On that doctor, one point is, when cops are accused of something, they are suspended, with or without pay, depending upon local regulations. This is because the legal doubt as to their guilt does affect public safety so they are pulled off the force until they are cleared or not. A doctor's whose actions have already possibly resulted in one death should also be suspended until he clears himself or not.

If only the state medical board can pull it, maybe we need a law change. No matter how much they think so, doctors are not Gods except in their own imaginations. A judge should be able to suspend his right to practice until the criminal hearings are finished.

That lawyer is also wrapped up in his own importance.

On the Pope deal, first it is important to understand the Pope does indeed have diplomatic immunity. Simple fact. There is nothing there to debate.

That does not change the harm done by pedophilic priests, nor the fact the church has totally screwed up on controlling abusive priests. This also need not be debated any further. Courts have so ruled, so we can't even say, "Innocent until Proved Guilty."

The question is what do we do about it. Your anti-religious views might lead you to advocate impossible things. The Catholic Church is not going away. No Catholics are going to prison because the clergy did wicked things.

What will happen is the Church will pay out millions or billions of dollars in damages. Anyone who is proved to have done wicked things will go to prison, which is at it should be.

I suppose some legal systems will also throw those high ranking clergy who did nothing wrong but did not respond in a correct manner in prison. Some will hold them personally liable as well.

All is well. That is all we can do and there is never perfect justice in the world.

Perhaps some regions will do like the Boy Scouts, which have always been attractive to pedophiles.
Baden-Powell, the founder, found his first pedo prior to 1913. Today, the Scout rules are that no one, man or woman, is ever to be alone with the boys. When I was a leader, it didn't work in all cases. If a boy got sick or hurt, sometimes with only two adults, one had to take the boy to the doctor. There was no way to avoid one adult only. In this case, the emergency solution was to leave an adult whose son was with him, and the son had to stay with the father until the other adult came back. Note this was as much to protect the adult from false charges which also happen. The last troop I was in also had a rule that one woman could not accompany male leaders; there had to be two women. And, though it was presented as protecting the women, it was actually to protect the men from false charges, though of course it also increased protection of the women.

Various organizations over the millenia have had serious problems. They continue, mostly because people in charge don't fully understand the seriousness of the issues, or don't believe the problem really exists. Once their attention is finally wakened, necessary changes are made. That is how it will be with this problem in the Catholic Church.

Trying to drag the Pope into the issue, except where he may have been a clergy leader or member, is like personally blaming George Bush for Katrina damages in NO.

I also enjoyed the videos because I got to see what your face looks like from the front, and when you are talking. Thanks for sharing.

When it comes to judging job performance in advance, the best way actually is a paper and pencil test. It's called an IQ test, and even a truncated, 20 minute version, is far better than interviewing, a job specific task test, or any other practical means for selecting an employee.

This holds true even for simple jobs, but is even more predictive for complex jobs.

And tests of conscientiousness and integrity - both paper and pencil tests - are actually the 2nd and 3rd best methods for choosing a candidate.

Employers are effectively banned from using an IQ test despite its accuracy and efficiency, btw.

And as always, you look great Amy!

Thanks, D. Maybe I can get less silly about hating to watch myself on TV!

(Apologies if this comment is excessively long or dumb; I love reading this column and the comments, and finally decided to jump in.)

I wish that the church would reform - and maybe help prevent these abuses in the future - by applying a basic understanding of human nature to their institution, instead of admonishing that people should be "better than" their instincts.

It's my comprehension of the Catholic rules for clergy (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that priests are forbidden to marry and, therefore, engage in intercourse, or even to masturbate. They also must listen to confessions in which people are allowed to say anything that burdens them, including sexual content. I cannot imagine this sort of life; it would feel, to me, like living on a starvation diet, listening to everyone around me discuss the meals they've eaten, told to read the Bible every time I felt hungry, that my hunger was a sin and would stop as soon as I was sufficiently close to God - oh, and food isn't really that delicious, honestly.

For very few people, sex, food, and other basic drives can indeed be transcended by devotion; those people usually end up canonized. For the rest of us, it's not so simple, especially when those instincts are made twice as powerful by being forbidden. It seems that the Catholic clergy receives little preparation or support for the realities of a celibate life, especially when compared to the clergy of other faiths (like Buddhist monks, who are taught mindfulness, self-awareness, and meditation and thus develop a strong personal discipline, and also are never left alone with the opposite gender because of the recognition that temptation exists).

I also wonder how much screening a potential priest undergoes before entering the priesthood. I remember considering a convent when I was nineteen, and looking back, it wasn't the thrill of devotion that drew me. It was the possibility of getting away from all of my problems and everything in the world that overwhelmed me, to follow what I saw as a higher, more important purpose than just working for a paycheque. Even an hour with a psychiatrist would have exposed me for what I was: an overly idealistic girl running away from adult responsibilities by chasing a "vocation." I wonder how many priests enter the clergy for the same reason, or because they're fleeing parts of themselves that they believe are sinful or horrifying, and thus vow themselves to a vocation that they're ill-suited to follow.

None of these ideas is an excuse for sexual abuse, but rather, a possible explanation of the potential for abuse built-in to the current system. Take natural instincts + frustration + constant exposure to temptation + no outlet or coping mechanisms, and it becomes a recipe for depravity. I agree with the attorney that there needs to be reform in the church and that the Pope needs to acknowledge what's happening.

Agreed with the other commenters, Amy; you look bright and vivacious live!

"The Catholic Church is not going away."

Sure it will, like all religions. Think ancient Greeks and Egyptians. That big ol' gold-plated Vatican will continue to be good for the tourist trade, though.

Technically, correct. The Pope is a head of state and as such, his is immune. We don't like it, of course, but it's the truth.

You look gorgeous.

Technically, correct. The Pope is a head of state and as such, his is immune. We don't like it, of course, but it's the truth.

That sucks. Everybody should be answerable to the law. Under this immunity, the Pontiff can literally get away with murder, to state the obvious.