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.