Let's not forget what Pope Benidict is...

[gerryhatrick]

Now that Ratzinger is stirring up religious division it's perhaps more important than ever to re-examine who this man is.

He is the man who wanted to protect sexual abusers in the church and even put it in writing:

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

snip

Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1469055,00.html

So in short.....don't tell the cops about allegations of sexual abuse...and claim the right to withold evidence of such abuse for at least a decade after the victims 18 year birthday.

This is the morally bereft human being who is now engaging in open attacks on the Muslim faith. Is it stupidity, or something worse?

[Higgly]

Apologies for starting a new thread over yours. I think we posted at the same time.

[Argus]

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

So in short.....don't tell the cops about allegations of sexual abuse...and claim the right to withold evidence of such abuse for at least a decade after the victims 18 year birthday.

This is the morally bereft human being who is now engaging in open attacks on the Muslim faith. Is it stupidity, or something worse?

I think your hatred for Catholics is causing you to jump to conclusions. Ratzinger was head of the Catholic Church's enforcement bureau (in essence). The Church has always been notoriously tight-lipped about morality and sin commited by its individual members. A confession made to a priest, for example, can never be told to anyone else, no matter how vile the confession. What the letter apparently was doing was assuring those who investigate such things as sexual abuse that the investigation would be kept confidential - if the Church decided it should be so. One must bear in mind that many such investigations would turn up little or no evidence, or that the targets of those investigations might well be completely innocent. The Church thus assures them that no word of the investigation will get out. However, the letter above does not say that all such investigations and the evidence they turn up WILL be kept sealed, only that the Church had the right to do so. It did not say that in the event an investigation turned up real evidence of criminal behaviour the authorities would not be contacted.

There is nothing particularly sinister in this letter, especially in terms of the Church's protection of confession.

I might note how quickly you on the far left are to instantly and totally condemn people you label as your enemies based on a quick interpretation of a part of a letter, while at the same time whenever some terrorist or mass murderer is arrested with smoking gun in hand you piously demand everyone bear in mind that they are innocent until proven guilty.

[gerryhatrick]

I think your hatred for Catholics is causing you to jump to conclusions.

I think reading your post would be a waste of my time, so I won't bother. Thanks for tipping me off right away.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. The reality is all there for anyone to see. The letter authorized American bishops to keep information to themselves. That's obstruction of justice in cases of sexual abuse.

Them's just the facts, deal with it.

[geoffrey]

Should lawyers have to spill the beans too?? What confidential arrangement do you want to breech next?

[newbie]

However, the letter above does not say that all such investigations and the evidence they turn up WILL be kept sealed, only that the Church had the right to do so. It did not say that in the event an investigation turned up real evidence of criminal behaviour the authorities would not be contacted.

When has the Catholic church ever turned over pedophile priests to the cops? Victims have to come forward and the cops have to do the investigation. Remember Cardinal Law of Boston. What a joke. He obstructed justice by covering up the abuse in his diocese and was not held accountable. Oh, he resigned but he still remained Cardinal. In the case of civil claims, the church will have victims sign a letter of confidentiality not to disclose outcomes or amounts of awards on threat of lawsuit. I have first hand knowledge of the latter.

[Argus]

However, the letter above does not say that all such investigations and the evidence they turn up WILL be kept sealed, only that the Church had the right to do so. It did not say that in the event an investigation turned up real evidence of criminal behaviour the authorities would not be contacted.

When has the Catholic church ever turned over pedophile priests to the cops? Victims have to come forward and the cops have to do the investigation. Remember Cardinal Law of Boston. What a joke. He obstructed justice by covering up the abuse in his diocese and was not held accountable. Oh, he resigned but he still remained Cardinal. In the case of civil claims, the church will have victims sign a letter of confidentiality not to disclose outcomes or amounts of awards on threat of lawsuit. I have first hand knowledge of the latter.

The Church did a poor job in first recognizing the problem of gay priests, and then dealing with it. There is no question of that. However, society did little better. Most of the claims are old, from the times when no one really paid much attention to such things, from the time when they were routinely swept under the rug when cases were exposed. Despite the close, societal eye on priests over the past five or ten years, however, there have been very few new incidents of abuse. I thinkthe Church has come to terms with this problem and is dealing with it. And really, what is the difference between a priest going to jail, and a priest going to one of the Church's "retreats" for penitents? Probably that the former would be more luxurious, with better food. Have you ever seen a monk's cell?

[gerryhatrick]

Should lawyers have to spill the beans too?? What confidential arrangement do you want to breech next?

What are you talking about? Priests are allowed to keep knowlege/allegations/evidence to child molestation a secret if they so choose?

How's that?

Is that just information garnered in the confessional?

What if they turn the corner and Father SickF#ck is diddling an 8 year old? Should they be allowed to keep that evidence a dirty little secret between them and the Vatican for 10 years after that kids 18th birthday?

Just how much child rape do you want to keep a secret, exactly?

What kind of brutal truth does it take to admit a simple fact?

Crimes were comitted and Ratzinger had his name signed to a document giving permission to bishops to hide knowledge and evidence of these crimes.

[geoffrey]

Should lawyers have to spill the beans too?? What confidential arrangement do you want to breech next?

What are you talking about? Priests are allowed to keep knowlege/allegations/evidence to child molestation a secret if they so choose?

How's that?

Is that just information garnered in the confessional?

What if they turn the corner and Father SickF#ck is diddling an 8 year old? Should they be allowed to keep that evidence a dirty little secret between them and the Vatican for 10 years after that kids 18th birthday?

Just how much child rape do you want to keep a secret, exactly?

What kind of brutal truth does it take to admit a simple fact?

Crimes were comitted and Ratzinger had his name signed to a document giving permission to bishops to hide knowledge and evidence of these crimes.

Yup, its just what is said in confessional. It's protected not by the Church, but by law. If a Priest saw something though, they'd be free to report it.

I'd like to see the document, I'm interested in the context.

[betsy]

However, the letter above does not say that all such investigations and the evidence they turn up WILL be kept sealed, only that the Church had the right to do so. It did not say that in the event an investigation turned up real evidence of criminal behaviour the authorities would not be contacted.

When has the Catholic church ever turned over pedophile priests to the cops? Victims have to come forward and the cops have to do the investigation. Remember Cardinal Law of Boston. What a joke. He obstructed justice by covering up the abuse in his diocese and was not held accountable. Oh, he resigned but he still remained Cardinal. In the case of civil claims, the church will have victims sign a letter of confidentiality not to disclose outcomes or amounts of awards on threat of lawsuit. I have first hand knowledge of the latter.

Usually, a victim has to come forward before any alleged criminals are taken into custody. Isn't that the case?

I wonder if the Cardinal or any higher ups are above the law. If there was indeed an obstruction of justice....wouldn't criminal charges be laid on the person who did the obstructing?

As for amounts of awards being confidential....is there any law against that?

[newbie]

If there was indeed an obstruction of justice....wouldn't criminal charges be laid on the person who did the obstructing?

You tell me. I know for a fact the ex-bishop of our parish did move priests around when they got into trouble abusing children. He told me at a meeting that "we didn't know any better." When he was named in a law suit, his lawyers kept postponing the discoveries and other legal meetings. Records are hard to get from the Catholic church. Cops don't seem to do anything unless a victim complains or lays a charge. I think the Bishops use their canon law to justify most of their illegal activity and hire fancy lawyers to stall litigation and settlement.

The amounts of awards are kept confidential in order to deter others from filing "false" claims and to not set precedents. That to me is their justification. I am currently under a restriction not to reveal the particulars of a recent settlement but I have a lot to tell if I could.

[gerryhatrick]

If there was indeed an obstruction of justice....wouldn't criminal charges be laid on the person who did the obstructing?

Have you seen this, betsy:

Pope seeks immunity in Texas abuse case

August 17, 2005

VATICAN CITY -- Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked President Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-pope17.html

I realize those aren't "criminal charges" stemming from a civil court, but it's significant.

No doubt many victims would love to press charges, but what North American cop shop is going to put out a warrent for the Pope?? We don't know that citizens haven't requested charges be laid.

EDIT:

Ah, the answer to your question, betsy, is explained in the same link:

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said Tuesday that the pope is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity.

Yessir, you can conspire to keep information about child molestation a secret in America if you're a diplomat. Nice.

[newbie]

We don't know that citizens haven't requested charges be laid.

Plus there is apparantly a statute of limitation on civil cases. It's too bad because there are plenty of victims that will never be able to bring civil actions forward.

[jbg]

We don't know that citizens haven't requested charges be laid.

Plus there is apparantly a statute of limitation on civil cases. It's too bad because there are plenty of victims that will never be able to bring civil actions forward.

If a minor is involved the statute of limitations normally starts running at the time of majority, in some cases 18, others 21.

[fellowtraveller]

The Popes apology to Muslims would have just a tad more credibility if it had been preceded, or even succeded, by an apology to all the children whose lives have been brutally destroyed by his staff.

[geoffrey]

If a minor is involved the statute of limitations normally starts running at the time of majority, in some cases 18, others 21.

How long is limitations in the US on civil cases jbg? I know in my province it's generally 2 years, doesn't seem like long for someone to come to terms with themselves after such an abuse.

Then again, I always had a problem with giving money for such things, I don't really see a moral resolution from that... but hey, I'm not the legal system.

[betsy]

If there was indeed an obstruction of justice....wouldn't criminal charges be laid on the person who did the obstructing?

You tell me. I know for a fact the ex-bishop of our parish did move priests around when they got into trouble abusing children. He told me at a meeting that "we didn't know any better." When he was named in a law suit, his lawyers kept postponing the discoveries and other legal meetings. Records are hard to get from the Catholic church. Cops don't seem to do anything unless a victim complains or lays a charge. I think the Bishops use their canon law to justify most of their illegal activity and hire fancy lawyers to stall litigation and settlement.

The amounts of awards are kept confidential in order to deter others from filing "false" claims and to not set precedents. That to me is their justification. I am currently under a restriction not to reveal the particulars of a recent settlement but I have a lot to tell if I could.

I understand about the need for confidentiality of settlements and possibilities of false claims.

I don't agree with perverted priests being moved around. There was a finding in a investigation, published around the time of the big scandal. The church had been "infiltrated" by those whose purpose is not really to serve God.....but rather to use their position to prey upon their victims. It is like a clique with this bunch...protecting one another. Positions of authority hold such great power and can be easily abused....what more when it is perceived to come with the awe and reverence of the divine. The minors and the children are easy prey.

I too, know of a man who was abused by a homosexual priest (protestant) when he was 14 years old. He said the priest took him to another city and met with another priest, also a homosexual or who approved of what was going on because of knowing looks and banter between the two priests.

You see, this priest took the time to gain his parents' trust and confidence....that he was even invited often for family dinners. So there was no concern when this priest invited to take the boy to an event (I think a sporting event) that was happening in another city. The parents gave their permission. That was when the abuse took place. Where the boy was helpless being in a strange city with no one to turn to for help.

But going back to the obstruction of justice....that is the law enforcers' job. Why would the law enforcers not act upon it if a person had obstructed justice? Surely it is not simply because the alleged suspect is a priest.

[betsy]

Well, it's true...the pontiff is a head of state. If other heads of state or other diplomats have diplomatic immunity, why can't he?

Surely no one is suggesting he, as a head of state, be stripped of diplomatic immunity granted to others...simply because of the religion he stands for?

[gerryhatrick]

I understand about the need for confidentiality of settlements and possibilities of false claims.

I don't agree with perverted priests being moved around. There was a finding in a investigation, published around the time of the big scandal. The church had been "infiltrated" by those whose purpose is not really to serve God.....but rather to use their position to prey upon their victims. It is like a clique with this bunch...protecting one another. Positions of authority hold such great power and can be easily abused....what more when it is perceived to come with the awe and reverence of the divine. The minors and the children are easy prey.

I too, know of a man who was abused by a homosexual priest (protestant) when he was 14 years old. He said the priest took him to another city and met with another priest, also a homosexual or who approved of what was going on because of knowing looks and banter between the two priests.

You see, this priest took the time to gain his parents' trust and confidence....that he was even invited often for family dinners. So there was no concern when this priest invited to take the boy to an event (I think a sporting event) that was happening in another city. The parents gave their permission. That was when the abuse took place. Where the boy was helpless being in a strange city with no one to turn to for help.

But going back to the obstruction of justice....that is the law enforcers' job. Why would the law enforcers not act upon it if a person had obstructed justice? Surely it is not simply because the alleged suspect is a priest.

I feel a little sick after reading your post. You've attempted to paint sexual abuse in the church as some kind of homosexual conspiracy.

Do you have any condemnation for Ratzinger at all?

Will you admit that his letter constituted an attempt to hide information about pedophilia/child rape??

Surely no one is suggesting he, as a head of state, not be condemned and if possible charged for his involvement in this...simply because of the religion he stands for?

[jbg]

The Popes apology to Muslims would have just a tad more credibility if it had been preceded, or even succeded, by an apology to all the children whose lives have been brutally destroyed by his staff.

Just a little bit of "thread drift"?

[jbg]

How long is limitations in the US on civil cases jbg? I know in my province it's generally 2 years, doesn't seem like long for someone to come to terms with themselves after such an abuse.

Varies, state by state. In New York, where I practice, I believe an intentional tort is 1 year. If a minor is involved that one year statute of limitations normally starts running at the time of majority, in some cases 18, others 21.

[betsy]

I feel a little sick after reading your post. You've attempted to paint sexual abuse in the church as some kind of homosexual conspiracy.

The incident I related happened to a friend of mine. He is Canadian, btw. So this happened on Canadian soil.

And it seems to support what was claimed by the investigative report.

It is sickening, isn't it...so I don't blame you. I, myself, feel more than a little sick.

But that doesn't mean all homosexuals are such. Like all groups, we have our own share of bad apples.

Having the authority and power wielded by a priest is understandably attracting predators to this job-title. It's more compelling than a school...or daycare. I won't be surprised if we also have cliques of pedophiles who'd found their little niche in this institution as well.

[gerryhatrick]

Having the authority and power wielded by a priest is understandably attracting predators to this job-title.

The truth is that you don't know why these men are pedophiles.

You don't know if they're attracted to the job because it presents power and opportunity to diddle little kids, or if the job turns then in that direction.

And in terms of the topic it is a tangent.

You didn't answer my questions:

Do you have any condemnation for Ratzinger at all?

Will you admit that his letter constituted an attempt to hide information about pedophilia/child rape??

[betsy]

The truth is that you don't know why these men are pedophiles.

You don't know if they're attracted to the job because it presents power and opportunity to diddle little kids, or if the job turns then in that direction.

If I follow that rationale....

You mean a straight guy can be turned to sodomize 14 year olds, thereby turning him into a homosexual?

Homosexuality, like pedophilia, can actually be an acquired lifestyle?

[betsy]

Do you have any condemnation for Ratzinger at all?

Condemnations are for those already proven guilty.