Author: Pete Vere

What Every Priest Should Know
Post-Dallas/Washington and Violations of Due Process

After a week at a canon law conference in Biloxi, and a weekend in Miami to discuss some projects with Pat Madrid, I’m finally back at the computer and Catholic Light. I had intended to blog on the following topic as soon as I got back, and as I opened the email messages that accumulated during my absence, I discovered that one of my Catholic Light teamates was hoping that I would blog on this subject as well. So here goes… Basically, here’s what a number of canonists have been able to assemble as sort of a canonical equivalent to Miranda Rights, based upon current jurisprudence and practice of the Holy See, as well as observation from the ground level, although admittedly it is still pretty much a work in progress

First of all, and this is sad to say, if you’re falsely accused, don’t give any statement to your Bishop, your religious superior, and especially not to any member of the board without first talking to a civil lawyer and a canon lawyer — specifically one who is not employed by your diocese or religious institute. If the diocese tries to pressure you, insist upon your right to civil and canonical representation, and insist upon the presence of your civil and canon lawyer when giving any statement.

Secondly, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

Thirdly, you cannot be compelled to undergo psychological or psychiatric evaluation, not even under pain of obedience, and especially of the more intrusive kind.

Fourthly, you have the right to insist upon the presence of a priest, as well as the Promoter of Justice, before any review board.

Fifth, no penalty in this process, especially of a perpetual kind, can be imposed by administrative decree. Insist upon a judicial process.

Sixth, if you have previously undergone any psychiatric or psychological treatment, these records cannot be used in a judicial process without your consent.

Larry the Cucumber Goes Dutch

After a week away on the road, it is nice to be back at the computer. It is also nice to see David Alexander back on-line with his blog. This time, he’s answering Eric’s Kwanza question.

‘s following excellent explanation of the passage in the Talmud that sparked this controversy. It is from Suzanne Fortin’s Catholic Communion Website. Many of you also probably know Suzanne as the feminine voice of Catholic Legate, which is an exciting new venture for Catholic apologists from Canada founded by noted apologist, John Pacheco. Anyway, I wasn’t able to directly link to the post in question, so I hope Suzanne and Russ don’t mind if I reproduce here in its entirety:

Tractate Kesubos begins with the Mishna which tells us that the kesuba of a virgin is greater than that of a widow. That is to say, if a man divorces his wife, he is obligated to pay her a set sum of money (as well as numerous other obligations). The amount depends on whether she was a virgin when he married her, a virgin being entitled to a greater sum than a non-virgin.

So the legal mind has to ask, “what is a virgin?” Jewish law is evidentiary. It is not sufficient to say that nobody ever saw a woman having sex, so she is presumably a virgin. In fact, the Torah cites the case of someone questioning the virginity of his new bride, and the response of her parents to refute this charge (Deut. 22:15) – they are to bring forth the “tokens of the damsel’s virginity” – which is to say, the blood-stain sheets that resulted from the breaking of her hymen. So the definition of virginity in Torah law is an intact hymen, not a question of whether she was actually intimate with a man and to what degree.

The discussion in the Talmud then ranges over the conditions under which a woman would lose her virginity, and thus the right to the virgin’s kesuba. I don’t have my copy handy, but I seem to recall that there is mention of a sharp stick as one possibility. Then the discussion turns to actual intercourse. Two cases of sex with minors are mentioned. The sages aver that a woman who manages to have sex with a boy under the age of nine does not lose her virginity, since the boy is unable to break her hymen. They also state that if a man somehow has sex with a three-year-old girl, her hymen will grow back, and she will therefore still be considered a virgin. That is, for the purpose of the law in question, he has done nothing – not changed her status. BTW, “he has done nothing” is a common phrase in the Talmud. It always is used in the sense of the law under discussion, not a general comment that the action has no consequences at all.

That does not mean that such acts are permitted – certainly not! Only that they do not cause a loss of virginity.

All of this is evident from any honest reading of the Talmud.

Five Things for Which I’m Grateful

This being Thanksgiving, I thought I would follow up on the idea of posting things for which I am thankful:

1) The Blessed Mother said “Let it be done to me according to Thy word.”
2) My wife and daughter
3) St. Benedict and Western Monasticism
4) Belgian Monastic Ale
5) Jeb, the only politician I respect more than George W., is my Governor.

Canonpalooza — Kicking it up in Mississippi

A blessed Thanksgiving folks! Just to let everyone know, our family is headed to Biloxi, Mississippi next week for a regional canon law convention. It is a pretty full schedule, but Tuesday night is open and if any of you living in the area are available and want to get together, I would love to do so. Please email and let’s see if we cannot get a group of us together.