Oliver,
Thank you for a further elaboration on your views and sermons. I am afraid you are again mixing up at least four related but not equivalent issues:

(i) the fact of sexual abuse in Catholic institutions;
(ii) the fact of some bishops being guilty of cover-ups (apparently including Cardinal Law) and the questions of which bishop and to what extent;
(iii) the question of in what sense and to what extent can JPl II be blamed;
(iv) the question of in what sense and to what extent can Benedict XVI be blamed.

I think emotions (as distinct from facts referring to concrete cases) - whether exhibited by those who have been known to be a priori anti-Catholic (even anti-theist) or from those who have always felt the need to defend the Church and the Pope, as understandable as they might be in both cases - do not help to clarify the issues.

By now you must know where I agree with you, and where I disagree, so - as I already said - let us just be happy about where we agree, and agree to disagree where we don’t.

Dear Geroge,

Thank you for your reply.

I would certainly agree (i)-(iv) are not equivalent issues yet there are interrelated and overlap like Venn Diagrams. Moreover, through a skeptic, I would argue that Catholic Church should address the systemic issues discussed, if the Church is to be true its own creed. I suggest that this puts the “minders” in the cross-hairs. Benedict seems to have moved to some extent against the perpetrators with regards to “future” intent.

I put, the Church will survive. The matter under the microscope is; in what guise will it survive? For centuries that Church has had problems of what sort or another. The twig was bent, I believe, because the values of institutionalisation were substituted for the values of the “very” early church. Empires act differently to missions.

I think I understand where you stand on (i) and (ii). (i) The Church is guilty, but not to a greater extent than any other large organization of a similar kind. (ii) You acknowledge some bishops (and higher ups) have been involved in cover-ups; maybe, feeling cover-up s are rare. Regarding (iii) and (iv), you see, the two popes have been handed a poisoned chalice and they have performed in a rightful way, to defend the Church in a spiritual and institutional sense, rather being pulled into a street fight in the public domain, which could be very damaging.

As for (i); we agree. I would tend to intertwine (ii) - (iv), which goes to the issue of “priests protecting priests” to save peers and the Church (not unlike some secular brotherhoods).

I wish the Church would address more fully these matters and if can’t the secular authorities do the job. Hence, my comments made on putting popes on trial and jailed (most likely symbolically; “ ‘guilty in absentia’ or ‘jailed until the rising of the Court’ ”).

I suspect you might wish to bring the current discourse to a close but before we do:

How would you have Benedict XVI deal with the bishops? What message did JPII promoting Law send to other bishops?

soctratease,

"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?"

Circa 200 CE, there issue of how many times one could be forgiven was associated with baptism and that matter was one of concern for the early Jesus sects. You see, it was first felt that people could only be forgiven once. On one hand, this tended to push baptism towards the deathbed... no opportinty re-sin. On the other hand, because of high infant mortality, there was a a lean towards infant baptism. A few centuries later, adult baptism became a problem for Roman authorties, because the Christians would go on a sin fest before final baptism, preparation for which took (if I recall correctly) three years.

(Apostles aside) The forgiveness of sin was oringinally associated with Martyrs and Confessors (people who almost became martyrs but released) not the priesthood. Then justifications for Jesus sect priesthoods had Jewish origins, not Apostolic suscession from Peter, which came later. Recall, until Hadrian, the leaders of the Jesus sects were Jewish.

Oliver,
>>How would you have Benedict XVI deal with the bishops?<<
You did not name any bishop, and if you did I probably would not know the details. Nevertheless:

As far as criminal liability of this or that bishop is concerned I would leave it in most cases (countries that can be seen as having the judicial separated from executive) to the corresponding Attorney General or other legal authorities.

[I know, somebody here wrote “the Attorney General entrusted with the task of laying criminal charges against the Archbishop was a Catholic”. Well, how would you regard a statement like “the Attorney General entrusted with the task of laying criminal charges against this homosexual, Afro-American, female, etc. was a homosexual, Afro-American, female etc. respectively”?].

I think - but here I am on unsure territory - the pope cannot make the bishop “turn in” the culprit if the victims (or their parents) themselves are unwilling or unable (for whatever reasons) to lay charges leading to prosecution.

Only the national Conferences of bishops in particular countries can instruct their bishops to cooperate - as far as abuse of minors is concerned - with “secular authorities” . (This cannot be done universally in all matters and valid in all countries, since not all countries have a legislative and judicial system that the Church can accept and respect, see e.g. the Communist countries in the past).

This they did explicitly e.g. in Germany recently, which does not mean that before they discouraged such cooperation; they apparently only did not see a reason to make it that explicit. There is enough evidence that in the past not only the Church was very naive and negligent concerning pedophilia occurrences, psychological impact on victims and available “remedies”. (ctd)

(ctd)
If only error of judgement on the side of the bishop was involved - acting not with “criminal intent” but through negligence with “unintended consequences” leading to further victims - he should reprimand him. And in extreme cases - where “trial by media” becomes unbearable in his home country - offer him “asylum”, like the Vatican did with a couple of bishops in the past who were sentenced not only by media but also by the judicial in former Communist countries.

>>I suspect you might wish to bring the current discourse to a close<<
Yes, as I said “I see no point in conducting a trial of a pope (dead or alive) on this OLO”. I nevertheless responded, because I value your insights on many topics, but now please take my last contribution as it is, and let us leave it at that.

Dear George,

Thank you for your views, which I appreciate are sincerely held. I will agree t disagree with you, once again, for this thread. I appreciate your pastcomments.

Best wishes,

O.

Others,

Regarding the points made by George:

1. I believe several “minder” bishops have been identified on OLO paedophilia thread. It is easy to test. Just look.

2. One belief seeminly being held by the Faithful is that, “only the national Conferences of bishops in particular countries can instruct their bishops to cooperate - as far as abuse of minors is concerned - with “secular authorities” (George). Here we have canonical authorities vetting themselves in relation to whether or not to cooperate with secular authorities:

When I worked in the Head Office of a Bank oberved after several years of collecting Financial Institutions Duty, an error was found in the original computer programme used to collect the tax, when business analysts wrote a new programme. When it was discovered the Bank owed the ATO a significant sum, a Conclave of the Australian Bankers’ Association was “not” called to see if Banks would vote on whether Banks should declare or not declare errors and pay the tax. Instead, an actuarial committee was formed and the Bank itself it had made the error known and made voluntary restitution. Catch is, the Church sees itself able to operate independent to secular law, a power it lost centuries ago. Point: The Church is acting as if is special and must not operate to good moral/legal accepted in the broader community. In a sense it is exclusive and antisocial, some thing the Ancient Romans accused the Judeo-Christian religions of being.

The Catholic Church's “Cremin Solliticiations” (Soliciting Crimes) though not directly relevant to the sex abuse scandals (mainly covering-up false confessions, I think), does shine a light on the inner secretiveness of the Church and the use of papal and bishopric powers to keep sinful matters in-house, threatening things like excommunication and making redemption/absolution possible only be the Pope, for broken oaths and the telling of Holy Secrets.