil Laws require, then the Civil Law should prevail.

They are both correct if no such conflict exists, so I couldn’t mind if you prefer the second one. The same with the “laws” or rules of any organisation or “self-described group” that do not contradict the “laws of the land”.

[My grandfather: “When St. Michael (a statue in my native town) can hear the church bells, then he kneels down and prays” which I could not falsify since a statue could not hear.]

If you can quote a passage in Canon Law and a passage in Civil or Criminal Law of the country you have in mind, that contradict each other, then there is a problem, which a lawyer - not I - should try to resolve, and if unable then I would have to withdraw my statement about the compatibility of the two Laws.

I believe that no such conflict exists since otherwise no negotiations would have taken place between secular and local Catholic authorities (in Germany, and I presume elsewhere as well) about how to cooperate in making sure that in future no pedophilia crimes and “cover-ups” (however defined) occur.

Let me add that this is very different from the more complicated question of freedom of conscience (e.g. of a Catholic), which again strongly depends on the country and its legal system. In this case no “logic” can provide a simple answer.

Hi George,

So you would prefer bishops sould rendef unto Caesar in the instance and not have the Church act as as the investigator of first resort. However, what should the Pope do, when bishops protect the Church covering-up matters? What should the bishops staff, who know about the cover-ups do?

"one has to make a difference between suspicion and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt."

Agree. Yet, is that not the role of twelve good men and women? The church's policies should be secondary to real Law, surely.

Maybe, the compromise between the letting bishops get away with cover-ups and having them face real jail time, is for the offenders do a "deal" with the Public Prosecutor; i.e., to allocute inCourt, a conviction recorded, but no prison. The Church then progresses to Cannon Law, regarding laicizing (making lay) the cleric, if sees fit. Such an action would certaintly help the Church's image.

No one would think any worst of the Deutche Bank were to hand over a thief. Why is the Catholic Church any different? With say a million clergy, in all probability there will hundreds perhaps thousands of criminals. As a mathematician you would be aware that large samples are more likely approximate the total population than small samples.

1. "If there is a conflict between what the Canon and Civil Laws require, then the Canon Law should prevail."

2. "If there is a conflict between what the Canon and Civil Laws require, then the Civil Law should prevail."

If we agree that 2. is true, especially in Western Democracies, and, further, there is no conflict between the Codes, we should not have the Vatican giving sanctuary to Western clergy members. WE shold not have the Church moving paperwork to thwart the Phoenix (US) DA. "Actions speak loader than words."

Incendently,I feell, all of this has nothing to do with the typical priest (unles he knows something and is not telling police) or good people gooding to Mass, withinn their belief system.

Hi Oliver,
Let me repeat that nobody denies that some/many bishops acted, irresponsibly and inappropriately from a moral - Catholic or not - point of view. Some, e.g. the French Pican, were also tried and convicted, many were not for various reasons. So we do not differ on this.

It is the legal, not moral, aspect that is more obscure because it requires evidence (of criminal intent, of grave negligence, of obstructing justice, or whatever might be the legal terms relevant here) that the prosecuting attorney can use.

Also, I do not know of a “company” that would turn in its “employee” just on a complaint by a “customer” or another "employee" without first investigating the case itself. When does this constitute a prosecutable crime of “cover-up”? I don't know, only suspect that it will depend on circumstances peculiar to the particular case.

>>we should not have the Vatican giving sanctuary to Western clergy members<<
Can you give an example where a bishop was formally charged, e.g. by Australian or US authorities, and the Vatican refused to extradite him? Or some Catholic institution in these countries hiding a bishop and refusing to hand him over to secular authorities who wanted to prosecute him?

Maybe there are some such cases, but then the media (or you) should quote them rather than dwell on sweeping accusations, countered by equally unconvincing sweeping denials by some Church representatives. In both cases the moral and legal criterions get entangled thus obscuring the truth about what happened, should or should not have happened, in this or that case, and what can or should be done to help the victims.

I know, if it was up to you, you would punish Cardinal Law, and I tend to agree with you, but that remains a moral not legal matter.

Let me repeat, we have moved full circle to where we started, so my only reaction would be to repeat what I already wrote in my previous posts. Well, I am afraid, I actually already did exactly that.

One law for all men and woman.( religion ) This will help all concerned.
Oliver, I didnt know why you continued, cause no-one is above the law! and until god is a thing of substance, how can one be the absolute. Humans are what they are, and no one rule is god. The mind can make many things, ( numbers do not lie ) but human will not change any time soon, but they can start to think, in time.

Sorry for interrupting to..TT.. your threads.

So say-th the minds of our gods.

Your world depends on it.

TTM.

Dear George,

I do see evidence of repetition, too. Maybe, because I haven’ been clear enough in my expression. So, let us review your last post point-by-point.

1. “ Let me repeat that nobody denies that some/many bishops acted, irresponsibly and inappropriately from a moral - Catholic or not - point of view. Some, e.g. the French Pican, were also tried and convicted, many were not for various reasons. So we do not differ on this”

- Agree. To which I would add; the relevant bishops (and others) should be held accountable to civil authorities the “first” instance.

2. “It is the legal, not moral, aspect that is more obscure because it requires evidence (of criminal intent, of grave negligence, of obstructing justice, or whatever might be the legal terms relevant here) that the prosecuting attorney can use”.

- I agree it is both a moral and legal matter. Regards, the morality, we agree that cover-ups are wrong. Where we could differ is I feel for serious crimes the issue of investigation and a trial to determine the facts is not the purview of the Church. Criminal is what prosecutors, judges and juries do, not bishops. A mirror policy is redundant.

3. Also, I do not know of a “company” that would turn in its “employee” just on a complaint by a “customer” or another "employee" without first investigating the case itself. When does this constitute a prosecutable crime of “cover-up”? I don't know, only suspect that it will depend on circumstances peculiar to the particular case.

- Any internal investigation on a serious matter would be very quick. The case I cited about the Bank Manager approving a $1,000 personal loan to “bribe police”, I recall quite well from 25 years ago. It was discovered at around 9.30 am (when the Manager’s Diary (previous day’s activities)was circulated). By lunchtime, the Bank had involved the police.

-Cont-

-Cont-

4. “Can you give an example where a bishop was formally charged, e.g. by Australian or US authorities, and the Vatican refused to extradite him? Or some Catholic institution in these countries hiding a bishop and refusing to hand him over to secular authorities who wanted to prosecute him?”

The BBC programme refers to seven priests from the US. Relatedly, the Phoenix DA said the paperwork under summons was transferred to clerics with immunity. Law did not respond to the first summons to the Grand Jury. He went to the Vatican. He didn’t return to the US until the next.

5. Maybe there are some such cases, but then the media (or you) should quote them rather than dwell on sweeping accusations, countered by equally unconvincing sweeping denials by some Church representatives. In both cases the moral and legal criterions get entangled thus obscuring the truth about what happened, should or should not have happened, in this or that case, and what can or should be done to help the victims.

- Those “sweeping” accusations are being made by the more respected members of the Fourth Estate: e.g., the BBC and NY Times, not just the tabloids. If there are moral and legal entanglements, it is up to the Courts to cut Gordian knot, to the Church (or a Bank).

6. I know, if it was up to you, you would punish Cardinal Law, and I tend to agree with you, but that remains a moral not legal matter. x

- More specifically, I would like to have see Arch Priest Law face a jury and if found guilty punished. Herein, the message the Court sends might be more important.

p.s I don’t think that Ford should have pardoned Nixon. Ford allowed being a President to be above the Presidency,

TTM,

I persist because I feel systemic change is necessary to prevent cover-ups. Also, I think some OLO friends are a bit hyper, in that they jump threads, before having apt discussion. George is a stayer. As theist and skeptic, we sometimes agree and sometimes not.

True words oliver and the fundamentals are as transparent. Stayers are good to a point, and the obvious we see. The old world and the new world, the right, and the wrong, and time you think we all have. ( Everything's a circle )I will not stay long here.

Oliver. Answer me this question alone, and only you.

With each new born persons, evolution adds one more degree to the human species.

What do you think of this.

You don't have to answer and yes, being apt is an important part of any discussion or debate depending on the topic we care to see. In the interests of mankind, I have been questioned on many levels which is a fair call in anyone's logic of understanding.

i admire you and George's readings with most intellectual and diverse in all categories within the quest of the basic understandings.

Thank you both for a great thread.

ABC...... oh dear oh dear oh dear.

private joke.

TTM

Oliver,
Thanks again for the feedback making me formulate my thoughts more carefully. I agree with most of what you wrote.

The Bank and its managment differ from the Church and its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) not only in size - hence the much slower progress - but also in the fact that the former does not have an extended, internal meaning of the term “crime”, whereas CDF does: For instance, the already discussed here Crimen Sollicitations refers to a number of “crimes” that are not recognised as such by most secular legal systems.

Therefore, although crimes recognised by the secular system should be investigated in cooperation with those authorities, there is a part of the Church’s internal legal investigations that are of no concern to them. (The same about reasons why a priest is “defrocked” or “laicised” - not the same thing). In any case, the investigated (by whomever) pedophile should immediately be isolated from further contacts with minors (and in the past too often this did not happen), although this can also be overdone, see e.g. http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/accused-catholic-priests-left-legal-limbo.

>>The BBC programme refers to seven priests from the US. Relatedly, the Phoenix DA said the paperwork under summons was transferred to clerics with immunity. <<
This is interesting. If it is not too much to ask, could you provide a link where it is explained what the “seven priests from the US” and “paperwork … transferred to clerics with immunity” is all about? As already mentioned, you are obviously more familiar with the US “branch” of the scandal, whereas I, living in Germany, am more familiar with the one here.

>> the more respected members of the Fourth Estate … NY Times, not just the tabloids.<<
Well, it was the NY Times that came with the poorly researched but sensationalist article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?scp=1&sq=Goodstein&st=cse) about the Milwaukee case. The actual facts about the case are summarized e.g. in http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal/.

Thanks,George. I will reply in a few days. Work commitments. Regards, Oliver.

TTM,x

Many hanks for your comments :-).

Each new born is an original genome having approximately a 50:50 genetic relationship with the paternal genome and maternal genome. Random non sex mixing changes also occur between generations owing to mutations. Herein, the new born converges on his/her parents genetic make-up, yet diversifies to encounter the environment. The new born’s behaviour will be a product of the environment (Skinner). The Culture into which the new born arrives is a product of ecology (Triandis).

Thus, genetics diversifies the new born who encounters the environment. Diversification can add or hinder survival. From the frame of reference of the individual new born, the environment is encountered is a bag of tricks, but unlike our friend Felix, there number of tricks are limited. The tricks must be apt to the encounter. If the new born is a fish, being a very well adapted for life in water is of little use in a desert.

From the perspective of evolution, the existence of the new born represents the legacy of preceding successes: i.e., genetic success and ecological success of an inter-generational nature. The newly evolved, new born adds its diversity the greater admixture of the environment, yet, its survival, contribution to or divestment of other entities, and, its fusion with other genomes to the produce next generation of new born, are, at first, only potentialities.

Do you have any comment on the Church abuse topic?

Please excuse brevity and first draft response. Busy.

your overall is cute but not precise (skinner) lol.

Many hanks for your comments :-). I don't know whether to leave it at that. smile. The last and final focus is the Z. I'm sure your acquaint with the 26 letters of the alphabet, making a cup of tea. The answers to the question of pedophilic priests I have already given in my last post, and I quote "No man or woman is above the law". On the question of each new born persons evolution does add one more degree as in they are committing suicide in numbers and this makes the point of evolution adding one more degree. The subject mind correlates with all subject matter and on the instants of new born, the mentors have an absolution with all that is concerned.

New people are killing themselves simply because the Z is not being understood and you 19th relish in the disposal of a planet that needs you. (brain food) It's interesting to note that all aspects of any opinion site correlates with the overwhelming problems that each and all of us face. Now the Z again correlates with all religions and the symbols to the facts agreed with all human history.

It's always interesting to look from outside the box and like so many people think the sky's going to fall, again I can only smile and lol.

The reason why I pulled up this post, cause i believe people know right from wrong and If I have to follow these natural born birth-right thoughts, than so should you, priest or not.

TTM

Hi George,

Thank you for your comments and interesting links, which I visited. Herein, I think a key issue to be addressed is journalists and commentators two camps regarding legal powers. The secular press see the Church must yield to secular law, full stop. A secular judge and jury sorts things out. The secularists see the crimes and (in their view) obstructions and delays. They don’t care about Canon Law.

On the other hand, those whom feel the Church and Pope are under unfair siege, appear to hold that the Church too has a process; that is, the legal system is pluralist and Canon Law has its place. Herein, it not so much “heaven can wait”, rather secular authorities can wait until the Church has conducted its slow, internal investigation. The Church does care about Canon Law, of course, and, historically has given In-house issues precedence over secular courts. Recall, when a priest is liaised, the Church holds the priest is “reduced”. I think that suggests an attitude of the clergy being higher in rank than the laity, which apparently was not the case before 250 CE. Again, I return to the Gibbon (1776) quote presented a few weeks back.

The comments from the Pheonix DA and about the “seven priests” are made between 32 minutes and 38 minutes during the BBC video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3335354490744010763#

In Oz press (SMH), it was reported that the diocese of Augsburg alerted German legal authorities of the alleged activities of Bishop Mixa. Allegedly, sexual abuse and beating orphans. Good. A jury can determine the Bishop’s guilt or innocence, and, then, and, only then, can Church policies (Canon Law) be addressed.

TTM,

Z is not as terminal as is Omega on the Planet of the Apes.

"No man or woman is above the law." - TTM

Can you please elaborate in context with this thread

Hi Oliver,
>>The secular press see the Church must yield to secular law, full stop. <<
I do not think US Church representatives deny this, whatever the (alleged) failed implementation in praxis.

>> The secularists see the crimes and (in their view) obstructions and delays.<<
That “in their view” is the whole point: if they suspect “obstructions and delays” (or other illegal activities) in concrete cases, they should provide properly researched details, as they often do, but they often don't: they either offer details based on their interpretation of facts, rather than the facts themselves (e.g. NYT on the Milwaukee case I linked to before), or even worse, they make sweeping allegations without referring to concrete cases and/or the frequency of such.

There is a third possiblity, exemplified by the video the link to which you provided: obviously biased but such that one could hardly interpret the interviews in a way that would leave the Church’s many local representatives unscathed. I watched it in its entire lengths, and as horrible as it is, I am thankful to you for making me aware of it. I only missed a more concrete reference to the priests charged with pedophilia by US authorities that the Vatican refuses to hand out. There are many non-sequiturs in the commentary (especially with their frequent reference to the pope) that are obviously dictated by an a priori bias, but the truths that the video nevertheless reveals makes it somehow indecent to forcefully point them out.

>>They don’t care about Canon Law. <<
That should be obvious but then they should refrain from drawing conclusions from their interpretation of e.g. Crimen Solicitationis or when a priest should or should not be defrocked or laicised.

The SMH report about ex-Bishop Mixa is more or less correct, except that Germany's Catholic Church is not “in turmoil” but rather relieved that the pope accepted the resignation of this ultra-conservative (and embarassing to Church by his occassional public statements) bishop. The preliminary investigations of sexual misconduct are only recent, and nothing has yet been established.

Dear George,

“I do not think US Church representatives deny this…”

The secular press focus on the alleged crimes not Church procedures. Ecclesiastical law lost its civilian legitimacy over two hundred years ago. They secular would see no reason to have clerics have first bite of the judicial cherry. The curious thing is, in the Anglo West, usually, courts will allow the Press to keep silent on disclosing sources. Reporters are meant follow protocols, though.

A key point is to the secularist journalist is, it is not for the Church to sort fact from fiction. That is what “real” Courts are for. Canon Law has no more legality vis-à-vis secular law than does a retail store’s return of goods policy vis-à-vis the (Australian) Trade Practices Act. If a retailer shopkeeper said that he/she would only respond to a ACCC summons, after an internal investigation, chances are matters might escalate from a commercial fine to criminal contempt.

As for producing and assessing evidence of alleged crimes; it is not up to Media, the Church and retail stores; rather, judges and juries have this role in secular society. The prosecution and defence of cases, with attended evidence, are usually in open court, where evidence is assessed. Maybe, some bishops don’t see civilian juries their peers?

“… they should provide properly researched details, as they often do, but they often don't: they either offer details based on their interpretation of facts...”

The secular view is “properly researched details” must presented in open court. The jury determines makes “their interpretation of facts” and perhaps with the guidance of judicial instruction, yields a verdict. Then the Press and Church can better to report or act on findings.

An innocent priest always has the option to sue for deformation, if he feels that journals are producing libellous allegations.

- I think our dialogue has taken us away from matters of blatant cover-up towards was posited to in the Media towards tuff/colour wars over jurisdiction. Does the judge kiss the Bishop’s ring or does the Bishop stand and bow to the Judge in Court.

"Cardinal Schönborn, 65, seen as a possible future Pope, accused Cardinal Angelo Sodano, 82, the former Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister), of having blocked investigations into sex abuse crimes committed by his predecessor in Vienna, the late Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer." Times Online

Full article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7121062.ece

It is encouraging to see Cardinal Schönborn come forward on this matter. Being more open/honest about the past is hopefully the first step forward towards addressing the present. Yet, some bottom-up pressure, from the laity, might help too.

As George and I have been discussing, there are cross-jusidictional legal matters pertaining to Canon Law, which make the secularisation of the Church (oxymoron?) challenging.

Dear Oliver,

I am not sure why you quoted me saying “US Church representatives (don’t) deny this.” Do you have a quote where they do? I mean an exact quote of who said what, not instances of bishops ducking secular authorities e.g. in the USA, of which, I agree, there are a number of examples.

Neither do I understand why you bring in Canon Law again. It says nothing about cooperation or not with secular authorities, of which there is and was a variety of (including Nazi or Communist). I thought we were over this already.

>>The secular view is “properly researched details” must presented in open court<<
I think you confuse (criminal) investigations prepared by police and decided upon by the court, and investigative research preceding the publication of an article. A journalist can write a poorly researched paper about the teaching of mathematics (e.g. by not checking the credibility of his/her sources and/or not consulting professionals where he/she is not supposed to be an expert himself/herself), where no accusations of criminal nature are involved.

>>away from matters of blatant cover-up towards was posited to in the Media towards … wars over jurisdiction<<
How else would we know about “blatant cover-ups” if not through Media - that might or might not report with or without an a priori bias. As to “wars over jurisdiction”, please read my first paragraph. (ctd)

(ctd)
As I see it, what some bishops did is somehow equivalent to the hit-and-run crime, and if technically possible, they should be prosecuted for that, full stop.

However, presenting these crimes as if they were intentional - or as if (all) bishops were somehow prone to “hit and run” with no sense of responsibility just because of being Catholic - is counterproductive. No doubt, wrongs were committed both in the moral and legal sense, but we neither serve the truth nor help the victims to get some kind of justice, if we exaggerate, twist facts or wrap them in sweeping accusations and statements, thus diluting the horror and gross negligence of particular cases that actually happened. (See e.g. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3565#87250 as an example of what I mean).

In the link you provided (illustrating the internal tensions between Bertone and Ratzinger/ Schoenborn), there is also a comment:

“Margaret Hodges (British MP) described children in care as “disruptive and difficult”. Demetrious Panton, a victim of abuse, as “extremely disturbed”. Patricia Hewitt defended Hodges by saying, 'If you look back, our understanding of sexual abuse and our willingness and readiness to believe our children has also been transformed. And obviously Margaret feels utterly remorseful about that.' Seems familiar?”

The case is described on http://www.fassit.co.uk/margaret_hodge.htm and is just an illustrations (not excuse) that in those times not only Catholic bishops were inclined not to take sexual abuse of children as seriously as we all take them today.

Let me repeat that I am grateful for helping me to clarify some details in the argument we are having. I got interested in this topic somewhat involuntarily when asked to explain the sad and convoluted situation the Church in the “free world” has found herself in, to people who used to live on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and thus remembered (and respected) only the persecuted Church. Even after twenty years, there is still that difference of perspectives.

As if wanting to comment on my last paragraph, the pope observed today during his flight to Portugal :

“The greatest persecution of the Church doesn’t come from enemies on the outside, but is born in sin within the church. The Church thus has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice. Forgiveness does not exclude justice” (http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/sex-abuse-crisis-terrifying-pope-says).

.

Dear Mary,

Perhaps you will agree that the first priority of the church should be to eliminate the risk of any further paedophilia or sexual abuse of adolescents occurring.

And the second should be to identify paedophiles and sex criminals among the clergy and other staff and bring them to court.

As you rightly point out, Mary, the current pope is doing something about the second priority. He even seems to be warming to the job, though he did start off in a somewhat half-hearted fashion and needed a good deal of prodding by both families of victims and the world-wide media before he actually did anything worth boasting about.

It was over a decade previously that both he and his predecessor, John-Paul II, correctly diagnosed that the church had reached an advanced state of gangrene through sexual abuse and that the rot had set in.

Their immediate reaction was to save their beloved church from the threat of ignominious scandal. Unfortunately, despite their combined efforts, the lid blew on that one and an endless stream of horror flooded out and engulfed the unbelieving senses of millions of modest Christians and ordinary sinners.

John-Paul II was shortly recalled for higher duties and Benedict XVI has since had to battle it alone. He carries on relentlessly with that useless lid still waving desperately in his hand but, so far, to no avail.

In the meantime, what should have been his first priority, the one on which I hope we agreed to earlier, continues to remain unattended.

Nobody has suggested that children and adolescents should never remain alone, isolated, in the sole presence of a priest, however holy and saintly he may appear. Nobody has ordered that children and adolescents should permanently be granted dispensation from attending the confessional.

Perhaps you will also agree, Mary, that the pope has overall responsibility for his organisation,irrespective of any possible personal liability. I would be interested to have your opinion on what consequences you feel that overall responsibility should entail for the pope in his role as chief executive in this particular case.

.

Yes indeed, George.

>>As if wanting to comment on my last paragraph, the pope observed today during his flight to Portugal...<<

I heard him mention that he enjoys your posts.

And agrees with every word, of course.

Hi George,

To comment more fully I need to do some revision of past posts. At the momment I am busy with work obligations, once again. With my quick posts, I usually toggle to OLO while flat-out on somethig else. But just a two quick points:

- "am not sure why you quoted me saying “US Church representatives (don’t) deny this.”

Maybe, I misunderstood some other comments made by you. I was recognising your arguement that the Church considers both Civil Law and Canon Law. I think you said something in the past about being guilty of Canon Law and not Civil Law, wherein the Church has its own processes, which by implicit implication must be addressed. Herein, internal housekeeping is conducted before, the secular authorities are assisted. This is legal pluralism. Contrarily, the Press and Civil Authorities are unidimension seeing the weighing of evidence a matter of the secular courts. Once the judges and juries have finished with the matter, it is, afterwards, a matter for the Church, post priori.

Responding to your gentle chide, I was returning to the matter Canon Law, because, I respecting what you said about it being a valuable process of Catholicism. This point goes back to may last paragraph of this post, wherein, Canon is absolute significance to the Church, yet at best merely of relative importance to secular courts and secular journalists. It the 1960s, the phase "do your own thing" was popular. The critics seem be saying that the Church is overzealous with regards its internal processes vis-a-vis non-Church legal system.

In most of my comments I have qualified secular as "Western" and once specifically Anglo Western. There is nothing I have said suggest that I would cover-up bishops tortured by NAZIs or Stalinists.

Actually, I have said a little more than intended.

Back to modelling cultures...

Regards,

O.

George,

"The greatest persecution of the Church doesn’t come from enemies on the outside, but is born in sin within the church. The Church thus has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice. Forgiveness does not exclude justice” - Pope Benedict XVI

I see good, bad and non-recognition here.

1. Good. The Pope recognises the prpblem and wants to act.

2. Bad. He uses emotive words like "persecution" and "enemies". Sells his too. Cover-ups are not persecutions, rather misguided protection. Peolpe can criticise the Church over it having too many paedophiles and bishops covering things up, with out being "enemies" of the Church.

3, Non-Recognition. Not opening its doors and filing cabinets to secular criminal investigation teams of stable democracies. Thee Bank I once worked for was had a protracted audit of its computer systems by a three person team from the ATO, looking at matters like the computer programming for Financial Instititions Duty (now repealed). If an Office of the Vatican has Central Office with Bishopic corrspondence and secular investigation team could start there, pethaps.

Hi Oliver,

I think you are right, you misunderstood what I said. So let me repeat: The Church, like any international organisation has its internal rules, statutes, or what you call it, in this case it is the Canon Law. I claim it does not contain any item that would contradict the, say, American Civil Law. I might be wrong, but so far you have not quoted a part which does. Yes, it does not say that one should report pedophilia - or e.g. murder - to civil authorities. However, not mentioning something cannot constitute a conflict. Explicit instruction to cooperate with secular authorities are dealt with by local Conferences of Bishops, not Canon Law.

A different matter is “not opening its doors and filing cabinets”. I do not know of a company that would do that voluntarily for various reasons. However, I cannot contradict you, since as a legal non-expert I do not understand under what circumstances (and in what country) the Church can be asked to make public its internal communications. Sometimes it obviously can, as the many letters between Vatican, bishops and subordinates published online by the NYT (recently in relation to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/world/europe/06levada.html?pagewanted=1) testify.

>>There is nothing I have said suggest that I would cover-up bishops tortured by NAZIs or Stalinists<<
I never claimed that, I mentioned those systems only to make you accept that Canon Law is not, and cannot be, taylor-made for a particular country.

>>the Church is overzealous with regards its internal processes vis-a-vis non-Church legal system<<
This might be true, however overzealousness doesn’t have to be unlawful.

When I read “persecutions” in the pope’s exhortations I interpreted it as referring to the persecutions I personally lived though, you interpreted it differently. I think it depends on one’s initial world-view position how one interprets this. However, in view of the Church’s two millennia old history, including many real persecutions, it is somewhat unlikely he would have called the NYT articles (and similar petty witch-hunts) persecutions.

.

Dear Mary,

This is just to let you know I checked in to see if you replied to my post of Wednesday 12th, on page 11 of this thread.

As it seems not, please be assured I am still around and will check in occasionally so as not to miss any comments you may care to make.

With best wishes ...

.

Hi George,

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your your point that Canon Law (probably) does not contradict the civil law of Western demorcacies. My point was that the Church should not be allowed to invetsigate crimes "before" civil authorities are involved.

My comment about the filing cabinets was a flourish, as in some cases a summons would be required. The Church should not hide damning correspondence, if it exists. Banks have a statutory obligation to report various balances to RBA, the RBA often has observer status on Australian Bankers' Committees. I know of at least once case where three ATO auditors reviewed the a Bank's internal operations relating to Financial Institutions duty. Where summons have been involved, I have less experince, because my more senior roles in Head Office; and, Court summons ob Banks have genertally to do with Customers. I was once called to act as a witness the Court ordered opening of a safe custody box inside a vault. The locks had to be drilled. Two police offices and two bank officers needed to witness and certify the opening and the contents of the box.

Maybe there could be secular observers when the cardinals meet to discuss matters. A relative of mine before she retired was the "member of the public observer" on the several police panels.

So, to summarise. Civil authorities, first. Church, governors of Cannon law, second. Be more open and hand over what is already known, including bishops who knew what happened did not tell the police: Lat a Court decide the legalities. Have members of the public observe meetings between the cardinals. I realise the latter is a pipe dream: I have had occasion to contact Vatican colleges (with help, in English, Italian and Latin) and been totally ignored. Secular universities, always reply, even, to politely say they too busy. (I was asking about visits by the Jesuits to China in the Middle, Ages as I was reearching a related topic.)

More later.

Take care.

Oli!The message is not lost.

If humans can think, whats the problem? I will sit here and wait for you. I can word all the mind can think, but at what consequence? I time, one chance...........Thats a fair call.

TT

Oliver! Let the world go too sh@t and lets see what happens.

TTm

Hi Oliver,

>>the Church should not be allowed to investigate crimes "before" civil authorities are involved<<
Does that mean that you should not be allowed to try to find out the truth asap if your, wife, brother etc. was investigated for - or even just accused of - say, murder? I think the Church (or anybody) is not allowed to investigate anything in such a way as to obstruct official criminal investigations. If they do, that is unlawful - not the investigation but the obstruction.

>>there could be secular observers when the cardinals meet to discuss matters<<
I wonder which company could function if outside representatives, perhaps from the competition, would have to be present at the meetings of their board of managers.

There could be many reasons why a History Department of one university is less responsive than that of another when asked by a member of the outside public a question that might either be too complex to answer simply, or is sufficiently general (Matteo Ricci in China?) to have many books and articles written about. Although I agree, they should have realised that if the question was genuine you could get the answer from “the competition” (as I suppose you did), hence either answer it themselves or explain politely why they cannot. Well, here I have at least more experience - albeit not with the History but Mathematics Department - than with legal proprieties or improprieties we have been discussing.

Thanks and cheers again.

George, I would recommend that you take some time to review your posts on this thread.

Then ask yourself whether you they represent a form - well-argued, it must be admitted - of special pleading for your religion?

Because it most certainly looks that way to me.

Hi George,

A Church or a Bank is not a family. If I protected my wife or brother (I have both) from the consequences of a murder, my action would arise from caring for a love one, but it would be illegal. “ASAP” would mean hours. There is a high chance I would suggest they turn themselves in, perhaps, knowing they are likely to be caught given modern forensics, morality aside. I would respond differently to assisted euthanasia and a heinous assault murder. Back to work situations (Churches and Banks), I feel sometimes whistleblowers are necessary: e.g., Big Tobacco.

Agree. No Bank would allow an outside observer into a Board Room and in some instances it could be illegal (collusion/trading). In fact, where I once worked only “senior” managers and head office managers responsible for the implementation of strategies were allowed to see MInutes. No suburban branch see the Bank’s projected share prices and acquisition targets. On the other hand, Government (RBA and ATO) did attend some meetings. Legal council too. And occasionally peak bodies like the Farmers Federation:

A panel looking at the Sexual Abuse in the Church might comprise, say, three senior Catholic clergy and three junior Catholic clergy, two lawyers (one criminal, one international), two members of the Public and Protestant minister, perhaps even a Rabbi. Look at a University Council. It usually has a mix of senior academic appoinmentts, government appointments and student representatives. As I mentioned, a civilian relative of mine once sat on several police committees, to externalise/open processes.

[Aside: Because sometimes she travelled in a police car (travelling at normal speed) she has a strong memory of how the cars on the motorway would just move aside and make a hole in the traffic.]

I do not see the current debate in terms of theism Vs. enemies. It is more like a police corruption scandal and cover-up. Only there is a closed red line rather than a closed blue line. I suspect typical atheists and skeptics would hold a Church has a right to exist. Removing the wayward clergy is another matter.

Regards.

Hello George,

I guess it is a coincidence that we (mainly me) have been comparing Catholic Church and Banks. Herein, we can monitor events and see if the ANZ acts like a Church. The CEO protecting staff or maybe sending documents off-shore to avoid summons to produce to authotities. My prediction is the ANZ will co-operate with police, hide no documents and transfer no one away from Australian legal jurisiction.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/anz-bank-reportedly-snared-in-drugs-probe-2010-05-13

Pericles,

Regarding my last post to George, as self-interest orientated, as are the Banks, I suspect the ANZ will co-operate with legal authorities. None of the staff alleged guilty of a crime will be subject to five year internal ANZ investigation, then tarnsferred where they have access to the control of huge sums of money, after a some sessions with a psychologist. I could be wrong, let's see.

TTM,

There are places where humans don't think, I hope you don't mind.

Hi Oliver,
>>I would suggest they turn themselves in<<
That is exactly what also the Church superior should do (have done) when arriving at the conclusion that his subordinate committed a crime punishable by secular law. If he fails (failed) to do that, he is (was) wrong (at least in the moral sense), whether the crime was pedophilia or importing drugs, as in your ANZ example. So we do not disagree on this.

I am sorry, but I am knowledgeable neither about the internal procedures of running a bank nor of running a one-billion large Church, to be able to follow or comment on your analogies, although I think they can go only that far. I am sure, if they apply, the attorneys - both of prosecution and defense, in case a churchman is charged with "cover-up" - will be aware of that.

>>I do not see the current debate in terms of theism Vs. enemies. <<
Nobody does. People, like myself, object to the FORM of some reporting (I earlier spelled out that objection) not to the fact of bringing to light unpleasant facts, including what you call cover-ups. Even Vatican recently appreciated, actually thanked, media for this (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051104.html and http://thecatholicspirit.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3681&Itemid=33). At last they seem to have realised that defensiveness combined with a catastrophic PR policy can only backfire, and cannot be blamed on the outsiders. Needless to say that neither does it contribute to finding the truth, justice and ways of preventing the same happening in the future. And biased, hostile reporting, ditto.

>>It is more like a police corruption scandal and cover-up.<<
This analogy would better fit if you did not have separation of Church and State (as you do not have separation of Police and State).

Pericles,
As I wrote in a previous post, “I got interested in this topic somewhat involuntarily when asked to explain the sad and convoluted situation … to people who used to live on the other side of the Iron Curtain”. I cannot hide my Catholic background - nor e.g. my “mathematical way of thinking” or that English is not my mother tongue - even if I wanted.

However, I tried to argue rationally, which includes offering counter-arguments to arguments presented, alternative links to compensate for those listed by others, etc. If it looks as special pleading to you, I cannot help that. Neither can e.g. Oliver help if somebody sees his arguments as special pleading for something else, and I do not blame him for that.

As I often say, one presents one’s perspective here not to “convert” the holder of another perspective, but to broaden ones own perspective and hopefully also contribute to the broadening of his/hers. Sometimes this must be done by first clarifying what the argument is all about, what are the disagreements and what just misunderstandings.

Hi George,

Thanks.

You might find the following interesting regarding Church and State in Australia, noting the Commonwealth and States have different Constitutions:

http://www.iheu.org/node/1044

I feel the Catholic Church (and other churches) in Australia and elsewhere in the World, might feel the scope of separation means the “Church” part allows parallel laws/rights to secular State laws: And, in some instances, Church policies and Canons have precedence over State laws. …That the Church is very unlike a Bank or the Police, owing to the particular status provided by “Church”, within “Church” and “State”. … e.g., a belief that the State cannot forcibly remove documents from the “Church” in the course of an investigation or a Commission should not treat a bishop or priest the same a police constable or bank clerk. However, it could be argued, perhaps, even with support from Jesus, that religious institutions and figures are very much subject to Caesar’s law. Herein, Church and State is a concord, whereby, the State will not interfere in matters of religion or create a religion. In matters of Caesar’s side of the bargain, the Church should be no different to a bank; noting with regards the ANZ drugs case:

“The Herald Sun reports the bank's internal e-mail servers have been studied as part of the police probe with employees alleged to have used code words to buy and sell drugs.” From

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2010/05/14/ANZ_branch_probed_on_drug_accusations_461934.html

Likewise, looking at through the Church’s email servers and bishopric correspondence might help identify any bishops, who covered-up cases over the past twenty years, many of whom, might still be alive. Cardinal Pell (and other cardinals around the World), like the ANZexecutive, should cooperate with civil authorities and not make the job harder, as claimed by the Phoenix DA in the US (above). It is in the Church’s best interests to move, even beyond the positive steps taken in very recent years, to fully address these matters. As with police corruption, the cover-up agents, after the fact, must go, not only the prime criminals. More worthy priests can replace the cover-up bishops.

Hi Oliver,

Thanks again for the thoughts and links. However, as I keep on saying, I do not have enough legal insights to comment on what you wrote. I actually did not even understand what of that was the actual legal state of affairs re Australia vs. Catholic Church, and what just your ideas about how it ought to be. For instance, I know that officially there is a separation of Church and State in the USA but not in Germany, whereas in practice it often looks the other way around.

As I said before, I am sure should an Australian or American bishop ever be charged with obstructing justice (or something similar), the attorneys - both of prosecution and defense - will understand, and make use of, the legal context you write about better than I ever could.

I really think we are either repeating ourselves or talk past each other. I am grateful for your many inputs; they certainly “broadened” my insight into the sad matter, and perhaps we should leave it at that.

Hi George,

Many thanks for your comments and insights.

I do recognise the Catholic Church has opened the door even so slightly. Now it has made this first small step, I trust it will continue open up.

Again thanks. I hope to meet you again on another thread.

Kind regards,

Oliver

Mary and Pericles,

It would seem that the Catholic Church, under pressure, may over made a few concessions to public and notably media pressure. Some of the line-staff offenders have been given-up. Yet, I remain unsure that the Church is ready to surrender its cardinals and bishops.

George argued that he knows of no Australian nor US bishop ever being charged by secular authorities; yet, we are not told by the Church how these seeming innocent and blishful bishops just happen to transfer the priests involved in sex abuse scandals or why the Church pays out money to victims, before matter go to Court, in the abscence of any knowledge by the bishops, after-the-fact.

My reading of the two main OLO US cases: viz.,Boston and Pheonix, was that the authotities were very interested in investigating matters further. In the first case Bishop Law cleared out to the Vatican, ignoring the first Grand Jury Summons. The Pheonix DA claimed that Church moved key documents to those clergy with diplomatic immunity. I just can't see how all this evasive activity can happen with bishops not knowing what is going on. If the bishops did/do know more than they are saying; they should be charged or, in the case of nervous politicians, should been charged. It is up the Courts to decide their fate and to Church hand them over.

I strongly suspect some bishops protect the Church over their religious vocational and the public.

Mary... You started this thread. Where are you?

Oliver. and G

"here are places where humans don't think, I hope you don't mind."

I see your call, ( poker terms ) and I.... you and all some4 commonsensical Stakes in humanity.. Religion in its fine. I don't know what future has in the world stakes of humans, But I know this, What comes from the imagination can not be trusted.

Would you let a child run your world? ( punt intended )

TTM

.

Dear Oliver,

As George bows out and Mary remains discretely silent, please allow me to accompany you for a stitch or two on this thread, unless, of course, you too have come to the end of your reel.

My gambit is unpretentious. You may even find it trivial. It is the simple observation that Benedict is breathing more easily now as he rides comfortably seated in his toy-like Papa mobile. A much relieved smile crosses his face as he waves his undisguised gratitude to the huge masses that line his route. There can be no doubt. His followers are out in force.

You see, blind faith is all we have. Justice was never meant for us in this day and age of cruel existence.

So leave us our Pope and leave us our God. Leave us our Church and leave us alone to pray. Our priests are our guides and we do as they say. They know our troubles and woes. They teach us hope. Blind faith is all we have.

.

Banjo,

"Leave them a flower, some grass and a hedgerow. A hill and a valley, a view to the sea. These things are not yours to destroy as you want to. A gift given once for eternity" - Ames

My posts essentially to George posit to save their flower Christians must prune the bush.Inaction stands more chance at destroying the Catholic Church.

All I have been saying to George and our OLO theist friends is that Catholic Church must hand over to secular authorities the bishops, who knew transferred and covered-up for priests. Rendering unto Caesar. Not that the Church should not exist. Relatedly, I believe even Benedict said the Church at times must do penance.

I am pleased the Pope is more comfortable and mobile.

TTM,

Young Atlas was a Titanic sprinter.

FYI:

George asked about Australian abuse cases:

From ABC:

"Last year another vicar general, Father Thomas Brennan, was convicted of making a false written statement to protect Father John Denham, and placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond. He is the only person in a position of authority in the Catholic Church in Australia to be convicted for covering-up abuse."

"The present bishop of Maitland-Newcastle, Michael Malone, has been warned by police for "tipping off" Father Jim Fletcher that he was under police investigation. The Ombudsman's report into the incident was highly critical of the bishop's role. Bishop Malone has since apologised to victims for his poor handling of the issue."

Full article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/17/2901859.htm?section=justin

A twelve months good behaviour bond! Though, recording a conviction is a first step.

Also,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/17/2901234.htm

Oliver. These are people of trust in all the 2000/6000 years of its exsistance. If you proclaim to be the righteous one's, faultless you must be?

By this mark, humans we are. So to sit in the drivers seat of the all, one can only guess whats next. Your links show a clean up of the past facts and this point will be noted.

TTM

Africa:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6372E620100408

Australia:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2902098.htm

Brazil:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6T2FZuW588xFahgyr8KUJFK1TJAD9FM55TO0

Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/800312--church-scandal-s-next-wave-abused-girls?bn=1

Ireland:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8688557.stm

England:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6224134/Panel-to-investigate-Catholic-Church-abuse-allegations.html

United States:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14brfs-SETTLEMENTIN_BRF.html

Church’s New Legal Strategy:

- For Pope to say the bishops are are not employees of the Vatican and are acting autonomously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7733921/Vatican-claims-bishops-arent-employees.html

- Why then does the Vatican receive these bishops helping them to avoid summons or move abuse related documents to other clerics with diplomatic protection? Perhaps, it is not only about protecting the bishops, but protecting the Church from what the bishops know and might say to avoid real jail time. We might be looking at only the tip of the iceberg.

Mary,

Seems you don't think the issue is as important, as when you wrote the article. You haven't replied for some time.

This is not a dead issue.

.

Dear Oliver,

.

Thank you for that interesting comment. Also, as you suggest to the much regretted Mary, it may not be a dead issue but it may well be a dead end.

I don't know about those iceblocks, I tend to associate popes with smoke, and where there is smoke ... perhaps a little of each: smoke and fire under the iceberg, belching volcanic ash, derailing aircraft and all that. You are right. Benedict is a crafty old devil. He certainly seems to have more than one trick up his sleeve.

That was a good one about not having any employees. I wonder what he is going to come up with next. Mind you he has not done too much hiring and firing during the five years since he appeared through the smoke. You can be sure he won't be doing any at all for the rest of his tenure, at least not until the ash settles.

That, of course, lets the bishops off the hook. They must be dancing with glee or singing psalms with the altar boys or something.

I don't know why, I can't help thinking Benedict reminds me of Ahmadinejad. They don't look alike but they both seem to think and act the same way. The two are becoming quite confused in my mind. Whenever I hear one I could swear I was listening to the other one.

Strange, isn't it ?

Must have been watching too much television.

.

Dear Banjo,

"You are right. Benedict is a crafty old devil. He certainly seems to have more than one trick up his sleeve."

Yes, it reminds me a little of Bullwinkle, "Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out my hat". Well, for Benedict, "that trick always works", so long as the community and the Church's own parishioners don't apply pressure.

Anyone who achieves the high Office of Pope, would need to have been an excellent politician throughout his career.

Just think, folowing Benedict's lawyer's reasoning, if BP and Exxon paid their crews from the Cocos Islands, their head offices would not be responsible for oil spills.

Actually, I feel that the Church does not enjoin the criminality until such time it starts to cover-up. The same goes for a Bank or a Police Force in a parallel situation. The catch is, that the Church wont cut the guilty senior clergy loose into the hands of secular authorities. Perhaps, the odd priest, but not the cover-up cardinals and bishops.

Reform is needed, even if the Cathoic Church looses half of its hierarchy. Apologies don't address systemic problems.

"Physcian heal thy self."

.

Dear Oliver,

.

Thank you for warning me that Benedict is a world class politician in pope's clothing. I appreciate that.

I nevertheless dare step in the ring with him with no other arms than as much common sense as I can muster as an ordinary person.

As I am neither a human resources specialist, nor a lawyer, nor even a law student at Sydney university like Mary, the odds with the bookies can only be humiliating.

Benedict did not indicate which jurisdiction he had in mind when he declared that the bishops are not his employees. Perhaps he was alluding to the fact that bishops, wherever they are located in the world and whatever their nationality, do not have a signed employment contract, which seems plausible.

I understand that in most countries, cvil servants do not have a signed employment contract either. Though they are "employed by", or should I say, "work for" the government, they do not have a contract. It seems they are "appointed" and are governed by a "statute".

Religious personnel would appear to be in a similar type of situation. The profession of a bishop, I imagine, is that of "cleric" whereas the term "bishop" would appear to be the title of a particular rank in the hierarchy of that profession.

Despite the specificities of those professions which employ civil servants and clerics, it should not be too dificult to establish the existence of relationships of subordination within the hierarchy of both of these professions.

It should also be possible to demonstrate that bishops are remunerated for their services either in cash or in kind or both. I would not be surprised if they also had some form of "employee" or, shall we say, "social" benefits as well as retirement benefits.

If, by his statement, Benedict appears to wish to "disown" the bishops as his subordinates, it is possibly because he is responsible for their acts, unless, of course, he is able to prove that they deliberately disobeyed his precise instructions. That may well be a problem.

.

Banjo,

If priests are collecting monies their diocese and not "The Church", that should be made very clear, given parishioners are making donations. Presumely, parishes give some support the Vatican. Maybe, the vatican-Diocese connection could be established bottom-up, rather than top-down. In theory, a prosecutor could apply for an Examination Summons, which would require the Diocese to furnish all account records to a Court.

I wonder if the seven priests allegedly wanted by US authorities and living in the Vatican ever visit Rome? Surely, the US has extradiction treaties with Italy.

If the Pope, when a cardinal or bishop, did know of a genuine paedophile case and didn't go to the the police, he could still be tried in absentia as was Martin Borman (as mentioned by me, to George). Who knows a Court might find him innocent. That would be good news. However, I don't believe "all" these bishops are innocent any more than I believe than "no" police officer has ever covered-up for a partner. Yet, that is up to a jury not you, me or the Pope to decide.

The Church must put its house in order.

.

Dear Oliver,

.

I do not think there is much to expect or to hope for in the way of change as long as Benedict remains in office.

Nor am I aware of any pressure coming from the world-wide Catholic community in favour of reform.

The current debate has been centered exclusively around sex abuse cases that have been made public by victims and their families through the media. So far as the silent majority of the one billion plus Catholics in the world is concerned, it's business as usual.

Nobody has suggested that children and adolescents should never be left alone in the sole company of a priest, no matter how holy and angelical he may appear. Nor has anybody suggested that children and adolescents should be permanently dispensed from attending the confessional.

It is the victims and their families who are manifesting their pain, outrage and anger, not the silent majority.

It is the victims and their families who are doing everything in their power to bring the criminals and their accomplices to justice, not the public authorities, the police, the courts, the governments, or society in general.

Responsible governments may one day recognize that the Catholic church has gone a little too far in its desire to control the minds, bodies and souls of the children of the world, and place them under its protection.

It is interesting to note that under British law, it is an offence to sell or supply liqueur confectionery to a child under 16. The individual under 18 also commits an offence if he buys or tries to buy alcohol, or is supplied with it in a club. Further, it is an offence for another to try and buy, or have alcohol supplied to him, on behalf of a child.

It would seem appropriate that legislators around the world should also extend their protective arm to the prevention of sexual abuse of "individuals under the age of 18" by representatives of religious organisations and their accomplices.

Unfortunately, Oliver, I doubt that it will happen in our life time.

.

"Unfortunately, Oliver, I doubt that it will happen in our life time."

I fear you are correct.

Where I probably sound like a worn-out record is on the matter of ridding the Church of the cover-up cardinals and bishops. Systemic change is needed. Else, in our life time, as you say, it will go on and on and on.

Some OLO Christians openingly agree that paedophile priests should go; but,once the Pope, cardinals and bishops are in the cross-hairs, the excuses come out. Catholics protect their Church and its senior clerics, somehow rationalising their behaviour.

It is usual for a prosecutor to allow a plea bargin for a reduced sentence if a criminal "squeals". I wonder if that is what the Vatican fears. One insider bishop turning over ten others to avoid jail time.

Politicians would have to be living under a rock not to realise what is going-on and to appreciate downgrading diplomatic relationships with the Vatican would help prosecutors, but do nothing. I have certainly not heard a word from Rudd or Abbott.

I plan to keep an eye on "the bishops are not employees of the Vatican" defense.

.

Dear Oliver,

.

" ... the matter of ridding the Church of the cover-up cardinals and bishops ..."

I fully share your concerns. The traditional role of the Church as a sanctuary does not justify covering up sexual abuse committed by its own staff on children and adolescents placed under its care and protection. Quite the contrary.

It is now common knwledge that ordained priests in every country in the world where the Catholic church is firmly established have constantly and willingly violated the sanctuary that the Church is supposed to represent and which it is their duty to defend.

It is difficult to imagine anything more cynical on the part of the Church than to cover up for those of its members who deliberately betrayed its confidence and violated the very sanctuary that it was their sacred duty to defend.

They have betrayed the Church just as Judas is reported to have betrayed Jesus. There is no reason why their fate should be any different from that of Judas.

In a similar cartesion fashion, I consider that when a body has suffered a severe traumatism, the first priority is to stop the bleeding, do whatever you can for the victim, and finally, establish the responsibilities.

So far as I can judge, the Church, and Benedict in particular, has done little else than react defensively to accusations by the victims and their families.

The whole world saw God's chief representative kneel down at Easter and wash feet, but it was the (impeccably clean) feet of one of his staff, not the (dirty) feet of one of his victims.

And nobody, including Benedict, has done anything yet to stop the bleeding.

That is my chief concern and, I imagine, should normally be the chief concern of most Catholic parents.

.

Dear Banjo,

Dear Banjo,

"The whole world saw God's chief representative kneel down at Easter and wash feet, but it was the (impeccably clean) feet of one of his staff, not the (dirty) feet of one of his victims."

Very well put. Or, as Edward Gibbob states:

"Our serious thoughts will suggest to the apostles themselves were chosen by providence among the fisherman of Galilee, and that the lower depress the temporal condition of the first the Christians, the more reason we shall find to admire the merit and success. It is incumbent on us diligently to remember, that the kingdom of Heaven was promised to the poor in spirit and that minds afflicted by calamity and the contempt of mankind, cheerfully listen to the divine promise of future happiness; while, on the contrary, the fortunate are satisfied with the passion of this world; and the wise abuse in doubt and dispute their vain superiority of reason and knowledge” – Gibbon (1776)

The "Shoes of a Fisherman" I suspect have not been worn since c. 250 CE when administrative bishoprics formed and were thrown in the trash by Constantine (325 CE).

Obviously, the Catholic Church always the intermediation card up it sleeve, as cliamed by many of the faithful.

I somehow doubt Catholic laity have it them to tackle the abuse problem, because they feel clerics somewhat superior and closer to their god. We don't see 50,000 Catholic in St Peter's Square demanding action and I feel we never will.

.

Dear Oliver

.

I see you have just chalked up a century on Mary's forum. Quite a remarkable score. Really great chatting. But the light is fading and it's time to call it a day.

Just a final word before heading for the stands:

The daylight is dying
Away in the west,
The wild birds are flying
In silence to rest;
In leafage and frondage
Where shadows are deep,
They pass to its bondage-
The kingdom of sleep.
And watched in their sleeping
By stars in the height,
They rest in your keeping,
Oh, wonderful night.

When night doth her glories
Of starshine unfold,
'Tis then that the stories
Of bush-land are told.
Unnumbered I hold them
In memories bright,
But who could unfold them,
Or read them aright?

Beyond all denials
The stars in their glories
The breeze in the myalls
Are part of these stories.
The waving of grasses,
The song of the river
That sings as it passes
For ever and ever,
The hobble chains rattle,
The calling of birds,
The lowing of cattle
Must blend with the words.

Without these indeed, you
Would find it ere long,
As though I should read you
The words of a song
That lamely would linger
When lacking the rune,
The voice of the singer,
The lilt of the tune.

But, as one half-hearing
An old-time refrain,
With memory clearing,
Recalls it again,
These tales roughly wrought of
The bush and its ways,
May call back a thought of
The wandering days,
And, blending with each
In the mem'ries that throng,
There haply shall reach
You some echo of song.

.