Posts by bluemarlin19

Austin Hill6 said:What’s going on with this stock? Has it just flatlined?
I haven't watched the documentary yet, but I'll definitely put it on my list.

Anyway, some actual news. A Cardinal out in Chicago just released 15,000 documents detailing abuse cases:

Then there were those two other recent cases, but I can't recall the specific keywords to track them down on Google.

This keeps moving forward as long as people actually have the guts to demand accountability and equal treatment under the law.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church hasn't changed its playbook at all. They still act like they're above the law, and what's even worse is that citizens in this country seem to think it's perfectly fine for them to be untouchable just because "tradition" says so—a tradition they've swallowed whole without ever questioning it.

It isn't just that convicted pedophiles aren't being kicked out of service; it's not even just that the church hasn't introduced strict rules into its own canon law requiring the reporting of abuse allegations to secular authorities—which is exactly what allowed them to get into this mess in the first place. No, the absolute worst part is that our state investigators haven't even bothered to look into how priests accused and convicted of pedophilia are simply shuffled from one parish to another. They haven't investigated who was pulling the strings, nor have they demanded access to the KC archives, where you can bet your life there's documentation of exactly who abused whom and where.

One tragic example of both sides of this coin is a girl who spoke up about this topic. Maybe out of shame, or maybe just wanting to move on with her life, she didn't report the priest who tried to rape her and ended up raping her younger friend instead. On the other side of the coin, you have the church authorities who, despite knowing full well about the behavior and danger posed by that particular priest, continue to shuffle him from parish to parish across the country.

That's why we need documentaries like this aired on major networks, and why we need to spread awareness about what happens when we blindly accept authority without critical thought and then force those same blind beliefs onto our children.

The responsibility lies with all of us, because there are far too many people and institutions in this country who believe—and actually act—as if they are above the law.

Austin Martinez20 said:You missed my point. Of course he needs to be reported, but I wanted to give him a piece of my mind first. And newsflash, I'm no saint... 😉

Tell me exactly where this idiot is so I can go help some other parents.

Here's another one, fresh off the press:

My bad, I take it back.

Austin Martinez20 said:You missed my point. Of course he needs to be reported, but I wanted to give him a piece of my mind first. And newsflash, I'm no saint... 😉

Tell me exactly where this idiot is so I can go help some other parents.

Here's another one, fresh off the press:

I want that more than anything, but it would be completely irresponsible of me to throw accusations of pedophilia and rape at someone based solely on the word of an anonymous person whose name I don't even know.

Even though, personally, I believe every single word she wrote, the responsibility for reporting him lies with his victims and the people they reached out to—the people who have been dragging him from one parish to another while he tries to lecture everyone about immorality, AIDS, and all that other nonsense....

Austin Martinez20 said:That bolded part is the only real cure for a pedophile priest. Even God told that angry father to beat him, and it worked—that priest never touched another girl again.

You people acting like you're doing God's work really need to learn how to stop mixing divine will with earthly nonsense and actually follow some kind of order...

The father is just as much a failure as the Church itself because they didn't report the abuser to the police. And the fallout? That same priest is still out there serving as a parish priest in rural West Virginia today...

Richard James2 said:Yeah, and?

Look, after the Boston Globe dropped that massive investigative series back in January 2002 exposing the whole mess of priestly abuse and the systemic cover-ups—which, let's be honest, was a total bombshell—everything changed. It wasn't just some minor scandal; it was a complete breakdown of trust that shook the foundations of everything we thought we knew about how things were handled. A Pulitzer Prize winner. The USCCB was essentially backed into a corner by public outcry, leaving them with absolutely no choice but to implement those changes. svom It’s working, but we aren't talking about the parish level here—we're talking about the broader scope of the Diocese.

What exactly does this contradict? The idea that extensive church guidelines have been issued mandating full cooperation with civil authorities? I highly doubt it.

Look, you didn't actually answer my question.

Look, I am telling you—yes, I am, and this is the third time I’ve said it—but honestly, your response isn't exactly helping your case.

Back in 2011, according to the Levada poll data, Ratzinger's successor issued a direct mandate to local bishops: they had until May 2012 to roll out formal protocols for handling sexual abuse cases. These guidelines were supposed to explicitly include a requirement to cooperate with local law enforcement.

Once again, we’re looking at something that isn't even a universal law for the entire Catholic Church, let alone something that's actually being enforced. It simply isn't. The directive basically says we’re looking at implementing local-level regulations sometime down the road. It's one of those "wait and see" moves where they promise to hammer out specific guidelines for individual jurisdictions in the near future, but for now, it's just more talk about future bureaucracy..

Look, the Pope has already issued the directive to the bishops to report abuse cases. He didn't say anything about sitting around waiting for all the paperwork and technicalities to be finalized, so the call to action stands right now.

By the way, just because something is considered "in force throughout the entire Church" doesn't mean it’s automatically excessive or problematic on its own—not unless it runs headfirst into local legal norms.

Look, you didn't actually answer the simple question I asked.

Look, I am—I really am. It’s just that you’re the one deciding which minor drama deserves a spotlight and which thing needs you screaming about at full volume. Lies, pure lies. These Catholic pamphlets are nothing but garbage—down with all of this!

Canon 2368 has absolutely nothing to do with reporting anything to anyone... so we're just looking at a pile of lies on top of more lies.

Qualifications alone aren't going to buy you any credibility.

Look, I honestly think your excessive hysteria stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how legal documentation is actually interpreted. I can’t exactly meet you halfway here unless I just parrot back the same old line: the issued document is in direct correlation with several other Canons. You simply cannot implement one without the other correctly. This specific document states that... the accused must be suspended from celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions, stripped of all their official benefits, and, in the most severe cases, reported to the secular authorities.

It shouldn't even be necessary for me to spell out that the crime of solicitation specifically applied and to cases of sexual abuse, among other things. Every diocese was required to have these protocols in place and, when a charge came in, act accordingly. I am not going to repeat myself again.

neither CS(Crimen Sollicitationis), nor its 1922 predecessor, nor Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, nor de delictis gravioribus mandate reporting a pedophile to civil authorities.

Those two later documents are improved norms established according to the aforementioned Canons—which apparently mean nothing to you, 'cause then you don't have a case 🙂 — such as de delictis gravioribus, which, even if it doesn't explicitly mention abuse in one specific paragraph, emphasizes extending the statute of limitations (when dealing with crimes against minors).

By the way, thanks to the implementation of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, six priests in the Irish diocese of Ferns were handed over to civil authorities—two of whom are currently serving prison time. That’s surely because bluemarlin19 explained to them exactly how to interpret the given norms.

Likewise, again, the decisions of the Church in America don't bind anyone outside of their jurisdiction (if anything, Ratzinger advocated for reducing the authority of local Bishops' Conferences because of things like this).

Yeah, and? How does that address the falsehood that "to this day, the Church binds no one to cooperate with secular authorities"?

Which document, if you please???

That was an oversight on my part—anyway, I know what the Decalogue document is; it's a separate section of Sacramentorum, there was no need to pull it out separately since it deals with the anathema of pedophilia anyway.

great believer

Aaaa, just tell me where it hurts. 🙂

In short—you're lying, manipulating, and trying to dilute the topic with cheap Catholic apologetics.

I could retaliate with heavy artillery and write that you are legally illiterate, a self-righteous, foaming-at-the-mouth, insolent interlocutor who is doing all of the above (and is), while adding a dash of personal animosity, but I won't. Although, oops, I guess I just did.

Nice try, though.

I just caught your translation of Canon 2368

Original:
"Canon 2368 § 1. anyone Who Has committed The crime of solicitation dealt with in Canon 904 is to be suspended fra celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions and, if the gravity of the crime calls for it, he is to be declared unfit for hearing them; he is to be deprived of all benefices and ranks, of the right to vote or be voted for, and is to be declared unfit for all of them, and in more serious cases he is to be reduced to the lay state."

😂

Richard James2 said:Oh, please. It’s actually incredibly important.

There's really no need for the passive aggression here; my question wasn't even remotely condescending.

You've certainly shown off what you know.

Unless you can back up your claim with a direct quote from some official document proving that the clergy was actually required to report cases of pedophilia to secular authorities back in 1960, then stop spamming this thread with lies.

Richard James2 said:Ugh, don't even get me started.

Anyway, can I ask you something—purely out of curiosity, mind you? How much do you actually know about the law? Like, your grasp on legal norms, statutes, and general legislation? No need to give me your life story, just a ballpark idea.

Whatever, you're just intentionally spreading lies and spamming the thread.

Richard James2 said:Yeah, and?

Look, after the Boston Globe dropped that massive investigative series back in January 2002 exposing the whole mess of priestly abuse and the systemic cover-ups—which, let's be honest, was a total bombshell—everything changed. It wasn't just some minor scandal; it was a complete breakdown of trust that shook the foundations of everything we thought we knew about how things were handled. A Pulitzer Prize winner. The USCCB was essentially backed into a corner by public outcry, leaving them with absolutely no choice but to implement those changes. svom It’s working, but we aren't talking about the parish level here—we're talking about the broader scope of the Diocese.

What exactly does this contradict? The idea that extensive church guidelines have been issued mandating full cooperation with civil authorities? I highly doubt it.

Look, you didn't actually answer my question.

Look, I am telling you—yes, I am, and this is the third time I’ve said it—but honestly, your response isn't exactly helping your case.

Back in 2011, according to the Levada poll data, Ratzinger's successor issued a direct mandate to local bishops: they had until May 2012 to roll out formal protocols for handling sexual abuse cases. These guidelines were supposed to explicitly include a requirement to cooperate with local law enforcement.

Once again, we’re looking at something that isn't even a universal law for the entire Catholic Church, let alone something that's actually being enforced. It simply isn't. The directive basically says we’re looking at implementing local-level regulations sometime down the road. It's one of those "wait and see" moves where they promise to hammer out specific guidelines for individual jurisdictions in the near future, but for now, it's just more talk about future bureaucracy..

Look, the Pope has already issued the directive to the bishops to report abuse cases. He didn't say anything about sitting around waiting for all the paperwork and technicalities to be finalized, so the call to action stands right now.

By the way, just because something is considered "in force throughout the entire Church" doesn't mean it’s automatically excessive or problematic on its own—not unless it runs headfirst into local legal norms.

Look, you didn't actually answer the simple question I asked.

Look, I am—I really am. It’s just that you’re the one deciding which minor drama deserves a spotlight and which thing needs you screaming about at full volume. Lies, pure lies. These Catholic pamphlets are nothing but garbage—down with all of this!

Canon 2368 has absolutely nothing to do with reporting anything to anyone... so we're just looking at a pile of lies on top of more lies.

Qualifications alone aren't going to buy you any credibility.

Look, I honestly think your excessive hysteria stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how legal documentation is actually interpreted. I can’t exactly meet you halfway here unless I just parrot back the same old line: the issued document is in direct correlation with several other Canons. You simply cannot implement one without the other correctly. This specific document states that... the accused must be suspended from celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions, stripped of all their official benefits, and, in the most severe cases, reported to the secular authorities.

It shouldn't even be necessary for me to spell out that the crime of solicitation specifically applied and to cases of sexual abuse, among other things. Every diocese was required to have these protocols in place and, when a charge came in, act accordingly. I am not going to repeat myself again.

neither CS(Crimen Sollicitationis), nor its 1922 predecessor, nor Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, nor de delictis gravioribus mandate reporting a pedophile to civil authorities.

Those two later documents are improved norms established according to the aforementioned Canons—which apparently mean nothing to you, 'cause then you don't have a case 🙂 — such as de delictis gravioribus, which, even if it doesn't explicitly mention abuse in one specific paragraph, emphasizes extending the statute of limitations (when dealing with crimes against minors).

By the way, thanks to the implementation of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, six priests in the Irish diocese of Ferns were handed over to civil authorities—two of whom are currently serving prison time. That’s surely because bluemarlin19 explained to them exactly how to interpret the given norms.

Likewise, again, the decisions of the Church in America don't bind anyone outside of their jurisdiction (if anything, Ratzinger advocated for reducing the authority of local Bishops' Conferences because of things like this).

Yeah, and? How does that address the falsehood that "to this day, the Church binds no one to cooperate with secular authorities"?

Which document, if you please???

That was an oversight on my part—anyway, I know what the Decalogue document is; it's a separate section of Sacramentorum, there was no need to pull it out separately since it deals with the anathema of pedophilia anyway.

great believer

Aaaa, just tell me where it hurts. 🙂

In short—you're lying, manipulating, and trying to dilute the topic with cheap Catholic apologetics.

I could retaliate with heavy artillery and write that you are legally illiterate, a self-righteous, foaming-at-the-mouth, insolent interlocutor who is doing all of the above (and is), while adding a dash of personal animosity, but I won't. Although, oops, I guess I just did.

Nice try, though.

☕ too much

restlessbison6 said:It seems I am finally beginning to grasp the diabolical machinations of the atheists—those sworn adversaries of the Church—and their calculated insistence that it is perfectly natural for religious instruction to take place within Church grounds. Their logic suggests that if "pedophiles alone" exist within the Church, then children will inevitably grow to loathe both the institution and the faith itself... How was I so blind to this before?

Who on earth is claiming the Church is just full of pedophiles??

Most priests I’ve met in my life—and believe me, I’ve met a ton of them across all different faiths—are genuinely good, decent people. For instance, Marko Tomusic used to be the chaplain at my parish back in the day. Before he was suddenly transferred out, I never had a single bad experience with him. In fact, us kids used to hang out at his place constantly because he had this massive collection of tapes and CDs we could geek out over...

The real issue here is that people blindly accept someone's authority just because of tradition rather than looking at their actual actions. That’s how we end up in this mess where, if the holy mother Church were to take a massive dump right in the middle of the flock, the sheep would probably just thank God for the extra protein.

And that's exactly how the flock thinks and acts outside of churches, mosques, or any other house of worship... absolutely zero critical thinking skills.

Richard James2 said:What, you want me to do your homework for you?

Take this, for instance: Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees. They require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.

Or maybe this — which, despite how it's framed, isn't some groundbreaking or revolutionary set of guidelines. To suggest otherwise would imply that the decade-old guidelines from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops don't exist, or that they were somehow flawed. And since they were adopted by a secular government...

The idea that earlier documents were misinterpreted—whether out of pure ignorance or actual malice—as implying non-cooperation with civil authorities is a completely different matter. That’s exactly what happened with the Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela document, where it felt necessary to clarify once again:

This directive from Rome, which effectively encouraged bishops to commit criminal offences in many jurisdictions, including Ireland, by not reporting the crime first to the police.” This statement is both wrong in fact and a seriously damaging assertion.
These give guidance to bishops throughout the world on how to conduct internal disciplinary procedures in a consistent manner when a priest commits one the crimes specified by the norms, for example, the sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric. Importantly, these norms do not preclude a bishop reporting this crime to the civil authorities.
These norms apply only to the internal disciplinary procedures of the church and are not intended to frustrate or undermine any civil investigation or prosecution.

You can find canon law online if you actually bother to look.

Here is the perspective from religious law experts:

click

One constant complaint against The Catholic church is that its rules do not explicitly state that any cases of child abuse must be reported to the police. This ignores the fact that The Vatican rules do not prevent any bishop or priest reporting any crime to their civil authorities and they do not prevent local churches requiring that any allegations must be reported to their local authorities, as the British and American churches now do. However The rules laid down by The Vatican apply to The church throughout The World not Just in America or Britain and as such They apply within countries with very varied standards of judicial and polica behaviour and with a variety of views as to what constitutes criminal behaviour.

On top of all that, I’ll say it again: none of this negates or minimizes the other abuses, the ignoring of issues, the cover-ups, or any of the other grotesque activities that often originate from the highest levels of command.

Thanks for listening.

What does USCCB even stand for? Yeah, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Basically, after the Boston Globe published that massive series of articles back in January 2002 about priests abusing kids and the cover-ups involved (which, by the way, won a Pulitzer Prize), the USCCB was forced by public pressure to change their own ways of doing things—not the entire Catholic Church globally.

So, once again—you didn't answer my question.

Richard James2 said:What, you want me to do your homework for you?

Take this, for instance: Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees. They require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.

Or maybe this — which, despite how it's framed, isn't some groundbreaking or revolutionary set of guidelines. To suggest otherwise would imply that the decade-old guidelines from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops don't exist, or that they were somehow flawed. And since they were adopted by a secular government...

The idea that earlier documents were misinterpreted—whether out of pure ignorance or actual malice—as implying non-cooperation with civil authorities is a completely different matter. That’s exactly what happened with the Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela document, where it felt necessary to clarify once again:

This directive from Rome, which effectively encouraged bishops to commit criminal offences in many jurisdictions, including Ireland, by not reporting the crime first to the police.” This statement is both wrong in fact and a seriously damaging assertion.
These give guidance to bishops throughout the world on how to conduct internal disciplinary procedures in a consistent manner when a priest commits one the crimes specified by the norms, for example, the sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric. Importantly, these norms do not preclude a bishop reporting this crime to the civil authorities.
These norms apply only to the internal disciplinary procedures of the church and are not intended to frustrate or undermine any civil investigation or prosecution.

You can find canon law online if you actually bother to look.

Here is the perspective from religious law experts:

click

One constant complaint against The Catholic church is that its rules do not explicitly state that any cases of child abuse must be reported to the police. This ignores the fact that The Vatican rules do not prevent any bishop or priest reporting any crime to their civil authorities and they do not prevent local churches requiring that any allegations must be reported to their local authorities, as the British and American churches now do. However The rules laid down by The Vatican apply to The church throughout The World not Just in America or Britain and as such They apply within countries with very varied standards of judicial and polica behaviour and with a variety of views as to what constitutes criminal behaviour.

On top of all that, I’ll say it again: none of this negates or minimizes the other abuses, the ignoring of issues, the cover-ups, or any of the other grotesque activities that often originate from the highest levels of command.

Thanks for listening.

Back in 2011, Levada, following Ratzinger's lead, gave instructions to local bishops to come up with regulations for handling sexual abuse cases by May 2012, which were supposed to include mandatory cooperation with local authorities.

Again, that isn't a law for the whole Catholic Church, nor is it even fully in effect. It’s just an instruction to create local regulations in the near future.

So—you still haven't answered a simple question.

Let me repeat your claim:

Richard James2 said:Look, it's obvious. We're talking about privacy violations that hit the victims and even potentially innocent people—which actually happened—subjecting them to mandatory public proceedings, which might actually scare some people off from coming forward about predators. Either way, the potential fallout is massive. Being cautious about something (and in this case, you logically *should* be cautious about something this vital) doesn't mean you're advocating for actively undermining the process. At least, that isn't what we see happening here.

Someone I personally admire, though unfortunately not widely known, is Gerald Fitzgerald. He wrote numerous warnings to local bishops as well as to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

To you, dear priest, despite your relatively good intentions, you are suggesting a sort of isolated life and depopulation as a way to handle the problem, while Crimen Sollicitationis, for instance, has required the mandatory reporting of serious cases to secular authorities since the 60s.

In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."

This is clearly a well-meaning attempt to offer solutions, though in my view, they fall short. That becomes much more obvious looking back from today's perspective. The John Jay report claims one of the main reasons this mess was handled so poorly was a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pedophilia—specifically, the fact that mere isolation is worth absolutely nothing without strict oversight. Without that, you just have a half-measure, especially since some of those "isolated" individuals ended up sliding right back into their old habits.

Then there's Doyle on William Levada, Ratzinger's successor in heading up the whole Inquisition:

I vividly recall briefing Levada in May, 1985 when he was an auxiliary bishop, about the sexual abuse crisis. I also have seen volumes of documents and sworn testimony from depositions that clearly shows that most, probably all, bishops clearly knew that priests were raping and otherwise sexually abusing kids as far back as the 40's….and I limit it to that era because I have not gone beyond that in studying documents. So, Levada’s statement is either an outright lie or evidence of a very narrow understanding and perception of reality.

When someone claims they "vividly remember" something, they don't get the luxury of using weak, non-committal language like "probably" when dealing with topics this heavy. It just doesn't add up. If you actually saw it with your own eyes—which is what Doyle is implying here—then you aren't guessing or making assumptions. If he tried to present an argument like this in a courtroom, he’d be torn to shreds instantly. It’s honestly baffling to see a canonical lawyer stumble into such logical gymnastics.

And let's not even get started on Doyle himself. I know his work inside and out, and he has this habit of making these massive, nonsensical rhetorical leaps—jumping from theorizing about "recommending protections for those accused of pedophilia" straight to "the Vatican absolutely had no intention of protecting them."

so everyone knew but the top brass didn't? how does that even work...

Pure skepticism wrapped in fancy sarcasm isn't much of an argument, and don't go twisting my words: I clearly stated that it isn't a given that every single local report of misconduct ends up at the CDF. Because it doesn't.

The only thing Crimen Sollicitationis explicitly mandates is the obligation of absolute secrecy under threat of excommunication.

After I pointed out that you're straight-up lying instead of just admitting you misunderstood or misread something, you just keep going:

Richard James2 said:That single sentence alone just goes to show how much you're completely out of your depth here. Crimen Sollicitationis Look, by definition, this stuff falls under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s not like we need to debate whether something should be placed under their authority; they own it by default. It makes zero logical, theoretical, or even practical sense to suggest otherwise. If you see the mere existence of a church body dedicated to handling these kinds of deviant anomalies as some kind of grand conspiracy, well, that’s your problem, not mine.

Just as an aside, back when "Ratzinger's CS" was being published, Ratzinger was still busy handling his duties over in Germany.

There is absolutely no ambiguity here: every single participant involved in this process—whether they are active during the proceedings or merely involved after the fact—is bound by a strict, non-negotiable obligation to maintain absolute secrecy regarding everything related to the case. Under the constant threat of automatic excommunication. And let me be crystal clear: there is absolutely nowhere in there that mandates reporting these matters to secular authorities.

If I were you, I’d make it a priority to sit down and actually read Canon 2368 these days. Trust me on this one.

So—LAZES.

No, you can forget about it—your attempts at manipulation aren't working on me.

And on top of all that, they’re basically just talking to themselves in an echo chamber. First, they start making excuses for the Vatican's warning to the Irish Bishops—claiming that reporting these crimes to secular authorities actually goes against canonical rules. It's a joke.

That would be the truth if anyone had actually said something like that, but they didn't. What was actually stated was that opening everything up to public trials creates serious flaws when it comes to protecting the anonymity of those involved. Let me be crystal clear here: there was absolutely no ultimatum issued, nor was there any recommendation to violate established norms by withholding prosecutorial material in a letter. It simply doesn't exist.Not in this one.

Do you want me to drop some links showing exactly what happens to people who get dragged through a public trial, only for it to turn out later that they were innocent all along?

And then you have the nerve to claim this was some mandatory obligation dating back to '62. That’s just a blatant lie. Even by today's standards, reporting pedophilia to the secular authorities isn't even a requirement.

Listen, let’s get one thing straight: CS isn't some brand-new invention designed to hide things. It’s actually just a modification of a document that dates all the way back to 1922. They updated it in the eighties, long before the media started breathing down everyone's necks and making a massive spectacle out of everything. Back then, it was handled in direct correlation with canon law, which actually required reporting incidents to the secular authorities. It wasn't some secret conspiracy; it was how the system functioned. I don't know about you, but I’ve reached a point where I just can't be bothered with the whole "commitment" charade anymore. It's all just noise. There's this pervasive sense of casualness everywhere now—this constant, exhausting push toward being noncommittal about everything. People jump from one thing to the next without a second thought, treating life like a revolving door. Honestly? I'm over it. Sometimes, leaning into that lack of obligation is the only way to stay sane in a world that demands too much of your time and energy. Document Decalogue document Back in 2002, the Church here in America—with a green light from the Vatican—explicitly mandated full cooperation with civil authorities. It wasn't just a suggestion; it was a formal requirement to work alongside law enforcement and government agencies. The platform for child and youth protection.Furthermore, this approach was actually adopted by the Scottish government, and their specific guidelines also mandate reporting these matters to civilian authorities, along with... de delictis gravioribus Look, regarding that recent recommendation being pushed on bishops to report everything to the police and whatnot—those guidelines aren't just pulled out of thin air. They are fundamentally rooted in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is essentially a derivative of the Crimen Sollicitationis. It’s all connected.

What really sets today's CS apart—and the reason they took such massive heat back then—was the fact that they didn't bother suspending priests under investigation while the process was still moving. You don't need to sit here and lecture me on how certain prelates completely ignored Church rules; trust me, I've seen plenty of it, and I'm sure we'll see more of the same in the future.

A little less screaming and fewer personal attacks wouldn't hurt, and honestly, maybe spend a bit more time actually learning the subject matter.

Canon 2368 has absolutely nothing to do with reporting anything to anyone... so basically, it's just lie after lie.

Richard James2 said:That single sentence alone just goes to show how much you're completely out of your depth here. Crimen Sollicitationis Look, by definition, this stuff falls under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s not like we need to debate whether something should be placed under their authority; they own it by default. It makes zero logical, theoretical, or even practical sense to suggest otherwise. If you see the mere existence of a church body dedicated to handling these kinds of deviant anomalies as some kind of grand conspiracy, well, that’s your problem, not mine.

Just as an aside, back when "Ratzinger's CS" was being published, Ratzinger was still busy handling his duties over in Germany.

There is absolutely no ambiguity here: every single participant involved in this process—whether they are active during the proceedings or merely involved after the fact—is bound by a strict, non-negotiable obligation to maintain absolute secrecy regarding everything related to the case. Under the constant threat of automatic excommunication. And let me be crystal clear: there is absolutely nowhere in there that mandates reporting these matters to secular authorities.

If I were you, I’d make it a priority to sit down and actually read Canon 2368 these days. Trust me on this one.

So—LAZES.

No, you can forget about it—your attempts at manipulation aren't working on me.

And on top of all that, they’re basically just talking to themselves in an echo chamber. First, they start making excuses for the Vatican's warning to the Irish Bishops—claiming that reporting these crimes to secular authorities actually goes against canonical rules. It's a joke.

That would be the truth if anyone had actually said something like that, but they didn't. What was actually stated was that opening everything up to public trials creates serious flaws when it comes to protecting the anonymity of those involved. Let me be crystal clear here: there was absolutely no ultimatum issued, nor was there any recommendation to violate established norms by withholding prosecutorial material in a letter. It simply doesn't exist.Not in this one.

Do you want me to drop some links showing exactly what happens to people who get dragged through a public trial, only for it to turn out later that they were innocent all along?

And then you have the nerve to claim this was some mandatory obligation dating back to '62. That’s just a blatant lie. Even by today's standards, reporting pedophilia to the secular authorities isn't even a requirement.

Listen, let’s get one thing straight: CS isn't some brand-new invention designed to hide things. It’s actually just a modification of a document that dates all the way back to 1922. They updated it in the eighties, long before the media started breathing down everyone's necks and making a massive spectacle out of everything. Back then, it was handled in direct correlation with canon law, which actually required reporting incidents to the secular authorities. It wasn't some secret conspiracy; it was how the system functioned. I don't know about you, but I’ve reached a point where I just can't be bothered with the whole "commitment" charade anymore. It's all just noise. There's this pervasive sense of casualness everywhere now—this constant, exhausting push toward being noncommittal about everything. People jump from one thing to the next without a second thought, treating life like a revolving door. Honestly? I'm over it. Sometimes, leaning into that lack of obligation is the only way to stay sane in a world that demands too much of your time and energy. Document Decalogue document Back in 2002, the Church here in America—with a green light from the Vatican—explicitly mandated full cooperation with civil authorities. It wasn't just a suggestion; it was a formal requirement to work alongside law enforcement and government agencies. The platform for child and youth protection.Furthermore, this approach was actually adopted by the Scottish government, and their specific guidelines also mandate reporting these matters to civilian authorities, along with... de delictis gravioribus Look, regarding that recent recommendation being pushed on bishops to report everything to the police and whatnot—those guidelines aren't just pulled out of thin air. They are fundamentally rooted in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is essentially a derivative of the Crimen Sollicitationis. It’s all connected.

What really sets today's CS apart—and the reason they took such massive heat back then—was the fact that they didn't bother suspending priests under investigation while the process was still moving. You don't need to sit here and lecture me on how certain prelates completely ignored Church rules; trust me, I've seen plenty of it, and I'm sure we'll see more of the same in the future.

A little less screaming and fewer personal attacks wouldn't hurt, and honestly, maybe spend a bit more time actually learning the subject matter.

Neither CS (Crimen Sollicitationiss), nor its 1922 predecessor, nor Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, nor de delictis gravioribus require the mandatory reporting of pedophilia to secular authorities.

And again, decisions made by the Church in America don't bind anyone outside their jurisdiction (if anything, Ratzinger advocated for reducing the authority of local bishops because of things like this).

As for what you wrote about how the Decalogue document "explicitly mandates cooperation with civil authorities"
— Which document are you even talking about, please?
Did it happen to our "devout" friend Richard James2 that she literally translated an apologetic pamphlet without realizing she was just looking at the Ten Commandments?

In short—you're lying, manipulating, and trying to dilute the topic with cheap Catholic apologetics..

And here is something for those who aren't clear on the obligation to report those accused of criminal acts to secular authorities.

Richard James2 said:What a bizarre way to argue. You go out of your way to cite specific legal documents—which I, in my infinite "foolishness," am actually trying to interpret—only to then sneer at them and dismiss them as nothing more than Catholic pamphlets. Then, based on your own little version of reality, you act like you have the right to interpret them however you please, as if they were some restaurant menu tailored to your personal preferences. That is exactly what you’re doing. Honestly, if someone calls you out on that kind of reasoning, they aren't wrong; it's pretty clear why you're being called out. Liar.You, on the other hand, are just caught up in a blatant attempt at manipulation and pure opportunism. activists.

Let me repeat myself: I’m telling you, it was all rigged. It wasn't just a mistake; it was a calculated setup. Everything about how this went down feels completely manufactured from the start. Does *Crimen Sollicitationis* actually mandate reporting these things to the secular authorities?

Let me make this clear once again: since we can't just assume everyone is an expert in legal jargon, I pointed out that this document was drafted strictly in accordance with canon law. I also went out of my way to clarify exactly what that means—you can't have Crimen Sollicitationis without canon law, period. And let’s not forget that canon law actually mandates reporting the most severe cases to the police, alongside the internal church investigation.

And honestly, priests all over the world are facing the exact same reality today.
They have a mandatory obligation to report it.

Exactly. I’ve personally cited at least four different Church documents that completely debunk the lie you're peddling—which you conveniently chose to ignore while simultaneously throwing accusations my way about being dishonest. Look, being ignorant isn't a valid excuse for having such a toxic approach to a conversation.

I’ve got a recommendation for you. 2011. And let’s be crystal clear about one thing: those two are completely different concepts. They aren't interchangeable, and treating them as if they are is just plain wrong.

It’s honestly the move of a desperate person to play these semantic games, trying to twist my use of the word "recommendation" just to mask the reality of the situation. Let's be clear: the Pope MANDATES that bishops report these matters to the police. I highly doubt you're actually unaware of that.

And now you’re bringing up canon 2368, which honestly has absolutely nothing to do with reporting matters to the secular authorities.

You're being tedious. I’m assuming you haven't quite grasped that one doesn't just "master" these things—they aren't separate issues. One is completely invalid without the other.

Look, it's pretty obvious: you'll just interpret things however you need to. If it suits you, you'll point to those incriminating documents; if not, you'll just hide behind some dusty old Catholic pamphlets. 🙂

Alright, let's try this: why don't you quote the specific parts of those documents you keep bringing up where they actually mandate priests, bishops, or anyone else to report pedophilia to secular authorities?

Maybe I'm just blind and you're the one telling the truth.

electricorca112 said:But why on earth would the Church be required to report them to secular authorities?

Where exactly does it say they have to do that?

Think about it—why would any employer be obligated to report their employees (for any kind of misconduct, not just pedophilia) based solely on some letters or accusations?

And who do you think should be the one reporting pedophilia to the police, if not the victims themselves (or their parents, since we're talking about minors)?

What exactly are you asking there?

Or, let me rephrase:

What part of "every person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is confusing to you? 🤷

Look, if you want someone to face trial, you first need to catch them and have actual knowledge of a criminal act. Failing to report that, legally speaking, is considered complicity.

The KC went even further than just keeping quiet; they were actively moving suspects around.

Richard James2 said:That single sentence alone just goes to show how much you're completely out of your depth here. Crimen Sollicitationis Look, by definition, this stuff falls under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s not like we need to debate whether something should be placed under their authority; they own it by default. It makes zero logical, theoretical, or even practical sense to suggest otherwise. If you see the mere existence of a church body dedicated to handling these kinds of deviant anomalies as some kind of grand conspiracy, well, that’s your problem, not mine.

Just as an aside, back when "Ratzinger's CS" was being published, Ratzinger was still busy handling his duties over in Germany.

There is absolutely no ambiguity here: every single participant involved in this process—whether they are active during the proceedings or merely involved after the fact—is bound by a strict, non-negotiable obligation to maintain absolute secrecy regarding everything related to the case. Under the constant threat of automatic excommunication. And let me be crystal clear: there is absolutely nowhere in there that mandates reporting these matters to secular authorities.

If I were you, I’d make it a priority to sit down and actually read Canon 2368 these days. Trust me on this one.

So—LAZES.

No, you can forget about it—your attempts at manipulation aren't working on me.

And on top of all that, they’re basically just talking to themselves in an echo chamber. First, they start making excuses for the Vatican's warning to the Irish Bishops—claiming that reporting these crimes to secular authorities actually goes against canonical rules. It's a joke.

That would be the truth if anyone had actually said something like that, but they didn't. What was actually stated was that opening everything up to public trials creates serious flaws when it comes to protecting the anonymity of those involved. Let me be crystal clear here: there was absolutely no ultimatum issued, nor was there any recommendation to violate established norms by withholding prosecutorial material in a letter. It simply doesn't exist.Not in this one.

Do you want me to drop some links showing exactly what happens to people who get dragged through a public trial, only for it to turn out later that they were innocent all along?

And then you have the nerve to claim this was some mandatory obligation dating back to '62. That’s just a blatant lie. Even by today's standards, reporting pedophilia to the secular authorities isn't even a requirement.

Listen, let’s get one thing straight: CS isn't some brand-new invention designed to hide things. It’s actually just a modification of a document that dates all the way back to 1922. They updated it in the eighties, long before the media started breathing down everyone's necks and making a massive spectacle out of everything. Back then, it was handled in direct correlation with canon law, which actually required reporting incidents to the secular authorities. It wasn't some secret conspiracy; it was how the system functioned. I don't know about you, but I’ve reached a point where I just can't be bothered with the whole "commitment" charade anymore. It's all just noise. There's this pervasive sense of casualness everywhere now—this constant, exhausting push toward being noncommittal about everything. People jump from one thing to the next without a second thought, treating life like a revolving door. Honestly? I'm over it. Sometimes, leaning into that lack of obligation is the only way to stay sane in a world that demands too much of your time and energy. Document Decalogue document Back in 2002, the Church here in America—with a green light from the Vatican—explicitly mandated full cooperation with civil authorities. It wasn't just a suggestion; it was a formal requirement to work alongside law enforcement and government agencies. The platform for child and youth protection.Furthermore, this approach was actually adopted by the Scottish government, and their specific guidelines also mandate reporting these matters to civilian authorities, along with... de delictis gravioribus Look, regarding that recent recommendation being pushed on bishops to report everything to the police and whatnot—those guidelines aren't just pulled out of thin air. They are fundamentally rooted in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is essentially a derivative of the Crimen Sollicitationis. It’s all connected.

What really sets today's CS apart—and the reason they took such massive heat back then—was the fact that they didn't bother suspending priests under investigation while the process was still moving. You don't need to sit here and lecture me on how certain prelates completely ignored Church rules; trust me, I've seen plenty of it, and I'm sure we'll see more of the same in the future.

A little less screaming and fewer personal attacks wouldn't hurt, and honestly, maybe spend a bit more time actually learning the subject matter.

Richard, you're ignoring everything else because you're caught in a lie, digging yourself even deeper, and you aren't even bothering to fact-check the Catholic pamphlets you're translating for me...

Let me repeat: you lied when you claimed Crimen Sollicitationis mandates reporting to secular authorities and that priests worldwide have an obligation to report today. A recommendation from 2011 and a legal obligation are two very different things. Now you're even bringing up Canon 2368, which has absolutely nothing to do with reporting to secular authorities.

electricorca112 said:You're playing games with the facts in this blog.

Drago Ljubicic is currently a convicted pedophile, but he wasn't that back when the Catholic Church was moving him around.

Back then, he was just a guy dealing with a massive influx of complaint letters.

So, strictly speaking in a legal sense—at that time he was innocent.

So, legally speaking, the Church knew about the accusations. Instead of handing them over to the police, they just moved the priest to Rab, where the parents ended up reporting him themselves in the end.

What would you call that—legally speaking?

Richard James2 said:Look, it's obvious. We're talking about privacy violations that hit the victims and even potentially innocent people—which actually happened—subjecting them to mandatory public proceedings, which might actually scare some people off from coming forward about predators. Either way, the potential fallout is massive. Being cautious about something (and in this case, you logically *should* be cautious about something this vital) doesn't mean you're advocating for actively undermining the process. At least, that isn't what we see happening here.

Someone I personally admire, though unfortunately not widely known, is Gerald Fitzgerald. He wrote numerous warnings to local bishops as well as to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

To you, dear priest, despite your relatively good intentions, you are suggesting a sort of isolated life and depopulation as a way to handle the problem, while Crimen Sollicitationis, for instance, has required the mandatory reporting of serious cases to secular authorities since the 60s.

In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."

This is clearly a well-meaning attempt to offer solutions, though in my view, they fall short. That becomes much more obvious looking back from today's perspective. The John Jay report claims one of the main reasons this mess was handled so poorly was a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pedophilia—specifically, the fact that mere isolation is worth absolutely nothing without strict oversight. Without that, you just have a half-measure, especially since some of those "isolated" individuals ended up sliding right back into their old habits.

Then there's Doyle on William Levada, Ratzinger's successor in heading up the whole Inquisition:

I vividly recall briefing Levada in May, 1985 when he was an auxiliary bishop, about the sexual abuse crisis. I also have seen volumes of documents and sworn testimony from depositions that clearly shows that most, probably all, bishops clearly knew that priests were raping and otherwise sexually abusing kids as far back as the 40's….and I limit it to that era because I have not gone beyond that in studying documents. So, Levada’s statement is either an outright lie or evidence of a very narrow understanding and perception of reality.

When someone claims they "vividly remember" something, they don't get the luxury of using weak, non-committal language like "probably" when dealing with topics this heavy. It just doesn't add up. If you actually saw it with your own eyes—which is what Doyle is implying here—then you aren't guessing or making assumptions. If he tried to present an argument like this in a courtroom, he’d be torn to shreds instantly. It’s honestly baffling to see a canonical lawyer stumble into such logical gymnastics.

And let's not even get started on Doyle himself. I know his work inside and out, and he has this habit of making these massive, nonsensical rhetorical leaps—jumping from theorizing about "recommending protections for those accused of pedophilia" straight to "the Vatican absolutely had no intention of protecting them."

so everyone knew but the top brass didn't? how does that even work...

Pure skepticism wrapped in fancy sarcasm isn't much of an argument, and don't go twisting my words: I clearly stated that it isn't a given that every single local report of misconduct ends up at the CDF. Because it doesn't.

Richard, Crimen Sollicitationis is the document that places these offenses under the direct jurisdiction of Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it explicitly imposes an obligation on everyone involved in the process, during and after, to maintain absolute secrecy regarding everything related to the proceedings under threat of automatic excommunication and it nowhere, absolutely nowhere, mandates reporting to secular authorities.

So—YOU ARE LYING.

On top of that, you're completely contradicting yourself. First, you justify the Vatican's warning to Irish Bishops that reporting to secular authorities goes against canon law, and then you claim it was a requirement back in '62 (which is a lie; even today, reporting pedophiles to secular authorities is not mandatory under church law).

And in the end, whether or not a bishop is required by church law to report a pedophile is completely irrelevant to the whole story.
The Church, just like any other institution, needs to respect the secular laws of the country where it is located, PERIOD.

And they didn't.

Richard James2 said:Yeah, look, it’s considered strict pontifical secrecy, primarily to protect the anonymity of everyone involved in the proceedings. It only stays in effect while the process is actually ongoing, and let's be clear: this isn't some workaround or a substitute for facing justice in a secular court of law.

Look, let’s be real here: the hierarchy within the KC is built on a rigid, pyramidal structure with rules so strict they leave zero room for "accidental" ignorance. There is absolutely no way Ratzinger could have been kept in the dark about the abuse cases happening all over the globe. If he didn't know, someone failed at their job, but more likely, he was fully briefed. And if we're talking about accountability, John Paul II had to be aware of it too, given he was the boss, and Bozanic was the previous link in that entire chain of command. It’s a straight line of responsibility, plain and simple.

Just because there are guidelines in place doesn't mean they’re actually being enforced—and honestly, they aren't always. Just because a hierarchy exists, it doesn't automatically follow that every single scandal climbs all the way to the top. It doesn't work like that. We've seen plenty of examples where things just don't make it to Rome or the CDF, let alone the Pope. You can't just assume everything is being reported up the chain. Especially when you look at cases where it was blindingly obvious that a local bishop simply refused to follow the law on the matter.

Everything about this is laid out clearly by the Apostolic Nuncio. ovom pismu (pdf)

Hardly. These stories wouldn't even be on anyone's radar if they hadn't been broken by a compromised reporter at the New York Times instead of a legal expert. For me, the smoking gun is pretty obvious: the only victim advocacy group to actually step up was SNAP, which is led by some incredibly shady and discredited people.

So, here’s the deal: Look, let's get one thing straight because the media loves to muddy the waters: The Congregation for Clergy is not the same as The Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith. People constantly trip over this, but it matters. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict) ran the doctrinal side of things; he wasn't running the Congregation for Clergy. Back in 1997, that role was held by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. Here is the bottom line, and I say this because the press has this relentless, predictable habit of viewing every single Vatican move through the lens of the Pope himself: Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has absolutely zero connection to this letter. It wasn't even his department. Period.

(...)

The only actual "consequences" laid out in this letter involve the sheer embarrassment a bishop would face if he botched a case, resulting in a miscarriage of justice that eventually gets overturned by Rome on appeal. That's it. Yet, Goodstein makes it sound like the letter is some sort of heavy-handed threat, implying bishops will face retaliation if they don't "obey." Honestly, that interpretation is wrong on so many levels. This isn't an ultimatum, and it certainly isn't a list of commands. It’s an advisory statement—a warning to the American bishops that they need to stick to canon law to ensure they don't commit errors that end up being struck down during an appeal. Let’s be clear: there isn't some looming threat of retaliation happening here.

Goodstein makes IT appear that The Vatican is trying to intimidate bishops into silence if they take the step of notifying the police about predators. Honestly, the whole debate over mandatory reporting hasn't even hit the table yet. Furthermore, her claim that the letter mandates "bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels"—implying they shouldn't go to the cops—is just plain incorrect. The document doesn't say any of that. There is absolutely nothing in this text requiring a bishop to keep information regarding predators under wraps.

http://jimmyakin.com/2011/01/vatican...ild-abuse.html

My bad. I just realized I'm replying to a post from a year ago. Doesn't really matter, though; I guess Austin Martinez20 felt the need to bump this thread just to push his blog, even if he didn't actually contribute anything useful to the conversation.

Can you please explain this part of the letter to me:
"The text, however, contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems."

"In particular, the situation of „mandatory reporting‟ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature"

Someone I personally respect, though unfortunately not very well known, is Father Gerald Fitzgerald, who wrote numerous warnings to local bishops as well as to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"Back in 1962, Gerald Fitzgerald put together a report after being asked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which everyone called the Holy Office back then). In it, he laid out the different kinds of sexual issues cropping up among priests, specifically touching on the abuse of minors.
He talked about 'the massive issue created by priests who, due to a total lack of discipline, have turned into a major headache for Mother Church.'
When it came to priests who had 'slipped into repetitive sins... particularly the abuse of children, we feel quite strongly that these unfortunate individuals should be offered a choice: live out their days retired behind monastery walls or face full laicization.'
So, they were warned about this mess as early as '62, yet fast forward to '97 and they're still 'thinking about what to do'...

The exact same priest was sitting down with the Pope just one year later:
By August of the following year, he was meeting with the newly elected Pope Paul VI to brief him on his findings and the specific issues he saw plaguing the priesthood. His follow-up letter was blunt: "On a personal level, I’m not optimistic about priests returning to active ministry if they’ve struggled with abnormal behaviors, especially involving minors. That said, the practical needs of the Church have to be weighed, so reinstating priests who seem to have reformed might be an option—but only if they can be strictly guided and supervised. If there's any sign they won't change, given the massive scandal it would cause, I’d strongly advise stripping them of their clerical status entirely."

Then you've got Tom Doyle weighing in on William Levada, who eventually took over Ratzinger's old job running the Inquisition:

'I remember like it was yesterday briefing Levada in May of 1985 while he was serving as an auxiliary bishop regarding the sexual abuse crisis. I’ve personally pored over stacks of documents and sworn deposition testimony that make it crystal clear: most, if not all, bishops were fully aware that priests were raping and sexually abusing children as far back as the 1940s... and I’m only looking that far back because that’s how far I’ve dug into the files. Either way, Levada’s claim is either a flat-out lie or proof he has a incredibly narrow grasp on reality.'

And don't forget, during that whole period, Levada was actually working closely with Ratzinger...

And so on...

Basically, everyone knew, except for the guys at the top. It’s the classic "how could they not know?" scenario.

There’s this pretty interesting poll running over on the Medium blog

http://image.bayimg.com/galonaadj.jpg

silentraven78 said:Look, I get it—they aren't going to print about this in the Council Voice. But my question is whether there’s any proof (even just testimonies) that Bozanic could have known this guy was a pedophile, and whether he actually had the authority to move him, or if someone "below" him handled it.

witnesses

By the way, a girl already posted on this thread about her own abuser, who is still a priest today. He’s currently serving as a parish priest in a small town in rural southern America, having been shuffled around multiple times because of various "incidents"...

Like I've said before, sexual abuse within the Church has always been treated as a grave crime. That means it had to be reported directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was headed by Ratzinger. The whole process is considered a breach of pontifical secrecy, and you can face excommunication for leaking it..

There is a strict pyramidal hierarchy within the KC, which means it's impossible that Ratzinger didn't hear about these abuse cases happening all over the world. If he didn't know, then John Paul II must have known as his boss, and Bozanic would have known too as the link right before them in the chain.

The Apostolic Nuncio lays all of this out clearly in this letter (pdf)

silentraven78 said:Is there any actual proof that Bozanic is directly responsible for moving that specific pedophile? Like, does anyone have evidence he knew the guy was "problematic" at the time and moved him specifically because of it?

There isn't any "smoking gun" evidence because there was never even an official investigation. All we have are parent testimonies and the exact same modus operandi that KC has used in other countries where they actually bothered to run investigations and find real proof.

As far as the Church in America is concerned, this supposedly never happened—unless you want to go out and search for Cucek, Ljubicic, or pedophilia in the Council Voice...

Richard James2 said:Are you seriously suggesting this phenomenon is exclusive to "us"? Because if that's your take, I’d suggest looking into Sagan, George Simmel, Gustave Le Bon, and the rest.

If this thread is supposed to be about how "badass" the Church is, honestly, I’m already starting to yawn.

Look, what I'm saying is that I live here. Other people don't concern me, so feel free to keep yawning while I deal with reality...

Steven Allen9 said:Mob mentality has this weird, sadistic streak to it.
Whether it stems from some deep-seated religious dogma or just old-school folk traditions, who knows? Either way, most of it flies in the face of basic adult logic. But people don't care—they just push things to the extreme.

It reminds me of what some students said back during those protests against Gaddafi in Libya: "We aren't against revolution. We're just against revolutions that spiral out of control."

It all comes down to the fact that in this country, authority is built on tradition and ideology rather than actual merit or results. You see it all the time—an institution can spend decades completely trashing the very scientific principles its founders stood for, yet people still follow it blindly like it's some ultimate moral or ethical compass. And let’s be real, the connection between this mindset and the political landscape we've dealt with over the last twenty years in America is impossible to ignore...