New York Times criticizes Vatican over pedophiles

On the subject of letters and what they do (and do not) say. There are other letters also in the public domain which are, unlike the 1997 Irish Letter absolutley clear in content and purpose. Letters such as the one from Cardinal Oddi who was from 1979 to 1986 Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy, to Bishop Moreno of Tuscon Arizona. This letter is a reply to Bishop Moreno's original letter seeking guidance on how to deal with a "Troublesome Priest" In his correspondence, Cardinal Oddi says, "under no condition whatever ought the afore-mentioned files be surrendered to any lawyer or judge whatsoever." Oddi said "The files of a Bishop concerning his priests are altogether private; their forced acquisition by civil authority would be an intolerable attack upon the free exercise of religion in the United States" He further added;"We should be clear and resolute, for failure in this regard might initiate a movement toward a most unfavorable precedent in law and - no less importantly - frighten and upset not a few priests whose files are perhaps less than flattering," In this context the letter to the Irish Bishops can legitimately be viewed in an entirely different light.

Eiriamach- you have quoted well that the nuncio's letter "SIMPLY WARNS" the bishops...because "IT COULD" generate problems. I made precisely that point in my last point - the nuncio was expressing the reservations of the Congregation for Clergy, which is just one part of the Roman Curia. The same congregation raised concerns about the U.S. bishops' document and these were overturned - so, as you say, the nuncio's letter "simply warns". The bishops were free to accept or reject it - but if canonical problems arose, they could not say they weren't warned about it. Again, contrary to what is being reported, the letter does not state that there is a problem with reporting cases to the civil authorities.

So much for sainthood.

More than 25 pages of the Irish bishops' "Framework" document deal with church procedures subject to, and heavily footnoted with references to, canon law. Please notice, Carroll09, that the papal nuncio's letter cites no specific canonical problem or error in the entire "Framework" document! The nuncio's letter simply warns the bishops not to implement their mandatory reporting policy because it could generate problems--unspecified and unexplained problems--for canonical proceedings. The Irish bishops had no guidance at all from the nuncio for revising their procedures, no help from the Congregation for the Clergy, no explanations, and therefore no way to proceed effectively against abuse. I can well understand the frustration of Monsignors Alex Stenson and John Dolan and the anger of victims and victim advocates, like Maeve Lewis, of Ireland's One in Four victims' group, who said, "We know from bitter experience that the letter's threat to overturn any punishments imposed by the Irish church was real and perversely executed in the case of Tony Walsh."

Carroll09, again you mention "possible problems of canon law" in the Irish "Framework" document, but now you focus on "internal," i.e., church procedures for dealing with abusive priests, procedures subject to canon law. But the nuncio's letter clear links the bishops' mandatory reporting procedures--their EXTERNAL cooperation with civil authority, not their internal procedures--with problems of canon law. I suspect that you are alone in the universe in your belief that the nuncio's letter takes "a tough line on abuse." If one can take a tough line on abuse while stroking the ego of a dangerous serial pedophile and sending him home for a long holiday in an Irish monastery, then, sure, the Vatican tried to do that.

Is it not about time that the Catholic church in Ireland was closed down. How much more evidence do we need. It is a rotten organisation right up to the popes. If it was any other organisation it would have been closed down years ago, but the tolerance continues so nothing has changed. The other major fact is all the land and properties that is in their possession belongs to the people of the parish and Ireland it is not theirs to sell or dispose of. It is a crooked organisation and has nothing to do with any God Robbie Dunn Brisbane Australia

"Beware false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves; ye shall know them by their fruits." Fits the Catholic Church to a "T", don't it? And yet there are still people who will do anything they can to protect those who not only committed criminal actions against children but those who helped them get away with it. Maybe those who blame the messenger for the message should read another passage from Matthew 7 -- beginning with verse 21. But then, that might mean admitting they've been supporting evil.

Protect those pedophiles and everyone will come back to the Church. I don't think so.

I have pointed out several times that canon law did not prevent bishops, priests, parents or victims from going to the civil authorities. Also, as I have said, the Congregation for Clergy raised concerns with regard to mandatory reporting - it doesn't say don't go ahead with it, but rather that if you do, there could be problems with canon law. It is not a threat either - in the case of the American bishops' similar document on norms re abuse, the objections voiced by the Congregation for Clergy did not prevail; so the Congregation was giving its opinions on the document, but it certainly was not a threat. The concern with regard to how the Church dealt internally with abuse, i.e. possible problems with canon law, were legitimate: the primary concern being that when a bishop does take action against an abuser his sanctions should stick and carry force, not risking the possibility of abusers appealing to Rome because some action contrary to canon law was applied. Civil law is no different in this respect - we expect to be advised if, as has happened, new laws are enacted which create legal loopholes where criminals can get off the hook on a mere technicality. In actual fact, the letter suggests a tough line on abuse - what it is clearly warning bishops about is avoiding anything which could hamper current efforts to bring abusers to justice.

Odd, IrishCanuck, are you saying that no married clerics are pedophiles? You haven't checked the facts very well have you. I agree that the Church has to look carefully at it's celibacy rules, but changing that won't cure pedophilia. The other issue that may go hand in hand, but is denied by many, is the issue of gay priests. At some point the Church has to clarify and perhaps modify its duplicity in that regard. Isn't life marvelous. Social issues change, mores change and we all have something to write about.

Carroll09, you have not explained the problem of canon law that Storero refers to in his words "In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature." What problem of canon law does mandatory reporting raise? Withholding evidence of crimes against children raises serious problems of a moral nature, as I explain below, and if canon law does not allow reporting to civil authorities, then canon law needs revision ASAP.

Carroll09, two considerations: 1) anyone can be falsely accused, and when false accusation happens, damage to reputation can occur as well. We all bear this risk; perhaps we have all been falsely accused at some time. This is not a reason to suspend the usual operations of law; rather, it is a reason to get on with the investigation and trial that should exonerate an innocent party. 2)It is a universal ethic of journalism, as far as I know, that the media do not publish names of minors who are victims of sexual assault, at least not while victims are still alive. Gardai will not make public these names; they conduct investigations with great discretion when children are victims. Victims do sometimes refuse to report crimes against them because of the trauma involved in testifying and being subject to cross-examination. None the less, the importance of preventing subsequent assaults on children should motivate others who have knowledge of these crimes to provide full disclosure to law enforcement even when victims cannot or will not testify. I cannot imagine a case in which someone refusing to provide evidence believes that the result will be "protection of others into the future" as you say. How can NOT reporting a crime protect others? The moral law requires anyone with knowledge of a crime against a child to give evidence to legitimate civil authorities. Considerations of charity may preclude putting a victim through the trauma of testifying, but we are all morally obligated to use civil law to protect each other so far as we can, and giving information to the Gardai serves that purpose.

eiriamach, I, also thought that same passage you cited from the letter sounded like a threat to the Irish bishops, when I read it. The hierarchy and the secretiveness are colossal problems.

No, eiriamach, I have not been inconsistent in my argument. The problem was not with reporting abusers (as I said, it was never a problem even in canon law); mandatory reporting was possibly a problem however. The Irish bishops themselves recognised that mandatory reporting could pose difficulties - not just because of the damage it could do to the good name of a priest who is found to be innocent (mere suspicions were to be reported to the Gardai, and suspicions, as we know are all too easily aroused in some people). The other consideration was the difficulties such a policy could pose from the point of view of the victims - the bishops' document notes that victims who wanted to remain anonymous might refrain from coming forward because their anonymity could not be guaranteed if the Gardai were to be brought in to investigate. There was also the risk of opening old wounds and traumas in victims who only told Church authorities of their abuse in order to prevent the abuser abusing others - i.e. their motive was not to get revenge or to punish the abuser, but to seek protection of others into the future. The Murphy Report recounts several such instances. There most certainly were legitimate moral concerns, which, despite what some might like to have us believe, were not solely aimed at saving the skins of our bishops or to protect abusers.

katiemac, even if you were right about the "bias" of the NY Times--and I do not agree that the Times harbors a bias against the RCC--it would still be completely IRRELEVANT to the question of whether the NY Times accurately described the papal nuncio's letter. You are engaging in the kind of 'damage control' attempt that I find so inappropriate at this point in the history of the sexual abuse scandals. If the Times is biased, nothing follows from that situation--neither the truth nor the falsity of anything written in the Times about RCC. You still need to show specifically how the Times misinterpreted or provided a biased reading of the letter in question. If you can do that, then I will not object to your charge of "bias." But until you do that, you are just name-calling.