Why were there so many sexual abuse problems in the RCC?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



What would you do with them? Kick them out?

Do what is done with any suspect in a case involving multiple rapes of a minor, or serial sexual abuse of minors, who doesn't have the benefit of a cassock, nun's habit, soutane or dog collar, and a compliant Church hierarchy.

Arrest them and have them committed to stand trial.


Not pay hush money, not send the perpetrators to another arena where the likelihood of the same offences being committed again is enormous, and especially not keep secret from the parents or guardians of those at risk, that you have just let a person with a proclivity for serial sexual molestation of minors take up a position of care and authority with regard to children.


'Part of the problem is that the church fears that to acknowledge such a tribunal, establishes the authority of the tribunal over that of the church. '

Obi Gyn

I'll think you'll find that issue was settled centuries ago- there's no law of sanctuary any more either, nor benefit of clergy.

See Pope Gregory I's correspondence with the Emperor Maurice, and the Gelasian Concordat (letter from Gelasius I to Emperor Anastasius).

Pope Gregory I:

'Being subject to your (the Emperor's) command, I have caused this law to be promulgated throughout all parts of the earth.'

The Roman Catholic Church is no longer in a position to be indulging in fantasies of Caesaro-Papism.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Does everyone have children? No. Will you die, if you do not have children? No. Therefore, the reproductive urge is not as basic as the other physiological needs cited.

You seen to have confused two concepts: the urge to reproduce and actual reproduction.

Why do you think kings, emperors, and pharohs had huge harems?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But do all the males reproduce?

Again, just because they don't reproduce doesn't mean they don't try.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Many do just fine, even if they are not the alpha male.

Why do you think the alpha male is constantly challenged for the position (for social animal groups with an alpha male).

[Heresson]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ming, excellent historical perspective. As one addition, there were Catholic rites that permitted marraige. I knew a woman whose parents, who were from Poland, and who talked about a Polish rite where priests were permitted to marry (back when I wanted to become a Jesuit). However, as the Catholic Church has centralized and become more Roman Catholic, that kind of diversity has been drastically curtailed.

Lat example of priest marriage in RCC in Poland was something like XIII century.
There's a "Polish-catholic" (that's oximoron) church, but it's schismatic and has no direct link to RCC
I don't know how is it in Armenian-catholic, Chaldean, Syrian, Melkite or Byzantine-Ukrainian churches, which are split-offs of eastern churches under obedience of pope.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll think you'll find that issue was settled centuries ago- there's no law of sanctuary any more either, nor benefit of clergy.

There is here in Canada. I'm pretty sure Australia would be the same with respect to a law of sanctuary.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There is here in Canada. I'm pretty sure Australia would be the same with respect to a law of sanctuary.

Feel free to inform us what rights suspected criminals have when it comes to evading secular justice and taking refuge in or on church properties in Canada.
Legal rights to evade justice, not moral rights.

http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/english/leg/vol_1/chapt2.pdf

Abolished 1828, Great Britain.

Possibly because of, but not limited to, suchlike practices:

'Pope Eugenius IV, writing to the Bishop of Lincoln in 1442, complained that by virtue of sanctuary laws, criminals “escape the punishment of their evil deeds and the satisfaction of their debts.” Worse, some made residence within sanctuaries “and lived there with dishonest women.” At about this time in England, the Commons petitioned Edward IV with complaints of many men “doing treasons and robberies and felonies” and then “resorting again to sanctuaries” where royal justice could not reach them. Sanctuary laws, according to common judgment, were only “an invitation to delinquency.” '

http://www.fordham.edu/mvst/conference04/a_shoemaker.html

"Abuses of sanctuary, tending to encourage crime, led to its curtailment and abolition. Modern penal codes no longer recognize the right of sanctuary.'

http://www.bartleby.com/65/sa/sanctuar.html

'At the Reformation general and peculiar sanctuaries both suffered drastic curtailment of their privileges, but the great chartered ones suffered most. By the reforming act of 1540 Henry VIII established seven cities as peculiar sanctuaries. These were Wells, Westminster, Northampton, Manchester, York, Derby and Launceston. Manchester petitioned against being made a sanctuary town, and Chester was substituted. By an act of James I (1623), sanctuary, as far as crime was concerned, was abolished throughout the kingdom. The privilege lingered on for civil processes in certain districts which had been the site of former religious buildings and which became the haunts of criminals who there resisted arresta notable example being that known as Whitefriars between Fleet Street and the Thames, E. of the temple. This locality was nicknamed Alsatia (the name first occurs in Shadwells plays in Charles II.s reign), and there criminals were able to a large extent to defy the law (see Sir Walter Scotts Fortunes of Nigel and Peveril of the Peak), arrests only being possible under writs of the Lord Chief Justice. So flagrant became the abuses here and in the other quasisanctuaries that in 1697 an act of William III., known as The Escape from Prison Act, finally abolished all such alleged privileges. A further amending act of 1723 (George I.) completed the work of destruction. The privileged places named in the two acts were the Minories, Salisbury Court, Whitefriars, Fulwoods Rents, Mitre Court, Baldwins Gardens, The Savoy, The Clink, Deadmans Place, Montague Close, The Mint and Stepney. (See Stephen, History of Crim. Law, ~. 113.)'

http://80.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SA/SANCTUARY.htm

'Nonetheless, it is an act of civil disobedience, and for ordinary law-abiding, church-going Canadians, the choice to break the law and grant sanctuary to a refused refugee facing deportation is an agonizing one. It is therefore rather startling that a record number of six individuals and families were in sanctuary in Canadian churches during the summer of 2003. As we write this in early October, five are still in sanctuary.'

http://www.web.net/~ccr/whysanctuary.htm

Note that: break the law.


As The Jam once sang: 'This is the modern world'.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Abuses of sanctuary, tending to encourage crime, led to its curtailment and abolition. Modern penal codes no longer recognize the right of sanctuary.'

There have been cases here where a person has sought sanctuary here in BC, and they have been permitted to reside in the church.

The penal codes may not recognise a 'right' to sanctuary, but they permit the church to exercise such sanctuary on their grounds.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2004/031804/news2.html

I'm sure that there is more.

As The Jam once sang: 'This is the modern world'

Replacing one tyranny with another.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seen to have confused two concepts: the urge to reproduce and actual reproduction.

You're confusing then the urge to drink and eat and expel wastes, with their actions.

Your argument was not the urge, but rather the actions themselves, that it is necessary to eat, drink and expel wastes in order to survive.

It is not necessary for one to have sex. One can survive without sex.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


There have been cases here where a person has sought sanctuary here in BC, and they have been permitted to reside in the church.

The penal codes may not recognise a 'right' to sanctuary, but they permit the church to exercise such sanctuary on their grounds.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2004/031804/news2.html

I'm sure that there is more.



Replacing one tyranny with another.

Thank you for agreeing with me, that as I stated in my earlier post, there is no longer a legal right of sanctuary.

"the choice to break the law and grant sanctuary to a refused refugee facing deportation ".

Break the law? Is that bit getting through?

The state does not 'permit' the churches in any meaningful legal sense (as opposed to 'moral') to do any such thing, as act in a way superior to the established law of the land, as the raid by police officers proves.

'when 12 Quebec City police officers barged into the Saint-Pierre United Church and arrested an Algerian asylum seeker'.

The churches are subject to secular law.

If you can show that they aren't, then do so, otherwise it is yet again wishful thinking on your part.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state does not 'permit' the churches in any meaningful legal sense (as opposed to 'moral') to do any such thing, as act in a way superior to the established law of the land, as the raid by police officers proves.

'when 12 Quebec City police officers barged into the Saint-Pierre United Church and arrested an Algerian asylum seeker'.

The churches are subject to secular law.

Granted.

Still, there are some who are in sanctuary in the churches, and the police do not immediately barge into the churches when such a situation arises.

It seems to me that the churches are still given some rights with respect to their own property, as any other property owner would be entailed.

And this is point that I was trying to clumsily make, that while there is not a right to sanctuary, the church does have some rights over their property.

As for the churches being subject to secular law, even the secular law recognises freedom of religion, including the freedom to express and practice. This restrains the state in certain matters from exercising the same authority over the churches as they do over the other parts of the state.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It seems to me that the churches are still given some rights with respect to their own property, as any other property owner would be entailed.

Which makes churches no different or more privileged in that respect than any secular organisation or citizen of the state.


And in case you hadn't realized it, even police forces have a public profile, and a community presence, to which their chiefs of police, police commissioners and political overlords pay some regard.

Raids on churches for illegal immigrants tend to garner adverse publicity on the whole, regardless of the perceived rights or wrongs of the case.

Freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to do whatever you like, nor does it mean that churches/religions are exempt from, or superior to the secular legal arm of the state.


Try practising animal cruelty on ecclesiastical property and see where it gets you.

Really, you're just clutching at straws now.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

It is not necessary for one to have sex. One can survive without sex.

im sure one can survive in solitray confinement for rest of his life. but im sure its not that good for that person's mental health....

[Alexander's Horse]

some of you define sex very narrowly

If you broaden it out to sexuality, everybody has it even if they aren't having sex.

It's only a proportion of the population is sexually active.