True, but time will tell on that front. I have no opinion about how likely that is.
I am confused here. What is the community organization you refer to here?
If your argument is simply that Pell was a moral coward who went along with turning a blind eye to suspicious behavior, then I completely agree with you.
Then even if he can’t be sanctioned by the law, he should be by the church. What are the odds they already know his version of events, and has the Church taken any steps to punish him? Are cardinals defrocked, or is there some special term for someone at that level of the hierarchy?
I sense you believe that, unlike a country’s criminal law, the Church can simply punish someone even if they did not break a specific church law. Is my sense correct?
Your senses are certainly deficient in many ways** Bricker.**
Maybe you’d like to try again? This time with more sensitivity.
Pun intended. 
Oh, OK, so despite purportedly responding to what I’ve been saying for the last few pages, you are actually discussing something quite different to me.
I don’t know why I bother, half the time.
Don’t know, but if they can’t punish their own for moral failings, when they hold themselves out as moral exemplars, they are one fucked up church. Oh wait, I forgot, they ARE one fucked up church.
As a general rule, I would suggest you don’t really understand a number of concepts in play. The Church does not hold its officials out as moral exemplars. The first Pope was Peter, who, after Christ was arrested, was notable for denying three different times that he even knew the criminal! The Church has always held that it teaches faith and morals correctly, to be sure, but does not claim it teaches this by unfailing moral behavior of its priests. To the contrary, the Church knows that priests are men, and men are perfectly capable of sin.
Secondly: the Roman Catholic Church is not an ad-hoc organization. It has its own code of law, it’s own court system, it’s own appeals process. The penalties for various offenses are not a matter of opinion; the EXISTENCE of various offenses is not a matter of opinion.
The Church has no trouble punishing a cardinal who is caught with child pornography. That’s a clear violation.
“Being a moral coward, when you should have had the courage to investigate an odd situation,” is not a clear violation.
Oh, fuck that. I grew up a catholic, and I went to catholic school and I saw with my own eyes how horrible that system is. That’s why I’m no longer a catholic. The fact that your defend their actions on what are essentially legal technicalities tells me there’s a great deal that YOU don’t understand about the nature of the world.
What does this mean? Boyo’s response suggests I was not mistaken.
Please be more specific.
You’re throwing around a lot of general sentiments. I am talking about the specifics of canon law, which you dismiss as legal technicalities.
So can you explain what, specifically, you mean? Are you saying the Church should disregard existing canon law?
Are you saying that in your understanding of God’s will for man, the Church’s canon law system does not produce the correct result?
Be specific.
Of course I don’t understand God’s will for man, because there is no God. But yes, the church claims to be a moral authority in and of itself, and if canon law protects scumbags, then it should be discarded. There seems no dispute at all that this guy is morally unfit, aside from the question of whether he was criminally liable.
Two questions:
-
is this also true about our country’s law?
-
if you believe there is no God, then why do you think it’s likely you will come to the same conclusions about how to create and apply the law of a church as the church itself, which does believe in a God? Specifically as an example, can you understand that the church might make some provision for the soul in an afterlife, and rate that as more important than life here on Earth, while it’s very unlikely that you would assign any weight at all to concerns about the disposition of a soul after death?
Are you under the impression that this thread is in Debates forum? I’m just not going to follow you down this trail any longer.
Even in GD, you’re free to walk away from a losing argument.
But in both GD and the Pit, the principles of logical reasoning exist. Your position is not objectively wrong, but it arises from a different set of postulates than those which motivate the Church. You are free to acknowledge this, refute it, or walk away, just as you are in GD. Here, of course, you’re free to insult me as you choose one of the options, but that doesn’t erase the underlying argument.
I am not debating, nor arguing. I am stating my opinion.
Oh.
Ok.
Well, my opinion is that YOUR opinion arises from your initial assumptions, and those initial assumptions differ in material ways from the initial assumptions of the Church.
Here is a well written editorial from the SMH (no subscription required):
Apart from calling for Pell’s resignation it also calls for a fundamental reform in canon law. Declaring that ALL Priests, Deacons etc of all levels world wide MUST report allegations of sexual abuse to police. This type of mandatory reporting is common , for teachers, childcare workers, social workers, psychologists etc. I see no reason why it shouldn’t apply to Priests of ALL religions, not just Catholics. So far the RCC has refused to make this canon law.
I say until they do, levy punitive fines against every diocese individually until its made Canon Law. And yes same for Mormonism, Scientology, Islam and every other branch of Christianity.
I say, don’t do that.
Just trying to keep the debate to the intellectual level you’re comfortable with. You know… otherwise it’s “playing games.”