- I have been looking, so far desultorily, for either a German (I believe it was conducted auf Deutsche) or an English transcript of the debate between Charles Taylor and Card. Schoenborn. Any news from readers on this point would be greatly appreciated, as both the HP and I would like to enter our own remarks by way of criticism/commentary.
- I am thinking my way through a post on the TV series, LOST. Be on the lookout - and feel free to post here or e-mail thoughts, links to interesting criticism, etc. I could use some help getting my head around the literary sub-genre of television criticism.
- A request: the blog has seen an increase in traffic of late, and this is very pleasing. Are there questions, topics, stories, issues, which the readership (whether new or established) would like to see either the Hp or me address?
- It is 4th of July weekend. I will be posting by the morning of the 4th, if not before. To my countrymen: INDEPENDENCE FOREVER!
LD
Posts
3 comments:
I have questions pertaining to crimen sollicitationis and The New York Times
Am I right to surmise that the question concerning CS following the 1983 revision of the canon code revolved around whether sexual abuse was any longer "reserved" to CDF, with many saying that since it was no longer a "reserved delict" CDF's authority had ceased?
And am I right in surmising that the 2001 decision in CDF's favor as to competency did not retroactively mean that cases under CS could have proceeded all along, but was only a finding of fact on the law? And that CDF can not be blamed for not having proceeded when the issue was in question? And that CDF did not have the ability to peremptorily decide the issue, but that controversies surrounding competencies could only be decided by the Apostolic Signatura or the Pope himself?
Also:
1. Crimen Sollicitationis is usually characterized as being discovered or "coming to light" at some time in the early 1990's. Is this a fair characterization? If so, in what year did it come to light? How long after any discovery did it take the broader canon law community to become aware of it and begin formulating opinions regarding it?
2. We are told that there was a debate as to its applicability to sexual abuse cases. At what point did CDF formulate a position on this, and what was their position?
3. The recent New York Times article gives no information on just who exactly was to render a judgment concerning both the applicability of Crimen Sollicitationis and the confusion over competence between various dicasteries to consider sexual abuse cases. Am I right to assume the decision on both of these issues would have to be rendered by either Apostolic Signatura or the Pope? Or would the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts have had a role? What could CDF have done besides stake out a position in the debate?
4. What, in general, was the lay of the land in the debate? Roughly how many felt it applied, how many felt it applied but only to solicitation, and how many felt it had been superseded?
5. Is it indeed true that Crimen Sollicitationis carried no statute of limitations for cases of sexual abuse?
6. Would it have been wise or unwise to begin hearing cases under Crimen Sollicitationis while the debate around it was ongoing? Would it have been possible to take a case to final judgment in a manageable period of time before all of these questions had been answered? Wouldn't this only have led to endless appeals over the applicability of the law?
Thank you for any assistance you care to render. Bringing clarity to these issue would go a long way towards blunting misperceptions that haveproliferating in the media this year around so many very issues.
Please help a thoroughly confused layman.
"Are there questions, topics, stories, issues, which the readership (whether new or established) would like to see either the Hp or me address?"
I have questions pertaining to crimen sollicitationis and The New York Times
Am I right to surmise that the question concerning CS following the 1983 revision of the canon code revolved around whether sexual abuse was any longer "reserved" to CDF, with many saying that since it was no longer a "reserved delict" CDF's authority had ceased?
And am I right in surmising that the 2001 decision in CDF's favor as to competency did not retroactively mean that cases under CS could have proceeded all along, but was only a finding of fact on the law? And that CDF can not be blamed for not having proceeded when the issue was in question? And that CDF did not have the ability to peremptorily decide the issue, but that controversies surrounding competencies could only be decided by the Apostolic Signatura or the Pope himself?
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for your questions.
Please forgive me if I do not answer them right away.
I am not a canon lawyer.
I am also concerned that any answer I might give could become "part of the story" - for a series of reasons that I would rahter not get into, forgive me, for I like to keep my worlds separate.
Also, we encourage people to post comments using at least a pseudonym.
I'll have something for you in the way of an answer as soon as practicable.
Best,
LD
Post a Comment