Oh poor George (Cardinal Pell)...might have been easier to come home!

The BBQ Pit
261

You feel I would win more friends by inaccurately stating the applicable law?

Do you think that my heart and its beliefs will change the law?

Your argument is an appeal to emotion. That doesn’t change the facts. The law does not really provide for a way to hold the Vatican civilly liable. Would you feel better if I lied to you and said it did? What would then happen after the law did not act thusly? Would you believe that mysterious forces intervened?

Are you really proposing that we should all close our eyes and chant that it will happen, it will!

262

Weirdo.

<3

263

Well, I admit it’s an untestable truth. Not sure how it makes me weird.

264

You think a first century craftsman inhabits baked goods on occasion. It’s weird.

265

It’s weird because it’s weird?

266

You don’t think the creator of the universe, who’s omnipotent, communing with His followers via cookie, is a bit weird?

It’s common and comfortable for you, so you don’t see it, but yeah, it’s weird.

267

No, because I understand the context in which He chose to institute that particular sacrament. Absent that context, I suppose it’s weird.

268

Absolutely the law does provide methods. Sovereign nations can be sued and so the Catholic Church with it’s weird “we’re a religion and also a country” shtick can also be sued. It would be a very expensive and complicated lawsuit and I agree the result would not be certain one way or the other but it could certainly happen. If the Catholic Church does not clean up its act seriously then eventually it will happen.

I’ll remind you that Scientology also gets away with bullshit because they intimidated the IRS. They launched so many frivolous lawsuits against the IRS that the IRS backed down and now leaves them alone.

In both cases we have a religion getting away with something thats morally repugnant because they have money and lawyers. Do you think this is right?

269

C’mon, you and I both know that Bricker doesn’t ‘grok’ right. He gets legalese, he gets legislation, he gets canon law…but he never concedes what is morally or ethically ‘right’.

270

Yep, I don’t think I have ever met such an anally retentive pedantic rules lawyer in my life. I bet he got beat up a lot when he was a kid. He was the one interrupting games of tag and arguing about the rules.

Hint Bricker. The Law is not an ever unchanging set of rules set in concrete. The law changes as society changes and the law is rapidly catching up to the Catholic Church. Society does not tolerate people any more that claim that “abortion is a worse moral problem than abuse of children” Thats a quote from Cardinal Pell.

271

Certainly I do. I simply don’t discuss it here, because as a general rule, I don’t believe the participants here share a moral or ethical framework with me that makes it meaningful. coremelt and I do not agree on what is moral or right, and these are propositions that are not subject to objective demonstration. These discussions simply devolve into, “Well, I say that I am right.”

For this reason, I limit my discussions here to what the law says. That does not prevent dopey objections, I admit, but the difference is that I can refute such objections by citation to relevant authority.

272

Again, “It could happen,” may be used to describe any future event. Why don’t I say that Cardinal Pell will return to Australia, resign as Cardinal, and get elected as the next Prime Minister? After all, it could happen. The law provides methods for such a thing. People could accept him. It could happen.

The operative question should be: “How likely, given the current state of the law, is the outcome you predict?”

Your link does not describe a campaign of frivolous lawsuits. It describes a criminal conspiracy by Scientology executives to steal documents from IRS (and other U.S. agencies, and other countries’ agencies) which was uncovered and resulted in criminal convictions for a number of senior Scientology officials.

I have no sympathy for Scientology, but even less sympathy for your continued inability to form an argument. For your future use: an argument is a connected series of factual assertions, supported by citation to relevant authority, that establish or strengthen the ultimate issue of fact you are seeking to advance.

A key element is accurate factual statements. It is in this area you struggle, seemingly believing that righteous indignation is a sufficient substitute for accuracy.

It is not.

In neither case have you established this. Your Scientology link shows a criminal conspiracy to alter, remove, or destroy documents, and resulted in criminal convictions.

Your discussion of the Catholic Church doesn’t show anything happening merely because money and lawyers are involved – rather, it shows things happening in accord with existing law. For example, when an accused criminal avoids criminal prosecution because the statute of limitations has passed before charges are brought, that is not “getting away with it” because the accused has money and lawyers. I agree it’s “getting away with it,” but the accused would be free if he were wealthy or impecunious.

I always ask you for specific examples, and you always respond with general allegations, factual errors, and a strong sense of moral indignation, as though the latter is all that is needed to sustain the argument.

273

This is a perfect example of why I don’t enter into discussions of morality here.

Comparing acts of moral depravity is rarely a useful exercise,

Whose is a worse moral sin? William Dathan Holbert killed his victims after befriending them, then buried the bodies and stole their homes and money.

Or a serial rapist with fifty victims, but no deaths, a worse moral actor?

Frankly, it’s a horrid and useless question. But as a general rule, I would say that a murder is a worse sin than multiple rapes.

This is a horrible discussion to have, because it appears to diminish the “lesser” moral evil.

274

Yes this is why Catholics equate wearing a condom with murder. Sorry sperm is not in any way conscious or alive and pope Francis is an evil mother fucker because he refuses to allow his followers in Africa where AIDS is epidemic to use condoms.

Fuck the entire Catholic Church for this genocidal belief. The Catholic Church cannot make any claim to morality for a rational individual, its precepts are objectively evil.

275

I can’t imagine what statement from the Church inspired this belief from you. Would you care to provide the citation for that claim?

I agree that sperm is not alive or conscious, and no one (except you) has made the claim that it is. (Well, there was the Monty Python skit with the song, “Every Sperm is Sacred,” but that is surprisingly not a valid source of Catholic theology).

You have conflated that false claim with a true one. The Pope has never said that use of condoms is licit.

This, again, is why I don’t debate moral issues with people like you. From my point if view, your understanding of morality is uninformed.

The Church also tells her followers to remain monogamous within marriage and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.

It is unfair for you to focus on the teaching about condoms and ignore those other teachings. If all were followed, it’s much more effective in halting the spread of AIDS. You choose to focus myopically on the prohibition against condoms and complain about the ill effects that prohibition creates. But the teaching concerning condoms is only viable in light of the Church’s total teachings, and not something that stands alone.

276

So suppose the wife is a good catholic and only has sex with her husband. However the husband is a cheating scum bag and bangs prostitutes with HIV on the weekends. Your faithful Catholic wife gets infected because of her beliefs.

The Catholic church is spreading lies and disinformation in Africa, telling people that condoms actually increase the spread of HIV and not to use them:

This makes the RCC culpable in millions of preventable deaths.

277

Married couples are permitted to use condoms if the intention is to stop the spread of disease.

This is called the principle of double effect, and your own cite refers to a Kenyan archbishop making that ruling clear.

The theory advanced in your cite is: contraception creates a culture of uninhibited sex, and after a while, people continue the sex but stop using the condom:

Can you explain how that makes them culpable?

278

Because there is not one shred of evidence that they will keep having sex but stop using condoms. Especially not if the government keeps giving them out free and educating people. The Rcc is very influential in poor African countries, their message countering the effectiveness of safe sex unfortunately works. Thus they are partly to blame for millions of preventable deaths.

279

Maybe he read this article.

280

Suppose you have a parent corporation that owns a bunch of little companies. The parent picks the managers/officers of those little companies and can choose to micromanage them if they so desire. Unbeknownst to the parent corporation the little company does something illegal - lets say sexual descrimination. Is the parent corporation not liable to some degree?