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?
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 TWOex 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.
I grant that multiple news stories may report such a thing happening. But, still, no.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Which leads me back to this question: what the fuck was the point of all this?
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.
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.
Of course you do. Your parents brainwashed you from an early age. But those of us unburdened by such stupidity can see it plainly.
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.
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…
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.