Changing Vatican rules on sex abuse

The Vatican is considering unspecified changes in canon law with regard to accusations of clerical sex abuse, possibly to extend the statute of limitations on filing canonical charges -- this, owing to the reality that some victims struggle to come forward for years. Good. But this passage is really puzzling. "He" is Cardinal William Levada, whom Benedict chose to replace him at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, among other things, handles clerical sex abuse cases:

At the luncheon, where he sat on a stage and fielded a few questions, he said he did not foresee punishing bishops who failed to remove priests suspected of molesting young people.

“I personally do not accept that there is a broad base of bishops who are guilty of aiding and abetting pedophiles, and if I thought there were, or knew of them, I would certainly talk to the pope about what could be done about it,” the cardinal said.

“I am aware of bishops who have admitted to making mistakes, but those seem to be mistakes grounded in taking counsel that didn’t turn out to be good advice,” he said, explaining that he was referring to reports from psychologists and therapists.

What is the difference between making "mistakes" that can be blamed on psychologists and therapists, and "aiding and abetting pedophiles"? I know the difference in criminal law, but morally? I would like to know the cardinal's thinking here.

Also, how many bishops have to be suspect before it constitutes a "broad base," thus triggering Cardinal Levada's concern? In 2002, The Dallas Morning News found that about two-thirds of sitting US bishops had allowed priests accused of molestation to remain in active ministry. Did they all make mere "mistakes," and are therefore guilty of nothing to trouble Cdl. Levada?

A few years back, the News did a series on fugitive priests, clerics who had been formally accused of sex abuse but who had fled abroad to escape US justice, and were still working in ministry:

Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children are hiding abroad and working in church ministries, The Dallas Morning News has found. From Africa to Latin America to Europe to Asia, these priests have started new lives in unsuspecting communities, often with the help of church officials. They are leading parishes, teaching and continuing to work in settings that bring them into contact with children, despite church claims to the contrary.

The global movement has gone largely unnoticed -- even after an abuse scandal swept the U.S. Catholic Church in 2002, forcing bishops to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy and drawing international attention.

Starting this week and continuing in coming months, we report the results of a yearlong investigation that reaches all six occupied continents. Key findings include: Nearly half of the more than 200 cases we identified involve clergy who tried to elude law enforcement. About 30 remain free in one country while facing ongoing criminal inquiries, arrest warrants or convictions in another.

Most runaway priests remain in the church, the world's largest organization, so they should be easier to locate than other fugitives.

Instead, Catholic leaders have used international transfers to thwart justice, a practice that poses far greater challenges to law enforcement than the domestic moves exposed in the 2002 scandal.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras sheltered an admitted molester on the run from the law. Is that aiding and abetting, or just a mistake? Or how about this in L.A.:

By April 1987, the priest had transferred to Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in East Los Angeles.

After about two months, he was transferred again, to St. Agatha in South Central Los Angeles.

Father Aguilar maintained ties with families at the first parish. And by December 1987, two young altar boys there were telling their mother that Father Aguilar had been molesting them.

She contacted Our Lady of Guadalupe's head priest. He begged her to stay quiet, she said. The head priest also alerted the cardinal's head of clergy personnel, Monsignor Thomas Curry.

Meanwhile, the woman's husband contacted another couple Father Aguilar had befriended. Soon, their boys also were saying that they had been abused.

On a weekday in early January 1988, their mother called the parish school, whose principal notified police the following Monday morning.

It was too late. Monsignor Curry – who is now a bishop and still working for Cardinal Mahony – had advised Father Aguilar of the allegations at least two days earlier and suspended him.

Father Aguilar had told Monsignor Curry he would return to Mexico, according to police reports. But the monsignor did not notify authorities of the priest's plans. Meanwhile, Father Aguilar had a local relative drive him to Tijuana.

Later, Sister Judith Murphy, a nun who was Cardinal Mahony's in-house lawyer for 17 years, refused police requests for church records.

"My biggest problem was the stonewalling of the Catholic Church," said Gary Lyon, lead detective on the Aguilar case, who has since retired.

Added Janice Maurizi, a Los Angeles prosecutor, "The archdiocese facilitated his flight."

Aiding and abetting, aye. It's been in the papers, Eminenza. If you care to see.