""What the Pope needs to do is to clearly order all bishops to turn over all records on clergy sex crimes right now to authorities across the world. And he should immediately disclose records on the thousands of cases that he personally handled as head of CDF from 2001-2005."

I couldn't agree more.

Disclosing Vatican records should be handled very carefully. Not everyone who has been a victim of abuse will want their personal information made available. It is a matter of privacy that involves extremely sensitive issues. In some countries even law enforcement can not be trusted to keep victims' identities secret.

Dana - Good point but that sort of puts the Vatican in a no win situation doesn't it?

It might put the Vatican in a no win situation but it isn't that important to win.

I think our longing for justice should be sober and considerate of the desires of the victims. Not every man who was seduced or raped as a child wants the world to know about it. Many would not want their wives or children to know.

What about if copies of the secret vatican/church documents/files of such sensitive cases were handed over to S.N.A.P.? Could /Would they be able/willing to contact/trace the (I hate the term 'victims') people involved and seek their permission for disclosure? Just a thought... I totally understand the need for their privacy, as they have been violated and used enough and some may well need to forget to move on with their lives but others will need to have this brought out and dealt with for their own psychological closure of the injustices against them. I would like to offer my respect to all those hurt by religion and say 'Hold your heads high because every person is born to this world an individual, no more or less worthy of love than any other.' We all make choices in life some good and some bad but if we are to live together on this planet then halming another person should never be allowed or tolerated.

Hide what the Vatican has done for the sake of the victims--you are a piece of work LaRocca--the records should be turned over to the civilian authorities--this whole problem would not have festered and grown to monstrous proportions if the Vatican and the entire arterial network of the Catholic world had been flushed out with secular laws. If this enterprise had been a private one, and had been suspected of the same vile deeds, the police and the prosecutors would have gathered meticulous evidence and subpoenaed records to support their case against the perpetrators--those who shielded the criminals were accessories. The width and the depth of these crimes span long periods. The secular world of law should not turn a blind eye based on the kinds of arguments LaRocca presents here. When gang members are prosecuted, victims are afraid to come forward--they hide and beg the authorities to back off. They are afraid of retaliation and are often overwrought that their current lives will be destroyed by the further probings of the authorities--that doesn't mean records should not be subpoenaed or the process should not be followed to completion. The larger good resides in prosecuting gangs and disabling them. Sure the secular authorities have to use discretion and respect the privacy of individuals involved who are reluctant to come forward and who want to forget--in the instance of this Catholic scandal-- but the secular authorities should not back off--Maryland just passed very strict laws about sex offenders--why should priests get away with egregious offenses perpetrated systematically over years--even from the point of view of what happens to ordinary pedophiles, what has happened in the church is outrageous--the kind of injustice that makes it tempting for ordinary pedophiles to file a class action suit against every state in the union over unequal justice--one for lay pedophiles and one for the pedophiles in the church-- is what has been tacitly tolerated thus far--such a suit would make those who enforce secular laws wake up and smell the coffee. LaRocca's argument is a specious one--and her compassionate hesitation on behalf of the victims--is a non sequitur-- to say the least.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon - Your own views have nothing to do with compassion or justice for the victims and everything to do with your own hate of the church. The fact you use the example of prosecuting gangs demonstrates that quite clearly. You would trample over them and anyone else and cause more injury to disable an institution you fear. Anyone who suffered abuse because of a priest and inaction on the part of the Catholic Church has a right to justice and all legal means should be used to see they get it. Those who prefer not to have their abuse disclosed also have that right and every means should be used to protect their wishes as well.

Dana – My choice of words may not have been the best. I meant basically that it leaves no way to come up with a solution that all are satisfied with.

GodlessAndHappy,

S.N.A.P. is probably not the organization that could handle such a thing. Beyond that it would have no lawful authority. Disclosure becomes complicated when we are dealing with laws that differ from one jurisdiction to another. Maybe we could involve the World Health Organization or Amnesty International. The cope is to broad for S.N.A.P.

Your comment that "every person is born to this world an individual, no more or less worthy of love than any other," reminds me of the subject of Pope Benedict's first encyclical letter. It was entitled: DEUS CARITAS EST (God is Love).

And no one said Ravensfan that peoples' privacy should be trampled over. I do believe that the Catholic church has been the hiding place for roaming brigands and thugs supported by the dumbness and the blindness of the faithful--if the faithful had been more vigilant, had reported their suspicions early, had rebelled against the church in a timely fashion and even now if they do not argue endlessly over the obvious--that the church should be subject to the full purview of secular law--and this includes the Pope--then things would straighten out--people like you are ambivalent talkers-- there should be no ambivalence about this matter--it is clear as crystal except to the Catholic faithful what needs to be done--by the way why are gang members in a different category from a church that has fostered in its bosom numerous audacious pedophiles and a Pope who basically ordered his bishops not to turn over incriminating evidence to secular authorities--this is what gang leaders do to their minions--teach them or order them to obstruct justice--keep harping on my hatred to divert from the issue--the abuse hot lines are clogged-the Vatican is blathering--retracting and apologizing--personal comments about me do not strengthen the case for the Catholic Church and the LaRocca-Ravensfan mutual admiration society won't quieten the storm any time soon.
Ravensfan Anon

Anony, you sure read a lot into the four simple points in my two posts. The points I made were only:

1. Disclosing Vatican records should be handled carefully.
2. Victims' privacy should be respected.
3. It isn't important for the Vatican to win.
4. Justice should be considerate of the victims.

Please feel free to scroll up and check the facts for yourself.

Anon - I never said the storm should be quieted. To answer your question charitable work is the difference. That doesn't excuse the actions of those who committed the abuse or those in the church who tried to deny and hide the problem regardless of who they are. I have no problem with the church being subject to secular law as it regards to abuse as long as the rule of law is followed. I accused no one but you of hate. In your case it probably existed long before this abuse of trust was known. The question is are you looking for justice or a way to destroy an institution you fear. I tend to believe the latter is true. Dana's 4 points are right on target and if you are truly interested in the victims you won't take exception to them.

I am not only interested in the current victims--I think this should never happen again and it will keep happening if Vatican records are not disclosed--if this case reaches the highest echelons of the church and if only a few guys below fall that will not change anything--that will only embolden the hierarchy that has somehow managed to trump secular law. The Vatican is a country and a law unto itself.--what could be in those records so sensitive that LaRocca thinks disclosure should be delicate? What is the fear? I am accused of being fearful of this institution-the fear seems to come from the Catholic faithful. I have not heard one abuser say I don't want justice meted out. Justice should be considerate of the victims--yes--but if justice is too considerate, the criminals will escape and there will be repeats--reform in the church should look at why this is such a massive problem--why it went on for so long and how can it be prevented. Look at the Latter Day Saints cult of the Mormons--they indulge in polygamy and child marriages--but repeatedly they have been hauled and subject to secular law--their leaders have been tried and cast into prison. What is so special about the Catholic Church there is so much hemming and hawing from the Catholic faithful? Should the Church be forgiven because of its charitable work? Among individuals there are many insidious ones who are two faced--they do wonderful things and also commit murders--does the law forgive a murderer because he also gave half of his money to charity? The Vatican can keep its records from the law as long as its behavior is on the up and up--when it crosses the line into obstruction of justice then it loses the privilege of secrecy--it must cough up its records and the church must for ever stop being a haven for criminals.
Ravensfan Anon

With all due respect for S.N.A.P. they are speculating way beyond their pay grade.

The Holy See is bound by its own laws, to wit,

“Since, however, in dealing with these causes, more than usual care and concern must be shown that they be treated with the utmost confidentiality, and that, once decided and the decision executed, they are covered by permanent silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 February 1867, No. 14), all those persons in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, excluding even the Sacred Penitentiary. Ordinaries are bound by this same law ipso iure, that is, in virtue of their own office; other personnel are bound in virtue of the oath which they are always to swear before assuming their duties; and, finally, those delegated, questioned or informed outside the tribunal, are bound in virtue of the precept to be imposed on them in the letters of delegation, inquiry or information, with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.” (Crimen Sollicitationis 1962)

Permanent silence and strictest confidentiality, these are the legal norms.

The idea that the Holy See would give up her legal norms is about as unlikely as the United States giving up her Bill of Rights. It isn't going to happen.

Anon - I can't speak for Dana, but as to myself I've already said the information needs to be disclosed but handled careful not for the sake of the church but victims. That means those law enforcement agencies need to be respectful of the wishes of the victims and their rights including the right to decline prosecution as long as it is a free will choice.

"reform in the church should look at why this is such a massive problem--why it went on for so long and how can it be prevented"

I couldn't agree more. For me it's just as important as this should never happen again.

I also never said that good work makes up for the crimes of abuse which have been committed. I was simply answering a differentiating a gang from the church since you raised the question. Keep in mind being forgiven doesn't mean absence of enforcing civil laws.

Okay so SNAP may not be able to deal with this but my point is that disclosure of crimes against the innocent is the right thing to do to protect others from harm. Abuse thrives only while secrets are kept. The Catholic church should never have been a law unto itself. Your point about the pope's message and mine being similar well to that I say, you need a carrot as well as a stick to keep people happily in line and the pope must know that and may well use the same sweet message of truth to entice and hide behind. To 'God is love' - please notice my user name! I believe in truth and God is not love. God is a myth, love is love, God is a tribal tradition to control the masses.

GodlessAndHappy Why would you have to believe in truth? I mean truth is truth isn't it. Oh and your opinions aren't truth.

Godless And Happy, I think my point was that the notion of love is written equally well on the hearts of both believers and nonbelievers.

There is something true about your idea that "abuse thrives only while secrets are kept." On that theme I would recommend a book I read about twenty or twenty five years ago written by Sissela Bok, an ethicist. In that book, "Secrets: on the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation," she holds strongly to your view.

Still, nations do and will keep secrets. Our moral dilemma is to mitigate the effects of those secrets.

There should be no moral dilemma about mitigating the effects of those secrets--and it should not be about mitigation--we must make every effort to pierce those secrets to reveal the truth because of the massive scale of the abuse and ending the generational continuation of the criminal behavior begs radical measures not timid glances with a blunt blade. Bravo Godless and Happy--you are a refreshing new voice on these blogs.
Ravensfan Anon

Anon - The only moral dilemmas worth considering would be how revealing the effects of any secrets would affect the victims and their families. Speaking as a Catholic myself I am not concerned with how it would or could affect anything but them.

The European hot lines are flooded Ravensfan--can't think of many victims who don't want justice and prevention both. The last is vital--the men who obstructed justice and perpetrated these crimes should be treated like the lay public---the process should be the same, transparent and evidence should be collected the same way.
Ravenfan Anon

J.M.J.
Neither ravensfan, nor I, nor anyone else visiting this venue has suggested that victims don't want justice and prevention both, R-ymous. You seem to have gotten stuck on a simple statements I made: “Our moral dilemma is to mitigate the effects of those secrets.” You attacked me and I didn't take the bait, so then you attacked ravensfan, apparently because he agreed with me.

So let me parse the sentence for you:

If there is NO secrecy some victims will be hurt.
If there is TOTAL secrecy some victims will be hurt.
Therefore, some victims will be hurt.

The classic dilemma follows the formula:
(if X then Y) and (if W then Z)
Y or Z
Therefore Y or Z
Y≠Z

This dilemma follows the same formula except that Y and Z are equal equivalent. And that is why Ravensfan is correct in calling it a “no win situation.”
(if X then Y) and (if W then Z)
Y or Z
Therefore Y or Z
Y≈Z

Our goal for the victims should be to ease, moderate, soften, weaken, dull, diminish, soothe, lessen, or remit the pain. In other words, to mitigate the suffering of the victims. Some of us believe this is best served by a path somewhere between total secrecy and zero secrecy.

The problem with the equivalence of the victims is that those that would suffer by disclosure are not the same group that would suffer from secrecy. That's where the moral dimension takes hold.

What happens in the various countries will depend upon the laws in those countries. Here, as in most countries, priests are subject to secular law.

But for the Vatican your pleas for transparency and what you believe “the process should be” are at the whim of the Pope. He is the Head of State and an Absolute Monarch. So the Holy See will decide what to do based on its own prerogatives. That is not an opinion, it is merely a matter of law.

Anon - As Dana has said no one here, including me, is suggesting that victims don't want justice and prevention. I’ve never supported any position that would deny that. I'm not suggesting any special treatment for the church. Dana's comments on who suffers is correct as well as what will happen in each country. Dana is also correct as to regards to transparency. We can debate what it should be ad nauseum, but it is the Pope who has the final say regardless of what any of us think.