Pope Benedict XVI arrives in U.S.

[SDC]

Lead pipe cinch -- what a fine phrase. Strong and clear and a kind of poetry.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument about the pope. I heard him called the "Rat in the Hat", by the way. Hasn't anyone else heard that?

 

[ceo_esq]

Are you sure about the bolded part? From the same link:

[snip]

I´m no expert in lawyer-language, but it certainly sounds like they reserve the right to handle those cases on their own without informing the police.
Isn´t that obstruction of justice then?
Or does it mean they handle it first and then inform the police? I´m at a loss here. Can you clear that up? Or would you have a link to the letter Ratzi wrote?

The full sentence is "In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests" (emphasis mine). Ordinaries and hierarchs are canonical legal terms for certain high-level religious officials (such as bishops) of the Western and Eastern Catholic Church, respectively. So the sentence applies specifically in the context of ecclesiastical tribunals, which instruct and adjudicate only the specifically canonical or religious aspects of such cases. Neither the 2001 letter nor, so far as I can determine, canon law generally, purports to arrogate to itself exclusive jurisdiction (exclusive of secular authority, that is) of clerical sexual abuse cases. Think, by analogy, of instances in which the same conduct by a defendant leads to both state and federal trials because the conduct violated both a state and a federal penal statute.

I do have a link to the letter in question; here it is, although I can't vouch for the authoritativeness of the English translation.

Merely failing to report something to the civil authorities is not generally obstruction of justice, nor even, in most cases, a secular crime (at least in the United States). Now, just about every U.S. state does have some law on the books requiring certain people to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse of minors under certain circumstances and subject to certain exceptions, but these vary widely from state to state (for example, as to who has a duty to report and what level of knowledge triggers the duty). Here is a link to a possibly slightly out-of-date summary of such laws as they apply, or do not apply as the case may be, to clergy. In order to determine whether, in a given instance, one of these laws was violated by Catholic religious authorities, we'd have to know - among several other things - where the supposed offense took place (and when, as the law may have been different at the time in question). But if any Catholic authority ever broke one of these laws - which has not been shown - it was not because the 2001 letter (or, so far as I can tell, anything in canon law or any instruction from the pope) required them to do so. Even the best attempts to indict members of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy for obstruction of justice or similar charges have met with failure, for two principal reasons: lack of evidence (particularly as to wrongful intent) and/or lack of legal prohibitions in the first place on the conduct complained of.

Church norms promulgated in 2002 make clear that "Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question." Although that language postdates the 2001 letter, it is not inconsistent with it (witness the fact that they currently coexist). As a general matter, canon law requires compliance with civil (secular) law in any event unless the civil law is so unjust as to violate "divine law".

 

[qayak]

I daresay I have a greater than average familiarity with the evidence. I have a professional's eye on the cases. I know what it takes to substantiate a charge of aiding and abetting. Show me something I haven't seen. And in particular, show me a case where the pope participated in "hiding priests charged with crimes and sought by the authorities", as you've alleged. I have no stake in whether it is true or false.

Father Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo was wanted in Sao Paulo, Brazil for molesting children. By order of the Vatican, at the direction of the Rat in his pre-pope days, the allegations of abuse were sent to Rome. Father Tarcisio was then moved by the church to another parish in Annapolis, Brazil where he abused a 5 year old boy. The boy and his family were then vilified by the church for speaking to police.

The Rat knew these people were abusing children and he knew they were being moved around and their crimes were being kept secret which allowed them to abuse more children.

You maybe a lawyer but there are a lot of lawyers who completely disagree with your assessment of this situation. I think you are not arguing from a legal perspective, you are arguing from a Vatican apologist perspective.

You made an allegation of a legal nature. I expressed no admiration, just a lawyer's hard view of the case you're trying to make here.

No, I did not make an allegation of a legal nature. I made a statement of fact based on evidence. If you are so up on the facts of the abuse cases, what do you say about the Vatican resisting the extradition of priests accused of abusing children in the U.S. Seems the BBC was able to find 7 such pedophiles living under The Rat's roof.

Naw, the Rat would never help a pedophile.

You might be interested in this:

RICK ROMLEY
Former Phoenix District Attorney
I will tell you that the secrecy, the... I mean the obstruction that I saw during my investigation was unparalleled in my entire career as a DA here in Phoenix Arizona. It was so difficult to obtain any information from the church at all. In fact we knew of certain meetings that had taken place, and yet no documentation was ever produced to be able to, you know, show that that meeting had even occurred.

KENYON: The Vatican's official line is that it's sex crime code is purely for internal use, and not intended to hinder civil investigations.

ROMLEY: You know, when we started looking at it I mean it was really interesting. I mean we came across, in the canons for the church, that there are supposed to be secret archives to where this type of material is to provided and not given to civil authorities no matter what the circumstances. We had information that there is an instruction from the Nuncio, who is Ambassador status, to shift all this, you know, incriminating type of information to him because under our.. under the law we could not subpoena that material because he would have protected status as an Ambassador from the Vatican. I think that that's really what the story is. Is that the church.. the church's failure to acknowledge such a serious problem. But more than that, it is not a passiveness. It is a.. it was an openly obstructive way of not allowing civil authorities to try to stop the abuse within the church. I mean they fought us every step of the way.

KENYON: His toughest battle involved Father Henn and two other priests who fled abroad to escape American prosecutors.

I knew that these priests owed a vow of obedience to Rome, to the Vatican. And so I decided to write Rome and ask them, now that formal charges had been brought, to instruct them to follow their orders and to come back and surrender themselves so that the court system could take the case as we wanted it to. And I've got to tell you, I was very surprised. I'd written to Cardinal Sodano, who is the Secretariat of State, and I basically asked him could he instruct these priests to come back, and they just basically returned it, and they said they item's been returned because the sender has refused to accept the correspondence. They did not even open it, they didn't even acknowledge or give me any type of response. They just refused to accept it. A church with supposedly the moral authority to do what is right had miserably failed, you know, one of the most fundamental things, and that's to stop the abuse of children. And they had a real opportunity here to make a.. I mean to make a powerful statement to the world. To say 'everybody is accountable, to protect our children is important'. And they didn't even open the envelope.

KENYON: Father Henn, the priest whose outings to the swimming pool with Rick Rivezo ended in abuse, is now wanted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States. But he's no longer there. He's here in Rome, sheltered by the Vatican, and fighting extradition from the headquarters of his religious order, the Salvatorians. The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges.

COLM: The most extraordinary thing about this story is that Father Henn isn't alone. A US newspaper did a series of investigative reports recently called 'Runaway Priests', and it discovered that there are over 7 US priests who face allegations of child sexual abuse living with the support of the church here, in and around the Vatican.

You might also be interested in this from Father Oliver O'Grady at his trial.

Q: So the abuse and the molestation was almost a full time avocation during your entire priesthood.

O'GRADY: I would say it was a significant part of the early priesthood.

Q: Of the victims you did molest what percentage do you think were boys, and what were girls?

O'GRADY: I think I'd say three quarters boys, one quarter girls.

Q: What else happened to you as a consequence of abusing?

O'GRADY: Actually nothing happened. Life continued.

 

[ceo_esq]

As to Benny being given the welcome accorded to a high dollar head of state, I find President Bush's pandering to him to be completely at odds with the fact of the Pope being an ideological enemy of the United States of America. This visit is somewhat like Breshnev arriving from the USSR during the cold war, from where I sit.

Bush chooses to ignore that the Pope has publicly taken the position that there can only be one true, catholic Christianity, which is his brand. Our Constitution, which Bush swore to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, explicitly states otherwise: pick your flavor and run with it, as regards religion.

I think it's worth pointing out that those two things are not actually in contradiction. There's no formal conflict between the pope's assertion that Catholicism is the one true religion and the U.S. Constitution's prescription that the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It's entirely possible to believe simultaneously (as millions of people do) that there is a single true religion and yet that the government should not make a law without any secular legislative purpose, or having the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, or resulting in an excessive government entanglement with religion (which is basically what the Constitution is generally understood to require). The Constitution is simply silent on whether there is a true religion (and a law that contradicted the pope's position would be unconstitutional).

 

[ceo_esq]

Father Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo was wanted in Sao Paulo, Brazil for molesting children. By order of the Vatican, at the direction of the Rat in his pre-pope days, the allegations of abuse were sent to Rome. Father Tarcisio was then moved by the church to another parish in Annapolis, Brazil where he abused a 5 year old boy. The boy and his family were then vilified by the church for speaking to police.

I'm afraid that in order to evaluate the relevance of this to the specific allegation you've made, we'd need to examine some reliable evidence of the details of Spricigo's indictment, the content and timing of the communication to Rome, and the actions taken by Cardinal Ratzinger. If you could provide a couple of independent links or citations to this effect, it would help.

The Rat knew these people were abusing children and he knew they were being moved around and their crimes were being kept secret which allowed them to abuse more children.

I have no idea what Cardinal Ratzinger knew (and neither do you, I suspect), because I haven't seen any evidence of what he knew, or when. Please adduce it. Hopefully it will be very strong evidence, because you've leveled a very serious charge against someone.

I think you are not arguing from a legal perspective, you are arguing from a Vatican apologist perspective.

I have no apologetic perspective on this in any polemical or ideological sense. I certainly am an apologist for the presumption of innocence. I have no vested stake in these allegations being proven either true or false in the end. That's not to say that if they're true I would not be outraged by them, of course - I don't think anyone, certainly not the pope, is above the law. I would make the same points in your defense if similar allegations were leveled against you, because fairness requires it.

No, I did not make an allegation of a legal nature. I made a statement of fact based on evidence.

You made an allegation of facts that, if true, have particularly serious legal consequences. However you intended it, it's essentially an allegation of the commission of a crime. That's an allegation of a legal nature as far as my profession is concerned. Moreover, you've adduced little to no relevant evidence of it.

If you are so up on the facts of the abuse cases, what do you say about the Vatican resisting the extradition of priests accused of abusing children in the U.S. Seems the BBC was able to find 7 such pedophiles living under The Rat's roof.

I suspect you are referring to a well-known report made by the Dallas Morning News in 2004 (toward the end of John Paul II's papacy) which was widely repeated in other media outlets. Assuming the report was correct to begin with, you've totally mischaracterized it. If I recall correctly, all of the men were supposedly residing in Rome at the time of the report and were under Italian, not papal, jurisdiction. One, in fact, was in an Italian prison (with the consent of the Italian authorities, he had been permitted to serve a house arrest sentence in a Roman religious house not in Vatican City, but had violated house arrest and been transferred back to jail). I believe only two of the men were actually wanted by authorities in other countries; they were individually fighting extradition in the Italian courts without intervention or support from the Vatican. One lost his case and fled Rome, whereabouts unknown, and I honestly can't remember the disposition of the other case. So in answer to your question about what I have to say about the Holy See resisting extradition of priests from the Vatican, I'd have to say if there are such cases, there existence is not generally known, and certainly not under Pope Benedict XVI. It's worth noting, of course, that there are a number of generally accepted legal grounds on which any individual might invoke his right to challenge extradition proceedings. That's why the right exists. The Vatican, and this pope in particular, don't seem to be involved in such proceedings, however.

You might be interested in this:

The question is, why are you interested in it? It doesn't appear to have much bearing on your allegation about Pope Benedict. And what does it really say? You have an ex-D.A. (with something of a long rep in the biz for pushing the limits of zealous prosecution, for what it's worth) apparently rationalizing his inability to successfully prosecute anyone in the Diocese of Phoenix or the Catholic hierarchy for obstruction on the basis that, well, they obstructed him. He makes vague allegations of meetings he knows took place or communications he knows existed and then in the same breath acknowledges that he uncovered no firm evidence of them. I know Romley's work, and I think that if he'd had even a half-decent case on an obstruction charge he'd have taken it to trial. I think it's entirely possible that the old Phoenix bishop did try to obstruct the prosecution. But I respect the intact presumption that he did not. Romley says he "thinks that that's really what the story is", but even he doesn't know.

Kenyon, a TV presenter, then irresponsibly makes some misleading remarks about the Father Henn case.

So what is there in that piece that you think is so weighty in an evidentiary sense?

You might also be interested in this from Father Oliver O'Grady at his trial.

That's a terrible thing, though it's hard to say just what it means without seeing a full examination and cross-examination of O'Grady and his superiors. It's a little unclear why the pope would be implicated by this, however.

 

[Georg]

snip

Thanks for taking the time to answer and for the link to the letter. One more question though, then I won´t steal your time any longer:

Does the pontifical secret mentioned in the letter not collide with the duty to report cases to the official authorities?

 

[ceo_esq]

Does the pontifical secret mentioned in the letter not collide with the duty to report cases to the official authorities?

Apparently not - at least I don't see how it could, since "pontifical secret" apparently coexists harmoniously with the norms that explicitly state that allegations are to be reported, secular reporting laws are to be respected, and cooperation is to be given to secular authorities. (Though I can understand how, reading in isolation, a layperson might draw the inference that there is a conflict, though.)

The Canon Law Society of America's Guide to the Implementation of the U.S. Bishops' Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons states:

Moreover, the letter of the CDF, Ad exsequendam ecclesiasticam legem [that is, the 2001 letter we've been discussing], states that "cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret." The pontifical secret also applies to the accusation itself and the preliminary process which precedes the formal presentation of a case to the CDF. The Church has been accused of covering up sexual abuse, but there is a difference between concealing abuse and exercising appropriate confidentiality in investigating allegations. The concern about covering up abuse can be met by each diocese’s compliance with the requirements for reporting to the civil authorities allegations of sexual abuse against minors, as stated in Norm 11. The civil authorities can then determine whether there is probable cause to prosecute and what, if anything, should be made public.

This is consistent with the explanation of "pontifical secret" given by Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza (president of the U.S. bishops' conference at the time of the Ratzinger letter) as reported here: "These matters are confidential only [as] to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You maybe a lawyer but there are a lot of lawyers who completely disagree with your assessment of this situation. I think you are not arguing from a legal perspective, you are arguing from a Vatican apologist perspective.

I thought ceo might resort to his stand-by "Argument from I am lawyer, and therefore my perspective is inherently superior to yours." I think it's clear the Rat-Nazi was a) aware of molestation in at least several high profile cases and b) recommended a policy of obstructing justice and waiting out the statute of limitations.

 

[SDC]

I work in Midtown Manhattan, and frequently come into the city on weekends. I live in Westchester County, just north of the city (just north of the Bronx). This Pope-a-thon has thoroughly messed up traffic flow for the next 3 days. The security operations are pretty phenomenol.

Is there any other location out there who will take him off our hands? How about Fort Hays, KS? Saginaw, MI? Burlington, VT? How about his home town, wherever that is?

 

[ceo_esq]

I think it's clear the Rat-Nazi was a) aware of molestation in at least several high profile cases and b) recommended a policy of obstructing justice and waiting out the statute of limitations.

As to your first point, what is the evidence? As to your second point, what I've already shown casts a great deal of doubt on it. Under those circumstances, the judgment you're making just demonstrates that you have a reckless disregard for whether the allegations are actually true or false. You appear simply not to care about the truth, provided you've got some real or imagined enemy in your sights. You haven't addressed a single objection. Oh - and on the "waiting out the statute of limitations" point, could you please explain your thinking? Let's look at what little the CDF letter has to say about limitation periods ("prescriptions", in canonical parlance):

It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.

"Criminal action" here refers, of course, to a penal prosecution of a person by the Church under canon law. Thus, all this sentence means that an ecclesiastical prosecution for one of the specific delicts (criminal offenses under canon law) referred to in the letter must be commenced before the expiration of a 10-year limitation period.

The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;

Despite the potentially misleading (to a layman) reference to "common law", this refers to the canonical ius commune, so "universal and common law" in this sense refers to the generally applicable canon law provisions in this area. Thus, this sentence simply provides that limitation period for ecclesiastical prosecutions of the delicts listed in the letter begins to "run" (that is, the "clock" begins to tick) according to the usual canonical rule, which under Canon 1362 is that "Prescription runs from the day on which the delict was committed or, if the delict is continuous or habitual, from the day on which it ceased."

however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.

Here we can see that in the case of the specific ecclesiastical offence of clerical sexual misconduct with a minor, the beginning of the 10-year limitation period is tolled (paused) until the victim reaches the age of majority; which has the effect of significantly extending the canonical statute of limitations. This is similar to many secular statutes of limitations for legal wrongs committed against minors; it's obviously in the interest of justice for the victim.

When we put this all together, we can see that the CDF letter is saying the following, and only the following, about time limitations:

1. The ecclesiastical statute of limitations for the offenses referred to in the letter is 10 years.
2. The 10-year "clock" for prosecuting these offenses generally runs according to the ordinary Church rule (in other words, it begins to run down starting on the date of the offense - or in the case of a continual or habitual offense, on the date it ceased); except that
3. In the case of clerical sexual abuse of a minor, the 10-year statute of limitations is tolled so that the clock doesn't start ticking until the victim turns 18.

So secular statutes of limitations aren't even mentioned here, and neither is "waiting out" a limitation period. Do you mind telling us what you meant by that?

 

[Georg]

snip

Thank you.

 

[qayak]

I have no idea what Cardinal Ratzinger knew (and neither do you, I suspect), because I haven't seen any evidence of what he knew, or when. Please adduce it. Hopefully it will be very strong evidence, because you've leveled a very serious charge against someone.

Are you sure you are a lawyer? Maybe you're just not a very good one.

Very simply, we know The Rat knew there was abuse rampant in the church, he wrote a communique to all Bishops worldwide on how the church expected the cases to be dealt with. The Rat stated that all accusation had to go to Rome. We know that many, many did.

Now, you would think that someone insisting that all allegations of abuse be sent to Rome under the threat of excommunication, would make sure they were receiving what they asked for. If he sent out the communique and didn't receive any, don't you think he would have investigated?

Of all the cases in the world, The Rat in his capacity as pope and prior to being pope, never once turned these over to authorities. He has never seen that justice is done in any jurisdiction.

BUT . . . the church has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars. I wonder where The Rat thought this money was going and why if he wasn't aware of the abuse?

You say that you are up to date on the evidence. I say you are not and a lot of lawyers whose opinion I share seem to think there is more than enough evidence to make a clear connection to the top of the catholic church.

 

[ceo_esq]

Very simply, we know The Rat knew there was abuse rampant in the church, he wrote a communique to all Bishops worldwide on how the church expected the cases to be dealt with. The Rat stated that all accusation had to go to Rome. We know that many, many did.

Now, you would think that someone insisting that all allegations of abuse be sent to Rome under the threat of excommunication, would make sure they were receiving what they asked for. If he sent out the communique and didn't receive any, don't you think he would have investigated?

You've left a great many of the questions I put to you unanswered; if this was for some other reason that than you have no answers, please elucidate. But leaving that aside for a moment, let's address what you've said. You said that Ratzinger "knew these people were abusing children and he knew they were being moved around and their crimes were being kept secret which allowed them to abuse more children." Now surely Cardinal Ratzinger knew that people were abusing children; it is of course wrong to say that he "knew there was abuse rampant in the church", because abuse wasn't "rampant in the Church". Data from the United States suggests that it was uncommon and already on the decline when he took charge of the CDF, continued to decline rather sharply each year he remained in that post, was very rare indeed by the time he issued the 2001 letter, and during his actual papacy has been rare in the extreme. As for your suggestion that Cardinal Ratzinger (or Pope Benedict XVI) knew that ongoing abusers were being moved around and that their crimes were being kept secret, I'm afraid you'll have to produce very strong and specific evidence of this.

Recall what the 2001 letter, of which sex abuse cases are only a small part, provides. It does not say that "all allegations of abuse" must be sent to Rome. I realize that of the two of us, I'm the only one who's actually read the letter, but I urge you to study the link I provided before you post again, in order to avoid such embarrassing misstatements. The letter says that "when an ordinary or hierarch [that is, typically, a bishop or religious superior] has at least probable knowledge" (emphasis mine) of the occurrence of an offense following an investigation, it is to be indicated to the CDF. That leaves quite a bit of discretion to the bishop. How many times did an ordinary decide that Rome needed to be notified (recalling again that sex abuse was only one of the types of crimes subject to the notification requirement)? I don't know. And the letter suggests that in a typical case Rome would give instructions for the ordinary to proceed ahead through his own tribunal (as I already demonstrated, there was no instruction not to comply with the secular law in such cases so that the secular authorities could also proceed).

You're also wrong when you suggest that the letter says that this duty was imposed under threat of excommunication. It does not say this. It says that internal Church procedures in the cases are covered by pontifical secret (which, again, is not inconsistent with a duty to inform civil authorities); that confidentiality requirement is imposed under threat of excommunication.

Of all the cases in the world, The Rat in his capacity as pope and prior to being pope, never once turned these over to authorities.

That task would belong to the Church representatives in the particular jurisdiction in any event. And of course, we know again from U.S. data, at least, that since several years before Cardinal Ratzinger became pope, all or virtually all known allegations in the United States have been promptly reported to civil authorities.

He has never seen that justice is done in any jurisdiction.

What do you mean by justice being done, and what is your proof for the statement above?

BUT . . . the church has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars. I wonder where The Rat thought this money was going and why if he wasn't aware of the abuse?

Let me stand aside briefly so you can you move your goalposts again. Obviously not only the pope, but often the general public is aware of a case by settlement time. When the money goes out, it's already after the (alleged) fact - often decades after - and the abuser is out of the picture. What does this have to do with the pope's alleged culpability for knowingly contributing to the abuse before, during or after its commission?

You say that you are up to date on the evidence.

No, I think I show it. Clearly I was more familiar with the 2001 letter, with the cases of the seven men you alleged were fugitives being harbored in the Vatican, and so forth, than you.

I say you are not and a lot of lawyers whose opinion I share seem to think there is more than enough evidence to make a clear connection to the top of the catholic church.

Very few lawyers think there is "more enough evidence to make a clear connection to the top of the catholic church" apart from certain plaintiffs' lawyers while they are on the clock (and I suspect even some of them don't really believe it). Motivated prosecutors (such as County Attorney Rick Romley in Phoenix, whom you quoted earlier, and AG Thomas Reilly in Boston) have come up empty before they even got close to showing liability at Ratzinger's level. Believe me, if "more than enough" good evidence had been uncovered to date, it would already have been used in dramatic ways. Maybe it will be uncovered in the future - so much the better if it is. But for now, no. We're left with that strongest of presumptions, the presumption of innocence.

But if you intend to rely on the authority of others, bring out their arguments in detail (if we haven't already addressed them) and let's have a look.

 

[RandFan]

But for now, no. We're left with that strongest of presumptions, the presumption of innocence.

Only from a legal standpoint. There is nothing that prevents any of us from forming an opinion. I don't really have to pretend that OJ is innocent.

I'm no where near an expert on the Catholic church but I kinda doubt that so many pedophiles were being shuffled around and the higher ups were completely oblivious to it.

From Los Angeles to Boston the scope of the problem and the piss poor response on the part of the church was significant.

The evidence speaks for itself: Last spring, Law admitted in a deposition that he was aware that John Geoghan had reportedly raped at least seven young boys in 1984 yet nevertheless approved the transfer of Geoghan to another parish, working with other boys. Other documents revealed that Law similarly knew of and ignored decades of reported child abuse by Paul Shanley, placing Shanley in ministries with access to other children. Shanley is currently facing trial on 10 charges of child rape and six counts of indecent assault and battery. Law is jetting back and forth to Rome.

Los Angeles Files Recount Decades of Priests' Abuse

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 11 - The confidential personnel files of 126 clergymen in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles accused of sexual misconduct with children provide a numbing chronicle of 75 years of the church's shame, revealing case after case in which the church was warned of abuse but failed to protect its parishioners.

In some cases, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony and his predecessors quietly shuffled the priests off to counseling and then to new assignments. In others, parents were offered counseling for their children and were urged to remain silent.

Throughout the files, cases of child molesting or rape are dealt with by indirection or euphemism, with references to questions of "moral fitness" or accusations of "boundary violations." For years, anonymous complaints of abuse were ignored and priests were given the benefit of every doubt.

Innocent until proven guilty is a very important concept in our law. Given cases like the false Duke Lacrosse Rape accusations we as citizens should be careful to not act in a way that would deprive a defendant of his or her rights. That said, in any case there comes a time when it is likely that we will get as much info as we are ever going to get and if we want to form an opinion and discuss that opinion then that is our right.

I think the Rat knew.

 

[qayak]

You've left a great many of the questions I put to you unanswered; if this was for some other reason that than you have no answers, please elucidate.

With you being a lawyer, I can see why you would think that a bunch of unrelated questions would be important to your position. However, this isn't a courtroom and I never made a legal argument.

I made a statement of fact about The Rat's actions and those actions show undeniably that he knew what was going on, that he covered it up and hid it from the proper authorities, helped perpetrators to avoid justice and threatened to punish the victims. Are you tryin gto say that The Rat issued his decree on abuse without knowing the abuse existed? Of course he knew it existed, he was told and he knows that that abuse is a crime in the countries it took place in. And yet he did not turn a single perpetrator over to authorities.

Do ytou recall the recent video on the internet which caused such a stir a week or so ago. It showed several girls beating up another girl so they could post the video on Youtube. Well, outside were a couple of teenage boys who were keeping a watch to make sure no one found out about it. They did not participate in the beating but they are being charged for their role.

Ironic that we expect a higher level of morality from teens than we do from the moral guide to a billion catholics.

The Rat is especially immoral in light of his role in these crimes and their cover up. He demanded silence and secrecy from both perpetrator and victim. The only people silence and secrecy helps are those committing crimes. Perpetrators require secrecy to continue with their crimes and to remain unpunished for those they have already committed. The same secrecy does not benefit victims in any way. In fact, it allows for further victimization and larger numbers of victims.

And The Rat threatened the VICTIMS with excommunication! What a moral beacon he is!

As for your giving The Rat credit for the decline in these crimes. It is far more likely that the reason for the decline is the fact that civil authorities the world over were becoming more and more aware of these criminals and were perfectly willing to charge and prosecute. Nothing scares a pedophile like knowing they are going to prison. The church was totally unable, or unwilling, to curb this behaviour as evidenced by the length of time it was allowed to continue.

The Rat could have issued a statement long ago stating that anyone found to have been involved would be removed from the church immediately and the case brought to the attention of local authorities but he didn't. He waited until all the damage had been done and issued the statement as a publicity stunt for his U.S. trip.

In fact, when bishops in the U.S. adopted a policy of zero tolerance for pedo-priests, stating they would not be allowed to minister, the vatican allowed priests to get around the rule by moving them to other countries.

And finally, concerning your contention that these crimes were not rampant in the catholic church, I disagree. Can you think of any other organization that has more cases of pedophilia than the catholic church?

 

[qayak]

Innocent until proven guilty is a very important concept in our law. Given cases like the false Duke Lacrosse Rape accusations we as citizens should be careful to not act in a way that would deprive a defendant of his or her rights.

I agree but there is a huge difference. The Duke case was investigated by the proper authorities. That has never happened in the case of the vaticans role in the abuse. In fact, there is no evidence of co-operation between the church and authorities but there is a lot of evidence that the church has abused its position to prevent an investigation including moving documents from their proper locations to vatican embassies to prevent their being seized.

It is the people who refused to follow The Rat's orders and who spoke out about the abuse they experienced, who should be credited with stopping the church sanctioned, systematic abuse of children.

 

[ceo_esq]

Only from a legal standpoint. There is nothing that prevents any of us from forming an opinion. I don't really have to pretend that OJ is innocent.

But I think nearly everyone would agree that enough evidence was brought forward in OJ's case to rebut the presumption of innocence and convict him, and that his acquittal was almost certainly due to jury nullification. Nothing remotely near that kind of evidence has been brought to light that the pope engaged in some kind of criminal collusion in connection with child abuse - I'm not even talking about "beyond a reasonable doubt", not even "more likely than not". Especially on this forum I think we generally acknowledge that an opinion should have a solid evidentiary basis - in the case of some kinds of opinions, a very strong evidentiary basis - or else we should reserve judgment (and identify our speculations such). I think that's particularly true in this instance, where expressing the opinion can involve making statements that are gravely defamatory of another person.

I'm no where near an expert on the Catholic church but I kinda doubt that so many pedophiles were being shuffled around and the higher ups were completely oblivious to it.

I have the same feeling. But exactly who may have been involved and in what capacity, what they knew and when, what their particular responsibilities and duties were, whether they acted in good faith, and so forth, is something I don't know. So it would be not only unreasonable for me to form a strong judgment about it, but also seriously unethical for me to level defamatory public accusations.

From Los Angeles to Boston the scope of the problem and the piss poor response on the part of the church was significant.

Again, without wishing to exaggerate the scope of the problem, or suggest knowledge that the problem was handled in a uniformly bad way (or necessarily worse than in other institutions), I agree with you. This was obviously a local responsibility in the first instance, though, and that's where the blame (or at least the wrongdoing) appears to reside so far as we know. And beginning even before the current pope took office, I think it's only fair to say that at over the last five years in the United States, the response on the part of the Church has been both basically creditable and, according to the available data, rather effective.

Innocent until proven guilty is a very important concept in our law. Given cases like the false Duke Lacrosse Rape accusations we as citizens should be careful to not act in a way that would deprive a defendant of his or her rights. That said, in any case there comes a time when it is likely that we will get as much info as we are ever going to get and if we want to form an opinion and discuss that opinion then that is our right.

Remember, though, that the rights involved are not only a defendant's right to a fair investigation and trial, but also any person's right not to have his reputation wrongfully defamed. Opinions and subjective value judgments are OK. But a public statement presented as fact can be a problem. And the law says that even a statement of opinion can violate someone's rights if it implies defamatory facts as the basis of the opinion.

 

[ceo_esq]

With you being a lawyer, I can see why you would think that a bunch of unrelated questions would be important to your position.

They weren't unrelated questions. They were chiefly along the lines of "What's the evidence for/relevance of what you just said?" I can see why you would think evading those questions would be important to your position, though.

The Duke case was investigated by the proper authorities. That has never happened in the case of the vaticans role in the abuse.

I'm not sure who you think the proper authorities to investigate the role of a foreign government in the abuse are, but it's certainly true that the subject has been examined from many angles without any good evidence coming to light. Or do you know of any? It certainly hasn't been produced in this discussion.

In fact, there is no evidence of co-operation between the church and authorities ...

Where on earth do you get this stuff? Particularly in the last five years, there is plenty of evidence of this. As one example among many of such evidence, consider the last independent professional audit (these are undertaken annually) of U.S. diocesan compliance with norms regarding sexual abuse cases. Article 4 of the norms states:

Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question. Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor. In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and support this right.

The outside auditors' report states that of 190 dioceses/eparchies, "188 were found to be compliant with Article 4"; while the other two took steps to bring themselves back into compliance and were later confirmed compliant.

At any rate, please provide some comprehensive proof for your statement that there is no evidence of cooperation between the Church and authorities.

It is the people who refused to follow The Rat's orders and who spoke out about the abuse they experienced, who should be credited with stopping the church sanctioned, systematic abuse of children.

When did Ratzinger give an order that people who experienced abuse were not to speak out about it? Certainly not in the 2001 letter. Where?

However, this isn't a courtroom and I never made a legal argument.

You hardly made an argument of any kind, to speak of. You made allegations. And though this isn't a courtroom, your habitual and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of defamatory allegations greatly increases the likelihood that some day someone may haul you into one.

Are you tryin gto say that The Rat issued his decree on abuse without knowing the abuse existed?

The fact that abuse exists as a general proposition isn't a secret to anyone. That's a strawman. My point is that the 2001 letter doesn't tell us anything that would support either your initial allegation (that Ratzinger was involved in concealing wanted fugitives) or the notion that he bears some other culpability as an accomplice in wrongdoing.

Of course he knew it existed, he was told and he knows that that abuse is a crime in the countries it took place in. And yet he did not turn a single perpetrator over to authorities.

I don't know whether he turned any perpetrators over to the authorities, but I'll await your documentary support of this assertion. It's not clear why that wouldn't be the responsibility of the local church rather than some cardinal in a foreign jurisdiction, though. Certainly under Benedict's papacy, as I pointed out, in the United States the Church has reported virtually all, if not all, allegations of abuse to civil authorities.

Do ytou recall the recent video on the internet which caused such a stir a week or so ago. It showed several girls beating up another girl so they could post the video on Youtube. Well, outside were a couple of teenage boys who were keeping a watch to make sure no one found out about it. They did not participate in the beating but they are being charged for their role.

Ironic that we expect a higher level of morality from teens than we do from the moral guide to a billion catholics.

I don't think we do expect a higher level of morality from teens than from the pope though. I don't think we are entitled to a much higher level of evidence than we've seen from you, though. If the prosecutor can't adduce many times more evidence against those teens than you've adduced against the pope, not only will his reputation suffer, but the teens will be going home with the court's apology.

The Rat is especially immoral in light of his role in these crimes and their cover up. He demanded silence and secrecy from both perpetrator and victim.

Well, is seems that whatever he demanded - which was not addressed to victims - did not involve a demand that public authorities not be informed. I showed several sources of evidence for this.

The only people silence and secrecy helps are those committing crimes.

That depends on the kind and context of silence and secrecy. For example, the kind involved in sealed proceedings, which is probably the closest analogy to what we're talking about, can help victims, prosecutors, and innocent defendants.

And The Rat threatened the VICTIMS with excommunication!

Where?

As for your giving The Rat credit for the decline in these crimes. It is far more likely that the reason for the decline is the fact that civil authorities the world over were becoming more and more aware of these criminals and were perfectly willing to charge and prosecute.

Actually, that appears unlikely to have been the chief reason, since there doesn't seem to have been a major shift in awareness of these crimes committed by priests until the turn of the 21st century. And why does the incidence of at least alleged abuse (even though the accusations themselves often surfaced much later) start to rise gently from previously low levels starting sometime in the 50s, accelerate after Vatican II, keep increasing and then suddenly - without even leveling off - begin a sustained and steady nosedive about a year after JPII takes office (around the time Ratzinger is appointed to the CDF) before starting to level off at a minimal level in the mid-90s? That's an unusual pattern that doesn't lend itself too well to your explanation, unless you have some additional data to contribute. The prevailing explanation for the decline, in fact, is that seminary reforms undertaken early in JPII's papacy were probably the key factor. That makes sense to me; since that time, the ranks of active clerics who made it through seminary in the 60s and 70s have been naturally declining, to the point where there aren't than many of them still active.

And finally, concerning your contention that these crimes were not rampant in the catholic church, I disagree. Can you think of any other organization that has more cases of pedophilia than the catholic church?

Pedophilia is a specific diagnosis, so let's refer to sexual abuse of minors. And yes - the public school system comes to mind. There's no evidence that rates of abuse, by the way, are any greater among Catholic priests than among Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, or for that matter any profession that works with young people.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Um, can anyone find out what his popeness said about interfaith relationships?

All I've heard about the pope's visit is sex abuse this and sex abuse that. Seriously, he is way, way too late.

And then they said that Sikhs weren't allowed to the inter-faith forum. But they didn't say what his popeness said about interfaith relationships.

 

[Damien Evans]

Oh yeah, so ashamed that he conveniently "transferred" the Bishops that were involved in sweeping the issue under the rug to "duties at the Vatican".

I'd love to ask the man "So, is this some form of political asylum you're granting them so that they may evade prosecution?"

(Vatican City is an autonomous city-state, correct?)

Yes, it is the last remaining vestige of the papal states