How can the church let this happen ?!!

[Tominator2]

Typo alert: I should have said there have only been two councils since 1564.

[Polycarp]

And some of us members of the Holy Catholic Church think that there haven’t been any legitimate ecumenical councils since the ninth century.

• Polycarp, confirmed Episcopalian

[nebuli]

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.

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 (…)

You have a problem with these? They seem to merely assert the church has a right to operate without government interference; where do they say church officials aren’t subject to criminal law?

[Tominator2]

Nabuki says:

You have a problem with these? They seem to merely assert the church has a right to operate without government interference; where do they say church officials aren’t subject to criminal law?

Criminal law can be a form of governmental interference. Suppose, for the purely hypothetical case of what might resemble a purported scnario, that some fictitious church (say the CoSG) held the above rules, plus, a rule that states that a minister for a given community must reside in that community. Now, one of the ministers of the CoSG commits a murder in the U.S. He is not caught and is later transferred to another country. Evidence turns up warranting a trial of said minister, and the U.S. attempts to extradict said minister in order to hold a trial. The CoSG files a protest, stating that a conviction in such a trial would “hinder by administrative action on the part of the civil authority the CoSG’s right to transfer its ministers as it saw fit” by limiting the community that the minister could reside in.

Although a fictional case, this sort of thing happens from time to time: ask a Mormon (polygamy) or a Native American of some tribes (religious drug use) or a follower of some Caribbean faiths (animal sacrifice). The USSC has ruled recently on how/why/in what ways religious expression can be limited by law, and Congress considered a bill about it (I forget the bill’s name, but I think it got shot down).

[Bricker]

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.

I apologize for the delay. I forgot to keep checking this thread.

In introducing the 1983 revision of the Canon Law, Pope John Paul II says:

Over the course of time, the Catholic Church has been wont to revise and renew the laws of its sacred discipline so that, maintaining always fidelity to the Divine Founder, these laws may be truly in accord with the salvific mission entrusted to the Church. With this sole aim in view, we today, 25 January 1983, bring to fulfilment the
anticipation of the whole Catholic world, and decree the publication of the revised Code of Canon Law. In doing so, our thoughts turn back to this same date in 1959, when our predecessor, John XXIII of happy memory, first publicly announced his personal decision to reform the current body of canonical laws which had been promulgated on the feast of Pentecost 1917.
.
From this it follows that the fundamental basis of the ‘newness’ which, while never straying from the Church’s legislative tradition, is found in the Second Vatican Council and especially in its ecclesiological teaching, generates also the mark of ‘newness’ in the new Code.
.
In view of all this, it is very much to be hoped that the new canonical legislation will be an effective instrument by the help of which the Church will be able to perfect itself in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, and show itself ever more equal to carry out its salvific role in the world.

This supports the inference that the canon law changes over time.

As to specifically disavowing practices of the past:

Canon 5 provides:

Universal or particular canons which have been in effect up to now but are contrary to the provisions
of these canons and are reprobated in the canons of this Code, are completely suppressed, and they may not be allowed to revive in the future.

And lest that be too general, Canon 6 seetles the matter explicitly:

Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is
otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;

3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this
Code itself;

4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.

§2 To the extent that the canons of this Code reproduce the former law, they are to be assessed in the light also
of canonical tradition.

So please take your declarations about how it’s fine to burn heretics because a council eight hundred years ago said it was, and stuff them away next to blodd-letting, spontaneous generation, the passenger pigeon, and Ricki Lake.

The authorative law governing the RCC TODAY is the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983 by Pope John Paul II. Period.

• Rick

[egkelly]

I would point out that in the past, people reacted differently to reports of child molestation. When I was in Jr. HS (late 60’s) there was a gym teacher who everybody felt wasn’t “quite right”. He was unmarried, lived with his parents (he was in his mid-30’s), and used to take all of the jocks to his summer cottage for vacation. I’ll spare you the ugly details, but he was finally accused by one of his victims. The reaction of the community-it CAN’T BE HIM!

[Bricker]

Undoubtedly that’s a part of it… people today are much more likely, in general, to understand the threat that a sexual predator represents to children… and that’s true both of the general public as well as church officials. It doesn’t excuse not acting correctly, of course… but it might lower the bar a little when judging the reasonableness of the actions taken thirty years ago.

• Rick

[Tominator2]

Thank you Bricker, for filling me on canon law. I’ve enjoyed my journey through it (although I wished you’d quoted Vatican 2 a little earlier - it could have saved me some time).
I must say that 6.§1.2° strikes me as making things difficult - basically I’d have to find a prior non-penal law that V2 “expressly provided for”. It doesn’t seem to be structured in such a way as to say “canon 4 of Lateran IV is still in effect” so I’ll have to do a little inferring.
In the DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM part 4 it says:

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious
communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms (…)

and:

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by
legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferal of their own ministers (…)

and in part 9:

What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously.

and in 11, after a few nods to civil obedience:

At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out against governing powers which set
themselves in opposition to the holy will of God: “It is necessary to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).[30] This is the way along which the martyrs and other faithful have walked through all ages and over all the earth.

I could go on, but this is getting a little long-winded. So, what do I think is shown by all this?
[list]
[li]The RCC promulgates a body of law which it considers divinely inspired.[/li][li]Members of the RCC accept it as such, and are morally bound to act according to it as it applies to them and their situation.[/li][li]This law can come into conflict with secular law when it comes to the discipline of members of the RCC (esp. clergy).[/li][li]That this could put a member of the RCC in a very interesting position regarding freedom of religion and the right of a State to enforce a law.[/li][list]

[Bricker]

… the just demands of public order

would not include harboring a pedophile.

Canon law does say that religious communities have a certain right to self-governance. But those rights end where secular criminal law begins; there is no support in canon law for the proposition that the church would (or has) acted otherwise in recent years.

Your quotes show a “nod” to civil obedience, and a exception allowing the church to speak out for what the church believes. Surely you don’t suggest that this is wrong? The church should forgo its constitutional right to free speech?

This argument developed because someone suggested that the RCC held itself out has having legal authority higher than secular law as pertains to the punishment of an accused molester.

THAT idea is put to rest. “Administrative action on the part of government” speaks to just that – not to criminal charges.

Why are you continuing in this?

• Rick