Which is should be noted, would move them from a position where they would have both access to small children, and the intense trust of those children and their parents.
Make sense? Not firing them is a huge fucking problem. Not putting them in a position where they have zero access to the children of the faithful is a huge fucking problem. That would be a reasonable start. But they don’t even do that! Instead they move them into fresh hunting grounds. Da fuq?
Not just better. Real. Church law is nothing. A fart in a thunderstorm. It’s not actually law. It’s club rules. Fuck their club rules. Their club rules don’t fucking matter. I will grant that they are old. And probably to a legal mind, such as yours beautiful. They are delicate and intricate things composed of intellectual filigree, interconnected and lovely, and they govern this body, that has endured ages, wars and the rise and fall of empires. Woot. Good for them. Still don’t matter.
Also, I’ve never said that the statute of limitations should be removed. I see the wisdom of its existence. And secular law isn’t perfect. But saying that not being able to punish someone because of a reasonable time limit, is the same thing as the church being unwilling to change its house rules when they’re putting kids in real, literal danger is asinine.
A secular company that worked hard to move known child molesters (whose crimes are beyond the statute of limitations) into far-away positions where no one knows about their predilections, and they have both close access, and substantial authority over children, would probably be criminalized if it were a wide-spread problem. But there is no such company.
And as I’ve said, your church enjoys particular resistance to secular nudging, because magic, and well-meaning faithful like you.
They could have removed them from the clerical state, and worked with secular authorities to ensure that the offenders didn’t just skirt until after the Statute of Limitations ran out. Isn’t that what they instituted in 2002?
In other words, they could have acted sooner.
ETA: Again, I don’t know much about the finer details of the issue. I saw in a couple of articles that that was the zero tolerance policy in place now. I welcome correction, of course.
So, the entire point of this digression had nothing to do with the actual topic: rather, you seized on a statement I’d made that, in another context, would not be entirely correct, and you rode that adolescent gotcha game just as hard as you could.
That’s fantastic.
Do me a favor: the next time you feel like doing that with something I’ve posted, instead, why don’t you bend aaaaallll the way over, and take big, steaming shit in your own mouth, you pedantic, disingenuous fucking toad.
That’s been discussed pretty thoroughly in the past, and the short version is that you’re as factually wrong about that as you are about the RCC having fixed its problem.
Yes, you do feel a need to believe in something greater than mere fact, but you might do better to redirect that need to something harmless instead.
Good for them. I guess that settles the matter, nothing to see here, let’s move on, just keep obeying and sending us your money like before, and you’ll get a reward after you die.
No, Miller. What you said was not correct in this current context, and rather than acknowledge it, you chose to try to hide behind “I think you already know.” When your evasion is brought to light, you react with this baffled, pointless fury.
It’s almost always clear when a rhetor has lost on reasoned argument: when he must resort to demanding that his opponent assume near-impossible physical positions for ludicrous physical acts instead of reasoned rebuttal, readers can safely infer the rhetor has expended his arsenal of reason to no solid effect.
Because one is the laws that permit the existence of a civil society.
And the other is just some shit some guys decided pertains to their organization.
I’m sure you can see a distinction. All man-made rules aren’t of the same import. Bart-Simpson’s treehouse has, “No Girls” written on the outside wall. Is that rule as important as the First Amendment?
Friend Bricker has put on his smoking jacket and assumed his rightful spot at the lectern!
This started when you stupidly equated that if Miller has a problem with “Church Law” if he didn’t have the same problem with the Government’s Law, he must be a hypocrite.
I’ve already explained to you that the statue of limitations isn’t analogous to a social club’s rules allowing children the world over to get pumped full of Priest Cum (in Jesus’ name, Amen).
When Miller said you know the answer to whether he thought that the same criticism applied to gov. laws, you began batting your eyelashes.
Miller stipulates, you tut tut, and here we are.
And in classic fashion, you claim victory and decry evasion, when your every post in this thread is evasion. An ink cloud you pray will obfuscate the utter moral shit of your gentleman’s club. A few children crying in the night is a small price to pay so that Bricker can continue to believe in the celestial perfection of his church.
You post in the present tense when that is obviously a false claim. There are still places where members of the hierarchy have failed to do their jobs, (if the story in the OP is accurate), but your present tense claim that “the church” is continuing to engage in those actions is simply a lie.
Your ability to present or recount “facts” is so clearly missing in pretty much every thread in which you engage that we can pretty much dismiss any claim you made regarding “fact,” even if it is regards to Cardinal Law.
For example, your statement that I have claimed that the problem is fixed is a lie. What I have said is that the church has taken steps to fix the problem and have been largely successful, although it has a ways to go… At no time have I claimed that the problem is fixed.
I get that you want to be fair as possible. But I do have issue with characterizing that as a lie. I’m vulgar and confrontational, but I try my best to not lie in debates.
I understand there is a zero tolerance policy, but that despite the Papal memo, it isn’t instituted the world over. I would assert that the lack of the policy being uniform is a failure of the church. If a reasonable percentage of Walmarts had managers that fucked workers out of wages, I’d see that as a Walmart problem. I’d say that the org in question needs to make sure its organs are working properly.
So perhaps I overstated it, obviously not every member of the Catholic hierarchy is running defense for pedophile members. I’d consider members in good standing to be speaking for the Church until reprimands happen.
I think I’d amend what I’d said to include a qualifier like* some priests*, or similar.
That would be a concession, offered in your usual spirit of grace and good cheer. There is, then, no further need to point out that your “defense” is of a narrow, legalistic character, shaky even though that is, worthy only of a Bricker, and does not even begin to address why Law is in hiding or from what or who’s helping him. This is a discussion about morality and leadership, not law - but that’s what you have to resort to in order to maintain the perception of the RCC you cherish so deeply.
Starting with your Post #7, everything you have said here is an attempt to minimize or deflect any doubt others may have of the institution you insist on esteeming so dearly. If it comforts you to call any criticism a “lie”, you may, but that does not help you in anyone else’s eyes but those of yourself and your fellow Absolute Believers.
So, if one begins with an issue that has legitimate alarm, then overstates the case to claim a universal application it is fine, but if one points out the exaggeration there is a problem.
Then when the exaggeration is pointed out to be an exaggeration, it is fine to misdirect the discussion with a false claim that correction to the exaggeration is the same as claiming that it is “fixed.”
Nah. More lies, more bullshit, standard ElvisL1ves posting style.
You brought up details of church law as if to defend the status quo.
Well, your terrible ability to communicate your thoughts has hurt you yet again.
I am glad we are in agreement that the Church’s laws are utterly irrelevant as an excuse for the half-assed job they’re doing to protect children, allegedly.
I’m not answering for raventhief, but of course the current AND prior rules are inefficient. The rule is: molestation suspected in the workplace? You call 911 and report it. Dressing like a 14th century idiot in a robe doesn’t mean you get a pass on this. And yes, it’s a workplace, like any garage, like any supermarket, or more relevant, like any fortune teller.
For the recent moves of hiding even more sick robed shitheads in South America as posted in the OP means arrest the bishops responsible, oh and that other guy with the funny hat.