Can A Devout Catholic Arrest His Priest?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

According to current Canon Law a Cardinal must be a bishop, if he is not he must be ordained to be one after being made a Cardinal.

The pope can dispense from Canon Law, as he did for Avery Dulles, but that is not the norm.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, I believe that there is no official rule and at one point laymen would sometimes serve as Cardinals. This has led some Catholics feminists to pose the question:
“all right, so women can’t be priests, but Cardinals don’t have to be priests either, so why can’t we have female Cardinals?”

From what I have seen the conservative response to this tends to be incredulous laughter, followed by an uncomfortable silence as they say things like “wait your serious?”

 

[AngryAtheist8]

According to current Canon Law a Cardinal must be a bishop, if he is not he must be ordained to be one after being made a Cardinal.

The pope can dispense from Canon Law, as he did for Avery Dulles, but that is not the norm.

I guess I was wrong, and they closed that little loophole.

 

[PacoG]

Many of the more liberal Catholics on this board will no doubt think that this is a stupid question. That of course when a priest commits a major crime he should be treated like any other criminal.

As a Criminal Defense Attorney and Catholic, I take exception to this wording.

An accused priest should be treated as any other accused person. He should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury in a court of competent jurisdiction. He should be afforded the right to counsel and the right to refuse to testify against himself. He should be able to call (and compel if necessary) witnesses in his favor. He is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of his peers (meaning other citizens).

A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime. An accused person is just that…a person who has been accused of a crime.

Of course, our criminal justice system was created in a Christian civilization. We all know by watching the USSR, Cambodia and China how wonderful Atheistic justice is.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The stories from Ireland, or anywhere else that abuse has happened, have absolutely nothing to do with being a Catholic.They have to do with sinful people violating both the laws of God, and the laws of man. Each and every person that has, in any way, harmed a child should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

If a devout Catholic has reason to believe that a Priest, Nun, Brother, Bishop, Cardinal or any other form of religious has committed a crime, they would have an affirmative DUTY to arrest that person.

Not to do so would not only violate civil law, but it might be a sin as well. They would know that they were violating the law, and doing wrong.

If a state were to condone, or cover up wrongdoing by a Priest or Religious, that state would also be wrong. The officials that covered up those crimes would be committing sin in doing that.

 

[estesbob]

The basic question is whether or not a good Catholic in law enforcement can arrest his or her parish priest if their suspected of lawbreaking.

It all comes down to how much deference a lay Catholic owes the religious, and whether or not the same rules apply to priests as everyone else.

For instance, if a Catholic cop found his priest with a murder victim’s body and the murder weapon in his hands, would loyalty to the Church compel the cop to take the priest at his word when he said that he didn’t do it?

Many of the more liberal Catholics on this board will no doubt think that this is a stupid question. That of course when a priest commits a major crime he should be treated like any other criminal.

But I believe that it is relevant. If only because stories leaking out of Ireland and other places were the Church has had close ties to the state, show that in the past priests have considered themselves above the law, and that local authorities have sometimes gone along with this idea.

A devout Catholic would be required to treat his priest as he would anybody else.

 

[estesbob]

Can we just arrest priests for pushing evolution back thousands of years?

 

[StTommyMore]

Do the same rules apply to Bishops and other high ranking members of the hierarchy?

Obviously the Pope is a special case, but what about the other Bishops?
Or the Cardinals?

This would really depend on their actual position. For example, a member of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps would have diplomatic immunity (just as any other diplomat would) but others would not.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course, our criminal justice system was created in a Christian civilization. We all know by watching the USSR, Cambodia and China how wonderful Atheistic justice is.

No that was communist justice.

In practice communism has proven to be a materialistic religion, since it requires unwavering belief in certain principals and predictions (the coming class war in all capitalist societies, the inevitable victory of the proletariat, etc.) and bases its policies on those principals and predictions.

While it is true that all ‘good’ communists must be atheists, not all atheists are communists. There is nothing to prevent an atheist from embracing capitalism (the opposite of communism) and in fact many of us do (such as myself).

I apologize if my poor use of judicial terms caused office though.
I am not an expert in that field.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

The basic question is whether or not a good Catholic in law enforcement can arrest his or her parish priest if their suspected of lawbreaking.

It all comes down to how much deference a lay Catholic owes the religious, and whether or not the same rules apply to priests as everyone else.

For instance, if a Catholic cop found his priest with a murder victim’s body and the murder weapon in his hands, would loyalty to the Church compel the cop to take the priest at his word when he said that he didn’t do it?

Many of the more liberal Catholics on this board will no doubt think that this is a stupid question. That of course when a priest commits a major crime he should be treated like any other criminal.

But I believe that it is relevant. If only because stories leaking out of Ireland and other places were the Church has had close ties to the state, show that in the past priests have considered themselves above the law, and that local authorities have sometimes gone along with this idea.

As a police officer and a Catholic, I can tell you that, if a priest committed a crime, I would arrest him. If I had to investigate a priest as a suspect in a crime, I would investigate him. If I had to write a priest a ticket for a traffic violation, I’d probably let him slide.

 

[pnewton]

It is very interesting indeed. It is interesting that he is so honest about it. Many police officers are afforded discretion in whether to write a ticket or not. Most do not write tickets for family members, co-workers or on themselves. Most would not write a ticket for their friends. I also know many officers that will not write tickets on Christmas, if they can help it. Of course, their are situations where the law does not allow discretion, or common sense must prevent letting the guy off. If the person was intoxicated or there was any other reason to suspect he was an continuing danger, then the officer must take action.

I don’t think that is what the OP is asking, though. I think the question is whether a Catholic would fail to discharge his lawful duty in the face of a criminal act. The answer is, of course not.

 

[puzzleannie]

The basic question is whether or not a good Catholic in law enforcement can arrest his or her parish priest if their suspected of lawbreaking.

It all comes down to how much deference a lay Catholic owes the religious, and whether or not the same rules apply to priests as everyone else.
.

of course he should do his duty as he is sworn to in his job. priests are bound by civil and criminal laws where they reside, as are all Catholics, to the extent they do not conflict with Divine Law.

To say otherwise implies a policeman has no respect for any citizen he arrests, which is not the case.

But I believe that it is relevant. If only because stories leaking out of Ireland and other places were the Church has had close ties to the state, show that in the past priests have considered themselves above the law, and that local authorities have sometimes gone along with this idea.

OP is not playing fair, this is not the question posed in thread title, about the official and his duty and response, but implies that priests who break the law consider themselves to be above the law.

why do you consider this a “traditional Catholic” question? Please state plainly do you have reason to believe “traditional Catholicism” implies and demands cover-up of criminal activity on the part of a priest, fellow Catholic or anyone else? In other words, precisely what is your agenda with the question, which you twist in the middle, and the choice of forum?

 

[Debora123]

A tendency I have noticed among the extremely religious is that they tend to think of science and atheism as rival religions.

Science is the opposite of religion and atheism is simply a denial of religion, the occult, and all forms of belief in the supernatural (at least until evidence for them can be provided).

Completely untrue. In fact, JPII actually SUPPORTS evolution. It doesn’t get anymore “scientific” than evolution, and our late pope, as well as the one before him (Pius XII) both wrote about and supported evolution.

I went to Catholic school and it wasn’t against our religion to have science class. I’m not sure where you got that idea from but unfortunately you’ve been terribly misinformed.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And I’ll defer to you, Jharek, for a better understanding of the Irish Catholics and their role in Ireland. I agree that considering the specific country and its history there was probably a much more complex and multi-faceted ‘reaction’ among both the ‘lay’ and the clergy in Ireland than there has been in the U.S. I’ll also agree that it is very possible that (at least for a few generations) the Church in Ireland may not ‘enjoy’ the ‘status’ it had enjoyed historically. However, that doesn’t mean that (in time and due to events in the future) people (lay and clergy) will not have a ‘good’ relationship or that the current upset will increase or remain upset.

As to our friend “Angry Atheist”, he really does misunderstand in that he is the one who is trying to ‘separate’ science/religion, etc., not the Church.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

It is very interesting indeed. It is interesting that he is so honest about it. Many police officers are afforded discretion in whether to write a ticket or not. Most do not write tickets for family members, co-workers or on themselves. Most would not write a ticket for their friends. I also know many officers that will not write tickets on Christmas, if they can help it. Of course, their are situations where the law does not allow discretion, or common sense must prevent letting the guy off. If the person was intoxicated or there was any other reason to suspect he was an continuing danger, then the officer must take action.

I don’t think that is what the OP is asking, though. I think the question is whether a Catholic would fail to discharge his lawful duty in the face of a criminal act. The answer is, of course not.

You are exactly right about the discretion in most traffic cases. The cases you cited that do not allow for that discretion are considered criminal offenses. BTW, if I can help it, I try not to write any tickets the week of Christmas.

 

[Glennon_P]

The basic question is whether or not a good Catholic in law enforcement can arrest his or her parish priest if their suspected of lawbreaking.

In the U.S., at least, only if he/she has probable cause.

 

[white_sheep]

It is very interesting indeed. It is interesting that he is so honest about it. Many police officers are afforded discretion in whether to write a ticket or not. Most do not write tickets for family members, co-workers or on themselves. Most would not write a ticket for their friends. I also know many officers that will not write tickets on Christmas, if they can help it. Of course, their are situations where the law does not allow discretion, or common sense must prevent letting the guy off. If the person was intoxicated or there was any other reason to suspect he was an continuing danger, then the officer must take action.

I don’t think that is what the OP is asking, though. I think the question is whether a Catholic would fail to discharge his lawful duty in the face of a criminal act. The answer is, of course not.

And further there is such thing as professional courtesy. Cops often are more lenient with others who are in the force such as probation officers, deputies, firemen, game wardens, probably military personnel as well. It makes good sense to give Catholic clergy the same sort of leniency especially considering their salary. If I were a cop I would do the same, but if there was something more than a traffic violation at play they’d get the same treatment as everyone else.

 

[JReducation]

The basic question is whether or not a good Catholic in law enforcement can arrest his or her parish priest if their suspected of lawbreaking.

It all comes down to how much deference a lay Catholic owes the religious, and whether or not the same rules apply to priests as everyone else.

For instance, if a Catholic cop found his priest with a murder victim’s body and the murder weapon in his hands, would loyalty to the Church compel the cop to take the priest at his word when he said that he didn’t do it?

Many of the more liberal Catholics on this board will no doubt think that this is a stupid question. That of course when a priest commits a major crime he should be treated like any other criminal.

But I believe that it is relevant. If only because stories leaking out of Ireland and other places were the Church has had close ties to the state, show that in the past priests have considered themselves above the law, and that local authorities have sometimes gone along with this idea.

The answer is yes. But there are explanations needed here.

A law enforcement official has a duty to the citizens whom he protects.

The law enforcement officer also has a moral duty to treat anyone whom he or she arrests with respect. This means that he may never use excessive force or do anything that violates human dignity, including the dignity of the priesthood. So you don’t call out the priest because he’s a priest. You arrest him as you would any other person who is suspected of a crime. You follow the law.

An arrest is not the same as a conviction. The officer is not passing judgment or convicting the person under arrest. He or she is acting based on the circumstances before him. It is up to a jury and judge to determine culpability. As long as the arresting officer does not judge and sentence, there is nothing wrong with doing his job.

As Catholics, law enforcement officials have a duty to comply with all just laws. They do not have an obligation to comply with laws that the Church has declared unjust. Fortunately, I can’t think of any such laws in the USA. The situation occurs more often in other countries and poses a greater moral conflict with Catholic law enforcement officials in those countries.

In any arrest, the law enforcement official has a moral duty not to do physical harm to the person, unless it’s an accident that results from resisting arrest or to protect innocent life, including his own.

The arresting officer must do everything in his power to avoid making comments that will do irreparable damage to someone’s good name. You state the facts, not your opinions.

The officer must understand that the person whom he or she is arresting does not represent the rest of the clergy. His behavior represents him, unless you’re talking about arresting a priest at an anti-abortion rally. Then, he obviously represents the Church’s position on the issue. Unfortunately, some laws that govern such situations are morally shaky. It is one thing to have a law that says that you must keep a certain distance from an abortuary. It is another thing that says you cannot protest abortuaries. Believe it or not, some places have such laws.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The answer is yes. But there are explanations needed here.

A law enforcement official has a duty to the citizens whom he protects.

The law enforcement officer also has a moral duty to treat anyone whom he or she arrests with respect. This means that he may never use excessive force or do anything that violates human dignity, including the dignity of the priesthood. So you don’t call out the priest because he’s a priest. You arrest him as you would any other person who is suspected of a crime. You follow the law.

An arrest is not the same as a conviction. The officer is not passing judgment or convicting the person under arrest. He or she is acting based on the circumstances before him. It is up to a jury and judge to determine culpability. As long as the arresting officer does not judge and sentence, there is nothing wrong with doing his job.

As Catholics, law enforcement officials have a duty to comply with all just laws. They do not have an obligation to comply with laws that the Church has declared unjust. Fortunately, I can’t think of any such laws in the USA. The situation occurs more often in other countries and poses a greater moral conflict with Catholic law enforcement officials in those countries.

In any arrest, the law enforcement official has a moral duty not to do physical harm to the person, unless it’s an accident that results from resisting arrest or to protect innocent life, including his own.

The arresting officer must do everything in his power to avoid making comments that will do irreparable damage to someone’s good name. You state the facts, not your opinions.

The officer must understand that the person whom he or she is arresting does not represent the rest of the clergy. His behavior represents him, unless you’re talking about arresting a priest at an anti-abortion rally. Then, he obviously represents the Church’s position on the issue. Unfortunately, some laws that govern such situations are morally shaky. It is one thing to have a law that says that you must keep a certain distance from an abortuary. It is another thing that says you cannot protest abortuaries. Believe it or not, some places have such laws.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If a Catholic (or anyone else for that matter) believes that he cannot enforce the law in his country because it conflicts with his morality he should not become a cop.

 

[JReducation]

If a Catholic (or anyone else for that matter) believes that he cannot enforce the law in his country because it conflicts with his morality he should not become a cop.

That would be logical. Once in a while, situations arise when laws change after ther person is in. It raises the moral question. Which takes precedence. In moral law, the answer is obvious. Faith always takes precedence, regardless of which faith one professes. One may never choose to do what one believes to be sinful. To do so, would be to choose sin. But that’s a topic for a moral theology class or moral theology thread.

The answer to the poster is that he or she can perform his duties as long as he complies with the moral law. Fortunately, in the USA, there are few situations where an officer is asked to violate moral law. I have never heard of one. I guess it can happen.

As far as arresting a member of the clergy, Catholic or other, the law enforcement officer must always keep in mind the basic tenets that govern moral behavior on the part of law enforcement officials. The arresting officer may never do anything that intentionally degrades the clerical state. That would be a sin against the sacrament of Holy Orders. If the cleric is of another faith, the Church still requires that he or she be treated with the respect that is appropriate for the clergy, rabbi or any other religious leader. The sin is not in the arrest, if the arrest is warranted. The sin would be to deliberately degrade the clerical state. For example, in certain situations, the arresting officers have been known to take great glee in tearing a habit off of a religious or the prayer shawl off of a rabbi. This is unnecessary behavior and therefore unacceptable. But these things are known to happen in many places. Again, I have not heard of it happening in the USA. However, it does happen and can certainly happen here as we move further away from Christendom and closer to secularism.

One prisoner that comes to mind is St. Maximilian Kolbe. He was arrested twice. The first time he was treated with respect. The second time, the arresting officer had no respect for the habit and took great delight in tearing it off him, instead of asking him to change into prison uniform, as was the case the first time that he was arrested. It’s pretty obvious that the arresting officer in the first case was simply complying with the law, but not abusing his power. The second arresting officer abused his power. Just because the rules say you can does not mean that you have to treat a priest, minister or rabbi with disrespect, especially if he’s being cooperative. Actually, this rule applies to everyone who is arrested.

Many years ago, several of us were arrested at an anti-abortion rally. You have to empty out your pockets and so forth. One officer came up to me and said, “Sir, I have to go through your pockets.” I told him to go ahead. Later, he said that he was Jewish and that he was unsure if it was wrong to touch the habit. I remember laughing and telling him that it was OK to touch it as long as he did not shred it, since I owned no other clothing. I was very impressed by the care that he took to show respect for the habit while doing his job. This is a good example of moral conscience guiding duty. This must always be the rule of thumb in everything that we do. Moral conscience must always guide duty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF