So you didn't bother reading the link.
It is a good question. Did you research why this is the case?
I'm confident in the dichotomies I established, therefore I won't be accepting homework. Links are there to backup raw evidence not substitute for answers. If he was charged and found guilty then somebody managed to contact the right authority. If the assaults happened but people only negotiated with the church that's their fault. If there was no assault and there was a payout that is just blackmail.
Under no circumstances is the church the appropriate entity to be sending criminal complaints to, and therefore under no circumstances is the church responsible for anything. This is not particular to The Church, Amazon isn't responsible for stopping the crimes of its employees, nor is Disney, nor any other organization not empowered by law to seek subpoenas, arrests, etc... they should not respond to complaints in any way except: Send it to the police, we will always consider our employees innocent until proven guilty.
"Innocent" does not mean "kinda guilty" and so we fire them. Fuzzy logic and justice don't mix.
The FBI did;
Church
officials followed a “playbook for concealing the truth,” the reports
states. The patterns were similar enough that FBI analyses of the
church’s responses yielded seven rules, basically, an institutional
guide to covering up abuse. Here are seven principles the jurors note:
Jurors? What jurors?
Make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the
sexual assaults in diocese documents. Never say”rape”; say
“inappropriate contact” or “boundary issues.”
...Maybe that is what they (church staff) believed the issue was.
Don’t conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel.
Instead, assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and
then make credibility determinations about the colleagues with whom they
live and work.
For an appearance of integrity, send priests for “evaluation” at
church-run psychiatric treatment centers. Allow these experts to
“diagnose” whether the priest was a pedophile, based largely on the
priest’s “self-reports” and regardless of whether the priest had
actually engaged in sexual contact with a child.
When a
priest does have to be removed, don’t say why. Tell his parishioners
that he is on “sick leave,” or suffering from”nervous exhaustion.” Or
say nothing at all.
That is definitely a mistake, just like social media fact-checking they advance themselves in a role they do not belong in and therefore get blamed for being less than perfect. The most the superiors of a clergyman should ever do is inform the man/woman in question that there have been complaints and they should change their behavior.
That is assuming "boundary issues" not child sexual assault. If someone goes to a church official with accusations of sexual assault they should be told to contact the police. If they don't contact the police and continue to talk with the church the only explanation is that they want money. The church can't lock people up. ALL they can do is pay blackmail and move priests around.
Even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and
living expenses, although he may be using these resources to facilitate
more sexual assaults.
That beggars belief.
If a predator’s conduct becomes known to the community, don’t remove him
from the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized.
Instead, transfer him to a new location where no one will know he is a
child abuser.
... because only priests can go after children? if they defrock him without a trial he's still out there. They move the priest because in their view vicious and unfounded rumors have rendered his service in that diocese useless.
Finally, and above all, don’t tell the police. Child sexual abuse, even
short of actual penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a
crime. But don’t treat it that way; handle it like a personnel matter,
“in house.”
It's not their job to tell the police, it's the job of the witnesses. If I was raped in a Disney parking lot and I reported it only to Disney no one should take my story seriously. Especially if I asked Disney for 5 million USD to keep quiet.
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight"
that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? And
why
hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer
Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing
and publishing false and defamatory accusations?
Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics . Another might be the fact that the Church knows they have bad PR and don't want to stoke the flames.
So it will be the fault of children, their parents, the police and the
local authorities, and not the RC Church according to your own biases.
According to a sane interpretation of responsibility, not my biases. Employers are not responsible for conducting criminal investigations. The police are not to blame if no one ever informs them. If parents want money more than arrests they are to blame for the lack of arrests. They may not have planned to pimp out their child but the end result is the same.
McCarthy said that despite making some concessions to legal authorities by eventually turning over church records
The police do not need to ask for records, if there is probable cause they can get a subpoena.
You
don't seem to understand how this works do you? You also underestimate
the power of the RC Church and you obviously haven't ever heard of
penitent privilege.
I think I do understand.
Your quote implied there were records (documents) that were relevant in establishing a crime. That's got nothing to do with penitent privilege. If you're referring to the seal of confessional written records are not made of those conversations. If the seal was broken there would be no confessions, any confessions made in regards to child sexual assault would not make their way up church hierarchy because that would break the seal.
As for this abstract "power", they have money. Just like Amazon has money. The only power there is pay people to keep quiet and that is exactly what your links imply happened.
I suppose it would seem that way... if you were a Roman Catholic.
Or if you're an objective observer. Ratzinger goes along with all the accusations, agrees (against reason) that the church is substantially responsible for policing its clergy, and people still say he's no good? What exactly does a pope need to do? Throw themselves off St Peter's? Or perhaps produce the secret list of pedophiles the conspiracy theorists are so sure exists?
Tell me, do you believe a persons testimony should be taken as truth and at face value?
Depends on the history and context. A random stranger's claim should neither be dismissed nor considered infallible.
