Could someone please provide details on these child abuse cases the Pope is alleged to have "covered up"?

The allegation is that the church's organisation covered them up, including sending all information on cases to the Vatican and out of reach to local authorities, and that Cardinal Ratzinger was instrumental in that process.

The subsequent allegation is that that Vatican has refused to cooperate with investigators trying to find information on abusers so as to seek prosecutions, as 'Canon Law' is still held as more important than national law. This means that in many cases, it's not even known who the abusers are.

Here's a transcript of a BBC investigative report revealing Ratzinger's role on sending information to the Vatican, out of reach of legal authorities:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/540...

Here's an example of TENS of THOUSANDS of children being abused, where a deal was made between the Irish government and the church so that NO prosecutions would occur and the church would be indemnified against compensation claims. Subsequent Irish administrations have sought to pursue the issue, but the key information needed for prosecutions is in the Vatican, and it's not revealing it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-...

The official report had to limit itself to TWO THOUSAND sample cases so as not to be swamped. Note how an after-report reveals that 12,000 victims have received compensation for their abuse, even though nobody has faced justice.

If you need details on names and dates the official report is available on many sites, but bear in mind that much of it will be confidential to protect the victims.

Here's part of the public reaction to the lack of prosecutions, referring to the church as the "largest paedophile ring in Ireland"

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/angry-abus...

Here's a Canon Law expert revealing how he would not share information on abuse with the authorities:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/monsignor-...

Here's a government minister claiming that church authorities have been obstructing attempts to seek justice:

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100223-25437.htm...

Here's a case of a priest being given money by the church to 'go away', instead of being reported to police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/85...

Here's a case of an abuse victim trying to take legal action against a Papal Nuncio for protecting his abuser, and Papal diplomatic immunity used to prevent any such legal action. He then went on to try to sue the Pope, though with similar legal obstruction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/c...

This is a newspaper article about the same victim, now a campaigner for other victims, and calling on the church to stop obstructing efforts to safeguard children.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/spectrum/Colm...

To date, the Vatican has still refused to open its archives to investigators, and it's the earlier implicated Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope, who has failed to use his authority to do so. Even by considering the tens of thousands of Irish cases alone, that's as big an allegation of 'cover up' as you can get.

Edit:

"The claims don't match up with facts"

You seem to be arguing that only the Pope can make such changes, and technically he is indeed the one that authorises them. However, it would be naive to assume that the Pope himself is the person who devises such changes and implements them. He is the ultimate authority on sanctioning changes, but it is series of 'experts' who are the ones who do the actual work on what is to be approved, and most importantly, perform the implementation. "Only following orders" is no more an excuse here than elsewhere.

Cardinal Ratzinger's key role is revealed here:

"A letter signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, respectively Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent to all the Roman Catholic Bishops on 18 May 2001. This letter informed the bishops of the new law and the new procedures which replaced the Instruction “Crimen Sollicitationis”."

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_introd-s...

In simple terms, it's alleged he was responsible as the 'enforcer' as well as originator, not the official sanctioner who can only be a Pope. To suggest otherwise would be like arguing that only Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust as leader, while Himmler was not, even though Himmler devised and implemented much of the policy.

Leaders sanctioning policies do not indemnify their enforcers or devisors if such policies are contrary to law or justice.

Edit2:

"Which is chronologically impossible, since April 30, 2001 comes before May 18, 2001."

I fail to see the problem, as the letter was sent out AFTER the official sanctioning. Enforcement of a policy couldn't happen BEFORE its sanctioning.

If you check that earlier quoted paragraph in my link it specifies:

"This new law was promulgated in the motu proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela” on 30 April 2001." immediately before my earlier quotation, and this is exactly in accordance with the information in your link.

Have you just mixed up your dates?

Edit3:

"How could he originator if his letter of May 18 informs the bishops of the law promulgated by JP II on April 30?"

You seem to be more than a little confused by the sequence:

a) Ratzinger's office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Inquisition) is the one in charge of matters of sexual abuse within the church, having been given that role in 1922. The department researches and devises the new policy, and it is drafted. Ratzinger is alleged to be the chief architect of the policy, and is heavily involved in the actual drafting, though subordinates are also invloved in the process. The time period and specific sequences of this process are as yet unspecified.

b) Pope John Paul II sanctions the policy, and it becomes official on 30th April 2001.

c) Ratzinger begins official implementation of the policy by sending out an instructional letter on 18th May 2001.

Allegations of the role of the office are made here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02p...

a million) be conscious that your hyperlinks are all nonetheless allegations. there is, hence a techniques, no quite data of any form to show that the pope had any involvement in a coverup in besides. 2) The papacy does not artwork like different positions of management. One can't impeach or depose a pope. he's pope for existence, whatever evil he commits.

There are cases in the US and abroad where the current pope has insisted that the local diocese say nothing , report nothing, but merely move a pedophile priest to a new parrish to continue raping. He has allowed these child rapists and those who aid them to flee prosecution and stay safely in Vatican City. Basically, if you are a priest, he believes you are above the law and that the reputation of the Holy Mother Church is more important than justice for raped children, including the couple hundred deaf and mute children who were kept basically as sex slaves. The documents exist, written by the pope when he was a bishop. He sited reasons like, "Oh, he's old" and "Oh, he's young". for letting these monsters go free.

If he had been the CEO of any other major corporation (and that is all the Catholic Church is) and he had been found to help cover up these crimes, he'd be in prison today.

EDIT: These things happened prior to him being pope. He did hold high office before that you know. He used his power to protect rapists from the law. Make Google your friend and take your blinders off.

EDIT: Are you actually telling me you think this is a conspiracy? Are you saying the rapes did not happen or that the pope did not write these letters and if you can't hold them in youe hand he's innocent? Enjoy your dream world.

EDIT: In his own words, "This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."

Much of the accusation against Pope Benedict XVI in the case of Wisconsin priest Fr. Lawrence Murphy rests on his alleged disinterest in pushing for Murphy to be defrocked. Contradicting this smear is the judge in the Murphy trial and the New York Times itself.

Fr. Thomas Brundage was the judicial vicar for the Milwaukee Archdiocese who presided over the trial of Fr. Murphy from 1996-1998. Never once did the New York Times contact him, but had they done so they would have learned the following. "At no time in the case, at meetings that I had at the Vatican, in Washington, D.C. and in Milwaukee" says Brundage, "was Cardinal Ratzinger's name ever mentioned." Brundage adds that he was "shocked" when the media tried to connect Ratzinger's name to the case. Murphy died, by the way, when he was still a defendant in a church criminal trial.

Even the New York Times has acknowledged that there is no evidence that in 1996 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the pope) was even aware of proceedings against Murphy. Moreover, the investigation did not even have to be launched given that the statute of limitations had expired.

We know what's going on. There are those who are wholly unimpressed by the evidence—they just want to get the pope. No doubt there was wrongdoing done in the Murphy case, but it is morally outrageous to lay it at the foot of the pope. Indeed, the pope's critics look rather enfeebled given what Fr. Brundage and the Times say about his complicity.

I challenge anyone to produce a single piece of evidence that the pope did anything wrong.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1817

Beginning in March, and extending well into April, the New York Times ran a series of articles seeking to tie Pope Benedict XVI to the priestly sexual abuse scandal. It was quickly joined by other media outlets, the most prominent of which was the Associated Press. The net result was an absolute explosion of anti-Catholic bigotry, the most vicious of which took direct aim at the pope.

The Catholic League was proud to respond with a full-page ad on the op-ed page of the New York Times that quickly rebutted the most serious accusations. The response it garnered, from the Vatican to American cardinals, was profoundly gratifying. Even those who are not normally on our side weighed in with praise, as did many non-Catholics.

On the other hand, the Catholic League came under fire from many quarters, and from many parts of the world. Much of the criticism was simply boilerplate: bloggers, in particular, painted us as defenders of sexual molestation, using the most vulgar language imaginable. In fact, we could fill this entire issue of Catalyst with all the invective used to smear us. Fortunately, we could also fill this edition with all the media hits we had—we were simply all over the news.

We are convinced that some of the attempts to finger the pope—none of which had any real sticking power—were designed to unseat him. Quite frankly, the pope is hated because he heads the most powerful countercultural institution in the western world. His enemies want to weaken his moral authority, and some have even called for his arrest the next time he steps foot on foreign soul. Yet as Bill Donohue told the Washington Post, “there is not a shred of evidence he did anything wrong.”

Our most common complaint against the media was its exclusive concentration on sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church that extended back to the mid-20th century. No other religious or secular institution was targeted by the media—they were all given a pass. What made this resemble a modern-day witch-hunt—about events which occurred a long time ago—was precisely its cherry-picking nature.

The good news is that the more we made plain our case, the more receptive an audience we found. To wit: our good friend in the Jewish community, former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, branded the attacks as “manifestations of anti-Catholicism.” We are pleased to note, as well, the support that the pope received from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

There aren't any details. The charges are phony. Bigotry and hatred are behind these false allegations. This Pope has done much (and is continuing to do so) to bring this problem to the light.

Part of the reason these allegations are false is due to ignorance too. The people who float them really do not understand how the Church works. The Pope is does not rule with absolute power over every little detail, in every diocese of parish in the world. The local Bishop has the responsibility for what goes on in their diocese, not the Pope. Thus, he's not even in a position to "cover up" anything.

it is futile as a lot of them had died and happened 50-60 yrs ago.

Besides current stat show 1.7% catholic cases, 10% Protestants with the baptist the super achiever and the 23,720 JW cases.

Isn't the Pope supposed to be in direct contact with this god prick? Since God is all knowing, he would have known it was happening and being all powerful, there were a number of ways he could either have stopped it or even prevented it.

I swear, why anyone believes any version of such an unrealistic myth is beyond me.

Sinead O'Connor will be happy to give you those details along with everyone else who joined her cause.

http://www.sineadoconnor.com/

She's written a very eloquent letter to the Pope.

i think the priests name was oliver o'grady.

OR you could just turn on the news..

There are many different stories to pick from.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-...