(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 .