Hi George,

So you would prefer bishops sould rendef unto Caesar in the instance and not have the Church act as as the investigator of first resort. However, what should the Pope do, when bishops protect the Church covering-up matters? What should the bishops staff, who know about the cover-ups do?

"one has to make a difference between suspicion and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt."

Agree. Yet, is that not the role of twelve good men and women? The church's policies should be secondary to real Law, surely.

Maybe, the compromise between the letting bishops get away with cover-ups and having them face real jail time, is for the offenders do a "deal" with the Public Prosecutor; i.e., to allocute inCourt, a conviction recorded, but no prison. The Church then progresses to Cannon Law, regarding laicizing (making lay) the cleric, if sees fit. Such an action would certaintly help the Church's image.

No one would think any worst of the Deutche Bank were to hand over a thief. Why is the Catholic Church any different? With say a million clergy, in all probability there will hundreds perhaps thousands of criminals. As a mathematician you would be aware that large samples are more likely approximate the total population than small samples.

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

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

If we agree that 2. is true, especially in Western Democracies, and, further, there is no conflict between the Codes, we should not have the Vatican giving sanctuary to Western clergy members. WE shold not have the Church moving paperwork to thwart the Phoenix (US) DA. "Actions speak loader than words."

Incendently,I feell, all of this has nothing to do with the typical priest (unles he knows something and is not telling police) or good people gooding to Mass, withinn their belief system.

Hi Oliver,
Let me repeat that nobody denies that some/many bishops acted, irresponsibly and inappropriately from a moral - Catholic or not - point of view. Some, e.g. the French Pican, were also tried and convicted, many were not for various reasons. So we do not differ on this.

It is the legal, not moral, aspect that is more obscure because it requires evidence (of criminal intent, of grave negligence, of obstructing justice, or whatever might be the legal terms relevant here) that the prosecuting attorney can use.

Also, I do not know of a “company” that would turn in its “employee” just on a complaint by a “customer” or another "employee" without first investigating the case itself. When does this constitute a prosecutable crime of “cover-up”? I don't know, only suspect that it will depend on circumstances peculiar to the particular case.

>>we should not have the Vatican giving sanctuary to Western clergy members<<
Can you give an example where a bishop was formally charged, e.g. by Australian or US authorities, and the Vatican refused to extradite him? Or some Catholic institution in these countries hiding a bishop and refusing to hand him over to secular authorities who wanted to prosecute him?

Maybe there are some such cases, but then the media (or you) should quote them rather than dwell on sweeping accusations, countered by equally unconvincing sweeping denials by some Church representatives. In both cases the moral and legal criterions get entangled thus obscuring the truth about what happened, should or should not have happened, in this or that case, and what can or should be done to help the victims.

I know, if it was up to you, you would punish Cardinal Law, and I tend to agree with you, but that remains a moral not legal matter.

Let me repeat, we have moved full circle to where we started, so my only reaction would be to repeat what I already wrote in my previous posts. Well, I am afraid, I actually already did exactly that.

One law for all men and woman.( religion ) This will help all concerned.
Oliver, I didnt know why you continued, cause no-one is above the law! and until god is a thing of substance, how can one be the absolute. Humans are what they are, and no one rule is god. The mind can make many things, ( numbers do not lie ) but human will not change any time soon, but they can start to think, in time.

Sorry for interrupting to..TT.. your threads.

So say-th the minds of our gods.

Your world depends on it.

TTM.

Dear George,

I do see evidence of repetition, too. Maybe, because I haven’ been clear enough in my expression. So, let us review your last post point-by-point.

1. “ Let me repeat that nobody denies that some/many bishops acted, irresponsibly and inappropriately from a moral - Catholic or not - point of view. Some, e.g. the French Pican, were also tried and convicted, many were not for various reasons. So we do not differ on this”

- Agree. To which I would add; the relevant bishops (and others) should be held accountable to civil authorities the “first” instance.

2. “It is the legal, not moral, aspect that is more obscure because it requires evidence (of criminal intent, of grave negligence, of obstructing justice, or whatever might be the legal terms relevant here) that the prosecuting attorney can use”.

- I agree it is both a moral and legal matter. Regards, the morality, we agree that cover-ups are wrong. Where we could differ is I feel for serious crimes the issue of investigation and a trial to determine the facts is not the purview of the Church. Criminal is what prosecutors, judges and juries do, not bishops. A mirror policy is redundant.

3. Also, I do not know of a “company” that would turn in its “employee” just on a complaint by a “customer” or another "employee" without first investigating the case itself. When does this constitute a prosecutable crime of “cover-up”? I don't know, only suspect that it will depend on circumstances peculiar to the particular case.

- Any internal investigation on a serious matter would be very quick. The case I cited about the Bank Manager approving a $1,000 personal loan to “bribe police”, I recall quite well from 25 years ago. It was discovered at around 9.30 am (when the Manager’s Diary (previous day’s activities)was circulated). By lunchtime, the Bank had involved the police.

-Cont-

-Cont-

4. “Can you give an example where a bishop was formally charged, e.g. by Australian or US authorities, and the Vatican refused to extradite him? Or some Catholic institution in these countries hiding a bishop and refusing to hand him over to secular authorities who wanted to prosecute him?”

The BBC programme refers to seven priests from the US. Relatedly, the Phoenix DA said the paperwork under summons was transferred to clerics with immunity. Law did not respond to the first summons to the Grand Jury. He went to the Vatican. He didn’t return to the US until the next.

5. Maybe there are some such cases, but then the media (or you) should quote them rather than dwell on sweeping accusations, countered by equally unconvincing sweeping denials by some Church representatives. In both cases the moral and legal criterions get entangled thus obscuring the truth about what happened, should or should not have happened, in this or that case, and what can or should be done to help the victims.

- Those “sweeping” accusations are being made by the more respected members of the Fourth Estate: e.g., the BBC and NY Times, not just the tabloids. If there are moral and legal entanglements, it is up to the Courts to cut Gordian knot, to the Church (or a Bank).

6. I know, if it was up to you, you would punish Cardinal Law, and I tend to agree with you, but that remains a moral not legal matter. x

- More specifically, I would like to have see Arch Priest Law face a jury and if found guilty punished. Herein, the message the Court sends might be more important.

p.s I don’t think that Ford should have pardoned Nixon. Ford allowed being a President to be above the Presidency,

TTM,

I persist because I feel systemic change is necessary to prevent cover-ups. Also, I think some OLO friends are a bit hyper, in that they jump threads, before having apt discussion. George is a stayer. As theist and skeptic, we sometimes agree and sometimes not.

True words oliver and the fundamentals are as transparent. Stayers are good to a point, and the obvious we see. The old world and the new world, the right, and the wrong, and time you think we all have. ( Everything's a circle )I will not stay long here.

Oliver. Answer me this question alone, and only you.

With each new born persons, evolution adds one more degree to the human species.

What do you think of this.

You don't have to answer and yes, being apt is an important part of any discussion or debate depending on the topic we care to see. In the interests of mankind, I have been questioned on many levels which is a fair call in anyone's logic of understanding.

i admire you and George's readings with most intellectual and diverse in all categories within the quest of the basic understandings.

Thank you both for a great thread.

ABC...... oh dear oh dear oh dear.

private joke.

TTM