Principles that were summarily dismissed when applied to the relationship between franchisee and franchisor. I don’t see how this supports your position.
I think he’s simply offering it for the discussion of applicable law – of what kinds of things would need to be true for actual agency to exist, and for apparent agency to exist.
This. I am simply saying that it is possible for the average Joe’s lack of understanding of church structure to work against the church here. I am not suggesting that Catholic churches are “franchises,” or even that the apparent agency doctrine applies, just that it could.
And, this is just another cop out. You’ve had no problem arguing with moral claims throughout this entire thread. This is what you bring up when you don’t actually have a counterargument.
You know as well as I do that we actually share at least one moral framework. We are Christians, and while you have additional laws as a Catholic, we both adhere to the Bible as a source of what is moral.
The concept I referenced is Biblical. You don’t get to just follow what the law of the land says. I can reference a verse, like the one where Peter says that we must follow God’s law and not man’s law, but I don’t even have to do that. It’s just all over the book. You can’t have a book that has moral laws in it and not think those laws are supposed to be followed.
And, let’s not forget, you even admitted that what the guy did was bad. So we share that common thread of morality. We share the broad definition of sin, so you said that what he did was sinful. He did not adhere to God’s command to be perfect–which is in Sermon on the Mount so it’s Moral Law for you.
There’s nothing remotely controversial about what I said. I pointed out that priests, like every other Christian, are expected to go beyond what man’s law says. But it contradicts what you said to someone else (while arguing morality, BTW), so we just don’t share a common moral framework. You pretend I’m dictating what is right and wrong. You act like what I’m saying has no relevance to the entire thread, when it’s the same stuff you are arguing about with everyone else. (They just happen to leave in bits you can unravel.)
Again, it’s just a cop out
Where? At best, you may have seen me deny someone else’s assertion of a moral claim, in the same way I deny yours. That’s all.
Not exactly. I recognize the Bible, as interpreted by tradition and the ordinary magisterium of the Church, is a source of authority.
Do you know how many different ways Christians interpret the Sermon? Do you understand the distinction between, say, inaugurated eschatology and Walter Rauschenbusch’s “social goals” movement?
Or are you saying to me that you’re on-board with St. Augustine’s teachings – that I was wrong and we really do both view the Sermon, and indeed all of Christ’s teachings, the same way? Really?
No. You’re completely mystified, it seems, if you believe I have been having any kind of a moral argument with anyone.
It should be. At the same time, one would hope that an group of people claiming to be the representatives of God and Jesus Christ Themselves would not wait for the legislature to force them to do the right thing.
They have. I don’t agree that mandatory reporting in canon law is “the right thing.” Canon law is church-wide law concerned with internal church processes and does not typically involve how the church might interact with secular law, especially since the same law has to apply to a diocese in Grand Rapids and one in Jakarta.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has adopted mandatory reporting rules for the entire United States. In what way do you feel that is insufficient for the United States?
Mandatory reporting is about alerting the authorities and is completely separate from what secular law in that jurisdiction determines is the proper course from that point forward. I don’t see the issue.
What about societies where the secular law is to punish the victim of the rape?
Fair point. I guess that all you can hope for from a universal law in that case is that the Church at least protects parishioners by removing the priest/brother/etc. and not (and this is crucial) moving him to where he can attack others.
But it’s kind of funny that the emphasis has been on how each diocese is its own separate entity and yet now the discussion has shifted to how canon law must be universally applied across all dioceses.
Each state in the United States is a separately sovereign entity, and yet federal law applies in all of them.
Also funny?
Nobody would argue that the U.S. is not also an entity in itself, despite the semi-autonomous nature of its states. Yet in this thread it’s been argued that the RCC is like some kind of ad hoc collection of independent dioceses. It’s not–it’s a hierarchical organisation.
It’s both. It’s a hierarchical organization, composed of largely autonomous dioceses.
Just like the United States is both a sovereign entity and a collection of fifty separately entities.
You’re still trying to pull this bullshit over people’s eyes Bricker? Give it up, you’re convincing exactly no body. It’s very simple the Pope can declare universal canon law which all dioceses have to follow. Is that true or not? Answer please.
So if the vatican sets policies that contribute to covering up child abuse (eg encouraging priests not to go to police with abuse allegations), then the vatican / holy see itself is liable, because they set the church policies globally through canon law. I have no doubt that the RCC’s lawyers will try the exact weasel trick you are arguing but hopefully they get smacked down.
I’m convincing nobody… except for the fact that the Vatican has never once been held liable under this theory, not once in history. So it seems like at least one or two people are convinced that what I am saying is correct.
(Admittedly they may not be reading what I write – the point I am making is that what I am saying is correct, as opposed to my specific words convincing anyone).
True.
Untrue.
Theres a first time for everything. This is also the first time such a high ranking vatican official has directly been questioned on the issue. You can keep parroting the vatican’s official line all you want. Sorry they also claim that a piece of biscuit is literally the body of christ, this is explicitly not a metaphor, the dogma is that it is “transubstantiated”.
Since they are so blatantly wrong about a piece of biscuit turning into human flesh, they can also be wrong in their claims about not being a single organisation.
Scientists could be wrong about global warming, because there’s a first time for everything. Rubio could come from behind to win the nomination because there’s a first time for everything. Pi could be equal to 7, because there’s a first time for everything.
Or… perhaps there is not a first time for everything.
On which issue? The separation of liability between diocese and Vatican? Or the nature of abuses that occurred when the high ranking official held a diocesan position?
How do you know they are wrong?
Transubstantiation means that the underlying essence of the material changes, but the “accidents,” the physical aspect that we perceive, remains unchanged. Are you saying you know of some way to test this claim, such that you can show they are blatantly wrong?
You don’t, of course. The best you can say is that their claim is untestable.
Ok bricker, how about this, anyone that believes that the biscuit is literally the body of christ will also believe that the catholic church is not one organisation.
I think you’ll find most rational people including most lawyers for nations will laugh at you and say “nice try but no”. Your argument that you’ve got away with so far doesn’t mean anything towards whether you will get away with it in future or not.
Probably false. I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and I ALSO believe that for the purposes of liability, each diocese is a separate organization.
Yes. It does.
These issues are not decided by rolling a pair of dice. If they were, your idea would be defensible: “It’s just a matter of time before they roll snake-eyes!”
Instead, these issues are decided by the law – an area in which precedent has sway, and in which the analytical principles are well understood.
Except by you.
You should realise that actually you are defending the right of the Catholic church to protect pedophiles. I think this wins you very few, if any friends.
You are saying this “the church is powerful and has so far succeeded in its sleazy tactics” so no one will ever change that. Can you honestly say that morally they are right to disclaim all responsibility? What does your heart tell you? What do you personally gain by protecting the Catholic church this way?