# The RCC now has zero tolerance for child abuse. Well, except... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 25, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492 "2014-08-25T20:11:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/81 "2014-08-28T02:11:59Z")
I am not a liberal in the US sense. US liberals are way to my right, and we fail to see eye to eye on many things. US conservatives on the other hand, are simply nowhere near my universe of reference. I am also an atheist, formerly a Catholic because I was born into it. Having said that, I want to say that I do not wish the US or DR judicial system violate their stablished laws to punish any of those stains on the human race. But you’ll have to forgive me if I expect the church that insist on telling me how to live my life to be held to a higher standard. Why wasn’t Law at least defrocked? Why was the nuncio recalled? And why, oh coincidence! do we hear just now that he might possibly maybe perhaps be extradited? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/82 "2014-08-28T02:13:33Z")
Sorry, I meant to quote Bricker, to whom the above is directed. Also, can you do something about that imbecile of a Cardinal we have? ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/83 "2014-08-28T02:27:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Did the Vatican ever try Bernard Law? Sure, they tried him for a while but then switched to Seán O’Malley. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/84 "2014-08-28T03:05:59Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > I am not a liberal in the US sense. US liberals are way to my right, and we fail to see eye to eye on many things. US conservatives on the other hand, are simply nowhere near my universe of reference. > > I am also an atheist, formerly a Catholic because I was born into it. > > Having said that, I want to say that I do not wish the US or DR judicial system violate their stablished laws to punish any of those stains on the human race. But you’ll have to forgive me if I expect the church that insist on telling me how to live my life to be held to a higher standard. Why wasn’t Law at least defrocked? Because the Vatican has laws too. Canon law doesn’t permit defrocking as a punishment for what Law did. If you’re in agreement that US and DR law are to be followed, do you also agree that the Vatican should follow canon law? > [@](#): > > Why was the nuncio recalled? And why, oh coincidence! do we hear just now that he might possibly maybe perhaps be extradited? The nuncio was the Ambassador from the Vatican to the DR. I can’t imagine any country in the world that would NOT recall their ambassador if he was accused of such heinous crimes by the host country. When did the Vatican ever say he wouldn’t be extradited? Never. The point was made by the media that as an ambassador, he had diplomatic immunity. This belongs to the sending nation, not the individual, and the Vatican acted correctly by recalling him, assessing the situation,and then determining they would waive his immunity if he’s criminally charged. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/85 "2014-08-28T04:04:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the Vatican has laws too. Canon law doesn’t permit defrocking as a punishment for what Law did. If you’re in agreement that US and DR law are to be followed, do you also agree that the Vatican should follow canon law? > > The nuncio was the Ambassador from the Vatican to the DR. I can’t imagine any country in the world that would NOT recall their ambassador if he was accused of such heinous crimes by the host country. > > When did the Vatican ever say he wouldn’t be extradited? > > Never. The point was made by the media that as an ambassador, he had diplomatic immunity. This belongs to the sending nation, not the individual, and the Vatican acted correctly by recalling him, assessing the situation,and then determining they would waive his immunity if he’s criminally charged. This is a serious question, no gotchas included: Why was the nuncio defrocked? He hasn’t been convicted in any court of law either. And another: If you yourself agree that what Law did was highly inmoral, doesn’t the church have a punishment for immoral acts by their priests? Maybe, at the very least, punish them to life in a cluster with a vow of silence or something. Does that mean that there is no punishment contemplated for highly immoral acts? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/86 "2014-08-28T04:35:02Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > This is a serious question, no gotchas included: Why was the nuncio defrocked? He hasn’t been convicted in any court of law either. Yes, he was. He was tried under canon law. It was in the news. [Here’s the Vatican release.](http://t.news.va/en/news/canonical-trial-of-ex-nuncio-jozef-wesolowski?) > [@](#): > > And another: If you yourself agree that what Law did was highly inmoral, doesn’t the church have a punishment for immoral acts by their priests? Maybe, at the very least, punish them to life in a cluster with a vow of silence or something. Does that mean that there is no punishment contemplated for highly immoral acts? Yes, of course the church has punishments for many acts that are immoral. However, there is no such punishment as “life in a cluster,” or “take a vow of silence.” Punishments include things like suspension of clerical faculties; excommunication; deprivation of power, office, or function; a prohibition of residence in, or an order to reside in, a particular place or territory; a penal transfer to another office; dismissal from the clerical state (this was the penalty against Wesolowski). ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/87 "2014-08-28T05:26:30Z")
I meant convicted outside of the church. He’s technically just as innocent as Law is. Why wasn’t Law defrocked? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/88 "2014-08-28T06:10:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I did. And, hey, look: here’s another. Hey, now. **Cartooniverse** is a general purpose loon when it comes to anything that could conceivably be connected with pedophilia. [He’s the guy who wanted Colin Ferrel arrested because he kissed an underage girl in a movie.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355044). You want to hold up **Lobohan** or **Elv1s** as exemplars of liberal dumbfuckery, sure, whatever. But **Cartooniverse** is a kind of crazy that transcends political labels, and he should be honored as such. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/89 "2014-08-28T12:52:53Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > I meant convicted outside of the church. He’s technically just as innocent as Law is. > > Why wasn’t Law defrocked? Because Law hasn’t been convicted under canon law. Defrocking is a punishment under canon law. So no, Wesolowski is not just as innocent as Law. Wesolowski was convicted, and Law hasn’t been. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/90 "2014-08-28T13:01:18Z")
The question seems to be that if Law did something highly immoral, and the Catholic Church has laws against immoral acts in general, why wasn’t he defrocked? If the Church didn’t have laws against what Law did at the time, do they have those laws now? Not that Law would be punished, since the law would have been passed after he committed his immoral acts, but it could be used to punish future offenders and show the world that the Church cares about fixing this. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/91 "2014-08-28T13:39:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because Law hasn’t been convicted under canon law. Defrocking is a punishment under canon law. So no, Wesolowski is not just as innocent as Law. Wesolowski was convicted, and Law hasn’t been. > > Regards, > > Shodan The question is: If the Vatican defrocked Wesolowski, why can’t they at least defrock Law? Wesolowski has not been proven guilty in a court of law (outside the Vatican, that is), neither was Law. What Law did is morally on par with Wesolowski’s crimes. Statute of limitations? No laws at the time? What? I find it hard to believe that there was no punishment for inmorality, and what Law did is right at the top of the list of immoral acts, at least for me. Again, I am trying to understand the rationale, such as it is. Attending Catholic school taught me as much Cannon Law as watching L&O taught me about the American justice system, which is to say, jack all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/92 "2014-08-28T14:43:47Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > I meant convicted outside of the church. He’s technically just as innocent as Law is. > > Why wasn’t Law defrocked? I get the impression that you picture canon law as somehow not the same as “real” law, or that canon law has much more “make it up as we go,” sort of quality that should allow someone to just declare, “That’s it – you’re defrocked.” The Code of Canon law is codified. It’s got specific offenses, specific penalties for those offenses, specific procedures for those who are accused and tried, and specific appeal procedures. Law’s offenses are not the same as Wesolowski offenses. Law’s offenses are fairly summarized as: _He knew, or at least should have known, that priests would re-offend, and he failed to stop re-assigning them anyway._ That’s without question immoral, but it’s not the same as Wesolowski’s crimes of actually paying to procure young boys to perform sexual acts with him. Wesolowski’s acts violated canon law and were eligible for dismissal from the clerical state. Bernard Law’s crimes don’t warrant that penalty. That’s not a fault that belongs exclusively to canon law. Consider this: Bernard Law’s conduct was not punishable under Massachusetts law. If Wesolowski had done what he did in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts criminal law could prosecute him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/93 "2014-08-28T14:49:12Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > The question seems to be that if Law did something highly immoral, and the Catholic Church has laws against immoral acts in general, why wasn’t he defrocked? For the same reason that we have criminal laws with different penalties: “defrocked” isn’t the only possible sanction. What Law did was not punishable by defrocking. > [@](#): > > If the Church didn’t have laws against what Law did at the time, do they have those laws now? Not that Law would be punished, since the law would have been passed after he committed his immoral acts, but it could be used to punish future offenders and show the world that the Church cares about fixing this. Yes. Both the Vatican penal code and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops norms were updated to provide penalties for conduct of this nature. It’s an interesting question – you say, “…not that Law would be punished…” but in fact the Vatican may not have the same strict Ex Post Facto rule that the U.S. does. I’m trying to research that question now. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/94 "2014-08-28T15:06:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For the same reason that we have criminal laws with different penalties: “defrocked” isn’t the only possible sanction. What Law did was not punishable by defrocking. > > Yes. Both the Vatican penal code and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops norms were updated to provide penalties for conduct of this nature. > > It’s an interesting question – you say, “…not that Law would be punished…” but in fact the Vatican may not have the same strict Ex Post Facto rule that the U.S. does. I’m trying to research that question now. I guess I’m surprised that they don’t have a “conduct unbecoming an officer”-type law like the army has (or, so I’m led to believe by Hollywood). That can lead to a dishonorable discharge, again according to my Hollywood sources. Is there no equivalent “You’re fired!” type of rule in the Catholic church? (Apparently not, I guess) ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/95 "2014-08-28T15:24:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I get the impression that you picture canon law as somehow not the same as “real” law, or that canon law has much more “make it up as we go,” sort of quality that should allow someone to just declare, “That’s it – you’re defrocked.” > > The Code of Canon law is codified. It’s got specific offenses, specific penalties for those offenses, specific procedures for those who are accused and tried, and specific appeal procedures. > > Law’s offenses are not the same as Wesolowski offenses. Law’s offenses are fairly summarized as: _He knew, or at least should have known, that priests would re-offend, and he failed to stop re-assigning them anyway._ That’s without question immoral, but it’s not the same as Wesolowski’s crimes of actually paying to procure young boys to perform sexual acts with him. > > Wesolowski’s acts violated canon law and were eligible for dismissal from the clerical state. Bernard Law’s crimes don’t warrant that penalty. > > That’s not a fault that belongs exclusively to canon law. Consider this: Bernard Law’s conduct was not punishable under Massachusetts law. If Wesolowski had done what he did in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts criminal law could prosecute him. Oh, you misunderstand me. I do know how hyper legalistic the RCC is – which might possibly explain why you are not a budhist. 😉 How can they not have a general punishment for “moral turpitude”? I can’t imagine the RCC never contemplated punishment for somebody who brings shame and disrepute into the church. OK, I know the church has a long history of disreputable characters, but at least on the books they should have contemplated something like that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/96 "2014-08-28T15:48:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I get the impression that you picture canon law as somehow not the same as “real” law It isn’t. It’s the name the organization gives to its policy manual, that’s all. Like a company, it can make any changes it likes at any time, simply by management order, consistent with \*real \*law. So don’t pretend it’s any more than that, or deserves any more awe and submission. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/97 "2014-08-28T15:53:43Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > The question is: If the Vatican defrocked Wesolowski, why can’t they at least defrock Law? Because Weslowski has been convicted under canon law, and Law has not been. > [@](#): > > Wesolowski has not been proven guilty in a court of law (outside the Vatican, that is), neither was Law. But Weslowski was proven guilty by a court of law inside the Vatican, and Law was not. Defrocking is a punishment under canon law - “inside the Vatican”, to use your phrase. > [@](#): > > What Law did is morally on par with Wesolowski’s crimes. Not as far as I know. That doesn’t excuse Law, but as **Bricker** the Canon Lawyer points out, convincing yourself that he won’t do it again is not quite the same thing as actually doing it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/98 "2014-08-28T15:54:48Z")
> [@Mighty\_Girl](#): > > Oh, you misunderstand me. I do know how hyper legalistic the RCC is – which might possibly explain why you are not a budhist. 😉 > > How can they not have a general punishment for “moral turpitude”? I can’t imagine the RCC never contemplated punishment for somebody who brings shame and disrepute into the church. OK, I know the church has a long history of disreputable characters, but at least on the books they should have contemplated something like that. Let me give you an example. As you know, the church forbids priests to marry. Canon law provides as follows: > [@Can. 1394](#): > > ß1 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, ß1, n. 3, a cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state. That language is similar to many other laws – the imposition of a lesser penalty, combined with a warning, and greater penalties authorized only if the offenses continue. So in canon law itself, we have the following: > [@Can 1399](#): > > Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired. That’s a catch-all for immoral conduct – even if the conduct is not explicitly forbidden in canon law, if it transgresses divine law, as this did, it can be punished. But canon law precedent is that a “just penalty” in cases of that nature require a warning and an explicit continuation of the behavior following that warning before severe sanctions can be issued. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/99 "2014-08-28T16:12:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s an interesting question – you say, “…not that Law would be punished…” but in fact the Vatican may not have the same strict Ex Post Facto rule that the U.S. does. I’m trying to research that question now. That seems to be in contention now.with Wesolowski. The link from The Guardian has a paragraph that says: > [@](#): > > As a papal diplomat and citizen of Vatican City, Wesolowski faces criminal charges by the tribunal of the Vatican City, which recently updated its laws to specifically criminalise the sexual abuse of children. It is not clear, however, if the 2013 law can be applied retroactively. Also, it is not reasonable to extrapolate from 11 people what liberals believe, any more than I can extrapolate what conservatives believe from 11 conservative racists. And since that conversation was from 2002, it’s as reasonable as extrapolating that liberals are against gay marriage. More importantly, when someone says that someone should be prosecuted, they mean their action should have been against the law. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/100 "2014-08-28T16:37:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > That seems to be in contention now.with Wesolowski. The link from The Guardian has a paragraph that says: > > Also, it is not reasonable to extrapolate from 11 people what liberals believe, any more than I can extrapolate what conservatives believe from 11 conservative racists. And since that conversation was from 2002, it’s as reasonable as extrapolating that liberals are against gay marriage. > > More importantly, when someone says that someone should be prosecuted, they mean their action should have been against the law. What would they say if they meant that in his case, the constitutional protections of Ex Post Facto should be ignored? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=6)