New York Times criticizes Vatican over pedophiles

Irish Central and NY Times have been noticeably in the forefront about what has been happening in the Catholic Church. It troubles me though that comments are made to close down the Church because of the actions of a few. In that case the Boy Scouts should be disbanded because of their over 1200 cases of sexual abuse or maybe even get rid of our teachers since there have been more cases of them having sexual relations with students than the priests. The lastest case about a teacher in Oakland allowing 2nd graders to have sex in the front of the class is sickening to put it mildly. The Catholic Church isn't privy to pedophilia, it's in every religion. But it just seems that the New York Times and Irish Central have a bone to pick with the Catholic Church. I am not condoning the actions that the Church has taken and agree that the rules do not go far enough but isn't it time to bring to the forefront the good things the church does in the world also? But maybe I am asking too much of the news media!

eiriamach, you're welcome. This issue is extremely important and has been ignored for too long. I am glad there is finally some action taking place to protect children. The children are helpless and need adults, who care, to see that violence perpetrated against them won't be allowed to happen, anymore.

Searlit, thanks for the support! There's just too much about the posting personnel situation that I do not understand, and I'm not willing to rely on my own guesses, so I just stay with what I think is right. I suffer from an occupational hazard--enjoying debate--but also I find the topics compelling. Ian Elliott writes in the 2009 Report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church that the Christian Brothers have a mandatory reporting policy in place. And I finally found the RTE video (Mick Peelo et al.) and watched it, and it's good to know that progress continues in Ireland and, I hope, elsewhere as well.

eiriamach, I'm glad you didn't give up, like jacersagain said to. Although, jacersagain is, overall, such an agreeable sort.

Jacersagain, apparently Peelo reported his impression of the nuncio's intention, rather than the nuncio's subtle, nuanced statements. The words you quoted misrepresent the nuncio's actual statements to the point of falsification. I'll withhold judgment about whether that is a "lie," but if Peelo is a journalist, the "no uncertain terms" phrase is irresponsible at the very least. I do not find any similar distortion in the NY Times article. The lesson I take from this is that if you do not wish your remarks to be misrepresented, be straightforward and direct, not subtle.

éiríamach, a chara, – níl mé ag dul isteach i gcomórtas leat ar an ábhar seo, ach seo leat an bréag mór: (here is the big lie:) I quote Mike Peelo’s statement (hopefully verbatim) in the WYB believe programme: “Would You Believe has obtained a ‘Strictly confidential’ letter that the Vatican sent to the Irish Bishops in 1997. This letter tells them in no uncertain terms that the Vatican doesn’t approve of their new guidelines and it certainly doesn’t want them reporting all allegations against priests to the Irish police”. I’ve read the letter in black & white, as I’m sure you have and as anyone who searches online for it can. Peelo lied. The Vatican responded, diplomatically saying so too. The letter does not tell the Irish Bishops that the Vatican doesn’t approve of its new guidelines. It does not tell them not to report all allegations against priests to the police. Suckers, like ICentral’s Patrick Cooper above and the New York Times newspaper believed Mike Peelo’s lies and have spread them. Satan is truly alive, even using some journalists’ words. éiríamach, éirigh as.

@jacersagain - I have posted elsewere as agreed - Barneyjo

OK, jacersagain, but what "lies" do you refer to? I've given reasons why I find the NY Times article to be a reasonable treatment of the papal nuncio letter. I also have respect for your opinion, as well as Carroll09's learning and the interests of other posters on this issue. Yet there is plenty of room for us to disagree about the meaning of the letter since we can all read and understand--perhaps somewhat differently--what we read. In response to your 2:50 post, I would rescind my 2 most recent comments, but not my earlier ones because I still fail to see the "lies" and "misleading" nature of the articles you mention. If Carroll09's advanced understanding of canon law and theology lead him to a better than I can achieve on my own, then I'd expect him to explain his understanding convincingly to those of us who are less learned. (I would still assess the logic of his or anyone else's explanation, however.)

eiriamach – let’s put this debate back in its proper perspective please? You are undoubtedly learned in your posts and I have much respect for what you write but I have to say that these posts are going way off tangent on the subject – i.e. that Mike Peelo on the WYB program, Patrick Cooper on ICentral above and now the NYT have all issued lies in relation to the Nuncio’s letter, thus misleading the public at large on what it actually said. The Vatican has publicly stated so, Carroll09 (clearly someone well versed in Church matters, possibly ‘a man of the cloth’ even) has said so and I, simply a man of the street, have said so. This is the issue at the heart of this debate – misleading headlines by media people. Other than that, we are all agreed that the perpetrators of child abuse should be punished.

One more consideration: if the Catholic Church really intends to keep pedophiles out of the priesthood, there's no better thing the Church can do than mandatory reporting of all child abuse evidence against priests. Would Tony Walsh or the other serial pedophiles documented in the Murphy Report have applied to a seminary if they knew that their bishops would NOT protect them from the law while giving them access to children?

I also believe that we should be thankful to the news media, as well as to Irish Central, for keeping the spotlight on this problem. Another fairly obvious point that the reports I cited make is that only with media attention will sexual abuse of children diminish.

Carroll09, now that you and I agree on our interpretation of ONE point in the papal nuncio's 1997 letter, the point of our disagreement is also clear. As I wrote below, "Benedict and all who have defended the Vatican's handling of abuse cases should also vow that pedophile records held by RCC everywhere will immediately be placed in the hands of local police, now and always." I await RCC's response that it will comply either with mandatory reporting law or with the moral law by providing all sexual abuse information in diocesan files everywhere to local law enforcement. Why should this not happen?

Jacersagain, when the right to privacy is in conflict with the right of victims to protection and justice, I give precedence to victims' rights. I understand that there is a widely shared reluctance to disclose such matters. The ISPCC NGO Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Oct. 1997, reported that "More worryingly, only 44% of all adult respondents [to survey] said they would tell the authorities if they knew about physical abuse of a child. Only 51% said they would tell the authorities if they knew about sexual abuse of a child." Both the SAVI report and the ISPCC report, however, advocate reporting of all sexual abuse information to civil authorities. The ISPCC report makes a particularly strong case: "Mandatory Reporting is an essential measure in preventing child abuse, in breaking the silence and secrecy necessary for child abuse, in highlighting the real size of the problem and in giving the child care and protection system the political and professional will to develop realistic and appropriate responses in preventing child abuse and neglect and in protecting children.... The ISPCC knows of no child-centred argument which can negate the need for Mandatory Reporting.... [W]aiting any longer for the introduction of Mandatory Reporting may place a whole generation of children at unnecessary risk and calls on politicians of all parties to take a position of leadership on the introduction of the measure." Both reports are available on the 'net.

Barneyjo & eiriamach – let’s put the power of misinterpretation in another context, using the words of the letter that barneyjo quotes from >>> "The files of (a person like you and me and everybody else) ... are altogether private; their forced acquisition by civil authority would be an intolerable attack upon the free exercise of (private expression) in (any country)." ... "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 (people) whose files are perhaps less than flattering". <<< It makes sense to me, whatever context you place it in, to avoid misinterpreting and misrepresenting a truth. May I suggest that we stop the rumbling, jumbling semantics and stick to the truth? ... Lest we all be exposed!! :-)))

Barneyjo, I've read the letter you quote, and you're certainly right. It clearly opposes cooperation with police and demands that clergy adhere to a conspiracy of silence about child abuse within the Church. It's a mockery for the letter to invoke freedom of religion. What nation would protect the freedom of a religious organization that is determined to violate its just laws?