Cardinal Brady refuses to resign over Smyth revelations

[louislestat]

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe

I agree. Even though I personally want nothing to do with the Catholic Church and would prefer them to stop making statements which condemn me, I do acknowledge that members of it have done incredible work over the years - these people have been betrayed by their so-called superiors.
I was very upset recently to learn that a particular nun (who used to visit my grandmother every week to bring her communion and have a chat) was physically assaulted in Temple Hill by a group of young men - their 'excuse' was she was a child abuser. This kind, generous woman is now in her late 80s and is afraid to leave the convent. The other nuns only wear their habit when on official duty in the parish due to the leval of abuse they have to endure.

That is awful, the poor woman. People are so thick - they never cease to amaze me

[Serenitatis]

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe

Raping a child is a crime now - it was a crime 35 years ago - Smyth should have been handed over to the secular authorities the first time he was reported to the church. He wasn't - instead they tried to hush it up. Smyth continued to rape children. The church did nothing. End of story.

This sums it up really. Rape is a crime and rapists need to be punished. It makes no difference how long ago it was, it was illegal then too.

[Bannasidhe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...urch-sex-abuse

'..there is a sharp distinction between his attitude while a cardinal and his activities as pope that could yet leave an indelible stain on the reign of Benedict XVI.

In 2005 he was elected days after declaring that the time had come to sweep "the filth" from his church. By then he had read – and was disgusted by – files on more than 3,000 clerical abuse cases that were channelled to his department by a decree issued four years earlier by John Paul II.

Most of the cases dealt with by the Vatican department in recent years resulted in the accused being removed, if not defrocked.

The problem for Benedict is that, as in many other theological respects, he changed his mind. The US Vatican-watcher John Allen this week published in National Catholic Reporter an extract from the transcript of a conference in Spain that showed that, as late as November 2002, Ratzinger dismissed the American abuse scandals as the result of a "planned campaign" in the media.

By 2002 the then cardinal had signed what critics claim was an incitement to the obstruction of justice. A letter he circulated to bishops the previous year reminded them that internal church inquiries into certain serious offences were covered by what is known as papal secrecy, for which the penalty is excommunication.'

Can't even say I'm surprised...