I'm not sure why you're trying to argue your entire complaint against the abuses that clearly did take place within the structure of the CBS "uncovered" document. They're simply not the same thing. The one has to do with a priest misusing the confessional to seduce someone (largely adult women). The other is about priests actually engaging in sexual contact with minors (largely boys).
Can't you at least consider that the Church may need to deal with the first issue as well as the second?
And if so, can't you concede that it might be perfectly ok for this document to remain silent on the latter subject?
If you find the latter issue inadequately addressed, why must you blame it on a document which seems to be entirely unrelated?
I thought this document covered all instances of solicitation.
And if so, can't you concede that it might be perfectly ok for this document to remain silent on the latter subject?
Yes, if the latter subject wasn't intended for inclusion.
If you find the latter issue inadequately addressed, why must you blame it on a document which seems to be entirely unrelated?
Because I didn't understand it to be unrelated and I'm not sure that it is unrelated.. I believed it to cover all cases of solicitation within or related to the confessional.
If it only applies to people of the age of consent, it is an entirely different matter and would rightly be handled within church channels.
If the document is the same as being used the attorneys in civil litigation, "the document given to authorities by Carmen Durso of Boston and Daniel J. Shea of Houston.", it would be logical to assume that it applies to minors as well as adults.
What isn't clear is the relationship to the document and the particular case the attorneys handed it over for and if it is the exact same document unearthed by those attorneys.