Annraoi, the catholic church is peculiar in the degree of moral authority it claims for its priests (who are so elevated that mere women cannot be considered for the work). Aas ar as I can see, no-one here is defending child-abusers whatever their faith or lack of faith.

But there is some difference in my book between an abuser and a bishop, archbishop or cardinal who turns a blind eye to priestly transgressors and behaves arrogantly and even aggressively to those in their flock who are stupid enough to complain.

As for your preference for criminal convictions, you are at odds with your own church here, which goes to shameful lengths to keep these matters out of the courts, which was part of the theme of my earlier posts. Neverheless, some do get banged to rights. A French bishop for instance recently got three months for not informing the police about a priest who had confessed to criminal abuse of children. A Polish seminary has recently banned an archbishop (!) from its premises, in order to protect its novices from further assault. Should it have waited for the law to take its course, Annraoi?

Let me ask again: did you watch that BBC programme? I know catholics who did not, claiming to have "heard it all before." In avoiding it, I believe they lost an apportunity to see exposed in front of them the sheer misery and heartbreak that your church is causing every day. I know the pope has now at last acknowledged the problem, but he could have done so 20 years ago. And Vatican guidance still looks to internal solutions and fails to recogise child abuse as criminal.