Probably Rome - grovelling

Is he in Sydney or is he in Rome?
Just like big George Pell, where does he call home?

Roy

Yes i know the address written enough Ha! does anyone know if he is in Australia or is he in Rome.

macbee

Where is the nuncio in all this i noticed he has not had a mention.

LINK Here => 2 vancouver st, red hill 2603

curlie que

I have just heard that they are all in a bit of turmoil, i hope they never get a good night sleep... Where is the nuncio in all this i noticed he has not had a mention.

Macbee

Things aren't going well at the office Curlie

Coming apart a little actually

I'm not actually sure which bishop that is ....hard to tell them apart when they have their lippie on.

By the way, Roy, if you are reading this, Silva Henriquez was a Salesian. They're not all bad.

I had a bit of a google ...he was a busy bloke hey James Big on civic development and governance I see.
But the person who I have to have the most respect for is his mother Mercedes.
19 bloody kids .....good argument for shooting the husband I reckon
That has to be some sort of crime right there!

With all due respects George Pell couldn't explain his way out of a brown paper bag

The priest whose arrest last year led to the first criminal charges against a Catholic bishop in the church's decades-long clergy sex abuse crisis pleaded guilty Thursday to federal charges of possession and production of child pornography.
Fr. Shawn Ratigan, a Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., diocesan priest pleaded guilty to five of 13 counts of producing and attempting to produce sexually graphic material of minor girls. Ratigan’s May 2011 arrest raised questions about when his diocese and its bishop, Robert Finn, first became aware of concerns against him.
While a sentencing date has not been set for the priest, each charge separately carries between 15 and 30 years in prison.

I wonder if Ratigan will be called to give evidence in the next trial.

Following the priest’s arrest, local prosecutors also brought separate charges against Finn and the Kansas City diocese of failure to report suspected child abuse, which are criminal misdemeanors, regarding their oversight of the priest.
County prosecutors say both Finn and the diocese should have reported Ratigan to police as early as December, 2010, when they acknowledge becoming aware of lewd images of children on his laptop.
Both Finn and the diocese have pleaded not guilty to the charges. They are currently set for trial in September.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/kansas-city-priest-faces-life-prison-after-ple...

I'll look forward to the beer....

James
It was fun and lively wasn't it. I never really believed that civil authorities in this day and age could resort to Star Chamber methods.

I was researching the Battle of Brisbane during WWII wherein the Yanks and Aussies got into a dust off with many injured and one Australian killed. As usual the fight was over booze and broads. I read that a few days later an Australian soldier came up to an American soldier in a pub, clapped him on the back and said we had quite a brawl the other day, let me buy you a beer.

If and when we ever meet, the beer is on me.

Bob

Justice was defined by an ancient Roman judge as rendering to each man his due. I don't know exactly what that means either. As christians we believe that perfect justice is only attainable in the after life.

There is a problem in the Church with the cover up of heinous crimes. The cover-up was not done by the priests but by the Bishops although some priests aided in the cover-up at the direction of the Bishops. In the States every Diocese had its share of pedophile priests and every Bishop covered up. It looks like the same holds true for Ireland and most probably the rest of the world. That is a serious problem. So far it has not been addressed except ;in an extremely limited way in the States where Lynne was convicted and a Bishop is being prosecuted. A token reaction.

While we are used to the rule of law, trials, lawyers, judges, juries, witnesses etcetera, not all judicial entities utilize such devices. Their judgments have been accepted by most and criticized by some. The Catholic Church utilizes such a system. Most recently, the american nuns were found guilty and judgment imposed without a trial, without any notice, without witnesses, without any disclosure of evidence, without a right of appeal. I simply proposed similar treatment of the Bishops and Cardinals with respect to the cover-up of the sexual abuse of children. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The Star Chamber operated in England. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Today Star Chamber is held in obloquy but that is because Cardinal Wolsey utilized it for political purposes in furthering Henry VIII's interests.

No one can dispute the efficacy of such summary justice and I didn't suggest that it be a permanent thing but rather used on a one off with respect to the present scandal. Interesting how everyone seems to oppose such one sided action yet no one did anything about the Vatican's treatment of the american nuns except to criticize. The judgment against them is at this very moment being implemented.

I hasten to agree with you that the vast and overwhelming number of priests are entirely innocent and have been thrown under the bus by the Bishops. Furthermore I did not suggest that this method be used against the priests or to address victim's grievances. I suggested this a method to correct the power abuse in the Church . We all agree there is a problem. We all agree that a Church internal inquiry is useless. I submit that an Inquiry or Commission would be useless as well. I suggest that the Hierarchy be given a dose of Holy Office Justice. If burning at the stake is no longer politically correct then a few years in prison would have a most salutary effect on their successors. Perhaps they could get back to telling the truth and treating everyone fairly. That just might be justice.

If one reads through all of the documentation which demonstrates the absolute corruption of the Church and reads again the condemnation by Enda Kenny, one can only conclude that this is a situation that never attained such proportions in the history of the Church.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Innocent III would have been before the Hague for genocide of the Cathars if he had lived today. So would Innocent VIII for starting off the Inquisition and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews and Moors form Spain.

But I need no convincing that Josef Ratzinger is a liar, a hypocrite and an international criminal over the cover up of the clergy abuse of children - a view I share with Geoffrey Robertson QC. The evidence is extremly strong and getting stronger all the time. But Ratzinger is not the only one. They were all in on it - Wojtyla, Bertone, Castrillon Hoyos, Re, Sodano etc.

The Church does not have the capacity to cure the problem and perforce neither does civil society with its system of laws.

I agree that the Church has shown itself to be incapable of solving the problem by its own internal processes. That is why it has been dragged kicking and screaming before the civil courts. But I don't care if the Church falls to pieces, any more than I care that the National Rifle Association does the same thing. What I do care about is that civil society is governed by humane rules and processes. Which is the reason I took such strong exception to your suggestions that bishops be dealt with "summarily".

Whenever society finds a situation that cannot be cured by resort to lawyers and negotiation, it usually resorts to some sort of draconian measure such as war.

I agree, and it is a pox on the human condition that it does resort to war. The total elimination of war has to be one of the things that homo sapiens has to aim for.

You listed several nasty international figures with whom I have nothing but condemnation. You might have included Ratzinger who silenced over 100 theologians who dared to have a difference of opinion. He and JPII were successful in destroying liberation theology which assisted South American despots such as Pinochet in staying in power. History is indeed murky and far from black and white.

You are absolutely right, and I recently posted information coming from a trial in Argentina about the collaboration of the most senior members of the Argentinean hierarchy in the murders of innocent people by General Videla. In Chile there was similar collaboration, but not by all. The former Archbishop of Santiago, Raul Silva Henriquez was outspoken in his condemnation of the regime, and did much to help the families of the "disappeared". He was awarded the United Nations Human Rights prize in 1978, but was asked by John Paul II to resign in 1983 - something that would not surprise you. By the way, Roy, if you are reading this, Silva Henriquez was a Salesian. They're not all bad.

Therefore we are left with an organization that is outrageously corrupt insofar as the raping of children by clerics is concerned. Moreover the criminal law is unable for whatever reason to solve the problem. A conviction here or there is punishment for a wrongdoer but does not resolve the problem or remove the root cause.

The criminal law has never stopped crime. And it is a blunt instrument anyway, only operating once the horse has bolted. It is absolutely necessary to that it be efficient and clean, but it also has to be fair, and operate on internationally accepted principles, which are in complete contradiction to your proposals for "summary justice". But criminal law is not enough. There has to be public education programs as well. Recently in Australia there was an advertising program called "No Excuse" about child sexual abuse - and not just by clergy but by everyone. Such things are very important.

One of the problems with making comments about sentences meted out by the courts (and I am referring to Bishop Pican's suspended sentence) is that you will very rarely get unanimity amongst people as to what the appropriate sentence is. Further, most of us only rely on press reporting, and there have been some outrageous examples in this country, notably by Rupert Murdoch's organizations of completely misrepresenting the facts before the sentencing court, with the aim of stirring up people against the justice system. But the justice system is never going to be perfect. It is run by human beings who make mistakes, and that is why it has built into it appeal systems. If the prosecutor thinks the sentence is too light, he will appeal.

On You tube there is a video of Ratzinger reacting violently to a reporter inquiring about Marciel. He responded by saying that he knew nothing (a lie) and then that the press is always attacking the Church (another exaggeration).

Josef Ratzinger is a liar and a hypocrite, pure and simple. His blaming of the Irish bishops for covering up child abuse when the Vatican told the Irish bishops in 1997 that they could not go to the police because it conflicted with Canon Law has to go down as one of the great lies of history.

The structure uses this deference as a weapon which is why I suggest that a summary measure be employed to thwart this erosion. I did not suggest that this be permanent policy or should replace rule of law or trials or a criminal justice system. I suggest it be used once - once in two thousand years and then only because the cancer has grown to such an extent that it must be dealt with in a swift and dramatic fashion.

There may have been deference to the Church in the past in countries that have had close ties to the Church. But that was certainly blown apart in Ireland. But you have to be careful that it does not go the other way, so that simply because a man is a Catholic priest and an allegation of sexual abuse has been made, everyone automatically assumes his guilt. Allowing your "summary" justice to happen once, and you will get governments excusing its use again and again.

I note your objection to summary dispositions and I concur with your examples. However, the Church has a history of summary dispositions with no explanations, no appeal and no disclosure of the evidence against the accused. I think summary justice imposed on the hierarchs would be poetic justice.

And what you mean by poetic justice is really vengeance. Why should the rest of the world adopt the measures that we so rightly condemn in the Church? That is the irony of this whole situation. You have secular society teaching the Church on how to behave when the Church claims that it is speaking on behalf of the Creator of the Universe on giving us lectures on moral behaviour. That, probably more than anything else has to be responsible for the abandonment of the pews.

Anyway, thank you for this vigorous discussion.

James
If one reads through all of the documentation which demonstrates the absolute corruption of the Church and reads again the condemnation by Enda Kenny, one can only conclude that this is a situation that never attained such proportions in the history of the Church. Lord Acton's observation of the Church was based on far less corruption than exists today. From that one can observe that nothing either could be done or would be done internally by the power structure in the Church. I am not talking about what translation to use or frequency of confession or any matters that properly are Church matters. I am talking about the actual threat to children and the destruction of psyche as well as the destruction of their souls.

The Church does not have the capacity to cure the problem and perforce neither does civil society with its system of laws. Whenever society finds a situation that cannot be cured by resort to lawyers and negotiation, it usually resorts to some sort of draconian measure such as war. In fact war is the term used whenever society is faced with an insurmountable problem such as war on drugs.

It is true that corrupt politicians and political leaders use summary methods to enhance or preserve their control. You listed several nasty international figures with whom I have nothing but condemnation. You might have included Ratzinger who silenced over 100 theologians who dared to have a difference of opinion. He and JPII were successful in destroying liberation theology which assisted South American despots such as Pinochet in staying in power. History is indeed murky and far from black and white.

I suggested summary action to see what reaction there would be and at the same time see if there was any solution other than wait and see. The state or society cannot reform the Administration of the Church. Even if it could it would present more problems than it solved. The Church apparently cannot reform itself. Therefore we are left with an organization that is outrageously corrupt insofar as the raping of children by clerics is concerned. Moreover the criminal law is unable for whatever reason to solve the problem. A conviction here or there is punishment for a wrongdoer but does not resolve the problem or remove the root cause. I think all will agree that all pedophiles are sick but not so sick that they should avoid punishment for their crimes. The real problem is with the Bishops and the power structure of the Church. That power structure is not confined internally but also has external effect. When I said a suspended sentence was not just you suggest that I have in mind an outrageous sentence. On the contrary, I object not to the sentence but to the suspension. If it were a layman instead of a Bishop then in all probability it would not have been suspended.

This deference to the Church because it is the Church has exacerbated the problem and has been used as a weapon by the hierarchy. On You tube there is a video of Ratzinger reacting violently to a reporter inquiring about Marciel. He responded by saying that he knew nothing (a lie) and then that the press is always attacking the Church (another exaggeration).
The structure uses this deference as a weapon which is why I suggest that a summary measure be employed to thwart this erosion. I did not suggest that this be permanent policy or should replace rule of law or trials or a criminal justice system. I suggest it be used once - once in two thousand years and then only because the cancer has grown to such an extent that it must be dealt with in a swift and dramatic fashion. I would limit it to the cover-up of criminal pedophile behavior. But I do think it should be world wide. It will never happen. A few prosecutions here and there is about all that will happen.

There is no question but that the clergy (priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes) have all been knocked off their pedestals and are now viewed with a jaundiced eye. Perhaps that is the only improvement that society can expect. I doubt that the Vatican will install a pastoral litmus test for Bishops and discard the present orthodox loyalty-based litmus test. But the damage has been done and the pronouncements of the Bishops are ignored or taken with a grain of salt. The laity's reaction to the summary judgment imposed on the american nuns is proof of this.

I note your objection to summary dispositions and I concur with your examples. However, the Church has a history of summary dispositions with no explanations, no appeal and no disclosure of the evidence against the accused. I think summary justice imposed on the hierarchs would be poetic justice. Live by the sword die by the sword. But as true believers we all know that true justice only exists in the afterlife where the Perfect Judge will settle all scores.. While I will never convince you I hope that I have encouraged you to be diligent in seeing that what procedures are followed will be utilized to the fullest extent.

Lynne was not a senior cleric. He was a fall guy for the hierarcs - Bevilacqua and Rinaldi - Bevilacqua is dead and Rinaldi still living in Philadelphia and unindicted.

You may wish to kill all bishops, (the same as the lawyers), but the criminal law works on the basis that anyone who is to be punished by the State has to be proved to have done something wrong personally. Being a bishop of a Church is not enough.

Monsignor Lynn was in charge of investigating pedophile priest in 1995. And Grand Jury indicted him in 2003 for covering up before that date. Lynn's boss was Cardinal Bellacqua who is now dead. Cardinal Rigali succeeded Bellacqua in October 2003. What you are saying is that Rigali, for no other reason than that he is now Archbishop of Philadelphia, should also be indicted for something that happened when he wasn't even Archbishop of Philadelphia.

Now, if you want Rigali for covering up when he was in charge of some other diocese, fine, but to suggest that he should be indicted for something that he could not have done in Philadephia is to make the justice system purely arbitrary. And I am sorry if you don't like the comparison with Pinochet and the Argentinean junta, but the comparison is spot on.

The Bishop in Kansas is charged with a misdemeanor of not reporting abuse. I would hardly call that justice. Read the documentation in http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

What would you call justice? Assuming he is found guilty, what do you think should be done with him?

When you read of the horrendous acts committed and covered up by the Bishops no one can claim that these isolated prosecutions constitute justice or even are leading to justice or a solution of the corruption.

What do you think would constitute "justice". And do you think that bishops should be prosecuted just because they are bishops, and not because of what they did or did not do? And even if there are allegations against bishops, as chronicled in bishop-accountability.org, do you think that they should be punished without those allegations being tested in court? Isn't that what you mean by "summary" justice?

A suspended sentence for Bishop Pican is not my sense of justice. A failure to report does not sound like an unspeakable crime but when you read of the thousands of obscene assaults on pre-teen altar-boys in the States and not one Bishop has been punished by the Church nor by civil law, it puts a different light on the subject.

What do you think should have happened to Bishop Pican? The allegation proved against him as that he covered up for one pedophile priest. But you seem to be suggesting that he should be punished for all the other cases of cover up with which he had no connection. That sounds to me like collective punishment, which is now regarded as a crime against humanity.

I submit your claim that justice is served by resort to the normal rule of law is flawed.

Then have a read about how Generals Videla and Pinochet dealt with their "emergency"? Because that is what you are suggesting should happen to bishops. If the rule of law is ignored, that is, that people are dealt with by the criminal law in accordance with what they have done, and that the allegations against them have to be proved in court, then the only other alternative is punishment on suspicion - exactly the system that Videla and Pinochet perfected.

You take offense with my suggestion of summary justice. I understand that since it is outside the norm. However what purpose does it serve to go through all the legal niceties when the result is obvious.

You might think that the result is "obvious", but what is "obvious" for example about Rigali's guilt over Lynn? The obviousness is in the opposite direction. That sort of arbitrary conclusion is inevitable whenever the rule of law is ditched. You may not like the "niceties", and would prefer to adopt the Queen of Hearts "Off with their heads" approach, but it is wrong, and all it does is lead to further injustice, that itself then invites vengeance which then spirals out of control.

If you object to episcopal lynching or shooting the wrongdoer then how about the 3 to 6 year sentence given to Lynne? Toss them in the slammer for 3 years. One of the worst pedophiles in Boston, John Geoghan was accused of raping over 150 children and received a 10 year sentence. He was murdered by a fellow inmate. It seems that criminals have a keen sense of justice.

Are you suggesting that Lynn should be on death row? And if not, what do you think is the appropriate sentence?

I am opposed to the death penalty but I do have doubts about a pedophile. I have asked many fathers what would you do to a priest who used his hands to give your son communion and then five minutes later used those same hands to shove his penis in your son's mouth and the answers have been uniform viz. I would kill him.

I think that would be the reaction of any parent to anything that harmed their children, whether it is pedophila or simply a physical assault. But the question is whether or not we should have a society ruled by vengeance. Frankly, that is not a society that I want to live in.

I think you are being disingenuous to equate summary treatment of Bishops who covered up pedophile priests with the actions of a military junta (done in secret) and the show trials of Castro or other communists.

I'm not bein disingenuous at all. If you don't like the "niceties" of proof of guilt and want summary justice for what is, according to you, "obvious", that is exactly what you are advocating. It is punishment on suspicion.

In conclusion you and I both know that there will never be any summary disposition of these matters and what is worse there will never be any just result.

No, there will never be a summary disposition of these matters because the vast majority of people see the necessity for proving guilt before punishing anyone. You may not think it is a just result, and you are entitled to your opinion. But your "summary" methods are the methods of Pinochet, Videla, Franco, Stalin, and Castro.

We often hear that CSA victims and their families simply want to see justice done. Where is the line drawn between "justice" and "revenge"?

Just what does justice entail?

It it criminal prosecution?
Is it public humiliation?
Is it exposure?
Is it financial compensation?
Is it time in gaol (aka jail)?
Is it complete destruction of the RCC institution?
Is it an apology?
Is it acknowledgement of the crime(s)?
Is it reconciliation?
Is it healing?

The vindictive call for lynching of all and sundry (regardless of the strength or otherwise of the proof provided) is muddying the water. There is a huge feeding frenzy mentality taking hold. Remember also that an accusation does not constitute proof. Nor does a denial or refusal to answer questions constitute innocence.

It is great to see that the vigorous campaigns by victims (individually and collectively) are finally bringing this whole sordid, previously-unspeakable mess into the open ... and where to then?

Despite the impression often given here, the vast majority of priests and brothers are not involved in any way in any of the vile and sordid activities described. The small minority has inflicted the often insufferable hurt.

It will actually be a blessing for the RCC to have all the names, personalities, facts, figures and statistics out in the open so that the guilty can be suitably punished (whatever that means) and [just as important] so that the innocent can get on with their essential ministry.

What will satisfy the victims and their families?

What will happen if a real victim's testimony is insufficient to garner belief? That is scary.

And what if an innocent priest is found guilty on false evidence?

So many questions. Where is Solomon when you need him?

BobL

A clear evidence of a war crime? Indeed. I think that Eisenhower's statement was after the fact and may have been embellished by him. But if true then he was guilty of not doing anything to prevent it. He was also the Commander in Chief and over saw the bombing of Dresden and the broadcast bombing of civilians.

It is interesting that he claims to know the Japanese were seeking to end the war. The record seems to show that the Japanese were trying to negotiate through the Russians who for nefarious reasons were not relaying anything to the other allies. Ike seems to have had special powers of knowledge.

After the atomic bombs were dropped some members of the government approached the Emperor who decided to end the war. I understand that the Emperor made a recording for broadcast and that some members of the government were so opposed to surrender that they invaded the palace looking for the recording. Undoubtedly there were those who favored surrender and those who did not. I would venture a guess that those who were on the fence opted for surrender after the bombs were dropped. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I think all war is wrong and cannot isolate Hiroshima from other areas of armed conflict. If Hiroshima was wrong then so was London, Dresden, Hamburg, Stalingrad......... the list is endless. There were horrible acts committed by all sides. As a young man I served in the Army and I was taught by my government to kill or be killed. I have since had a change of viewpoint, but I understand the viewpoint of those engaged in war. I do not know of any who had no regrets.

Clammer, you said

Lynne was not a senior cleric. He was a fall guy for the hierarcs - Bevilacqua and Rinaldi - Bevilacqua is dead and Rinaldi still living in Philadelphia and unindicted.

Do you mean Cardinal Rigali?

Annie

James
Lynne was not a senior cleric. He was a fall guy for the hierarcs - Bevilacqua and Rinaldi - Bevilacqua is dead and Rinaldi still living in Philadelphia and unindicted. The Bishop in Kansas is charged with a misdemeanor of not reporting abuse. I would hardly call that justice. Read the documentation in http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

or read the Grand Jury report of Suffolk County, New York listed therein. I tried to set forth the website but it was too long.

When you read of the horrendous acts committed and covered up by the Bishops no one can claim that these isolated prosecutions constitute justice or even are leading to justice or a solution of the corruption. A suspended sentence for Bishop Pican is not my sense of justice. A failure to report does not sound like an unspeakable crime but when you read of the thousands of obscene assaults on pre-teen altar-boys in the States and not one Bishop has been punished by the Church nor by civil law, it puts a different light on the subject. I submit your claim that justice is served by resort to the normal rule of law is flawed.

You take offense with my suggestion of summary justice. I understand that since it is outside the norm. However what purpose does it serve to go through all the legal niceties when the result is obvious. You pointed out that not all war criminals were prosecuted at Nuremberg. So what did the show trial accomplish? We learned that losers get punished but we always knew that. I have been told that it established the rule that following orders was no defense. But under the rule of law would that not be ex post facto? Don't get me wrong I agree with the result but I do question the necessity and efficacy of these formal proceedings.

I think that with the statute of limitations looming over these matters it is necessary for the solution to be summary. If you object to episcopal lynching or shooting the wrongdoer then how about the 3 to 6 year sentence given to Lynne? Toss them in the slammer for 3 years. One of the worst pedophiles in Boston, John Geoghan was accused of raping over 150 children and received a 10 year sentence. He was murdered by a fellow inmate. It seems that criminals have a keen sense of justice. I am opposed to the death penalty but I do have doubts about a pedophile. I have asked many fathers what would you do to a priest who used his hands to give your son communion and then five minutes later used those same hands to shove his penis in your son's mouth and the answers have been uniform viz. I would kill him.

The sanitized discussion of the rule of law and the slogan that the wheels of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine are wonderful in the abstract. In the real world however they don't seem to apply to criminal corruption in the Church.

I think you are being disingenuous to equate summary treatment of Bishops who covered up pedophile priests with the actions of a military junta (done in secret) and the show trials of Castro or other communists. We have always labelled them show trials but they were following the rule of law, with Judges, lawyers, evidence, witnesses etcetera. Francis Powers was shot down while piloting a spy-plane over USSR. Everyone knew he was guilty yet when he was tried in Moscow the press in the free world called it a show trial. I do not know the situation in Australia or in the rest of the world but I do know that in the States every Diocese had a pedophile and every Bishop covered it up. We also know the Vatican covered it up. Ratzinger knew about Marciel but did nothing because JPII didn't want to do anything to a man bringing in so much money. When the procedures and structures bring about an unjust result you cannot claim its part of the administration of Justice or part of a rule of law.

In conclusion you and I both know that there will never be any summary disposition of these matters and what is worse there will never be any just result. That is the nature of the relationship between the Church and State. That being said I do wish you well in pursuing those three senior clerics but like Roy I am a bit jaundiced.

There can be no justification for taking the law into our own hands, no matter how abominable the crime or how 'fallible' the legal process, at times, may appear to be.

A few days ago I saw, on the BBC News website, the following (shocking) story:

A couple who had sex outside marriage have been stoned to death by Islamists in the town of Aguelhok in northern Mali, officials say.

Now this is not the 'Law' in Mali but the rebels in
the northern half of Mali have imposed their own 'Islamic Law' there.

They would say that they are implementing 'their' law - others would say that they are taking matters into their own hands.

The rule of law is never an absolute and should not be confused with Justice. The most notable exception is the statute of limitations. No one claims that time barring a claim is justice. Rather it is a matter of convenience fo Judges and lawyers and a windfall for criminals. I have no problem with that because it is a practical solution for a stale case. Usually it is justified because of difficulty of proof. In the case of certain crimes there is no statute of limitations. There are always exceptions to every rule it seems, even the rule of law.

Not all countries have a Statue of Limitations for serious crimes. Ours doesn't. And if the law is wrong, it should be changed.

But perhaps we should define what you mean by the rule of law so that we are not talking at cross purposes. The definition of the International Bar Association is probably as good as any,

An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials; indefinite detention without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; ...are all unacceptable. The Rule of Law is the foundation of a civilised society. It establishes a transparent process accessible and equal to all.

What you are suggesting is that some or all of these things should be suspended because you think the situation is unique. It is not unique. It is if anything just ordinary criminal activity.

Law is a compilation of social rules by which society governs itself and the rules are usually a product of consensus. Common law is a prime example of consensus. Whenever there is a breakdown os societies rules such as war, the rule of law as is commonly used is suspended either completely or partially.

The fact this might have happened in the past does not make it right now. And every autocratic scoundrel in history has used similar words to justify arbitrary action against people he doesn't like.

My point is that the sexual abuse scandal is so extensive it is unique and impractical to use the ordinary rule of law.

I disagree. The fact that some criminal practice is extensive does not make it unique. What you are proposing suggests that people you think are guilty should be punished without any proper evidence, and without any opportunity on the part of the accused person to challenged that evidence.

I found your reference to Truman interesting. I was alive at the time and was delighted that the war was over and my brothers did not have to inade Japan and could come home.

You are not the only one that was relieved the war was over. I lost three uncles in World War II, and I can only rely on what someone who you think should know said. General Eisenhower said,

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

If what Eisenhower said was correct, there could not be clearer evidence of a war crime.

I dont think it is possible to throw the bums in jail without some sort of a trial and I will go further than that and say I dont think any kind of a trial could be held under the circumstances.

Why not? You have just had a senior cleric convicted in the United States for covering up child sex abuse. It was a normal trial, conducted in the usual manner according to United States law. The priest received a sentence of 3-5 years.

You mentioned France and Cardinal Castrillon's letter to Bishop Pican praising him for covering up a pedophile priest. You failed to mention that Bishop Pican was convicted and given a suspended prison sentence under French law with their usual trial procedures.

And now, papers are apparently being prepared for charges against three senior clerics over cover ups in Australia, and they too will be dealt with according to Australia law and standards applicable to fair trials.

I would hope that decent people the world over would recognize this horrendous situation requires drastic action and that the action should be summary.Then there is a riot or insurrection, normal laws are inadequate and martial law has to be declared. When that happens looters are shot on sight without any trial and without notice that they can be punished for their actions.

When you talk about "summary" action, I assume you mean that you want to do away with the normal rules of evidence and proof so that, like looters, bishops and priests accused of cover up should be simply shot on sight. If that is what you are advocating, who is to decide who should be shot? And what is the basis upon which such a decision should be made?

Here all the hierarchs knew what they were doing was wrong and when a Bishop was condemned in France for not reporting, a Vatican Cardinal wrote to him and congratulated him.

Bishop Pican, was not just "condemned", he was found guilty of cover up contrary to French law and given a suspended prison sentence. The letter that Cardinal Castrillon wrote was just one more piece of evidence to show that the policy of cover up was directed right from the top. But why does that mean throwing out normal rules for criminal trials?

The system is so corrupt that normal laws cannot apply and there is justification for society to act summarily and outside normal laws to correct this unique situation and punish the guilty.

There is nothing unique about this situation. It can be, and is being dealt with by legal systems according to their normal procedures. And what are your proposals for acting "summarily" and "outside normal laws". Are you thinking of a few episcopal lynchings?

I also agree with James that the rule of law must prevail. However I think maters are such that the normal rule of law does not apply and the shoot the wrongdoer insurrection law does apply.

Isn't there a contradiction here? If the rule of law "must prevail", then there is no such thing as "shoot the wrongdoer".

Don't you see that what you are advocating here is precisely the argument that the Argentinean military junta used to get rid people suspected of being subversive? Or what General Pinochet was doing in Chile to people he didn't like. They all mouthed the same thing - the situation is "unique", requiring "summary" justice. On the other side of the political Castro did the same in Cuba in the early days of the Revolution - summary show trials and executions by firing squads.

I'm hearin' ya Clammer!

Mr Average on the street knows little of this in australia ....not that they are rednecks but because they are sick of seeing it rear up and then disappear again
'Same old same old!' some/most would say.

that and the denial (but getting educated) of the everyday catholics is a huge problem.

I dont think it is possible to throw the bums in jail without some sort of a trial and I will go further than that and say I dont think any kind of a trial could be held under the circumstances.

I would hope that decent people the world over would recognize this horrendous situation requires drastic action and that the action should be summary.

When there is a riot or insurrection, normal laws are inadequate and martial law has to be declared. When that happens looters are shot on sight without any trial and without notice that they can be punished for their actions. The theory is that everyone knows that what they are doing is wrong. Its similar to the common law of misprison where everyone knows that they should report criminal activity and if they do not then they are punished although perhaps not summarily.

Here all the hierarchs knew what they were doing was wrong and when a Bishop was condemned in France for not reporting, a Vatican Cardinal wrote to him and congratulated him. The system is so corrupt that normal laws cannot apply and there is justification for society to act summarily and outside normal laws to correct this unique situation and punish the guilty. Otherwise the problem will not be solved and the guilty will go scot free.

I agree with you Roy that nothing will be done to correct the system. A few priests will get caught and punished the Vatican will just wait it out as it has done for centuries. I also agree with James that the rule of law must prevail. However I think maters are such that the normal rule of law does not apply and the shoot the wrongdoer insurrection law does apply.

I'd be certainly proud if you were my mum.

maybe you could foster me Judith ....I'm house trained

Always trying to help where I can.
Here is a buyers guide for any bishops amongst us
http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/swords-for-sale-in-australia.html

I think a few things need changing in aussie law Clammer ...and that needs to be done in each and every state and territory.
It ain't quite as simple as a Sorry from the pulpit ..nor just lockin'em up .....more to do than that.

Im a lapsed SNAP member and had lots of contact with SNAP brass as has quite a few of our little group ..I exchange emails with their webmaster so we stay on the same page.
..so I'm well aware of the mess over there in the States and how bogged down it is aside of lockin up the bishop.

I understand your sentiment about using a world commission or similar but we in australia have a few local laws to change.

Here is a questionaire that I pass out with every requested submission form.

Please circle which of the following changes to the law you believe will improve access to justice for victims:

The Statute of Limitations – amend to allow historical abuse claims

Amend corporations law so that the church authority is legally a corporation and capable of being sued over time

Amend property trust legislation in each state to prevent the church authority from protecting its assets from civil suits

Amend the law on vicarious liability so that priests and religious are treated as employees and therefore church authorities can be held responsible for breaches committed by church personnel

All of the above

Please note any other changes which you consider will improve access to justice:

The rule of law is never an absolute and should not be confused with Justice. The most notable exception is the statute of limitations. No one claims that time barring a claim is justice. Rather it is a matter of convenience fo Judges and lawyers and a windfall for criminals. I have no problem with that because it is a practical solution for a stale case. Usually it is justified because of difficulty of proof. In the case of certain crimes there is no statute of limitations. There are always exceptions to every rule it seems, even the rule of law.

Law is a compilation of social rules by which society governs itself and the rules are usually a product of consensus. Common law is a prime example of consensus. Whenever there is a breakdown os societies rules such as war, the rule of law as is commonly used is suspended either completely or partially. This is done to preserve order and promote justice. For example habeas corpus may be suspended or martial law imposed. Looters may be summarily shot without benefit of trial. Since war is commonplace if we take the time to research we can probably come up with others.

My point is that the sexual abuse scandal is so extensive it is unique and impractical to use the ordinary rule of law. Nuremberg as you agree did not try all war criminals, just those on the losing side. The allies use of broadcast bombing was probably the most heinous. The bombing of civilians by all sides to break the will of the enemy was horrific. But then again there is no such thing as a just war but that does not stop us from enacting a rule of war for war (Geneva Convention). At Nuremberg we all knew the result before it began. We went through the motions of a "trial" for public consumption and serving the rule of law. I submit the rule of law under those circumstances would have been served even if short-cuts were ysed.

I am not opposed to the rule of law under most circumstances, in fact I embrace it with as much enthusiasm as you. I suggest that this situation is so unique that the rule of law is inadequate under these circumstances. We have a multi-national organization that has harmed children all over the world, concealed the facts, hid the miscreants and utilized it's powers to delay everything past the statute of limitations established under the rule of law. The rule of law is fragmented among the nations so that not only is the lw inadequate in providing justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators but worse it cannot address internal corrections for the future.

If there has to be some sort of tribunal with lawyers, judges and procedures so be it but there should be an expedited and universal action. However once you bring in the lawyers you get an argument and more delay. I know that Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers but that is taken out of context because in the play they were plotting on destroying the government and in order to do so had to kill the lawyers. I firmly believe that lawyers and the rule are the guarantee of our freedom but in this case the hierarchy is gaming the system.

I am tired of seeing victims denied justice by the machinations of these holy clerics and the statute of limitations. I have lived in my parish all my life. It is a small parish with one priest most of the time with a few years when we had two. The Grand Jury investigated my county and disclosed that my parish had six pedophile priests. If that's not bad enough our new Bishop was the VGA in Boston under Cardinal Law and in charge of clergy assignments. When he arrived , he kicked the nuns out of the convent and tapped the till to the tune of a million dollars in renovation costs. Then later he bought two oriental rugs at 100,000per rug. The Director of Catholic Charities resigned in protest because he shut dowva program costing 200,000. She did not think it was coincidental. Under the existing rule of law nothing could be done. The pedophiles had the benefit of the statute of limitations. He financial mess could not be addresses because of the separation of church and state. Nothing can be done and I accept the rule of law in this circumstance but I am of another opinion as to the global church.

I found your reference to Truman interesting. I was alive at the time and was delighted that the war was over and my brothers did not have to inade Japan and could come home. A kamikaze plane hit the ship in front and in back of my brother's ship and the one headed for him was shot down. If you have a chance to visit Singapore go to the wax museum on Sentosa islands and visit Changi prison. I did and saw identical plaques praising the Americans for using the atomic bomb that ended the war and the horrific occupation by the Japanese. it should be noted that Japan is their number one trading partner and furnishes the most touistst. I understand your viewpoint but at the time an overwhelming contrary opinion prevailed. In hindsight, what I cannot understand is the fact that there was a prevailing opinion among the scientists that once the chain reaction started there was the possibility that it wouldn't stop and could destroy the world. The situation was so desperate they went ahead with it. That blows my mind.

Good one judith.
It seems like which is the best thing to do--Jump ship or stay with it?!
georgeh

It is indeed time for any honest leaders to fall on their swords, and that should start from Benedict, but our Bishops need not wait. They could set an example and start a landslide, but I wouldn't bet today's lunch that any of them have the intestinal fortitude to do this.

When will they understand that, while the actual abuse did terrible and permanent damage to the souls and bodies of victims, the covering-up did permanent damage to the Church, both internally and in the eyes of the world?

This will not go away and no amount of saying "trust us, we are doing what we can" will help one bit while they are refusing to help authorities. So what if some/many/all of the leaders, starting with Benedict, go to jail? That is small suffering compared with what victims are having to live with every day. Jesus will still be with His people even if we have to meet in homes as did the first Christians. This may be how we have to start again from the ashes of the institution known as the Church.

If the Church wants to have a moral authority in the world and among our own people, then a complete reversal of the present and past behaviour is needed immediately.

The institution of the Church has built up a fortress behind Canon Law over the centuries and perhaps God is now using civil law to break this open. We can hope so, but try to bring the leaders to open their eyes and hearts and see the damage they have done and are still doing to everyone, including themselves.

What will be the judgment of history on JP the Grate and Benedict and the institution of the Church?

Particularly interesting was to hear from TROY GRANT, MEMBER FOR DUBBO, NATIONAL PARTY MP

Yes Desi , I thought it was very good that Troy Grant has spoken out. To quote David Shoebridge...

I've got to say, this should be a non-partisan matter, this should be something that, regardless of your political colours, the protection of our children, the prosecution of the crime of sexual assault of children, should be blind to politics and I'm surprised how few politicians have come out and sought a Royal Commission.

There was also a piece in yesterdays Herald where Troy Grant was interviewed.

Time to ‘fall on swords’

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/time-to-fall-on-swords/2640747.aspx

Mr Grant said it was time for leaders of the Catholic church in Australia to ‘‘fall on their swords and do the right thing’’ after years of failing to acknowledge the systemic problems that supported paedophile priests.

Asked about a royal commission, Mr Grant said the NSW Government would be watching the Victorian parliamentary inquiry to ‘‘give clear guidelines of what’s needed next’’.

He said the church preached sections of the gospel about the ‘‘preciousness of children’’ but ‘‘they don’t respond commensurately as an organisation’’.

Mr Grant said he respected the church’s position on the sanctity of the confessional, but it had ‘‘no right to privilege in circumstances where information about offences comes by complaint’’.

‘‘They have to stop being the judge themselves of what happens when people come forward to report abuse,’’ he said.

Particularly interesting was to hear from TROY GRANT, MEMBER FOR DUBBO, NATIONAL PARTY MP

Not just an MP either!

SUZANNE SMITH: Troy Grant is not just another politician. He was the police officer who investigated another paedophile priest in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese, Father Vincent Ryan. Father Ryan had 35 victims and went to jail. Troy Grant also investigated another church leader, Monsignor Cotter, and gathered many internal church documents.

He says had the church acted decisively in the Ryan case and other cases, many victims could have been saved.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/senior-catholics-implicated-in-child-sex-cover-up...

The rule of law is there for our protection however it didn't do those abused children much good, did it?

The rule of law is never going to prevent all criminal behaviour. If there were no criminal behaviour, we wouldn't need a rule of law. The whole point of a rule of law is to have a civilized way of dealing with criminals that does not emulate the methods of the criminals themselves.

The law doesn't protect us from the Church (see above) so why should the Church be protected by the law? In the States the rule of law applies................except when it doesn't apply.

You could substitute "robbers" for "Church" and say the same thing. In other words, everyone should have the right to go out and kill anyone they even suspected of being a robber. The problem with vengeance is that to provide the required satisfaction, each act of vengeance has to be greater than the one that went before it. That's not the sort of society I want to live in.

May I mention Guantanamo, water-boarding, torture all in the name of the law.

I'm glad you brought that up, because Guantanamo and torture are the very antithesis of what I was talking about in terms of the rule of law. If the Russia had a Guantamo, you can imagine the bleating that would be going on by the US government. Yet, they have a concentration camp in their own back yard. The fact that it is set up under "law" is not a reflection of what is understood by the rule of law.

The prisoners are not provided with a trial but rather with a military tribunal. Tribunals were used by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war, used by FDR during World War II and Nuremberg was a tribunal. We take great pride in our legal system during normal times but when desperate times arise then desperate measures are called for.

The whole problem with military tribunals is that they are in no way independent. They are completely partial because they are made up of career soldiers answerable to their bosses. The fact that Lincoln used them in the civil war and FDR during the second world war does not justify them. Yes, Nuremburg was a 'tribunal', but its principles did, to a large extent, embody rule of law ideals. The only problem with it was that it was selective in its choice of criminals. Truman, for example, was never prosecuted as a war criminal over Hiroshima and Churchill over Dresden.

No commission, trial or tribunal will or can have any effect on curing the rotten structure in the Church.

I don't particularly care whether it fixes the Church up or not. All I care about is that it is treated equally and fairly like any other institution in society, and that minimum standards of behaviour are imposed on it. Its behaviour over the child sex abuse matter show that it was not prepared to act in accordance with minumum standards that should apply to human beings.

I think the consensus of opinion is that the Bishops covered up and did nothing for the children. That is beyond dispute.

I agree, and they did so at the direction of the current Pope, Josef Ratzinger. That is what Geoffrey Robertson QC's book, The Case of the Pope is all about. The evidence is not only irrefutable, it keeps getting stronger and stronger.

Justice would be served without the cost of ad infinitum trials. That could be an exception to the rule of law. Certainly you could not equate such a situation with the show trials of dictatorial regimes.

I strongly disagree with that. There should never be an exception to the rule of law. And any such exceptions, like Guantanamo, are exactly like the show trials of dictatorial regimes.

Such a draconian measure goes against my grain as I prefer a proper legal system but this is a unique and horrific problem and if all the nations threw the rascals in jail it would even improve the system of laws in the Church as well.

It is not unique and it is no more horrible than, say, the most recent mass killing in the United States or in Norway. Yet, I assume you would say that these two accused should be subjected to a proper and fair trial. Why should it be any different for a bishop or priest who covered up clergy sex abuse?

Pope has gone scot free and will go scot free unless something is done.

Yes, he has, because most countries recognize sovereign immunity. But Geoffrey Robertson argues that this is just a charade in the case of the Vatican, and Ratzinger should be brought before the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity for his involvement in the cover up of child sex abuse by clergy. That probably won't happen because the Court has more pressing matters on its plate. But the fact that such a matter is even discussed is significant. Sometimes little things can make a big difference in the long run. As the Uruguayan President recently said in a recent interview, changes in the world take place very slowly. But they do change, and generally for the better. But a proposal to throw out the rule of law in the case of the cover up of clergy sex abuse is not going to solve anything.

Thanks for your extensive reply. I really appreciate it.

As for Lynne and Bevilacqua - Another Cardinal came in after Bevilacqua and is still alive. Rinaldi - still in residence in Philadelphia - he was the guy in charge in St Louis before Ray Burke too over and messed everything up and had to be "promoted" to Rome. There are still fish to fry in Philadelphia but for some reason the District Attorney has limited his sights to lower echelons.

I know I was venting when I said throw them all in jail. The rule of law is there for our protection however it didn't do those abused children much good, did it? The history of the Catholic is replete with wonderful and wholesome achievements but it is also replete with some of the most vile and obscene violations. Crusades, inquisitions, burning of heretics, dishonesty, financial dishonesty....... the list is endless and the rule of law was and is powerless. For the ordinary person the niceties of the law are beneficial and I agree with your referenced countries. However and I can only reference the Church and the USA. The law doesn't protect us from the Church (see above) so why should the Church be protected by the law? In the States the rule of law applies................except when it doesn't apply. May I mention Guantanamo, water-boarding, torture all in the name of the law. The prisoners are not provided with a trial but rather with a military tribunal. Tribunals were used by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war, used by FDR during World War II and Nuremberg was a tribunal. We take great pride in our legal system during normal times but when desperate times arise then desperate measures are called for. No commission, trial or tribunal will or can have any effect on curing the rotten structure in the Church. I wouldn't bank on Lynne's conviction on having and far reaching effect since on appeal his conviction may well be overturned. The Judge permitted evidence of pedophile priests that occurred before Lynne was in office and for which he had no responsibility. The only reason for such evidence was to poison the atmosphere. On appeal the rule of law may exclude such evidence but political realities may keep it in.

I think the consensus of opinion is that the Bishops covered up and did nothing for the children. That is beyond dispute. Justice would be served without the cost of ad infinitum trials. That could be an exception to the rule of law. Certainly you could not equate such a situation with the show trials of dictatorial regimes. Moreover more justice would be done than has been done in the law courts of civil society or the ecclesiastical courts of the Church. Such a draconian measure goes against my grain as I prefer a proper legal system but this is a unique and horrific problem and if all the nations threw the rascals in jail it would even improve the system of laws in the Church as well. I know it is off the wall but it does make sense. The problem is one of the Bishops making, it exists in every country and no country has really tackled or solved the problem and each and every Bishop ;and Pope has gone scot free and will go scot free unless something is done. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I know nothing about Royal Commissions except what you disclosed and what I have ascertained from the Leveson inquiry. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me that a Commission is the vehicle for ascertaining the truth and the details concerning a particular problem and if, as you say, criminal proceedings can be instituted based on information developed by the Commission but those proceedings are separate and apart from the Commission.

Yes, that is correct. The Leveson enquiry is a good example. It is possible that the phone tapping prosecutions could still have been brought without having the benefit of the Commission. What the Commission has done is reveal the extent of the phone tapping, and also revealed new documents and witnesses that can be used in prosecutions. The protections against self incrimination given by a Royal Commission are precisely that - self incrimination about what Rebekah Brooks etc themselves said at the Commission. It does not give protection against the evidence of say, what Rebekah Brooks's secretary said to the Commission, or documents that the secretary herself produced that might incriminated Brooks. But generally, the idea of a Royal Commission is not to dig out such evidence, but to resolve a much wider problem. In the case of Leveson, it is the corrupt use of media power, and to create institutions to stem the corruption.

I have two questions.
1. Why the need for a commission? Everyone knows that the Bishops and their staff committed wrongs; that there were/are unpunished priests who committed heinous crimes and there are hundreds if not thousands of innocent children who have been harmed. Those conclusions are self evident but I admit the details are still hidden. Why not just bring criminal proceedings in the first place.

I think in Australia, at least, that is precisely what is happening. Prosecutions are being prepared now, according to newspaper reports on the evidence already at hand. The problem is that we do not know the extent of the cover up.

Take for example, all of the cases mentioned recently in Australia. All of them happened before 1996, which was when Josef Ratzinger approved of an exemption to Crimen Sollicitationis to allow bishops and canonical investigators to refer the information and the complaints that they had received to the police, in accordance with the law, and in particular S.316 Crimes Act NSW.

Now, it is pretty obvious from these cases that are now coming to light, that in 1996, when Ratzinger approved of Towards Healing, that these instances were not reported to the police as they should have been. Why? Did the bishops think that the Towards Healing protocol only applied to complaints after 1996? That's one issue.

Second, a matter that is still unknown is the extent to which the Church really did comply with the Towards Healing Protocol after 1996 about reporting such matters to police.

Third, several people have already complained that they were pressured into not going to the police after 1996. That too needs to be investigated. S.316 of the Crimes Act provides that there can be no crime if the bishop etc, had a reasonable excuse for not reporting the crimes. Now, one such reasonable excuse might well be the insistence by the victim that it be dealt with internally. If people are complaining about being pressured to not go to the police, this is a matter that a Royal Commission should investigate.

Fourth, one other matter that a Royal Commission should investigate is the immunity that is conferred in Australia on the Church by the structure of the laws under the Church Property Acts that gave rise to what is known as the Ellis defence. The Catholic Church is not incorporated and has no obligation to incorporate under the law - unlike, it seems, in some parts of the United States where dioceses are going bankrupt.

An abused person has a right to sue the abuser priest, and, depending on the facts, the bishop who appointed and supervised him. But both the priest and the bishop may be dead, and, in many if not most cases, they have no assets worth taking. Even though the Church in some dioceses says it is prepared to pay compensation, the victim is effectively precluded from a legal remedy. And as I have said many times before, without such a legal remedy a victim will always be offered "go away money" in any direct negotiation or mediation.

The Ellis defence is a proper matter for a Royal Commission because it not only affects the Catholic Church, but all Churches, and maybe even other charitable organizations. A Royal Commission could look into the ramifications of a strict liability of those employing abusers, whether religious or not, to pay proper compensation before the law, and how that is to be paid. It could, for example, recommend that the Church property trusts be strictly liable for compensation even though the trustees themselves had no say in the appointment and supervision of the abusers.

Prosecutors always put the screws to the small fry and get them to turn and testify against the big fish. With Lynn refusing to testify against the Cardinals and receiving 3 to 6 years in prison will have a salutary effect on the minor chancery officials. These miscreants have avoided jail for too long. its time to prosecute them criminally.

That's because the small fry are the ones who do the dirty work, and about which there is usually direct and easier evidence. In the Lynn case, it was Bellacqua who was the big fry, wasn't it? He is dead. If Lynn refused to testify against other Cardinals, and they gave the orders, then that is precisely what a Royal Commission could turn up - as the Murphy Commissions (being a good Republic, and not very fond of the Queen, the Irish dropped the "Royal". We are still saddled with her).

The problem here is that the orders came from Rome, as was made clear by Prime Minister Enda Kenny's broadside at the Vatican in the Irish Parliament. We all know that, but what we do not know is the extent to which they obeyed Rome, contrary to the civil law. In Australia we now have well documented instances where the hierarchy still did not report in accordance with the civil law, despite being given an exemption from Canon Law in 1996.

2. While a witnesses' testimony before a Commission cannot be used against him, any leads and evidence developed therefrom would certainly encourage forgetfulness if not downright silence. Can a witness claim privilege as to any evidence (fruit from the poisonous tree)? Could some lawyer argue successfully that the privilege does not go far enough and therefore the witness does not have to testify? Could the witness claim that the information was obtained in the confessional and ;therefore he cannot testify?

Lawyers, as you know, can argue anything, that black is white. The question is whether they will succeed in persuading someone that black is white. People always say that they forget things, but no one believes them, least of all, in my experience, Royal Commissioners, and also juries. Downright silence is not permitted in a Royal Commission. Failure to answer is a crime under the Royal Commissions Act, and can be punished as contempt, leading to jail sentences. A witness could claim that he cannot testify because it was a confessional disclosure, but that is no excuse under the Royal Commissions Act. But I think this whole issue of confessional disclosures is a red herring. None of these instances of cover up involved confessions. They involved Canonical investigations by bishops. The problem was that Crimen Sollicitationis required any such disclosures to be treated like the confessional with automatic excommunication.

I am almost at the point where I say to hell with the niceties just throw them all in jail without the necessity of wasting money on trials even to the top at the Vatican. They all knew and did nothing and isn't that what misprision is all about?

The "niceties" are there for your protection, Clammer, as much as for everyone else. If we don't keep the "niceties", then you have show trials, like in Soviet Russia, Cuba, Afghanistan under the Taliban, North Korea.... That is not a society that I want to live in.

James thank you for your information especially on misprision of a felony.

I know nothing about Royal Commissions except what you disclosed and what I have ascertained from the Leveson inquiry. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me that a Commission is the vehicle for ascertaining the truth and the details concerning a particular problem and if, as you say, criminal proceedings can be instituted based on information developed by the Commission but those proceedings are separate and apart from the Commission.

I have two questions.
1. Why the need for a commission? Everyone knows that the Bishops and their staff committed wrongs; that there were/are unpunished priests who committed heinous crimes and there are hundreds if not thousands of innocent children who have been harmed. Those conclusions are self evident but I admit the details are still hidden. Why not just bring criminal proceedings in the first place. Prosecutors always put the screws to the small fry and get them to turn and testify against the big fish. With Lynn refusing to testify against the Cardinals and receiving 3 to 6 years in prison will have a salutary effect on the minor chancery officials. These miscreants have avoided jail for too long. its time to prosecute them criminally.

2. While a witnesses' testimony before a Commission cannot be used against him, any leads and evidence developed therefrom would certainly encourage forgetfulness if not downright silence. Can a witness claim privilege as to any evidence (fruit from the poisonous tree)? Could some lawyer argue successfully that the privilege does not go far enough and therefore the witness does not have to testify? Could the witness claim that the information was obtained in the confessional and ;therefore he cannot testify?

I am almost at the point where I say to hell with the niceties just throw them all in jail without the necessity of wasting money on trials even to the top at the Vatican. They all knew and did nothing and isn't that what misprision is all about?

Brian,

Further to my comment about Frank Brennan and misprision of felony, quite apart from the fact that this common law offence had existed for 300 years, I recall learning about it in first year law school. Further, the House of Lords had come out with a decision in Sykes v Director of Public Prosecutions confirming it, and there was an article by Olive Wood in the 1963 Sydney Law Review on it.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/1963/14.html

The Sykes case was controversial, but only because the differences between felonies and misdemeanours had become blurred, and the ordinary citizen might be expected to have to engage in legal research before deciding whether or not he should report. It was precisely that problem which S.316 overcame.

Brennan studied law at Queensland University in the 1970s, and maybe they did things differently up there.

Maitland

Fancy having Michael Salmon and Angela Ryans job at the Towards Healing listening to all this would send anyone mad don't you think??

Macbee

Was the Catholic 'mindset' so closed that when s316 was introduced in NSW in 1990 that no one in Catholic legal circles thought that this might apply to the clergy/religious?

Maitland

Maitland, many just don't understand the ontological superiority of the well educated catholic mind.

me included

Was the Catholic 'mindset' so closed that when s316 was introduced in NSW in 1990 that no one in Catholic legal circles thought that this might apply to the clergy/religious?

Maitland