Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't understand. Don't all Catholic schools fall under the jurisdiction of the hierarchy? Aren't they themselves part of the hierarchy? Isn't that what makes them Catholic schools? If the school got sued, wouldn't one of the branches of the Vatican power structure be there to back them up financially? If so, mustn't the school's policies meet some minimal conformation to the Vatican's theology in exchange for the Vatican's support?
There is no indication whatsoever in the article that the Church or any of the hierarchy was involved in any way in this incident.
If a school proclaims to be Catholic, shouldn't it attempt to live as Christ lived? Would Christ have rejected pregnant teenagers from hearing his word?
Your claim is like saying the Catholic hierarchy had nothing to do with children being molested. The molesting priests themselves are part of the hierarchy.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't understand. Don't all Catholic schools fall under the jurisdiction of the hierarchy? Aren't they themselves part of the hierarchy? Isn't that what makes them Catholic schools?
Not necessarily.
Under Canon Law:
Can. 803 §1. A Catholic school is understood as one which a competent ecclesiastical authority or a public ecclesiastical juridic person directs or which ecclesiastical authority recognizes as such through a written document.
So, Catholic schools are of two types:
a) Those administered by the Church (you could say these are "part of the hierarchy" )
b) Those not administered by the Church but recognised as Catholic by a competent ecclesiastical authority - usually the Bishop.
What the Bishop does have jurisdiction over is the religious education of the school:
Can. 804 §1. The Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any schools whatsoever or are provided through the various instruments of social communication are subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the conference of bishops to issue general norms about this field of action and for the diocesan bishop to regulate and watch over it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If the school got sued, wouldn't one of the branches of the Vatican power structure be there to back them up financially? If so, mustn't the school's policies meet some minimal conformation to the Vatican's theology in exchange for the Vatican's support?
Catholic schools must maintain morals that are in conformity with Church teachings, yes.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If a school proclaims to be Catholic, shouldn't it attempt to live as Christ lived? Would Christ have rejected pregnant teenagers from hearing his word?
No, He wouldn't. But that's not the point. Nor am I condoning the actions of this particular school. What I am pointing out is that the first dozen or so posts on the topic made several assumptions:
1. That because the school was a "Catholic school", the hierarchy was automatically involved
2. That the news report cited did not gloss over, exaggerate or falsify actual events in any way
In other words, simply because the news article mentioned the word "Catholic" a number of posters (including yourself) believed it and blamed the Church for it.
Your claim is like saying the Catholic hierarchy had nothing to do with children being molested. The molesting priests themselves are part of the hierarchy.
If a Senator kills his wife, is the entire Senate guilty of his crime?
I do not hold the hierarchy responsible for the initial molestations. What I do hold it responsible for was the cover up that followed and subsequent molestations as a result of reassigning these priests.
Originally posted by lucifershammerDoes the Catholic Church ever do good? Or do only the members of its hierarchy do good?
I do not hold the hierarchy responsible for the initial molestations.
If you are going to give the Church credit when members of its hierarchy do good in their capacity as members, you must also chastise the Church when members of its hierarchy do bad in their capacity as members.
As usual, you are trying to have it both ways.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"As usual"?
Does the Catholic Church ever do good? Or do only the members of its hierarchy do good?
If you are going to give the Church credit when members of its hierarchy do good in their capacity as members, you must also chastise the Church when members of its hierarchy do bad in their capacity as members.
As usual, you are trying to have it both ways.
The answer to your question(s) is in the second paragraph itself. When members of the hierarchy do good in their capacity as members, the Church deserves credit, just as when the members of the hierarchy do bad <usage??> in their capacity as members, the Church deserves chastisement. So, when a particular Bishop sets up a new homeless shelter, or a youth centre in his diocese, he is doing so in his capacity as Bishop and shepherd and representative of the Church. Both the Bishop and the Church deserve credit. When members of the Roman Inquisition decided to execute Bruno, the were doing so in their capacity as as a body of the Church - hence both the individual members and the Church deserve chastisement for that decision (although, to be fair, one must also take into account the particular cultural and historical context in this case). When US Bishops decided to transfer priests accused of molestation around, they were doing so in their capacity as Church administrators - hence the Church deserves chastisement for that decision. I've never denied that.
Note: in all of the above cases, both the Church (as an organisation) and the officials (as individuals) must take responsibility/credit for their actions.
However, like any person holding an office, members of the hierarchy can do both good and evil in their private capacities as individuals, as human beings. For instance, a Bishop who decides to sell off his family property to give to the poor is doing so in his personal capacity - it is not in his mandate as a Bishop of the Church. A priest who murders, or rapes, or molests children is doing so in his personal capacity - it is not in his mandate as a priest. In neither of these cases can you attribute credit/culpability to the Church.
Here's another example: When President Truman gave the order that the atomic bomb be dropped on Hiroshima, he was doing so in his official capacity as President of the United States. Hence, it is not just Truman himself who was responsible for the deaths of the Japanese civilians, but the US Govt itself. When President Bush Jr. kills a bird while hunting, it is just GWB that is responsible for the death of the bird - not the US Govt.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour logic is wrong.
"As usual"?
The answer to your question(s) is in the second paragraph itself. When members of the hierarchy do good in their capacity as members, the Church deserves credit, just as when the members of the hierarchy do bad <usage??> in their capacity as members, the Church deserves chastisement. So, when a particular Bishop sets up a new h ...[text shortened]... d while hunting, it is just GWB that is responsible for the death of the bird - not the US Govt.
When your school is chartered by the Roman Catholic Church, you had better believe that the church would have a firm hand in it.
Think of it like Mcdonalds. Can a franchise owner decide that they want to have strippers entertain their customers? Maybe, maybe not. I would think that the corporation would not like it so much.
As far as bush shooting the bird? Wasn't Clinton impeached because of something that should have been personal?
RTh
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou sneak this in as if it is an obvious truth. It's not.
A priest who murders, or rapes, or molests children is doing so in his personal capacity
A priest who has established a trusting relationship with altar boys in his capacity as a priest and leverages that privilege, which he wouldn't have but for his capacity as a priest, is acting in his capacity as a priest when he molests the kids.
It is irrelevant that he is acting contrary to the mandate of a superior. If a school teacher decides to administer corporal punishment, contrary to the school's policy, he is still acting in his capacity as a teacher and as a representative of the school, because he is leveraging a privilege that the school has transferred to him - access to and authority over the children - that he only has by virtue of being a teacher. The school will be held liable for the teacher's actions.
Your idea that a priest can do whatever he wants with the privileges granted to him by the Church without the Church being held accountable whenever he abuses those privileges (abuse taken to mean uses them contrary to his mandate), is dangerous. It establishes that all crimes can be committed by proxy without punishment, provided the criminal mastermind can find fall guys to carry out his will. I'm not suggesting that it was the Pope's master plan to have children molested; but I'm saying that if ever a Pope did in fact have that master plan, your notion of accountability would let him get away with it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesno1 is the expert here, but I believe the school can be held liable only if the act of the teacher was reasonably foreseeable and/or reasonably preventable and the school was negligent in its responsibility towards its students.
You sneak this in as if it is an obvious truth. It's not.
A priest who has established a trusting relationship with altar boys in his capacity as a priest and leverages that privilege, which he wouldn't have but for his capacity as a priest, is acting in his capacity as a priest when he molests the kids.
It is irrelevant that he is acting ...[text shortened]... ly has by virtue of being a teacher. The school will be held liable for the teacher's actions.
Obviously the threat of child molestation is foreseeable today, but was it so 30 years back? 50 years back? I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf the Church didn't feel accountable in the molestation cases, why did it pay off the priests' victims? (I'm refering to the actual molestations, not the molestation racket carried out by those higher up.)
no1 is the expert here, but I believe the school can be held liable only if the act of the teacher was reasonably foreseeable and/or reasonably preventable and the school was negligent in its responsibility towards its students.
O ...[text shortened]... but was it so 30 years back? 50 years back? I'm not so sure.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI don't know. Maybe they did feel accountable in some cases. Maybe they wanted to avoid too much negative publicity (although how much more negative the publicity could get is something I've yet to comprehend). Maybe they felt the legal case was not strong enough. Or maybe they just felt sympathy for the victims and decided to be charitable.
If the Church didn't feel accountable in the molestation cases, why did it pay off the priests' victims? (I'm refering to the actual molestations, not the molestation racket carried out by those higher up.)
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe article you cited (which was written before the school decided the pregnant student could not attend her graduation) clearly states that the school was under the authority of the archdiocese:
Oh please! Take a look at yourselves - you see the words "Roman Catholic" in a news article and begin to rub your hands with glee.
There is no indication whatsoever in the article that the Church or any of the hierarchy was involved in any way in this incident. This story is deliberately written to be sensationalist crap and you know it.
At le ...[text shortened]... ative news sites as well:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWSV5/storyV5stjudegrad29w.htm
But Mitchell, who is completing his first year as St. Jude's principal, said similar safety-related recommendations have been made at schools that fall under the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Mobile's umbrella.
He said Gwen Byrd, superintendent of schools for the archdiocese, supported his decision. Byrd could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Thus, it was very much a decision authorized by the archdiocese which is in the hierarchy of the RCC.
Originally posted by no1marauderAssuming that this is true (and I see no reason to doubt it), then I can
Thus, it was very much a decision authorized by the archdiocese which is in the hierarchy of the RCC.
assure everyone that this decision is not concordant with the teachings
of the RCC. There is neither a rationale nor excuse for the action that
the principal (et alia) took, or whether this was done with complicity
from the Bishop of the (arch)diocese or in ignorance. It was still an
indefensible act that should be chastized. Obviously, if the Bishop
actively agreed with the decision, it would be that much more
reprehensible.
I am sure that LH recognizes that this action was not appropriate,
irrespective of the people who agreed with it and I applaud that young
lady for asserting her right to walk with her class, having fulfilled the
requirements for such action.
Nemesio