Yes indeed, George.

>>As if wanting to comment on my last paragraph, the pope observed today during his flight to Portugal...<<

I heard him mention that he enjoys your posts.

And agrees with every word, of course.

Hi George,

To comment more fully I need to do some revision of past posts. At the momment I am busy with work obligations, once again. With my quick posts, I usually toggle to OLO while flat-out on somethig else. But just a two quick points:

- "am not sure why you quoted me saying “US Church representatives (don’t) deny this.”

Maybe, I misunderstood some other comments made by you. I was recognising your arguement that the Church considers both Civil Law and Canon Law. I think you said something in the past about being guilty of Canon Law and not Civil Law, wherein the Church has its own processes, which by implicit implication must be addressed. Herein, internal housekeeping is conducted before, the secular authorities are assisted. This is legal pluralism. Contrarily, the Press and Civil Authorities are unidimension seeing the weighing of evidence a matter of the secular courts. Once the judges and juries have finished with the matter, it is, afterwards, a matter for the Church, post priori.

Responding to your gentle chide, I was returning to the matter Canon Law, because, I respecting what you said about it being a valuable process of Catholicism. This point goes back to may last paragraph of this post, wherein, Canon is absolute significance to the Church, yet at best merely of relative importance to secular courts and secular journalists. It the 1960s, the phase "do your own thing" was popular. The critics seem be saying that the Church is overzealous with regards its internal processes vis-a-vis non-Church legal system.

In most of my comments I have qualified secular as "Western" and once specifically Anglo Western. There is nothing I have said suggest that I would cover-up bishops tortured by NAZIs or Stalinists.

Actually, I have said a little more than intended.

Back to modelling cultures...

Regards,

O.

George,

"The greatest persecution of the Church doesn’t come from enemies on the outside, but is born in sin within the church. The Church thus has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice. Forgiveness does not exclude justice” - Pope Benedict XVI

I see good, bad and non-recognition here.

1. Good. The Pope recognises the prpblem and wants to act.

2. Bad. He uses emotive words like "persecution" and "enemies". Sells his too. Cover-ups are not persecutions, rather misguided protection. Peolpe can criticise the Church over it having too many paedophiles and bishops covering things up, with out being "enemies" of the Church.

3, Non-Recognition. Not opening its doors and filing cabinets to secular criminal investigation teams of stable democracies. Thee Bank I once worked for was had a protracted audit of its computer systems by a three person team from the ATO, looking at matters like the computer programming for Financial Instititions Duty (now repealed). If an Office of the Vatican has Central Office with Bishopic corrspondence and secular investigation team could start there, pethaps.

Hi Oliver,

I think you are right, you misunderstood what I said. So let me repeat: The Church, like any international organisation has its internal rules, statutes, or what you call it, in this case it is the Canon Law. I claim it does not contain any item that would contradict the, say, American Civil Law. I might be wrong, but so far you have not quoted a part which does. Yes, it does not say that one should report pedophilia - or e.g. murder - to civil authorities. However, not mentioning something cannot constitute a conflict. Explicit instruction to cooperate with secular authorities are dealt with by local Conferences of Bishops, not Canon Law.

A different matter is “not opening its doors and filing cabinets”. I do not know of a company that would do that voluntarily for various reasons. However, I cannot contradict you, since as a legal non-expert I do not understand under what circumstances (and in what country) the Church can be asked to make public its internal communications. Sometimes it obviously can, as the many letters between Vatican, bishops and subordinates published online by the NYT (recently in relation to http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/world/europe/06levada.html?pagewanted=1) testify.

>>There is nothing I have said suggest that I would cover-up bishops tortured by NAZIs or Stalinists<<
I never claimed that, I mentioned those systems only to make you accept that Canon Law is not, and cannot be, taylor-made for a particular country.

>>the Church is overzealous with regards its internal processes vis-a-vis non-Church legal system<<
This might be true, however overzealousness doesn’t have to be unlawful.

When I read “persecutions” in the pope’s exhortations I interpreted it as referring to the persecutions I personally lived though, you interpreted it differently. I think it depends on one’s initial world-view position how one interprets this. However, in view of the Church’s two millennia old history, including many real persecutions, it is somewhat unlikely he would have called the NYT articles (and similar petty witch-hunts) persecutions.

.

Dear Mary,

This is just to let you know I checked in to see if you replied to my post of Wednesday 12th, on page 11 of this thread.

As it seems not, please be assured I am still around and will check in occasionally so as not to miss any comments you may care to make.

With best wishes ...

.

Hi George,

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your your point that Canon Law (probably) does not contradict the civil law of Western demorcacies. My point was that the Church should not be allowed to invetsigate crimes "before" civil authorities are involved.

My comment about the filing cabinets was a flourish, as in some cases a summons would be required. The Church should not hide damning correspondence, if it exists. Banks have a statutory obligation to report various balances to RBA, the RBA often has observer status on Australian Bankers' Committees. I know of at least once case where three ATO auditors reviewed the a Bank's internal operations relating to Financial Institutions duty. Where summons have been involved, I have less experince, because my more senior roles in Head Office; and, Court summons ob Banks have genertally to do with Customers. I was once called to act as a witness the Court ordered opening of a safe custody box inside a vault. The locks had to be drilled. Two police offices and two bank officers needed to witness and certify the opening and the contents of the box.

Maybe there could be secular observers when the cardinals meet to discuss matters. A relative of mine before she retired was the "member of the public observer" on the several police panels.

So, to summarise. Civil authorities, first. Church, governors of Cannon law, second. Be more open and hand over what is already known, including bishops who knew what happened did not tell the police: Lat a Court decide the legalities. Have members of the public observe meetings between the cardinals. I realise the latter is a pipe dream: I have had occasion to contact Vatican colleges (with help, in English, Italian and Latin) and been totally ignored. Secular universities, always reply, even, to politely say they too busy. (I was asking about visits by the Jesuits to China in the Middle, Ages as I was reearching a related topic.)

More later.

Take care.