This was reported in the Guardian too. It has not yet appeared in Catholic News Agency reports, but this has

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-willing-to-hand-over-accused-nuncio-to-civil-authorities/

Note that this refers not just to an ordinary priest, but to an Archbishop.

Bearing in mind that he is 76 years old, and has numerous liturgical duties as well.... not to mention overcoming Vatican intransigence..... Pope Francis is going like a bomb!

Hmmm:

Hmmm:

Which reminds me of an occasion when Stephen Fry was upstaged in his observation of problems that the Pope might need to take some action in regard of.....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbk46d_the-intelligence²-debate-christophe_shortfilms

and an observation on this speech from the Telegraph, right-wing conservative medium

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100014133/intelligence-squared-debate-catholics-humiliated-by-christopher-hitchens-and-stephen-fry/

If this is really what he thinks and the Vatican establishment lets him put these ideas into practice, this could herald a major about-face for the Catholic Church. A tad late but welcome nonetheless....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24166434

If this is really what he thinks and the Vatican establishment lets him put these ideas into practice, this could herald a major about-face for the Catholic Church. A tad late but welcome nonetheless....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24166434

You think?

"We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel."

What moral edifice? Freshness of the Gospel written by anonymous people that contradict each other is serious ways and at the very best only Mark could have been an eye witness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24166434

Pope Francis has said the Catholic Church is too focused on preaching about abortion, gay people and contraception and needs to become more merciful.

This was said during a long interview.... and may have a considerable impact on the church's approach to these questions. It is a change of approach, not a change of doctrine.

This was said during a long interview.... and may have a considerable impact on the church's approach to these questions. It is a change of approach, not a change of doctrine.

Indeed, much the same as institutionalized child rape... Just stop talking about it and hope it goes away.

More on the views of the Pope on a variety of matters. This report, which comes from the Catholic News Agency (hardly an unbiassed source!) is an interview which the Pope gave to an avowed atheist. (Also reported In the Guardian)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-to-atheist-all-people-can-receive-grace-seek-the-good/

Among the things said:-

Pope Francis said that “the important thing” is that the world's many paths should “lead towards the Good.”

When Scalfari questioned whether there is a single vision of the Good, the Roman Pontiff responded, “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good.”

He affirmed that each person must follow his conscience, saying, “Everyone has an idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight the evil as he or she understands it. That would be enough to improve the world.”

The two were able to agree that love for other people must come to surpass the love of self in men's hearts.

This sounds a bit like Plato! But just think of it in connection with dialogue with Islam and other religions.

Yet more empty words today.

Pope Francis says the Roman Catholic Church must strip itself of all "vanity, arrogance and pride" and humbly serve the poorest in society.

His Popeness was asked if that included giving the vast grotesque amount of wealth the Catholic church has built up back to the people it was stolen from. No answer.

The infallible one has also suggested unused monastic buildings could be used as forced conversion centres for migrants. The same migrants who are often in the position they find themselves because of the actions of the Catholic church. The creation of serfs no less.

I'm not sure that trying to drag, kicking and screaming, the Catholic church out of the dark ages is actually in the best interest of said church. If it becomes more transparent then people will be able to see that there is actually nothing behind the façade. For many, the hierarchy of the Church being no exception, it is just the power trip as the driving force. Another example close to home is Thaksin and his basket case sisters. Nothing to do with money, it's just the power trip. Money is just a useful tool. Another example which I think will show itself in the future is the situation in Iran with regard to the supreme leader. Their best mate Syria is now a lost cause so something has to be done (or not done) by him if he wants to keep his power. He must also know after the last 3 elections that he will ultimately be undone. He's put the game into shutdown so at least he can keep his name at the top of the 'high score' table.

Change is good (if it happens). I'd like to know the driving force behind this change because history tells us that it has never been for moral reasons.

Yet more empty words today.

Pope Francis says the Roman Catholic Church must strip itself of all "vanity, arrogance and pride" and humbly serve the poorest in society.

His Popeness was asked if that included giving the vast grotesque amount of wealth the Catholic church has built up back to the people it was stolen from. No answer.

The infallible one has also suggested unused monastic buildings could be used as forced conversion centres for migrants. The same migrants who are often in the position they find themselves because of the actions of the Catholic church. The creation of serfs no less.

I'm not sure that trying to drag, kicking and screaming, the Catholic church out of the dark ages is actually in the best interest of said church. If it becomes more transparent then people will be able to see that there is actually nothing behind the façade. For many, the hierarchy of the Church being no exception, it is just the power trip as the driving force. Another example close to home is Thaksin and his basket case sisters. Nothing to do with money, it's just the power trip. Money is just a useful tool. Another example which I think will show itself in the future is the situation in Iran with regard to the supreme leader. Their best mate Syria is now a lost cause so something has to be done (or not done) by him if he wants to keep his power. He must also know after the last 3 elections that he will ultimately be undone. He's put the game into shutdown so at least he can keep his name at the top of the 'high score' table.

Change is good (if it happens). I'd like to know the driving force behind this change because history tells us that it has never been for moral reasons.

You can get a negative kick out of anything, can't you, notmyself? I suppose that's why your forum name is negative.

The Pope offers abandoned monasteries for use by homeless migrants.... and you call them 'forced conversion centres'. A blatant lie.

The power of the hierarchy.... this is just what Pope Francis is trying to curb.

The grotesque amount of wealth.... this is a myth. Yes, the Church does have a great deal of wealth in the shape of pictures, sculptures and so on, but how could this be converted into disposable wealth? Of the latter, the Church has very little, considering that it contains over a billion people, almost half a million priests to be supported, and large numbers of buildings to upkeep.

Where you're right is to suggest that change has never been made for moral reasons. I think to say 'never' is going too far. Anyway, that is what the Pope is trying to do.

An unnecessarily abusive post has been deleted. OTB allows for greater freedom in discussion and posting, but you are still required to abide by the rules.

Please stay on-topic and keep the discussion civil.

The Pope offers abandoned monasteries for use by homeless migrants.... and you call them 'forced conversion centres'. A blatant lie.

So a roof over their head, a bit of food and the chance to use a shower. This will be given free even if the people refuse to attend religious 'lectures'?

The power of the hierarchy.... this is just what Pope Francis is trying to curb.

Without using circular logic, how do you know this?

The Pope offers abandoned monasteries for use by homeless migrants.... and you call them 'forced conversion centres'. A blatant lie.

So a roof over their head, a bit of food and the chance to use a shower. This will be given free even if the people refuse to attend religious 'lectures'?

The power of the hierarchy.... this is just what Pope Francis is trying to curb.

Without using circular logic, how do you know this?

The report said nothing about who was going to run the homes for migrants; there is no reason to suppose it would be the Church. You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, notmyself.

The Pope has just held three days of meetings with a group of eight cardinals carefully selected as being hostile to the power of the Curia. Why else would he do this?

The Pope offers abandoned monasteries for use by homeless migrants.... and you call them 'forced conversion centres'. A blatant lie.

So a roof over their head, a bit of food and the chance to use a shower. This will be given free even if the people refuse to attend religious 'lectures'?

The power of the hierarchy.... this is just what Pope Francis is trying to curb.

Without using circular logic, how do you know this?

The report said nothing about who was going to run the homes for migrants; there is no reason to suppose it would be the Church. You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, notmyself.

The Pope has just held three days of meetings with a group of eight cardinals carefully selected as being hostile to the power of the Curia. Why else would he do this?

The report said nothing about who was going to run the homes for migrants; there is no reason to suppose it would be the Church. You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, notmyself.

Unwarranted? Can we at least keep this intellectually civil?

The Pope has just held three days of meetings with a group of eight cardinals carefully selected as being hostile to the power of the Curia. Why else would he do this?

Oh c'mon my dear friendly member IB. That is just an argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and nothing else!

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A third option is because he would like more of the power just to himself.

The report said nothing about who was going to run the homes for migrants; there is no reason to suppose it would be the Church. You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion, notmyself.

Unwarranted? Can we at least keep this intellectually civil?

The Pope has just held three days of meetings with a group of eight cardinals carefully selected as being hostile to the power of the Curia. Why else would he do this?

Oh c'mon my dear friendly member IB. That is just an argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) and nothing else!

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A third option is because he would like more of the power just to himself.

Not unwarranted? Where is your evidence? The evidence of all your posts on this thread, and others about the Pope, is that you are so blinded by prejudice against the Catholic Church that you would never believe anything positive about it.

And more speculation (you want everything to be decided according to reason). Anybody less power-hungry that this Pope would be difficult to imagine. If you had been following reports of what has happened and what he has said over the past few weeks, you would know.

Not unwarranted? Where is your evidence? The evidence of all your posts on this thread, and others about the Pope, is that you are so blinded by prejudice against the Catholic Church that you would never believe anything positive about it.

And more speculation (you want everything to be decided according to reason). Anybody less power-hungry that this Pope would be difficult to imagine. If you had been following reports of what has happened and what he has said over the past few weeks, you would know.

Prejudice? You yourself have accepted to a large extent....

Where you're right is to suggest that change has never been made for moral reasons. I think to say 'never' is going too far. Anyway, that is what the Pope is trying to do.

you want everything to be decided according to reason

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that people should not use reason to decide if they should use reason or not? I hope not because it is a wish or desire to be a slave.

Not unwarranted? Where is your evidence? The evidence of all your posts on this thread, and others about the Pope, is that you are so blinded by prejudice against the Catholic Church that you would never believe anything positive about it.

And more speculation (you want everything to be decided according to reason). Anybody less power-hungry that this Pope would be difficult to imagine. If you had been following reports of what has happened and what he has said over the past few weeks, you would know.

Prejudice? You yourself have accepted to a large extent....

Where you're right is to suggest that change has never been made for moral reasons. I think to say 'never' is going too far. Anyway, that is what the Pope is trying to do.

you want everything to be decided according to reason

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that people should not use reason to decide if they should use reason or not? I hope not because it is a wish or desire to be a slave.

Some people are slaves of their own prejudices. Sometimes reasonable people find a reason to modify their views.

An inflammatory post has been deleted.

At last! Something positive to report.

Pope Francis has called for power in the Catholic Church to be devolved away from the Vatican, in the first major work he has written in the role.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25102720

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html

My only worry is, something of an Op Ed from the above BBC link.

In addition, Pope Francis says that ties with Islam have taken on great importance for the Catholic Church because of the growing number of Muslim immigrants now residing in many traditionally Catholic countries. "We Christians," he says, "should embrace Muslims with affection and respect in the same way that we hope and ask to be respected in countries of Islamic tradition."

Not sure interfaith child 'male' rape will go down so well but who knows.

Remember, notmyself, that turning the Church round is like turning a supertanker. It takes a long while!

The Pope's statement is consistent with all he has done and said since his election; after all, he has only been Pope since March. I think a lot of people must be thinking what a pity it is that he wasn't elected when John Paul II died; he would have had that much longer to work. Interestingly, the other great reforming Pope of modern times, John XXIII, was also 76 when he was elected.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-launches-new-commission-for-the-protection-of-minors/

More progress towards the protection of children from abuse.

Note that the Pope's concern is with the welfare of the children, not the punishment of the abusers.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-launches-new-commission-for-the-protection-of-minors/

More progress towards the protection of children from abuse.

Note that the Pope's concern is with the welfare of the children, not the punishment of the abusers.

Offering extreme pastoral care which they have already betrayed with the children of their own church.

Release the information regarding institutionalised child rape and those whom have gotten away with it as requested by the UN. If not, prepare to be boarded.

The last pope didn't resign for health reason per se, he deserted a sinking ship.

The most frightening story of all however dates back to July when Pope Francis brought in new laws for the Vatican state. Again the superficial story - increasing the maximum sentence for child sex abusers in the state from 10 to 12 years - makes great positive press.

[..]

He might have been media-unfriendly, hard line, sexist and homophobic, but at least we knew what we were getting with Pope Benedict.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-wolf-in-popes-clothing-francis-is-not-the-progressive-man-he-has-been-made-out-to-be-8851316.html

Should be more news to come as they are getting a grilling by the UN.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/pope-benedict-defrocked-400-priests-child-abuse

What the much-maligned Pope Benedict did.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/pope-benedict-defrocked-400-priests-child-abuse

What the much-maligned Pope Benedict did.

The maximum penalty for a priest convicted by a church tribunal is essentially losing his job: being defrocked, or removed from the clerical state. There are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from raping again.

Cracking job

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/pope-benedict-defrocked-400-priests-child-abuse

What the much-maligned Pope Benedict did.

The maximum penalty for a priest convicted by a church tribunal is essentially losing his job: being defrocked, or removed from the clerical state. There are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from raping again.

Cracking job

Surely if there is enough proof for a church tribunal to convict, then there is enough proof for a civil court to also convict. Then the subsequent sentencing will be in accordance with the law of the land.

If there is not enough credible evidence for a civil court to convict, then the church tribunal has surely impugned the reputation of these men unjustifiably and opened itself to civil suits regarding unfair and unlawful employment practices?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/pope-benedict-defrocked-400-priests-child-abuse

What the much-maligned Pope Benedict did.

The maximum penalty for a priest convicted by a church tribunal is essentially losing his job: being defrocked, or removed from the clerical state. There are no jail terms and nothing to prevent an offender from raping again.

Cracking job

Surely if there is enough proof for a church tribunal to convict, then there is enough proof for a civil court to also convict. Then the subsequent sentencing will be in accordance with the law of the land.

If there is not enough credible evidence for a civil court to convict, then the church tribunal has surely impugned the reputation of these men unjustifiably and opened itself to civil suits regarding unfair and unlawful employment practices?

Presumably, if the church authorities take action, at least the civil authorities know this has happened? Then, as you say, HB, they can go ahead and take their own action.

The Church has no jails, and is anyway only concerned directly with enforcing its own laws. It is not an arm of the state. That said, presumably the individuals concerned have the same responsibility as private individuals in that when they know a crime has been committed, they are obliged to report it. But how far does that extend? To all crimes (including e.g. tax evasion), or crimes of what degree of seriousness? (I'm not condoning paedophilia, just interested in the responsibility of the ordinary citizen, and how much this responsibility is discharged.)

It's worth noting in this context that Jimmy Saville is alleged to have committed at least 450 paedophilic crimes, and maybe as many as 1000, while working for the BBC, and, as I read today, "everybody knew about it". But nobody did anything.

Surely if there is enough proof for a church tribunal to convict, then there is enough proof for a civil court to also convict. Then the subsequent sentencing will be in accordance with the law of the land.

I agree 100% but that is not what we see is it?

There is enough evidence to charge a plethora of Priests and other members of the CC including Benedict himself. Problem is, nobody will touch it because it is a religious institution and therefore double standards are used. Sure, you get the odd one or two dotted around the world every so often to keep away the wolves but for the most part hush money is paid and the institution refuses to divulge anything. Some, just get taken into the Vatican and given a desk job which means they a harbouring a known fugitive. It's like Thaksin (to keep it Thai related), why has Thailand not issued an international arrest warrant for him? Double standards.

All this hushing up etc. is so well known that in any other guise, it would be considered a criminal institution and action would be taken against it. If the CC would like to keep what little respect it has left then they should release all the information they have to those who deal with 'accordance with the law of the land' but will they? Not a chance. At the very very least they are perverting the course of justice.

If the evidence is there, notmyself, why does the state (whichever state you refer to) not use it? In the case of Protestant countries, it is simply just not true that the state hushes things up; they'd be delighted to smear the Catholic Church (they wouldn't admit it, but it's true).

If the evidence is hidden by the Church, how can you be sure what this evidence is? You're taking hearsay, and the more scurrilous anti-Catholic press, and holding it up for truth.

Nobody is going to deny that a great deal of wrong has been done, and things have to be put right. That is what the Church is trying to do, but it is concerned with the immortal souls of its members, even the evildoing ones, and is not vindictive. It is not a spying agency for the secular powers.

The Church is formed of human beings, and if you force human beings into a corner, they are more likely to take less action than more. Maybe they shouldn't, but they will.