I agree that many people study Latin. But that does not automatically give them competence to interpret a legal-canonical document in a manner consistent with the interpretative norms of Roman Catholic canon law. That would be like saying that an English professor is also an expert on US constitutional law by virtue of the fact that the US constitution is written in English.

Also, it’s not just me that is claiming that the document at issue is difficult to interpret. People like Thomas Doyle are claiming that as well.

Mr. Woodlock, a question: have you written and considered and researched as extensively the horrific pain suffered by children and their families at the hands of abusing priests, the policy of denial and suppression from the highest levels of this organization which continued that abuse?

I have no doubt that many individuals have suffered at the hands of abusive priests. It is something that is not being disputed so why would I discuss in detail something that everyone agrees upon? I don’t think you will find anything that I’ve written that denies that the abuse suffered by the victims is terrible. The question I am addressing is that of the nature of Crimen sollicitationis because the nature of Crimen sollicitationis is something that is in dispute. A person can both believe that some individuals within the Catholic Church behaved in a criminal manner and that the Crimen sollicitationis conspiracy theory is flawed. There is no dichotomy that requires that a person believe either that every negative claim made against the Church is true or that the Church has done nothing wrong at all.

Is the horrific pain and extreme injustice these people suffered and continue to suffer as important to you as the technical issues you raise above about crimen sollicitationis?

The fact is that some people are making a whole lot of claims about Crimen sollicitationis, and I believe that the evidence does not support their claims. The “technical issues,” as you call them, go to the heart of their claims. If the Church is as bad as they think it is, why the need to go to all these absurd lengths to paint it as blacker than it really is?

The fact is that some people have ulterior motives when discussing the issue of abuse within the Church. I’m simply pointing out that fact. Please don’t assume that just because I’m claiming that the Crimen sollicitiationis conspiracy theory is wrong that I am therefore also saying that abuse did not occur or that it is in some way excusable.

It’s not what I’m saying, it’s what people like Tom Doyle are saying. Why would a church critic who loathes the conservative hierarchy, testifies against the Church in law suits and who leaked the document in the first place suddenly be lying to protect them? In order to maintain the idea that Crimen is some kind of blueprint to cover-up child abuse you need to buy into a warped view of human behaviour where people like Doyle publicly lie to protect their ideological foes. How can that make sense of reality?

And I’m not a Catholic, so I don’t know what you mean by “I respect how you guys have faith.”

Occam’s Razor favours the least complex conclusion that explains all relevant data. For me, that means concluding that Crimen sollicitationis is not a conspiracy to obstruct justice and cover-up the sexual abuse of minors. If I were to conclude that it was such a thing, I’d have to explain why even the Church’s most fiercest (expert) critics are defending it on this point. Check out my post on Thomas Doyle and you will see why it’s difficult to imagine him defending the Church if the Crimen conspiracy theory were in reality true. Also look at the views of atheists like Skeptimedia and Oz Atheist. What possible reason could they have for denying Crimen is a deliberate cover-up if in fact it were when they’re so critical of Roman Catholicism in other areas?

And the document doesn’t fit with what has historically occured regarding the coverup of priests raping children.

It is just some strange coincidence that non church people have misinterpreted a secret document that deals with child rape beastiality etc, and they are completely wrong.

Hmmm- a bid sad really. I mean I respect how you guys have faith, but the denial! sheesh!