U.K. Catholics Dispute Cover-up Report

(CBS)  The Catholic Church is hitting back after a British magazine news program claimed that, before he became pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI enforced a secret policy effectively covering up child sex abuse cases among priests.

CBS News reporter Vicki Barker in London reports that the BBC claimed that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity as guardian of Church doctrine, backed and enforced a document that imposes an oath of silence on abusing priests and their child victims — on pain of excommunication.

Adopted in its original form in 1962, the document first came under public scrutiny during investigations of sex abuse cover-ups in the Church during the last decade.

But the BBC also showed what it claimed was a 2001 update of the original 1962 text. The Vatican says it's still studying a transcript of the show.

Responding to the weekend program, the Archbishop of Birmingham, told the BBC that their work had been "entirely misleading."

"It is false because it misrepresents two Vatican documents and uses them quite misleadingly in order to connect the horrors of child abuse to the person of the Pope," Archbishop Vincent Nichols told the BBC in a report published Monday.

The Church maintains that the document does not refer explicitly to sex abuse cases at all, but "with the misuse of the confessional, "according to the BBC.

A former Catholic Church attorney recruited by the BBC to decipher the cryptic document, Father Tom Doyle, made the allegation that it was an "explicit written policy to cover up cases of child abuse."

Doyle was fired from his position at the Vatican after he criticized the Church's handling of the sex abuse scandal, according to the BBC.

Refusing to back away from the allegations made by the show, a BBC spokeswoman said the government-funded network would treat a letter of protest from Catholic Church leaders in Britain as it did all other letters of complaint.

She added, "the protection of children is clearly an issue of the strongest public interest."

Given the wide geographic spread, and extreme length of this cover-up, I think there can be no doubt that it extended to the highest levels of Vatican administration. Who was involved, and weather the Pope, current or former, was ever aware of the cover-up may never be know. What I find interesting is what is not being asked. Child exploitation is the most repugnant act that a priest, or anybody else can commit, yet the church chose to hide the facts, and protect their own, instead of the children that were being abused. If the 'church' was willing to hide this activity, what else have they been hiding? When a cover-up of this magnitude happens, it is rarely an isolated incident, but rather an outgrowth of similar activity that has been going on for years. In order to have kept this secret so well, for so long, the 'church' must have had lots of practice at keeping illegal or immoral acts kept from the public eye.

[fearorlove]

The Queen of the UK, being head of state in Australia, has a representative in Australia called the Governor-General. The last Governor-General, Peter Hollingworth stood down after it was revealed he covered-up pedophilia in the church while he was a bishop.
It was just yesterday I was reading about Mark foley..
The story of Aquarius seems relevant. Zeus and Ganymede. It seemed pedophilia was isolated, but now it seems to be much more.. there are so many elite pedophiles.. it needs to all come out.. NOW!
Let's make the 'Age of Aquarius' the freeing of Ganymede and all other victims of this sickness!

[rbird8728]

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck....well, then, it's a duck.
Why should one have to enter a trance in order to comprehend what is supposed to be a forthright statement of fact?

[blazercoach1]

In the court of public opinion, no grand jury is needed to indict.

The claim that it is now the Vatican's responsibilty to prove its innocence is only true if you assume that every claim by every publication or media outlet against every person is a true and accurate one.

That said, the Church should offer a clear rebuttal. But haven't we seen enough of the media offering only half-truths and unsupported opinions?

Before anti-church people start screaming...I'm not proclaiming innocence for the church. I'm suggesting that BOTH sides should offer something substantial. Just like we deplore the wrongful imprisonment of innocent detainees....we should deplore unsubstantial accusations.

[cathaleen]

Deja vu!

[ibirnie]

I would support the BBC in their statement that it is upto viewers to make up their own minds on this issue. Furthermore, responsiblity clearly now lies with the Vatican: it is upto the Pope and his advisors to clarify the matter in a way which is entirely transparent to Catholic congregations and the general public. If they are unwilling, or unable, to do this, then it is likely that support of the viewers and others will remain with the abused.

It is not just the Pope who is incriminated by these allegations. Should it be the case that individual clergy at every level were aware of the continued cover up in recent years, then they too should be tried with regard to their role in aiding and abetting such abuse.

It would be appropriate if each parish provided an explanation of the position in early course, not only on behalf of the Church; in addition, individual priests and bishops should be required to put forward their own defence for being part of such an organisaiton. I doubt that the majority of the faithful would expect any less.

[mjv2944]

Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!!!! It's still an on going problem. No end in sight.