So...Jim quotes the Irish Times: They noted the accusers were deemed credible enough by the Vatican that it sentenced Karadima to a lifetime of 'penance and prayer' for his crimes in 2011.

These accusers were victims and eyewitnesses of the crimes of Karadima, so of course their testimony about the actions of Karadima is credible.

But what about the actions of Bishop Barros? Were these "credible witnesses" also eyewitnesses of the actions of Barros? One accuser, Juan Carlos Cruz, said "...while Karadima abused me and others and Juan Barros stood by watching it all." Some of the news articles seem to have interpreted this as saying that Bishop Barros was an eyewitness, standing at the crime scene and watching as it happened. But is that the case, or was Cruz simply assuming that Barros had full knowledge of the crimes as they were happening?

A lot of people seem to have a very distorted view of how the Catholic Church functions. I see it time and time again in these endless threads, how you people seem to think that bishops know all of their priests and know everything that their priests are doing. I don't know if it's a wise policy or not, but most bishops do not serve as bishops in the diocese where they were born and raised and ordained. They don't get to know the priests they supervise until they've served as bishop for a few years; and then they may see priests briefly two or three times a year, if that. Priests work in parishes and spend most of their time with parishioners, not with bishops or with other priests. Most priests don't even particularly like bishops, for that matter. But people assume that bishops know all about their priests and everything their priests do. That's just not the case.

This sex scandal developed and peaked during the 25-year reign of Pope John Paul II, whom I detested. I think JPII did everything he could to destroy the advances made by Vatican II, and to restore authoritarianism to the Catholic Church. And so, he appointed bishops who were loyal bureaucrats. And he ignored any problems that made his church look bad. As Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI was the first person of authority in Rome to take serious action against the child abuse scandal, and he continued that after he became Pope.

But Pope Francis is the one who really started to turn around the mess that JPII made. In general, he has been very wise in his choices of bishops. He has strategically assigned very good people where the messes were most serious. It's clear that Francis heard the objections at the time he appointed Barros, but he did not and does not consider those objections to be credible. There are lots of conspiracy theories floating around on this issue - you can find scads of them in Mudcat threads.

I haven't seen any reports of credible evidence against Barros. So far, it's just a lot of noise.

-Joe-