In 1981, the Monsignor's responsibility was to make a formal report to the ordinary (that is, his bishop). This apparently did not happen in the Munich case - instead of a report there was a request for a hospital stay.
Upon receiving the report the bishop's responsibility would have been to investigate the claims and contact the victim or the victim's family.
The diocesan court of canon law would likely adjudicate and make a decision on the plausibility of the claim and the punishment. The victim would be quite free to pursue his own criminal and civil charges as well as canonical ones - but this would be on the victim's initiative.
In 2010, the monsignor makes a formal report to the ordinary and the ordinary's office makes contact with local law enforcement in order to proceed both criminally and canonically.
The initiative to pursue criminal charges is no longer left up to the victim - it is required that the bishop immediately initiate the criminal process by contacting the local authorities.
Also in 2010, any time a priest is to be reassigned, or "takes time off" or needs psychiatric assistance, his immediate supervisor can no longer just arrange it for him. Such a request needs to go directly to the bishop and every such request requires a formal inquiry into why this reassignment is occurring. This removes the leeway that supervisors had before in creating coverups: one can no longer make it look like a predator was just having a nervous breakdown - there needs to be an inquiry as to why he is moving or taking time off. The Munich situation can no longer be pulled off as in 1981.
It was more of an honor system before 1983. There is more supervision and oversight now. And this needs to be kept up consistently.
But if the officer actually was accused of sexual misconduct with actual victims it is less plausible that a Captain could cover up this offense.
Not if the victims were too ashamed to come forward. Which until recent years was very often the case.
There were thousands of victims. Not one priest ever gave thought to call local law enforcement officials. Their only thought was to either cover it up or just transfer offenders around.
I read the Catholic Church was going bankrupct. You reap what you sow.
“Not if the victims were too ashamed to come forward. Which until recent years was very often the case.”
The victims weren’t the ones who were to be ashamed. That label belonged to the many priests who committed the abuse.
So in essence your claim is that there were two types of forms that could been reported to Ratzinger in 81'; a report of misconduct, or just a request for time-off or psychiatric care. Ratzinger would not have investigated a request for psychiatric care. So we can expect the Vatican to produce the documents?
The diocesan court of canon law...
What's the makeup of this court?