58 Comments

• WoundedKnee | Feb 15, 2013, 05:11 AM EST

  Roberts' piece of slander was originally published on IC over two years ago. Why is IC regurgitating it now?

• artsphotographi | Feb 14, 2013, 05:14 AM EST

  It has been going on, and being covered up for a long time! http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/may/22/history.society

• barneyjo | Jan 26, 2011, 08:55 PM EST

  @cowabunga - if that be so, I would be interested to hear your view on the letter from Cardinal Oddi to Bishop Moreno in Tuscon, written in 1987, specifically when he says, "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" We cannot know for certain what other Cardinals, one having been made Pope, said or did. We DO know what Cardinal Oddi's views were in the 1980's and we also know the views of Cardinal Storero in 1997. Two Cardinal Princes of the Church, expressing views over a decade apart. That to my mind is NO co-incidence. It smacks wholly of an institutional mindset which declares " If you are not with us, you are against us!!" Regrettably,I must also challenge your view that John Paul II in particular sought to put an end to such "crimes" Facts would seem to be to the contrary. In evidence I would offer the example of Father Maciel Delgado and the Leigonnaires of Christ. Despite strong evidence, Maciel was left in place as the Superior of his Order. It was Ratzinger, as Benedict who brought him to book. But even then that was only because of a frightening amount of evidence that came to light across the world which supported the claims that Maciel was a serial Priest offender.

• cowabunga | Jan 26, 2011, 07:30 PM EST

  Hello-having done a bit of research on the recently reported 'smoking gun letter from the Vatican'-and having read the entire thing, along with the background of this story, lets get clear what's has NOT been reported. This letter was written in 1997 by Cardinal Storero, from the Congregation of the Clergy office at the Vatican-WITHOUT any approval or orders from any Pope, and especially, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope B. The Cardinal who was the head of that office, Hoyos, got this letter written because he questioned the procedure in the Irish Bishops document, which states that clergy abuse crimes should be reported to the civil authorities-but not, according to Hoyos's concern's, if it would be at the expense of the local bishop's being able to investigate them first. Again, the letter 'questions'- and does NOT 'order' any change in action, because this would have been AGAINST the original and present policy, of all the Pope's of the last 50 years-none who EVER ordered any Bishop not to report crimes of clergy abuse to the local police. Thanks to Pope JPII and Benedict XVI, the Church's record of putting an end to these crimes, where virtually no new cases of clergy abuse have happened in the last two decades, is far above the record of the public school systems, and all other institutions, where the abuse of children and minors occur, and are kept hidden. The truth sets us free, we are told-and THAT, you can believe!

• downinthebasement | Jan 26, 2011, 10:45 AM EST

  Couldn't this explain why the God fearing people of Ulster don't want to be in the Republic of Ireland?

• jacersagain | Jan 22, 2011, 03:19 PM EST

  I have point out that Patrick’s article above has a link to the TV program within it. I urge all to watch it again (allow 40 minutes) and make up their own minds. The show will be available for viewing through the link up to 7th February. I clearly see and hear Mike Peelo, the reporter presenting the show, stating a lie about what the letter says. This is exactly the reason why letter has received all the wrong publicity – Peelo’s lie. May I also point recent posters to the Vatican’s response as shown in my post at Jan 19, 2011, 03:43 PM EST below which highlights the errors in Peelo’s program.

• Advocate | Jan 21, 2011, 10:28 PM EST

  Are these people criminals by association? The RCC is anti-Human Nature as created by Yahweh, simply by THEIR man-made rules (sic), of celibacy. Said policy is shure & utter Nonsense & Rubbish. Said policies CANNOT be found in Scripture! The RCC created this mess and now seeks to cover same to protect IT'S reputation! How sad; How sick! Explain this to Yahweh/God... While you are at it, Explain to Him, why the RCC recently banished the use of His actual Name (YHWH; Yahweh), when Scripture tells us that His Name would be revealed in those days, Etc., etc. We will pay a big price if we allow same to continue...

• ciarajoyce | Jan 21, 2011, 07:55 PM EST

  Is anyone really surprised by this? After the nightmare we went through in the US and the early stages of Ireland's similar problems, this is a problem that goes all the way to the top (or in this case, the bottom). I think church-goers should withhold contributions to this immoral and amoral group of dirty old men for at least six months and hopefully for a year. On the other side of the coin, I remember decades ago when we had a flasher who'd positioned himself so those of us who attended an all-girl's school in DC had to walk past the man and his open trench coat (a real trench coat). I'd encountered the man in other parts of the city and was neither shocked nor upset by the man's behavior; I walked past him and went into the school building. Every nun who taught at the school went down to "check on" the man at least twice, many of the "ladies" went down to see the man a lot more than twice. He was the topic of conversation by every nun in every class but none of the girls at the school were upset by the man -- just the nuns. We were city kids and had encountered a lot more graphic behavior than this guy, who was tame on the pervert scale!

• barneyjo | Jan 20, 2011, 08:26 PM EST

  One other thought about letters. 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.

• barneyjo | Jan 20, 2011, 08:01 PM EST

  Thats one interpretation to be sure, but that also negates the contribution to the programme I watched made by Bishop Michael Smith who made no bones about saying that the position that the Irish Bishops were put in at the time by the vatican through Castillion Hoyos was serious enough to prompt one (or more) Bishops to resign. In addition, whatever interpretation you put on the content of the letter, it is totally devoid of any validated recognition by Church Authorities of the abject horror of the infliction of abuse on children by pedophile priests and other religious. It is highly contextualised in "legaleese" defining the courses of action to be taken in respect of the priest offender. And worst of all, totally devoid of any sense of compassion or care; a "Business Letter" if you will. Upon reflection that for me is the worst crime of all!!

• jacersagain | Jan 20, 2011, 05:53 PM EST

  barneyjo old IC friend (Jan 19, 08:59 PM) you make good valid points but I suggest that they might be based on a wrong reading of the letter. You say that the letter seeks to uphold Canon over Civil Law... I don’t see that anywhere in the letter. It does say words to the effect that by pursuing its aims in the way their document says, the Bishops might well lose the very cause they are pursuing. Remember that the issue at heart was the defrocking of priests, something the Vatican takes very seriously and is dealt with solely under Canon Law. Canon Law seeks to protect the priesthood of the abuser, not the abuser himself, in the hope that reconciliation with Christ can happen and his ministry can continue. That, I think, is why the letter emphasises the duties of the Bishops under Canon Law (as did Pope Benedict in his letter last year). The letter implies that under Canon Law (as it stood back then) they might not succeed, embarrassingly so. The letter does not say they should not pursue a civil course of action. It was because of the conflict between Canon Law and Civil Law that the issue, as it stood back then, could not be dealt with satisfactorily. Thankfully, since 2001, it can and should be. The mindset of Vatican protocols has been forever changed forever because of what the Irish and other bishops fought for.

• Bushothehill | Jan 20, 2011, 04:46 PM EST

  Despite all this, the Catholic church is alive and well and work goes ahead to cast out all the evil. Current evil is minimal when compared with the good that the church has done throut the centuries

• barneyjo | Jan 20, 2011, 04:17 PM EST

  @2BorNot2B - when you say "you have Nothing but innuendo and heresay" to those who have an alternative viewpoint to your own on these matters, that is not quite true. If you watched the same programe that I did, you will have seen the segment in which Bishop Michael Smith confirms that a very fraught and difficult meeting of the Irish Bishops Conference took place at Sligo, when Cardinal Dario Castrillion Hoyos was also present. He also confirmed that Arch-Bishop Desmond Connell sought to convy to the Cardinal the very difficult position that the Vatican had placed the Irish Bishops in by the insistance that the process for dealing with Pedophile priests under Canon Law should prevail over the use of civil law, and at least one Bishop felt obliged to consider resignation. That is not innuendo, that is a member of the Irish Bishops Conference WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING" confirming the substance of one of the main claims of the program. And please dont take my word for it, watch the programme, listen to what Michael Smith had to say and judge for yourself. In summary he said that the Vatican had no grasp of the seriousness of the situation in Ireland......1997 is a long time ago when as the letter suggests that the Vatican was giving consideration into how best to handle the outcry created by pedophillia within the Catholic Church.

• larslofan | Jan 20, 2011, 02:16 PM EST

  When will the Irish learn the Vatican has, and always will, play by their own set of rules? When Ireland takes a long look at the Church's continuing role in sanctioned rape, I hope they flee en mass...I have, and feel so better for it; there's something about knowing my tithing dollars only going to sexual abuse/rape law suits that finally became too much.

• 2BorNot2B | Jan 20, 2011, 01:39 PM EST

  Stop your frothing at the mouth, you shallow, uninformed, stiff-necked people bent on condemning the WHOLE of the Catholic Church clergy for the sins of a few... you have nothing more than a sick desire for revenge and destruction of the institution. -- But guess what, It ain't going to happen, as much as you rant and rave!!! So live with it, and with your all-consuming rage! --- So far some justice has been meted through 'civil' suits, which anyone can initiate on a whim, and where the demands for proof are not as stringent as they would be on a 'criminal' case. If there were solid grounds for more, you can bet a legion of lawyers would have jumped on the bandwagon. They are salivating at the thought of getting paid with what they claim are "the enormous riches of the Vatican!" -- But not until you see 'criminal' cases being filed, you have NOTHING but innuendo and hearsay from biased sources, driven by a simmering hatred of the institution. --- Still, even when, and if, criminal cases proceed and some people are condemned, it is certain your sick obsession will not diminish. You will then say: "They got away because of powerful interests... the government protected them... they are afraid of the power of the Vatican... alien forces from space surround them... you name it; whatever comes to your sick mind... you will not be happy! So wallow in your anger and die from it, you deserve it.

• unconvinced | Jan 20, 2011, 02:35 AM EST

  Are you surprised at that - Evevy one know the evil of Rome and the Vatican - But what I don'y understand is that people flock to the chapels every day and give creditability to this system that I will never understand -How could you do that knowing that the priests abuse your children and the system you worship covers up for them

• Watereskhill | Jan 20, 2011, 01:40 AM EST

  Civil Law. Canon Law. There is no meeting place or common ground. And never was. Two Confession Boxes in operation running paralell for centuries. One for the clergy with automatic erasure and re-location. One for the rest of us with threats and damnation for the slighest infringement of it's infinite scrolls of 'sin'. What pedofile priest was ever grabbed by the throat through the grille for unmentionable mockery of his vocation? Some comments here continue to bolster and argue defending the Church. If there is Civil Law with a Court then surely there is Canon Law with a similar Tribunal? To date none of these derelict clergy have been been brought before The Pope to answer for these crimes let alone locked up in the labrynths under St.Peter's. What does the visible painted demarkation line on the pavements in Rome that denote Vatican City and State mean beyond a tourist's gape. A very different forum indeed.

• jamthecat | Jan 19, 2011, 11:01 PM EST

  My earlier post should read "...get away WITH RAPING little boys and girls..."

• jamthecat | Jan 19, 2011, 11:00 PM EST

  And are any of the bishops and cardinals who helped the pedophile priests get away little boys and girls being prosecuted? Conspiracy after the fact is illegal in just about every country that I know of. When these church leaders are sent to jail, THEN I'll start thinking our so-called system of justice truly cares about the victims of these hideous crimes. But I don't see any DA's or the like heading for a Grand Jury, yet. Nor do I see the Catholic Church doing one thing more than pretending it's all already taken care of.

• RobbCobb | Jan 19, 2011, 09:26 PM EST

  Who the hell in his right mind would think it's okay to protect a pedophile priest, or any pedophile for that matter?! Whether it's base on civil law and/or cannon law doesn't matter - it's a crime against a child, and that's just sick and depraved, no matter how you view it. This should always, always, be disclosed as soon as it comes to light.

• RobbCobb | Jan 19, 2011, 09:21 PM EST

  I think this is one of the greatest sins ever perpetrated by the Catholic church. Try explaining this to God and Jesus. Shame on you.

• barneyjo | Jan 19, 2011, 08:59 PM EST

  I've also just read and re-read the letter. What I take from it is that Lucianon Storero is saying that Canon law should take precedence over civil law and by definition that rendered the Bishops own guidelines as invalid and worthless within Canon Law. Thats my read anyway, and , I am sure the view of the majority of those who might bother to scrutinise the letter closely. I believe most people will have already been satisfied that the Vatican would seek to uphold Canon over Civil Law. This letter is just another confirmation of that and was further confirmed by the Irish Bishop who contributed to the RTE program; thats an Irish Bishop speaking direct to camera mind you. Not a lot of room for misrepresentation there I would have thought!!

• barneyjo | Jan 19, 2011, 08:39 PM EST

  I watched the RTE Programe myself, which included an interview with one Irish Bishop, who provided an insight into the very real difficulty that this letter placed them in. To the point where I understand that at least one Bishop was contemplating resignation from his office. I can only guess that he would not have taken that step lightly.

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2011, 06:33 PM EST

  Carroll09 highlights what I’ve been saying about journalists’ propensity to distort information in pursuit of headlines, mostly of the misleading, misrepresentative kind. Mr. Patrick Roberts and Mike Neelo might apply to the Vatican’s newspapers for a reporting job with them. Then we’d see how much differently their reporting, their articles or TV documentaries would appear. Neelo was clearly miffed that he did not get an interview with Vatican officials and used that to misleadingly suggest to that they had something to hide.

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2011, 06:26 PM EST

  Well now that I’ve read the ‘Strictly confidential” letter, I understand th'e Would You Believe' TV show a bit better. I now see it for what it is... a blatant misrepresentation, by news reporter Mike Neelo (like Roberts above), of what the letter was really about. The person who wrote the letter, Archbishop Storero, wrote it in his capacity as the Ambassador of the Holy See (the State of the Vatican City) to the State of Irish Republic, to “Your Excellency”, a term used in diplomatic circles world-wide to another of diplomatic, or in this case, of a certain level of religious standing. It does not name of the addressee, so for now, I (and we all?) don’t know who that person was/is and we should not assume who it was. In the last paragraph of the letter, Archbishop Storero uses diplomatic language in saying “... I am directed to inform (the bishops of Ireland) ... (that) ... the Code of Canon Law (as of then) must be meticulously followed...” In these simple words, it is clear that he was merely a messenger and that therefore no blame should accrue to him for the letter’s significant message, something, IMO, the TV reporter meticulously misled us viewers to believe.

• Carroll09 | Jan 19, 2011, 05:40 PM EST

  ...The Congregation for Clergy, according to the letter, expressed reservations about mandatory reporting - keyword being "reservations". Reporting was not forbidden; mandatory reporting was not forbidden. As to the moral concerns about mandatory reporting - the use of the word "moral" astounding Mr Roberts - let us not forget that it has affects the victims too, not just the accused priest. Is there not a question about the morality of forcing victims to recount their experiences to police, when they only came forward in the first place on condition that they remain anonymous? This situation was recorded several times in the Murphy Report where victims said that they only wanted to ensure that the abuser didn't abuse anyone else- they wanted confidentiality, and didn't want to revisit by means of investigations the trauma already inflicted on them. Even the Irish policy on reporting, to which the Congregation for Clergy responded, acknowledged that mandatory reporting could deter victims from coming forward or that it might be seen by some victims as being "an insensitive and heavy-handed response by Church authorities". So the Congregation for Clergy was right that there were moral concerns with regard to mandatory reporting - and the Irish bishops knew it. So, Mr Roberts, your final words are "shame on them" - I conclude by saying "shame on you" for so blatantly distorting the facts contained in the letter. How you can pontificate about the rights and wrongs of using the word "moral" is beyond me when you are prepared to stoop to such disgusting lows yourself.

• Carroll09 | Jan 19, 2011, 05:39 PM EST

  So, the letter advises the bishops that the proposals which had been sent to the Congregation for Clergy may not conform with canon law - but there is not a single line in it, contrary to what Mr Roberts asserts, that demands "that no pedophile cases be turned over to police". Not one. Nor, incidentally, is there a single line in canon law which forbids reporting cases to the civil authorities. Saying that the document would have to conform to canon law is not evidence of evil intent on the part of the Vatican - surely it would not be considered sinister for a lawyer to advise one proposing a law that the proposed law violated the constitution. The proposed law might not in itself be wrong, but would certainly cause miscarriages of justice - what if a bishop was to take canonical actions against an abuser only to find that the actions were invalid? Presumably the abuser might appeal his case to Rome, which might find that there was a miscarriage of justice. As the letter says: "procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the actions of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems". In other words, action already being taken could jeopardised if action contrary to the provisions of canon law were taken simultaneously. Civil law is no different - the law must be followed to avoid miscarriages of justice...[continued]

• CitizenWhy | Jan 19, 2011, 04:45 PM EST

  Does anyone else think it a shame about all the sacrifices the Irish made over the centuries to preserve the Catholic Church? Were any of that sacrifices worth it, given how this church behaves?

• CitizenWhy | Jan 19, 2011, 04:42 PM EST

  To 2BorNot2B: Your screed is classic misdirection. The issue is not that other organizations have a problem with sexual abuse too, it is strictly the issue of the many bishops covering up crimes and thereby breaking the law. The fact that they were ordered to break the law by the Vatican only adds to the public disgust they all deserve.

• ochshane | Jan 19, 2011, 04:39 PM EST

  The program is available on rte.ie (c.43mins). Type: Would you believe in window on the site and scroll down. The date is Jan. 17. The letter is shown on the program.

• CitizenWhy | Jan 19, 2011, 04:38 PM EST

  This Vatican official, unelected, ordered his feudal vassal bishops to break the laws of Ireland and numerous other countries. ... Why isn't Ireland protesting the violation of its sovereignty? ... Why aren't these dodgy bishops indicted for criminal conspiracy?

• lmulligan | Jan 19, 2011, 04:24 PM EST

  borefield - the letter is readily available on the internet & there is a link to it on the NY Times story. I respectfully suggest the the letter & the story are not so much about the pedophile priests, nor about the good, solid priests we all know & love. Rather, it focuses our attention on the leadership of the Church, & how it has failed our kids, in particular, and all of the faithful.

• S7McCabe | Jan 19, 2011, 04:22 PM EST

  I don't believe this at all. JP2 was too honest to try to pull this off and it was a bit late. I want to see the document, otherwise, it is just gossip.

• eiriamach | Jan 19, 2011, 04:18 PM EST

  You can find a PDF file of the letter at the New York Times web site. Read it before you decide whether the media have given the letter a biased treatment. The best the Vatican has said in its own defense is that Ben. XVI changed all that! Oh yeah. It is clear that the papal nuncio who wrote the letter directed the Irish priests NOT to bring the cases to civil police but to let canon law deal with the priests.

• joma5004 | Jan 19, 2011, 03:53 PM EST

  The Vatican is HELL on earth. No need to believe in satan, just look to the pope!

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2011, 03:43 PM EST

  This is a piece of tripe journalism. I'm very disappointed in Patk Roberts for this. The Vatican has given its response to the TV program. “Concerning a 1997 letter from Archbishop Luciano Storero, Apostolic Nuncio, to Irish bishops (remarks by Fr. Lombardi) In the course of a recent television programme in Ireland, mention was made of a letter written in 1997 by Archbishop Luciano Storero, then apostolic nuncio to Ireland, to members of the country's episcopal conference. That letter has been given biased treatment by some media outlets, who have presented it as proof of an instruction, from the Vatican, to cover up cases of sexual abuse of minors. The letter – written on the basis of indications received from the Congregation for the Clergy – concerns a document produced by an advisory committee of the Irish bishops, highlighting certain problematic aspects therein and indicating the need for a deeper examination which also takes account of similar situations in other countries, and which had to be conducted through dialogue and collaboration with the episcopal conferences of the countries concerned. In the first place, it must be noted that the letter does not in any way suggest that national laws must not be followed. Furthermore, the letter rightly emphasises the importance of always respecting canonical legislation, precisely in order to ensure that guilty parties do not have justified grounds for an appeal and thus producing a result contrary to the one desired. Finally, it must be stated that the letter was written prior to the norms of 2001 which unified responsibility in this field under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a move which has certainly led to clearer guidelines and more effective procedures.”

• eiriamach | Jan 19, 2011, 03:23 PM EST

  As Joshua said to Moses, 'there is the sound of war in the camp.' ONE of the reasons (not the most important one) why the US protects freedom of speech is to provide an "escape valve" for people like 2BorNot2B. We worry that if they are not free to rant, they might let off steam by spraying a supermarket or post office with bullets ("going postal"). When they rant, they indulge almost entirely in ad hominems and tu quoques ('your religion is as bad as my religion') rather than offering reasoned replies. It's a digital version of screaming in fury, an irrational tirade, so I can't take it personally. The world is black and white: either you see the issue their way, or you are a hypocrite, idiot, leftie-loonie, or some other 'enemy of God,' and they often quote scripture to condemn you-- always avoiding Matt.5.22: "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is answerable.... Anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." If you ask 2B a question or reply to him, you get no answer. His attacks communicate sullen fury and inability to change the issue or anyone else's mind. There's a counter-action, however: everyone has the freedom to ignore this vitriolic exercise of free speech just as Moses left the sound of war behind and moved on for a meeting elsewhere.

• Nicomax | Jan 19, 2011, 03:16 PM EST

  Vatican's response is that Cannon Law trumps secular laws. Maybe that's true in some countries which retain an antiquated system of a 'State religion', but not in those lands where "no establishment of religion" is the law.

• Liamkeyes | Jan 19, 2011, 02:47 PM EST

  I don't!!!!!!!

• elektros | Jan 19, 2011, 01:51 PM EST

  The Catholic church may have solved the Northern Ireland problem. At the rate people are leaving the Catholic church, a unified Ireland should be a snip.

• 2BorNot2B | Jan 19, 2011, 01:13 PM EST

  @Imulligan: Since Roberts, the purveyor of this thread, is not responsible enough to cite his sources or provide a link, why don't you? ---@sidhemajik: ..and your contention is that ONLY the CC has 'abominable sins and secrets to be revealed'? I'd say you're either blind, or the member of a sect composed of ANGELS. Which is it, and why don't you share the name so we all can follow your lead in joining. ---- @borefield: Wow, finally someone who recognizes the lack of validity and trustworthyness of the words one of the worst offenders (although, are there any who are not) on the IC staff. --- @Porkia777: Once again the ranting banshee of the New Age hordes, whose disjointed, incoherent and acid-laden comments only target the CC proves there are more more states in the US than Arizona who need to enforce the 'involuntary committment law.' I think the number that follows her moniker should be lowered by 111. --- @paci-fist: Yes, the hyphen is deliberate. People, don't you wish we were all as level-headed, impartial, just, virtuous, well disposed to reading not 1850 (this arbitrary dating gives his tendentiousness away) but 2011 years of Church, and roots of Western civilization history?---Constantine does not show up until around the beginning of the 4th C. By then the bishops of the CC Church had already Christianized the Roman world and made religious incursions all the way to India. But Constantine is a controversial yet convenient figure to any who like to point to a figure who despite having legalized Christianity was at the root of the 'evil' and the time when the Church went 'astray.' -- I'd say definitely non-Cath; perhaps member of some dogmatic sect invented in the 1830's

• 2BorNot2B | Jan 19, 2011, 12:31 PM EST

  @HoundofUlster: And the evidence for your accusation would be perhaps one of that greasy preacher Paisley's sweat and saliva-laden sermons?? Or maybe the so-well- acccredited 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs'? --- @LouGuyt: I'm sure that 'nefarious institution that protects itself and forgets the people' has built hospitals, orphanages, leprosariums, schools and universities; the same institution that takes in the homeless, feeds the hungry, heals the addicts, resettles victims of natural disasters by the millions and re-builds their homes through its charitable arms, more than any other institution in the world does this, and has been doing it since its foundation...only as a PR ploy. You think? ---@JimThompson: Keep your fingers crossed if that is your wish... because from what I'm seeing every Sunday, the crowd of 'catechumens' in every church I go to is rather large. The Church counts about 1/2 million converts every year. Doesn't that just chap your hide?

• pacifist | Jan 19, 2011, 12:24 PM EST

  Imulligan, I am only going on opinion publicly expressed by ordinary people, but you are right in that there is no political appetite to do what should be done.

• 2BorNot2B | Jan 19, 2011, 12:13 PM EST

  Roberts, post a direct link to the article and stop treating the readers as imbeciles by 'interpreting' someone else's fully unexamined words. Let the more educated readers see for themselves if your evidence is credible!! --- Here are a few samples of leading or pulling readers by their nose ring onto the particular slant you choose to impart on every trite comment you post: **Storero wrote that canon law "must be meticulously followed," IE keep it within the church.**--- **How he wrote the word 'moral' about a plot to keep pedophiles from the law is astounding**--- **..an amazing document, the smoking gun that shows the Vatican was in the forefront of efforts to allow pedophiles escape justice.**

• LouGuyt | Jan 19, 2011, 10:24 AM EST

  Another instance of protecting the institution and forgetting the people!

• HoundofUlster | Jan 19, 2011, 10:11 AM EST

  wHY WOULD THIS SHOCK ANYONE? The 'Church' has been protecting child molesters for centuries and Popes have been molesting their own children - why are we shocked?

• JimThompson | Jan 19, 2011, 10:06 AM EST

  Faith andI can see more people turning Protestant!

• lmulligan | Jan 19, 2011, 09:55 AM EST

  The letter was available yesterday or the day before from the NY Times. I downloaded & printed it.

• sidhemajik | Jan 19, 2011, 09:53 AM EST

  Not at all surprised that this letter exists. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, for centuries of abominable sins. It is time for the the Vatican to be laid bare and all the secrets to be revealed. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

• borefield | Jan 19, 2011, 09:45 AM EST

  Since much of the reporting done by Patrick Roberts is always so irresponsible, this piece causes me to be very skeptical. Please provide accurate information, produce the supposed letter that exists, the real one. At the moment his (Patrick's)story is pure speculation, as is most of his stories.He lives in a fantasy world writing fiction. I am no supporter of Pedophile Clergy nor do I support most of what the Vatican puts out either. The Catholic Church has been less than honest about this horror, now they are paying the price. That being said, for every pedophile Priest there are so many good dedicated hardworking Priests. As usual the irresponsible media paints all of them with the same brush thinking they are making great news. Patrick, I think you need to continue writing fiction without hurting the decent people.

• Portia777 | Jan 19, 2011, 09:39 AM EST

  Truth always finds a way.

• rugbyplayer | Jan 19, 2011, 09:37 AM EST

  Where's the exact copy of this Vatican letter posted?

• MollyDarden | Jan 19, 2011, 09:34 AM EST

  Please let us know your sources, and print a copy of the letter. If this is valid, it will be monumental.

• biggles008 | Jan 19, 2011, 09:26 AM EST

  I'm not surprised

• lmulligan | Jan 19, 2011, 09:04 AM EST

  pacifist - on a post on a related story you say that there has been a strong effort to pass a mandatory reporting law applicable to clergy. I have not seen evidence of it. Can you direct me to something which would verify your assertion? Thank you.

• lmulligan | Jan 19, 2011, 09:01 AM EST

  This letter explains much better than the reasons previously offered re why neither the Papal Nuncio nor the Vatican saw fit to respond to the requests of the Murphy Commission for documents relevant to its inquiry.

• pacifist | Jan 19, 2011, 08:40 AM EST

  I made an error in the number of years of Roman Catholic Church history should be investigated. I should have said 1,850 years approximately.

• pacifist | Jan 19, 2011, 08:38 AM EST

  This kind of behaviour is not new to the Vatican as a new and independent state from 1929 and the Roman Catholic Church as a religious body for about 1,000 years. Those who are objective when looking at the linked-histories of both. Open-minded people will take the trouble and conduct a thorough and wide-ranging historical investigation from the time of Constantine up to the present day. There will be comments posted responding to this story that will be ultra-critical and staunch Roman Catholics will throw an all-encompassing accusation of hatred of prejudice against the Roman Catholic Church. Some will include those who express moderate criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. But in both scenarios justified and sincere criticism will be regarded as anti-Roman Catholic prejudice. They too should carry out a wide-ranging investigation of the history of the Vatican and the church to which they belong. If they don't their own rejections of allegations made against the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church are as useful as using a sieve for carrying to put out a house fire. water