[Stingray51]

A lot of people on this thread are totally missing the point. The obvious purpose of this new rule is to take the responsibility for stopping pedophile priests out of the hands of the bishops who have proven incapable (or in some cases, perhaps many cases) unwilling to do so. (Last week, the Boston Globe had a two-part series on Cardlinal Law's disgusting and indefensible failures in that regard.)

As far as I've read, there is absolutely nothing in this directive that has anything to do with reporting such offenses to the civil authorities, which is exactly what bishops are supposed to be doing and, in many countries, are required by law to do. This is actually a very positive development for getting rid of pervert priests. Just as Rome routinely reverses scandalous "Catholic divorces" issued by American tribunals, so too can it be expected to take a much harder line on this issue.

[sinkspur]

Just as Rome routinely reverses scandalous "Catholic divorces" issued by American tribunals, so too can it be expected to take a much harder line on this issue.

I'm curious which "scandalous Catholic divorces" are "routinely" reversed?

I worked in our diocesan marriage tribunal for several years. There was no appeal of an annulment granted locally; indeed, the only appeal was a marriage that was upheld locally. It was referred to the "court of appeal" in San Antonio, where it was either upheld or an annulment was granted.

I'm not aware of ANY annulments in an American diocese that go to Rome for any reason.