Pope Connected to Sex Abuse Scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The Pope faces significant scrutiny due to a priest's conviction for child sexual abuse, which he had previously approved for transfer while serving as a cardinal. This situation raises questions about the Pope's awareness of abuse and potential complicity in a cover-up, mirroring past scandals in the U.S. The Vatican's unique status as a city-state and religious institution complicates accountability, with concerns about the church's declining influence amid these revelations. Discussions highlight a perceived lack of moral integrity among clergy, contrasting expectations of priests as moral exemplars. The ongoing scandal threatens the Catholic Church's reputation and raises doubts about its structural issues.
  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
One additional response to Russ: I don't think there is any dispute that pedophiles often seek circumstances that allow trust to be established between them and potential victims. No doubt the priesthood offers this opportunity as do many professions and activities.
Actually, my thoughts on that issue go in a different direction:
Evo said:
The fact that it keeps some really good people from joining the priesthood, and that it causes a lot of inner conflict for some that have taken the vow.
That's what I think as well. When you put young men in a situation that goes against their human nature, you create inner conflict. I'm speculating here, but IMO, like squeezing a fistful of playdough, you the pressure makes people go in unexpected directions, looking for an outlet in ways that men who have normal/conventional relationships would not. This may be an understandable theory, but it is also more sinister: it implies the priesthood turns men into homosexual pedophiles. Or perhaps it is only the homosexual pedophiles who have the outlet available because priests spend a lot less time around adolescent girls.
As for any cover-ups, if anything, my bet would be that in most cases, a certain sect of priests, Bishops, Cardinals [hopefully not Popes] are guilty of internalizing problems through a millenia of tradition and archaic-styled soul-saving - perhaps the soul of the offending priest in this case - at the expense of public safety; a case of tradition being out of step with modern standards. I doubt that tolerance of this sort of behavior is generally a problem, rather, the perceived best means of handling these situations is what fails. You can also be sure that when handled internally, the offending priests were often punished as surely as they would be through a prison sentence, and likely more so. Most priests have a tough life, but if being punished, life can easily be made a lot tougher for them; including what amounts to a long sentence of manual labor.
Are you suggesting that if punished internally, punishment under the law is not or should not be requried? That is tantamount to saying that the church is above the law.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
The scandal continues to come more into focus:
In recent weeks, a series of sexual abuse and pedophilia accusations have emerged, two of which accuse the church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican office that decides whether priests should be tried and defrocked, of ignoring abuse allegations against some priests. Benedict, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of the office from 1981 to 2005.

There is no evidence that Benedict was involved in the decisions in the cases raised and up until recently he had been praised by U.S. bishops for moving against cases of abuse by priests. Cardinals across Europe used their Holy Thursday sermons to defend Benedict.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-01-benedict_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

I think the language of that quote is a little soft, given what has come to light in the past couple of weeks. There may still be no direct evidence that the pope himself took part in these cover-ups, but the office he directed certainly did, in a way that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy and documents addressed to him discussed it. I'm not a believer in convenient plausible deniability and in any case, it really doesn't matter: it was his ship to drive and it crashed. If he was asleep in his cabin when his underlings were navigating a fjord, it is his fault. And if it isn't the pope itself, it is still the a criminal conspiracy by the church. It's a wide-spread conspiracy, directed from above.

Adding to conspiracy is obstruction of justice. The pope and/or his current underlings are still lying to protect him:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment.

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?scp=2&sq=pope&st=cse

The church itself is being sued over this and I think should lose, but since they are considered a sovereign government, they may get away with it. It is a pretty sticky issue from an international legal standpoint, since you have an American (and German) parish directed by the Vatican to cover up. You end up with a situtation where the parish in Michigan can say they wanted to prosecute their offender, but were ordered not to report him and the courts having to decide if the "following orders" defense works, but without having access to those who gave the orders to prosecute/sue them.
Pope Benedict, accused by victims' lawyers of being ultimately responsible for an alleged cover-up of sexual abuse of children by priests, cannot be called to testify at any trial because he has immunity as a head of state, a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/01/world/international-us-pope-abuse.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=pope+&st=nyt

An op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/opinion/31dowd.html?scp=5&sq=pope&st=cse
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Heh, he should have been a Protestant! Yeah, the celibacy requirement is a tough one; and easily the vow most violated. I doubt that I ever would have been a priest under any circumstances, but the notion of a lifetime of celibacy was a deal-breaker for sure

Being a protestant and being a Catholic are very, very different things. Catholicism is the belief that when the bread and wine of the Eucharist are consecrated by the priest, they become the body and blood of Jesus. Protestants believe it is a symbol.

I can't remember the exact verse, but a lot of Jesus' disciples left him when he said that the bread and wine were actually his body. Virtually all who stayed were the apostles.
 
  • #34
More on this Father Murphy case. The church's actions in it are very disturbing:
Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy was an American priest accused of molesting as many as 200 deaf boys over 25 years. Several lawsuits have been filed against the church for failure to act in the matter. According to church files top Vatican officials - including the future Pope Benedict XVI - did not defrock Father Murphy even though they were warned repeatedly by several American bishops.

The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.

In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee's archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican's secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy's dismissal.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...m/lawrence_c_murphy/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

With no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Weakland wrote a different Vatican office in March 1997 saying the matter was urgent because a lawyer was preparing to sue, the case could become public and “true scandal in the future seems very possible.”

But the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.

In an interview, Archbishop Weakland said that he recalled a final meeting at the Vatican in May 1998 in which he failed to persuade Cardinal Bertone and other doctrinal officials to grant a canonical trial to defrock Father Murphy. (In 2002, Archbishop Weakland resigned after it became public that he had an affair with a man and used church money to pay him a settlement.)

Archbishop Weakland said this week in an interview, “The evidence was so complete, and so extensive that I thought he should be reduced to the lay state, and also that that would bring a certain amount of peace in the deaf community.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?pagewanted=2&sq=pope murphy&st=nyt&scp=16
 
  • #35
Russ said:
it was his ship to drive and it crashed. If he was asleep in his cabin when his underlings were navigating a fjord, it is his fault.
This does not necessarily equate to legal culpability. I'm also not certain about the legal perspective on the church hierarchy. He is not exactly the owner of the "ship" and the cardinals below him are not quit his "employees" either.
 
  • #36
TheStatutoryApe said:
This does not necessarily equate to legal culpability.
For an actual ship's captain it would, but as an analogy, I'm honestly not sure if it does or not. Certainly, in very few corporate boardrooms would this be accepted. Depending on how you see the structure, the Pope is now the CEO who did something bad when he was a junior and senior VP and IMO he should be fired for it. Not just as a punishment, but for the good of the company. The company's image takes a big hit over this, especially since they are in the business of selling morality.

But that's just for the lawsuit over the abuse itself. The coverup is a separate issue and the "legal culpability" of conspiracy and obstruction of justice most certainly do apply.
I'm also not certain about the legal perspective on the church hierarchy. He is not exactly the owner of the "ship" and the cardinals below him are not quit his "employees" either.
The fact that it is considered to be a government is a [the] complication, but if the world headquarters is both collecting money from and giving orders to the branch offices, they most certainly are acting like a company.

What would we do if Germany set up a bunch of bratwurst stands, owned by the German government itself, and they were breaking the law, selling contaminated food?. How would we deal with the fact that the business itself is owned by a foreign government?
 
  • #37
TheStatutoryApe said:
This does not necessarily equate to legal culpability. I'm also not certain about the legal perspective on the church hierarchy. He is not exactly the owner of the "ship" and the cardinals below him are not quit his "employees" either.

I think the Vatican's position on this is that the pope is the head of state (Vatican City) and thus has immunity.

I'll look for a link...

Edit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36131434/ns/world_news-europe/"

Pope Benedict, accused by victims' lawyers of being ultimately responsible for a cover-up of sexual abuse of children by priests, cannot be called to testify at any trial because he has immunity as a head of state, a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday.

Wow, that's a horrible move in the court of public opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
russ_watters said:
The coverup is a separate issue and the "legal culpability" of conspiracy and obstruction of justice most certainly do apply.
But, legally, they would still have to show that he had knowledge. Simply being in charge is not enough in a court of law. Otherwise they would have to show that he was ultimately responsible for their behavior like a "captain" is responsible for his "shipmen". Since their actions were done as part of their job (as opposed to supplemental to it) that could be enough, but I am still not sure how the law will view the hierarchal relationship, and establishing that would seem to be key.

Russ said:
The fact that it is considered to be a government is a [the] complication, but if the world headquarters is both collecting money from and giving orders to the branch offices, they most certainly are acting like a company.

What would we do if Germany set up a bunch of bratwurst stands, owned by the German government itself, and they were breaking the law, selling contaminated food?. How would we deal with the fact that the business itself is owned by a foreign government?
Well of course anyone here that is culpable would be held liable. If a cover up of the contamination was being perpetrated by the German government then they could possibly be tried in absentia in they refused to show up for the proceedings and a judgment handed down. If Germany refused to abide it then I think that the WTO would need to be contacted for any attempt at enforcement. Normally contacting the German authorities would be first I think.

Obviously a church is a bit different. I was surprised to find that churches are considered corporations when looking up information regarding that recent USSC judgment we were discussing. Being a government complicates things a bit further. In your scenario if Germany were to refuse to honour a court decision then the US would likely shut down all of its bratwurst stands and not allow it to do business here possibly confiscating property in the US to pay off the judgment.
Churches would be a bit more difficult though. Since they are religious it could be construed as impeding religious freedom. We could do like China and simply ban Vatican sanctioned churches but there are similar problems there. And I think that the UN would be the only organization where recourse could be taken. I'm assuming that Obama hasn't attempted to sign on to the international courts treaty.
 
  • #39
lisab said:
I think the Vatican's position on this is that the pope is the head of state (Vatican City) and thus has immunity.

I'll look for a link...

Edit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36131434/ns/world_news-europe/"



Wow, that's a horrible move in the court of public opinion.

But the Vatican itself can still be held accountable. It depends on the way the relationship between individuals in the Vatican and the Vatican itself is viewed. If this was the work of "a few misguided [priests/cardinals]" then the Vatican can be held apart. If higher officials had knowledge and it even seems that there is an official procedure then the Vatican takes the hit too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
TheStatutoryApe said:
But, legally, they would still have to show that he had knowledge. Simply being in charge is not enough in a court of law.
Though still technically circumstantial, I think the evidence is strong enough to make that case. The current argument that he wasn't reading his own mail strains credulity enough, but this is also a man with a reputation for being hands-on. Then later, he wrote a memo interpreted by Preists as saying they should cover things up (that the Vatican is saying was misinterpreted). I don't think that there can be a "reasonable doubt" that he wasn't involved-in/directing the coverup.

It would depend on how sympathetic the jury was, I would think.
Well of course anyone here that is culpable would be held liable.
Yes, that's the easy part.
If a cover up of the contamination was being perpetrated by the German government then they could possibly be tried in absentia in they refused to show up for the proceedings and a judgment handed down. If Germany refused to abide it then I think that the WTO would need to be contacted for any attempt at enforcement. Normally contacting the German authorities would be first I think.
Perhaps... but I'm not sure such a framework could be made to apply here, even if logically it should.
Obviously a church is a bit different. I was surprised to find that churches are considered corporations when looking up information regarding that recent USSC judgment we were discussing.
I'm surprised that you were surprised. A "corporation" is pretty much the only legal framework for dealing with the legal/financial issues unified group of people. Churches choose to be corporations because it is better for them to be a corporation than not to be. It is very difficult to buy a building and pay a minister (and even an electric bill!) and protect your own possessions from liability if someone twists an ankle on your church steps if you aren't.
Being a government complicates things a bit further. In your scenario if Germany were to refuse to honour a court decision then the US would likely shut down all of its bratwurst stands and not allow it to do business here possibly confiscating property in the US to pay off the judgment.
Agreed. And I think the same should apply to this case too. Our legal system and federal government itself needs to step up to the plate and do the necessary arm-twisting here.
Churches would be a bit more difficult though. Since they are religious it could be construed as impeding religious freedom. We could do like China and simply ban Vatican sanctioned churches but there are similar problems there.
I really don't think that's an issue. That part of the 1st Amendment has been washed through the courts so many times that it is thoroughly hashed-out by now. Though anything can happen in a lower court, there is rarely any question on how the USSC will decide on a religious freedom case these days. From evolution to school prayer to Nativity scenes to the 10 Commandments in a courtroom: their decisions are never a surprise.
 
  • #42
MotoH said:
Those who have committed these horrible acts need to be prosecuted under due process of law. Trying to take down the whole Vatican is asinine.

True. But, covering it up, to me, is one of "these horrible acts".
 
  • #43
Pope Benedict XVI will know what to do. It takes time and prayer, but a solution will appear within the coming weeks.




On a side note, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general get attacked wholesale during Holy week every year.
 
  • #44
NeoDevin said:
True. But, covering it up, to me, is one of "these horrible acts".
Agreed. And to me the statements by the Vatican even today are part of that coverup. I'm not a Catholic so I don't care much what this does to their credibility, but I do care when an organization conspires to cover up crimes and continues a posture that will enable that to continue. The catholic church specifically (because of its history, both ancient and recent), but churches in general have the feel of organized crime to me.
 
  • #45
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JCL
To provide context to this article, I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process. God alone will judge these men.

To put some parameters on the following remarks, I am writing this article with the express knowledge and consent of Archbishop Roger Schwietz, OMI, of the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently serve. Archbishop Schwietz is also the publisher of the Catholic Anchor newspaper.

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from a sense of duty to the truth.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured; http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601"

Read the whole thing. I am going to say that he knows a lot more about the case than we do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
MotoH said:
Pope Benedict XVI will know what to do. It takes time and prayer, but a solution will appear within the coming weeks.

I take it you're Catholic? Most of the rest of the world would say it takes integrity and responsibility.

MotoH said:
On a side note, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general get attacked wholesale during Holy week every year.

Yep, you guys sure are persecuted... :rolleyes:
 
  • #47
I just hope that "immunity" does not equate to "facts remaining secret"
 
  • #48
pallidin said:
I just hope that "immunity" does not equate to "facts remaining secret"

Not necessarily. Any documents held on foreign (to the Vatican) soil, can be subpoenaed in the usual manner. All immunity means is that he can't actually be punished for (most) crimes. Courts have no legal recourse to get at documents held in the Vatican though.
 
  • #49
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf"

Read the first paragraph (it is a PDF). The media has taken this paragraph, and twisted it into some sort of cover-up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
MotoH said:
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JCL

Read the whole thing. I am going to say that he knows a lot more about the case than we do.
I agree that he knows more, but he doesn't tell us everything and some of what he tells us doesn't pass the smell test.

-First, the handwritten letter he refers to: he's basically saying its a forgery. That's a big claim and now we're in a he-said-he said situation because of it. However...
-There was more than one letter, and official ones were just typed and signed. He doesn't address these and the claim that the Pope didn't know about these letters when he was CC'd on them strains credulity.
-On the ordering of the cessation of the trial. Lucky for the Church, the defendant died within days of the order (it literally may have been in the mail at that time) and they didn't need to fight that fight. However, raising this point distracts from the previous point he didn't mention:
-There was more than one letter and some got no response. It was Ratzinger's office's job to deal with issues like that and they were - for a while - silent. Why were they failing to do their job? Why didn't they encourage them to do the right thing and affirm that the trial was the proper course of action?

Remember, MotoH, he knows more about this than any of us because he was part of the conspiracy. Current evidence points to him being an unwilling part of it, but he was a part of it nonetheless. His knowledge goes against his credibility as much as it helps his credibility.
 
  • #51
MotoH said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf"

Read the first paragraph (it is a PDF). The media has taken this paragraph, and twisted it into some sort of cover-up.

We should absolutely take the word of the Catholics with regard to an (alleged) Catholic cover-up, rather than have secular authorities investigate.

Edit: Just to clarify, this was actually in response to this:
MotoH said:
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
By Fr. THOMAS BRUNDAGE, JCLRead the whole thing. I am going to say that he knows a lot more about the case than we do.

I quoted the wrong post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
please see:
Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
 
  • #53
NeoDevin said:
We should absolutely take the word of the Catholics with regard to an (alleged) Catholic cover-up, rather than have secular authorities investigate.

Because Fox News and CNN are excellent at reporting unbiased news.
 
  • #54
MotoH said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf"

Read the first paragraph (it is a PDF). The media has taken this paragraph, and twisted it into some sort of cover-up.
That paragraph has nothing to do with a coverup nor what the media is saying is a coverup. That paragraph is about the crime itself: using confession as a pretext for manipulating the victims.

Did you mean to link a different document? There is a document that the media is reporting that church officials claim was intended to order a coverup.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
MotoH said:
Because Fox News and CNN are excellent at reporting unbiased news.

I don't recall suggesting that Fox News or CNN should be the ones conducting the investigation.
 
  • #56
MotoH said:
Because Fox News and CNN are excellent at reporting unbiased news.
Huh? Could you elaborate: you're talking about the media but what you quoted was about church officials. Are you saying church officials are being wholesale-ly misquoted?
 
  • #57
russ_watters said:
That paragraph has nothing to do with a coverup nor what the media is saying is a coverup. That paragraph is about the crime itself: using confession as a pretext for manipulating the victims.

Did you mean to link a different document? There is a document that the media is reporting that church officials claim was intended to order a coverup.

This is the one. It was on the televised news today or yesterday that this was supposed to be some sort of "what happens in the confessional, stays in the confessional" type of thing. I did not catch the whole report though, so I could be mistaken. I just got that article off of another forum which said that was the one being twisted.
 
  • #58
russ_watters said:
Huh? Could you elaborate: you're talking about the media but what you quoted was about church officials. Are you saying church officials are being wholesale-ly misquoted?

NeoDevin said:
I don't recall suggesting that Fox News or CNN should be the ones conducting the investigation.
A problem on my end. Sorry about that! Didn't see the last part of your sentence.
 
  • #59
MotoH said:
This is the one. It was on the televised news today or yesterday that this was supposed to be some sort of "what happens in the confessional, stays in the confessional" type of thing. I did not catch the whole report though, so I could be mistaken. I just got that article off of another forum which said that was the one being twisted.
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken/confused. That directive was written in 1962. Yes, it was part of what directed the cover-up, but it isn't discussed in the paragraph you referred us to [see below]. In addition Ratsinger wrote a similar directive in 1996. Both of these were interpreted by church officials, not by the media, to be instructions to cover these cases up.

-Page 2, boxed in blue, is where it says offenders can be transferred to other dioces rather than removed from the church.
-Page 9, boxed in blue, says if allegations "totally lacks foundation", documentation of them should be destroyed.
-Page 11, boxed in blue, talks about the secrecy of the trials.
-Page 15, boxed in blue, talks about communications secrecy and it being a serious sin to break that (as in: don't leak this to the press).
-Page 17 is a copy of the oath Priests take, which includes an oath of secrecy. It even says in clear language that secrecy trumps righteousness.

Though this is all interesting, it is a bit unnecessary. The church is arguing against a reality here: Secrecy existed. These cases were covered-up. Obviously, that's why we're hearing about them now and not 20 years ago. The only difference this makes is in whether the covering-up was an official policy or was just ordered for a few specific cases while existing mostly as a cultural component of the church. To me, that's a relatively minor difference.

The Vatican is trying to protect itself by blaming the local parishes/dioces for not dealing with the issue in order to show that the problem wasn't directed from the top down or systemic. The problem is, it existed in multiple countries. It was systemic. And the Vatican has known about it for some 50 years and is only just now starting to properly deal with it. That makes it a top-down, systemic problem.

The culture of secrecy really bothers me because it means there may be other crimes we don't know about. I'm particularly thinking about money. I consider tithing extortion anyway, but do priests ever get tempted by the money flowing through their parishes? Would we ever find out if a priest was skimming money and stashing it in a swiss bank account?
 
Last edited:
  • #60
russ_watters said:
...but do priests ever get tempted by the money flowing through their parishes? Would we ever find out if a priest was skimming money and stashing it in a swiss bank account?

Yeah, Russ, and some are televangelists racking in millions.
This whole darn thing is a mess. Sexual abuse, legally protected financial non-accountability/disclosure.
It's a real mess.

Perhaps the issue with the Vatican can start some type of reform on these types of abuses with respect to all legally recognized "religions"