Suzeonline,

I also suspect that paedophiles have some type of genetic issue combined with bad experiences which might not be confined to abuse but might be - even if the genetic contribution might be nothing more than a sensitive/delicate personality or something and that makes them susceptible to getting their sexuality screwed up.

Anyone I’m not answering,

Sorry, if things were slower I wouldn’t miss you, but the conversation with opinionated is going to require a lot of words.

Opinionated 2,

Are you are a Jehovahs Witness or something? It would be surprising that a secular fundamentalist would take so much interest in scripture. However, if so, keep at it. As a Christian I have no problem with it.

I may be a Catholic fundy as someone who might attract the pejorative label of course as literally there is no such thing and I do not work for the Church.

Like you I can only offer an opinion on the problems with the Catholic Church so I don’t think we can get much value from arguing the toss about Biblicalness on that basis.

Cardinal Pell became a Cardinal because he presumably suitably qualified. Did he fail to consider the feelings of the victims when he attended court? Was he a support person? Were the victims who had been raped as kids willing to have someone in the clergy accompany them? I don’t know and broken rights may not either. Given their attitude toward the Catholic Church they may not be trying to express a police report type fact as much as a feeling.

I believe that Pell was the auxiliary Bishop in the Diocese where Ridsdale was when he was brought to Justice. I would expect that someone’s boss would take a keen interest in whether or they are guilty in his first court matter and I also believe that they lived together at one time so I’m sure he would want to know what was going on for that reason also.

CONT

Beyond the fact that he went to court with Ridsdale we can only speculate. Broken Rites hate the Catholic Church and will tend to speculate in a negative way. I am a Catholic and will tend to speculate in positive way. In any case the worst case scenario of an occasion of thoughtlessness probably wouldn’t disqualify a Cardinal.

However it is timely to give credit to Pell for what we do know. In addition to the work that has been done to attempt to prevent reoccurance the Church has focused on past victims and assisting them. The standard program is called Towards Healing. This apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling. Pell introduced a program that some victim organization (I don’t recall which) described as better than the Towards Healing program. He is hardly the arch enemy of abuse victims.

”This list http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html gives the names of 117 Catholic priests, religious brothers and seminarians who have been sentenced in Australian courts in Broken Rites cases.

The questions that needs to be asked are....what did the organisations do?”

What didn’t they do. Every base I can think of has been covered.

”Have a read for yourself of this case http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page137-baker.html”

The judge was right “in the past” priests did work in other parishes after abuse. I think that theme has been done to death already in this thread.

”But has this Pope got a record for poor decision making?”

There is a huge following of SSPX who could enrich the Church with their beautiful liturgies and enthusiasm if they would join up so the Pope’s diplomatic move was a great idea. The head of the society Bishop Fellay had requested in a letter that the excommunication for 4 Bishops be removed. Indeed it was a key condition for talks with the Vatican. The fact that one of the 4 Bishops that they wanted excommunication lifted turned out to be a dud certainly would be good grounds to exclude him if that had been known. Even the SSPX was shocked to discover he was a holocaust denier:

CONT

From a "Statement of Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X" issued on 27th January:

"The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.

We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission."

Williamson first expressed the views in a public forum (Swedish TV) on the evening of 21 January, 2009. By 25 January, 2009, a Sunday, the news reports were flying that the Pope had reinstated a Hollocaust denier.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39269

Therefore the reinstatement must have happened on or before the 25 January, 2009. Unless the Pope was visiting Sweden and curled up in front of Swedish TV on the night of the 21st is it reasonable to jump to the conclusion that he knew about Williamson? Do you have any reason to think he was in Sweden? Otherwise Williamson was some crank interviewed from a society that most would never have heard of. I know I didn’t read any media reports about the event until the Pope reinstated him and I’m not buried away in the Vatican managing an organization of at least 1.1 billion. Of course Australian media gave the impression that the Pope was silent after the revelation when in fact he immediately made it clear that he condemned holocaust denial:
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=9a0f5291-1c76-486c-a458-7f60e06ea6e7

”Do the Popes have a good record?”

No. The first Pope denied our Lord and Saviour 3 times before the morning after he was arrested. They got off on a bad start and I’m sure that the hundreds of subsequent ones weren’t all perfect. My understanding is that many were far from it.

Opinionated 2,

”How many times has the Catholic Church reported one of it's members directly to the Police?...OR Is that the job of the victims? “

I don’t know and suspect that is now moot. To quote from Paul Collins book:

"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

Re: Moses

I’d better clarify. I said that certain actions by Moses apparently with God’s blessing prefigured the confessional.

”Wasn't the confessional created as a mechanism of control, by allowing priests...(using Moses-like threats)...to know what was going on in the community?”

That is a convenient theory. But Christ created it and I’m sure that is not why He did it. It doesn’t bind people with control but instead frees them from their sins.

”Surely God would be smart enough to know that putting it in the hands of man it would be misused?....Or isn't he that smart?”

That He is infinitely smart suggests that your theory is wrong. it is a little premature to go there before you consider my New Testament quotes.

Opinionated 2,

”I'll let this site argue the Peter was the first Pope question....http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm”

The term straw man comes to mind. It makes all manner of inferences and presumptions but doesn’t even address the scriptures Catholics understand to give the authority.

”Now your quoting John 20:23 was a good selection except it doesn't justify the confessional...surely GOD/JESUS would have mentioned the confessional more precisely...they/he/she/it knows all things past, present and future.”

Why? What He said works for me. The Church still does it and the early Christians obviously understood Him. Even if He had just for you you would simply focus on other perceived faults.

”And if any of what this link alleges is true...the confessional came about much later than Peter...and wasn't it misused very early on?...http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/380995.html”

Read it again. It only refers to the practice in 1215 where Catholics were told they should confess sins at least once a year. It doesn’t assert that there was nothing prior to that. St Cyprian of Carthage in The Lapsed (251AD) wrote:

“I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while satisfaction and remission made through the priests are pleasing before the Lord.”

”What do you say about Papal Infallibilty? etc”

That is a funny one. You have got to be assuming that Papal Infallibility means that Popes are perfect people. That our first Pope was Peter should give that one away.

”Is remaining "in the church" if so many crimes against children have been allegedly covered up..."tacit approval"?”

I believe that love of God and acceptance of the denominational take on Christianity rather than tacit approval for anyone from Judas to Father Murphy is the motive.

”I'd be the first to leave any organisation that covered up crime!”

Then dig back 50 years on all organizations you are in and see. The media won’t be doing it.

ABC Radio National today had yet another story dealing with this subject .
It harshly and rightly so, judged this church and the pope.
Calling for true crime status for those who offended and those who will in the future it added weight to my claims.
The Catholic church may not survive, but for far too long we see little contrition and justice.
Australian Catholic leadership is no better than Ireland's