http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html?scp=1&sq=deaf&st=cse

I guess their pleas fell on deaf ears ..........when was the last time a pope voluntarily resigned ? or forced out ?

One group that has been wounded by the actions of unethical colleagues are the numerous priests who are highly motivated and professional in their relationship to all people.  I've met many of them who have expressed their indignation and pain over many cups of coffee.  The pope and the bishops should be there to serve the churches needs and don't have any more power than your average parish priest.  Credentials for the priesthood should be renewable every year after meeting with a credentials committee made up of both lay and ordained delegates thus opening the door for removal of unethical individuals.  Even at any time throughout that year, if charges are brought against a priest and found to be true, his credendtials can be revoked.  Accountability is the key.  The priest involved, and not the church, should bear total liability for his actions.  The same rule should apply for nuns, monks, etc.  Standards for behaviour and conduct should be clearly spelled out and enforced.  It wouldn't hurt to allow their priests to get married if they are called to do so (Yes, marriage is a calling.  I've heard some wild defences of celibacy that have left me shaking my head.)  It would help take any perverts out of the pulpit and put them back in the pews where they belong .

"Should the Pope resign?"

More apt question, after all the apparently institutionalised abuse:

Should the Catholic clergy continue to exist?

Yeah the pope should resign.   How likely is that to happen?  I am wondering why we are allowed to hear about the stories now?

 Stoneeyeball, I agree with   you. People love to make grand, sweeping statements when a more pointed view would be better. Painting everyone with the same brush is no help to anyone.  Personal accountability is definitely the key.  

And I also believe priests should marry.  They are red blooded males after all and the sex drive can only be denied so long...

Better to marry than burn.

Although i agree with marriage it seems premature to assume that it will cure the problem .... all we are saying is that the many many people who are not in the ministry but are celibate or single are potentially  child molsters when in fact many child molesters are in relationships and some are even married , paedophilia is a totally different issue .... and a deeper pathology .... we're also assuming that priests don't have sex with each other or with parshioners  .... im sure that goes on to .....

Preists being allowed to marry would help with the shortage of priests and that would help with getting rid of some bad ones.   Child molesters are attracted to positions that give them trust, make them pillars of the community, and give them access to children.  Priesthood is still going to be a lure for them.

Sadly lots of different jobs would give them access to children ....

What we really need is tougher laws for convictions

In some countries when you steal they chop off your hand ...

Like Clifford Olsen who gets to sit around suck air and get a pension .....

Outragous ..... I wish we had the death penalty

From the NYT

Internal church correspondence unearthed in a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and given to The New York Times, which made it public it this week

 The Pope has displayed an openeness to dealing with sexual abuse against children, in reaction to new evidence released last month that he knew about abuse against boys in a choir in Germany. The deaf school case only came to light today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNUy6tOLblMblVzHdJO-EJSogNIAD9EMIE100

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON (AP) – 20 hours ago

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican is facing one of its gravest crises of modern times as sex abuse scandals move ever closer to Pope Benedict XVI — threatening not only his own legacy but also that of his revered predecessor.

Benedict took a much harder stance on sex abuse than John Paul II when he assumed the papacy five years ago, disciplining a senior cleric championed by the Polish pontiff and defrocking others under a new policy of zero tolerance.

But the impression remains of a woefully slow-footed church and of a pope who bears responsibility for allowing pedophile priests to keep their parishes.

In an editorial on Friday, the National Catholic Reporter in the United States called on Benedict to answer questions about his role "in the mismanagement" of sex abuse cases, not only in the current crisis but during his tenure in the 1980s as archbishop of Munich and then as head of the Vatican's doctrinal and disciplinary office.

It all comes down to the question of what the pope knew and when. The answer will almost certainly determine the fate of Benedict's papacy.

However that does not address the coverup by bishops, and others. It is only because they covered for abusers that the abuse was allowed to continue.

Also even bigger than this is sexual abuse against adults that were poor or disabled.  In Quebec when the PQ was in power in the 70's and eighties, welfare for people under 30 was under 150 dollars a month. this forced many to turn to the church to be fed. Many young men and women were forced to have sex with priests (including me) in order to get fed.

Because this was not clearly illegal, (it actually is illegal, but hard to prove that the youth did not consent) the police and courts can not help.  The church continues to call people who come forward as liers who are attacking the church.

(BTW Pauline Marois was the Minister responsible for welfare, and she is now the PQ leader.)

 The Document Trail: The Predator Priest Who Got Away.

http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case?ref=us#document

Many young men and women were forced to have sex with priests (including me) in order to get fed.

I guess you were under the age of employment ? and why didn't you scream from the rooftops back then ?

I don't think that there is any provision in the RC church for a pope to resign.  I think its a lifetime position. 

I think that the RC church is probably trying to find other ways to deal with the abuse and the scandal. 

I doubt if there is such a mechanism either, Seeler, because 'we ain't never done it before.'  Yet there is a firsdt time for everything, including thigs no one ever thought would happen-- Edward abdicating, Nixon resigning, etc.  Even if it's a make-it-up-as-we-go-along thing, it could happen that a Pope could relinquish office.  Whether it's going to happen, though, is a whole different ball of wax.

Alex, thanks for your input.  I often wondered why my francophone ancestors left Quebec and came to Ontario in the 1800's and went Anglican or (gulp) Presbyterian (at a time when leaving the RC church would likely condemn you to hell, at least.)  Although the reasons were unspoken, there was some indication that they were fed up with the RC church and life in Quebec.  When I worked briefly in Quebec at the time the PQ came to power, there was sort of a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that I encountered that I found a bit strange. Even my dad's generation, although somewhat removed by a couple of generations from the Quebec situation, were almost distrustful and mildly hostile to leaders in the RC church.  Even when I asked innocent questions about the local culture and traditions, there was a 'circling of the wagons' against this 'maudit Anglais' from Ontario (actually, my French and my English are both lousy).  Your input has shed some light on the extent of the coverup and corruption.  (And to think I'm distantly related to Rene Levesque.  Yikes!)

During the early 80's there was an economic  recession. At one point around 25% of people under 30 were dependant on welfare. During all recessions the young and the disabled are affected in greater numbers than others. I worked as a day labouor, but most of the time the jobs would go to men with more experience. Also as an anglophone living in a Quebec city, I believe lead to some discrimination when jobs were being handed out each day,  due to the believe that all anglophones were priveleged, or would not work well in a francophone work place.

I was 19, and I also face the challenges of living with PDD-NOS, a type of autism.  Plus I had to live with anxiety and depression.  As well like others who had been physically abused or neglected as children, I was not in the position to understand that it was abuse.

Also others were raising hell. In particular a group called RAJ. Raissemblement Attonome des Jeunes(sp) they were ignored by everyone. The only people that stood up for us was the CSN, a trade union.  however they only did so when the PQ introduced a plan to pay young people on welfare an extra 150 dollars a month, in return for doing public works.  Including jobs that CSN members were being paid for.

I also want to point out that the poor, young people, and civil servants were being punished by the PQ, because they did not vote in higher percentages to seperate from Canada in 1980. Most voted Yes, but not enough to offset the anglophone and immigrants that solidly voted NO.  The PQ believed that these people had it too good, and as a result Social Services were cut, and civil servants (except the police and politicians) had their pay cut. (I can not remember but I think it was cut by 20%.

That is true, however the heirarchy is full of men who are still in denial.

from the AP. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNUy6tOLblMblVzHdJO-EJSogNIAD9EMIE100

While church law allows for the resignation of a pope, there are few precedents over the church's two millennium history. The last was by 15th-century Pope Gregory XII, and that was not over scandal but rather a schism in the church.

It is my belief that the deaf school scandal is the last nail in the coffin of the current papacy. Especially following so closely on the scandal in the German church.

I also believe it will cause the Church to hit  bottom, as recovering addicts do when the stop using. This will lead to major reforms like women priests, married priests, and a new structure that will remove power from the vatican, and force it to become accountable to all members of the church.

I guess the pope can't be impeached or something like that? 

That "lifelong" rule of retaining the pope creates the type of atmosphere where abuse can flourish.  It's top down infallibility.. 

Maybe this scandal will force the catholic church  to change or maybe it will die out.  It seems that this pedophilia problem and subsequent cover up are only part of the problem.  There seems to be an awakening of thought and a questioning of age-old beliefs and practices.  People are pursing their own understanding and spirituality, not feeling compelled to find them within the mother church or any other church.  Our church numbers are declining.  The under 45 folks just don't seem interested:  I can't say I blame them. 

 The church will not die, unless humanity dies out. It will change, as it always has.

The idea that the church will die is not logical if you believe like I do that the church is just the people who have been moved by the spirit. The church is not a building, it is not an organisation, it is not a denomination, it is the people and communities who allow God to enter their lives.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28bruni.html

Here is an interesting oped piece from todays NYT.  As well the Times reports that  there are hundreds of victims coming forward in Italy. Many of whom appeared on TV this week. This just adds to the tens of thousands who have come forward in the last year in Ireland, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, the US. and on and on. 

More cases are going to come to light as Federal Judges in the US  have  lifted the diplomatic immunity, the Vatican state has,  in an attempt to forcing them to hand over documents.

“I want to know what the Vatican knew and when they knew it,” said William McMurry, who represents victims in a Kentucky case that may end up with a case from Oregon in the US Supreme Court.

McMurry told The Washington Post: “We’re trying to get what’s never been uncovered before — documents only the Vatican has. I want to know ... what they instructed US bishops to do. That’s the linchpin of liability.”

Here are highlights of the oped piece from todays NYT.

Of the many heartbreaking details in the latest round of outrage over child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, one stands out as particularly emblematic: a tidy window into Church leaders’ mindsets; a bracing glimpse of what went wrong.

It traces back to 1975, when the Rev. Sean Brady, now a cardinal at the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, was tending to two boys who had been molested by a priest. By Cardinal Brady’s own admission, he did not report what had happened to the authorities. It was his understanding, he said, that the church would not want that. Instead, the boys — one 14, one just 10, both surely reeling — were forced to sign an oath that such notification would never be made.

It is doubtful that pledge helped them heal, or that he or anyone else in the church thought it might. It certainly did not safeguard other children, many of whom the priest went on to molest.

But it served a purpose and illustrated a priority: to insulate the church from outside interference and condemnation. And it distilled the church’s profound defensiveness toward the secular world, a longstanding posture and a prominent theme in abuse cases that have recently attracted attention.

The church’s fundamental and deliberate separation from secular society — in terms of how it sees its mission, protects itself and interprets human misbehavior — explains much of its leaders’ response, or lack thereof, to the child sexual abuse crisis. Time and again they have sought to police their own ranks in their own ways, due largely to fears of persecution that are embedded in the very genesis of the Church, supported by much if its history and evoked by its signal symbol: the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

There are enemies of the faith, no question. And so there is a powerful impulse to protect it that can override all else — that can lead to Pope Benedict XVI’s edict in 2001, when he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and leading the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that exhorted bishops worldwide to aggressively report abuse cases directly to the Vatican but offered no comparable encouragement for them to report crimes to the police.

The words of an unsigned editorial last week in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, capture the church’s suspiciousness of secular critics even more pointedly. The editorial said that Benedict had always handled abuse cases with “transparency, purpose and severity,” and accused the news media of acting “with the clear and ignoble intent of trying to strike Benedict and his closest collaborators at any cost.”

In the German, Irish, American and other abuse cases, the decisions by church officials not to involve the police and courts and not to conduct public, transparent inquiries weren’t simple matters of coddling individual priests and bishops or blunt acts of criminal evasion. They were motivated by an array of factors, chief among them a belief that handing secular critics ammunition to be used against the church would jeopardize its outstanding work.

“For the whole life of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, they have dealt with this question of scandal as if it were a sin in and of itself,” Mr. France said. “You can go back to the year 400 and see writings in the Catholic magisterium about avoiding scandal.”

Partly because of that, and partly because of its resistance to yielding to secular expectations, the church has not made gestures that a corporation or government in its embattled situation would feel compelled to make. Cardinal Brady has not been stripped of his leadership position. And in a public letter of apology to the people of Ireland, the pope did not call for, or specify, disciplinary action against any of the many church leaders who covered up an epidemic of abuse there.

But when an institution is girded so thoroughly against threats from without, can it address and remedy the threats from within? The persistence of the child sexual abuse crisis, intensifying once again, suggests that the church’s defensive posture may in fact be a self-defeating one.

In light of some of these recent allegations, it's not so much a case of "should the Pope resign", but should, or could, the Pope be arrested?

If the Catholic Church was an international daycare company, many of its leaders, including the CEO, would be rotting in prisons by now.

The church will not die out anymore than any other secular movement.  The church has been a secular movement since the end of the first century AD (or CE if that appeals more to you.)  Politicians are still around, universities move forward, armies still fight, and the church, as an organization, goes on.  The RC church as a large, multi-national corporation with corporate head offices in Rome, still wields a lot of influence.  The church according to Alex's definition will go on.  We might see the United Church disappear within the next 30 years (we can only hope), but the RC church is too massive.  Even if denominationalism disappeared tomorrow, there would be fellowship groups of Christians continuing on in their mission.  Of course, if humanity dies out, that would render the church obsolete, and I don't think we're going to drop dead just to see that happen.

I think that will be the outcome if the Supreme Court of the US, lifts the diplomatic immunity of the Vatican, and gets a hold of even more records.

I can also see courts in the UK  and Spain issuing  arrest warrants based on the evidence uncovered. Just as they did against Pinochet of Chile, and an Israeli politicians for crimes against humanity.   In fact the one reason I can see the Pope not  resigning , is that he would be more likely to be prosecuted in Germany if he is not the head of the church.

The church has already paid out over 1 billion dollars to abuse victims in the US alone. The church only has so much property. However once it looses its property and priveleges, it will be no longer attractive to the sociopaths who have betrayed the Roman Catholic Church.

It will then be free to return to preaching love and social justice, if it does not happen before.

Different ways to cover it up you mean, seeler.

That would be cool if it would happen. I would like to see reform in other denominations as well. The hierachal, patriarchal model is well past its "best before" date.

All churches, with the exception of the zaniest of the fundamentalists will be hurt by this. The mainstrearm churches are already in retreat. Catholics who leave their churches are not likely to join them in any  large numbers. to those sitting on the fence, all Chrsitianity has been debased.

But I would not be suprised to see defecting Catholics go over the the witnesses, and some populist, Sara Palin preachers with their own churches.

Here is what the Pope and the Vatican said today, and yesterday.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/world/europe/29pope.html?ref=world

 Pope Benedict, facing one of the gravest crises of his pontificate as a sexual abuse scandal sweeps the Church, indicated on Sunday that his faith would give him the courage not to be intimidated by critics.

 While he did not directly mention the scandal involving sexual abuse of children by priests, parts of his sermon could be applicable to the crisis.

The pontiff said faith in God helps lead one “towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion.”

He also spoke of how man can sometimes “fall to the lowest, vulgar levels” and “sink into the swamp of sin and dishonesty.”

One prayer asked God to help “the young and those who work to educate and protect them,” which Vatican Radio said was intended to “sum up the feelings of the Church at this difficult time when it confronts the plague of pedophilia.”

As the scandal has convulsed the Church, the Vatican has gone on the offensive, attacking the media for what it called an “ignoble attempt” to smear Pope Benedict and his top advisers.

On Saturday, the Vatican’s chief spokesman acknowledged that the Church’s response to cases of sexual abuse by priests was crucial to its credibility and it must “acknowledge and make amends for” even decades-old cases.

The Vatican has denied any cover-up in the abuse of 200 deaf boys in the United States by the Reverend Lawrence Murphy from the 1950s to the 1960s, after reports that he was not defrocked although the case was made known to the Vatican and to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the Church’s top doctrinal official, now Pope Benedict.

The Vatican also said that the pope, while archbishop of Munich in 1980, was not involved in the decision by a subordinate to allow a priest who had been transferred there to undergo therapy for sexual abuse to return later to pastoral duties.

The European epicenter of the scandal is Ireland, where two bishops have resigned over their handling of abuse cases years ago. Three others have offered their resignation and there have been calls for the head of the Irish Church, Cardinal Sean Brady, to step down.

Child abuse is something for the criminal courts to act on. If they find priests guilty and, in the process, show that the Pope knew of it and covered it up - then the Pope is guilty of a crime, and should face the civil courts.

I say that not out of any hostility to the pope. But if a person is charged with a criminal offense, it is not up to the church to handle. If a priest were to murder someone, he would face a court. (Indeed, I have some vague idea this once happened in Canada).  Child abuse is a crime.

As to whether he should remain Pope, I think that whether found guilty or not guilty, the role of chistians is to forgive - that is, to understand his actions as those of a person who, like all of us, is flawed. then Catholics will have to decide whether the flaw still remains, and whether he will be dangerous in such a high position.

I don't know what guilt the pope may or may not have. I do know that if the church hopes to survive it is going to have to get tougher on a problem that has always plagued it. (nor is it the only institution to have this problem. It can be rife in private, residential schools, for example - notoriously so in Britain for centuries.)

graeme

graeme

 For me and the many revisionist Catholics I know, the problem is not just the sex abuse and the cover up. It's also about the abuse of power in general.

While this has been going on the Pope has ordered an investigation into the actions of American Nuns. Not because of any crimes, but because they are not submissive enough towards the men in the church.  

He is threatening certain orders of Nuns with ex-communication if they do not cooperate.  

Before this all happened the revisionist were gearing up for a fight over the Pope's plan to centralise power even further.  As a student, at a Catholic University, I am not allowed to tape many of my theology classes because almost all of the professors fear the Vatican.  even through I have a disability that would justify it.   None of the theology profs have any job security, like professors elsewhere because they can lose their catholic teaching license, if the Vatican decides to take it away.

A popular professors at my school had a heart attack and died during a trial in Rome for herasy during the tenor of the last Pope.

This was happening at the same time they were ignoring the reports of sex abuse.  

One of the biggest Catholic University in the US left the Catholic church, because the last pope was threatening their professors.

The church is going to reform or split in the next 10 years, and most North and South Americans and Europeans Catholic academics are revisionists. They train most of the priests, so I imagine that most priests are revisionists as well.

 One of the main problems with proving that the Vatican knew anything, is that because, (unlike other religions) much of the power has been removed from the local church and is in the hands of the Papal Representatives, who have diplomatic immunity.

Also the Pope as a head of state has immunity from criminal charges.

Canada and Europeans have  long reconised the Vatican as a state, and Ronald Regan when he was president offically reconised the Vatican as a state.

However this reconistion is now being challeneged in the US courts, based on the US constitution, which seperates the church form the state.

Also the left in Italy is starting to talk about annexing the Vatican again. This has long been an issue in Italy, but the left abandoned it because it was not a popular stance. It is gaining support now however due to the sex scandal in Italy.

 I would like to add that the revisionist are more than just the left inside the church.  It includes the centre and a large part of the right as well.  The only Catholic University in Canada which is run by non revisionist  is in Edmonton.

If you feel this way about the church why not just leave it ?

 I was never a part of it. I am a philosophy student. The philosophy professors actually have academic freedom.  It only affects me when I take a theology course. My first theology course that I took, which was an intro course was run by a marxist feminist.

Generally the profs are to the left of the UCC.

Another course I took on the Bible was taught by a professor who believed that Jesus was gay.

heads of state are not immune from criminal charge. Hitler would not have been immune at Nuenberg. An american president is now immune, against cgarrges of assassinating people - so far as American practrice is concerned. But if he were to order a killing in some other country (as he has), he would not be immune in that country.

Di;plomats enjoy immunity in the countries they are assigned to. I don't believe they have immunity anywhere else.

graeme

Hitler at Nurenburg, would no longer had been  the head of a state. He would have been disposed. Also Nurenburg was an international court.

An American president is not immune against charges in his own country. Likewise the pope can only be charge in the Vatican courts.

I suppose they could be charge at the International Court, but only for crimes against humanity. I believe  this only applies to war crimes.

All a country has to do to ensure a person has diplomatic immunity in any other country is declare that the individual has it.

Around 8 years ago, a driver for the Russian embassy killed a Canadian Lawyer. The Canadian police could not charge him.  He had diplomatic immunity granted to him.  He was not a diplomat.  All we could do was expell him. Which we did. He was tried in Russia, but recieved a very short sentence I believe. The trial only happened because he was not connected to powerful people in Russia.

If a driver can not be charged with homocide, then .......

Like wise when the Cardinal/Archbihsop  of Boston was accused of covering up child abuse, he left the US and is know  living in the Vatican, which protects him from not only being charged in the US, but from having to tell what he knew to the American Police.

Right now the Papal Authorities are refusing to hand over to the US courts the documents they have requested. The vatican is refusing, so now the courts are challenging whether or not a church can be a country, under their constitution which seperates church and state.  A Federal judge has sided with the victims of child abuse, and the case is headed to the supreme court.

 Even with courts and loyal Catholics demanding that the Vatican tell all that they know and release all documents, the Church is refusing. 

Forgiveness is possible, but that forgiveness needs to comes from the victims, like the 10 year old boy who was abused and then forced to sign documents.

Victims is the US who meet with the Pope when he visited New York, are now saying they were tricked and lied to when they forgave.

The Pope in his prior job became responsible for the issue. So he is the one person who knows the most.

It is quite possible to charge a person for a crime committed in another country. It's been done, and recently, many times.

Certainly, it is quite possible for Irish authorities to try an Irish priest on criminal grounds. Clergy have been charged many times - and that includes in western democracies.

Such charges would expose evidence about the Pope's involvement - if he was involved - and the involvement of other superiors. It would then become impossible for him or any of the others to leave the Vatican without risk of arrest. There would be quite enough cases of child abuse all over the world to stuff the vatican with child molesters. And the church would not survive that. In fact, cases of child abuse in Canadian native schools, alone, would fill the vatican to overflowing.

You may think it just that only victims should have the power to forgive. But I do not think The Bible says that. Don't make up new commandments just for convenience.

You are likely right, I am not a theologian or Biblical scholar.

RC Priests offer forgiveness to all  in the confessional. However if you confess to crimes like murder, or theft, the Priest will also tell you that you need to confess to the police, and make admends to the victims if possible. Like returning stolen money.

That is true, but not if they have diplomatic immunity. The Vatican would not do that to protect a priest.  However as Boston shows, Cardinals and High Church authorities are treated differently from priests by the vatican.

Oh, re your earlier letter,Alex. Hitler was not deposed, and at the end of he war he was not head of state. He was dead. And Nuremberg was an international court? We still have an international court.

I might add that Saddam was still technically a head of state when he was tried and hanged. And even an American president can by impeached - that is, have charges laid against him. That's why Nixon resigned rather than face criminal charges.

 The question that makes people believe that the Pope is hiding even more, is why will he not let the American courts access to the documents that they have concerning child sex abuse by priests in the US?

Cardinal Ouellet has said that the Pope is a good man and would never cover up crimes for political reasons. 

The NS Archbishop who was arrested last year at  the Ottawa Airport with importing and possession of child porn after returning from  countries where people go to rape children, Is also likely to have raped children. However there is no proof. Still it is proper to investigate if he did or not.  Even if the church says he is a nice man and would never do such a thing?

He had his passport removed and can not escape 

I said he would have been disposed. I should have added if he had not killed himself.

Also Do you know If the international court is limited to war crimes?

Again Saddam was tried and convicted by Iraqi authorities, and Nixon by American authorities.

Unless the international court has juristriction over cases like this, the Pope can only be charged by the Vatican courts.

Graeme

 Has there been any precidents for an existing head of state being tried for crimes in another country, while he was stil head of state?

 Also does anyone else knows if the Vatican has ever tried and convicted people  of criminal activities.

Does the vatican even have a criminal court?

I know they have courts to charge people with herasy.