"Philly Trial Reveals Unreliability of Religions' Self-Policing Policies" by Maureen Paul Turlish, National Catholic Reporter

http://ncronline.org/print/blogs/examining-crisis/philly-trial-reveals-unreliability-religions-self-policing-policies

"I found out something significant about the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church as I sat inside Judge M. Teresa Sarmina's criminal courtroom in Philadelphia April 30 and listened to Msgr. Kevin Michael Quirk, a church canon lawyer from the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston, W. Va. Quirk, the presiding judge during the 2008 canonical trial of Rev. James J. Brennan – one of two defendants in the current Philadelphia priest abuse trial – for charges of child sex-abuse, was on the stand to authenticate the transcript of that trial, as well as provide insight into the procedures of a canonical trial.

One revelation proved startling. While possible victims of childhood sexual abuse and other lay witnesses are asked to take an oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth etc.” during a canonical trial concerning the public good, an alleged priest-perpetrator is not. Canon 1728.2 says, “The accused is not bound to confess the delict [crime] nor can an oath be administered to the accused.” Why in God's name would anyone believe that an individual like the criminally charged Brennan is necessarily telling the truth during a canonical trial when he is not even required to swear to the truth of his statements? It seems to me that Quirk was describing one religious denomination's version of "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.” In so many words, Brennan took the Fifth.

Why would any credible victim of childhood sexual abuse, their families or other witnesses, participate in such a farce where only "alleged" victims and non-clerics are sworn to tell the truth?"