Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain over- simplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined
In other words, as has been noted, the numbers from the tree rings don't match the numbers from the stations over a given period of time. (As it turns out, in this period of time, the tree rings show a markedly lower temperature than their data sets of instrument readings show.) The issue isn't whether they've "highlighted this issue" in "presentations of this work" -- they have; they're more than willing to say "yeah, the tree rings don't support global warming trends over period of time X". The issue is that they've unceremoniously dumped these tree ring data from their data sets, for no apparent better reason than that it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions! That's what you should be looking into! Not whether they say "tree ring data and instrument data diverge", but whether they're justified in dumping the data that diverges from their pet theories!!!
Damn... I really need to read through this whole thing before commenting. Oh, hell...
Anyway, #2 continues:
The Panel worked by examining representative publications by members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University discussing the Unit’s work.
Seven people were on the panel. Two were there on both days, implying that the other five were only there once. That's nine people-visits. fifteen person/days = 15 * 8 person-hours.
Wait -- WTF? Given the volume of data, the amount of research publications, the type and severity of allegations against them... the panel members spent an average of only 3 hours each, looking into this issue? Oh, yeah, you're really gonna find the truth in that amount of time! Hell, that's barely enough for introductions, small talk about the state of your research, and having a donut and cup a coffee!
The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on the integrity of the Unit's research and whether as far as could be determined the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data. The Panel worked by examining representative publications by members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University discussing the Unit's work.
So... we didn't look into whether their numbers were right. We looked over their published papers and chatted with them a couple of times and they seem like forthright folks. We won't tell you who was there each time - that would be too much disclosure.
No whitewash here. Oh, no.
Nice catch, but wait -- you're missing the point. We know that their methods were shoddy; we know that they dumped the original data; we know that they massaged the hell out of the data to come up with their "value-added" data set. Now, all this group did was to check whether the value-added data set matched the conclusions that were derived from it? That's like taking Bernie Madoff's bank accounts, and failing to ask "where'd you get all this money, sport?", but rather, simply count it up and verify that it added up to $65 million! "Yep, yep, there's $65 million here. OK, nothing to see here -- move along, now!"
Never having had a family makes anyone a less effective family counsellor, no matter how much schooling they have had.
Good psychologists are made by good schooling. Good relationship counsellors? Not so much... there are some things books cannot adequately teach you, first hand experience is required.
See, you're so close -- if only a psychologist / counsellor would step up here and sound off: yes, first hand experience is required -- but it's first hand experience in counselling folks through these difficulties, not living them...!
and by the way -- wouldn't the appropriate training a solid family or relationship counsellor have... be psychology?
wait -- are you being serious? The YouTube Symphony was simply a mechanism to collect auditions; their performance was live, as a group, (certainly) rehearsed as a group, and, although well done, not groundbreaking in any "virtual" way.
On the other hand, this choir "performance" is actually the combination of individual performances, done all at the singers' locations, without group rehearsal, and combined into a "virtual" performance, which we get to hear and see in real-time.
The differences are like night and day -- are you seriously not seeing the originality of the approach here?
Well... what else is out there, where a conductor took hundreds of choral parts, recorded solo, and stitched them together both for sight and sound, creating a single, sync'ed whole choral piece?
Additional translation note: Morals are inherently relative to personal values and situational details. Anytime someone warns about moral relativism, it's because they want you to follow their values and sense of right and wrong, instead of your own.
Of course, that's your values and sense of right and wrong -- why are you trying to force them on me?
he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.
this is an inaccurate account of what happened. In 2001, Ratzinger's "bureau", the CDF, was given authority to prosecute certain types of canonical cases. Among these was sexual misconduct of priests against minors. When the CDF reviewed the document that gave it this authority, they requested that the same court standards that had applied to the previous authority (the Roman Rota, or Vatican court (in ways, similar to the SCOTUS)), should be applied to them. One of these was known as the "Pontifical Secret", which simply means that court proceedings should be sealed, under penalty of excommunication.
Note: this only applied to proceedings -- not to identification of priests accused of misconduct, not of the results of the proceedings, just the proceedings themselves... just like in the U.S., cases may be sealed.
This has nothing to do with blocking secular criminal proceedings, or hiding the names of those accused. Unfortunately, a poor job of translation (along with a healthy imagination and anti-Church bias) has turned this into an urban legend that just won't go away. Real shame that the BBC bought into it, five years ago.
From the Wiki article on "Pontifical Secret":
Thus the procedures of the Church tribunal were covered by papal secrecy (called at that time secrecy of the Holy Office), but the crime of the priest was not: "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."
I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.
I'm an agnostic, and any organization that systematically covers up child abuse is my enemy.
What about organizations that cover it up by failing to follow it up and quash it, allowing its perpetrators to move elsewhere and have the right to assume a similar role, and pick up where they left off? They your enemy, too?
Good -- make sure you take on the U.S. public school system, where folks (if fired) aren't stripped of their licenses; or, if stripped of their (state) license, aren't put on any kind of national list, and are able to teach in other states.
Why would an atheist, in particular, care who the Pope is? Is there some pro-atheist papal candidate who might have a shot at the papacy if the current Pope is ousted? It seems an odd statement.
Yeah, you're right. Folks never cheer when the other team's captain gets knocked out of the game...
If he does, I don't see why it's not a valid assertion. After all, it's factually correct, and Eastern Rites are still Catholic.
Because he's making the assertion against the notion of priestly celibacy, which is held by the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church -- which is the bulk (in numbers) and the face of the Church as perceived by most outside of the Church.
So, to assert some difference in Africa is implicitly asserting a difference in the Latin Rite. If it were the Eastern Rites of the Church, then he'd mention the Copts, the Byzantines, etc, etc, which he did not.
Who's talking about civil action? I'm pretty sure the issue is pretty well covered by criminal law.
Civil as opposed to canonical law.
in the U.S., dioceses are required to turn their info over to police
So, I must have missed where they did that? Instead of, you know, obstructing the police at every step.
Yes, you have, apparently. At least in the U.S., and although done better by some local dioceses than others over the years, then by all at least in the past ten years.
Admittedly, I know very little about the judicial workings of the Vatican, nor do I think they are particularly relevant here
They're completely relevant, since they're the topic of the whole discussion! The issue at hand is procedure within canonical court proceedings. The procedure being discussed -- the sealing of court records -- has nothing to do with civil (criminal) proceedings, nor does it attempt to conceal the names of those accused of canonical crimes.
what I care about is that the people who commit these crimes are prosecuted in the criminal justice systems of the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed.
Agreed. Now... why is there all the yelling, then, about the pope, when all the alleged abuse and coverups were happening at the diocese level? The Pope is not a CEO...!
And the Church's record in cooperating with local authorities in this matter is not exactly encouraging.
You'd have to qualify that with a location and a time frame for it to be accurate. In the U.S., over the past ten years, ever since this scandal broke, bishops have been highly cooperative with local authorities.
If you really think that any sort of schooling can teach someone about relationships the same way schooling can teach a doctor medicine, or a lawyer the law, then you are delusional beyond hope.
No, I'm not. I'm also including experience in counseling.
How do psychologists manage to counsel? You're not really trying to tell me that a BA, MA, and potentially a PhD, as well as time spent as a counselor, don't make the psychologist, just the personal life experience s/he's had with the subject matter? that's delusional!
Give me a break, those are all piss-poor examples....Would you go to a relationship counsellor who was never in a relationship?
Male ob/gyn's never experience the condition they monitor and offer advice on, don't they? And this is a poor example, then again... why?
the job of divorce lawyers is to offer legal services, something they are indeed very experienced in.
which is exactly my point: priests are experienced in offering pastoral counseling/services, which is something they are indeed very experienced in. Thanks for proving my point.
and not only are their numbers of ministers not increasing, but they're decreasing again, also!
Depends on the sect. There are some incredibly successful protestant churches right now.
Yes, there are successful churches, but that's a different topic -- we're talking about increases in numbers of ordained ministers. Not part-time workers: full-time, degreed professionals for whom their primary career is church ministry, at the parish level. Those numbers are declining.
I don't buy it, and I never have. There is not something morally bankrupt about modern culture that did not exist previously.
The problem isn't "moral bankruptcy", it's affluence. In the U.S., and the West, generally, more people live in middle-to-upperclass life situations, and have the expectation of continued affluence in their careers. It's this set of expectations that hinders the willingness to answer a call to ministry.
The vast, vast majority of people have no desire to be Paris Hilton.
Not according to recent polls of teenaged students in the U.S.! As they age, they abandon such superficial role models; however, the goals and ideals that these role models espouse tend to continue to be held dear...
I don't think it sounds right either, but I know I've read that in certain individual cases, mainly for clergyman from other faiths who convert then become priests, they are allowed to remain married.
Yes, you're correct -- in limited cases, there are exceptions to the rule. However, the OP is claiming that this is the norm in Africa (assumedly, for the Latin Rite), which it is not.
Contrary to your statement, the Vatican did withhold names of the accused and refused to prosecute priests involved in child abuse cases.
You're losing sight of the argument, which was that Ratzinger (head of the CDF, later named Pope Benedict XVI) set a rule mandating excommunication for those who turned over names to civil authorities, under the name of the "pontifical secret", and that has hidden the accused from civil prosecution. That's clearly wrong:
Authority in these cases was given to the CDF in 2001.
The CDF requested the sealing of case records under the pontifical secret for all cases it was to prosecute
Are you saying that there were cases prosecuted by the CDF since 2001 that (a) hadn't yet been visible to civil authorities, and (b) the identities of those accused have been hidden from civil authorities? Now that would be news! Instead, all we have are these impotent claims that pontifical secret means shielding the identities of the accused.
It only makes sense to seal a case to protect the victim or the innocent accused if you have complete confidence in the judicial process
in a civil case, yes. in a canonical case, where the notion of sin is tied up in the determination of guilt or innocence, that's not the case; sealing works both for the victim and the accused.
And since the Vatican's judicial process is biased in favour of the priests (being, of course, presided by priests behind closed doors)
that's a complete conjecture. do you have anything approaching proof? if it were biased in favor of priests, then there'd be no "convictions" (laicizations), right?
On a related note, I find it ridiculous that the Vatican publishes material in Latin hundreds of years after the language died, and then people like you complain about improper translations.
French is the official language of France, German is the official language of Germany, Latin is the official language of the Vatican. Each uses it in its official proceedings. Hence, not a dead language. There's no excuse for shoddy translations of official documents, regardless of language. Are you really telling me that there are no Latin language experts out there, even among academics, who have to use it in their research all the time? No -- it isn't ridiculous, and using a poor translation is always an approach to be ridiculed.
It's bullshit like this that brought forth the protestant reform, more than 400 years ago.
Yes... it's clearly bullshit to allow an institution or government to make up its own rules and then follow them. Puh-leeze!
How is it within the Church's authority to prosecute these cases?
Because it's canon law -- the Church here is prosecuting priests who have broken Church law. Clearly, that's within their authority.
Also, you left out the coverup - telling anyone about the abuse = excommunication.
sigh. show me anywhere in the record (it's online in the Vatican, where the "Pontifical Secret" is defined) where "telling anyone about abuse = excommunication" -- that's exactly the urban legend that's untrue!
Look: breaking the Pontifical Secret ==> excommunication.
breaking the Pontifical Secret == revealing court proceedings, not charges nor results
breaking the Pontifical Secret =/= "telling anyone about abuse"
Oh, I'm absolutely not defending the abuse of children; just clearing up the misconception that the "Pontifical secret" is anything other than the sealing of court proceedings. Not the names and charges levied against priests, not the results of the cases, just the proceedings themselves. which, as it turns out, are irrelevant to civil proceedings, since they're canonical proceedings.
It has nothing to do with civil action -- this procedure neither prevents nor hinders civil cases. the two operate separately, since they're addressing separate crimes.
in the U.S., dioceses are required to turn their info over to police; once that's done, and they initiate canonical cases, the proceedings of those canonical cases are closed. that's all that's going on here.
your assertion that this has anything to do with civil jurisprudence is poorly informed. read up on it yourself, rather than trusting the documents that a defense lawyer served up to the NYT; you'll see...
Civil law is totally subjective as it is a pure human invention. Computer science and science in general are descriptions of natural phenomena and as such have objective rules that do not change based on the observer.
that's your definition of objective? Wow...
Natural phenomena, as such, can only be described based on observation; these descriptions, then, are completely subjective, as they're based on an individual's observations and descriptions.
ok -- so civil law is subjective; it changes based on the observer? Go point a pistol at someone and pull the trigger, and call it "self-defense"; we'll see how subjective the definition of "murder" is, ok?
So far as your "god just called" quip, what came up on your caller id?
LOL! Hmm... so many answers... 777-YHWH? Alpha-Omega?
Slashdot Mirror
How will the Infinite Improbability Drive work now? It depended on Brownian motion. Now probability can never come off 1:1 and it'll never work!
On the other hand, perhaps now that extra-terrestrial nice cup of tea is possible...
#7 says:
Recent public discussion of climate change and summaries and popularizations of the work of CRU and others often contain over- simplifications that omit serious discussion of uncertainties emphasized by the original authors. For example, CRU publications repeatedly emphasize the discrepancy between instrumental and tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature during the late 20th century, but presentations of this work by the IPCC and others have sometimes neglected to highlight this issue. While we find this regrettable, we could find no such fault with the peer-reviewed papers we examined
In other words, as has been noted, the numbers from the tree rings don't match the numbers from the stations over a given period of time. (As it turns out, in this period of time, the tree rings show a markedly lower temperature than their data sets of instrument readings show.) The issue isn't whether they've "highlighted this issue" in "presentations of this work" -- they have; they're more than willing to say "yeah, the tree rings don't support global warming trends over period of time X". The issue is that they've unceremoniously dumped these tree ring data from their data sets, for no apparent better reason than that it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions! That's what you should be looking into! Not whether they say "tree ring data and instrument data diverge", but whether they're justified in dumping the data that diverges from their pet theories!!!
Damn... I really need to read through this whole thing before commenting. Oh, hell...
Anyway, #2 continues:
The Panel worked by examining representative publications by members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University discussing the Unit’s work.
Seven people were on the panel. Two were there on both days, implying that the other five were only there once. That's nine people-visits. fifteen person/days = 15 * 8 person-hours.
120 person-hours / 9 person-visits = 40/3 hours/visit.
Wait -- WTF? Given the volume of data, the amount of research publications, the type and severity of allegations against them... the panel members spent an average of only 3 hours each , looking into this issue? Oh, yeah, you're really gonna find the truth in that amount of time! Hell, that's barely enough for introductions, small talk about the state of your research, and having a donut and cup a coffee!
The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
the published research were correct. Rather it was asked to come to a view on
the integrity of the Unit's research and whether as far as could be determined
the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation
of the data. The Panel worked by examining representative publications by
members of the Unit and subsequently by making two visits to the University
and interviewing and questioning members of the Unit. Not all the panel were
present on both occasions but two members were present on both occasions to
maintain continuity. About fifteen person/days were spent at the University
discussing the Unit's work.
So... we didn't look into whether their numbers were right. We looked over their published papers and chatted with them a couple of times and they seem like forthright folks. We won't tell you who was there each time - that would be too much disclosure.
No whitewash here. Oh, no.
Nice catch, but wait -- you're missing the point. We know that their methods were shoddy; we know that they dumped the original data; we know that they massaged the hell out of the data to come up with their "value-added" data set. Now, all this group did was to check whether the value-added data set matched the conclusions that were derived from it? That's like taking Bernie Madoff's bank accounts, and failing to ask "where'd you get all this money, sport?", but rather, simply count it up and verify that it added up to $65 million! "Yep, yep, there's $65 million here. OK, nothing to see here -- move along, now!"
Never having had a family makes anyone a less effective family counsellor, no matter how much schooling they have had.
Good psychologists are made by good schooling. Good relationship counsellors? Not so much... there are some things books cannot adequately teach you, first hand experience is required.
See, you're so close -- if only a psychologist / counsellor would step up here and sound off: yes, first hand experience is required -- but it's first hand experience in counselling folks through these difficulties, not living them...!
and by the way -- wouldn't the appropriate training a solid family or relationship counsellor have... be psychology?
wait -- are you being serious? The YouTube Symphony was simply a mechanism to collect auditions; their performance was live, as a group, (certainly) rehearsed as a group, and, although well done, not groundbreaking in any "virtual" way.
On the other hand, this choir "performance" is actually the combination of individual performances, done all at the singers' locations, without group rehearsal, and combined into a "virtual" performance, which we get to hear and see in real-time.
The differences are like night and day -- are you seriously not seeing the originality of the approach here?
Well... what else is out there, where a conductor took hundreds of choral parts, recorded solo, and stitched them together both for sight and sound, creating a single, sync'ed whole choral piece?
Additional translation note:
Morals are inherently relative to personal values and situational details. Anytime someone warns about moral relativism, it's because they want you to follow their values and sense of right and wrong, instead of your own.
Of course, that's your values and sense of right and wrong -- why are you trying to force them on me?
It's worse than that.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do
he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.
this is an inaccurate account of what happened. In 2001, Ratzinger's "bureau", the CDF, was given authority to prosecute certain types of canonical cases. Among these was sexual misconduct of priests against minors. When the CDF reviewed the document that gave it this authority, they requested that the same court standards that had applied to the previous authority (the Roman Rota, or Vatican court (in ways, similar to the SCOTUS)), should be applied to them. One of these was known as the "Pontifical Secret", which simply means that court proceedings should be sealed, under penalty of excommunication.
Note: this only applied to proceedings -- not to identification of priests accused of misconduct, not of the results of the proceedings, just the proceedings themselves... just like in the U.S., cases may be sealed.
This has nothing to do with blocking secular criminal proceedings, or hiding the names of those accused. Unfortunately, a poor job of translation (along with a healthy imagination and anti-Church bias) has turned this into an urban legend that just won't go away. Real shame that the BBC bought into it, five years ago.
From the Wiki article on "Pontifical Secret":
Thus the procedures of the Church tribunal were covered by papal secrecy (called at that time secrecy of the Holy Office), but the crime of the priest was not: "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."
I'm an atheist too, and I want to say for the record that the Catholic Church is not my enemy.
I'm an agnostic, and any organization that systematically covers up child abuse is my enemy.
What about organizations that cover it up by failing to follow it up and quash it, allowing its perpetrators to move elsewhere and have the right to assume a similar role, and pick up where they left off? They your enemy, too?
Good -- make sure you take on the U.S. public school system, where folks (if fired) aren't stripped of their licenses; or, if stripped of their (state) license, aren't put on any kind of national list, and are able to teach in other states.
All it will do is make a few Atheists happy.
Why would an atheist, in particular, care who the Pope is? Is there some pro-atheist papal candidate who might have a shot at the papacy if the current Pope is ousted? It seems an odd statement.
Yeah, you're right. Folks never cheer when the other team's captain gets knocked out of the game...
Your reference:
Many African priests live openly with wives and children, in defiance of the Vatican's celibacy requirement.
from the OP:
The Catholic Church allows African priests to marry, did you know that?
Somewhere, your English teachers are rolling over in their graves, unless there's a world where "defiance" == "allows"...! ;^)
If he does, I don't see why it's not a valid assertion. After all, it's factually correct, and Eastern Rites are still Catholic.
Because he's making the assertion against the notion of priestly celibacy, which is held by the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church -- which is the bulk (in numbers) and the face of the Church as perceived by most outside of the Church.
So, to assert some difference in Africa is implicitly asserting a difference in the Latin Rite. If it were the Eastern Rites of the Church, then he'd mention the Copts, the Byzantines, etc, etc, which he did not.
Who's talking about civil action? I'm pretty sure the issue is pretty well covered by criminal law.
Civil as opposed to canonical law.
in the U.S., dioceses are required to turn their info over to police
So, I must have missed where they did that? Instead of, you know, obstructing the police at every step.
Yes, you have, apparently. At least in the U.S., and although done better by some local dioceses than others over the years, then by all at least in the past ten years.
Admittedly, I know very little about the judicial workings of the Vatican, nor do I think they are particularly relevant here
They're completely relevant, since they're the topic of the whole discussion! The issue at hand is procedure within canonical court proceedings. The procedure being discussed -- the sealing of court records -- has nothing to do with civil (criminal) proceedings, nor does it attempt to conceal the names of those accused of canonical crimes.
what I care about is that the people who commit these crimes are prosecuted in the criminal justice systems of the jurisdictions where the crimes were committed.
Agreed. Now... why is there all the yelling, then, about the pope, when all the alleged abuse and coverups were happening at the diocese level? The Pope is not a CEO...!
And the Church's record in cooperating with local authorities in this matter is not exactly encouraging.
You'd have to qualify that with a location and a time frame for it to be accurate. In the U.S., over the past ten years, ever since this scandal broke, bishops have been highly cooperative with local authorities.
If you really think that any sort of schooling can teach someone about relationships the same way schooling can teach a doctor medicine, or a lawyer the law, then you are delusional beyond hope.
No, I'm not. I'm also including experience in counseling.
How do psychologists manage to counsel? You're not really trying to tell me that a BA, MA, and potentially a PhD, as well as time spent as a counselor, don't make the psychologist, just the personal life experience s/he's had with the subject matter? that's delusional!
"Tee, or I'll gray out!". Yep, not at all difficult to parse...
Give me a break, those are all piss-poor examples. ...Would you go to a relationship counsellor who was never in a relationship?
Male ob/gyn's never experience the condition they monitor and offer advice on, don't they? And this is a poor example, then again... why?
the job of divorce lawyers is to offer legal services, something they are indeed very experienced in.
which is exactly my point: priests are experienced in offering pastoral counseling/services, which is something they are indeed very experienced in. Thanks for proving my point.
and not only are their numbers of ministers not increasing, but they're decreasing again, also!
Depends on the sect. There are some incredibly successful protestant churches right now.
Yes, there are successful churches, but that's a different topic -- we're talking about increases in numbers of ordained ministers. Not part-time workers: full-time, degreed professionals for whom their primary career is church ministry, at the parish level. Those numbers are declining.
I don't buy it, and I never have. There is not something morally bankrupt about modern culture that did not exist previously.
The problem isn't "moral bankruptcy", it's affluence. In the U.S., and the West, generally, more people live in middle-to-upperclass life situations, and have the expectation of continued affluence in their careers. It's this set of expectations that hinders the willingness to answer a call to ministry.
The vast, vast majority of people have no desire to be Paris Hilton.
Not according to recent polls of teenaged students in the U.S.! As they age, they abandon such superficial role models; however, the goals and ideals that these role models espouse tend to continue to be held dear...
I don't think it sounds right either, but I know I've read that in certain individual cases, mainly for clergyman from other faiths who convert then become priests, they are allowed to remain married.
Yes, you're correct -- in limited cases, there are exceptions to the rule. However, the OP is claiming that this is the norm in Africa (assumedly, for the Latin Rite), which it is not.
Contrary to your statement, the Vatican did withhold names of the accused and refused to prosecute priests involved in child abuse cases.
You're losing sight of the argument, which was that Ratzinger (head of the CDF, later named Pope Benedict XVI) set a rule mandating excommunication for those who turned over names to civil authorities, under the name of the "pontifical secret", and that has hidden the accused from civil prosecution. That's clearly wrong:
Are you saying that there were cases prosecuted by the CDF since 2001 that (a) hadn't yet been visible to civil authorities, and (b) the identities of those accused have been hidden from civil authorities? Now that would be news! Instead, all we have are these impotent claims that pontifical secret means shielding the identities of the accused.
It only makes sense to seal a case to protect the victim or the innocent accused if you have complete confidence in the judicial process
in a civil case, yes. in a canonical case, where the notion of sin is tied up in the determination of guilt or innocence, that's not the case; sealing works both for the victim and the accused.
And since the Vatican's judicial process is biased in favour of the priests (being, of course, presided by priests behind closed doors)
that's a complete conjecture. do you have anything approaching proof? if it were biased in favor of priests, then there'd be no "convictions" (laicizations), right?
On a related note, I find it ridiculous that the Vatican publishes material in Latin hundreds of years after the language died, and then people like you complain about improper translations.
French is the official language of France, German is the official language of Germany, Latin is the official language of the Vatican. Each uses it in its official proceedings. Hence, not a dead language. There's no excuse for shoddy translations of official documents, regardless of language. Are you really telling me that there are no Latin language experts out there, even among academics, who have to use it in their research all the time? No -- it isn't ridiculous, and using a poor translation is always an approach to be ridiculed.
It's bullshit like this that brought forth the protestant reform, more than 400 years ago.
Yes... it's clearly bullshit to allow an institution or government to make up its own rules and then follow them. Puh-leeze!
How is it within the Church's authority to prosecute these cases?
Because it's canon law -- the Church here is prosecuting priests who have broken Church law. Clearly, that's within their authority.
Also, you left out the coverup - telling anyone about the abuse = excommunication.
sigh. show me anywhere in the record (it's online in the Vatican, where the "Pontifical Secret" is defined) where "telling anyone about abuse = excommunication" -- that's exactly the urban legend that's untrue!
Look: breaking the Pontifical Secret ==> excommunication.
breaking the Pontifical Secret == revealing court proceedings, not charges nor results
breaking the Pontifical Secret =/= "telling anyone about abuse"
Oh, I'm absolutely not defending the abuse of children; just clearing up the misconception that the "Pontifical secret" is anything other than the sealing of court proceedings. Not the names and charges levied against priests, not the results of the cases, just the proceedings themselves. which, as it turns out, are irrelevant to civil proceedings, since they're canonical proceedings.
It has nothing to do with civil action -- this procedure neither prevents nor hinders civil cases. the two operate separately, since they're addressing separate crimes.
in the U.S., dioceses are required to turn their info over to police; once that's done, and they initiate canonical cases, the proceedings of those canonical cases are closed. that's all that's going on here.
your assertion that this has anything to do with civil jurisprudence is poorly informed. read up on it yourself, rather than trusting the documents that a defense lawyer served up to the NYT; you'll see...
LOL... "Anonymous Coward" has never been more appropriate...
Civil law is totally subjective as it is a pure human invention. Computer science and science in general are descriptions of natural phenomena and as such have objective rules that do not change based on the observer.
that's your definition of objective? Wow...
Natural phenomena, as such, can only be described based on observation; these descriptions, then, are completely subjective, as they're based on an individual's observations and descriptions.
ok -- so civil law is subjective; it changes based on the observer? Go point a pistol at someone and pull the trigger, and call it "self-defense"; we'll see how subjective the definition of "murder" is, ok?
So far as your "god just called" quip, what came up on your caller id?
LOL! Hmm... so many answers... 777-YHWH? Alpha-Omega?