"Therefore, even if the letter sent to the hierarchy in 1997 giving the Vatican's take on their guidelines is as bad as its worst critics say, it made very little material difference on the ground in Cloyne."

It's interesting how Quinn carefully constructs this strawman argument. Nowhere has the claim been made that the main issue with Cloyne is abuse in the present day. Yet Quinn makes the completely unverified claim that _this_ is the main issue and therefore is able to dismiss it.

The part about Hoyos is simply breathtaking. "Cardinal Hoyos was overly concerned about the right of accused clergy to their good name" is a absurd attempt to spin his actions in a positive light. The most Quinn can say about Hoyos is that he was "unhelpful". I urge everybody to look up on Wikipedia precisely what Hoyos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar%C3%ADo_Castrill%C3%B3n_Hoyos#View_on_denouncing_a_paedophile_priest_to_the_civil_authorities): he congratulates a bishop for not reporting a priest who _repeatedly raped_ boy, adding "I congratulate you on not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities."

Note the word "denouncing". _That's_ what the Vatican thought of civil law. And Quinn thinks a man who gleefully congratulated a bishop for not reporting a rapist was merely "unhelpful".

P.