Catholic Church Gives Pedo Preists A Second Helping ... er, Chance ... in South America

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

Your claim regarding the issue is false.

Everyone other than actual pedophiles agrees that raping children is wrong. There is no disagreement on that point, so that is not an issue.

All right then, enabling the raping of children is the issue, with a secondary issue of how excuses can be made for it. Happy?

The issue is what changes of procedure need to be implemented to ensure that if an agent of the church, (priest, brother, sister, lay person acting on the behalf of the church), attacks a child, that person is disciplined and removed from any possibility of being in contact with a child.

That gives the organization too much credit - its enablement and support of the rapists of children is not the result of its organizational inertia, but of the individuals running that organization, at all levels. Those individuals have their own enablers, among the organization’s adherents, who show quite a powerful ability to excuse themselves behind a curtain of mumbo-jumbo and the delusion of being submissive to God’s will.

Any other human organization can change its own fucking procedures pretty much at will. The only problem is its own delusion, carefully fostered over the centuries, of it being more than that.

The church has had a certain amount of success, but has still suffered failures–and every failure is tragic and no failure should be acceptable.

Throw the bastards out. No, it isn’t that hard; all it takes is admitting that its own procedures are under its own control. The hard part is accepting that the responsibility for acting is its own, not God’s.

The issue Bricker has addressed is the specific one that has permitted various failures since 2002 (in the U.S.).

No. The issue is *cultural *within the organization, and within its community of enablers. There is a long-standing culture of child rape and enablement of child rape within it. Its persistence is due to a culture of submissiveness to a human organization that merely purports to be the agents of God, while violating anything it can point to as God’s teachings. Framing the RCC’s fundamental problems as a mere procedural matter, one they are so powerless to deal with that they aren’t even really trying, is evading responsibility, and evading basic morality as well - what its primary function should be.

Don’t participate in the enablement, please.

[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.

Yep, that’s an opinion, alright. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

The Church cannot be heard to complain about changing anything, because they could, if they wished, change anything.

I’ve given up trying to parse this sentence.

[BrainGlutton]

@BigT

Far from mere procedural and bureaucratic stuff, things like being anti-abortion or birth control or even being against homosexuality and gay marriage are not dogma. Yes, I know the Pope said abortion cannot be made moral–but that was not said ex cathedra, and thus can still be fallible.

And even what is said by a Pope ex cathedra can be changed – right? I mean, the doctrine of papal infallibility is just like saying the SCOTUS has the last word on interpretation of American law – of course at any time the SCOTUS can reverse any previous SCOTUS ruling, but until then all judges in America must take the most recent ruling as controlling. Is it not exactly the same with papal pronouncements on faith and morals? No pope is absolutely bound by a previous pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements – nor, for that matter, by his own earlier in his reign – is he?

[BrainGlutton]

@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.

Well, clearly they are not immutable laws of any kind, whether natural or spiritual or theological or political or philosophical or logical/mathematical, because they’re always changing. See previous post, and see Catholic doctrinal history.

@Bricker

The Church cannot be heard to complain about changing anything, because they could, if they wished, change anything.

The Pope can, at any rate; see previous post. And perhaps a General Council can, and perhaps a General Council can even override the Pope – has that question ever been clearly settled?

[ElvisL1ves]

Isn’t “Because we have this set of procedures we’ve written for ourselves that we are virtually helpless to change” about the weakest conceivable excuse there could ever be? Who else would you take that kind of shit from?

[Lobohan]

@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.

That is the actual fact of the matter. You’ve decided to believe the nonsense they tell you, but in reality, they are an utterly mundane organization with no more supernatural insight than Scientologists.

[ElvisL1ves]

People have been hearing voices in their heads for a long, long time. But today we have meds for it.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@BrainGlutton

And even what is said by a Pope ex cathedra can be changed – right? I mean, the doctrine of papal infallibility is just like saying the SCOTUS has the last word on interpretation of American law […]

In theory, at least, this is wrong. The pope cannot override the ex cathedra and purportedly infallible statements uttered by a previous pope. YMMV about whether this happens in practice.

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

And even what is said by a Pope ex cathedra can be changed – right? I mean, the doctrine of papal infallibility is just like saying the SCOTUS has the last word on interpretation of American law – of course at any time the SCOTUS can reverse any previous SCOTUS ruling, but until then all judges in America must take the most recent ruling as controlling. Is it not exactly the same with papal pronouncements on faith and morals? No pope is absolutely bound by a previous pope’s ex cathedra pronouncements – nor, for that matter, by his own earlier in his reign – is he?

No. You’re certainly correct about the Supreme Court. Lawrence v Texas explicitly overruled *Bowers v. Hardwick. *

But the Supreme Pontiff has never, and will never, purport to change his own or any other Pope’s ex cathedra announcements. Of course every Pope is bound by infallible statements by his predecessors.

@Paranoid_Randroid

In theory, at least, this is wrong. The pope cannot override the ex cathedra and purportedly infallible statements uttered by a previous pope. YMMV about whether this happens in practice.

No. YMMV as to whether it might be attempted in the future, I suppose. But no one can credibly claim it has actually, present tense, happens, or has happened in the past.

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Bricker

No. YMMV as to whether it might be attempted in the future, I suppose. But no one can credibly claim it has actually, present tense, happens, or has happened in the past.

Consider my choice of phrasing to indicate not an opinion as to whether church teaching has ever been changed, but rather an “I’d like to indicate firmly that I’m staying out of any argument about church teaching”. Truth be told, the only thing I had in mind was church teaching on usury, which may not have been issued ex cathedra.

[RTFirefly]

@tomndebb

There have been efforts throughout this period to rectify the situation. Each effort has produced good results and each effort has also failed to the extent that existing rules were abused by individuals or were created within the scope of the institution in which, for 1,950 years, or so, the diocesan bishop has had no supervising authority.

The current commission was formed by Pope Francis in recognition of the failures of previous efforts and is, (I hope), looking to take a more radical approach to ending abuse, worldwide. I agree that this comprehensive approach should have been the outcome of the 2002 Dallas meeting, (or, even better, should have been formed to consider world wide issues in 1985), extended to the whole world. Unfortunately, under the pressure of the publicity surrounding the Boston Globe articles concerning Cardinal Law, the Dallas conference was held in haste and without sufficient preparation, so it resulted, (IMO), in both good and bad rules thrown together by bishops who felt compelled to respond immediately but who often did not understand the actions they needed to take.

Accusations that the church has made a hash of the situation are valid. Accusations that no effort has been made to resolve it are simply not true.

I won’t argue that the RCC has made no effort to resolve this. But blaming the current state of affairs on trying to deal with things in too much haste in 2002 is a bit much. There have been 13 years since then to revisit the issue. And yes, it boggles my mind (a) that the Vatican is keeping no central registry of such allegations, and (b) that there has been no apparent effort by the Church to bring the bishops to justice who knowingly shunted the child-abusing priests from one parish to another. What’s Cardinal Law up to these days? Three Popes are complicit in his avoidance of responsibility.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Specifically at issue here is the near-absolute authority that a bishop has in his own diocese. You don’t regard that rule as anything except bureaucracy. The Church regards a bishop’s executive, legislative, and judicial authority as tied to the bishop’s role as a successor of the apostles. Indeed, every single Roman Catholic bishop in the world can trace his ordination lineage back to one of the apostles. My bishop, Paul Loverde of Arlington, was consecrated as a bishop by Archbishop John Francis Whealon in 1988. Whealon was consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Egidio Vagnozzi in 1961. Vagnozzi was consecrated in 1949 by Cardinal Adeodato Giovanni Piazza… and so forth, back through the centuries, so that the hands that consecrated Bishop Loverde are linked by touch to St. Peter himself.

That’s nice, but that is fundamentally a conversation that the Church is having with itself. In a dialogue between the Church and the rest of the world, I have to second Elvis when he asks, “Isn’t ‘Because we have this set of procedures we’ve written for ourselves that we are virtually helpless to change’ about the weakest conceivable excuse there could ever be?”

But out of sheer curiosity, a question: you’ve got something that, from the outside, looks like a hierarchy. Working your way up, you’ve got priests, then bishops, then archbishops, then cardinals, and the Pope at the top of the whole shebang.

Even supposing that the only difference between a cardinal and an archbishop is that a cardinal gets to vote on who the next Pope is, what exactly does an archbishop do? Is he just the bishop of a more important bishopric (that’s the term, right?), or what? Because if archbishops and cardinals have no authority over bishops, then WTF is it that they do??

[muldoonthief]

@RTFirefly

I won’t argue that the RCC has made no effort to resolve this. But blaming the current state of affairs on trying to deal with things in too much haste in 2002 is a bit much. There have been 13 years since then to revisit the issue. And yes, it boggles my mind (a) that the Vatican is keeping no central registry of such allegations, and (b) that there has been no apparent effort by the Church to bring the bishops to justice who knowingly shunted the child-abusing priests from one parish to another. What’s Cardinal Law up to these days? Three Popes are complicit in his avoidance of responsibility.

Last I heard, he’s retired and still hiding in Rome, but he did ooze out of the woodwork a few years ago to Launch a crackdown of US nuns for not working hard enough against gay marriage, abortion, and birth control.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RTFirefly

But out of sheer curiosity, a question: you’ve got something that, from the outside, looks like a hierarchy. Working your way up, you’ve got priests, then bishops, then archbishops, then cardinals, and the Pope at the top of the whole shebang.

And, like any large organization, it has a culture, in which certain behaviors are encouraged and others discouraged, and an insiders-vs.-outsiders mentality. Also, like any large organization, it is composed of humans. The only distinction is their claim to be doing God’s will, not their own, and the number of followers they have who believe that too, the evidence notwithstanding.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

But out of sheer curiosity, a question: you’ve got something that, from the outside, looks like a hierarchy. Working your way up, you’ve got priests, then bishops, then archbishops, then cardinals, and the Pope at the top of the whole shebang.

Even supposing that the only difference between a cardinal and an archbishop is that a cardinal gets to vote on who the next Pope is, what exactly does an archbishop do? Is he just the bishop of a more important bishopric (that’s the term, right?), or what? Because if archbishops and cardinals have no authority over bishops, then WTF is it that they do??

I think the term “bishopric” is used only by the Mormon church to refer to the bishop and his consultors. I could be wrong. But in the Roman Catholic Church, that term is not used; a diocese is the entity run by a bishop.

Archbishops are bishops of more important dioceses, called metropolitan dioceses, reflecting the general history that such diocese are centered on large and politically important cities.

A metropolitan archdiocese is grouped with several particular churches, which are usually[sup]*[/sup] lesser dioceses. These are called suffragan dioceses.

I don’t blame you for hearing this and inferring that there is some sort of supervision or reporting hierarchy in the arrangement, but there is not. Under canon law, the metropolitan archbishop has just a couple of minor privileges in the suffragan dioceses. He may, without express advance permission from the suffragan bishop, celebrate Mass in the suffragan diocese. And if the suffragan see becomes vacant – the suffragan bishop dies, resigns, retires, or is transferred and takes canonical possession of his new office, AND the college of consultors in that now leaderless diocese fails to appoint a diocesan administrator, then the archbishop is entitled to do so.

That’s about it. He’s called upon to “see that faith and ecclesiastical discipline are carefully observed” in his suffragan dioceses, but all he’s empowered to do as a result is notify the Pope if there are any flaws. He doesn’t have any power of governance.

Cardinals are likewise not the bosses of archbishops, or of bishops.

Even the resignation of bishops for age is encumbered by the strong presumption of the unfettered authority a bishop exercises. Note Code of Canon Law Can. 401 relating to resignations:

ß1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly.

ß2 A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfillment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.

The canon law recognizes that the church does not consider itself empowered to mandate even that a bishop unsuited for office must resign – instead, he is “urgently requested” to resign.
*Could also be a territorial prelature, a territorial abbacy, a vicariate apostolic, a prefecture apostolic or a permanently established apostolic administration.

[tomndebb]

@RTFirefly

I won’t argue that the RCC has made no effort to resolve this. But blaming the current state of affairs on trying to deal with things in too much haste in 2002 is a bit much. There have been 13 years since then to revisit the issue.

Current state of affairs? We have five alleged incidents in those thirteen years and we have not yet seen exactly what happened in each case. And, aside from various complaints against priests who abused children and were moved rather than being defrocked prior to 2002, this appears to be the first occasion that the 2002 rules seem to have failed.

@RTFirefly

And yes, it boggles my mind (a) that the Vatican is keeping no central registry of such allegations, and (b) that there has been no apparent effort by the Church to bring the bishops to justice who knowingly shunted the child-abusing priests from one parish to another. What’s Cardinal Law up to these days? Three Popes are complicit in his avoidance of responsibility.

A number of bishops have been brought to account. Whether all those who should have been held responsible have been, I don’t know.

[Czarcasm]

@tomndebb

Whether all those who should have been held responsible have been, I don’t know.

You don’t? Why don’t you just make a wild stab in the dark as to whether all those involved in the coverups/transfers etc. have been held responsible? :rolleyes:

[tomndebb]

@Czarcasm

You don’t? Why don’t you just make a wild stab in the dark as to whether all those involved in the coverups/transfers etc. have been held responsible? :rolleyes:

That seems to be more your task.

[Czarcasm]

@tomndebb

That seems to be more your task.

Not even going to hazard a guess as to whether all those responsible have been held responsible?

[ElvisL1ves]

Here’s a hint: Bernard Law.