Ongoing religious scandals

darealtulip wrote: »

it is the vaticans own numbers that only 1.5-5% of the priest were involved in child abuse.

Here's that quote from a lecture to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Sept. 22, 2009 by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations in Geneva:

Mr Tomasi wrote:

From available research we now know that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases. The Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of a national survey by Christian Ministry Resources in 2002 and concluded: "Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant".1 Sexual abuses within the Jewish communities approximate that found among the Protestant clergy.

So there you go, the Vatican's position is "Stop moaning about us! Yeah, we might have one priest in every 20 an abuser, but the prods and jews are worse!"

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The Church is all its members. I go to my church... because its MY church.. its not the Popes or the bishops Church.

I dare you write to Ratzinger and your local bish and tell 'em that

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Here's that quote from a lecture to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Sept. 22, 2009 by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations in Geneva:So there you go, the Vatican's position is "Stop moaning about us! Yeah, we might have one priest in every 20 an abuser, but the prods and jews are worse!"

Hold the front page. Vatican engages in whataboutery shocker!!!

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The Church is all its members. I go to my church... because its MY church.. its not the Popes or the bishops Church.

Oh please. I must have been 9 or 10 when I heard that line, even at that age I could see what a lot of nonsense it is. I kept quiet though or I would have got a thick ear.

If it is 'your' church, why can't you vote for the pope, or even a bishop, or a parish priest? or have an input into how your parish is run? or overrule the bishop's representative on the board of management of your local RC school?
Never mind questions of doctrine or papal infallibility!

Lets me clear... Teachers who abused in the 50's 60's in Ireland and who got reported with dealt with in the same way as priests of the time..

That's completely false, there is no comparison between an individual wrongdoer, and wrongdoers shielded by a very powerful organisation that (in the eyes of most people at the time) is above suspicion and must be obeyed.

The scandal isn't that there were abusive priests. There are people predisposed to child abuse in all walks of life (although a profession which doesn't permit normal adult sexual desires is going to attract people struggling to suppress their desires...)

The scandal is the cover-up which has been going on for decades and is still going on today. The church's use of its immense wealth, power and influence first to hide what was going on, then to minimise it, then to fight the victims legally, then to use diplomatic immunity to avoid participating in abuse enquiries in countries like Ireland. Then to blame the whole thing on liberalism when it was the absence of liberalism that created the conditions where this scandal could flourish.

Society turned a blind eye...

The church insisted that society turn a blind eye.
That included senior politicians and Gardai who knew of instances of abuse, it is because the perpetrators were clergy that they were shielded.

Hotblack Desiato

darealtulip wrote: »

My opinion is that every one still attending a chuch is condoning this child abuse or at minimum is indifferent to it. If it was any other institution it would have been closed.

This is what I really don't understand. How people can be sickened by what went on, yet continue to turn up at mass every week and put their money on the plate, knowing that some of it will be used to try to shied paedophiles from justice, or pay for 'treatment' to minimise their sentencing, or pensions so convicted paedophiles can live comfortably post-release, or legal fees to obstruct victims seeking compensation.

There is a kind of doublethink going on.

Sarky

"religious" and "doublethink" go hand in hand.

ninja900 wrote: »

Oh please. I must have been 9 or 10 when I heard that line, even at that age I could see what a lot of nonsense it is. I kept quiet though or I would have got a thick ear.

in authoritarian ireland? so?

If it is 'your' church, why can't you vote for the pope, or even a bishop, or a parish priest?

actually they can but it doiesnt happen much in practice.
that is what election of a Bishop "vox populi" means.
Why cant you vote on a Head of state or taoiseach?
Bishops are voted on by priests. the priests discuss and let their views be known . the Pope does not just appoint whomsoever he chooses without consulting the local view.
and the pope is elected and his election does not revolve around money or publicity campaigns.

or have an input into how your parish is run?

ALL parishes have his! In fact partishes are currently undergoing a fifteen year plan to remove clergy from administrative and management roles and replace they with lay people.
the reason is not because they dont trust them but simply ther will be less priests.

or overrule the bishop's representative on the board of management of your local RC school?

how do you know that hasnt happened. By the way the bishops representative is the priest. But Im sure the teachers union representative parents and all the other representatives could do that. Im not aware of it happening because they happen to agree by consensus with the management that they have.

Never mind questions of doctrine or papal infallibility!

yo do know what that is and how many times it has been used in 2000 years?

That's completely false, there is no comparison between an individual wrongdoer, and wrongdoers shielded by a very powerful organisation that (in the eyes of most people at the time) is above suspicion and must be obeyed.

and What wrongdoer do you suggest the church shielded?

The scandal isn't that there were abusive priests. There are people predisposed to child abuse in all walks of life (although a profession which doesn't permit normal adult sexual desires is going to attract people struggling to suppress their desires...)

Celibacy is a different issue to child abuse and unrelated. I would suggest homosexuality is too but there are questions. The church does not regard sexual abuse or other immoral acts as "predisposition" of a percentage of people.

The scandal is the cover-up which has been going on for decades and is still going on today.

Cover up of what? How is the Pope or Vatican covering yup child abuse?

The church's use of its immense wealth, power and influence first to hide what was going on, then to minimise it, then to fight the victims legally, then to use diplomatic immunity to avoid participating in abuse enquiries in countries like Ireland.

And your evidence is?

The church insisted that society turn a blind eye.
That included senior politicians and Gardai who knew of instances of abuse, it is because the perpetrators were clergy that they were shielded.

and your evidence is?

tricky D

ISAW wrote: »

in authoritarian ireland? so?

actually they can but it doiesnt happen much in practice.
that is what election of a Bishop "vox populi" means.
Why cant you vote on a Head of state or taoiseach?
Bishops are voted on by priests. the priests discuss and let their views be known . the Pope does not just appoint whomsoever he chooses without consulting the local view.
and the pope is elected and his election does not revolve around money or publicity campaigns.

ALL parishes have his! In fact partishes are currently undergoing a fifteen year plan to remove clergy from administrative and management roles and replace they with lay people.
the reason is not because they dont trust them but simply ther will be less priests.

how do you know that hasnt happened. By the way the bishops representative is the priest. But Im sure the teachers union representative parents and all the other representatives could do that. Im not aware of it happening because they happen to agree by consensus with the management that they have.

yo do know what that is and how many times it has been used in 2000 years?

and What wrongdoer do you suggest the church shielded?

Celibacy is a different issue to child abuse and unrelated. I would suggest homosexuality is too but there are questions. The church does not regard sexual abuse or other immoral acts as "predisposition" of a percentage of people.

Cover up of what? How is the Pope or Vatican covering yup child abuse?

And your evidence is?

and your evidence is?

Unfcukinbelievable. Where have you been for the last 2 or so decades.

The Vatican still has how many thousands of files not handed over and harbours people wanted for investigation like Bernard Law?

As for shielding wrongdoers, are you seriously suggesting the hundreds of problem priests who were moved to another parish were not shielded.

Incredible that this apologist bullsh1t still goes on.:mad::mad:

CiaranMT

tricky D wrote: »

Unfcukinbelievable. Where have you been for the last 2 or so decades.

The Vatican still has how many thousands of files not handed over and harbours people wanted for investigation like Bernard Law?

As for shielding wrongdoers, are you seriously suggesting the hundreds of problem priests who were moved to another parish were not shielded.

Incredible that this apologist bullsh1t still goes on.:mad::mad:

You've not had experience of ISAW then.

That's a fairly concise post by his standards.

tricky D wrote: »

Unfcukinbelievable. Where have you been for the last 2 or so decades.

thats a rather strange posting style.
Is there a point you are trying to make.
Lets see? somethig to do witht the Vatican and whichever popes since 1992?

The Vatican still has how many thousands of files not handed over and harbours people wanted for investigation like Bernard Law?

I dont know how many thousand files are you claiming the vatican has and about what?
you are the one making the claim dont forget.

As for shielding wrongdoers, are you seriously suggesting the hundreds of problem priests who were moved to another parish were not shielded.

Wher is you evidence hundreds of priests were moved since 1992 (or at any other time in the say since 1922) to a different parish when they were known child abuseres?
where is you evidence that the vatican or any pope was party to such moved if and when they happened?

Incredible that this apologist bullsh1t still goes on.

Incredible the lack of evidence on which you base you assumptions of Vatican cover ups.

ISAW wrote: »

.............

actually they can but it doiesnt happen much in practice.
that is what election of a Bishop "vox populi" means.
Why cant you vote on a Head of state or taoiseach?
Bishops are voted on by priests. the priests discuss and let their views be known . the Pope does not just appoint whomsoever he chooses without consulting the local view.
and the pope is elected and his election does not revolve around money or publicity campaigns.

.........

Priests are not elected by ordinary catholics, nor can women be priests. Bishops are not voted on by priests. Views are sought of certain candidates, no more. Thus its not an election. The pope is elected by cardinals, he is not elected by ordinary catholics.

Nodin wrote: »

Priests are not elected by ordinary catholics, nor can women be priests. Bishops are not voted on by priests.

Inded they are and ther is provision for it in canon law;
Bishops ar people who have "ordinary power" which can be seen as the power to ordain priests.
abbotts are bishops and are elected but the vox populi provision is there in canon law non the less.
here are examples of several mainstream christian elections of bishops
http://www.thevoiceoforthodoxy.com/archives/editorials/Episcopal_election.html
the pope mentioned is the only non roman pope in the world . He died last week and was a Patriarch of a christian church. He would be recognised as having Apostolioc succession by rome but they are not in communion with rome.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

from the beginning of the sixth century, this attitude was modified. In the East the clergy and the primates, or chief citizens, nominated three candidates from whom the metropolitan chose the bishop. At a later date, the bishops of the ecclesiastical province assumed the exclusive right of nominating the candidates. In the West, the kings intervened in these elections, notably in Spain and Gaul, and sometimes assumed the right of direct nomination
...This interference of princes and emperors lasted until the quarrel about Investitures, which was especially violent in Germany, where from the ninth to the eleventh centuries abbots and bishops had become real temporal princes. (See INVESTITURE.) The Second Lateran Council (1139) handed over to the chapter of the cathedral church the sole right of choosing the bishop,..
He (the pope] This interference of princes and emperors lasted until the quarrel about Investitures, which was especially violent in Germany, where from the ninth to the eleventh centuries abbots and bishops had become real temporal princes. (See INVESTITURE.) The Second Lateran Council (1139) handed over to the chapter of the cathedral church the sole right of choosing the bishop,
...
We have said that the Decretals recognize the right of the cathedral chapters to elect the bishop. This right has long been long withdrawn and is no longer in force. In virtue of the second rule of the Papal Chancery the choice of bishops belongs exclusively to the pope (Walter, Fontes juris eccesiastici antiqui et hodierni, Bonn, 1861, 483) Exceptions to this rule, however, are numerous. In Austria (with the exception of some episcopal sees), in Bavaria, in Spain, in Portugal and in Peru, the Government presents to the sovereign pontiff the candidates for the episcopate. It was so in France, and in several South American Republics before the rupture or denunciation of the concordats between the states and the Apostolic See. By the cessation of these concordats such states lost all right of intervention in the nomination of bishops; this does not, however prevent the Government in several South American Republics from recommending candidates to the sovereign pontiff. The cathedral chapter is authorized to elect the bishop in several dioceses of Austria, Switzerland, Prussia, and in some States of Germany, notably in the ecclesiastical province of the Upper Rhine.

But I will accept that "Whatever the manner of his nomination, the bishop possesses no power until his nomination has been confirmed by the Holy See, whether in consistory or by pontifical letters. Moreover, he is forbidden to enter on the administration of his diocese therefore taking possession of his see by communication to the cathedral chapter the letters Apostolic of his nomination "

Views are sought of certain candidates, no more. Thus its not an election. The pope is elected by cardinals, he is not elected by ordinary catholics.

the taoisach is elected by TDs not ordinary people.
and as to views being sought A Monaantry elects an abbot or an order elects an order head. That prson is the equivalent of a bishop They dont just give their views and ask the pope who he wants. and that is only in Latin Rite roman caytholicism; ther are 23 other denominations in the roman church. Then there are Independent catholics, Eastern rite, Orthodox denominations , Syriac, coptic, Anglicans and so on.

ISAW wrote: »

How is the Pope or Vatican covering up child abuse?

Together with Tricky-D, I really have to ask you where on earth you've been for the last twenty years -- that question is, well, just weird.

FYI, here's a leaked letter from a top Vatican official praising a bishop who covered up child abuse in France:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/15/us-pope-abuse-france-idUSLDE63E2H420100415

Some Vatican Operative named Hoyos wrote:

I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration [...] You have acted well and I am pleased to have a colleague in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all other bishops in the world, preferred prison to denouncing his son and priest.

ISAW wrote: »

Inded they ........they are not in communion with rome..

We aren't talking about other Churches, we're talking about the one run by Pope Benedict, the one that is the majority religion in this country.

ISAW wrote: »

the vox populi provision is there in canon law non the less...

...the fact of the matter is that Bishops are not elected by priests.

ISAW wrote: »

the taoisach is elected by TDs not ordinary people....

...and TDs are elected by ordinary people. Unlike Priests, Nuns, Bishops, Archbishops and Popes. The "ordinary" lay members of the catholic church don't get a vote.

Sonics2k

ISAW wrote: »

Cover up of what? How is the Pope or Vatican covering yup child abuse?

So, I'm guessing you like, never watch the news? Or even read a newspaper?

Sarky

robindch wrote: »

FYI, here's a leaked letter from a top Vatican official praising a bishop who covered up child abuse in France:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/15/us-pope-abuse-france-idUSLDE63E2H420100415

Holy sh*tballs.

Sonics2k wrote: »

So, I'm guessing you like, never watch the news? Or even read a newspaper?

rarely althought i do write for broadsheets from time to time.
i take my information from reliable published sources.
Im not really interested in the haircuts of footballers wives.
And based on TV news Iraq was filled with WMD . i have been arguing against that since a year before the invasion. all the loudmouths who insisted I was wrong disappeared. Over a million people died and I dont regret doubting the lies portrayed in the news.

Sarky

Bloody hell, it all makes sense; You're John Waters, aren't you?

robindch wrote: »

Together with Tricky-D, I really have to ask you where on earth you've been for the last twenty years -- that question is, well, just weird.

FYI, here's a leaked letter from a top Vatican official praising a bishop who covered up child abuse in France:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/15/us-pope-abuse-france-idUSLDE63E2H420100415

thanks for that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar%C3%ADo_Castrill%C3%B3n_Hoyos#View_on_denouncing_a_paedophile_priest_to_the_civil_authorities

Irish television network RTE aired on 17 January 2011 a report under the title "Unspeakable Crimes",[13] which dealt with this and other disagreements between the Irish bishops and Castrillón on the proper treatment of priests accused of sex abuse. The documentary offered strong support for former Archbishop of Dublin Cardinal Desmond Connell, who had been the target of savage criticism, and put a new perspective on the efforts of the Irish hierarchy in general

1. not evidence of a Vatican cover up
2. this guy has come into conflict with the irish bishops in suggesting non disclosure compared to their policy of full disclosure
3. His suggestion also contradicted Ratzingers "full disclosure" policy
4; Ratzinger then became Pope and parked the guy

It is evidence of an influential bishop urging others not to report 'against Vatican and irish policy) and urging other in france not to do so.

When heading the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos congratulated a French bishop Pierre Pican in a 2001 letter for not denouncing a sexually abusive priest to the police
The full trext of Pican s letter

The full text of the letter[11] translated into English is:

CONGREGATIO PRO CLERICIS The Vatican, 8 September 2001 Most Reverend Excellency I write to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy entrusted with aiding the Holy Father is his responsibility for the priests of the world. I congratulate you on not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities. You have acted wisely, and I am delighted to have a fellow member of the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of other bishops, would prefer to go to prison rather than denounce his priest-son For the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional but a sacramental relationship which forges very special bonds of spiritual paternity. The matter was amply taken up again by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and that of 1991. The bishop has other means of acting, as the Conference of French Bishops recently restated; but a bishop cannot be required to make the denunciation himself. In all civilised legal systems it is acknowledged that close relations have the possibility of not testifying against a direct relative. In this regard we remind you of the words of Saint Paul "So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear" (Philippians 1, v 13-14) This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate matter, will forward a copy of this letter to all the conferences of bishops. Assuring you of my fraternal closeness in the Lord, I send my greetings to you, your auxiliary and your whole diocese (Castrillón's signature) To His Most Reverend Excellency
SE Mgr Pierre Pican
Bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux

1. Pecan or Hoyos were not acting for the Pope or on his orders or with his knowledge.
2. while the Pope Irish bishops and others have totally disagreed wsith is position I accept it is evidence of one bishop with views which are at varioance with the church and whild he personally didnt cover up cases he did congradulate and encourage a bishop who diod cover up one abuser.
that does make it a case which can be admitted as an error and inexcusable opinion to have. thisis the type of evidence yo need to produce.
Now if you can find another 199 similar cases where a bishop knew and acted nto vcenseal it. Ill accept there is cover up by vatican officials of "hundreds" of clerical abusers.
As foir non catican cases Im aware of three or four bishops who acted wrongly (some 'thinking it was right e.g. according to medical or legal opinion) in cases of clerical abuse. but I am not aware of this being widespread or involving lore than one or two priests for each of these bishops.

ISAW wrote: »

Pecan or Hoyos were not acting for the Pope or on his orders or with his knowledge.

Hoyos himself disagrees with you.

The man is on record as saying that he sent his letter, on the pope's explicit instructions, to every bishop on the planet, on official Vatican notepaper. I'd imagine that most people would probably believe this constitutes "Vatican policy":

Hoyos wrote:

After consulting the Pope, I wrote a letter to the bishop, congratulating him as a model of a father who does not turn in his children,

Hoyos wrote:

The Holy Father authorized me to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.

robindch wrote: »

Hoyos himself disagrees with you.

The man is on record as saying that he sent his letter, on the pope's explicit instructions, to every bishop on the planet, on official Vatican notepaper. I'd imagine that most people would probably believe this constitutes "Vatican policy":

No. the blog yu pôsted says the Pope told him to do it.

”The Holy Father authorized me to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.”

the letter -i posted the contents two messages above
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77767420&postcount=890
- does NOT say that

ISAW wrote: »

No. the blog yu pôsted says the Pope told him to do it.

Well, the letter contained instructions which were sent to the bishops but even though that fact is uncontested it's still fairly clear that the bishops and the liberal media read what they wanted into the letter which they received from Mr Hoyos by fair means or foul which contained instructions to the French bishop about the abusing priest who abused even though his bishop knew about it and the guy in the Vatican who wrote the letter which instructed the bishop to say that the protection was what needed to be given by the bishop to the priest who abused was actually the guy who retired shortly after Herr Ratzinger took over the top job so really its just a media conspiracy at the behest of Dark Forces as far as i'm concerned and its just playing into Satan's hands even though he doesn't have any hands since he's a spiritual entity responsible for all the bad stuff that happens like abusing priests but even still what i'd really like to point out is that Hoyos was one of the first guys who <snip>

ISAW wrote: »

No. the blog yu pôsted says the Pope told him to do it.

”The Holy Father authorized me to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.”

the letter -i posted the contents two messages above
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77767420&postcount=890
- does NOT say that

So? He made that statement at a conference
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/04/17/undaunted-cardinal-says-john-paul-backed-his-praise-for-hiding-abuser/

Sarky wrote: »

Bloody hell, it all makes sense; You're John Waters, aren't you?

what do you mean?

Nodin wrote: »

So? He made that statement at a conference
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/04/17/undaunted-cardinal-says-john-paul-backed-his-praise-for-hiding-abuser/

But that is only a claim in a blog that the Pope saw the letter in advance and told him that it was the popes view he waas expressing. Buth whether the cardinal has said it was the popes view and that the pope told him to promulgate that view (although he may have said it i dont think the evidence yu provide shows that. ) furthermoe if he did say it ther is no evidence that the pope actually told him this. Nobody else in the vatican has mentioned that it was the popes view. surely f the pope JPII believed in keeping priests abuses to the local bishop he would have said it to someone else? for example said it to Ratzinger at the very time when Ratzinger was promoting full disclosure?

Galvasean

Hi John.

I like your beard, I'll give you that.

ISAW wrote: »

But that is only a claim in a blog that the Pope saw the letter in advance and told him that it was the popes view he waas expressing. ............

Try again.

“After consulting the pope … I wrote a letter to the bishop congratulating him as a model of a father who does not hand over his sons,” the daily La Verdad (here in Spanisn) quoted Castrillon Hoyos as telling the conference on Friday, to a round of applause from the assembled prelates, priests and lay people.”The Holy Father authorized me to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/04/17/undaunted-cardinal-says-john-paul-backed-his-praise-for-hiding-abuser/

Newspaper (La Verdad) reports Cardinal as telling conference......thats not "a claim in a blog".

Also, please make more use of paragraphs, if you would.

mikhail

ISAW wrote: »

But that is only a claim in a blog that the Pope saw the letter in advance and told him that it was the popes view he waas expressing. Buth whether the cardinal has said it was the popes view and that the pope told him to promulgate that view (although he may have said it i dont think the evidence yu provide shows that. ) furthermoe if he did say it ther is no evidence that the pope actually told him this. Nobody else in the vatican has mentioned that it was the popes view. surely f the pope JPII believed in keeping priests abuses to the local bishop he would have said it to someone else? for example said it to Ratzinger at the very time when Ratzinger was promoting full disclosure?

When was this? Because I think threatening letters mentioning excommunication as a potential punishment for disclosure aren't consistent with that claim.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
Whatever he's said, Ratzinger's actions speak clearly to me.

Nodin wrote: »

Try again.

“After consulting the pope … I wrote a letter to the bishop congratulating him as a model of a father who does not hand over his sons,” the daily La Verdad (here in Spanisn) quoted Castrillon Hoyos as telling the conference on Friday, to a round of applause from the assembled prelates, priests and lay people.”The Holy Father authorized me to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.”

Try again:

That is in spanish. the second paragraph says
"ya pesar de que el Vaticano asegura que la postura del cardenal sobre cómo reaccionar ante un caso de pederastia que afecte a un sacerdote no representa la línea oficial de la Iglesia frente al problema,"

the Vatican says the cardinal's stance on how to react to an event affecting a pedophile priest is not the official line of the Church

Which letter?
A letter telling a bishop not to have full disclosure ? You are suggesting the Pope ordered a cardinal to copy that letter to all the other Bishops in the world?

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/04/17/undaunted-cardinal-says-john-paul-backed-his-praise-for-hiding-abuser/

Newspaper (La Verdad) reports Cardinal as telling conference......thats not "a claim in a blog".
[/QUOTE]

http://BLOGS.reuters.com/us/

Which is headed ANALYSIS & OPINION

opinion is NOT news. i know i have written opinion pieces.

It refers to A former Vatican cardinal and that was in 2010!

Look at it this way
Hoyos is connected to Bertone
http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/10/vatican-dismisses-pope-assassination-threat-document.html
Ratzinger had a run in with Bertone over acting on pedophiles then became Pope Benedict and now has to begin cleaning house.

Hoyos was parked then retired. Bertone is a heavyweight
He is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Congregation for the Clergy, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Congregation for Bishops and Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. He will hold these memberships until his 80th birthday on 2 December 2014.

In his defence, if someone is accused of child abuse and goes into court do you expect their lawyer to reveal all conversations they had with the accused?