Sexual abuse is a matter of discipline, administration, and a criminal matter; CDF is and was in charge of things theological.
I would have assumed . . . before reading that post . . .
that it had been noticed that the mandate of the office
also covered moral issues/problems.
BTW, if you have a link for that other thread about James 2, I may be able to get to it tomorrow.
Have a good rest.
So then who WAS in charge of discipline, administration and criminal matters at the Vatican during the 80's and 90's? No one? Are you saying that discipline, administration, and criminal matters do not "in any way touch" safeguarding the doctrines on faith and morals, as in:
«the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.» (emphasis added)
??? That sounds like Clintonian compartmentalization to me. Since it appears clear that during the 80's and 90's there was confusion about who was officially in charge (on paper) of dealing with such matters is it really credible to allow everyone to say "that's not my job", especially then Prefect Ratszinger since it was later decided that his group SHOULD be the ones in charge? Is that really a legitimate "out" or is it really true that the Vatican utterly failed to act when it had a solemn responsibility to do so?
The Catholic Constitution claims plenary authority of the Pope and Bishops/Vatican over EVERYTHING. With that authority I don't see how innocence can be maintained based on the fact that NO ONE bothered to "officially" set up the right committee to deal with the problem. That would be like absolving BP from all liability because they never bothered to consider plans for what to do in case of a major spill. It was no one's job so everyone at BP, and BP itself, is innocent. I can't see that one flying. :)