Posted on 01/09/2002 4:37:58 AM PST by Happygal
As an officer of various courts I think you can probably expercise discretion in this respect. I can tell you that were my wife raped I would want to report it and go after the SOB, one way or the other. However, I would not fear being prosecuted for failing to do so.
No DA is that heartless that he would prosecute the husband of a raped wife just because he didn't report it. Nor would any court take disciplinary action. The couple has suffered enough. Pedophilia is another matter, but even there I can't see prosecuting the parents for failing to report it. To be honest these types of laws are more often used to go after people who were allied with the perp. in some fashion. Say you were part of a ring that exchanged pictures of little boys and one of the members started bragging about raping one of them, or you had pictures of the act. That is the type of scenario where this usually gets used. All that said, or course, it could be applied much more broadly.
patent
Full disclosure is the only correct thing..no "closed door" hearing . I would not ever again trust a young boy to a RC priest because the church can not be trusted in this matter. They are too afraid they will be sued.
Full disclosure would at least discourage those evil men hiding behind a roman collar and give confidence to the church
IMHO
The article sounded to me like it was seeking jurisdiction over these types of cases. On rereading the article, I can see the other view - that it must reported to authorities.
But, IMHO, the article adds to the confusion in the second to the last paragraph:
Perhaps it would have been more clear for the author of the article to add a phrase like ", in addition to all other legally required remedies." Or something like that...
Ouch! I first read that to mean "known to (everyone in) the diocese as an abuser" (as in, YOU knew it, too). Then, I realized you probably meant it was known to the bishop, et. al.
(whew)
Your idea makes the entire congregation a victim as well, denying them God's sacraments. The Church does no such thing.
What am I denying them, the point I was trying to make was the he is unqualified to perform Altar work in such a sinful state. He is more suited to be sitting among the congregants seeking grace, rather than be an instrument to dispense it.
Look, I realize this isnt doctrine (I left the denom decades ago, but still love the theology enough to school my children there & post pro Cath threads, specifically Evangelium Vitae) - but doesnt what makes sense sometimes differ from what the reality is ?
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both
One of my favorite sections of the U.S. Code.
As I noted, this action is an attempt by Rome to exercise control over all of these cases. Exactly so that a local bishop does not try to hide such things. I am not defending any of the actions in Texas or Boston or wherever. I think those bishops should be strung up. The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
SD
Not in the least, assuming that in both cases the accused was kept away from children until the investigation was completed.
I agree that he is unsuited to serve at the altar. And once he woudl be exposed he should be removed from service and "laicized."
What you are denying the congregation is the assurance that any sacrament is ever valid. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the world and receive valid communion or confession, or whatever. I do not walk back from the altar wondering in my mind if the priest is getting some on the side from the secretary and if that means that I really haven't just had a real communion.
Making the sacraments depend on the state of grace of the priest places the sacraments in doubt. It can not be that way.
SD
In that context, I see your point
I haven't met any of those freepers. I challenge you to find one single post by faith_j which has ever said anything positive about the Catholic Church, or about Catholics, except for one in which [s]he allowed that some Catholic might be Christians.
I can point you to 40 or 50 faith_j posts on the other side, as well as whole threads started by faith_j to trash the Catholic Church. If that doesn't constitute bigotry, may I respectfully suggest that the word must not have a meaning anymore?
There's another specifically for misprision of treason. Back in '98 (I think it was) after I first saw that statutue, just to be on the safe side, I sent everything I had gathered up on Clinton to both Judge Lamberth and Judge Starr. LOL!
Just to add to what Soothing Dave said, while such a priest can celebrate Mass validly, for him to do so without at least a firm resolution to repent of his sins and confess them is itself a grave sin.
I think it would depend on a lot of circumstances. How detailed is the account? Are there facts in it that I can verify independently? Would this altar boy, though I think him trustworthy, have any incentive to lie?
I also don't know what standards of proof ecclesiastical courts use. They're based on Roman law, not Anglo-American law.
: If I'm an officer of the court, do I have a choice?
Probably not, if you want to follow the law. I'm not convinced you do under any circumstances, if you want to follow the letter of the law. My point was that the victim's wishes, even if thought irrational by a third party, deserve consideration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.