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

[Miller]

@Bricker

False dilemma.

The Church takes the position that it was, as an institution, created by Christ, and that its leaders were given the authority to promulgate its teachings and build its structure. That’s not quite the same as saying that each and every rule was explicitly laid down by God, but it does suggest that that Church’s authority does not derive from a man-made assumption.

The authority does not derive from a man-made assumption, at least in the Catholic view, but the best way to implement that authority is largely a human construct, no? I mean, there’s not a Biblical verse giving instructions on how to elect a new Pope, right? That’s a process that was figured out by men - presumably with the goal of creating the best possible institution to serve God - but still created by men. There’s not an eleventh commandment that I never heard of that says, “When you pick the new Pope, use the white smoke?”

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.

I don’t know about it being “just” a bureaucracy, but would you, as a Catholic, perceive a difference between something like the proper hierarchy in a diocese to be central to your faith, the way, say, opposition to abortion is? If the Pope said tomorrow, “Abortion is a-okay, and PS, I’m getting gay married in the morning,” I imagine this would precipitate a crisis of faith for a significant portion of the Catholic faithful. (At least, the non-American Catholic faithful…) Would the pope saying, “Every priest is tracked in Eccel,* and nobody can be assigned to a parish unless the ‘Is He A Pedo?’ column equals ‘false?’” prompt a similar reaction? As a non-theist, it seems like there’s a pretty sharp distinction between those two things, and that one is open to reasonable criticism from people outside the faith: saying “You need to change the way you place priests,” does not strike me as the same order of criticism as, “You need to stop saying homosexuality is a sin.”

But, like I said, non-theist here.

Changes to the church bureaucracy that undermine the authority of a bishop are not simple matters of reving SOP 173-A-6, in other words.

Of course, you may certainly take the position that the entire exercise of consecration and episcopal authority are meaningless. But that’s not a view that the Church – or I – share.

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.

Now, tom is pretty insistent in this thread that those rules have already been changed to address this, and these new reports are an anomaly. He may be correct - this one story, by itself, isn’t enough to say one way or the other. I do know that I’m not the only person who is utterly unsurprised by this news, and not all of us are acting out a position of automatic opposition to religion. The Church has lied about this issue before. A lot. It’s going to be a long, long time before they can be trusted on it again.

[sub]*Get it? It’s like Excel, but for ecclesiastics! It’s funny, right? Anyone? Just me, then?

Okay.[/sub]

[Port_Royal]

I thought it was cute, Miller.

[tomndebb]

@Miller

Now, tom is pretty insistent in this thread that those rules have already been changed to address this, and these new reports are an anomaly.

No. I have already expressed that I think the Dallas rules of 2002 are flawed, (which had no bearing outside the U.S., anyway).
I believe that the church should be doing more. I suspect that that need is what has prompted Pope Francis to initiate a commission to provide recommendations.

The two points that I have made in this thread are that:
[ul]
[li]claims that the church has done nothing or that it has no interest in doing more are contradicted by the facts;[/li][li]I am interested in discovering whether Clohessy is right that the ongoing situation is a “massive” problem–but either way, I want to see evidence.[/li][/ul]

[Enderw24]

@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.

See that’s a nice story and I’m sure an even nicer tradition. But what I’m hearing is that Bishops have such an iron grip of control over their diocese that the request of the Pope means nothing. Even when the request is “don’t bring in pedo priests. And don’t transfer pedo priests to a new place. And kick out pedo priests when you discover they’re pedo priests.”

So are the Bishops saying “I suppose I could listen to what the Pope is saying here. But fuck it, he doesn’t control me. I’ll do what I want with these pedo priests. I’ll hire all the pedo priests in the world!” Is that what’s going on?

Or is it more like “well, it’s a nice request in concept. Don’t hire pedo priests. I’m not sure why I didn’t think of that before but it sounds pretty reasonable. Oooooh wait…if I do that, it’s going to cause unintended consequences X,Y,and Z. And we don’t want that, do we?”

Because maybe that’s the case. What has been the argument Bishops make for why they either can’t or don’t wanna stop hiring pedo priests?

[tomndebb]

@Enderw24

Because maybe that’s the case. What has been the argument Bishops make for why they either can’t or don’t wanna stop hiring pedo priests?

Aside from the five allegations in the OP, is there any evidence they have not stopped?

[Bricker]

@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.

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?

I don’t believe I am a monster, yet I support that rule, even though I know it leads at times to the inability of secular authorities to convict and imprison a guilty child abuser.

With that as an an example, would you care to qualify your prior analysis?

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

The two points that I have made in this thread are that:
[ul]
[li]claims that the church has done nothing or that it has no interest in doing more are contradicted by the facts;[/li][li]I am interested in discovering whether Clohessy is right that the ongoing situation is a “massive” problem–but either way, I want to see evidence.[/li][/ul]

You should know about excluding middles. Isn’t it also possible they’ve done some things, but that old habits die hard and they have not yet completed the transformations they need to?

@tomndebb

Aside from the five allegations in the OP, is there any evidence they have not stopped?

“Aside from the evidence, is there any evidence?”, is that it? Put it this way- what is the evidence that they *have *stopped? Other than, of course, the top leadership having appointed a committee to study the problem and make recommendations. :rolleyes:

@Bricker

I don’t believe I am a monster

No monster ever does.

[ElvisL1ves]

Addendum: The organization did almost exactly nothing, for literally centuries, about its culture of pedophilia before *external *pressure, both societal and legal, became too great to resist. Whatever changes it has made, either culturally or even procedurally, have also been the result of external pressure only. The evidence that they have, as a human institution, recognized the problem, taken responsibility for it, and exerted leadership to eliminate it is, well, what is it?

[Miller]

@Bricker

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?

I thought it was clear from context that I was talking about the rules of the Catholic church, not the American legal system.

[ElvisL1ves]

He’s made it clear he considers the RCC’s rules (which he insists on calling “Canon Law”, its own name) to be equally as valid and binding as mere human law - if not more so, since to him and them they derive from God.

So don’t expect that argument to sink in.

[ricksummon]

@Enderw24

But what I’m hearing is that Bishops have such an iron grip of control over their diocese that the request of the Pope means nothing.

That’s what I’m hearing in this thread as well, yet I know for a fact this is not actually true. The Pope can, and has, excommunicated bishops such as Marcel Lefebvre.

What if the issue at hand was not sex with minors, but sex with adults? What if a bishop decided to get married (to a woman or man, take your pick) and said that this marriage was officially sanctioned by the Church? I think the Pope would have him excommunicated faster than you could say ferendae sententiae.

[raventhief]

@Bricker

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?

I don’t believe I am a monster, yet I support that rule, even though I know it leads at times to the inability of secular authorities to convict and imprison a guilty child abuser.

With that as an an example, would you care to qualify your prior analysis?

I am a bit confused by the comparison to the 4 th Amendment. Are we talking about illegally seizing evidence against clergy who are abusing children? It rather seems this is more like a sex offender registry. A database of offenders who should not be allowed to serve in capacities that allow them access to victims. Am i a monster if i support the idea of such a database?

[BrainGlutton]

Look, there’s an obvious solution to this problem: Send these priests as missionaries to Afghanistan.

[tomndebb]

@ElvisL1ves

You should know about excluding middles. Isn’t it also possible they’ve done some things, but that old habits die hard and they have not yet completed the transformations they need to?

Everything i know about excluded middles I learned from reading your posts. I have not presented any such thing.

@ElvisL1ves

“Aside from the evidence, is there any evidence?”, is that it? Put it this way- what is the evidence that they *have *stopped? Other than, of course, the top leadership having appointed a committee to study the problem and make recommendations. :rolleyes:

“Aside from the evidence, is there any evidence?” is a particularly stupid question. Clohessy has claimed a “massive” continuation of the problem. He has brought up five potential cases that occurred since 2002, four of them involving U.S. bishops (the only country affected by the 2002 Dallas conference). There are still lawsuits being brought for past events. However, recent accusations have not been that pedophiles have been kept on or moved around since 2002; they have been attempts to address situations that occurred prior to that time or accusations of current pedophilia that are being handled responsibly. In the same thirteen years, I am sure we can find five priests who murdered someone, five priests who have stolen money, dozens, (at least), priests who have violated their commitment to celibacy. I have made no claim that priests and bishops are without fault. I have noted that for one claim of a “massive” problem, I would like to see more evidence than five possible events in thirteen years.

I am not going to be surprised to discover that the problem is still occurring throughout the world or even that it has occurred in the U.S. I want it stopped. However, if someone is going to make “massive” claims, I think that asking them to support those claims with evidence is a legitimate request.

[Bricker]

@Miller

I thought it was clear from context that I was talking about the rules of the Catholic church, not the American legal system.

So what? How does that answer the point I made?

[Bricker]

@raventhief

I am a bit confused by the comparison to the 4 th Amendment. Are we talking about illegally seizing evidence against clergy who are abusing children? It rather seems this is more like a sex offender registry. A database of offenders who should not be allowed to serve in capacities that allow them access to victims. Am i a monster if i support the idea of such a database?

Your confusion confuses me.

[Bricker]

@ricksummon

That’s what I’m hearing in this thread as well, yet I know for a fact this is not actually true. The Pope can, and has, excommunicated bishops such as Marcel Lefebvre.

What if the issue at hand was not sex with minors, but sex with adults? What if a bishop decided to get married (to a woman or man, take your pick) and said that this marriage was officially sanctioned by the Church? I think the Pope would have him excommunicated faster than you could say ferendae sententiae.

I think you’re wrong.

[raventhief]

@Bricker

Your confusion confuses me.

I am sorry that i confuse you. I suppose my confusion arises from my extremely limited understanding of Catholic doctrine. So the Pope has no real, direct authority over his bishops? Instituting an “Eccel” method of assigning priests is equivalent to violating the fundamental Amendments that make up our own system of secular laws?

My confusion is quite honest, I assure you. I just thought that the Pope had more authority than it appears he does.

[Bricker]

@raventhief

I am sorry that i confuse you. I suppose my confusion arises from my extremely limited understanding of Catholic doctrine. So the Pope has no real, direct authority over his bishops? Instituting an “Eccel” method of assigning priests is equivalent to violating the fundamental Amendments that make up our own system of secular laws?

My confusion is quite honest, I assure you. I just thought that the Pope had more authority than it appears he does.

It’s not that he has no authority at all. It’s that canon law gives great autonomy to bishops. But of course the Pope has the power to change canon law.

Maybe a helpful analogy would be the President and state governors. The relationship isn’t the same, of course, but the analogy is useful in this respect: how much authority does the President have over the actions of the governor of Delaware?

In one sense, very little. But it really depends on the subject matter, and the President’s beliefs about federalism. We might imagine a President who is willing to, in order to compel cooperation, take dramatic steps like moving federal offices out of Delaware and cutting off discretionary federal funds to Delaware…or we might imagine a President who refuses to use those tactics because even though he is frustrated with the governor’s lack of cooperation still believes that states should be considered independently sovereign.

I mentioned another analogy above: the trade off we accept by way of the Fourth Amendment. We believe that that Fourth Amendment, on balance, is a positive social benefit, even though we also know that it sometimes allows obviously guilty people to evade prosecution.

The Church believes that episcopal autonomy is a positive benefit even though it sometimes limits the ability of the Holy See to make direct legislative changes.

[raventhief]

@Bricker

It’s not that he has no authority at all. It’s that canon law gives great autonomy to bishops. But of course the Pope has the power to change canon law.

Maybe a helpful analogy would be the President and state governors. The relationship isn’t the same, of course, but the analogy is useful in this respect: how much authority does the President have over the actions of the governor of Delaware?

In one sense, very little. But it really depends on the subject matter, and the President’s beliefs about federalism. We might imagine a President who is willing to, in order to compel cooperation, take dramatic steps like moving federal offices out of Delaware and cutting off discretionary federal funds to Delaware…or we might imagine a President who refuses to use those tactics because even though he is frustrated with the governor’s lack of cooperation still believes that states should be considered independently sovereign.

I mentioned another analogy above: the trade off we accept by way of the Fourth Amendment. We believe that that Fourth Amendment, on balance, is a positive social benefit, even though we also know that it sometimes allows obviously guilty people to evade prosecution.

The Church believes that episcopal autonomy is a positive benefit even though it sometimes limits the ability of the Holy See to make direct legislative changes.

Thanks Bricker. As I said, I have an extremely limited understanding of Catholicism and its (her?) structure. I tried to further my own understanding by looking up what authority the pope actually has, which led me to “papal primacy,” which then led to collegiality… and the continuing discussion about the nature of the authority that the Pope actually has over the rest of the Church (specifically the bishops and their own autonomy) . Which ended up making me feel a little better about my own confusion- at least at some point the Pope didn’t respect the autonomy of the Bishops, and had more direct control over them. In my head, at least prior to this digression, the Pope, as the representative of God on earth, would be able to tell the bishops “follow these rules,” and have them followed. I see now that it’s a bit more complicated than that. I blame too many episodes of The Borgias.

I don’t suppose the Pope has the power to order out the Swiss Guard like Kennedy called out the National Guard?

For the record, and more in line with the thread, I don’t think that 5 individual priests who were reassigned rather than removed from access to potential victims indicates that there is any kind of *massive *failure. Their victims may disagree, but I do understand that five apparent failures in 13 years is not necessarily indicative that the new system has failed. It does seem to call for more investigation of course. And again, it makes me wonder if the Pope has any recourse if there *are *Bishops who are just saying “nope, don’t care, I have autonomy so I’m gonna do what *I *think is best.” If there were a bishop who suddenly took to ordaining women, for instance, would the Pope able to stop that behavior?