Important to remember what the Current Pope did....he is a criminal.

[Harper_is_Bush]

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer

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.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html

This has been largely ignored by MSM, and is never talked about anywhere that I see. I think the complicit silence on this issue is the same sort of silence that contributed to the problem in the first place.

He instructed Bishops to obstruct justice. Why is he not wanted by the authorities in the USA? Because he is the Pope.
Same attitude that allowed priests and bishops to abuse kids in the first place.

[undergroundpanther]

1. Here's more on this issue

http://www.unknownnews.net/vaticanpedophilesclub.html

[Harper_is_Bush]

6. Good info, thanks! n/t

[trotsky]

2. I'm sure the cries of "Catholic bashing" will eventually appear here.

But for now, it's important to note that this isn't just about the act of pedophilia by members of the clergy, which does happen in probably every religion or situation where adults have control over children.

This is about a willful coverup by the church hierarchy to PROTECT those vile people, and in some cases, even relocate them to places where they have a fresh supply of new victims.

"Disgusting" doesn't even begin to describe such behavior. Too bad I don't believe in hell, because assholes like Ratzi certainly deserve it.

[arwalden]

3. A Noteworthy Point Is That Most Of Those Cries You Speak Of...

... usually come in the form of one or two "drive-by" posts. You know... the "hit-n-run" ugly retorts, excuse-making, insults, personal attacks, and feigning being victimized, etc.

The usual suspects who perpetrate these types of post seldom stick around to read or respond to the replies. They seldom (if ever) offer any pertinent facts. Instead they seem much more content to pretend that THEY are the victims of "DU bigotry".

~A

PS: I absolutely agree with you when you said: "This is about a willful coverup by the church hierarchy to PROTECT those vile people, and in some cases, even relocate them to places where they have a fresh supply of new victims." --- I'm astounded at how many people refuse to acknowledge that.

[hunter]

4. The first post I ever had deleted on DU was a cry of "Catholic bashing."

:evilgrin:

I hear a lot of Catholic bashing in church too, which is interesting because it's a Catholic church.

As for the original post, I would guess that this "confidential letter" to the bishops was leaked to the press by a "Catholic bashing" Catholic bishop.

[Igel]

5. UCLA had a small filing cabinet full of

sexual harassment cases. UCLA denied they existed, but one of the stu gov officers saw it, asked what was in it, and the secretary answered; when he asked the administrator in charge of the office, the response was "it doesn't exist, we have no sexual harassment claims, past or present." The guy repeated what the secretary said, and the administrator merely smiled and changed the subject. Confidentiality is the usual terms of the settlement agreement, and standard practice during the negotiations. Of course, any of the people bringing allegations had every right before the settlement was reached to go to the press or the authorities. BTW, the reason the officer was meeting with the administrator was that a student had approached him to help with a sexual harrassment claim. A few months later, the officer asked the student how it went; "How what went?" was the response, and she said she couldn't talk about it. Claim settled. A year later, the professor was retired; rumor was, the string of harassment claims had simply gotten too long. The authorities were never called in. It was, ultimately, a he-said/she-said kind of incident. All of them were. None were ever proven. Was the professor guilty of any of them? Probably. But everybody would be witness to a different crime, and the law doesn't criminalize a person's character and wishes, but his behavior. The stu gov officer didn't report it to the police. Neither did I; I was responsible for that stu gov officer, and told him not to. The woman didn't either; that was her choice.

Many school districts have similar filing cabinets. Similarly, all the kids and their parents could go to the authorities; the school district could, as well, and so could the teachers' union--invariably the union steps in to make sure the teachers' rights are protected. Some of the victims go to the police; most don't. One could argue that the teachers' union should, as a kind of NGO, also have a duty to report transgressions of its members, but that's not its role. Should a union look out for the rights of pedophile teachers? No. Yes. Damn. There was a spate of teacher-directed pedophile/abuse complaints in the '80s and early '90s. Most proved false--long after the reputations and careers of the teachers were destroyed. The victims were the 'pedophiles'. Oops. Finding the right balance is damned tough; sitting around and judging those that don't find it is very easy.

The US Catholic church shouldn't have shifted priests around, when they were likely to be pedophiles or molesters. But the church also shouldn't punish the innocent. The church should live up to canon law and secular law, while also abiding by its ideals of forgiveness in the face of repentance. It shouldn't privilege the word of a priest over the word of an adult parishioner; but probably it should, since kids frequently have a tenuous grasp on the truth, until a certain age, and have been known to lie for what appears trivial reasons. On the other hand, it shouldn't privilege the word of an adult parishioner over that of a priest.

Years after I left the church I was in, the rumor started that the pastor was sleeping with the church office secretary. The evidence was ambiguous, at best. She denied it. He denied it. Most people believed it. Some people left the church because of it: an adulterous pastor! Others treated the secretary like she was a slut. No one won.

Ratzenberger's edict was parallel to the secrecy typically imposed whenever a claim was brought against a teacher or other employee that worked with the public. The secrecy protected a multitude of people. It's fine to hold the church to a higher standard, but it has repercussions for more than just the Vatican.