Was the Pope complicit in aiding and abetting pedophiles?

More Evidence Emerges That Pope Benedict Helped Shield Pedophiles Before He Became Pope

As it becomes more obvious that the Pope used his Vatican authority to stall and obfuscate charges of pedophilia against RCC priests, does his enabling priests to abuse hundreds more children, maybe thousands, imply complicity with a code which encouraged/enabled pedophilia?  Is it any better to help a pedophile to abuse than to commit the abuse?  Or worse?

Apr 5, 2010 -- 3:26PM, Erey wrote:

Probably, but I think pretty much the entire catholic machine did that - which includes paritioners and priests alike

+1 No doubt.

This section from the article at the opening post, simply says it all.

The church considers cases of abuse in confessionals more serious than other molestations because they also defile the sacrament of penance.

Teta was accused of engaging in abuse not long after his arrival to the Diocese of Tucson in 1978. Among the eventual allegations: that he molested two boys, ages 7 and 9, in the confessional as they prepared for their First Communion.

"The tragedy is that the bishops have only two choices: Follow the Vatican's code of secrecy and delay, or leave the church," Cadigan, the victims' lawyer, said Friday. "It's unfortunate that their faith demands that they sacrifice children to follow the Vatican's directions."

Apr 5, 2010 -- 4:12PM, Jasr wrote:

Apr 5, 2010 -- 4:03PM, Christianlib wrote:

Apr 5, 2010 -- 3:26PM, Erey wrote:

Apr 5, 2010 -- 3:20PM, johndavid23 wrote:

Was the Pope complicit in aiding and abetting pedophiles?

More Evidence Emerges That Pope Benedict Helped Shield Pedophiles Before He Became Pope

As it becomes more obvious that the Pope used his Vatican authority to stall and obfuscate charges of pedophilia against RCC priests, does his enabling priests to abuse hundreds more children, maybe thousands, imply complicity with a code which encouraged/enabled pedophilia?  Is it any better to help a pedophile to abuse than to commit the abuse?  Or worse?

 

Probably, but I think pretty much the entire catholic machine did that - which includes paritioners and priests alike

Was the use of "partitioners" a typo?  Did you mean "parishioners"?  Or is there a use of partitioners I am not familiar with?

I sure hope you didn't mean "parisioners," because being a parishioner myself I more than resent the implication.

The election of Ratzinger confirmed for me that my church is being guided...or rather misguided...at a very high level by men whose feet are thoroughly caked with clay.

Whatch talking about, Willis?  I didn't spell it without an "H"

Apr 5, 2010 -- 4:42PM, Jasr wrote:

Apr 5, 2010 -- 4:24PM, Christianlib wrote:

Whatch talking about, Willis?  I didn't spell it without an "H"

Actually the question was directed to Erey...I suspect that she really means pastor (i.e.my priest), rather than parishioner (i.e. me).

And speaking for my parish priest...my current priest is from India, and seems to be quite bewildered by the whole thing, which does not surprise me since the abuse seems to be mostly a phenomenon of churches in developed countries.

And my immediate past priest was a New Englander of French Canadian descent, was utterly horrified, since he had been to seminary with a couple of the odious men that Cardinal Law coddled. Father G devoted several homilies to confronting the horror and apologizing for it.

Neither is even remotely to blame for the scandal.

I am a lousy speller.  I meant priest and congregants - the catholic machine as it were, all the little cogs in the wheel.

Mind you I admire catholicism, it has many lovely aspects but it appears to me that the predatory priests were in everyone's concious and subconcious minds but nobody wanted to face it head on.