Interesting the way you read that comment. I read it to mean there is a lack of accountability through use of means intended to cover, rather than expose criminal activity, including child rape.
In this particular case, the accused, Father Murphy, had sexual relations with 200+ children, per the documentation, and remained a minister in good standing with the Catholic Church. Apparently, he used this continued standing to initiate further contact with his targets.
Those tasked with accounting for and acting on his behavior have “immunity” — at least the pope does, who was contacted regarding this case prior to becoming pope.
I think that was what the comment intended to communicate, the lack of accountability/transparency rather than being a specific allegation.
But I’m sure the poster can speak for himself/herself.
In this particular case, the accused, Father Murphy, had sexual relations with 200+ children, per the documentation, and remained a minister in good standing with the Catholic Church.Ignoring the other issues, if the "documentation" was so good, why didn't the criminal authorities act? No conviction. None. Why did the state fail to protect the children? Where is the outrage about that?