Pope Benedict: Criminality and Secrecy

Originally posted by lucifershammer
it's a question of whether it would help in bringing about a reconciliation between the person and the Church.

Who do you think stands in greater need of reconciliation with the Church: a priest exploiting his position as an agent of the Church as a means to abuse children, or a lay person who, unsatisfied with the Church's handling of such abuse, defies the Church's asserted jurisdiction?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Who do you think stands in greater need of reconciliation with the Church: a priest exploiting his position as an agent of the Church as a means to abuse children, or a lay person who, unsatisfied with the Church's handling of such abuse, defies the Church's asserted jurisdiction?

The priest is no more an "agent of the Church" than Prince Charles is an "agent of the Royal Family" in his own household.

The Church's (?) "asserted jurisdiction" is over canon law, over which it most certainly has jurisdiction.

Finally, the rule against violating secrecy of canonical procedures is no more targetted at those violating it under extraordinary circumstances (and it's a common mistake of the Western media to read canon laws in the same manner of general applicability as laws in English law countries) than speeding rules are targetted at parents rushing their kids to hospital.

EDIT: They are both in need of reconciliation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The priest is no more an "agent of the Church" than Prince Charles is an "agent of the Royal Family" in his own household.

The Church's (?) "asserted jurisdiction" is over canon law, over which it most certainly has jurisdiction.

Finally, the rule against violating secrecy of canonical procedures is no more targetted at those violating it under arents rushing their kids to hospital.

EDIT: They are both in need of reconciliation.

Which one stands in greater need of reconciliation?

If they are both in need, why is excommunication not applied to child-molesting priests?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Which one stands in greater need of reconciliation?

If they are both in need, why is excommunication not applied to child-molesting priests?

Because excommunication is not intended to be applied to every offence against the Church. As I said earlier, it is medicinal (and there are other less extensive medicinal penalties) -- and you don't use the same medicines for every illness.

EDIT: The priests' offence is the more grave of the two, that doesn't mean the same medicinal penalty needs application.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You haven't responded to the fact that, as Ed Peters points out, half the "facts" in your news report are patent nonsense. Not to mention that your article equivocates between provisions of canon law and those dealing with secular law -- misapplying the latter as though they were meant for the former.

Excommunication is not a penalty imposed as pun EDIT: I don't find any mention of these "private tribunals" in the Code of Canon Law.

LH -> Dr. Scribbles: "You haven't responded to the fact that, as Ed Peters points out, half the "facts" in your news report are patent nonsense."

That's because the Good Doctor isn't interested in the truth, but rather in bashing the Pope and the Roman-Catholic Church.

Originally posted by ivanhoe


That's because the Good Doctor isn't interested in the truth, but rather in bashing the Pope and the Roman-Catholic Church.

Your position makes no sense. You are putting the cart before the horse. What interest would I have in bashing the Pope and the Church if I didn't think it were true that they have done reprehensible things for which they should be held accountable?

I see your paranoia is still in full effect. They have been out to get you for a while now. I'm surprised they haven't caught you yet.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your position makes no sense. You are putting the cart before the horse. What interest would I have in bashing the Pope and the Church if I didn't think it were true that they have done reprehensible things for which they should be held accountable?

Merely thinking something is true is not enough to make it true; or even grant that one has epistemic justification for believing it's true.

Not all religious beliefs are about God.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Merely thinking something is true is not enough to make it true; or even grant that one has epistemic justification for believing it's true.

Not all religious beliefs are about God.

Could you give an example of a religious belief not being about God?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Could you give an example of a religious belief not being about God?

For example, the belief that only a priest can serve as a valid legal advocate of a child in a case about that child being abused by a priest.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Merely thinking something is true is not enough to make it true; or even grant that one has epistemic justification for believing it's true.

Not all religious beliefs are about God.

Do you think it is not true that they have done reprehensible things for which they should be held accountable?

I contend that I have plenty of epistemic justification for my belief that they have.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Could you give an example of a religious belief not being about God?

I should've used the adverb instead of the adjective.

I mean not all religiously held beliefs are about God.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
For example, the belief that only a priest can serve as a valid legal advocate of a child in a case about that child being abused by a priest.

First error: Even if true, that would not be a religious belief. It's a belief about canon law (i.e. dealing with Church administration and discipline).

Second error: Neither you nor your tabloid article have presented anything to back it up. There is no such thing as 'private tribunals' in Canon Law and, regarding membership of Church tribunals, the CIC clearly allows for qualified lay persons (i.e. canon lawyers) to serve on tribunals.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think it is [b]not true that they have done reprehensible things for which they should be held accountable?

I contend that I have plenty of epistemic justification for my belief that they have.[/b]

Do you think it is [b]not true that they have done reprehensible things for which they should be held accountable?[/b]

On this matter, as a class - no. Individual priests and certain bishops have done reprehensible things -- but they are a small minority and were acting on their own initiative (often against their mandates).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2005/10/26/story416300672.asp

Barely a week after Cardinal Ratziner became Pope Benedict XVI, he faced claims of [b]obstructing justice after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the Church’s own investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made i ...[text shortened]... eded, as Vatican head of state, in being granted immunity from being sued in the US.[/b]

[/b]

Just out of interest, remind me, it was a Catholic priest who revealed the existence of this document, wasn't it?

Originally posted by kirksey957
I tend to disagree. Let me explain. A new pope coming in has the opportuntiy to take advantage of the immediate excitement and goodwill of his papacy. He could come in and set a "new tone." If he came out and said there were some horrible things done in the past and I aim to make it a transparent process and I will bring in outside guidance to make sur ...[text shortened]... y active priest seek regular psychotherapy as part of their on-going professional development.

Finally, he could set a new tone by demanding that every active priest seek regular psychotherapy as part of their on-going professional development.

In many cases this proposal just ins't viable. Many priests work in very poor communities and do not receive financial support from their diocese. However, I know that Ratziner has introduced more stringent measures on those considering entering the seminary. The candidate must undergo four interviews with a psychologist to determine if they are mentally fit, and obviously, to identify those who might have a tendency to abuse. Ratziner has also been sending bishops in Rome to all seminaries as his representatives to investigate their development, especially those touching on sexuality.

I think that much of the problem here is ignorance within the Church. The pope and many of his fellow cardinals still have it in their heads that a priest is serving a holy vocation that should not be degraded. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor spoke of this issue.

Another problem is that the pope wants to blame these abuse scandals as results of secular society and its concommitant liberalism. This is why he has introduced strict rules preventing anyone promoting homosexuality as moral and have had homosexual intercourse in the past four years, from entering the seminary.