Is the Pope in trouble

[john4truth]

Sad 

[john4truth]

11 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Errors

 

 

[carlimac]

On 9/11/2018 at 9:41 AM, anatess2 said:

Pedophilia in the Catholic Church is a mortal sin.  Pedophilia by a priest who is charged with the Lord's flock even more so.  This is not about protection for one child - it is hatemongering to accuse the Catholic Church of not protecting children.  This is about what people consider JUST.  Non-Catholics do not believe Canon Law is sufficient justice.  Catholics do.

NO argument from me about Canon Law being sufficient IF it's actually applied. The problem we're hearing is that in many cases it hasn't been applied when it should have been. Hence the "cover up". Perhaps some priests were removed for awhile, but were put back in place before they were ready. Others weren't pulled out of service at all when they should have been. Oh yes, they were "moved" but not made to do the work to reform like they should have. 

When anyone says,  "the Catholic Church hasn't protected children" it obviously doesn't mean every leader in the church is at fault. But the Pope himself said this, 

"With shame and repentance, we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives," he writes.

"We showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them."

It's not hatemongering to simply repeat what the Pope said. 

 

[john4truth]

On 9/13/2018 at 3:50 PM, Traveler said:

There has been a very interesting discussion in what some would call "punishment".  In our country of the United States of America (as also many Western style democratic republics) are based in old European Common Law.  This Common Law has a long period of precedence that some scholars believe go back to elements of paganism in ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt.  Defiantly, there are reflections from early Christian (Catholic) theology.  In the USA a person that commits a serious crime is sent to prison - which is by definition a penal system.  In essence a person convicted is sentenced for "punishment".  As we trace back the legal meaning of such terms - a convicted person is required to perform penitence.  This is quite different from the other ancient Judaical concept (from the Mosaic Law) of an eye for an eye.  It is kind of like the school kid that is required to write, "I will not pull hair" on a black board 500 times.

There is no requirement of restitution for crime.  In essence a person is sentenced to "do time".  There may be some restitution in "civil" court but in criminal court - restoration is not configured in punishment.  All of this may give some precedence to the greater discussion of what is required for restitution, or remission of sin.  Personally I am more favorable  to the idea of "natural consequence" rather than applied "punishment" or penitence - which in essence implies temporary or limited payment. 

When I began this thread - I did not foresee that it would evolve into discussions of how a sinner ought to be held accountable.  Or in essence the very meaning of accountability.   Concerning the Atonement - there is a payment or redemption for sin - but as I read I am convinced that no one seems to know what payment or redemption for sin is - and the more I think of it - I am not sure I do either.  In the case of child abuse - what payment could compensate for that?  or for that matter - compensate for anything done as a painful transgression against another?  I am thinking that someone suffering is not the complete answer - maybe not even much of an answer.  So someone that causes me to have a bad day is required to suffer?  And that will me me all better???   So I am thinking I do not understand the Atonement as well as I thought I did.

 

The Traveler

There may be a fine line between put in seclusion and hiding as far as avoiding civil laws by a church. I am no expert but I feel part of what we have to do is separate repentance and atonement. The atonement made it possible to be perfected even though we can never make restitution for all our sins.  This however "after all that we can do"  and I must remember the atonement isn't a free ride. It is only an opportunity. Under God's law there must be an attempt of restitution. I have always felt capital punishment could be part of repentance. Even today in the Mideast hands are severed for stealing. I don't believe Christ did away with the need for punishment. Not just as a deterrent but also as a part of repentance. Jesus used a whip to clean up the Temple. There's a reason why fornication and murder are so bad. There's no way for restitution. I am afraid we under estimate the saying false things against others. It is one of the ten Commandments, not suggestions for me Commandments I must make every effort to obey. Christ never told me I was free of earthly punishment. I again believe it to be necessary.

Edited September 15, 2018 by john4truth
Add to

[Guest MormonGator]

On 9/13/2018 at 8:03 PM, john4truth said:

Wisdom is recognizing how little the smartest person knows

"All I know is that I know nothing."-Socrates. 
 

[john4truth]

16 hours ago, carlimac said:

NO argument from me about Canon Law being sufficient IF it's actually applied. The problem we're hearing is that in many cases it hasn't been applied when it should have been. Hence the "cover up". Perhaps some priests were removed for awhile, but were put back in place before they were ready. Others weren't pulled out of service at all when they should have been. Oh yes, they were "moved" but not made to do the work to reform like they should have. 

When anyone says,  "the Catholic Church hasn't protected children" it obviously doesn't mean every leader in the church is at fault. But the Pope himself said this, 

"With shame and repentance, we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives," he writes.

"We showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them."

It's not hatemongering to simply repeat what the Pope said. 

 

History does not shine favorably on Canon law being enforced. Rather the opposite. Regretfully the course of action has been more like fraternal enabling. We must be honest this has happened in the Church also but policies prevent it from becoming widespread. In theory Canon law could work. Of course in theory communism could be great. The law of consecration was an attempt at communism. For it to work it requires 100% devotion by all.

Edited September 15, 2018 by john4truth
Add to

[john4truth]

On 8/29/2018 at 8:35 AM, estradling75 said:

Anatess can speak for herself but no that is not what she is saying.

Our D&C 121 talks about the danger of power.  There is no reason to think that Catholic's are immune.  However such a cover-up (in the very real sense) is contrary to Cannon Law.

However following cannon law is not a cover-up but rather the Catholic Church claiming jurisdiction over the crime. (At least that is how it appears to this outsider)

I do not see much difference between a convicted priest sitting in a concrete cell for most of the rest of his days and siting a stone monastery room for the most of the rest of his days.   It is just a matter of who did the investigation, judging and convicting.  The Local Government or the Catholic church?  Both can have bad actors in their ranks. 

[john4truth]

So if Catholics really did confine him could he in time resign from the church and thus get off light. I have never heard of Catholicism holding some one against their will. I have read reports of people that apparently left the church, and vanished of their own choice. Unless Canon law can hold them, against their will, it's only an unrealistic dream, they can prevent further acts. Apparently the terrible behavior is not confined to priest, it goes higher. This is not hate mongering, this is protecting the perp from himself. If you truly love some one you try to prevent them from destroying their eternity. In any Church, in our Church the same applies. No justifying, as a one time thing, because he's a friend or family.  There are a mountain of bad decisions committing these acts, if I shelter them I am a party to the crime/sin. You do not need to have been a part of a religion for certain facts to be true. I can memorize the Church policies but it doesn't change the fact.

[anatess2]

On 9/14/2018 at 8:57 PM, carlimac said:

NO argument from me about Canon Law being sufficient IF it's actually applied. The problem we're hearing is that in many cases it hasn't been applied when it should have been. Hence the "cover up". Perhaps some priests were removed for awhile, but were put back in place before they were ready. Others weren't pulled out of service at all when they should have been. Oh yes, they were "moved" but not made to do the work to reform like they should have. 

When anyone says,  "the Catholic Church hasn't protected children" it obviously doesn't mean every leader in the church is at fault. But the Pope himself said this, 

"With shame and repentance, we acknowledge as an ecclesial community that we were not where we should have been, that we did not act in a timely manner, realizing the magnitude and the gravity of the damage done to so many lives," he writes.

"We showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them."

It's not hatemongering to simply repeat what the Pope said. 

 

It's always better to put quotes in context.

Here's the entire letter.  Notice it has zero relevance to secular law but an acknowledgment of sins committed and that the only way sin can be fought is through the faithfulness of the catholic society.  "“If one member suffers, all suffer together with it”

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/20/180820a.html

[fatima]

Quote

I am only on page three of this thread, but I have to take a moment to say "Thank You" to @anatess2 for her answers on this thread.  As a die-hard Catholic, even I have had trouble understanding what has gone on/is going on, and she has helped me to see that it not (necessarily) all a cover up.  It would be great if it was common knowledge within our communities what a "life of prayer and penance" actually is; it is not a cushy retirement.  I"m on my way out the door, but I look forward to reading more.

 

[Vort]

On 9/15/2018 at 1:07 PM, john4truth said:

So if Catholics really did confine him could he in time resign from the church and thus get off light. I have never heard of Catholicism holding some one against their will.

I do not understand this whole line of reasoning. Is someone, somewhere, saying that Catholic priests who sexually abuse children or other people should not be subject to secular legal consequences, but only to internal Catholic Church discipline?

[NeuroTypical]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I do not understand this whole line of reasoning. Is someone, somewhere, saying that Catholic priests who sexually abuse children or other people should not be subject to secular legal consequences, but only to internal Catholic Church discipline?

Yes, to some extent, a sizable percentage of the world's Catholics are, I think.  Anatess can explain it to you further.  

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not understand this whole line of reasoning. Is someone, somewhere, saying that Catholic priests who sexually abuse children or other people should not be subject to secular legal consequences, but only to internal Catholic Church discipline?

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes, to some extent, a sizable percentage of the world's Catholics are, I think.  Anatess can explain it to you further.  

Nobody is saying this, not even the Catholic Church.  @john4truth, unfortunately is not for truth but for attacking the Catholic Church.  At least that's how he's coming off.  @carlimac, on the other hand, seeks to understand as she gets us to understand where she's coming from.

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes, to some extent, a sizable percentage of the world's Catholics are, I think.  Anatess can explain it to you further.  

Well, that is simply absurd. But I have not seen any sizeable movement pushing this agenda, so it leaves me nonplussed as to why people are arguing it so vehemently.

[anatess2]

Just now, Vort said:

Well, that is simply absurd. But I have not seen any sizeable movement pushing this agenda, so it leaves me nonplussed as to why people are arguing it so vehemently.

It is not only absurd, it is actually against Canon Law.  A requirement of Canon Law in this process is the fulfillment of obligations to the community.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Nobody is saying this, not even the Catholic Church.  @john4truth, unfortunately is not for truth but for attacking the Catholic Church.  At least that's how he's coming off.  @carlimac, on the other hand, seeks to understand as she gets us to understand where she's coming from.

Okay, so the RC Church applies its internal discipline via its "Canonical Law", while the government sees to jail time and other secular punishments. What's the problem?

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Okay, so the RC Church applies its internal discipline via its "Canonical Law", while the government sees to jail time and other secular punishments. What's the problem?

Besides the specific issues brought up by @carlimac and @Chilean of priests not following Canon Law... there is a conflict between Canon Law and US Law on the process.  Canon Law seeks to prepare the penitent for reconciliation before surrendering him to US Law.  US Law requires immediate reporting and immediate rolling of US justice against the perpetrator which Canon Law process may not be ready to do.  In this conflict, Canon Law puts the balance on the salvation of the soul rather than the fulfillment of secular legal proceedings (don't give to Cesar what is God's).

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

there is a conflict between Canon Law and US Law on the process.  Canon Law seeks to prepare the penitent for reconciliation before surrendering him to US Law.  US Law requires immediate reporting and immediate rolling of US justice against the perpetrator which Canon Law process may not be ready to do.

If this is the root of the conflict (and thanks for spelling it out for me in words small enough that I can actually understand them), then I have to agree with the critics. It is unconscionable for the RC Church to delay reporting criminal activity while they pursue their own agenda.

[anatess2]

Just now, Vort said:

If this is the root of the conflict (and thanks for spelling it out for me in words small enough that I can actually understand them), then I have to agree with the critics. It is unconscionable for the RC Church to delay reporting criminal activity while they pursue their own agenda.

You and @NeuroTypical are in agreement because.... tat-tada, you are LDS and not Catholic.  For a Catholic, "their own agenda" is salvation.  And there's nothing more important than that.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

. It is unconscionable for the RC Church to delay reporting criminal activity while they pursue their own agenda.

I agree with you @Vort. Rhetorically speaking, I think we need to ask ourselves if we would apply the same standard to our own religion. 

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Okay, so the RC Church applies its internal discipline via its "Canonical Law", while the government sees to jail time and other secular punishments. What's the problem?

Historically this has not been the case...  But Cannon Law has changed in recently to do this.

Imagine if you will the Vatican as an Independent Nation State, its churches as embassies, and it priest as diplomats with diplomatic immunity.  (it is not the case but that is the kind of behavior we have been looking at historically)

 When your diplomat breaks the law of the country they are in... you do not want them subject to local laws... you want them sent home so you can deal with it/them according to your laws.  Historically the Catholic Church has had the power to do this.  But they do not any more, and it took a bit to adapt to the change (which it has by changing the Cannon Law)

Like on every police drama ever when you are dealing with 'diplomats' who are corrupt things do not always go the way you want them to when trying to bring them to justice

[NeuroTypical]

I guess I'm having an inexact understanding of things.  I have had numerous Catholics tell me directly their clergy are not bound by mandatory reporting guidelines.  I hear you saying this:

Quote

 A requirement of Canon Law in this process is the fulfillment of obligations to the community.

Exactly how many police reports were made by Catholic leadership on the latest round of priest abuses in the current round of media attention?  I'm thinking none.   

 

Here is one of your posts that have me thinking some Catholics are all about "we'll handle this in-house, no involvement by secular authority is necessary".  Are you sure that's not what you mean?

On 8/28/2018 at 1:42 PM, anatess2 said:

What y'all call "covering up" is the Canon Law process of seclusion (pretty much the same as putting the guy in jail except jail is not just a holding cell... seclusion is where the priest goes through the reconciliation process to save his soul while being prevented from having access to the public).  In the Philippines, the law recognizes monasteries as qualified institutions to conduct a house arrest for criminal priests while remaining under the jurisdiction of the Philippine justice system.  No such thing exists in US Law.  Therefore, they call it "hiding the priest".

The Catholic Church doesn't call them "crimes" rather they call them "sin".  Crimes are secular judgments.  Lying to your mother may not be a crime, but it is a sin and would have Canon Law consequences (may need to confess to the priest and get absolution).  Sexual predation is a mortal sin - that is, the consequence of which is eternal burning in the fires of hell, especially for somebody that has made the covenant to God to minister to his flock.  It is, therefore, the primary objective of the Catholic Church to save that man's soul as well as the soul of the victims.

Remember, the Catholic Church is not just a religious institution.  It is also a system of government.

Edited September 19, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You and @NeuroTypical are in agreement because.... tat-tada, you are LDS and not Catholic.  For a Catholic, "their own agenda" is salvation.  And there's nothing more important than that.

No, I don't think so. Because I agree that salvation is more important. That's not relevant.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I guess I'm having an inexact understanding of things.  I have had numerous Catholics tell me directly their clergy are not bound by mandatory reporting guidelines.  I hear you saying this:

Exactly how many police reports were made by Catholic leadership on the latest round of priest abuses in the current round of media attention?  I'm thinking none.   

 

Here is one of your posts that have me thinking some Catholics are all about "we'll handle this in-house, no involvement by secular authority is necessary".  Are you sure that's not what you mean?

John Paull II changed Canon Law in ~2002 to specify cooperation with local law as part of the Church's obligation to the community.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, I don't think so. Because I agree that salvation is more important. That's not relevant.

It is VERY RELEVANT because the conflict exists solely for the purpose of the salvation of the penitent's soul.  US Law has no such provisions.

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2