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?
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?
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).
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.. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Because Weslowski has been convicted under canon law, and Law has not been.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
