Isn't covering up child abuse a crime?

[bc7683023]

http://uk.news.yahoo....rrest-on-45dbed5.html

So should he be protected or arrested?

[ummmm]

Don't agree.

[jno]

depends what the laws are in the Vatican City - do you happen to know?

[bc7683023]

Agreed doc. Why is it always one rule for us and another for them? I don't care whether it's the beggar on the street or the President, king or Queen of a country. Haul them before the courts.

[bc7683023]

How did this end up here, I clicked in the news section! Never mind.

[naomi24]

Surely international law would be a more appropriate yardstick - but I doubt this crime (and personally I do believe it's a crime) is covered by international law.

[bc7683023]

Ummmm I'm not fully aware of all the facts but why do you not agree with an arrest?

[ummmm]

I don't think he should be arrested for a crime he didn't commit.

Peoples attitudes were different back then. He wasn't the only one who swept things under the carpet.

There are plenty of Mothers out there that 'turned a blind eye'

[bc7683023]

Well then all those that helped cover it up as well as mothers need to be brought to justice in my eyes.

[ummmm]

Too late...and I believe that times have changed so much that it'll never happen again.

[Davethedog]

So where do we draw the line 1980? 1990? so that ok then you committed a murder in 1975 we let you off.

Or was child abuse different "back then" He covered it up, he hides behind his religion,
and is feted by people in denial.

[jno]

heads of state need protection when they travel, to keep the world going. It's what lets the queen go to Germany without some neoNazi having her arrested for firebombing Dresden.

[ummmm]

That's kind of my point jno....

[bc7683023]

I know that you can't judge a whole religion my the actions of a few but surely following these religions where the higher echelon holy men are sometimes dripping in sin and yet preaching not to sin? Are the followers that blind that they choose not to see the truth before there eyes? Weird.

[naomi24]

If he wasn't the pope, but just Joe Public, people who defend him might feel very differently.

[Davethedog]

Jno The Queen wasn't responsible for the fire bombing of Dresden and it wasn't hidden. If Hitler had survived he would of hung or should we have let him off.

John Ratzenberger was directly responsible for covering up child abuse in the church.

[naomi24]

^^ Quite right.

[ummmm]

I'm not really defending him. Back then people from all walks of life covered up similar crimes. I don't understand their train of thoughts....but it was common. Arrest and deal with the paedophiles....not the ignorant.

It wouldn't happen today because we know better....

[naomi24]

With all due respect Ummmm, yes crimes of all sorts have been covered up in the past - and still are - but two wrongs don't make a right. This crime has been uncovered and he should face the consequences of his actions - regardless of the office he holds.

[Davethedog]

Is 2001 back then?

"In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety"

From this article
http://www.thisislond...d-abuse-by-priests.do