Is the Pope in trouble

[NeuroTypical]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

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

I am interested and want to read more on this.  Do you have a link?  Also, do you have any sense as to what "cooperation" means?

Cooperation (1): If the cops show up, we'll work with them.   
Cooperation (2): If we learn that a priest has committed a crime against a paritioner, we will call the cops.

Again, I literally cannot swing a dead cat on a Catholic board without hitting a dozen of them telling me they don't do definition #2.  Half of 'em are quite vociferous on 'priest penitent privilege' and 'sanctity of the confessional' and everything when I try to get a direct answer about #1.

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I am interested and want to read more on this.  Do you have a link?  Also, do you have any sense as to what "cooperation" means?

Cooperation (1): If the cops show up, we'll work with them.   
Cooperation (2): If we learn that a priest has committed a crime against a paritioner, we will call the cops.

Again, I literally cannot swing a dead cat on a Catholic board without hitting a dozen of them telling me they don't do definition #2.  Half of 'em are quite vociferous on 'priest penitent privilege' and 'sanctity of the confessional' and everything when I try to get a direct answer about #1.

 

"Don't give to Cesar what is God's".  In the USA (as required by US law):  Cooperation both 1 and 2 while working with utmost diligence such that the reconciliation process has a chance to occur. 

The primary objective, of course, is the salvation of one's soul.  Therefore, when the magnitude of conflict of surrendering the penitent to secular law guarantees the soul being lost, the church can go the route of the martyr.  But, that is not written in the US Canon Law policies.  That's just my take on it.

I will get you that JPII change.  I have to go looking for it.

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I am interested and want to read more on this.  Do you have a link?  Also, do you have any sense as to what "cooperation" means?

Cooperation (1): If the cops show up, we'll work with them.   
Cooperation (2): If we learn that a priest has committed a crime against a paritioner, we will call the cops.

Again, I literally cannot swing a dead cat on a Catholic board without hitting a dozen of them telling me they don't do definition #2.  Half of 'em are quite vociferous on 'priest penitent privilege' and 'sanctity of the confessional' and everything when I try to get a direct answer about #1.

 

Okay, I have all the Canon Law on it with all the changes encapsulated in one document in English with the supporting documents (policies written for the law for its execution).  But as I'm reading it with the perspective of a non-Catholic, it is confusing (except maybe for @Just_A_Guy who is well-versed not only in legalese but also in Latin which Canon Law is written as).

So, I'm going to start with this simple summary and then edit this post to link all the details if you want to get the fuller (but a lot more complicated reading) picture.

This is the Policy FAQ derived from Canon Law issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (policies only applying to the US):

http://www.usccb.org/upload/FAQs-canonical-process-sexual-abuse.pdf

Excerpt:

What does canon law now require a bishop to do when he receives an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor committed by a cleric (priest or deacon)?

A: The Code of Canon Law stipulates that the first steps after receipt of an allegation of the commission of an ecclesiastical crime are usually taken by the local bishop. If the priest against whom an allegation is brought is a member of a religious order, his superior might take the first steps instead. Any allegation that has the semblance of truth (it is not manifestly false or frivolous) undergoes what is referred to as a preliminary investigation. During the preliminary investigation, the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and his good name must not be illegitimately harmed. According to the Essential Norms, which constitute law on sexual abuse of minors for the dioceses of the United States, the investigation should be conducted promptly and objectively. The Essential Norms also require the bishop to follow all civil reporting laws when the allegation concerns the sexual abuse of minors. Church officials are also to cooperate with civil authorities in their own investigations. Moreover, the bishop exercises his power of governance in other ways to make sure no harm comes to children during the phase of the preliminary investigation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to dig deeper into Canon Law, here it is.  It's, for sure, not for the casual inquirer.

Edit #1:   Canon Law Summary of Changes that covers pedophilia by priests:  http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_introd-storica_en.html

Relevant Excerpts:

Delicts against morality:

1. The violation of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, committed by a cleric with a minor under the age of 18.

The procedural norms to be followed in these cases were as follows:

Whenever an Ordinary or Hierarch had at least probable knowledge (notitiam saltem verisimilem habeat) of the commission of one of the reserved grave delicts, after having carried out the preliminary investigation, he was to inform the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which, unless it called the case to itself because of special circumstances, would indicate to the Ordinary or Hierarch how to proceed. The right of appeal against a sentence of the first instance was to be exercised only before the Supreme Tribunal of the Congregation.

Criminal action in the cases reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was extinguished by a prescription of ten years. It was also foreseen that prescription would be computed according to the norms of CIC can. 1362 § 2 and CCEO can. 1152 § 3, with the singular exception of the delict contra sextum cum minore, in which case prescription would begin to run from the day when the minor had completed his eighteenth year of age.

In tribunals established by Ordinaries of Hierarchs, for the cases of the more grave delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative could be validly performed only by priests. Furthermore, upon completion of the trial in the tribunal in any manner, the acts of the case were to be transmitted ex officio, as soon as possible, to the Congregation.

 

Edit #2:   Sacramentum Sanctitatis Tutela https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela.html

Relevant Excerpts:

... we expressly established, “[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against the faith and more grave delicts whether against morals or committed in the celebration of the sacraments, which have been referred to it and, whenever necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of both common or proper law,”4 thereby further confirming and determining the judicial competence of the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as an Apostolic Tribunal.

 

Edit #3:  In case you are wondering what is this Doctrine of Faith???  This is basically the FBI/DOJ of Canon Law.   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/index.htm

 

Edit #4:  The US Conference of Catholic Bishop's policies in the application of Canon Law in the US relevant to pedophile priests:

I suggest you read this in its entirety:  

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/Charter-for-the-Protection-of-Children-and-Young-People-revised-2011.pdf

Excerpt:

ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question. Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor. In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and support this right.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[OnePassenger]

On 8/28/2018 at 8:08 PM, Traveler said:

@anatess2, most likely, has one of the best insights on our forum into current problems - The Washington Post; not the best source of anything, is reporting that a high ranking Cardinal is calling for the Pope's resignation because the Pope allegedly knew of sex abuses for years and was part of the silent cover up.  I do not like speculation in such matters - but I believe this could hurt Christianity in the greater landscape of public opinion as much as or perhaps more so than the separation between much of Traditional Christian doctrine and Science.  

Many of the agnostics and atheists I know are difficult to engage in religious centered discussion just because they are "fed" up with religion as a whole.

 

The Traveler

"... but I believe this could hurt Christianity in the greater landscape of public opinion as much as or perhaps more so than the separation between much of Traditional Christian doctrine and Science. "

Nope. In my opinion the truth has to be brought out - they are pederasts. No doubt about. I remember Brigham Young's words from JoD, that even if you made half a step to their direction, you made half a step to hell. And remember Jesus' own words from the Bible what HE recommended to do with those  ones who abuse HIS little ones. It's the citation where HE recommends, dass man  ihnen einen Mühlstein um den Hals hängen sollte, um sie im Fluss zu versenken.

Edited September 19, 2018 by OnePassenger

[anatess2]

@NeuroTypical, I know I provided a mountain to respond to your simple question.  But, there's just not a simple way to provide you official links.  So, hopefully, I didn't confuse you more in the process. 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is the Policy FAQ derived from Canon Law issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (policies only applying to the US):

http://www.usccb.org/upload/FAQs-canonical-process-sexual-abuse.pdf

Excerpt:

[...]The Essential Norms also require the bishop to follow all civil reporting laws when the allegation concerns the sexual abuse of minors. Church officials are also to cooperate with civil authorities in their own investigations.

That works.  So, it's a policy faq from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Not exactly "the Pope says", but it's absolutely more than what I thought was there.  I do indeed continue to run into Catholics who don't know this, I'll begin passing on the link.  I am guessing they will complain that the USCCB isn't doctrine, isn't binding, and is full of politically motivated people who sometimes push agendas pretty far away from Rome, the Catholic Church, and God.  (Just guessing.  But I've heard such things before.)

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That works.  So, it's a policy faq from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Not exactly "the Pope says", but it's absolutely more than what I thought was there.  I do indeed continue to run into Catholics who don't know this, I'll begin passing on the link.  I am guessing they will complain that the USCCB isn't doctrine, isn't binding, and is full of politically motivated people who sometimes push agendas pretty far away from Rome, the Catholic Church, and God.  (Just guessing.  But I've heard such things before.)

It is the Pope Says... I gave you tons of material that ties that policy to Sacramentum Sanctitatis Tutela prepared by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and signed by Pope John Paul II and released to the congregation on April 30 2001 (I thought it was 2002, but it is 2001) which is a change to Canon Law and VERY BINDING.   I also linked the history of changes to Canon Law regarding this issue so you can track how it went from - the Canon Law has primary juridiction period - back in the 1920's to how it is now.  That's why I linked all those stuff!  And I gave excerpts to make it easier for you.

Remember, the Catholic Church is a worldwide church.  Canon Law and the Doctrine of Faith (FBI/DOJ of Canon Law) is a global governance.  So there are global policies and there are regional policies derived from those global ones as applicable.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is the FBI/DOJ for the US only.  Saying that the USCCB push agendas far from Rome is the same as saying the General Authorities in the Philippines issuing policies around the doctrine of Marriage under Philippine No-Divorce Law and Filipino culture push agendas far from Salt Lake.

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

Hey, you're not arguing with me here.  I go to CAF and read their forums where they're discussing the issue among themselves - if you want to find people who are disagreeing with what you're telling me, they have 'em in droves over there...

[carlimac]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"Don't give to Cesar what is God's".  In the USA (as required by US law):  Cooperation both 1 and 2 while working with utmost diligence such that the reconciliation process has a chance to occur. 

The primary objective, of course, is the salvation of one's soul.  Therefore, when the magnitude of conflict of surrendering the penitent to secular law guarantees the soul being lost, the church can go the route of the martyr.  But, that is not written in the US Canon Law policies.  That's just my take on it.

I will get you that JPII change.  I have to go looking for it.

I still don't understand the supposition that surrendering to secular law guarantees the soul being lost.  How does anyone know that?

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, carlimac said:

I still don't understand the supposition that surrendering to secular law guarantees the soul being lost.  How does anyone know that?

The Sacrament of Reconciliation HAS to happen for the Priest to be saved.  If this can't happen - for example, the priest commits suicide or is killed or dies from illness, or goes insane, etc. etc. - then he is lost.  Christ is, of course, the final arbiter.  But the Catholic Church believes they are God's mouthpiece/authority on earth.

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

59 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hey, you're not arguing with me here.  I go to CAF and read their forums where they're discussing the issue among themselves - if you want to find people who are disagreeing with what you're telling me, they have 'em in droves over there...

I was banned by CAF, otherwise, I'd be over there arguing with them.  It's really not much different than Mormons - although in a much smaller group - you have the people who promote different ideas not necessarily in line with prophetic teachings.  The number of Sunday Catholics who don't know their own faith is not insignificant.

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[carlimac]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I was banned by CAF, otherwise, I'd be over there arguing with them.  It's really not much different than Mormons - although in a much smaller group - you have the people who promote different ideas not necessarily in line with prophetic teachings.  The number of Sunday Catholics who don't know their own faith is not insignificant.

What is CAF? I looked it up and got  Confederation of African Football. 😀

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, carlimac said:

What is CAF? I looked it up and got  Confederation of African Football. 😀

Catholic Anatess-hating Forum.

[NeuroTypical]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

Catholic Anatess-hating Forum.

Indeed.  They ain't banned me yet!  (Although I have received a few infractions for proselytizing and being rude.

(And it's the Catholic Answers Forum.  Like this place, but full of Catholics!)

Edited September 19, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[carlimac]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  They ain't banned me yet!  (Although I have received a few infractions for proselytizing and being rude.

(And it's the Catholic Answers Forum.  Like this place, but full of Catholics!)

Ha! I've been reading that forum and didn't even realize that's what it was. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  They ain't banned me yet!  (Although I have received a few infractions for proselytizing and being rude.

(And it's the Catholic Answers Forum.  Like this place, but full of Catholics!)

What's it like being an open LDS in a Catholic forum? Not an insult, genuinely curious. 

[Jane_Doe]

26 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What's it like being an open LDS in a Catholic forum? Not an insult, genuinely curious. 

(I'm not @NeuroTypical, but spent lots of time on CAF and many other religious forums)

Some folks on CAF are just really nice people and happy to talk about anything with anyone.  I actually made some really good friends there.  Some other is anti-LDS (including a few ex-LDS with axes to grind), and some folks are just anti-anything-that's not Catholic.   So all in all, it's a mixed bag.  The "ignore" feature is great for axe-grinders.  I was able to clear up some myths about the LDS church, and I learned a lots about the Catholic Church and the variety there as well (this was during my 15 month extensive study Catholicism campaign).  

On a different note: one reason I love {insert whatever we're going to call this forum} is I think we do a really good job treating non-LDS folks with respect.  Many other religious forums out there don't treat others well at all.  I'll actually give CAF a C+ in that category.  

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

(I'm not @NeuroTypical, but spent lots of time on CAF and many other religious forums)

Some folks on CAF are just really nice people and happy to talk about anything with anyone.  I actually made some really good friends there.  Some other is anti-LDS (including a few ex-LDS with axes to grind), and some folks are just anti-anything-that's not Catholic.   So all in all, it's a mixed bag.  The "ignore" feature is great for axe-grinders.  I was able to clear up some myths about the LDS church, and I learned a lots about the Catholic Church and the variety there as well (this was during my 15 month extensive study Catholicism campaign).  

On a different note: one reason I love {insert whatever we're going to call this forum} is I think we do a really good job treating non-LDS folks with respect.  Many other religious forums out there don't treat others well at all.  I'll actually give CAF a C+ in that category.  

Thanks @Jane_Doe! 

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  They ain't banned me yet!  (Although I have received a few infractions for proselytizing and being rude.

(And it's the Catholic Answers Forum.  Like this place, but full of Catholics!)

Believe it or not, I didn't get banned for putting forward the LDS point of view.  I got banned for calling them out on their errors in their Catholic understanding when my stated religious affiliation is LDS-convert-from-Catholic.  They didn't believe me even when I do exactly what I did here - lay out all the Canon Law that proves their error.

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, MormonGator said:

What's it like being an open LDS in a Catholic forum? Not an insult, genuinely curious. 

I only know CAF - I'm sure there are others.   Its mostly similar - CAF is bigger with a more global reach I think.  Sometimes a tad more similar to a YouTube comments section, with random people dropping their two cents and disappearing.  Here are some differences: 

Us: We're happy to talk about us, we tend to shy away from criticizing or critiquing other religions.*
CAF: They're happy to talk about them, and they're also happy to talk about why the rest of Christianity is wrong and needs to come back to the fold.

Things that tick us off: Criticizing our church.
Things that tick them off: Being disingenuous, proselytizing. 

I like CAF and find it full of mostly good people - even most the ones who go to great lengths to be critical of my faith.

 

 

* (Except Scientologists.  I'm happy to critique the heck out of them until their ears burst into flames.)

Edited September 20, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

I like CAF and find it full of mostly good people - even most the ones who go to great lengths to be critical of my faith.

 

When I was still frequenting the site, it's like every other post on the non-Catholic forum were another attack on Mormons.  Don't know if that changed.  And if it wasn't Mormons it was Scientologists...

 

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

* (Except Scientologists.  I'm happy to critique the heck out of them until their ears burst into flames.)

Ohhh!  So that's why you didn't get banned from CAF! 

 

 

 

[mordorbund]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It is the Pope Says... I gave you tons of material that ties that policy to Sacramentum Sanctitatis Tutela

Is Dr. Strange the new Pope?

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

* (Except Scientologists.  I'm happy to critique the heck out of them until their ears burst into flames.)

When I converted from Catholicism to Mormonism, a cousin said "What's next? Scientology?" I told him that I was going to be the best man at Tom Cruises next wedding. He didn't laugh. 

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Is Dr. Strange the new Pope?

That's a good question... 

Probably not, though.  The Pope would've flung that idiot, Starlord, to the other side of the broken planet.

[fatima]

On 9/19/2018 at 7:12 PM, MormonGator said:

What's it like being an open LDS in a Catholic forum? Not an insult, genuinely curious. 

The LDS people at Mormon hub are much more respectful to other faiths than the CAF people are to LDS posters.  However, I think that the admins are less tolerant here of Catholics explaining and teaching about their faith than the admins are at CAF.  Just my opinion.