Can A Devout Catholic Arrest His Priest?

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

But that wasn’t the question, or the situation, was it? You’re making a kind of ‘blanket statement’. Exactly what do you mean? That he can’t enforce the law on one person? On a group of persons? In what way is the law ‘not enforced?’ Is there any other factor other than morality which is an influence?

Are you trying to claim that a Catholic cop who treats a priest with the respect due to the priest’s ‘role’ of priest is somehow 'not enforcing the law?" I don’t think so.

Are you trying to claim that a priest is treated ‘differently’ by a Catholic cop? If so, does the cop treat others ‘differently’ as well? Does he treat women differently from men? Does he treat the elderly differently from the young? Rich from poor? Is that difference morally acceptable (treating women with more ‘gentleness’, treating elderly with more dignity, treating young with more sympathy, treating the poor with respect) or is it not acceptable (treating women with more harshness, treating elderly with disrespect, treating young with harshness, treating the poor with disgust). . .see, treating people ‘differently’ isn’t necessarily something wrong, is it? We are all ‘equal’ in human dignity but there are many factors which necessitate that individuals be treated in different ways. You wouldn argue, for example, that somebody of limited mental capacity be treated as though he was perfectly normal mentally, and then hold him ‘culpable’ of an action and claim that he understood, when he did not? You wouldn’t insist that ‘equality’ demanded that he be treated ‘just like anybody else’, right?

Now I am not defending unjust actions in any way. I am merely saying that a mentality which ignores the fact that we do not, in actual fact, treat ‘all’ individuals absolutely equally in ‘secular’ matters (including legal ones) is a mentality which is more rigid and unreliable than the so-called ‘religious’ mentality which is being so severely criticized. . .

Above all, the idea that somehow priests ‘got away’ with things because of, and only because of, an unmerited ‘religious respect’ is itself both unproven and simplistic.

This ‘religious respect’ may have been one of many possible factors in a given situation. But it was not ‘the only’ factor in all situations, and the bent of the questions and comments by AA that imply that ‘religion’ somehow ‘keeps justice from happening’ and the further implication that someone who is ‘unshackled’ by religion is MORE ‘just’ because of being unaffected by the vile scourge of religion is disingenuous at best.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But that wasn’t the question, or the situation, was it? You’re making a kind of ‘blanket statement’. Exactly what do you mean? That he can’t enforce the law on one person? On a group of persons? In what way is the law ‘not enforced?’ Is there any other factor other than morality which is an influence?

Are you trying to claim that a Catholic cop who treats a priest with the respect due to the priest’s ‘role’ of priest is somehow 'not enforcing the law?" I don’t think so.

Are you trying to claim that a priest is treated ‘differently’ by a Catholic cop? If so, does the cop treat others ‘differently’ as well? Does he treat women differently from men? Does he treat the elderly differently from the young? Rich from poor? Is that difference morally acceptable (treating women with more ‘gentleness’, treating elderly with more dignity, treating young with more sympathy, treating the poor with respect) or is it not acceptable (treating women with more harshness, treating elderly with disrespect, treating young with harshness, treating the poor with disgust). . .see, treating people ‘differently’ isn’t necessarily something wrong, is it? We are all ‘equal’ in human dignity but there are many factors which necessitate that individuals be treated in different ways. You wouldn argue, for example, that somebody of limited mental capacity be treated as though he was perfectly normal mentally, and then hold him ‘culpable’ of an action and claim that he understood, when he did not? You wouldn’t insist that ‘equality’ demanded that he be treated ‘just like anybody else’, right?

Now I am not defending unjust actions in any way. I am merely saying that a mentality which ignores the fact that we do not, in actual fact, treat ‘all’ individuals absolutely equally in ‘secular’ matters (including legal ones) is a mentality which is more rigid and unreliable than the so-called ‘religious’ mentality which is being so severely criticized. . .

Above all, the idea that somehow priests ‘got away’ with things because of, and only because of, an unmerited ‘religious respect’ is itself both unproven and simplistic.

This ‘religious respect’ may have been one of many possible factors in a given situation. But it was not ‘the only’ factor in all situations, and the bent of the questions and comments by AA that imply that ‘religion’ somehow ‘keeps justice from happening’ and the further implication that someone who is ‘unshackled’ by religion is MORE ‘just’ because of being unaffected by the vile scourge of religion is disingenuous at best.

You’re making assumptions based on things that you think I meant to say.

Someone said that Catholic police should enforce the law, assuming it was a moral law. I responded by saying that if you think that the laws in your country are unjust and therefore you cannot enforce them, you should not join the police.

Moreover I never claimed that Catholic clergy were given a free pass by law enforcement in most situations. Or even that Catholic police would usually not press charges against Catholic priests in spite of apparent guilt.

I was saying (in a roundabout way) that Catholic members of law enforcement had given priests and other religious a free pass (when it came to committing certain crimes) in places like Ireland where the Church enjoyed considerable influence and power (sometimes). And I was asking the board members if they thought that kind of activity could be justified.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I’ve never heard of a priest killing someone. I’ve only heard of priests being killed.

 

[ltucker]

Yes he can.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re making assumptions based on things that you think I meant to say.

Someone said that Catholic police should enforce the law, assuming it was a moral law. I responded by saying that if you think that the laws in your country are unjust and therefore you cannot enforce them, you should not join the police.

Moreover I never claimed that Catholic clergy were given a free pass by law enforcement in most situations. Or even that Catholic police would usually not press charges against Catholic priests in spite of apparent guilt.

I was saying (in a roundabout way) that Catholic members of law enforcement had given priests and other religious a free pass (when it came to committing certain crimes) in places like Ireland where the Church enjoyed considerable influence and power (sometimes). And I was asking the board members if they thought that kind of activity could be justified.

And just what do you mean by ‘Catholic members of law enforcement?’ ALL members? SOME members? Where is your ‘proof’ that the ‘free pass’ was done ‘because the Church enjoyed considerable influence and power’? Or that this was even the case in the majority of cases, or that it was the ‘major’ factor?

Basically what you’re saying is that you personally think not just that this **could have taken place as one of ‘several’ factors, **you’re pretty much claiming that it did take place most of the time as the main, if not the only, factor. Otherwise, you’d address the many other possibilities I mentioned (and there are quite a few others as well) instead of focusing on a strawman of "mercy me, these naughty Catholics let priests get away with murders, do you OTHER CATHOLICS think this is good?"

Basically you’re pretty much saying it all happened BECAUSE of the venality (and religious -related at that) of Catholic ‘authority’ and you’re expecting us to, as we (correctly) note that such behavior is neither called for nor sanctioned by the Church, to express our ‘disgust’ at ‘those people’.

**IOW, you’re expecting us, to in essence ‘prove your point’ by accepting your unproven assertions that this in fact DID happen because of ‘religion’. **

No, first you need to provide a lot more proof than your personal opinion that the majority of these cases had the (Catholic) authority allowing priests a ‘free pass’ solely or mainly because of their religious ADHERENCE and thus, elevation of ‘religion’ above 'justice.

**Not only that, you need to show that this ‘elevation’ is standard practice and indeed ‘mandated’ by the Catholic faith. Otherwise, the most you have is some people who falsely believed that they should treat priests differently. And this false belief did not come about because of religion but because of their own failures to follow their religious teaching properly as well as other societal factors not related to religion at all. **

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And just what do you mean by ‘Catholic members of law enforcement?’ ALL members? SOME members? Where is your ‘proof’ that the ‘free pass’ was done ‘because the Church enjoyed considerable influence and power’? Or that this was even the case in the majority of cases, or that it was the ‘major’ factor?

Basically what you’re saying is that you personally think not just that this **could have taken place as one of ‘several’ factors, **you’re pretty much claiming that it did take place most of the time as the main, if not the only, factor. Otherwise, you’d address the many other possibilities I mentioned (and there are quite a few others as well) instead of focusing on a strawman of "mercy me, these naughty Catholics let priests get away with murders, do you OTHER CATHOLICS think this is good?"

Basically you’re pretty much saying it all happened BECAUSE of the venality (and religious -related at that) of Catholic ‘authority’ and you’re expecting us to, as we (correctly) note that such behavior is neither called for nor sanctioned by the Church, to express our ‘disgust’ at ‘those people’.

**IOW, you’re expecting us, to in essence ‘prove your point’ by accepting your unproven assertions that this in fact DID happen because of ‘religion’. **

No, first you need to provide a lot more proof than your personal opinion that the majority of these cases had the (Catholic) authority allowing priests a ‘free pass’ solely or mainly because of their religious ADHERENCE and thus, elevation of ‘religion’ above 'justice.

**Not only that, you need to show that this ‘elevation’ is standard practice and indeed ‘mandated’ by the Catholic faith. Otherwise, the most you have is some people who falsely believed that they should treat priests differently. And this false belief did not come about because of religion but because of their own failures to follow their religious teaching properly as well as other societal factors not related to religion at all. **

I think its funny how you’re responding to what you think that I meant to say. I had no idea that I was such a radical

 

[At_Trent]

I want to know why we never hear of the failure of law enforcement officials and parents who let abuses slide.

Surely some of these incidents were made known to parents and the law. Ok, the Bishops dealt with it as they did, but what of these cases where others besides Church officials knew ? Are they not guilty of negligence and in fact were/are enablers ?

 

[agent_grey]

A devout Catholic would not serve the current government.

 

[pnewton]

A devout Catholic would not serve the current government.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching that prohibits government service. I think your statement is more political than theological.

I have been a government employee for 24 years and am a devout Catholic. Your statement is therefore false.

 

[JReducation]

A devout Catholic would not serve the current government.

No no my friend. Just the opposite. Read the letters of St. Francis of Assisi and the history of the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO, not be confused with OSF). Christ revealed to Francis not only that Catholics had to serve in the secular sphere to insure the observance of the Gospel by all peoples, to bring peace to the world, to convert Catholics back to Christianity, protect and serve the poorest of the poor, and restore justice, but Christ wanted Francis to found the first order for secular clergy and secular lay men, who would live by a fixed rule of life, in fraternity, bound by a vow to obey him (Francis), and be governed by him (Francis) on how to transform the secular world. Francis proceeded to found the first secular order in the Church. He received canonical approval from Pope Honorius III and established it with one mission, to serve in transforming governments and situations such as the one in which we find ourselves.

Now, if you mean serve as it promote its agenda, that’s another story. The government of the USA, along with other governments around the world, has always been problematic, because they promote the absence of God from the public sphere. No Catholic can support that.

St. Jose Maria Escriva was privileged to experience revelations from Christ that called him to found the Opus Dei, whose primary mission is to take the work of government and the common man and transform it into the work of God through the practice of virtue, rather than abandon it to its own devices.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

A devout Catholic would not serve the current government.

In which country? To serve the current, past, or future government of the United States of America is the serve the* people *of our country. Furthermore, as Christians whatever work we do we do it unto God not unto man. Therefore, a Catholic who serves the people of his/her country, state, city is working for God, not the government.

Are you saying that if a Christian disagrees with the policies of the leaders of their nation they should not serve their country and fellow man? I don’t think that is biblical. A devout Catholic serves people and prays for the leaders who are placed in charge (by God) to make the right decisions and be lead by the Lord. He/she should also be an example of morality and can make a difference serving in government positions, from just being an office worker to being in a postion of leadership. There are some corrupt persons serving in governmental positions at any level. If good, moral, people of any faith see that and don’t serve then they are leaving it up to the corrupt or immoral to do their dirty deeds unabated and every level will eventually become corrupt.