Pope Connected to Sex Abuse Scandal

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
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. And the fact that my priest growing up, Father Nelson, who was the best priest ever, was excommunicated when it was discovered that he was married and had 10 children.
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
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
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.

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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
In the priests' defense, I'd say that if priests had a sexual abuse rate 8 times lower than the average, they'd be acceptable moral models.
Ok....similarly, the murder rate in the US is about 1:19,000. Using Ivan's number for the total number of priests (400,000), that would be 21 a year at the normal rate or just under 3 at 1/8th the rate. I've never heard of (and failed to find one with google) a priest committing murder. So would it still be ok if 3 priests a year committed murder?

Moreover, there are many demographic groups that commit crimes less than the average. If you take the murder rate for whites, you'll find it to be somewhere around half the average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
Slice again for age and income and I suspect you'll be able to come up with a still relatively large demographic that priests fit into where the murder rate is 1/8th the average. Doing the same with sex crimes, you may find that priests are actually over represented for their demographic. Yes, some of that is speculation, but the point is, I would expect priests to be a lot better than just 8x better than average. Average is not a good basis for comparison.
 
351
2
In the priests' defense, I'd say that if priests had a sexual abuse rate 8 times lower than the average, they'd be acceptable moral models.
Yes only hypothetically ..



I hate when they stand for things that they cannot.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
No. The church has never claimed that all priests are or could be perfect.
Neither of us said "perfect" in previous posts, we just said good. You are moving the goalposts. Or are you now saying that we should expect priests to be no better than average for society? (it does seem at the bottom of the post you do say exactly that) Frankly, if that's all we can expect, I can't imagine why we would need to go to church - you can't learn morality from someone who isn't an expert in the theory and practice of morality. Being more moral than average seems to me to be the most basic requirement of the job!
If a person is dedicated, for whatever reason, they can go through the seminary and become a priest. There is no way to know what lies in the heart or the dark reaches of a troubled mind.

They don't select priests like the Tibetans do the next Dalia Lama. Where in the world do you get that?!?!? In order to become a priest, you join the priesthood, work hard, and demonstrate faith and dedication, which can be faked.
You're talking in contradictions, implying that anyone can join and as long as they don't flunk out of the seminary, they'll become a priest. But that isn't the case. That "demonstrate faith and dedication" thing is exactly the point here: The church does make an effort to screen out bad apples:
For 10 years, Occhetti helped screen candidates for the priesthood in the Raleigh Diocese.

"One of the things we looked at very carefully was sexual development, what their views were on sexuality, sexual history, what their home was like, what their sexual messages were," Occhetti said.

Occhetti said about 10 percent of her evaluations raised concerns.

"If a priest candidate, for example, had inappropriate responses to sexual questions, to identify sexual stimuli or even what they thought was a healthy sexual relationship," Occhetti said.

Occhetti turned the results over to the Diocese.

"Yes, we did see red flags and we presented them to the Diocese. They had a committee that said yea or nay," Occhetti said.

"For the church you're looking for a person who is as healthy and as wholesome as you possibly can get," Frank Morock, spokesman for the Raleigh diocese.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101820/

Since the vow of cellibacy is a key vow, it makes sense that they go to so much effort to screen candidates based on sexual proclivities, among other aspects of morality. The result should be people with substantially higher than average (even for their more specific demographic group) morality.
It implies that you have a bias against priests.
Why? If I thnk priests should be vastly better than average (and acknowledge that in most aspects of morality, they are), then isn't that a bias in their favor?
If being a priest drastically reduces the likelihood of crime and cures psychological problems, then perhaps it should be made mandatory service for all young men!
You'r being illogical, Ivan, mixing up cause and effect. While they certainly make an effort to teach morality in the seminary, that's not the main reason why priests are more moral: the main reason is that they are selected based largely on that personality trait. Then again, perhaps they are relaxing their selection criteria in response to a dearth of candidates?
Obviously priests are just people and we expect bad priests just like we expect bad teachers, PE coaches, soldiers, and cops.
Are you really being serious here, Ivan? You really don't expect more from a priest than you do a teacher, PE coach - even a soldier or cop? REALLY? That strains credulity.

Seriously, Ivan - that's rediculous. Being an examplary example of morality is perhaps the single most important trait of a good priest. By the very nature of the job, I - you - we - should expect priests to be vastly better than average morally.
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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 [Broken]

An op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/opinion/31dowd.html?scp=5&sq=pope&st=cse
 
Last edited by a moderator:
18
1
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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/reference/timestopics/people/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
 
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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?
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
614
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/" [Broken]

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:
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 any one 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.
 
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/" [Broken]



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:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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 any one 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 posessions 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.
 
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".
 
18
1
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.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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.
 
18
1
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:
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.

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... :uhh:
 
2,193
2
I just hope that "immunity" does not equate to "facts remaining secret"
 
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.
 
18
1
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf" [Broken]

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:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,502
4,714
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.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top