I’ll address your points one by one.

“First of all, on behalf of Moriel and myself our apologetic regrets for any mistaken assumptions
you were acting in defense of the Roman Catholic church or its adjuncts (which from your remarks does not appear to be the case).”

There is no need to apologise to me for that. I wonder whether Carol Champion is the best person to do public relations for your ministry, though, as she comes across as aggressive and emotional.

“I would point however you appear inaccurate in your position.”

“The Texas legal reference as cited does employ the term ‘prosecution’ in certain criminally related civil litigation.”

I’ve looked the reference she cited and I cannot find any mention of the word ‘prosecution.’ Could you please provide me with a hyperlink directly to the page that substantiates your claim?

“I would also point you to article by legal editorialist of associated Press (9.20.2005)
that “Bush grants criminal immunity”. This remains in public domain (eg. godlesswonder.blogspot.com0.”

There are several issues here. The first is that the title of the Associated Press piece to which you refer to is shown by most publications as being “U.S. Says Pope Immune from Abuse Suits” (for example U.S. Says Pope Immune From Abuse Suits, U.S. Says Pope Immune From Abuse Suits, and US says pope has immunity in suit alleging coverup. It was a blogger, the so called “Godless Wonder”, that gave his post the title “Bush Grants Pope Criminal Immunity.” It was not the Associated Press nor any legal editor. The Associated Press never said anything about “Criminal Immunity.” I am surprised that you consider someone calling themselves “Godless Wonder” a reliable source of information.

The second issue is that of the real article distributed by the Associated Press, and its content. Surely you should know that you should not uncritically accept everything you read in the press, even if a story appears to provide good ammunition to fire at your ideological foes. As I have shown in my post above, when one goes to the primary references, such as the legal decision itself, it is clear that the press were, as they often are, putting a sensationalist spin on the events and that the decision by the U.S. Government, and by the Court itself, were a routine application of international law which limits the jurisdiction of domestic courts against foreign Heads-of-State. I have cited the legal decision itself and an article by an expert in international law expert to substantiate my claims but all you have done in response is to point to a post by an atheist polemicist.

“Additionally the De Delicitis Gravioribus Epistilus notation of May 18,2001 – the terms are
sdrtill applicable and not rescindfed by revisions in canon law (as was found on Vatican website).”

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. De delictis gravioribus is a present part of Roman Catholic canon law. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. It implemented new norms for dealing with sexual abuse and brought an end to Crimen sollicitationis. If you want to argue that De delictis gravioribus was some sort of conspiratorial document you will have to prove your claim by citing reputable references.

“Neither does the Sacramentorum Sactitatis Tutela in 1983 revisions constitute any rescinding.”

Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela is simply the enabling legislation produced by the authority of the Pope. It is coupled with De delictis gravioribus, which sets out the new norms. As I have quoted above, De delictis gravioribus clearly supercedes Crimen sollicitationis. De delictis gravioribus says Crimen sollicitationis was “in force until now” (emphasis added.) For something to have been in force “until now” it must no longer be in force.

“At least one source claimed investigations of a prosecutorial nature were being pursue against Radzinger since January 2005 in Harris County, Texas(annefreespirit.50megs.com – contact :
pressoffice@anticlericale.net)”

There is a big difference between claims being made of investigations of a prosecutorial nature versus those claims actually being an accurate assessment of what has happened, and an even bigger difference between that and the claim that you made which was that a criminal prosecution had been launched. Anyone can make a claim but they need to back it up with a reference of some kind, and I have gone to the trouble of showing hyperlinks to all my references. You have not, so it’s hard for critically minded individuals to accept your claims. All I see is what appears to be some link to an anti-Catholic website called anticlericale.net (No taleban! No Vatican!), hardly a reliable source of information.

In an article by Kathy Shaw in 2003 inaccurately titled ‘Vatican Document Instructed Secrecy in Abuse Cases’ there is mention of Shea and another lawyer, Carmen Durso, handing copies of Crimen sollicitationis to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2003 in the hope of some kind of some kind of action against the Catholic Church by U.S. Federal Authorities. As is clear from the fact that no action was taken, the authorities clearly did not buy into Shea’s conspiracy theory.

I have gone as far as to deliberately cite a left-wing, anti-hierarchy, anti-conservative, dissident priest and Church critic with expertise in canon law as one of my sources, because he has no conceivable bias towards the Church (he has testified against them in legal actions) and is in fact the one that ‘leaked’ Crimen sollicitationis to Shea in the first place. Even that man, Thomas Doyle, doesn’t believe that Crimen sollicitationis is a conspiracy to cover up child abuse. When even the Church’s biggest critics aren’t buying into the conspiracy, it takes a very rare person to do so.

“The facts as reported by Moriel are not inaccurate.”

I beg to differ. I encourage you to read the following articles, in full, before commenting on the subject again as you appear to be seriously misinformed on the nature and effect of Crimen sollicitationis.

The first is my article on Crimen sollicitationis, followed by my article on Thomas Doyle. For a critic’s view of Crimen sollicitationis you should read Thomas Doyle’s Commentary on Crimen sollicitationis. For a conservative counter-point, you should consult Edward Peters’ ‘Smearing the Pope’. Both are .PDF files. The definitive piece of journalism on the subject, though, is by Andrew Walsh and is titled ‘Instructions From the Vatican.’

I also notice that in your latest article against the Pope (titled ‘Wanted’,) you have completely eliminated the word ‘prosecution’ from it. Am I to believe that you now agree with my critique?

First of all, on behalf of Moriel and myself our apologetic regrets for any mistaken assumptions
you were acting in defense of the Roman Catholic church or its adjuncts (which from your remarks does not appear to be the case).

I would point however you appear inaccurate in your position.

The Texas legal reference as cited does employ the term ‘prosecution’ in certain criminally related civil litigation.

I would also point you to article by legal editorialist of associated Press (9.20.2005)
that “Bush grants criminal immunity”. This remains in public domain (eg. godlesswonder.blogspot.com0.

Additionally the De Delicitis Gravioribus Epistilus notation of May 18,2001 – the terms are
sdrtill applicable and not rescindfed by revisions in canon law (as was found on Vatican website).

Neither does the Sacramentorum Sactitatis Tutela in 1983 revisions constitute any rescinding.

At least one source claimed investigations of a prosecutorial nature were being pursue against Radzinger since January 2005 in Harris County, Texas(annefreespirit.50megs.com – contact :
pressoffice@anticlericale.net)

The facts as reported by Moriel are not inaccurate.

Respectfully & Sincerely,

JJ Prasch