Nazi America?

Here is one to keep in mind for the future, when it will have been shown to be so monumentally wrong:

.... In his magisterial opening statement at Nuremberg, [Robert] Jackson pinpointed the historical moment at which German democracy gave way to the Nazi lawlessness. On February 28, 1933, he recounted, Adolph Hitler seized upon an act of terror — the burning of the Reichstag — as the pretext for an arbitrary suspension of habeas corpus, the right to a public trial by jury, and other guarantees of individual liberty contained in the Constitution of the Weimar Republic.

From that point onward, "secret arrest and indefinite detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom the Nazi police suspected or disliked."

In Germany, mind you, it took a gang of ruthless thugs to murder constitutional government. Here, with the genteel acquiescence of the legal punditry, constitutional government is about to commit suicide.

Ah, yes. Implication: Bush = Hitler, Republicans = Nazis.

Actually, the Hate America At Any Cost crowd is the group that looks to be committing slow suicide. Hopefully, they won't wake up until it's too late. Which seems, right now, to be a likely bet.

(Thanks Media Minder.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 06/21/02 02:45:59 PM
Categorized as Classic.

Interesting Prediction in the Wake of U.S. Supreme Court Decision

From Juan Gato, who has apparently been a very careful observer of the American political/social/legal scene:

Expect a massive increase in the number of mentally retarded death row inmates.

I haven't seen the decision, but I wonder what will be the test for what is considered retardation and what isn't. I also await the argument that anyone committing such a terrible crime must have a developmental problem. Therefore, the argument will be, all people on death row are mentally retarded. I expect that argument within weeks.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 06/21/02 02:02:42 PM
Categorized as Classic.

Expert Says Again That Rome Will Not Approve the "Essential Norms"

Pete Vere interviews Fr. Thomas Doyle:

.... Is it realistic to believe the legislation agreed upon in Dallas will receive the required recognitio from the Holy See? Secondly, is it realistic to believe that the proposed legislation, should it receive recognition from the Holy See, will be enforced over the long-term?

I do not believe that the Holy See will grant the recognitio to the section on the disposition of priests and deacons who have been accused. The Holy See is rightly concerned about due process and the subjugation of rights to a seeming hysterical response to the events of the past few months. The section on dealing with priests and deacons is very problematic from a canonical point of view. Will it be enforced if approved? I think that there are some many problems with it and the backlash which is now starting will be so strong that full enforcement will not happen....

Okay, okay: he only said they would not approve a certain part of it. But most folks look at this legislation as if that part is all of it, or the most important part.

.... While you have very firmly stood up for the rights of victims, even testifying on their behalf against dioceses when need be, you also express reservations about the current trend towards "zero tolerance" policies and attempts to laicize perpetrators through a summary administrative procedure. What are your concerns in this area? Do they affect an accused cleric's canonical right of defense? Why is so important to both safeguard and preserve this right?

My concern with the "zero tolerance" concept is that it is a buzz word that is misunderstood by public, hierarchy and clergy. I believe that there should be zero tolerance for proven sexually abusive behavior by clerics. Sexual abuse is a crime no matter who commits it. My grave concern is that bishops, in their rush to try to re-establish their lost credibility, will (as many have done) make decisions over the future of any cleric with an accusation of any kind of sexual contact without objectively determining if the contact is harassment, abuse, gesture, a misunderstanding etc. and once having made a subjective determination, terminate the cleric's career. I believe that even the appearance of a subjective process with no due process is just destructive as the way that abuse victims have been mishandled in the past.

I do not believe that the US bishops or any individual bishops should be given the power to laicize priests by an administrative procedure because I fear that this will quickly lead to gross miscarriages of justice. The Code contains provisions for the investigation of reports of wrong-doing and the processing of complaints including the awarding of damages to victims. These canons have been consistently either ignored or subjectively applied in an incorrect manner. There is nothing to assure that any new norms would be objectively and fairly applied basically because we do not have in the Catholic church a separation of powers.

Why is it important to safeguard the clerics' rights to due process? Suspending the concept of justice and the norms for the protection of justice in an attempt to try to recover from a lengthy period of the same with regard to victims only makes the problem worse. Priest morale is low enough as it is. There have been many, many instances where priests have been denied due process by their bishops and had penalties imposed without process or sufficient cause. Why? Usually because the primary concern is the protection of the hierarchical system or to respond to subjective whims of the bishop. The institutional church is in the mess its in in great part because of a complex miscarriage of justice. More injustice will surely not help! ....

Mind you, these concerns are being voiced by an expert in canon law who warned the bishops more than 15 years ago that they had better handle these cases differently than they had before, and has been a victims' advocate and legal expert in trials.

Those who are largely responsible for this mess because they did not abide by the rules are the very same individuals who are supposedly going to make things right by making new rules.

How much sense does this make? Is it not obvious that this is not the way to set things right?

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Fri. 06/21/02 10:52:05 AM
Categorized as Classic.