# Catholic church and child molestation redux **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917 "2011-02-10T18:03:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/101 "2011-02-11T16:18:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it appropriate to excoriate the “Roman Catholic rules and regulations” and not US law? I’m confused-who here is insisting that we do one and not the other? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/102 "2011-02-11T16:19:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > Can the USA pass a constitutional amendment removing the Ex Post Facto clause from the constitution? Absolutely. But where does that authority come from in the USA - from the people. The US has popular sovereignty. At any time, and correct me if I am wrong on this, the Pope could have altered canon law in any way he chose, because he, as God’s representative, is sovereign. Wouldn’t it be correct under existing canon law, for example, for the Pope to issue a Motu Proprio saying that while the principle of statutes of limitations would continue to apply, a particular individual’s offenses would not be subject to them? I’m not saying he should have done that, but that would be completely valid under canon law, unless I am missing something, correct? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/103 "2011-02-11T16:20:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m confused-who here is insisting that we do one and not the other? No one is. It’s just Bricker and his usual amoral ‘my side must win’ hand-waving. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/104 "2011-02-11T16:22:11Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > No one is. It’s just Bricker and his usual amoral ‘my side must win’ hand-waving. Another case of “Unless we discuss every single agency involved at the same time, we can’t discuss _any_ of them?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/105 "2011-02-11T16:22:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m confused-who here is insisting that we do one and not the other? I search in vain for threads asserting that US law is evil and corrupt because of the Ex Post Facto clause and statutes of limitations. Perhaps I’m mistaken – could you point me to a few of them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/106 "2011-02-11T16:24:38Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Absolutely. But where does that authority come from in the USA - from the people. The US has popular sovereignty. At any time, and correct me if I am wrong on this, the Pope could have altered canon law in any way he chose, because he, as God’s representative, is sovereign. Wouldn’t it be correct under existing canon law, for example, for the Pope to issue a Motu Proprio saying that while the principle of statutes of limitations would continue to apply, a particular individual’s offenses would not be subject to them? > > I’m not saying he should have done that, but that would be completely valid under canon law, unless I am missing something, correct? Correct. In the same way, the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, could rule that the Ex Post Facto Clause doesn’t apply in a particular individual’s case, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/107 "2011-02-11T16:25:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Church holds itself up as a moral authority, yes, but it also makes no secret of its laws. So your indignation appears to be simply reading the headline and not the article. In other words, the Church made no secret of its laws concerning a five year limit on crimes. So it says, in effect, my moral authority says there’s a five year limit on crimes. I’m not sure why you’re equating “authority” with “moral authority”. When the church states (statED, I guess - I’m very glad to see they changed the SoL) there’s a 5 year SoL, that’s authority. When they state any victims who speak publicly about their rape before the Vatican can review the case is excommunicated - that’s moral authority. When the church puts itself in a position of power over people’s eternal salvation, that’s moral authority. > [@](#): > > If you don’t agree with that rule, then why would you regard the Church as a moral authority? Never said I did. Other people certainly regard it as such, however. > [@](#): > > The problem here is that you think a general assertion of moral authority means that in every particular, it should conform to YOUR idea of morals. I do? Can I ask why you think that? What, in my handful of posts, led you to that conclusion - I’m honestly curious. > [@](#): > > The Church says its a moral authority, but has a five-year limit on crimes, therefore its disgusting! Correct - the church deals with the consequence of sin on the order of magnitude of eternity. Yet it has (had - again, very glad to see they lifted the SoL) conveniently put an extremely short duration on prosecuting crimes that it was well aware of. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/108 "2011-02-11T16:26:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Another case of “Unless we discuss every single agency involved at the same time, we can’t discuss _any_ of them?” Not at all. But you can’t be arguing in good faith if you contend that the level of vitriol against the United States for not repealing the Ex Post facto clause as applied to sex offenders against children is anywhere near the vitriol against the Catholic Church. This is not a matter of, “Oh, today we just happen to be discussing the Church; tomorrow we’ll certainly have equally harsh words for the states.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/109 "2011-02-11T16:27:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I search in vain for threads asserting that US law is evil and corrupt because of the Ex Post Facto clause and statutes of limitations. Perhaps I’m mistaken – could you point me to a few of them? You are absolutely right-although you seem to be of the opinion that possible corruption of the Ex Post Facto clause is of equal importance to what we are know talking about, you have failed to start even one thread on the subject. Now that that silliness is over, would you care to get back to the topic of discussion in _this_ thread? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/110 "2011-02-11T16:29:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You are absolutely right-although you seem to be of the opinion that possible corruption of the Ex Post Facto clause is of equal importance to what we are know talking about, you have failed to start even one thread on the subject. > Now that that silliness is over, would you care to get back to the topic of discussion in _this_ thread? Because _I_ don’t regard the failure as evidence of evil, and have no oppribium against those who have taken no action. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/111 "2011-02-11T16:30:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. > > But you can’t be arguing in good faith if you contend that the level of vitriol against the United States for not repealing the Ex Post facto clause as applied to sex offenders against children is anywhere near the vitriol against the Catholic Church. This is not a matter of, “Oh, today we just happen to be discussing the Church; tomorrow we’ll certainly have equally harsh words for the states.” Once more, If you wish to start a new thread on the topic, you are free to do so. In _this_ thread, it seems to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/112 "2011-02-11T16:32:30Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > When they state any victims who speak publicly about their rape before the Vatican can review the case is excommunicated - that’s moral authority. That’s a lie. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/113 "2011-02-11T16:34:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. > > In the same way, the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, could rule that the Ex Post Facto Clause doesn’t apply in a particular individual’s case, correct? They could. But their actions would (a) be subject to legislative control; (b) derive in the end from the consent of the governed; and (c) be contrary to the rules. The actions of the Pope would be none of these three. I know we can get into a huge twisted argument over (c). I think we both agree that where a text is clear, the text controls. Now a Supreme Court has the authority to rule contrary to that, but I think we can both agree such a ruling would be in error, and would result in other branches of government acting to right the mistake. There is no such brake on papal action and authority. It seems to me you are trying to claim an equivalence between the Pope signing a letter (which is within his absolute authority) and the process of constitutional change. And that’s crazy. We’re told time and time again the Catholic Church isn’t a democracy. Fine - then stop trying to use the credibility that attaches to the rule of law **in a democracy** , derived from the consent of the governed, to bolster the credibility of a dictatorship. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/114 "2011-02-11T16:34:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Once more, If you wish to start a new thread on the topic, you are free to do so. In _this_ thread, it seems to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic. No. It’s a recognition that your REAL position is not, “statutes of limitation are evil,” but rather “statutes of limitation used by the Catholic Church are evil.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/115 "2011-02-11T16:39:31Z")
> [@villa](#): > > They could. > > But their actions would (a) be subject to legislative control; (b) derive in the end from the consent of the governed; and (c) be contrary to the rules. > > The actions of the Pope would be none of these three. “The consent of the governed” is they key distinction here, I suspect. Let’s see. > [@](#): > > I know we can get into a huge twisted argument over (c). I think we both agree that where a text is clear, the text controls. Now a Supreme Court has the authority to rule contrary to that, but I think we can both agree such a ruling would be in error, and would result in other branches of government acting to right the mistake. There is no such brake on papal action and authority. Yes. But so what? > [@](#): > > It seems to me you are trying to claim an equivalence between the Pope signing a letter (which is within his absolute authority) and the process of constitutional change. And that’s crazy. We’re told time and time again the Catholic Church isn’t a democracy. Fine - then stop trying to use the credibility that attaches to the rule of law **in a democracy** , derived from the consent of the governed, to bolster the credibility of a dictatorship. Why? Both forms of government have the capacity to create binding, valid law. You seem to be saying that since the Pope’s “dictatorship” is capable of acting swiftly to correct a problem, it’s bad when it doesn’t, and when the democracy can’t, that’s OK. Or something else I don’t really follow. Why is it relevant that one source of authority is a single person and the other’s isn’t? And why do you place the onus on the dictatorship to do the right thing and not on the democracy? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/116 "2011-02-11T16:41:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. It’s a recognition that your REAL position is not, “statutes of limitation are evil,” but rather “statutes of limitation used by the Catholic Church are evil.” No. My position is that the topic of conversation in this thread is “statutes of limitation used by the Catholic Church are evil.” If you believe that the topic _you_ want to talk about is important, start a thread. I’ve got some thoughts on the subject, as I’m sure do many other Dopers. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/117 "2011-02-11T16:42:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a lie. I previously stated exactly where I got that - tagos’ link says: > [@](#): > > The Crimen Sollicitationis according to Gorman includes a requirement for the child victim, accused priest, and any witnesses to maintain silence on the matter on threat of excommunication from the Church. If you would like to debunk that, please feel free. But keep your accusations of lying or debating in bad faith to yourself. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/118 "2011-02-11T16:51:26Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I previously stated exactly where I got that - tagos’ link says: > If you would like to debunk that, please feel free. But keep your accusations of lying or debating in bad faith to yourself. [National Catholic Reporter article](http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm) > [@](#): > > The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or “worst crime,” meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest’s celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations. > > Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the “secret of the Holy Office,” today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy. Best just to ignore Bricker. He is just doing his lawyer for the ‘defence of the indefensible’ schtick again and as such will throw whatever shit he can get his hands on to see what will get in the eye without any regard for truth or human decency. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/119 "2011-02-11T16:57:56Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > I previously stated exactly where I got that - tagos’ link says: > > > [@](#): > > > > The Crimen Sollicitationis according to Gorman includes a requirement for the child victim, accused priest, and any witnesses to maintain silence on the matter on threat of excommunication from the Church. > > If you would like to debunk that, please feel free. But keep your accusations of lying or debating in bad faith to yourself. _The Crimen Sollicitationis **according to Gorman** includes a requirement…_ Gorman was the guy suing, so perhaps taking his word isn’t as useful as actually looking it up: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Media accounts sometimes presented the instruction as not concerned principally with sexual solicitation in Confession, but with denunciations of paedophilia, and reported interpretations of the oath of secrecy about the conduct of the trial as a generic oath of secrecy, contrary to what the instruction itself stated. > [@NCR](#): > > Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church’s internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/120 "2011-02-11T16:59:34Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > [National Catholic Reporter article](http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm) > > Best just to ignore Bricker. He is just doing his lawyer for the ‘defence of the indefensible’ schtick again and as such will throw whatever shit he can get his hands on to see what will get in the eye without any regard for truth or human decency. And from your own cite, a few paragraphs later, quoting the part you didn’t want us to see: > [@](#): > > Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church’s internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities. > > “Of course, a bishop couldn’t use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse,” Morrisey said. “The document simply wasn’t made for that purpose.” Oops. Gee, how did that happen, hmmmm? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917.md?page=7)