S
sidbrown
Guest
I recall that there was a priest who was a cofounder of the North American Man Boy Love Association under Cardinal Law. When this priest was transferred to San Bernadino, Cardinal Law gave him a good letter of recommendation.I’ll begin with your last question. There is no book on this, because by the time the book were written it would be obsolete. Law is fluid, meaning that it changes very quickly.
The Church must comply with civil laws in the country in which it finds itself as long as those laws meet these criteria:
These rules apply not only to bishops, but to the laity too. The laity cannot support civil law that is not supported by the Church, nor can the laity morally comply with such civil law that is condemned by the Church. A good example of this would be in a Muslim country where they stone homosexual people. A Catholic living there is not bound to comply with civil law and has a moral duty to disobey by helping the alleged criminal avoid a cruel and disproportionate punishment. Such was the case with the Jews during WW II and many Christians under Communism. We hid them and we deliberately violated civil law, even though the law said that these people were criminals.
- They are not in conflict with Church law. If so, Church law takes precedence, because it is of Divine origin.
- Civil law must not be in conflict with revelation as defined by the Catholic Church only. If the bishop of the local Church determines that a civil law is in conflict with revealed truth, the Church is not bound to comply and may even have a moral duty to refuse to comply.
- Civil law must comply with Catholic moral law. For example, the Church will not hand over a person to be executed. The Church’s moral law on capital punishment is very clear. “The need for capital punishment is almost non-existent.” The state has to prove, to the Church’s satisfaction, that there is a real need for capital punshment in this particular case bebore she will hand someone over to the state.
Cardinal Law was accused of hiding sexual offenders. The case never went to trial. We will never now all the facts.
Did victims follow proper procedures? Many did. Many did not. Some never said anything until they were adults. Some went to the press, before they went to the hierarchy. Others went to the hierarchy and the hierarchy completely hishandled the situation. Some bishops truly believed that with counseling the perpetrator would be healed. This is what the mental health community said. Other bishops believed that the perpetrator should be given another chance, because he expressed remorse. Many bishops were terrified of the scandal and just moved the perpetrator to another parish. This last fear proved to be the most catastrophic choice. When the reports made it to the press, the scandal was bigger than what it may have been if it hand been handled immediately using the proper channels.
Finally, there are several unanswered questions I don’t know if we will ever know the answer.
Those are just a few questions that I have no idea if we will ever get answers to.
- Is a gay adolescent who voluntarilly engages in sexual activity with an adult truly a victim according to civil law? Let me explain why I ask. Today, the GBLT community protects the right of gay adolescents to engage in sexual activity. We have civil laws that protect straight adolescents who engage in sexual activities with adults. A minor girl who is impregnated by an adult man may get an abortion without reporting the adult man. The abortion clinics do not have to ask or report. They are only obliged to report, if they ask or if the minor complains. This raises a question. When is sex between a minor and an adult an abuse and when is it not? I’m asking the civil community to respond, not the Church. The Church already says that it’s aways a grave sin. But civil law seems to have exceptioins, except for priets.
- How many of the alleged abusers are proven not guilty? This is never reported.
- Is it morally right for the Catholic community to discard a priest who committed an abuse 30 years ago, went to confession, and has not commited another such crime again? It is understandable that he should face civil charges. No one questions that. But there is the question about ecclesial punishment for one who has shown contrition and who has changed and served the Church. I had never thought of this until Fr. Corapi challenged the Catholic laity to think about this and he explained that it is immoral to “throw someone into a dumpster for a sin that they commited a long time agao, for which they did penance and have served God and brother faithfully ever since.” Fr. Corapi and I do not always agree. But this made sense. If we truly believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and in conversion, should we as Catholics ban someone who has not sinned for that long a period of time?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF