Contrary to your statement, the Vatican did withhold names of the accused and refused to prosecute priests involved in child abuse cases.
You're losing sight of the argument, which was that Ratzinger (head of the CDF, later named Pope Benedict XVI) set a rule mandating excommunication for those who turned over names to civil authorities, under the name of the "pontifical secret", and that has hidden the accused from civil prosecution. That's clearly wrong:
- Authority in these cases was given to the CDF in 2001.
- The CDF requested the sealing of case records under the pontifical secret for all cases it was to prosecute
Are you saying that there were cases prosecuted by the CDF since 2001 that (a) hadn't yet been visible to civil authorities, and (b) the identities of those accused have been hidden from civil authorities? Now that would be news! Instead, all we have are these impotent claims that pontifical secret means shielding the identities of the accused.
It only makes sense to seal a case to protect the victim or the innocent accused if you have complete confidence in the judicial process
in a civil case, yes. in a canonical case, where the notion of sin is tied up in the determination of guilt or innocence, that's not the case; sealing works both for the victim and the accused.
And since the Vatican's judicial process is biased in favour of the priests (being, of course, presided by priests behind closed doors)
that's a complete conjecture. do you have anything approaching proof? if it were biased in favor of priests, then there'd be no "convictions" (laicizations), right?
On a related note, I find it ridiculous that the Vatican publishes material in Latin hundreds of years after the language died, and then people like you complain about improper translations.
French is the official language of France, German is the official language of Germany, Latin is the official language of the Vatican. Each uses it in its official proceedings. Hence, not a dead language. There's no excuse for shoddy translations of official documents, regardless of language. Are you really telling me that there are no Latin language experts out there, even among academics, who have to use it in their research all the time? No -- it isn't ridiculous, and using a poor translation is always an approach to be ridiculed.
It's bullshit like this that brought forth the protestant reform, more than 400 years ago.
Yes... it's clearly bullshit to allow an institution or government to make up its own rules and then follow them. Puh-leeze!