The catholic group are not pedophiles. There were quite a few pedophiles among the catholic group. They were protected by select members who worked for a catholic group.

If you can show a higher percentage of pedophiles are catholic, or if you can make statement to show an effect that being catholic leads to pedophilia, I'd have to say your opinion seems a bit out there.

While I'm not catholic, I'm not about to suggest being part of the catholic administration equals pedophile, or increased chance of pedophile.

The catholic group are not pedophiles. There were quite a few pedophiles among the catholic group. They were protected by select members who worked for a catholic group.

For sixty years. One of these people eventually became the Pope. Ratzinger could have easily prevented hundreds of cases of sexual abuse of children had he provided the names of the responsible clergymen to the police. He chose not to.

If you can show a higher percentage of pedophiles are catholic, or if you can make statement to show an effect that being catholic leads to pedophilia, I'd have to say your opinion seems a bit out there.

My opinion is that the ranking members of the Catholic Church put protecting the church's reputation as a higher priority than preventing the rape of children.

You keep saying two different statements. You make a blanket statement against the structure of the catholic church, but then speak of a handful of people only. The two are different, and I'm not sure why you seem certain that they are the same?

True, but the secular law recognizes special situations arising with clergy, privilege and the like.

And if you ask a religion if secular law is higher than God's law, you may get a different answer.  I don't know of any religion that says that a government trumps God...

...although many, like my own, state that they are subject to magistrates.

Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but he didn't say render that which is God's unto Caesar.

True, but the secular law recognizes special situations arising with clergy, privilege and the like.

Well, that just runs to contrary to everything that the justice system is supposed to stand for.

And if you ask a religion if secular law is higher than God's law, you may get a different answer.  I don't know of any religion that says that a government trumps God...

It doesn't matter what they think, it's how it is. Priests are required to obey the law of the land, even if it conflicts with religious law, and should be punished if they violate the law.

You keep saying two different statements. You make a blanket statement against the structure of the catholic church, but then speak of a handful of people only. The two are different, and I'm not sure why you seem certain that they are the same?

The administration of the church right now seems to consists of two types of people: A, those who were directly involved in covering up tens of thousands of cases of child abuse. And B, those who refuse to punish those involved in said cover up. Apparantly, the current administration of the Catholic Church is complety unfamiliar with the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Falkus, you are still making broad statements based on only a few people.  Yes, SOME members of the US congregations intentionally committed or covered up molestations.  Yes, that is deplorable.  Yes, those people should face trial for their actions.  However, the administration of the church consists of tens to hundreds of thousands of people, the vast majority of which have only heard as much about the sex scandal as you have (or likely less!)  The Archdiocese of Singapore shouldn't be slandered for the actions of a few people in the Diocese of San Francisco (or where ever these happened).

This wasn't a big secret everyone who was Catholic knew about.  There weren't memos sent around saying 'Father Joe molests children, don't tell anyone!' between priests.  Condemning an entire body because of the misactions of a few is simply incorrect.  Do I say that ALL scientists are worthless because a few forged their results with the knowledge of their superiors?  Of course not, such a statement is misdirected.  The same applies here.

One of the interesting things about failure in the Church is that it actually supports Christianity.  We believe that all people are fallen and imperfect, so when one of us stumbles, it only proves doctrine, rather than undermining it.

It's strange that many people find the hypocrisy of some church-goers as a refutation of Christianity.  The bible is filled with religious hypocrits.  It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that there will be people who take the name of the faith, and yet don't really follow it.

I've heard people talk about how under persecution there wouldn't be hypocrits, because it isn't advantageous.  I don't agree.  We have the example of Ananias and Saphira in the first century church.

Quixotic

Okay, I'm a big enough man to admit when I'm wrong. I'm mistaken on my opinion concerning the Catholic church. I will not, however, change my opinion of the current pope or any other member of the church who could have saved countless children from sexual abuse, but chose not to.

Thank you, Falkus.  Your integrity is appreciated.

I don't know all of the details about the involvement of say the pope in the scandals.  All I understand is he sent out a memo saying they're performing their own secret investigation, but that it should not interfere with the legal investigation currently ongoing.

I don't know all of the details about the involvement of say the pope in the scandals.  All I understand is he sent out a memo saying they're performing their own secret investigation, but that it should not interfere with the legal investigation currently ongoing.

Actually, to be more precise, during his time as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he sent out an order stating than any priest who revealed any information about the investigation to law enforcment would be excommunicated. He had access to the names of those responsible, all he had to do was release the names and information to the police to put an end to it.

But it was an internal investigation, running concurrently with the legal one, correct?  During that investigation, were the suspects able to continue their misdeeds?

But it was an internal investigation, running concurrently with the legal one, correct?

It would have varied with the various priests in question, but that's besides the point. The point is that he had access to information that could have helped the police in their investigation, and prevented further cases of child abuse, but he willingly withheld that information from the police. Which happens to be illegal in just about every country in the world.

  During that investigation, were the suspects able to continue their misdeeds?

During the church's investigation, yes.

Not really.  Part of the system is recognizing freedom of religion, which includes certain privileges.  So you actually would do away with some civil rights by intruding in church affairs, as well as a recognized good in society, which is a place to seek penitence without retribution.

This goes back to the theory that church is about mercy, not justice.  Not that the church should knowingly violate a law if it can help it.

Not really.  Part of the system is recognizing freedom of religion, which includes certain privileges.

Freedom of religion only means free worship. It does not give a religious organization the right to withold information from the police.

So you actually would do away with some civil rights by intruding in church affairs

So, if I wanted to take up the Aztec tradition of human sacrafice, I should be allowed to do so?

Given the international nature of the Church, I do wonder how that would sort itself out...  However, whether it would be unethical to withold information about the investigation depends on a lot of other factors.  Are they getting information from confessions or sources similarly sealed?  (I presume not, but it's worth asking).  Are they getting information from sources that wouldn't stand up in court, such as prayer?  What precisely were they investigating?  Were they looking for more evidence against suspected molestors?  Or were they generally trying to find more suspects?  Was the intent to turn over all evidence after it had been verified?  (Keep in mind, of course, if information is released prematurely it can have a terrible impact, especially if the suspect is really innocent.  Would you want to go to church with a priest who'd been accused by the Church of being a child molestor?  I wouldn't either.)

However, the fact that suspects were left in the position where they could repeat their crime was illegal, unethical and foolish, no question.

  Are they getting information from sources that wouldn't stand up in court, such as prayer?

They're getting it from complaints by the families inolved, and confessions from the priests involved, primarily. The church's usual response for the last sixty years has been to pressure the families into not reporting it, and transferring the priest to a different parish.

Was the intent to turn over all evidence after it had been verified?

Given that the Church's knowledge of priests abusing children started at least sixty years ago, I doubt they were planning on turning any evidence over to the authorities any time soon.

To clarify, *members* of the church knew.  I doubt the Pope knew 60 years ago.  I doubt more than a handful of people knew, in fact, since such a thing getting out could (as we've seen) be a major PR nightmare.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.  Free worship is inhibited if you allow clergy to disseminate information in the confessional.  And this is well established by law.

There are established limitations where the law is balanced with church beliefs.  Examples of where the law has been fought are the peyote cases, polygamy, and the like.  It is too complex for me to give you a simple answer.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.  Free worship is inhibited if you allow clergy to disseminate information in the confessional.  And this is well established by law.

Confidentiality is not legally applicable in cases where failure to disseminate information can result in harm to another person.

That's not true.  Although the exact details are a state matter, at least in California, the fact that someone may be hurt only allows the clergyman to disclose it if he wants to.  It does not require him to disclose.

Heath is right, although in this case I don't know if it's completely applicable.

If I go to my priest and confess I killed someone, he is not legally required to testify against me and is in fact required by his previous vows NOT to do so.  If he testifies against me he'll likely be excommunicated.  However, the same can be said of a spouse (who would likely be divorced), your doctor (I'd have to double check this), your lawyer, debatably a reporter (this was a big scandal a few months ago, if you recall) and, of course, yourself.  These laws are there for good reason, and remember in all these cases my confession needs to be safe to protect my rights as an accused.  That said, all parties mentioned should probably advise me to go confess.  Most likely if I went to a priest and confessed I killed someone, he would tell me I'd have to go confess the crime or face excommunication.

That said, in these specific cases I don't believe there was any ethical impetus to not divulging this information.  I don't know the precise nature of these crimes, but I find it hard to believe that every offending priest told his superior these details under the sanctity of confession, and every superior decided to act upon it without excommunicating the priest.  Hence they were legally in the right of concealing information through a loophole in the law, but they were certainly morally in the wrong.

So, that's how the clergy works? They'll let a person die just because church law says they can't tell? How the hell is that in line with any of the basic principles of christianity?

I personally don't know of any cases where that's come up as such (I should specify, where a clergymember withheld information that could save a live and was morally right in doing so).  But there aren't a lot of cases that would come up.  I suppose if I told a priest I had kidnapped someone and was storing her somewhere, then got nabbed by the cops but they didn't know where, that would be a place where the priest would be in a tough spot.  I *BELIEVE* he could get a dispensation in that point, but that's an intricacy of Church law I've never had any reason to be familiar with.

However, yes, that could hypothetically come up.  A lawyer could know the same (and that HAS happened before).  Same with a spouse.  Heck, if the court knew I kidnapped someone, they could probably save the poor victim if they tortured me, but they don't do that either.  I'd worry more about why a lawyer can't divulge his client's secrets to save a life than about a priest in the same place.  As I said, I've never heard of a priest being put in that place (which isn't the same as, in this case, a priest taking advantage of a privilege in the law to intentionally hide something he was ethically obliged to report).

However, yes, that could hypothetically come up.  A lawyer could know the same (and that HAS happened before).

I did some checking. The legality of lawyer-client privelege does not allow a lawyer to conceal information that could prevent a crime. If you confess to your lwayer that you committed murder, he is legally obliged to inform the court, and will be in serious trouble if he doesn't, most likely getting disbarred. That's why I assumed that confession wasn't legally allowed to conceal criminal information.

Heck, if the court knew I kidnapped someone, they could probably save the poor victim if they tortured me, but they don't do that either.

There's a rather large \ difference between torture and concealing information that could save a life.

There's a difference between information about a crime you plan on committing and the effects of one you already have committed, or about preventing you from possibly committing one in the future.  As I said, I do believe if I confessed to my lawyer that I locked up my kidnapping victim somewhere, he would be obliged to NOT tell (but I may be wrong) because he would be invalidating my right to a fair trial.  If I admitted I was a serial murderer and the lawyer won, he could not say anything to keep me from killing again, even though he knows it's quite likely.

Of course, I think Heath would pretty much have the last word on that.

In this case I don't believe the priests ever said 'I am going to go molest children'.  I think it would be fairly irrational for the clergymen in question to have moved the offending priests with the expectation that they would commit the crime again (since that wouldn't solve the problem at all, but would rather exacerbate it).  I don't know why someone would go to confession to say he's about to go kill someone.  He wouldn't be absolved from it.  Again, I have no idea what the rules are for what a priest should do.  I don't think it's really come up before.