A. That was a remarkably silly snark, even from you, and B. Already provided, just scroll up.
Sigh. Having a bad day, are we? :rolleyes:
Then you really do not grasp the issue at all. The topic is the institutional behavior of an organization whose very stated purpose is to provide moral leadership. They have been forced to realize they have a very serious problem, an existential one that invalidates all those claims to moral leadership, one that requires jumping all over it with all possible energy, with no exceptions, with any possible cases being dealt with immediately by firings and referrals to criminal authorities, with that change in the institutional being apparent and transparent to the entire world over which it asserts dominion. They have not done so, they continue to make excuses, and they continue to get enabled by excuse-makers such as yourself and Bricker. The fact is that they have done none of that, anything that has happened has been because of external pressure only, and the problem still is present - as the data suggests. Or are you asserting that perhaps some residual non-zero level of child rape should be considered acceptable?
As long as we mere secular humanists show we have a stronger and surer moral compass than those who merely claim to do so, using some claim to divine right based on medieval mumbo-jumbo, then such an institution deserves no respect or support. We most certainly are obligated not to let our youth be lulled into the ritual shit that covers its ongoing culture of pedophilia, for their physical safety. The reasons for your continued inclination to support this institution are your own to deal with.
You provided nothing but a false claim that you cannot even defend.
Well, you seem to be, yes.
Utter bullshit. Your assertions, “The fact is that they have done none of that” is simply a lie that you repeat. (A good example of your excluded middle argumentation.) Your claim that the only action that has occurred has been the result of extreme external pressure is a lie. Nothing I have posted can be construed as acceptance of the failures.
I have noted that I want the five cases investigated and I certainly want any violations of the 2002 Dallas declaration to be handed over to the civil authorities. I simply prefer that all such actions and judgments be based on facts rather than pre-determined outcomes based on antipathy.
As usual, your posts are based on bile rather than facts.
It doesn’t answer the point you made, its demonstrating that point you made was irrelevant. I was talking about church law. You asked me about criminal law. Church law and criminal law are not the same thing.
So are you now saying that “your rules” in the above are meant to refer to church law, and that you don’t intend for what you said to be true about criminal law?
Let’s see:
I think criminal law [is] less important than preventing widespread abuse of children, and if criminal law [is] actively impeding the prevention of child abuse, then there’s no excuse you can offer for keeping [it] in place that doesn’t make you a monster.
Bishops can be pressured to resign, of course. Take the case of Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano. He’s the bishop who permitted Msgr. Carlos Urrutigoity (the first priest in the story linked by the OP) to incardinate to his diocese, ignoring the warnings from Scranton bishop James Timlin concerning Urrutigoity. Not only did Livieres accept Urrutigoity into the diocese, he promoted him to diocesan vicar general, the executive officer (so to speak) of the bishop.
Livieres was told to resign following a Vatican investigation.
He did. Now, being told to resign is pretty serious, and can only happen following an investigation and due process. But notice that even then, he’s not fired. He’s told he has to resign.
What would happen if a bishop said, in effect, “Screw off, Popey, I’m not going anywhere?” It’s not really clear. I suppose the Pope could declare the office impeded, and trigger the appointment of a diocesan administrator. But it’s never in modern times come to that.
I think you already know the answer to that. Can just you explain what point you’re trying to demonstrate, here? I’m not really interested in helping you cosplay Socrates in this thread.
Lobohan, you’re trying to get a member of the True Faithful to see things as a non-member would, and it’s no wonder you’re not getting through. This is a guy who thinks the RCC’s policy manual derives from the orders of Jesus, and is enforced via divine right. Yes, you can get him to agree that’s not on the same level as civil law, but he’ll claim it’s higher - if he condescends to answer an infidel at all.
You can’t argue someone out of a position he didn’t argue himself into. All you can do is piss him off. There are plenty of actively-thoughtful, questioning, religious believers, who came to their beliefs through their own thought and experiences, who reject dogma and any other form of thinking what they’re told to think, who explore and think about the teachings of all of those we consider prophets or moral leaders. Such people are a joy to engage. The dogmatics and the absolutists, like the people the RCC insists its adherents should be, well, I often wonder if they just need to be left alone to have their own moments of doubt and think things out for themselves, rather than embrace the answers they’ve been told to. Membership has been dropping precipitously in the modern Age of Reason as it is.
Not excommunication or laicization or anything like that? I guess that is ultimately at the heart of my mild bemusement. For the head of an immensely powerful group, the head of state for Vatican City, the literal holder of the keys to Heaven, with the ability to use the Big Voice to bind or loose on earth and heaven, etc… The Pope just doesn’t seem to have any real power. The hope is that his bishops will listen to him, but if they don’t … there may be paperwork!
I am not suggesting that I would expect him to sentence people to death or anything like that. But wasn’t there a Pope (in decidedly NOT modern times) who declared that any Catholic in England would be excommunicated if they obeyed the Queen? Does the current form of the Papacy still have the whole papal infallibility? Are papal bulls still effective, or are they seen as suggestions by the clergy?
Well, inherent in the process of Socratic questioning, is asserting yourself as the superior in the conversation. Leading the ignorant little duckies to the conclusion they’d see if only they were as smart as you.
Bricker’s such an arrogant twat, that I doubt he can help talking that way.
Genuinely not a clue. That’s what happens when you respond to questions intended to make clear your position by saying, “I think you already know the answer,” and not actually answering.
Well, I’ll give you points for creativity. Blaming the apostolic succession for the church’s inability to implement a basic system designed to prevent priest-shuffling is brilliant.
Focusing on how the law differs from Church rules misses the point. I could, personally, reduce the number of active child predators by searching them out through Perverted Justice, stalking them, threatening them, and enacting vigilante violence as punishment for recidivism. Why don’t I do that? Because some considerations happen to be more important than simply reducing the number of active child predators.