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.