It has become quite apparent that the reason the Catholic Church is so vehemently opposed to contraception and abortion is to keep their stables of abandoned and abused kids well stocked for the use of the clergy.

The Holy Father needs to directly answer questions, in a credible forum, about his role - as archbishop of Munich (1977-82), as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1982-2005), and as pope (2005-present) - in the mismanagement of the clergy sex abuse crisis.

We urge this not primarily as journalists seeking a story, but as Catholics who appreciate that extraordinary circumstances require an extraordinary response. Nothing less than a full, personal and public accounting will begin to address the crisis that is engulfing the worldwide church. It is that serious.

To date, as revelations about administrative actions resulting in the shifting of clergy abusers from parish to parish emerge throughout Europe, Pope Benedict XVI's personal response has been limited to a letter to the Irish church. Such epistles are customary and necessary, but insufficient.

http://www.alternet.org/story/146239/dissident_catholic_bishop_calls_for_pope_to_resign_over_sex_abuse_scandal?page=entire

meanwhile, back in fantasyland ....

Think Progress reports the Catholic Leugue ran an ad in the New York Times that, in addition to lamenting that the paper unfairly went "for the Vatican jugular," claims the abuse scandal is not a crisis of pedophilia, but of homosexuality. "The Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis" when all along it's been a homosexual crisis.

Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male & most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behaviour, & most gay priests are not child molesters, most of the molesters have been gay."

Of course: & Ratzinger is just a poor old, misunderstood man who chooses to dress-up in funny clothes.

It's called denial ....

It beggars belief that the Roman Catholic Church continues to excuse the abhorrent sexual behavior of it's Popes; Cardinals; Bishops and all the way down to the lowest Deacon which, in itself, denies the very "virginal" attitude that they demand of their believers.  I must make a point here; I refer specifically to the Roman Catholic Church which does not include the Greek Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox Churches.

"They who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". 

When I consider the frightening influence that religion has on the people of this world, even considering the inexcusable cruelty that they, the Religions, have committed in the name of their faith I wonder at their powers (and methods) of persuasion and any common good that can possibly come from it.

As an Anglican I have had many confrontations with the "Rock Choppers" as we used to call them, little knowing that, even then, they were suffering from the unwanted attentions of their trusted Priests.  As the power of the RC faith grew, their magnificent Churches were built as part of the influence of the appearance of luxury for the true believers.  Yet, conversely, their movies (Bing Crosby and Barry Fitzgerald) always portrayed them as being on the "bones of their collective a...s".

Misinformation. 

There must be a hidden compulsion to have an all encompassing desire to commit heinous acts of debauchery on the young people so trustingly placed in your care. Could it be that the unnatural demands of the R.C. Church places on its young Priests and Nuns that, even with the best of intentions, only needs the proper circumstance and opportunity for these acts to occur?

As indeed it does in all forms of modern life which employs young women in the same category as that of young men - unnatural and, until all humanity is a-sexual, it will continue - in the military and the police forces for example.  I am human and nothing human is alien to me.

If we as civilized people, are going to convince our people of the basic issue of community life - right and wrong - then the first hurdle of co-existence would be exposed in the character of the humans involved. Surely then, there would be a chance of avoiding the brutal and unnecessary wars of our past, just by debating right from wrong.

If the Roman Catholic Church is to prevail, even though they keep changing doctrine to compensate for scientific knowledge, they must allow Priests and Nuns to follow the normal civilized and undying way of the natural order of things.

With apologies to those I may offend - the word should be Celebrate - not Celibate.

God Bless Australia and let our decisions be based on the code of right and wrong before casting the stone.  NE OUBLIE.

Perhaps my belief in the value of a right or wrong society is old fashioned, created at a time in our history when we were more compassionate and not so filled with hate.  I do not apologise for what I believe to be a fact - and that is that civilization should now seriously consider whether religion should take its place under the heading of personal belief and faith and be banned by its own honor system from interfering in the elected Executive of any nation or causing confusion about a person's obligation to faith and that which is in the interests of the entire nation.

History repeats and repeats.  Why do we now allow another so-called Crusade against the peaceful people of the Muslim faith?  Even the armor of King Richard is now copied by a bastardized version such as helmets - bullet proof vests - flack jackets - knee and shin guards and metal protected boots - and yes of course with a vehicle (horse or tank) which is armored as well.

And yet, these "rag heads" - these new "untermenschen" - still resist being told that their thousands of years of history was for nought. 

God bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE. 

Well may the pope defy "the petty gossip of dominant opinion". But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity. The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state - and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action - cannot stand up to scrutiny.

The truly shocking finding of Judge Murphy's commission in Ireland was not merely that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions but that the church hierarchy protected the perpetrators and, despite knowledge of their propensity to reoffend, allowed them to take up new positions teaching other children after their victims had been sworn to secrecy.

This conduct, of course, amounted to the criminal offence of aiding and abetting sex with minors. In legal actions against Catholic archdioceses in the US it has been alleged that the same conduct reflected Vatican policy as approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (as the pope then was) as late as November 2002. Sexual assaults were regarded as sins that were subject to church tribunals, and guilty priests were sent on a "pious pilgrimage" while oaths of confidentiality were extracted from their victims.

In the US, 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses - in Los Angeles for $660m and in Boston for $100m. But some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want higher level accountability - two reasons to sue the pope in person. In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit "as the head of a foreign state".

Bellinger is now notorious for his defence of Bush administration torture policies. His opinion on papal immunity is even more questionable. It hinges on the assumption that the Vatican, or its metaphysical emanation, the Holy See, is a state. But the papal states were extinguished by invasion in 1870 and the Vatican was created by fascist Italy in 1929 when Mussolini endowed this tiny enclave - 0.17 of a square mile containing 900 Catholic bureaucrats - with "sovereignty in the international field ... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/pope-legal-immunity-international-law

NSW Police will give prosecutors evidence that three of the most senior members of the Catholic Church allegedly concealed the sexual assault of young girls in the Hunter Valley, in a landmark case that could expose the church to a new wave of criminal prosecution.

One of three people of interest in Strike Force Lantle is the general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Father Brian Lucas, who is alleged to have been aware of the actions of the paedophile priest Denis McAlinden as far back as 1993 but failed to report him to police.

The others are Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide, who wrote to police yesterday to formally decline to be interviewed, and the retired Bishop of Maitland-Newcastle Michael Malone.

From 1993 to 1995 the three had roles in internal moves against the priest, including an attempted ''speedy'', secret defrocking in October 1995 because of the evidence against him.

The church failed to report the matter to authorities until 2003, after victims notified the police and were paid compensation.

Instead, in 1995, McAlinden was assured by the then Maitland-Newcastle bishop Leo Clarke: "Your good name will be protected by the confidential nature of this process", despite "your admission to Father Brian Lucas and other evidence.

"A speedy resolution of this whole matter will be in your own good interests as I have it on very good authority that some people are threatening seriously to take this whole matter to the police," Bishop Clarke's letter said.

He urged the priest to agree to a ''speedy'' defrocking ''for the sake of souls and the good of the church'', as police were about to charge another priest, Vince Ryan, with sexually assaulting young boys over two decades. In a follow-up letter weeks later, the new Maitland-Newcastle bishop Michael Malone told McAlinden the ecclesiastical censure would proceed ''because of the gravity of the allegations against you [and] the evidence supporting those allegations''.

Bishop Malone and Father Lucas would not comment yesterday. A spokeswoman for Archbishop Wilson said it was ''not appropriate to comment and matters relating to any police inquiry should be referred to the police''.

McAlinden died in a church-run, aged-care facility in Western Australia in 2005 without facing charges. In 2007 the diocese of Maitland-Newcastle was forced to confirm McAlinden was a serial child sex offender who had targeted perhaps hundreds of girls aged 4 to 12 over at least four decades.

The Herald has confirmed that a brief of evidence and an investigator's report of the church's handling of the case will be given to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the next few weeks.

If they are prosecuted, the Herald believes it would be the first time a church official has been charged with section 316 of the NSW Crimes Act, which makes it an offence to conceal a serious crime.

The head of Strike Force Lantle, Detective Graeme Parker, said the exhaustive 15-month investigation included recorded interviews with Father Lucas and retired Bishop Malone about their knowledge of McAlinden's activities and ''how they progressed the matter''.

He confirmed that Archbishop Wilson had declined to be interviewed.

The then Father Philip Wilson was made notary for the defrocking, and recorded the statements of two victims, including one woman who said she had been sexually abused by McAlinden ''on many occasions'' between the ages of 8 and 11.

Another woman described McAlinden's sexual abuse of her and her two daughters.

Detective Parker said: ''It's a shame because there are questions that really need to be asked of Archbishop Wilson. We made numerous attempts to get him to the table to be interviewed but he's exercised his right to silence.''

Documents with the police include a 1976 letter from the late Maitland-Newcastle monsignor Patrick Cotter to Bishop Clarke about McAlinden, in which the monsignor suggests the priest's offending is of a lesser seriousness because it involves children.

''He feels no such inclination towards mature females but towards the little ones,'' the letter said. ''I have never heard of this condition before and knowing Father McAlinden as we do, we do not think it can be real serious.''

Police Move On Priests Over Abuse 'Cover-Up'