Operation Pedophilia

bluemarlin19 said: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?

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?

bluemarlin19 said: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?

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)?

bluemarlin19 said: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?

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? 🤷

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: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.

bluemarlin19 said: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.

What does receiving accusatory letters have to do with "knowledge of a criminal act"?

Or are you trying to suggest that Bozanic was personally standing there watching while Ljubicic was committing these acts? 🤦

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? 🤷

Sounds like you were taught in church to cover up crimes and dodge the law. If there’s actual suspicion that a crime happened—and we're talking about dozens of parents who went to Bozanic with complaints—then you call the police. It's their job to investigate what actually went down, not yours to play judge and jury based on your own biased conclusions...

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? 🤷

It's right there in the U.S. federal criminal code:

Failure to report a crime

Section 300.

(1) Anyone who knows a felony has been committed and fails to report it—even though reporting it would make finding the crime or the perpetrator much easier—when that crime carries a mandatory long-term prison sentence,

will face a fine or up to three years in prison.

Every individual, regardless of family ties, is legally obligated to report a crime once they become aware of it.

How are we supposed to expect Bozanic to report pedophilia when even the Pope is protecting them?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/victims...-article-326668

http://www.nytimes.com/article/80703/...titio-pedophiles

Christian Torres3 said:It's right there in the U.S. federal criminal code:

Failure to report a crime

Section 300.

(1) Anyone who knows a felony has been committed and fails to report it—even though reporting it would make finding the crime or the perpetrator much easier—when that crime carries a mandatory long-term prison sentence,

will face a fine or up to three years in prison.

Every individual, regardless of family ties, is legally obligated to report a crime once they become aware of it.

Erhrr..... You're circling back to an old post of mine that you already replied to.

And honestly, it wasn't much of a winning argument.

What I said back then still stands:

So, to put it simply: just by receiving the letters we're discussing here, the recipient doesn't actually know anything about a crime being committed and has zero knowledge of the specifics.

All they know is that there are letters. That’s it. 🤷

electricorca112 said:Erhrr..... You're circling back to an old post of mine that you already replied to.

And honestly, it wasn't much of a winning argument.

What I said back then still stands:

So, to put it simply: just by receiving the letters we're discussing here, the recipient doesn't actually know anything about a crime being committed and has zero knowledge of the specifics.

All they know is that there are letters. That’s it. 🤷

Parents were sending him those letters because they trusted him. He blew that trust, and then the parents started reporting things to the police.
Regardless, after dozens of these letters, he WAS REQUIRED to notify the police that there was REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED.

http://www.justice.gov/example-link

bluemarlin19 said: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.

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. 🙂

Austin Martinez20 said:How are we supposed to expect Bozanic to report pedophilia when even the Pope is protecting them?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/victims...-article-326668

http://www.nytimes.com/article/80703/...titio-pedophiles

In your rigid, legalistic little worldview, does an accusation automatically equal a conviction?

By the way, you should really update your blog - http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...to-avoid-loss/ - because while some things are happening in deafening media silence, they are still happening.

And honestly, I get a kick out of watching SNAP scream for justice while simultaneously bragging about publishing fake data and basically looking out for child pornography dealers among their own ranks.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

bluemarlin19 said: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.

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:

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.