VATICAN CITY -- In his first concrete step to address the clerical sexual-abuse problem in the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis will establish a commission to advise him on protecting children from pedophile priests and on how to counsel victims, the Vatican said Thursday.

The announcement was a forthright acknowledgment by the Vatican of the enduring problem of abusive priests, and fit with Francis' pattern of willingness to set a new tone in the governance of the church nine months into his tenure.

Whether the new commission portends a significant change in how the Vatican deals with abusive priests and their protectors remains to be seen, experts on the church said. Yet the timing of the announcement, two days after a United Nations panel criticized the Vatican over its handling of abuse cases, suggested that the pope and his closest advisers wanted to at least be seen as tackling the issue with greater firmness.

Soon after he became pope, Francis directed the Vatican last April to act decisively on abuse cases and punish pedophile priests, in a meeting with subordinates at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the church's enforcement arm. But he had said little about the sexual abuse problem since.

SNIP

Precisely who will serve on the advisory commission and what authority it will have remained unclear. But Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the only American among the eight cardinals advising the pope, said it would include priests, men and women from religious orders and laypeople with expertise in safeguarding children, and that it would offer advice on pastoral care rather than judicial functions. That seemed to signal that it would not make proposals for exposing or punishing abusive clerics.

The commission will have a broad mandate including the development of "norms, procedures and strategies for the protection of children and the prevention of abuse of minors," the Vatican said in a statement.

It could also develop guidelines for cooperating with civil authorities, reporting of crimes and compliance with civil law, the Vatican said. Procedures for "screening and checking of previous offenses" and "the state of action of requests for psychiatric evaluation" could also be examined.

And the NYT Editorial Board had this to say:

With the world now fascinated by the new pope, Francis has placed his reputation on the line in choosing to confront the problem more openly, rather than burying it once more in one of the maws of the Vatican bureaucracy.

The former archbishop of Buenos Aires -- then known as Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio -- favors "zero tolerance" for priestly sexual abuse and criticized previous cases in the U.S. where accused clerics were simply moved to other parishes, according to a book of conversations he had with Rabbi Abraham Skorka.

During his 14 years as archbishop, Bergoglio ordered church officials to report all allegations to the police rather than simply moving them to avoid damaging the church." (emphasis mine)

Solving one of the most entrenched and endemic problems ever within the Catholic Church will take a little more time than shouting baseless charges from the sidelines against a man who has been Pope a few short months.

In my opinion, the eff you was entirely merited.

The comment it was directed to was insulting and ridiculous.

I twitter some.

But I really do think the commentariat here has gotten pretty ridiculous with the sniping.

And yes, I think that infected Peter, who as everyone noted, is our most courteous commenter.

I have little standing on this given my virtual nonparticipation at the site for the pat months, but I'm just expressing my view of how it felt for me to post and react to the comments engendered.

It was incredibly offputting and, just as commenters in the past have said about me, made me not want to post here.

And, there has been plenty of discussion of drone strikes under Obama.

Granted, Company XYZ doesn't have much to do with setting Chinese policy, but if there religious convictions are so deep, shouldn't they avoid any company in a country that has policies that are in direct conflict with their beliefs.  After all, every state they do business with, good or bad, is generating revenue from Hobby Lobby.

Of course they aren't responsible for China's policies.

Nor are they responsible for ACA's policies.

I'm disappointed that I need to explain this to you.

As for China's "independent contractors," China's capitalism is run by the Chinese government, in many case, by the Chinese Army.

Giving "Christian" money to them, given the fungibility argument Hobby Lobby has embraced vis a vis ACA, means they are violating their "Christian values" by doing business with China.