Now, I recognize that secular law provides a very different view of this situation.
But no one’s talking about violating secular law. The RCC is saying, in effect, “Here’s our club, and these are our club rules. If you don’t follow them, you’re suspended from the club.”
And all of you non-Catholics are screaming about how unfair it is.
But as long as you’re responsible, I want to know why the state of indigent defense funding in this country is such a mess. It’s impossible for indigent defendants in many cases to get competent representation, and, frankly, I blame you.
Well, as I have already said, I personally agree with this point. If the alternatives are death for one or death for both, then obviously death for only one is preferable.
It’s a penalty. A punishment. Administrative leave specifically isn’t. Even if I accept your idea it is more like a suspension, then the cop analogy still fails. And, as I’m not a Catholic, you know better than I the seriousness or not of it. The idea of removal of the sacraments, and removal of the chance to be buried in a church cemetary etc strikes me as pretty damn severe, especially for a nun.
Is there any difference in what happens if you die while still excommunicated and die while being able to receive sacraments?
How much power does the laity have? If the laity said, “Enough!” what would happen?
If the US voters said “Enough!” about the indigent defense funding, it would change. I know jack shit about indigent defense funding, and I’m sure that’s true of most US voters.
Does the laity of the RCC know jack shit about something that’s been in the news for years? Is the laity powerless to do anything?
Does the state of the law in the US reflect the will of the voters? Does the state of the law in the RCC reflect the will of the laity?
Do people get the government, and the churches, they deserve?
But you still wash your hands when you state that, while you personally feel that way, it is church canon(NOT “law”), so watchagonna do? Right?
It’s been asked before, and I’ll ask it again-what the hell has to go down before you decide that enough is enough and you dump the church?
Actually, this former Catholic is saying that the RCC is culpable for its actions and should be regarded with the same contempt any organization that promotes unsafe and discriminatory practices should be.
Oh, and they cover up for kid rapists. I refuse to forget that part.
Is anyone saying it is unfair as such? Cold-hearted, unethical, stupid, wrong-headed… all those I see. But I don’t think people are saying it is unfair.
The closest I can see is the idea that it is ridiculous to have a rule that automatically suspends you from the club for taking part in an abortion, but doesn’t if you diddle little boys. And again, I don’t think that is a thing about the fairness of the rules, as opposed to their bloody stupidity.
An excommunication imposed by juridical process is somewhat different than a latae sententiae excommunication. The latter is serious, but fixable as I said by reception of penance. I don’t discount the severity of the state, but in this case, the penalty is so easily removable that the overall effect is no fairly characterized as a disaster.
Hell, yes, we are. Raping children is illegal. Aiding and abetting child rapists is illegal. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
We’re all “screaming” about how their actions are both illegal and immoral. Your responses are merely “The RCC is always right by definition. Go pound sand.”
I can’t imagine anything that would make me dump the belief in Christ, and in his intention to found a church on Earth, and his handing to Peter the leadership of that body.
But I could imagine scenarios that would make me withdraw from participation in the current institution.