Dear david f,

>>I wonder why Francis didn’t repeat that injunction. He seems to be overriding the previous instruction.<<

Sorry but I really do not see why a newly elected pope should explicitly repeat all the “injunctions” or “instruction” (in distinction to moral exhortations) issued by Vatican during the rule of his predecessor.

The link I gave was just randomly chosen from a number of similar news Google will give you. For instance, in http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0216/Pope-Benedict-scolds-Ireland-s-bishops-over-sex-abuse-scandal you can see that Benedict XVI condemned not only the pedophiles but also the bishops for the cover-ups, a scolding explicitly praised by the Cardinal who later became Pope Francis (http://www.irishcatholic.ie/20130321/blogs/pope-francis-praised-benedict-xvi-on-irish-abuse-stance-S31779.html).

Besides - as I quoted here a number of times - although nobody can deny the guilt of some (you might say many) Catholic bishops, they never boasted about pedophilia or campaigned for its decriminalisation (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14358#247576).

Dear George,

This is an important issue in the Catholic Church. Certainly the pope does not have repeat all the injunctions. The fact that he chose not to repeat the injunction about reporting it to the police is ignoring a key reason why many are outraged. He apparently did not consider that injunction important enough to repeat. As far as I am concerned that condemns him.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Anyone who practices morality, even with no conscious reference to God, or anything supernatural, is well ahead on their religious path and that rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", is only one step away from God."

The above is nonsense. One cannot be one step away from an entity that does not exist.

Dear David,

<<The above is nonsense. One cannot be one step away from an entity that does not exist.>>

That's very true, but God is not an entity.

But since the concept of God as entity is sadly so common in our society, let me rephrase what I wrote, saying the same but in a way that hopefully does not unintentionally suggest (by irrelevant mental associations) a false idea of entities and a physical proximity to them:

That rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", thus foregoing his/her natural/human tendency to identify with and serve the interests of their false egotistic viewpoint, pretending that one was just a limited body separate from others and otherness, such a person having no investment in or addiction to such a limited identity, is already very close to discover and directly experience their true and unlimited nature.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: That's very true, but God is not an entity.

Any object that exists or that one can conceive of is an entity.

You also wrote: That rare person who can truly and consistently be "doing the right thing simply because that is what a good person does", thus foregoing his/her natural/human tendency to identify with and serve the interests of their false egotistic viewpoint, pretending that one was just a limited body separate from others and otherness, such a person having no investment in or addiction to such a limited identity, is already very close to discover and directly experience their true and unlimited nature.

If one forgoes a natural human tendency then one is not expressing one's true nature. Our true nature expresses our natural human tendencies. An egotistic viewpoint is true not false since we all have an ego. Hillel, a wise man said:

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?"

We all are for ourselves, but we should not be for ourselves alone.

‘Unlimited nature’ is completely meaningless to me.

You simply do not make sense to me.

Dear david f,

>>The fact that he chose not to repeat<<
How can you know that somebody “chose not to repeat” (sometimes something you would like him/her to repeat) unless he/she explicitly announced his/her intention?

>> As far as I am concerned that condemns him.<<

Of course, you are entitled to condemn him for whatever reasons, and I appreciate that you present this as your personal view.

Another question is, how many people condemn him (or are outraged), for what he did or failed to do, this early into his pontificate. For instance, I do not think rabbi Abraham Skorka - who coauthored a book with him (http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Francis-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0770435068/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365414457&sr=1-2&keywords=bergoglio) - would be among them. The same for rabbi David Rosen or Israel Singer, the former head of the World Jewish Congress (c.f. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013/03/13/3121966/new-pope-francis-i-is-argentinian-cardinal-jorge-maria-bergoglio).

Of course, there will always be people - including those baptized as Catholics - who will condemn the Pope, whoever he is and whatever he does.

Dear George,

When you know of a crime you call the cops. That is what they are there for. Whether it is Jimmy Savile or a respected cleric you should call the cops if you know of sexual abuse. It is that simple. Pope Francis is intelligent enough to understand that. Vatican sources have already recommended that as you pointed out. There are sins of omission and sins of commission. This is a sin of omission.

When the Nazis were rounding Jews in Rome for extermination the war time pope kept silent. It was more important to preserve the interests of the church than to speak out against evil. I felt Pope John XXIII was a man who tried to change the Catholic church for the better. It didn't work. Pope Benedict actually participated in a coverup for sexual abuse before he became pope. Pope John Paul failed to do anything about the problem which became public while he was pope.

Pope Francis had a chance to speak against the criminals and order clergy to call the cops when they knew of a crime. The abusers themselves may be in a grip of some compulsion. However, those who coverup the crimes have clearly put the preservation of the church above the interests of the children and society. Pope Francis and others who put the interests of the church above the children and society are worse than the abusers. Pope Francis prefers the church to keep silent in the face of evil. He follows the tradition of the wartime pope.

Of course he may still tell those who know of crimes to call the cops, but I don't think he will.