Thanks. I think we agree on most matters, except, perhaps, the status of an “employer” vis-à-vis the State (read Western democracy). You suggest cannon law and secular law are, in a sense, equivalents. I would suggest a Church (or Bank) can merely have policies of a lesser legal station. Consequently, any first call/contact should be to the police, not the hierarchy of the Church. Moreover, secret tribunals are a concern whether for clergy or police (Barrister mentioned this on your link) and documents should not be transferred to clergy with immunity to answering a summons (if this still happens today).

When in my twenties, I acted to protect (not really cover-up) a staff member (who reported to me). She was on the telephone with a frustrating customer and was over heard by the customer, to say to a colleague, “stupid women”. The customer complained to the Bank. “The” Boss wanted to fire her, wherein, I very much came to her defence, even though there were grounds for dismissal. I can see a fellow priest or police sergeant acting in the same to protect for a junior staff from dismissal for calling a parishioner or member of the public “stupid”, to save their job. On the other hand, for a serious crime, I would call the police and forget the Bank (or University now). Perhaps, the Vow of Obedience is too generalised and makes it hard to go “outside”.

We would actually agree more fully, if the first point of call to report these instances was to civil authorities than one’s employer.

Actually chances are that I didn’t eat meat on Friday because my mother was of a generation whom would have cooked fish on Friday routinely. My real OLO point was priests will withhold Confession and therefore absolution. So, the Church could do the same until such time offending priests/bishops turned themselves into Caesar.

Good larder story. I see your priest’s smile. Around a similar age, I would make-up a few small sins, because I didn’t have any real wrongdoings to report. I was just an average kid.

Apologies to Oliver and Pericles, I haven't looked at this string for several days now. Oliver - I have yet to watch the video you posted so will have to wait to respond to that one.

@ Pericles. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein? His work on "language games" represents a direct assault on the notion of Platonic essences. For example, what is the essence of a game? He prefers to speak about family resemblances. I am not as extreme as old Ludwig but whilst there are situations that can be subsumed by a general principle there are others that no philosopher has yet been able to define. Look at the debates that surround a definition of knowledge!!

Natural law trumps unjust laws: Antigone, Martin Luther King. Conscience can conflict with civil/religious authority: Acts 4:19-20.

Quid ad casum. If you wish to put forward a rule about obedience to civil authority that does not admit of exceptions then I emphatically reject that principle. Thomas More was an able jurist who loved the law but he was quite prepared to commit the crime of treason. He served the king but was God's servant first.

Just as I reject vigilantism and Star Chambers that do away with the rule of law, so too I reject the other extreme of legalism and blind obedience to whatever happens to be on the statute books.

You are concerned about bringing bishops to justice. So am I. But I am also interested in bringing justice to bishops. Are you?

Dear Oliver,
Thank you again for helping me to better formulate my thoughts.

>>You suggest cannon law and secular law are, in a sense, equivalents<<
I do not, I only claimed that there is no conflict between them, hence it does not make sense to ask which one takes precedence over which one.

I agree that secret tribunals could be of concern, however secrecy often serves not only to protect the “good name” of the Church, but also to protect the victim, or even the alleged perpetrator in case the suspicion is unfounded.

The hotline, the German Episcopal Conference opened, was contacted by over 1000 people on the first day, most of them probably victims of past abuse. It is possible that some of them just wanted to be registered for future compensation, however to me the fact that most of them did not contact secular authorities or the media signals that in spite of everything they still trusted the Church more than secular authorities or the media - dealing in sensationalism more than in justice - to act in their interests (including keeping their names and stories secret if so desired). Well, at least that is my personal reading of the fact of such an overwhelming response.

>>We would actually agree more fully, if the first point of call to report these instances was to civil authorities than one’s employer.<<
I agree with you except that - as mentioned in my last post - one has to make a difference between suspicion and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. Also, any breaking of the celibacy vow that causes a scandal, even if it does not constitute a crime (i.e. it breaks the Canon but not the Civil Law), should be made known to responsible ecclesial authorities who should act upon it, although civil authorities would not be interested, and media’s “interest” would not serve any justifiable purpose.

Sorry George, I can't let that one through to the 'keeper.

>>hence it does not make sense to ask which one takes precedence over which one.<<

As a citizen, I most certainly take exception to a separate set of laws, which a group of people within a society unilaterally decides should apply to them. If the "law of the land" does not prevail over canon law, then why should it prevail over those of any other self-described groups?

Which is the point that Gordo Pollo is taking great pains to avoid, by using extremist arguments.

>>Thomas More was an able jurist who loved the law but he was quite prepared to commit the crime of treason. He served the king but was God's servant first.<<

And was, quite appropriately, tried, convicted and beheaded for his trouble. He was defending the historical supremacy of the Church over the State, and was taken to task for it. To some that makes him a martyr - notably, of course, the Church that he was defending - but to others he was simply spitting in the face of the King's authority.

Don't forget also, that if he'd had his way the Bible would still be in Latin, and remain the sole preserve of scholars and priests.

>>Natural law trumps unjust laws: Antigone, Martin Luther King.<<

Antigone is mythological, a traveller's tale.

Martin Luther King was an activist against manifestly unjust laws. He did not however seek to hide from those laws, by claiming that they did not apply to him.

>>Just as I reject vigilantism and Star Chambers that do away with the rule of law, so too I reject the other extreme of legalism and blind obedience to whatever happens to be on the statute books.<<

So which do we have here, Gordo Pollo, underneath your rhetoric?

Are you likening our courts to the Star Chamber, as a reason that priests should be protected from them?

Or are you pleading that the statute books are in error, and your priests' activities should be seen as a form of protests against their unjust nature?

As regards the Star Chamber I was actually referring to abusive processes undertaken outside the scope of the civil law.

Your defence of Henry VIII against Thomas More is an apology for state terror.

Your dismissal of Antigone doesn't cut it either. Literary figures are of the greatest importance in Moral Philosophy.

Pericles,
>> If the "law of the land" does not prevail over canon law, then why should it prevail over those of any other self-described groups? <<

First of all, there is one Canon Law and many “laws of the land” depending on the country, including those of Nazi Germany or Communist countries. So Canon Law cannot universally prevail or not prevail.

I presume you have in mind e.g. contemporary Australia (or USA or Germany). Consider the two implications:

If there is a conflict between what the Canon and Civil Laws require, then the Canon Law should prevail.
If there is a conflict between what the Canon and Civil Laws require, then the Civil Law should prevail.

They are both correct if no such conflict exists, so I couldn’t mind if you prefer the second one. The same with the “laws” or rules of any organisation or “self-described group” that do not contradict the “laws of the land”.

[My grandfather: “When St. Michael (a statue in my native town) can hear the church bells, then he kneels down and prays” which I could not falsify since a statue could not hear.]

If you can quote a passage in Canon Law and a passage in Civil or Criminal Law of the country you have in mind, that contradict each other, then there is a problem, which a lawyer - not I - should try to resolve, and if unable then I would have to withdraw my statement about the compatibility of the two Laws.

I believe that no such conflict exists since otherwise no negotiations would have taken place between secular and local Catholic authorities (in Germany, and I presume elsewhere as well) about how to cooperate in making sure that in future no pedophilia crimes and “cover-ups” (however defined) occur.

Let me add that this is very different from the more complicated question of freedom of conscience (e.g. of a Catholic), which again strongly depends on the country and its legal system. In this case no “logic” can provide a simple answer.