You wondered how anyone could fault the Church when their policies were similar to secular law. I answered that I faulted their ludicrously short statute of limitations for certain crimes. I realize that I can’t change history, but I can certainly fault the Church’s past policy on dealing with sexual offenders.
Regarding targets of outrage, if someone starts a thread complaining about states allowing sexual molesters to go free because the statute of limitations prevented prosecution, I would be more than happy to express some outrage in that thread as well. I have more than enough outrage to go around.
I’m glad to hear that the Church (would that be individual dioceses, or the Vatican?) has removed the statute of limitations for these crimes. In your earlier post (edit: post 59), you implied that Church canon law still had such a statute.
I don’t hold states and the church to the same standard, when the church holds itself up as a moral authority. I’m not interested in discussing how I feel states handled this matter.
Unless the claim is that every single parish is an official embassy of the Vatican then, yes-Vatican law should be ignored in this country. Our country, our laws.
Wholly apart from any religious significance, there are financial considerations; a defrocked priest is not eligible to be housed or cared for in his retirement, for example. That’s the imposition of a penalty – why could the Church do that but the states could not?
Personally I druther people stick to earthly powers and not pretend to speak for God. Even as an agnostic that raises my hackles.
But I concur that an organization that insists that confession and atonement of one’s misdeeds are essential to following the will of God really ought to practice what it literally preaches. Covering up, intimidating witnesses, blaming gays and liberals - it’s not much of a mea culpa.
Are you asking me why US states cannot defrock a priest?
Assuming that’s the question, the answer is because the states didn’t frock him in the first place. His frocking status is not their responsibility, nor is it their concern.
Sure. And in the case brought up above, our laws didn’t allow for any penalty against the priest because the crimes were too old. The Vatican didn’t impose any penalty either. So what’s the problem? The Vatican reached the same result our laws did.
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. If you don’t agree with that rule, then why would you regard the Church as a moral authority?
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. The Church says its a moral authority, but has a five-year limit on crimes, therefore its disgusting!
No, I’m asking you why you take umbrage at their refusal to defrock a priest when that refusal is grounded in the same principle that states use to refuse to jail that priest.
Oh, I see. Sorry; I misunderstood your previous question.
I’ll give you the same answer I already gave earlier: Both results were wrong.
I mean, if you’re trying to cleverly get me to admit that US states failing to impose penalties on known child molesters is just as bad as the Roman Catholic Church doing so: Sure. It’s outrageous and indefensible to allow a known child molester to go unpunished. It is additionally outrageous to allow a known child molester to continue to hold a position in which he is around children. I am perfectly willing to be outraged at any organization that allowed this kind of thing to happen. I am no less outraged at the RCC’s behavior just because some other organization equally failed in its responsibility to protect children.
There’s a degree of sophistry in this comparison. The Catholic Church cannot be contrasted with a state in this manner - the state is a democracy that operates under a constitution; the Catholic Church is, in the end, a dictatorship, however benign. The authority of the state to enact laws comes from the governed themselves; the authority for canon law comes from God.
So again I want to draw the distinction between the local diocese, which DID allow the priest to continue to be around children in 1970-1974, and the Vatican, which only became aware of the issue in 1998, after the priest was no longer serving as a priest anywhere.
I absolutely share your outrage and disgust over the actions of the local diocese.
Yes, but the process for creating and imposing canon law is not arbitrary, and once it’s created, it cannot be retroactively changed and applied any more than our secular law can.
I’m seeing a mixing of terminologies in this thread that are confusing some. For the purpose of clarity:
U.S. law-legally effects those who reside in the United States
Vatican Law-legally effects those who live in the Vatican
Roman Catholic rules and regulations-privately effects those who are members of the Catholic faith.
There is no “Vatican Law” in our country(outside of any embassies), anymore then there is “Microsoft Law”, but there are Roman Catholic rules and regulations which have no bearing whatsoever when it comes our legal system.
Fine. My question remains. The result under “Roman Catholic rules and regulations” (canon law) in the case under discussion was that the Vatican would not defrock a priest. The result under US law was that the priest could not be punished.
Why is it appropriate to excoriate the “Roman Catholic rules and regulations” and not US law?
At any point in the last thirty years, this country could have removed the Ex Posit Facto Clause of the US Constitution, or simply ignored it when prosecuting these offenders. But instead we put the interest of our (Evil?) country ahead of decency.
