There's a new take on this.It'sd been put to me that the Church, and consequently the pope, is caught between a rock and a hard thing. They have to uphold the teachings of Jesus. The Pope tries to do just that.
But
The Bible has Jesus saying that we should forgive those who offend "seventy times seven" times if necessary. His disciples had just asked him how forgiving should one be against transgressors.What if he should offend seven times? tHEN jESUS GAVE HIS FAMOUS REPLY QUOTED ABOVE. What he meant was that we need to persist in helping an offender mend his ways. Not a word about what should be done to protect the vulnerable in the meantime. As always the rights of the vulnerable are overlooked.
What do you guys think about the inference made by the Gospel story?

socratease

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. “ (Mt 18:22-23).

So this would be applicable to the pope only if somebody “sinned against him”, no “vulnerables” (except for the pope himself) involved here.

The scandal is not about whom the Church should or should not have forgiven but that they did not always follow the proper procedure - in the moral as well as legal sense - that is, that they put self-interest before the interests of the “vulnerables” in their care (and of the society at large).

Which ever way you want to put it,The pope and his cohorts all sinned one way or another.They acknowledge this and that is why they have been going about asking for forgiveness of the victims. Sure,they should have thought about this a long time ago,George, but Jesus didnt put a time limit on this,did he? It is never too late, as it has often been said. I understand you find it hard to apply this to the beleagured Pope and his honchos.Understand.
Im not sure.

socratease

Of course, you are right, socratease. Mt 18:22-23 would also apply to the victim if he cared to ask Jesus (like Peter did) how many times he should forgive the person (or persons), who “sinned against him”.

Of course, it is not up to the “sinners” to tell the victim they have to forgive, and how many times. I am sure nobody involved interprets MT 18:22-23 this way.

Hello George,

The Bishop Law Case was carried-forward from a recent thread on the Church wherein mjpb and I had discourse and the citation was not intended as a direct response to your Canisius College case. The Law case is interesting because it seems that the Bishop was treated preferentially over say a common labour by the Attorney General. Subsequently, Law is promoted by the Pope. It appears that high status of the Church and a Bishop are being taken into account, but should not be.

The Boston AG acted insipidly and JP II rewarded him. Law didn’t seem to have to dodge bulletins, even. No one with power over Law would fire their guns.

Apologising and saying “we will change and have no tolerance” does not go far enough. Several people, including Benedict, who have acted to protect the “universal church”, have not been held accountable. Moreover, in-house, their careers have advanced, when they have covered-up crimes.

Why I keep coming back to the Edward Gibbon quotation is that since c. 250 CE through to Constantine until now, the Church has become powerful and wealthy in a manner somewhat different the apostolic era preceding it. Likewise, I doubt Jesus, would be one to come to Confirmations in a limousine.

“The Church is not meant to be master of the State” - Martin Luther King Jnr. Herein, I feel that Jesus one have no problem with criminals and their minders being rendered unto Caesar. The catch is the Papacy, sees itself as Caesar.

Ultimately, the issue of forgiveness of sin has to do with afterlives, for those who believe. Criminality is temporal and its redress for serious breaches in the Court room. Mehmet Ali Acga was “forgiven” for his attempt on JPII’s life, yet, he still faced secular justice. So let it be with paedophiles and their minders.

The overarching issue is: Does the ends justify the means? Does acting to protect the Church justify acing immorally to achieve that end?

Well, I guess Law did have dodge "bulletins", but he didn't have to dodge "bullets": i.e., legal and career consequences. - Please ee above.

"The scandal is not about whom the Church should or should not have forgiven but that they did not always follow the proper procedure - in the moral as well as legal sense - that is, that they put self-interest before the interests..." - George

Agree. But the Church still needs to prune the rose/itself. It has to come clean, including exposing the "minders" not only the paedophiles and bashers. In a sense, the Church is infected and needs a good dose of legal anti-biotics.

George and Socratease,

Perhaps Mark is more relevant:

"whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if your hand offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if your foot offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if your eye offend you, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched". Mark 9 42:48

Herein, what holds for an immoral individual; I put; must hold for an immoral Church. The Catholic Church (or any Church) must not assault innocent children; and, metaphorically speaking, not retain, those the eyes and limbs being criminals. Even if the Church "forgives" these criminals, it still must cleave them from the institution, popes and bishops included.