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.