huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/pope-francis-reforms_n_3579388.html
I know he has the authority to do this, but why would he do this? I also realize that God is the final authority but I would rather be considered a criminal by the Church and leak information that damaged the Church if it meant that it protected a child (Naturally the sex abuse scandal is the focal point).
Luke 17:1-2
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Friend, I think that there are layers here that you may not be understanding.
First, the pope does have the right to make law that binds not only Catholics, but the world. Whether the world wants to acknowledge it or not, Peter is the highest temporal ruler of the world. I would not be too quick to say that I would prefer to be considered a criminal by the Church. To be considered a criminal by the Church means to be considered a criminal by God himself. Not a pretty picture. This is binding unless it contradicts moral law or revealed dogma, which it does not. This leads to the second point.
Second, like any nation, Vatican City State has a right to confidentiality. People have a right to privacy. Stealing information that is confidential, from any government, is a crime, regardless of the content. Try to steal a dossier from a judge’s chambers or a law office and see if it does not land you in jail. There is a big difference between reporting a crime that one knows about and stealing documents, even if they are dossiers on a crimes being investigated. Even when a crime is being investigated, for the sake of justice, the investigation cannot be tampered with. Once you throw the information out into the court of public “justice”, you can do irreparable harm to innocent people. This is a serious crime and an immoral act. Justice must always protect the innocent, including the Church.
Third, there are two laws here. One has to do with sex abuse and the other with confidentiality. There is already a law in the canons that says that sex abuse must be reported to the ecclesial authorities first then to civil authorities. The other has to do with the right of the State, in this case Vatican City, to protect confidentiality.
There is a very legitimate reason for the way that Canon Law words this, report to the Church first and then cooperate with civil authorities. One must remember that in moral law the punishment must fit the crime. We must be aware that this is not always the case. In some countries, the penalty of sex with anyone of the same gender is death. In many countries, a crime committed by a Catholic has greater punishment than the same crime committed by a non-Catholic. This is not justice. This is prejudice. The Church must cooperate with justice, but never with prejudice. The Church must punish those who commit such crimes as sex abuse, but she must not allow Christians to suffer and she must ensure that the punishment fits the crime. She cannot cooperate with injustice. Justice for the victim must be guaranteed, but so must justice for the accused, his family and his faith community.
Imagine if each time a Muslim committed a crime in our country we treated him differently than how we treat others. This happens in countries where Christians are a minority or where religion is hated. Imagine a legal system where one is guilty before he is proven to be so. This seems to be the case with clergy and religious accused of sex abuse. The system is not just. Every other allegation is considered innocent until proven guilty. But in the courty of public opinion, a clergyman accused of sex abuse is guilty until proven innocent and the number of Catholics who violate the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” seems to be greater than any other sector of Western population. The new laws in the Vatican mean to set justice straight.
The innocent victim of sexual abuse must be protected. The rights of the accused must also be protected. The state has the same rights as any other state to keep certain things out of public circulation, especially when cases are being investigated and nothing has been proven or when cases may have been proven, but the outcome does not guarantee justice. Don’t forget that in some countries, a woman who is raped is guilty of seduction and condemned to death, not the man who rapes. In other countries, same sex activity has only one punishment, execution and in other countries the crime of one Christian indemnifies every Christian. Even in our own USA, the sin of one clergyman seems to taint every clergyman. Again, it seems that Catholics more than anyone else, get a special glee out of this.
It is understandable that Catholics would be the most disappointed and the most betrayed by a priest or religious who commits such a horrible crime. These folks hold positions of trust and they have violated that trust. The anger is understandable. But the Church has to protect all of us from our anger. Our anger can escalate to the point that it does a great deal of harm to the innocent. That’s what the law is trying to protect. It’s trying to protect us from acting out on our anger without considering the means.
