# Catholic Church Gives Pedo Preists A Second Helping ... er, Chance ... in South America **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 17, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579 "2015-09-17T18:13:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/141 "2015-09-28T01:35:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Certainly true. > > But then what’s your point? Are you saying that the current rules are insufficient, or that the rules prior to 2002 were insufficient? I don’t think the pre 2002 rules were sufficient. Do you? I don’t know yet about the current rules. The fact that some bishops have apparently ignored those rules – with no fear of consequence-- is certainly worrisome. I do have a couple of questions for you. Do you think the Bernard law case was handled in a correct and moral fashion? I don’t mean legally or according to Canon law. But do you feel that his actions and the “consequences” of his actions were moral and right? I mean, he retired, went to Rome and became archpriest of the basilica etc right? We know that his work to hide pedophile priests was not illegal…But would you say he acted morally, or that the church handled the matter in a morally correct fashion? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/142 "2015-09-28T01:57:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From that link, item 229: “By virtue of Divine Right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.” In what way is that supposed to conflict? He has an ordinary power of government, but that doesn’t mean he can do whatever he wants. His actions are still guided entirely by Catholic law, just like a secular governor’s actions are guided entirely by the secular law that grants them the governorship. It’s not as if the Vatican can’t suspend bishops. It already has. The Pope himself created a tribunal back in June for bishops that aided in child abuse. A tribunal would be pointless if he had to let them keep on doing whatever they were doing. I know that some want to argue the clergy structure is flat and not a hierarchy. But, in practice, given what powers everyone has, the Pope is the boss. He can make any changes to canon law that do not violate dogma or the **TWO** _ex cathedra_ statements ever given. There’s just a whole lot of Catholic law that is not inviolate but is erroneously treated as such. And this has always bothered me about the Catholic Church. And I say this as someone who, as a Christian myself, absolutely agree that a Church cannot just change the rules however they want. I do accept divinely given laws. Even though I am _sola scriptura_, I accept that you are not. I’m saying that, even within what you believe are divine laws, you have a lot of room to change things. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/143 "2015-09-29T19:01:58Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > It’s not as if the Vatican can’t suspend bishops. It already has. No. I grant that multiple news stories may report such a thing happening. But, still, no. > [@](#): > > The Pope himself created a tribunal back in June for bishops that aided in child abuse. A tribunal would be pointless if he had to let them keep on doing whatever they were doing. No. There are plenty of examples of advisory tribunals. The Pope is not powerless. But his power comes from force of tradition and weight of his office and the unity of the bishops as a whole. > [@](#): > > I know that some want to argue the clergy structure is flat and not a hierarchy. But, in practice, given what powers everyone has, the Pope is the boss. He can make any changes to canon law that do not violate dogma or the **TWO** _ex cathedra_ statements ever given. Not really. That’s true of a state legislature. They have plenary power to make any law that doesn’t violate the state constitution or the federal constitution (or the laws made thereunder). But it’s not true of the Pope. “But wait,” I hear you protest. “The Pope has immediate and full power – it says so in canon law!” Yes, it does. But you’ve also conceded: > [@](#): > > I do accept divinely given laws. So I assume you agree that the Pope is powerless, or should consider himself powerless, to change divinely given law, yes? And you’ve also conceded that from the Church’s point of view, Scripture is not the only source of divine law. Yes? The authority and independence of the bishops of the Church is part of Holy Tradition. It was part of Christ’s institution of the Church. The Pope’s hand is constrained in how much he can encroach on that authority, not by written canon law and not by scripture, but by holy tradition. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/144 "2015-09-29T19:16:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, Miller. What you said was not correct in this current context, and rather than acknowledge it, you chose to try to hide behind “I think you already know.” When your evasion is brought to light, you react with this baffled, pointless fury. > > It’s almost always clear when a rhetor has lost on reasoned argument: when he must resort to demanding that his opponent assume near-impossible physical positions for ludicrous physical acts instead of reasoned rebuttal, readers can safely infer the rhetor has expended his arsenal of reason to no solid effect. Bullshit. You went for a pointless, nitpicky, and above all _completely out of context_ detail while ignoring the meat of the argument, and then want to pretend that you’ve scored some rhetorical victory when I declined to play your shitty little games. It’s a cheap, dishonest tactic, and one that ought to be beneath you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/145 "2015-09-29T19:37:10Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Bullshit. You went for a pointless, nitpicky, and above all _completely out of context_ detail while ignoring the meat of the argument, and then want to pretend that you’ve scored some rhetorical victory when I declined to play your shitty little games. It’s a cheap, dishonest tactic, and one that ought to be beneath you. It wasn’t pointless, nitpicky, or out of context. It was precisely and completely relevant to what was being discussed. As a reminder: > [@Miller](#): > > I’ll cop to believing that about the Churches theology, but it’s not the theology that led to the mishandling of the abuse scandals: it’s the bureaucracy. Unless you’re claiming that all of the rules of the Catholic Church were explicitly laid down by God? I pointed out that was a false dilemma. Remember? Remember where it went from there? ---
**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:** [September 29, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/146 "2015-09-29T19:45:28Z")
In this thread, or in your imaginary courtroom? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/147 "2015-09-29T19:53:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It wasn’t pointless, nitpicky, or out of context. It was precisely and completely relevant to what was being discussed. > > As a reminder: > > I pointed out that was a false dilemma. Do you remember the the thing you wrote to which I actually objected? Because that wasn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/148 "2015-09-29T20:35:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Do you remember the the thing you wrote to which I actually objected? > > Because that wasn’t it. You objected to all sorts of things I wrote. But perhaps you mean this exchange: > [@Miller](#): > > ]I don’t think your rules are meaningless. I think your rules are less important than preventing widespread abuse of children, and if your rules are actively impeding the prevention of child abuse, then there’s no excuse you can offer for keeping them in place that doesn’t make you a monster. To which I argued: > [@Me](#): > > Do you support the rule that excludes evidence against a criminal defendant if the evidence is obtained by a warrantless search of the accused’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment? > > Are you a monster? My argument was clear and to the point: you said my rules were less important than preventing widespread abuse of children, the inference being that such a goal is so important that mere man-made rules should yield to that goal. I pointed out that we as a society accept all sorts of compromises that ultimately serve to limit the goal of preventing widespread abuses of children, such as the protections of the Fourth Amendment and the existence of statute of limitations of crimes. Rather than forthright acknowledge the point, you sought to wiggle away from an admission by claiming you thought I knew your answer. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/149 "2015-09-29T21:03:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …the inference being that such a goal is so important that mere man-made rules should yield to that goal. Is that what you thought I was trying to imply? It wasn’t, but I can see how someone could make that mistake. If only I had clarified what sort of rules I was talking about. [Oh wait!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18707238&postcount=69) I guess you must not have seen that post, huh? [Oh wait, again!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18709084&postcount=75) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/150 "2015-09-29T21:21:02Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Is that what you thought I was trying to imply? It wasn’t, but I can see how someone could make that mistake. If only I had clarified what sort of rules I was talking about. > > [Oh wait!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18707238&postcount=69) > > I guess you must not have seen that post, huh? > > [Oh wait, again!](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18709084&postcount=75) Yes, you made it clear that you were talking about the American legal system, not the rules of the Church. But remember that I started this entire journey by saying (to **RTFirefly** ): > [@Bricker](#): > > In my opinion, this response arises in your head because you you believe that, at heart, each and every working principle used by the Church is ultimately imaginary – that is, they are not immutable laws of nature but creations of charlatans in funny clothes. The Church cannot be heard to complain about changing anything, because they could, if they wished, change anything. It was that assumption I challenged. So with that contention in mind, what, specifically, does your attempt to say you were talking about American law do? In other words, the debate is about what changes the Church still should make. And I offered up the analogy that in American law, we accept that certain principles (like privacy in our homes and papers) are so worthwhile that we are willing to allow a criminal – even a child molestor – to go unpunished in order to preserve those principles. I argued by analogy that the principle of episcopal autonomy is likewise a weighty one in tradition and serves analogous high goals. Your rebuttal doesn’t address that argument. It simply reiterates that you sought to limit your comments to American law. Yes, very clear – but I argued that by analogy to American law, canon law serves a similar function. ---
**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:** [September 29, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/151 "2015-09-29T21:26:28Z")
American _law_. Canon _rules, regulations or what you-but NOT LAW_. edited to add: You keep implying an equivalency that just isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/152 "2015-09-29T21:31:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > American _law_. > Canon _rules, regulations or what you-but NOT LAW_ Cite? Here’s mine: [Code of Canon Law](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) From the [Encyclopedia Britannica:](http://www.britannica.com/topic/canon-law) > [@](#): > > Canon law, Latin jus canonicum, body of laws made within certain Christian churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, independent churches of Eastern Christianity, and the Anglican Communion) by lawful ecclesiastical authority for the government of both the whole church and parts thereof and of the behaviour and actions of individuals. In a wider sense the term includes precepts of divine law, natural or positive, incorporated in the canonical collections and codes. ---
**Author:** ![McDoogins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@McDoogins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDoogins)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/153 "2015-09-29T21:32:31Z")
They should send Machine Gun Preacher to set them straight. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/154 "2015-09-29T21:37:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, you made it clear that you were talking about the American legal system, not the rules of the Church. > > But remember that I started this entire journey by saying (to **RTFirefly** ): > > It was that assumption I challenged. > > So with that contention in mind, what, specifically, does your attempt to say you were talking about American law do? > > In other words, the debate is about what changes the Church still should make. And I offered up the analogy that in American law, we accept that certain principles (like privacy in our homes and papers) are so worthwhile that we are willing to allow a criminal – even a child molestor – to go unpunished in order to preserve those principles. I argued by analogy that the principle of episcopal autonomy is likewise a weighty one in tradition and serves analogous high goals. > > Your rebuttal doesn’t address that argument. It simply reiterates that you sought to limit your comments to American law. > > Yes, very clear – but I argued that by analogy to American law, canon law serves a similar function. Church law is as important as the bylaws of the local anime club. Government law is necessary to sustain a working society. One, is important. The other is a not. Your Church Law is worthless. Fuck it sideways. If Church law is an impediment to children not being fucked, then set church law on fire. What you keep trying to do is pretend that Church law means anything at all. It’s nothing but a bunch of robed imbeciles arguing about fanfiction. ---
**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:** [September 29, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/155 "2015-09-29T21:41:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cite? > > Here’s mine: > > [Code of Canon Law](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) > > From the [Encyclopedia Britannica:](http://www.britannica.com/topic/canon-law) Club rules. In the eyes of actual law, they don’t mean jack shit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/156 "2015-09-29T21:42:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > What you keep trying to do is pretend that Church law means anything at all. It’s nothing but a bunch of robed imbeciles arguing about fanfiction. I disagree. Nor is it merely my opinion against yours (although of course my opinion is immeasurably the greater victor in that matchup). But secular law implicitly recognizes that Church law cannot be burdened unless the government’s interest is a compelling one, AND that government interest must be furthered in the the least restrictive way possible. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. So I expect those goalposts of yours are going to now quickly move: even the secular law you agree has validity recognizes that the canon law means something so important that secular law can’t easily overcome it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/157 "2015-09-29T21:43:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In other words, the debate is about what changes the Church still should make. And I offered up the analogy that in American law, we accept that certain principles (like privacy in our homes and papers) are so worthwhile that we are willing to allow a criminal – even a child molestor – to go unpunished in order to preserve those principles. I argued by analogy that the principle of episcopal autonomy is likewise a weighty one in tradition and serves analogous high goals. As far as I can tell, that’s not something you’ve actually said in this thread up until this point. You just said, “American law!” And, apparently, expected the rest of us to read your mind to figure out how American law was relevant to a discussion of Catholic law. > [@](#): > > Your rebuttal doesn’t address that argument. It simply reiterates that you sought to limit your comments to American law. Because you hadn’t actually made the argument yet. If you _had_ made that argument, I would have said something like, “Okay, that’s a reasonable point. What rules does the Catholic Church have that you think are more important than protecting children from sexual predators?” To which you would have replied: > [@Bricker](#): > > None. Which leads me back to this question: what the fuck was the point of all this? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/158 "2015-09-29T21:43:48Z")
His concept of them is that these “laws” derive from _God_, not from some bunch of old perverts wearing funny hats. Don’t hope to get the point across. > [@Bricker](#): > > But secular law implicitly recognizes that Church law cannot be burdened unless the government’s interest is a compelling one, AND that government interest must be furthered in the the least restrictive way possible. Stated as if protecting children from rape is not a compelling interest, or that there is a least restrictive way to protect The Men of God’s right to practice it. Wow. Don’t play his Jesuitical pettifoggery game. Even when he’s cornered, he’ll never acknowledge it. The moral argument is not at all vague. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/159 "2015-09-29T21:44:19Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Club rules. In the eyes of actual law, they don’t mean jack shit. So you now agree that the term “canon law” is correct? Then see my post to **Lobo**. In the eyes of actual law 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq, they mean consierably more than jack shit. Correct? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579/160 "2015-09-29T21:54:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree. Of course you do. Your parents brainwashed you from an early age. But those of us unburdened by such stupidity can see it plainly. > [@](#): > > Nor is it merely my opinion against yours (although of course my opinion is immeasurably the greater victor in that matchup). Your opinion is that God is inept enough to need to impregnate a silly bitch so that He could sacrifice Himself to Himself to satisfy a rule He made, oh, and He can see the future and is all powerful. You’re a fucking silly twat. > [@](#): > > But secular law implicitly recognizes that Church law cannot be burdened unless the government’s interest is a compelling one, AND that government interest must be furthered in the the least restrictive way possible. Does the government have a compelling interest in keeping the cult you belong to from helping people rape kids? But that doesn’t matter because… > [@](#): > > So I expect those goalposts of yours are going to now quickly move: even the secular law you agree has validity recognizes that the canon law means something so important that secular law can’t easily overcome it. I’ve said that because of brainwashed victims like yourself, it’s unlikely that secular law can do anything. Because great latitude is given to your cult and the constant evils it rails on society, from causing unwanted children to be born, to turning perfectly nice people like you into seething delusional tithe-machines. That said, it simply indicates that the Church is particularly evil, since it just throws up its hands and mewls about how powerless it is to police the members it gives vast power to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-gives-pedo-preists-a-second-helping-er-chance-in-south-america/731579.md?page=9)