Your link 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpZz8Ps6u6M

The BBC claim that the Pope covered up as no action was taken against abuser Fr Murphy in spite of being reported to the Vatican in the 1990s. They later contradict that by claiming that a canonical trial was held but that it was stopped. Murphy abused deaf boys between 1950s and 1974. It states that July 1996 the local Archbishop (Weakland) wrote to Ratzinger and they consider it a cover up because the Archbishop wrote a second letter saying that noone had got back to him. Interestingly it has someone explaining that Weakland is a man held in great esteem in many parts of the Church and it was arrogant for the Vatican not to not take him seriously. Weakland stepped down after it was revealed that he had spent Church funds in an out of court settlement relating to a sexual assault claim against him. He later admitted that he had returned abusive priests to ministry without alerting parishioners or police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/archbishop-rembert-weakla_n_201972.html

As I said they claimed that the canonical trial was stopped. They inferred that this was the result of a letter from Murphy to Ratzinger. However as the link I put forward shows Murphy was still on trial the day he died.

Your next link is an article reporting the Pope’s apology to victims. I assume it just showing the apology.

”Where is the law in these matters? Isn't there a law of "accessory after the fact"? Shouldn't those who covered up the crimes also be punished?”

The media use the terms quite broadly so probably there is probably nothing available criminally.

”Where in the Bible did Jesus allow the creation of the confessional?” etc. etc.

Are you some type of protestant fundy who wants to convert Catholics? I can answer the question but is this the forum? On this basis I have skipped much of the rest of your post.

”What should happen to the Pope if what is alleged in the above articles is true?”

I think that many mistruths can be established.

Well Oliver you seem to have quite a grasp of religious knowledge, for which I salute you.

Yes I understand the 39 Articles of Faith as applied to the Anglican Church. In the main they are as valid today as when they were first mooted all those years ago.

There is Confession in the Anglican Church, it usualy takes the form of a general congregational confession as part of the morning service prior to the rite of Holy Communion. A private confession between priest and supplicant can usually be arranged, provided the participating priest is willing. This rite of a general congrgational confession was practised by a certain latin catholic priest in the Brisbane Diocese, but unfortunately, although well received within his parish he was forced by the Diocese Bishop to resign from his parish and he was replaced with a more doctrinated amenable priest.

I would surmise that the two main causes of paederasty/paedophilliac
behaviour within the latin catholic church,or indeed, any religion in which such unnatural practise's operate, is firstly, the priestly closed confession, and secondly, the practise of the vow of celibacy. The first one with its secrecy and invariable forgiveness, must encourage unnatural behaviour and, the second with its very unnatural attitude to procreation of the species, must prove extremely difficult to manage except for the very strong minded, who unfortunately are few and far between.

This pentultimate paragraph I think sums up all the preceding comments. I rest my case!

Jack form Bicton. I agree that the closed confession is a boon to those sinners and priests who have something to hide, however I don't believe celibacy has anything to do with paedophilia.

If celibate priests or brothers were feeling 'unnatural' in themselves then I imagine they would (and have done!) seek out other adult sexual partners anyway.

There are many paedophiles who are in adult sexual relationships in our community and still seek out children for their sick sexual gratification.

What reason would you give for non-celibate people practicing paedophilia?

I will always believe that the paedophile was active before they became priests (even if only in the mind at that stage), and they only joined the church to have a more likely chance of sourcing victims.

The Catholic church is by no means the only church that has paedophile members.

Suze I am sure Will not mind foxy told us the nature of her illness in another thread, she copped a verbal diatribe from one and look in her post history for the nature of illness.
get well friend
DD and others who post here are evidence that forgiveness for some crimes should never be given.
surely saying sorry can not undo such evil.
I refuse to think priests who did this believe in God.
Or that a God would forgive this.

Suzie I'm not so convinced that all started as child abusers. More likely it's a mixed bag.

I'm pondering what I've read of prison life where a percentage of inmates will involve themselves in same sex activity because that's what's all they have access to then revert to hetro activity when they are released. I've seen research material on that in the past but don't have any links saved. I did find the following http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Prison_sexuality

It has probably been a lot easier for adult's with a claimed vow of celebacy to get sexual access to children than to other adult's especially where there is also a strong taboo against homosexual activity (note - activity rather than orientation). Often those children will be children of the same sex as the abuser because that's who they have access to.

Some people take whatever they can get, it's not about orientation.

R0bert

Robert,

I'm with Suzie. Up front I admit the bias that if Jesus talked about being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven then I wouldn't expect it to cause paedophilia.

I skimmed your prison article and there was an awful lot about rape. So clearly forcing is often required and you did say a percentage. The article mentions that the perpetrators don't identify as homosexual. However surely some homosexual men commit crimes and we have all heard of (or known)men who engage in homosexual activity but don't feel comfortable identifying as a homosexual. Isn't it possible that the prisons might provide an outlet for those type of peope? Isn't it also possible that a macho culture (which I expect would be present in jail) might result in pressure to lie rather then admit to a non-normative sexual preference? If it is purely situational why do some men embrace it but most need to be raped?

"It has probably been a lot easier for adult's with a claimed vow of celebacy to get sexual access to children than to other adult's especially where there is also a strong taboo against homosexual activity (note - activity rather than orientation)..."

Having sex with children is considered worse than having sex with adults. I can only talk about the Catholic Church but priests often have access to seminarians and other priests and it is widely believed that homosexual orientations are overrepresented in those who have entered the priesthood so gaining access to people who might be tempted should be easy.

The fact that paedophilia is underrepresented in the celibate also undermines your theory as does the fact (?) that most paedophilia occurs within families. Fathers and defactos who presumably have regular access to sex without resorting to child sex I believe from memory are the most common perpetrators.

Plus of course the idea that paedophiles would seek out children wherever they can get away with it at the time is a compelling theory. You conceded it as a part cause with your "mixed bag" comment.