Bingo.
And then he sent them to their rooms, without dinner OR altar boys. That’ll learn 'em.
Christopher Hitchens was on Bill Maher’s show tonight and said Bernard Law is essentially hiding in Vatican City to avoid prosecution. True?
Arguably true. I can’t find any cite for an official of the Massachussetts justice department trying to indict him, though.

The fact that Joseph Ratzinger is not a U.S. citizen is irrelevant. Suppose the next pope were a U.S. citizen: it would have no effect on the suit, unless that pope were involved in some other way, e.g., as being a former bishop of a diocese where sexual abuse was alleged. What would possible be relevant are the pope as head of state of the Holy See, and the fact that the Holy See does not directly employ the clergy in dioceses and archdioceses outside the Vatican City.
I was thinking more along the lines that, being a State court, they could not the Roman Catholic Church to depose their leader. Even if there was enough evidence to put the guy in jail, he wouldn’t necessarily have to cease being the Pope. In fact, I think the only way a Pope can be deposed (by someone other than himself) is if he is killed.
Wait, does Kentucky have a death penalty?
The front cover of this week’s Private Eye magazine has a photograph of the Pope addressing the crowds in St Peter’s square. Headed “Easter Message For Pope” there are two speech bubbles. One says “In the old days boys wanted to enter the priesthood…”, the other one “…rather than the other way around”.

Christopher Hitchens was on Bill Maher’s show tonight and said Bernard Law is essentially hiding in Vatican City to avoid prosecution. True?
He was never indicted or anything, but after he resigned as Archbishop of Boston, he was given a cushy job in the Vatican, probably both to get him out of town, and to avoid even the possibility that he would be indicted. At the time, everyone involved (including the MA district attorney) was hoping this was an isolated thing and would blow over.
Bernie Law freely admitted that he did know that certain priests were pedophiles, but “at the time” they thought pedophilia was curable so they kept sending them back to parishes after treatment (which apparently mostly consisted of prayer). They didn’t inform anyone at the new parish that the priest was a “reformed” pedophile, so the parishoners wouldn’t be prejudiced against them.
Which is of course bullshit of the highest order. I can maybe, maybe understand that (but not agree with) if the accepted thinking at the time - among the medical community, not just the church - was that pedophilia was curable, that you give a priest another chance. But then you damn sure make it known to his new superiors that he had this problem, and to watch him closely, and don’t give him opportunities to commit more crimes. And you certainly don’t give him another chance after he’s committed more crimes, much less the 6 or more transfers that some priests were getting. How stupid do you have to be to really claim “Gee, the past 5 times he was declared cured it wasn’t really true - but this time I’m sure he’s OK.” ? Law is far from stupid, which makes him a liar and an accessory IMHO.

Bernie Law freely admitted that he did know that certain…
It’s just occurred to me to wonder, why did his parents name him ‘Bernard’? If I had been in their position, I would have called my son ‘The’.
You know, like the parents of that old French King, Mr. and Mrs. State.
Did someone mention pope Paul?
Why yes, yes I did, and now he’s made the news:
1963 letter indicates former pope knew of abuse
Fitzgerald opens the five-page letter by thanking the pope for an audience the day before and says he is summarizing his thoughts at the pope’s request on the “problem of the problem priest” after 20 years working in to treat them.
He tells Paul VI that treatment for priests who have succumbed to “abnormal, homosexual tendencies” should include psychiatric, as well as spiritual, counseling — but goes on to warn about the dangers of leaving those individuals in ministry.
“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,” Fitzgerald wrote.
Apparently now, some bishops are stepping up in ireland and Switzerland, and in other places. They are FINALLY telling people to report these things to the police. Is it a case of CYA? It might be. Is it a case of the decent ones finally deciding enough is enough? It might be. IS it “too little too late”? YES.

Only if you think that these abuse cases make up a large percentage of “things the Church is handling”. You don’t see why people can think that, all things considered, the Church handles things pretty well?
In all honesty, even if the Church perfectly handled every other thing they were involved in, child abuse is really enough of a big topic that i’d still say it was fair to claim that all things considered they werent’ handling things well. This isn’t a matter of a priest claiming too much for paperclips; this is lengthy, systematic, and apparently wilful closing of eyes to some horrific behaviour, insufficient responses, with a focus on the problem being the revelation, not the events. It’s like claiming an athlete handles his sport well, oh, except for those drugs he’s been taking. But hey, he’s punctual, and his kit is always so nice and clean.

In all honesty, even if the Church perfectly handled every other thing they were involved in, child abuse is really enough of a big topic that i’d still say it was fair to claim that all things considered they werent’ handling things well. This isn’t a matter of a priest claiming too much for paperclips; this is lengthy, systematic, and apparently wilful closing of eyes to some horrific behaviour, insufficient responses, with a focus on the problem being the revelation, not the events. It’s like claiming an athlete handles his sport well, oh, except for those drugs he’s been taking. But hey, he’s punctual, and his kit is always so nice and clean.
Agree. Not only were they handlng it in a poor and incompetent way, they were deliberately hiding it and covering it up (my cites earlier). The “instructions” had quite a bit to say about “the good of the church” and nothing about the good of the victims. And compounding the problem, they insisted on swearing eternal secrecy - to the point where the victim was also sworn to secrecy, under penalty of excommunication (and of course whatever hell fire follows that). Pretty nice, ain’t it. Swear some kid to total silence, under threat of hell.
It was all about sweeping shit under the rug, plain and simple. They didn’t “handle” shit. Instead, they protected and enabled it.

I was thinking more along the lines that, being a State court, they could not the Roman Catholic Church to depose their leader. Even if there was enough evidence to put the guy in jail, he wouldn’t necessarily have to cease being the Pope. In fact, I think the only way a Pope can be deposed (by someone other than himself) is if he is killed.
The word “depose” has more than one meaning, and I suspect talk of “deposing” the pope applies more to the third meaning for depose than to the first meaning.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. . . .
"Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me,
Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ "
Scandal should be the least of their worries.

The word “depose” has more than one meaning, and I suspect talk of “deposing” the pope applies more to the third meaning for depose than to the first meaning.
The image of some circuit judge in Kentucky ordering the RCC to dump the Pope is pretty amusing, though.

Agree. Not only were they handlng it in a poor and incompetent way, they were deliberately hiding it and covering it up (my cites earlier). The “instructions” had quite a bit to say about “the good of the church” and nothing about the good of the victims. And compounding the problem, they insisted on swearing eternal secrecy - to the point where the victim was also sworn to secrecy, under penalty of excommunication (and of course whatever hell fire follows that). Pretty nice, ain’t it. Swear some kid to total silence, under threat of hell.
It was all about sweeping shit under the rug, plain and simple. They didn’t “handle” shit. Instead, they protected and enabled it.
I’ve mentioned this before but will bring it up again: Deliver us from Evil**, a documentary film, covers this mess, especially in regard to a CA priest whose actions were repeatedly protected and covered up by Mahoney, Ratzinger, et. al.; they just kept moving him from one parish to another. Then they carted him off to Ireland.
And that’s just one example.
Pope’s preacher: Abuse critique like anti-Semitism
Pope Benedict XVI’s personal preacher on Friday likened accusations against the pope and the Catholic church in the sex abuse scandal to “collective violence” suffered by the Jews.
[…]
Stephan Kramer, general-secretary of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, said Cantalamessa’s remarks were “a so-far-unheard-of insolence.”
“It is repulsive, obscene and most of all offensive toward all abuse victims as well as to all the victims of the Holocaust,” Kramer said. “So far I haven’t seen St. Peter burning, nor were there outbursts of violence against Catholic priests. I’m without words. The Vatican is now trying to turn the perpetrators into victims.”
http://www.samefacts.com/
An ADA in Milan who heads the child abuse team there gives a partial answer to that question today: at least on his beat, never. “The list of abusing priests is so long that I have to wonder if many of them deliberately chose the calling in order I to have access to children….[but] I have never received a single denunciation from anywhere in the Catholic hierarchy from bishops down to sacristans or teachers….when we investigate a priest for these crimes, we have to do it completely on our own, usually on the basis of denunciations from victims’ families.” And he doesn’t have much respect for the internal machinery of the church: “Not only weren’t they punished, they were frequently just moved to another diocese to offend again.” [translations are free but accurate in content, check at the link]Pedofilia, il pm di Milano denuncia: «La lista dei preti inquisiti è lunga» - Corriere della Sera
Notizie di cronaca del Corriere della Sera
According to the NYT, the current pontiff knew that Fr Peter Hullermann, who began a course of therapy with his approval during the 1980s, would return to pastoral duties a few days after starting psychiatric treatment. Hullerman was later convicted of child molesting. Before today, as the New York Times points out, Ratzinger’s deputy at the time, Rev. Gerhard Gruber, has been held responsible for the decision to rehabilitate Hullermann. Now the American daily says that a memo was delivered to the future pontiff informing him on Hullermann’s situation. The paper says that the existence of the memo “was confirmed by two church officials” and “shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment”.
DER SPIEGEL’S REVELATIONS – A few days ago, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported the existence of documents and gave details of the child-abusing priest that the pope, when he was an archbishop, agreed should be treated in his Munich diocese in 1980. Later, however, Hullermann was recklessly returned to pastoral duties in contact with minors, for which Ratzinger’s vicar general, Gerhard Gruber, admits responsibility. The German weekly says that the pope, as archbishop of Munich, failed to take the problem of this child molester seriously.
… TRANSFERRED SEVERAL TIMES – Der Spiegel also alleges that Hullermann’s three subsequent transfers – including to Grafing, near Munich, where he was convicted in 1986 for abusing “several students” – took place with no warning about the paedophilia risk involved. The German media subsequently published new revelations about Hullermann. The DPA agency referred to two alleged cases of child sex abuse at Bottrop, in North Rhine-Westphalia, at the church of St Cyriakus, where Hullermann remained until 1978. Thereafter Hullermann, who is currently under suspension, went to Essen, where he stayed until 1980 and where he is alleged to have abused three other boys. Following these episodes, the priest was transferred in 1980 to Munich, where he again abused minors, and in 1986 he was given an eighteen months’ suspended sentence. Finally, there was another episode of alleged abuse in 1998, when Hullermann was at the parish of Garchin an der Alz in Bavaria.
So Your Popeness, tell us again how horribly unfair it is, and how mean people are being to you. We’re waiting.
I conducted a thought experiment relative to this. I asked myself, “If the Church were a group of psychotic sexual predators bent only on being able to sexually abuse their flocks without suffering any consequences, how would they handle this situation?”
I did it thinking the likely answer was that there would be no difference, cynical person that I am. But I quickly realized that was wrong. There were many voices calling for investigations, exposure and turning records over to civil authorities from within the Church. If the Church was Predators R Us, there would be no such voices, just a determined effort at cover up, denial, avoiding consequences, then if things got very bad and it looked like the civil authorities were going to bust them anyway, making a public show of cooperating while hiding the evidence as best they can. There would be lots of praying and calling for reconciliation while the machinery of corruption and coverup continued to work its way. They might toss a few low-ranking predators under the wheels of the bus if they had to, but they would make every effort to conceal how thoroughgoing the actual predation was, for their own sakes.
And when I thought about that, I realized that was a pretty good description of the behavior of the top leadership of the Catholic Church over the last few decades. Scary.
Louis CK investigates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABSoHYQr6k