Replies

I agree that CBS misrepresented the situation to some extent; however, unless someone can point me to where it says that when a crime against a minor has been committed it must be turned over to civil authorities, the document could rightly be construed as protecting criminals.

The reason the document surfaced in the first place is that it is being used in one of the Boston sex abuse of minors cases by catholic lawyers against the church and may well hold up in court if those victims were solicited in the confessional and the perpetrator(s) were not reported to civil authorities, which evidently they were not.

I do agree otherwise with other posters who correctly point out that the seal of confession must be upheld and thus the reason for secret proceedings.

This is coming down to a p****** contest between our legal system and church law. In the case of criminal offenses, I hope our legal system wins out.

... unless someone can point me to where it says that when a crime against a minor has been committed it must be turned over to civil authorities, the document could rightly be construed as protecting criminals.

It could only be construed that way if you assume every document had to specifically spell out the civil procedures to be followed, not only the religious ones. And if you also assume children need to be spelled out distinctly from adults in every case. Both are silly assumptions.

This document did not protect bishops, priests, or anyone else from punishment if they covered up civil crimes. More to the point, it certainly did not instruct the bishops to undertake such a coverup. The fact that these topics were not covered in this single document does not imply anything.