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?
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?
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?
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.
Never said I did. Other people certainly regard it as such, however.
I do? Can I ask why you think that? What, in my handful of posts, led you to that conclusion - I’m honestly curious.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.”
“The consent of the governed” is they key distinction here, I suspect. Let’s see.
Yes. But so what?
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?
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.
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.