I would say that “church law” is not such a consideration. Seeing as it’s utterly made up by people, actual human suffering is more important than the shared delusion of some parishioners that the rules are embedded in the cosmos.
Real government laws are utterly made up by people too. The difference is that “church law” only applies to those who voluntarily put themselves under it, and the absolute worst punishment they can impose (on the physical plane at least) is to throw you out of the club. Very different from laws that you have to follow whether you want to or not, and violation of which can result in imprisonment or death.
I’m made up only of people – one person, to be exact. I think that on net I could reduce human suffering by following something like the plan I outlined above. Why am I not doing that, when actual human suffering is more important than the impermanent, imperfect moral code decided on by one impermanent, imperfect being [me]?
You’re so busy mocking Bricker’s religious beliefs that you’re not even trying to make a counterargument.
Well yeah, and by the consent of the governed, it is binding. I’m saying there is no such force on church law.
Yeah, I agree. And if their “laws” mean they shuffle and hide people that are going to rape children, that needs to be changed, or people need to get arrested.
Because you fear punishment or death or guilt more than you dislike the criminals.
Not everyone is cut out to be Batman, there is no shame in that.
What? I’ve stated my counterargument several times, Church law is fucking made up by men. They can change it.
If church law makes it impossible to deal with pedophiles in their midst, then change the fucking law.
You need to read closer. I think Bricker’s religion is an utter joke, and I think Bricker is a fucking lying scumbag, but there is more to what I’ve posted than invective.
Except as a fellow handled an ax, you had no way of knowing a fool.
Are you inviting me to winter with you in the mountains and we’ll be all beefy and lumberjacky?
I’ll need to stop in Portland to get some flannels.
Maybe while we’re in the mud you can let me know why you think church law is the same thing as the law of government. Wait, do you live in Vatican City? That might explain it.
No, the reference was intended to suggest that just like the lumberjacks, you judge all things from your perspective alone – you are unable to understand what argument is being made, because the button labeled I-H8-RELIGION was pressed and your recorded message is all you know how to play in such circumstance.
Church law is not identical to man-made law. That was never my claim. But there are useful analogies to be made.
We accept the Fourth Amendment as a social good, even though we acknowledge that it causes us sometimes to be unable to levy criminal sanctions against child molesters. In an analogous way, the Church accepts the wide autonomy of bishops. even though that autonomy causes the Church sometimes to be unable to levy strict controls against those bishops.
So, I need to return the winter gear I just ordered?
I understand your position. You respect your church and it means a lot to you. You literally believe that it’s God’s house on Earth. Cool. I just don’t care that you’ve decided that the rules of the church are embedded in spacetime.
Church law is man-made law. It can be amended. It was created by men. The analogy should be, we’d amend government law if it allowed serial rapists to avoid punishment and secure new victims. So the church should do the same.
I agree.
This is where the analogy fails. Who fucking cares what the church’s rules mean? The church is below the government. It is a lesser thing. If their rules allow people to fuck a bunch of kids and laugh off the punishments, the rules need to be changed.
Raping kids isn’t a church matter. It’s a government matter. It’s not some problem that should be taken care of internally.
Would we?
Bernie Fine isn’t in prison. Why? Because when the accusations against him came to light, the statute of limitations had expired. He’s a Jewish basketball coach, not a Catholic priest. Since he’s not the first, or the tenth, or the hundredth person to avoid prosecution under similar circumstances, I disagree with your claim that we would change government law if it allowed serial rapists to avoid punishment and secure new victims.
Ah, well, could be worse. Could be Jedi.
Neither is Bernard Law. Why?
Did the Jewish Basket Ball League™ know he was going balls deep in those boys, and then moved him to another location where he would have access to a fresh batch of unknowing children? And does the JBBL™ have a long history of doing this?
Because if so, I think there would be calls to make that illegal, if it’s not already.
Is there a Depraved Indifference to Kids Getting Raped law out there?
Because none of his actions were in violation of any laws while he was bishop of Boston. Regardless of what laws there should have been, none were in effect at that time.
There is no Jewish Basketball League.
I am pointing out that government secular law didn’t allow him to be arrested, and yet it wasn’t changed. This contradicts your confident assertion that we would change government-made law if it served as a barrier to prosecute in these circumstances.
Okay, fine, you win. I retract and repudiate the statement to which you have been objecting.
Now, why don’t you explain to me exactly which organizational rules of the Catholic church you feel are more important than not fucking young children in the ass.
None.
In fact, the Church has a rule against that already.
I know, stupid person, it was a joke. That’s why I bothered to put a trademark symbol on the name.
No, dipshit. Think hard.
I’m saying that if there were an organization that made a habit to moving known child rapists into places where they would have trust, power, and unrestricted personal access to children. And they did that over and over again, a law might be made against that.
Now mind you, I doubt we’ll make a law against the church, since this country is full of idiots like you who think they’re magic. And your love for them transcends the fact that they often help guys go balls deep in crying tweens.
It’s not much of a rule if there is no punishment.
I mean you corn-hole a bunch of kids, and then what, you’re forced to move to South America where you can corn-hole a bunch of brown kids?
Your church is hurting people. And you are tut tuting about how the bylaws prohibit doing anything about future rapes.
Why isn’t your ire directed at the government for failing to imprison the men? The worst sanction the Church could impose would be dismissal from the clerical state. You’ve loudly proclaimed how much better secular law is – it’s not much of a law if it didn’t punish them according to you.
Well?