I am saying that the Church worked very deliberately to avoid having trials. I would be happy for them to receive trials, and for those who are innocent to be cleared.

By covering up, stalling past the point at which they could be charged, and refusing to accept real responsibility, they have tarnished the reputation of all of the church, not just a few bad eggs. They have played into and affirmed many peoples' worst opinions and biases. Had they acted morally from the start, they would not be in the discredited state they are in today. How some of those men in the leadership sleep at night, I do not know.

So you're saying that, since it is a moral issue then priests should clear their names by requesting a trial to prove they've met a moral standard?

can you recommend a court that will hear the case?

"As usual, when it's someone you dislike you're willing to declare them guilty until proven innocent.

I guess civil rights should only apply to people you agree with."

First, I don't dislike Catholics (I am one) or priests. I know a number of very nice ones, and it is unfortunate that the good men are smeared by the appalling actions of the others.

One may argue that the priests have effectively used the laws to shield themselves, and that they are entitled to do so in their own defense.

However, being priests, one might hope that they would hold themselves to a higher standard than "what can we legally get away with." One would hope simple questions of right and wrong might enter into the matter. Again, read the Phila. DA's report for a detailed explanation, based on Church documents, of how these men very deliberately duped the people they were supposed to be leading and teaching, and conspired to cover up what they had done. Then, sit in church and hear mealy-mouthed mistakes-were-made "apologies," none of which accept any culpability in any of it. Pass the collection plate. It is truly disgusting.

"I don't see priests calling for trials to clear their names."

As usual, when it's someone you dislike you're willing to declare them guilty until proven innocent.

I guess civil rights should only apply to people you agree with.

Trusting the psychiatrists may be as great a leap of faith as trusting the priests!

If you will look at an earlier letter, he equates victims trying to get compensation from the church as trying to take his money and the money of the poor; the assumption being that because he gives money to the church and the church helps the poor that the church should be exempt from responsibility for the missteps of the priests.

Strange logic.

I have never had the following thought until reading Chris W's post, and I've never heard it proposed (money should be no object), so here goes: It occurs to me that we should perhaps consider a program for all United States citizens of mandatory, preventive psychotherapy.

The victim in the matter we are discussing here would be a child. A child has absolutely no understanding of the so-called escape clause you mention.

I am not religionist but I do know that Jesus said something along the lines of "suffer the little children to come unto me." He did not say it is okay for my followers to engage in sexual behavior with children and then use the church to cover it up.

Also, ChrisW, your suggestion that every adult who charged Catholic priests with molestation is somehow part of a conspiracy to bring down the church is ludicrous. Do you really think that no priests sexually abused children?

Bullshit. It is a behavior.

That it is a compulsive behavior does not make it a disease. That is shares some similarity to addictive behavior does not make it a disease. That pedophiles have an attraction to children does not make it a sexual preference. That is is hard to treat does not give it medical diagnosis.

Don't waste your breath with me Tyler_Mason. I used to be a victim advocate and a CASA. I can assure you that more pedophiles go free, even after encountering the legal system, than ever see the inside of a prison.

Your friend has showered an icy chill of winter snow upon those roses. I predict withering.

"Mr. Placa has no way to contest this - there will never be a trial. Maybe he did harm the one victim quoted in the article. But maybe he didn't - that's why our legal system has these things called "trials" where citizens hear evidence and make judgments.

There are so few trials on these cases because the church has worked very hard to deliberately subvert them and to run out the statute of limitations. I don't see priests calling for trials to clear their names.

I'm sorry that Salon isn't the echo chamber you crave.

It doesn't really surprise me.

This vatican document cited a few letters before just does not say what is claimed. It describes a specific (and quite appropriate) process to deal wth allegatiions of misconduct (no restriced to abuse) in e very specific cointext: the confessional, where the victim have an absolute and unassailable expectation of completely unlimited privacy.

This process details a way to deal with such accusations while maintaining that privacy. And -to address AKS Sniths's unsubstanciated concern - the document expressedly exempts the victim from any sanctions for breaching that secrecy him- or herself.

So - no big deal. Nothing to see here. Just some manufactured outrage by a slimy Texan lawyer trying to increase the sum he can legally extort from the church (and thus, the poor).

And a gullible newspaper that should (and usually does, one should add) know better than to publish such rubbish unverfied.

This article is pretty appalling, bordering on a hit piece.

Grand juries don't mean much at all - they are like Kabuki theater, stage-managed by prosecutors in every respect. There is no cross examination. Prosecutors have complete control over what evidence the grand jury sees or doesn't see.

So what we have hear is a grand jury "statement" of some kind, not an indictment that would have some legal force. Mr. Placa has no way to contest this - there will never be a trial.

Maybe he did harm the one victim quoted in the article. But maybe he didn't - that's why our legal system has these things called "trials" where citizens hear evidence and make judgments.