# How can the church let this happen ?!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2000, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476 "2000-02-02T10:53:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/41 "2000-02-03T22:40:00Z")
I don’t think the freedom of religion argument has been used to defend pedophilia per se. Rather, it has been used to defend “supervisors” of priests and churches (in the corporate entity sense) against charges of negligent supervision, etc. where the higher ups were not aware of what was going on. The argument, I believe, is that a civil (secular) court cannot pass judgment on the policies, procedures, etc. that form the basis of Catholic doctrine or the adequacy of those procedures. In other words, if a priest’s supervisor determines that the priest’s moral failings should be dealt with through prayer, meditation, and counseling because church doctrine teaches that this is appropriate, then a civil court cannot judge the adequacy of those procedures. There are a couple of cases where that argument has been made in sexual abuse cases, and I believe (but am not sure) that courts have rejected this argument where the higher ups were in fact aware of what the priest was doing. The cases that have established that civil courts cannot judge the adequacy of church doctrine, procedures, etc. are: Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 50 S. Ct. 5, 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929) Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446-47, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed. 2d 658 (1969) and Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708-15, 96 S.Ct. 2373, 49 L.Ed. 2d 151 (1976) The following cases involved sexual abuse by church officials–I have no idea of what the issues or outcomes were: Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F. Supp. 321, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (child sexual abuse claim against religious institution) Roppolo v. Moore, 644 So. 2d 206, 208 (La. App. 1994), cert. denied, 650 So. 2d 253 (La. 1995) (adult sexual exploitation claim against religious institution) See also L.L.N. v. Clauder, 209 Wis.2d 674, 689-90 (1997). ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/42 "2000-02-03T22:52:00Z")
me > [@](#): > > Unfortunately some gay people slipped through It is curious that the very same people that decry gays in religious orders,understandable, are all for having gays serve openly in the Military. All the Liberals wanted EVERYTHING open to EVERYONE so it is no surprise that some problems would > arise. * * * Puffington > [@](#): > > Those statements deserve no response. What kind of a dimwit are you?? Homosexuality & pedophilia, as has been pointed out, are two different things. When you get done sucking Rush Limbaugh’s dick and wish to post something intelligent, please do so … or don’t. I don’t care. I realize this is the way you speak to your parents but try to be a littel adult when you post on this board. If my remarks “deserved” no answer why then did you answer. Who’s the dimwit? * * * You can destroy your now by worrying about tomorrow. Janis Joplin ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/43 "2000-02-03T22:54:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Tominator2: > \*\*Well, part of the RCC creed is that canon law is superior to and supercedes secular law. As applied to this case the RCC claimed that the proper canon law mumbo-jumbo has been carried out, and the priest was thereby relieved of any further liability. It wasn’t a question of whether the priest was under suspicion. Heck, the RCC had already found him guilty and imposed a judgement. It was a question of jurisdiction. > \*\* I find this very difficult to believe, and in the absence of any details, like the city or the year (presumably the diocese was a party in interest) it’s impossible to check. The statement that the Church’s “creed” provides that it is “superior to and supersedes” secular law is very misleading. The Church does aver that secular authorities have no spiritual competence, and that canon law **as it applies to the spiritual government of the Christian organization and its members** is the only source of authority. (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX, Entry “Canon Law”.) But in matters pertaining to civil or criminal liability, canon law recognizes the authority of secular law. (Ibid, see also Canon 3, “The canons of the Code do not abrogate, nor do they derogate from … nations or other civil entities.”) So what “part of the RCC creed” were you talking about in your post, Tominator2? And in light of these very specifc, cited rules above, I am highly doubtful that any case anywhere turned on the points you describe. Moreover, how was the Church planning to stop the punishment to be admininstered by civil authorities? Were they hiding the priest in a basement somewhere, and refusing to surrender him to a possible jail sentence? While I try to be the soul of calm in these situations, it occurs to me that I would save a lot of typing and research if people would post only after some research of their own. Your claim is not remotely defensible. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![APB9999](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB9999](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB9999)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/44 "2000-02-03T23:02:00Z")
I just have to comment that the notion that child molesters in the priesthood is the same as in the general population misses the boat. These guys are _priests_. They are the face of a church that claims to represent, or at least interpret, God’s will and distribute divine love. They are **charged with the spiritual growth and development of these children**. They take a _ **vow** _ of celibacy, on their honor and before that God. If the pedophiles among them are no more numerous than the number of pedophiles among garbagemen, so the hell what? The fault weighs far more grievously in them, and doubly so when the church hierarchy itself condones the action. And they _did_ condone it, tacitly, through knowing inaction. The Catholic Church is a great one for loyalty to the hierarchy; it is then the height of hypocrisy for them - or their defenders - to attempt to wash their hands of the commensurate _responsibility_ for the actions of their representatives. Especially in a case like this where enough people knew about it that one of them SHOULD have stopped this man’s abuse. “It’s out of my control; I wash my hands of it”. Hmmm. Sounds familiar somehow. Didn’t somebody famous say something like that once? The church HAS finally responded to this problem with, apparently, the equivalent of a memo, but its personnel have for years had a habit of turning a blind eye to the problem. That is cause for repentence, confession, and penitence, and I don’t think the church has shown itself spiritually mature enough to seek them out. Finally, there have been three bald assertions in this thread: 1. Homosexual pedophiles are more common, at least on a per capita basis, than heterosexual pedophiles. 2. The proportion of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles is about even. 3. 90% of pedophiles are heterosexual. Does anyone have an actual _source_ they can cite for their position? It would make a better impression than just flinging charges of ignorance around, and restating the position you like best. ---
**Author:** ![Pariah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/41988e/32.png) [@Pariah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pariah)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/45 "2000-02-03T23:16:00Z")
Thanks Bricker. Pretty much what I was asking. And very, um, **bold** of you! ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2000, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/46 "2000-02-03T23:34:00Z")
> [@](#): > > These guys are priests. They are the face of a church that claims to represent, or at least interpret, God’s will and distribute divine love. These guys are _human_ just like everybody else. They have human failings and strengths, just like everybody else. They administer the sacraments, they preside at the Eucharist, but they are human, they are not godlings. They are not the “face” of the Church. The Church is the people who comprise it, of whom the clergy is only a small part. The people who are the Church seek to know and love God, and to do His will. They do not claim to “distribute” His love, nor do they claim to be anything more than sinners needing grace. Is the Church as an institution corrupt? Probably no more so, and no less so, than any other human institution. As with any human organization there are those within it who abuse it, exploit it, or twist it to their own ends. It has, however, outlasted every other human institution throughout the last two thousand years. That is, IMHO, because its heart, its core – people who love God and seek to know and worship Him – have stayed the course and weathered the storms through all the abuses, scandels, and miscreants who have abused the power entrusted to them for their own purposes. It’s really a very common story, when you think about it; there is no human institution which has avoided that. -Melin * * * Siamese attack puppet – California ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/47 "2000-02-04T00:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by KSO: > \*\*I don’t think the freedom of religion argument has been used to defend pedophilia per se. Rather, it has been used to defend “supervisors” of priests and churches (in the corporate entity sense) against charges of negligent supervision, etc. where the higher ups were not aware of what was going on. > > The argument, I believe, is that a civil (secular) court cannot pass judgment on the policies, procedures, etc. that form the basis of Catholic doctrine or the adequacy of those procedures.\*\* Right. This is a huge stretch from the claim that “freedom of religion” was used to defend pedophilia. Thanks for the cites and research, by the way! - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/48 "2000-02-04T00:02:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Pariah: > Thanks Bricker. Pretty much what I was asking. > > And very, um, **bold** of you! _sigh_ Where’s the dang ‘preview’ feature?? 🙂 - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/49 "2000-02-04T00:46:00Z")
**Surgoshan** wrote: > [@](#): > > Further, those members of the clergy that are gay, same % as in the general population. Actually, there was a front-page article in the Atlanta paper within the last week or so which indicated that the percentage of priests with a “homosexual orientation” was higher than in the population at large. I don’t recall the exact numbers (I’ll try to find a link), but this was based on a study by the Catholic Church. The main point of the article was not the incidence of homosexual orientation among the priesthood, but the incidence of AIDS among the priesthood. IIRC, it was either three or four times higher than in the general population. I have no axe to grind here, and I am not attacking the Catholic Church. I am not anti-gay, and I am not anti-Catholic. I am only correcting what I believe may have been an inaccurate assumption in an earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/50 "2000-02-04T17:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by John John: > > The military is not the place for social experimentation. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Esprix: > > Um, do you realize you just quoted exactly the philosophy behind the anti-integration argument when blacks were fighting for their right to serve? > [@](#): > > Originally posted by John John: > > No, I do not, and those two issues are not the same, although I’m sure YOU’D like people to think so. Let me see documentation? Documentation, as requested: October 29, 1947: The President’s Committee on Civil Rights presented President Truman with a comprehensive survey on civil rights conditions in the United States, and made several sweeping recommendations to correct the situation. In addition to such remedies as permanent civil rights and fair employment practices commissions and legislation to eliminate discrimination in the nation’s legal and electoral systems, the committee called for laws and policies to end discrimination and segregation in the armed forces. **The committee even went so far as to urge the President to use the military “as an instrument of social change.”** \* July 26, 1948: President Truman signs Executive Order 9981, which states, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”# July 27, 1948: Army Chief of Staff General Omar N. Bradley states that desegregation will come to the Army only when it becomes a fact in the rest of American society.# July 29, 1948: President Truman states in a press conference that the intent of Executive Order 9981 is to end segregation in the armed forces.# March 28, 1949: **Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army “was not an instrument for social evolution.”** # March 1949 The Fahy Committee initiated its efforts “not to impose integration on the services, but to convince them of the merits of the President’s order and to agree with them on a plan to make it effective.” The committee’s first goal was to overcome the Army’s determination to retain segregation because of senior leaders’ twin beliefs that blacks were unreliable and ineffective in combat and that white soldiers would not serve with African Americans. The committee’s investigations established that “an indivisible link existed between military efficiency and equal opportunity.” It used the “efficiency argument” to undermine the Army’s rationale for determining military occupational specialties (MOSs), limiting the number of black specialists, and maintaining its racial quota.\* (\*www.redstone.army.mil; #[www.trumanlibrary.org](http://www.trumanlibrary.org)) All the arguments pro and con are the same for sexual orientation as they were for racial and women’s integration, so they are most assuredly related. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/51 "2000-02-04T19:22:00Z")
Bricker says: > [@](#): > > But in matters pertaining to civil or criminal liability, canon law recognizes the authority of secular law. (Ibid, see also Canon 3, “The canons of the Code do not abrogate, nor do they derogate from … nations or other civil entities.”) I might mention Lateran IV [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html) . Canon 44 reads in part: > [@](#): > > appropriations of fiefs and other ecclesiastical properties made without the legitimate consent of ecclesiastical persons under pretext of lay power, do not hold, since they cannot be called laws but rather want of law or destruction and usurpation of jurisdiction A clear stab at the right of a secular state to enforce property laws/rights. This would appear to be a clear abrogation. While I’m at it, Canon 3 states (about heretics): > [@](#): > > let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no > one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate. In all similar cases we command that the same be observed. And from the Counsel of Basel [http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm) > [@](#): > > Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service (and so on…) A clear indication that the RCC feels it has the power to command secular authorities. And while we’re at Basel, Session 19 contains: > [@](#): > > If there have been granted to Jews or infidels, or perhaps shall be granted to them in the future, any indults or privileges by any ecclesiastics or secular persons, of whatever status or dignity, even papal or imperial, which tend in any way to the detriment of the catholic faith, the christian name or anything mentioned above, this holy synod decrees them quashed and annulled As for disciplining a priest, Canon 7 states: > [@](#): > > No custom or appeal shall hinder prelates from correcting abuses and reforming the morals of their subjects. The Council of Constance [http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm) says: > [@](#): > > Lesser prelates, such as abbots and others with perpetual benefices, ought not to be changed, moved or deposed without a just and reasonable cause that has been inquired into. The Council of Trent [http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm](http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm) states: [quote] If anyone, lay or cleric, has been found guilty of a charge on account of which the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience, let him be punished by the penalties respectively imposed by the sacred canons or by civil law.[\quote] and later: > [@](#): > > Since no power over ecclesiastical persons is granted to lay people by either divine or human law… The above passages imply that clerics are to be governed by ecclesiastical/canon law, and lay persons by civil law. And to hit below the belt, from Unam Sanctum [http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/boniface/unamsant.html](http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/boniface/unamsant.html) : > [@](#): > > Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. I could go on, but I think by now I’ve answered which part of the RCC creed I was referring to. How did they plan to stop the punishment? Well, they might have tried to mount a defense along the lines I outlined above (an interesting line in itself), or they could have pulled a diplomatic lever or two (say, settle for deportation to the Vatican), or they could have even invoked sanctuary (pretty far-fetched, I know). The point is, the RCC would have considered a secular court passign judgement on a priest against canon law. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/52 "2000-02-04T19:43:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by APB9999: > > Finally, there have been three bald assertions in this thread: > > 1. Homosexual pedophiles are more common, at least on a per capita basis, than heterosexual pedophiles. > 2. The proportion of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles is about even. > 3. 90% of pedophiles are heterosexual. > > Does anyone have an actual _source_ they can cite for their position? It would make a better impression than just flinging charges of ignorance around, and restating the position you like best. I found it hard to find percentages of same-sex child molestations vs. opposite-sex molestations, but I did find the following: From the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, March 1996: > [@](#): > > [ul][li]All but 3% of offenders who committed violent crimes against children were male.[/li][li]3 in 4 child victims of violence were female.[/ul][/li] So 97% of all child molesters are male, and 75% of them molest girls. Read on… From [ncvc.org](http://ncvc.org): > [@](#): > > A large study of female adults sexually abused as children found that… 53% were abused by biological fathers, nearly 15% by stepfathers, and 8.8% by uncles. Only 6.2% of the perpetrators were female. (Roesler & Wind, 1994) So out of the 3% of female child molesters, 6.2% of them molest girls. We’re still talking predominantly heterosexual molestation here. > [@](#): > > The most likely offenders of girls are stepfathers while boys are more often abused by unrelated males. (Levesque, 1994). Might say something about why male pedophiles become priests? From [www.canuck.com:](http://www.canuck.com:) > [@](#): > > Myth or Reality? Gay men are child molesters. > > Consider this information: > > Many studies have replicated the fact that the vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual men. In fact, one large Canadian survey discovered that approximately 97 percent of people convicted of child molestation were heterosexual men (Badgley, 1984). Sadly, a very large group of child molesters are fathers or stepfathers of girls. > > As a group, gay men are not interested in having sex with children. Gay men are interested, by definition, in having relationships with other gay men. Finally, from [http://hcqsa.virtualave.net](http://hcqsa.virtualave.net) [/QUOTE] Are homosexuals more likely to molest children? One of the most enduring and damaging myths equates homosexuality with child molestation. In truth, the most likely person to sexually abuse a child is a heterosexual male; in many cases this person is a family member or close family friend (Falk, 1989), (Koss, 1994). Pedophiles who molest children of the same sex are almost never homosexual in their adult sexual relations (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978). Furthermore, the molestation of children by heterosexual women appears to be uncommon, and even less common among lesbians (Erickson, Walbek & Seely, 1988) (Finkelhor, 1984) (Johnson & Shrier, 1987). [/QUOTE] The best cites I could find on short notice. I hope they help from a stats point of view. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/53 "2000-02-04T21:10:00Z")
Tominator, No. No, no, no. Your original claim: > [@](#): > > Well, part of the RCC creed **is** that canon law is superior to and supercedes secular law. As applied to this case the RCC claimed that the proper canon law mumbo-jumbo has been carried out, and the priest was thereby relieved of any further liability. It wasn’t a question of whether the priest was under suspicion. Heck, the RCC had already found him guilty and imposed a judgement. It was a question of jurisdiction. _emphasis mine)_ How DARE you quote canons from an eucumenical council in 1215 and try to pass it off as the church’s current creed? This is Catholic-bashing, pure and simple. An intellectually honest person would have noted that he was quoting a document **EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS OLD** , which no longer purports to describe canon law, and would have explained the difference between the ‘canons’ of a council and canon law. You did neither. “Canon law” refers to the body of laws and regulations made by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Catholic Church and its members. It has three main historical periods: from the beginning to the “Decretum” of Gratian exclusively, from Gratian to the Council of Trent, and from the Council of Trent to the present. The law of these three periods is referred to respectively as the ancient, the new, and the recent law (_jus antiquum, jus novum, jus novissimum_). You may also see references to these same periods as “ancient law,” “the law of the Middle Ages,” and the “modern law.” You then quote canons from the Council of Basle - if possible, a _worse_ misrepresentation, since the Council of Basle failed in whole to secure the approbation of the Church and the Pope, and thus does not rank in authority with ecumenical councils! But not to worry – at least it was up to date, having occured only five hundred fifty years ago! The Council of Constance, another modern reference, five hundred eighty years ago, and another council not fully ecumenical. Your reference to the Council of Trent (four hundred forty years ago) is misleading as well. And your quote of Unan Sanctum (some seven hundred years ago) is indeed hitting below the belt; this is perhaps the most quoted and misquoted text by anti-Catholic to prove that the Church is power-hungry. In summary, none of what you have quoted is of any but historical interest in deteriming **current canon law**. If your original quote had said, “In the past, the RCC claimed that yada yada yada,” you would have heard not one peep from me. I admit that through much of her history, the RCC has claimed authority over civil process. BUT IT DOESN’T NOW. You asserted a current claim and policy by the Roman Catholic Church for the superiority of church canon law over United States civil and criminal law. And when I called you on it, you hauled out documents from before Columbus even set foot in the New World. Well, Tominator, I have news for you. When the subject under discussion is the price of gasoline in Galveston, your opinions on the temperature of piss in Poughkeepsie mean nothing. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2000, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/54 "2000-02-04T21:33:00Z")
LATE-BREAKING BULLETIN: The government of the United States has laws that overtly permit discrimination between blacks and whites. Proof? > [@](#): > > Laws permitting, and even requiring, [the separation of the races] in places where they are liable to be brought into contact … have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored > children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) The Supreme Court has spoken. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2000, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/55 "2000-02-06T22:59:00Z")
APOLOGY TO BRICKER, ET AL. . . . Let this post stand as my apology to bricker and anyone else on this thread who was offended by my allegation that the Roman Catholic Church has used the “freedom of religion” clause of the U.S. Constitution to defend or otherwise ‘cover up’ an occurrence of child molestation by priests or any other personnel of the Church. I should not have said it. As my Act of Contrition, I hereby retire from the board for a while, and will not again post as “George Papoon”. * * * "You’ll never get as much out of being right as you will from finding out why you were wrong . . . " The Papoon Principles Ch. 1. ---
**Author:** ![John\_John](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8797f3/32.png) [@John\_John](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_John)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2000, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/56 "2000-02-06T23:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Let this post stand as my apology to bricker and anyone else on this thread who was offended by my allegation that the Roman Catholic Church has used the “freedom of religion” clause of the U.S. Constitution to defend or otherwise ‘cover up’ an occurrence of child molestation by priests or any other personnel of the Church. **I should not have said it.** And it’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2000, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/57 "2000-02-06T23:57:00Z")
kunilou wrote: > [@](#): > > And I personally know two women (from Kentucky, no less) who claim to have had sexual relationships with their high school teachers, and who later married them. That may not fit the legal definition of molestation, but it certainly is creepy. Not to mention the fact that such claims might make you _really_ jealous if you had a crush on one of your teachers but never got to act on it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2000, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/58 "2000-02-07T00:24:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by George Papoon: > APOLOGY TO BRICKER, ET AL. . . . > > Let this post stand as my apology to bricker and anyone else on this thread who was offended by my allegation that the Roman Catholic Church has used the “freedom of religion” clause of the U.S. Constitution to defend or otherwise ‘cover up’ an occurrence of child molestation by priests or any other personnel of the Church. I should not have said it. > > As my Act of Contrition, I hereby retire from the board for a while, and will not again post as “George Papoon”. Apology accepted. No problems here. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2000, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/59 "2000-02-07T05:11:00Z")
So what name do you think he’ll use on return? He’s already gotten himself banned once using NewtonsApple and another time under another name.\* \*This is assuming that GP is NA. ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2000, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476/60 "2000-02-08T00:04:00Z")
Bricker states: > [@](#): > > How DARE you quote canons from an eucumenical council in 1215 and try to pass it off as the church’s current creed? How DARE I? I wasn’t aware that being old had any relation to the truth. The Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) states the following: > [@](#): > > The crime of conspiracy or secret association is entirely prohibited even by the laws of the land; so all the more properly is this forbidden in the church of God. Is it now permissible to conspire, because Chalcedon happened so long ago? I appreciate your organization of canonical law - I didn’t know that. Do you have a reference which shows how canon law from a previous period is invalidated in a new period, without express repeal? If not, my quotes must stand. Bricker statea: > [@](#): > > An intellectually honest person would have noted that he was quoting a document EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS OLD, which no longer purports to describe canon law, and would have explained the difference between the ‘canons’ of a council and canon law. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Canon Law: > [@](#): > > From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the councils, the principal element of canon law (…) Bricker mentions the Council of Basel: > [@](#): > > the Council of Basle failed in whole to secure the approbation of the Church and the Pope, and thus does not rank in authority with ecumenical councils! The Catholic Encyclopedia says: > [@](#): > > The true opinion seems to be that put forward by Hefele (Conciliengesch., 2d ed., I, 63-99) that the assembly at Basle may be regarded as cumenical from the beginning until the Bull “Doctoris Gentium” (18 September, 1437) transferred its sessions to Ferrera Which I think was after the 25th session, which leaves my 19th session quotes on pretty firm ground. Bricker also mentions the Council of Constance: > [@](#): > > The Council of Constance, another modern reference, five hundred eighty years ago, and another council not fully ecumenical. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: > [@](#): > > From the fourteenth session, in which he (Gregory XII?) convoked the council, it is considered by many with Phillips (Kirchenrecht, I, 256) a legitimate general council. As the above quote is from the 39th session, it would seem to be okay. Also mentioned is the Council of Trent: > [@](#): > > Your reference to the Council of Trent (four hundred forty years ago) is misleading as well. Please explain. About Unam Sanctum: > [@](#): > > And your quote of Unan Sanctum (some seven hundred years ago) is indeed hitting below the belt It was late, I was tired, and Boniface VII is a lot more clear than his apologists. And then: > [@](#): > > In summary, none of what you have quoted is of any but historical interest in deteriming current canon law. Given the historical basis of canon law in ecumenical canons (among other sources), please explain the developments in canon law that have altered/invalidated the above canons. It’s not that it’s impossible, but I’d like to see the cites. And then: > [@](#): > > And when I called you on it, you hauled out documents from before Columbus even set foot in the New World. Well, it’s not like they’ve had a lot of these. My source [http://pc3.piarista-bp.sulinet.hu/councils/~index.htm](http://pc3.piarista-bp.sulinet.hu/councils/~index.htm) shows a total of 21, 20 of which are finished (Vatican 1 being listed as unfinished, although it apparently adjourned on 10/20/1870). Of these 21, exactly four met after Columbus sailed, and there have been only two since 1864. If you want newer, the quotes are less exact, but Vatican 1 says (in Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff): > [@](#): > > And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that (…) > it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority. And Vatican 2 is even vaguer: > [@](#): > > Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered by legislation or administrative action on the part of the civil authority in the selection, training, appointment and transfer of their own ministers (…) So there’s a defense of my older cites, some newer ones, and a defense of why I think ecumenical canons bear on canon law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-church-let-this-happen/17476.md?page=4)