Does Canon Law have any legislative basis whatsoever in this jurisdiction?

HellFireClub

Am hoping this will not get moved to the Christianity forum as it's a legal discussion I'm interested as opposed to a spiritual one...

My question is, I'm reading the Cloyne Report issued today online and there is reference after reference to Canon Law.

I have to ask, is there anything going on here in relation to the legal relationship that the church enjoys with this state, that makes Canon Law any more relevant than the Scout's Law in this country?

As The Vatican is an independent state as opposed to the Boy Scout movement, is there any legal basis for laws of another state such as The Vatican, (if this even what Canon Law's are), to be taken into account in relation to the pursuance and prosecution of crimes committed here in this jurisdiction?

Reloc8

Legislative no.

There is an argument that aspects of the Constitution (especially the Preamble) inform or ought to inform the interpretation of the rest of the document, and those aspects do have a religiosity to them...which would have been founded on Roman Catholicism. That's not what you're asking though, I think.

HellFireClub wrote: »

is there any legal basis for laws of another state such as The Vatican, (if this even what Canon Law's are), to be taken into account in relation to the pursuance and prosecution of crimes committed here in this jurisdiction?

No.

btw Canon laws are not the laws of another state. They're the laws of the Catholic Church. Consider them as relevant to the laws of this State as the laws of a private members club.

footnote : the non-compellability of one's confessor (the prosecution can't force your priest to give evidence that you confessed a crime to them) has some foundation/connection to canon law, ish, I suppose.

Fluffybums

Quite curious about this myself. Based on what has happened, one has to conclude that it may have no legal standing however in practice this is another one of those legal things that is ignored or not enforced.

Fluffybums

Originally Posted by HellFireClub

btw Canon laws are not the laws of another state. They're the laws of the Catholic Church. Consider them as relevant to the laws of this State as the laws of a private members club.[/QUOTE]


The head of the Church of Rome, the Pope, is the head of state of the Vatican, which is an independent state (Mussonlini I think was responsible for that), since Canon Law is the law governing the Church of Rome........
Though it would appear that there is the 'Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State' which would seem to separate from Canon Law.
If you are in doubt that the Church of Rome is representing another state, it might be worth mentioning that the papal nuncio is the diplomatic representative of the Vatican. I would suggest that the distinction between church and state with reference to the Vatican and the Church of Rome is at best tenuous, though I am sure many would disagree.

Incidentally, the dictionary definition of catholic is an adjective
1 including a wide variety of things ; all-embracing:
her tastes are pretty catholic
2 (Catholic)of the Roman Catholic faith.
of or including all Christians.
relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church. (curtesy of the online Oxford English Dictionary)

Marcusm

The Code of Canon Law issued in 1983 is effectively the rule book of the Roman Catholic Church by which its members, priests, bishops, cardinals (princes) and popes (kings or emperors) are supposed to operate their daily lives.

I assume (although I do not know) that there must be some rule or guidance as to what happens when Canon Law conflicts or simply interacts with the (temporal) law of a state. Mentions in reports into clerical sexual abuse often state that no reports were made to Gardai because Canon Law specifies how to deal with clerics who are suspected of offending. Irish law does not contain a requirement for the madatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse so there may not be a conflict between the laws. However, would anyone (even sainted Dev) have thought it necessary to write a law to require priests to report serious sexual assaults to the police? Surely it would be normal behaviour in a civilised state where the acts themselves are unlawful!!

MrPudding

Fluffybums wrote: »

Originally Posted by HellFireClub

btw Canon laws are not the laws of another state. They're the laws of the Catholic Church. Consider them as relevant to the laws of this State as the laws of a private members club.


The head of the Church of Rome, the Pope, is the head of state of the Vatican, which is an independent state (Mussonlini I think was responsible for that), since Canon Law is the law governing the Church of Rome........
Though it would appear that there is the 'Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State' which would seem to separate from Canon Law.
If you are in doubt that the Church of Rome is representing another state, it might be worth mentioning that the papal nuncio is the diplomatic representative of the Vatican. I would suggest that the distinction between church and state with reference to the Vatican and the Church of Rome is at best tenuous, though I am sure many would disagree.

Geoffrey Robertson has an interesting section in his book about the validity of the claim that the vatican is a state. Quite interesting.

MrP

Wolfe Tone

No it doesnt, however canon law is/was a great influence.

HellFireClub

I've taken the following extract from section 15.28 of the Cloyne report:



**************************************************************************************

Between August and December 2003, the Gardaí interviewed a number of Church personnel. They took statements from Monsignor
O’Callaghan and Dean Goold. The Gardaí asked Bishop Magee to make a statement. The solicitor who advised the diocese in relation to child sexual abuse matters told the Commission that he then explained to the garda sergeant that “if a matter was discussed in confidence with a bishop, the bishop could not disclose the confidence without first getting, obtaining, the consent of the person who had reposed the confidence”. The solicitor further told the garda sergeant that he believed that “it was in the interests of the common good that Bishop Magee should not be asked to make a statement”.

The garda sergeant met Bishop Magee in the presence of Monsignor O’Callaghan and a solicitor from the office of the diocesan solicitor.

According to the garda report: “The Bishop assured me in advance of total cooperation. It was not to be the case”. The sergeant wanted a statement from the bishop in relation to his involvement in the case and he wanted a copy of Ula’s handwritten account of what had happened.

According to the Garda report, the bishop, through his solicitor, declined to make a statement or supply the document in question. The Garda report states that the solicitor said that the document was “a Church document and hence confidential”.

The solicitor also told the sergeant that Bishop Magee would not make a statement “in consideration for the public good and the maintenance of the confidentiality of the Church”.

********************************************************************************

The point I want to make here, is that firstly, my understanding of the rite of confession is that it is firstly a religious ritual that involves certain components, for example an element of penance, a blessing, final absolution, and prayer.

Whatever toleration of secrecy that may be associated with that particular rite or ritual, how on earth can the traditional veil of scerecy that is associated with the rite of confession, then in all seriousness be extended to include any document, (in this particular case, a handwritten complaint alleging sexual abuse of a child that was in the possession of a Bishop), that is given by a person to a cleric or any comment that is made to a cleric of any particular rank, for example a Bishop, by a lay person?!?

Also, the rite of confession is associated with the concept of having committed a sin or an offence against God, one where the applicant feels that a sin has been committed and absolution is therefore required.

How on earth any person, let alone a Bishop, could believe that someone who is reporting an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor, is in fact engaging in a confession and confessing a sin that they consider they have committed, and that therefore the exchange that subsequently takes place is somehow covered by the well accepted santity of the rite of confession, is something that I find to be downright insane.

I find this to be one of the scariest things I've read in a long long time in this country, if not ever.

I'm just scratching my head here and looking at the sheer lunacy of what I am reading here tonight and wondering is there any way in law, that there is a provision for this or is there some way that a provision that exists under some law or act, or could some piece of our constitution be interpreted as possibly having provided for a right possibly existing for these kind of decisions to withold information from the state agency (Gardai), that is mandated to investigate horrendous criminal acts such as rape of children?

Viarum

He knew well it fell outside it. It's just a pathetic attempt to cover their paedophilic arseholes by stretching the boundaries of sacerdotal privilege to the maximum. This privilege, in regard to children/sexual offences, is likely to be axed to pieces in the near future (if Frances Fitzgerald's reaction today is to be believed) with priests having similar compellability to spouses under S. 22(1) of the Criminal Law (Evidence) Act 1992.

This establishes compellability in regard to:
(a) [v]iolence or the threat of violence to... (ii) a child of the spouse or of the (iii) any person who was at the material time under the age of 17 years,
(b) [or]...a sexual offence alleged to have been committed in relation to a person referred to in subparagraph (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a).

I would not expect this to be an absolute answer - the veil covering that group of filth would undoubtedly remain difficult to penetrate. However, it would definitely be a step in the right direction. Who knows, several years down the line might Ireland be able to hold someone answerable?! It's a far fetched notion.

HellFireClub

Viarum wrote: »

He knew well it fell outside it. It's just a pathetic attempt to cover their paedophilic arseholes by stretching the boundaries of sacerdotal privilege to the maximum. This privilege, in regard to children/sexual offences, is likely to be axed to pieces in the near future (if Frances Fitzgerald's reaction today is to be believed) with priests having similar compellability to spouses under S. 22(1) of the Criminal Law (Evidence) Act 1992.

This establishes compellability in regard to:
(a) [v]iolence or the threat of violence to... (ii) a child of the spouse or of the (iii) any person who was at the material time under the age of 17 years,
(b) [or]...a sexual offence alleged to have been committed in relation to a person referred to in subparagraph (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a).

I would not expect this to be an absolute answer - the veil covering that group of filth would undoubtedly remain difficult to penetrate. However, it would definitely be a step in the right direction. Who knows, several years down the line might Ireland be able to hold someone answerable?! It's a far fetched notion.

But this wasn't just an airy fairy Bishop sitting in his palace with an attitude problem, this was his solicitor, who I accept was acting on instructions as solicitors do, but does he/she not have to say to a client (so that they are not sued themselves for professonal negligence), "here, that is just not a credible defence for this situation, we are talking about children being raped here, you can't pretend that the complainant was actually confessing a sin to you, this doesn't stack up"?!?!?

Manach

At a guess re: Canon Law, I'd assume in general it would have similar status to non-Irish law continental law as a support to case law.
Re: confession, I'd assume that this de-facto secrecy only extends within the bounds of the confessional-box, and not to any notes derived after the sacrament has concluded - not analogous to the status of confidential journalist notes.

Reloc8

Canon...law...is...law...binding....on...members...of...the...Roman...Catholic...CChurch...who...choose...to...be...bound...by...it...it...is...not...in...any...way...binding...on...an...Irish...court...convened...under...the...auspices...of...our...consti...tu...tion...I...can't...say...it...any...plain..er...or...slow...er...than...that.

Manach wrote: »

At a guess re: Canon Law, I'd assume in general it would have similar status to non-Irish law continental law as a support to case law.

Sorry...what does this mean ?

Manach

My guess is that it might be referred to as an authority in cases, similiar to in theory that very old Roman law might be referenced in European matters. It would not be very persuasive, but might of reference value.

However, you might want to do something about your inability to type whilst jumping on a pongo-stick, it looks very awkward.

HellFireClub

The Minister for Foreign Affairs seem to be taking the line that the Papal Nuncio Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza is wearing two hats in this jurisdiction:

(1) A diplomatic ambassador/representative of a foreign state with whom we enjoy good relations, representing a foreign head of state (The Pope)...

(2) A representative of the Roman Catholic Church...

muppeteer

I was just wondering if there is any protection in law for people who traditionally sometimes require confidentiality in their work? Such as doctors, therapists, solicitors or journalists. As I understand it even solicitors must report a client if they say they will commit a crime in the future?

I'm just trying to get my head around what kind of situations might be similar to a priest in a confessional.

It is sickening that the church still considers cannon law above the law of the land as they stated yesterday.:mad:

FreudianSlippers

Manach wrote: »

My guess is that it might be referred to as an authority in cases, similiar to in theory that very old Roman law might be referenced in European matters. It would not be very persuasive, but might of reference value.

However, you might want to do something about your inability to type whilst jumping on a pongo-stick, it looks very awkward.

Nope.

Viarum

muppeteer wrote: »

I was just wondering if there is any protection in law for people who traditionally sometimes require confidentiality in their work? Such as doctors, therapists, solicitors or journalists. As I understand it even solicitors must report a client if they say they will commit a crime in the future?

I'm just trying to get my head around what kind of situations might be similar to a priest in a confessional.

It is sickening that the church still considers cannon law above the law of the land as they stated yesterday.:mad:

The law does provide privilege protection for various categories of profession, whereby they are not compellable to testify in court in regard to matters relating to the execution of their job, the typical example being solicitor/client etc. Journalists as a general rule don't have such a privilege, only in certain instances where a source's life is in danger.

After http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California counsellors/psychiatrists have began to play it safe and report clients that appear to be maniacs likely of killing/seriously injuring people.

muppeteer

muppeteer wrote: »

It is sickening that the church still considers cannon law above the law of the land as they stated yesterday.:mad:

Of course they think it's above the law of the land. They consider it to be the law of God. It would be a fairly messed up religion if they thought that their laws were inferior to the laws of man. I think their laws are fairly stupid in many respects and in other respects quite sensible but they are perfectly entitled to consider their own laws superior to that of the State.

However, they are not, or at least should not, be entitled to rely on that belief where there is a conflict between domestic law and the law of the Church. The Vatican has played a really sneaky game for the last decade or so of switching between diplomatic and religious spheres to suit their agenda. I think it's about time someone called them on it.