Given that the child-rape ring was concentrated in Rotherham, and apparently with the knowledge of local authorities, it looks more like *Yorkshiremen *doing it than Muslims, hmm? So what is it about Yorkshire culture that condones child rape and protects its perpetrators? Why are you not condemning Yorkshire for permitting this barbarity to occur?
Plenty. I’m not scrolling up for you, though, you have to do it yourself.
Same reason you’re not condemning Missouri for the letting the crimes happen there.
Lies. There have been some suggestions upthread that have been completely refuted. If you had any idea what crime he’d committed, you’d be posting it to show I’m wrong. That you can’t simply proves that you know I’m not wrong, and that you know he didn’t commit a crime.
What he did was wrong. In the jurisdiction in which these acts occurred, the AG has determined that he did not commit a crime. Things are right or they are wrong, the legalistic technicality of whether or not the legislature has taken the appropriate action is relevant only indirectly, wrong is still wrong.
Owning slaves was wrong long before it became illegal. Children working in coal mines was wrong before it was illegal. That some persons mistakenly conflate “wrong” with “illegal” reflects a naive faith in the law, one that seldom survives any actual contact with the law.
Oh, yes, we are - the bulk of the blame is on that police department, and the system that keeps its culture in place. Do try reading for comprehension sometime.
Are you ready to concede that institutional support of child rape is not best described as a Muslim thing, in the way that the RCC’s doing it is? :dubious: IOW, in what way is your jumping on the assumed faith of the culprits not ignorant bigotry?
I didn’t think anyone was disagreeing with that. I’m saying that it’s also wrong (and in my opinion, more wrong) to call for punishment for someone who’s not broken the law. Not that I’m accusing you of doing that.
Again, I don’t think anyone’s actually doing that. What people are saying is that an organisation that is supposed to follow a set of rules, whether the State of Missouri with it’s laws, or the RCC with canon law, can and should only punish based on them, not on anyone’s moral code.
No, I’m not. To the extent that the Muslim community in Rotherham was organised, it protected its own. Just as the RCC did. I’ve proved my point that there’s a double standard here quite nicely though, in that an attack on Catholics is fine, but one on Muslims is called bigotry. It’s either both or neither.
Then as the saying goes, cite.
Of course, you won’t, because it’s easier to bluster and lie that the question has already been answered than to post a non-existent cite.
I’d even accept you linking to the statute that you think has been broken, rather than to someone with any knowledge of how the law works claiming that, if you can’t be bothered to research properly. But the only posts in this thread that link to the actual laws show how they weren’t broken.
The law, or the relevant rules. Parents who punish arbitrarily are seriously fucking up their kids, there’s plenty of psychological research that shows this.
Not exactly, but that’s close. Firstly, as discussed upthread, what Law actually did doesn’t actually appear to be aiding and abetting, as there’s no evidence that he wanted the crimes to continue. It’s my understanding that what he did is in keeping with the Church’s rules at that time on how to deal with it - get the offenders out of the area, and work with them to stop them doing it again. My understanding is that these rules have now been changed to mandate informing the authorities.
But yes, indeed, it was a problem, was recognised as such, and attempts made (if far too late) to change that. Those changes shouldn’t allow retrospective guilt, though, in my opinion.
Well, I’d don’t know the RCC’s rules, but I’d be shocked if they didn’t have a general rule against immoral behavior. My company doesn’t have specific rules against child molestation, but they could fire me under a general morals clause if I did what Law did.
I guess the conclusion is that the RCC doesn’t think what Law did is immoral. That would also be a problem.
By the way, please cite anyone specifically saying that they want Law punished by the law even if he didn’t break a law. You keep bringing it up, so I guess there must be lots of people saying it, to argue against it as much as you do.
ElvisL1ves, at least, has been claiming that the RCC is “hiding” Law, despite there having been no official requests for him to be sent back. I can only assume that the reason he wants him sent back is for unofficial punishment.
So no one has actually said it, but you *assume *that someone may have almost said it? And based on this you make dozens of posts railing against the people who apparently you assume may be thinking of saying it? Well, keep fighting the good fight, I guess.
They don’t. I mean, they do have general rules against immoral behavior, i.e., the commandments and such, obviously, but in canon law, it looks like the only actions that the law forbids or proposes penalty for are:
Apostasy, heresy, or schism.
Prohibited participation in sacred rites
Catholic parents baptizing or educating their children in non Catholic religion.
Throwing away consecrated communion host or using it for sacrilegious purposes
Perjury before an ecclesiastical authority
6, Someone who publicly, by way of writing or speech, blasphemes, “gravely injures good morals”, insults, or incites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church.
Attacking the pope
Attacking a bishop
Attacking a cleric or religious due to contempt or hatred for the church
Teaching a doctrine condemned by the Pope or a council and then not retracting it when told to by the Vatican
Somebody who doesn’t obey a legitimate order by a superior in spite of a warning
Somebody who appeals a papal decision to a church council.
Somebody who publicly incites hatred against an Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or provokes subjects to disobey them
Someone who joins an association that plots against the Church
Someone who impedes the freedom of ministry, election, or legitimate use of sacred objects, or intimidates an elector or someone elected
Somebody who profanes a sacred object
17 Somebody who transfers church goods without permission
A priest who absolves his accomplice
Somebody who tries to consecrate the Eucharist who doesn’t have the right to
Somebody who tries to absolve someone in Confession who doesn’t have the right to.
Somebody who pretends the administration of any sacrament he can’t legally do
Someone who conducts a sacrament or receives one through simony
Someone who usurps an ecclesiastical office
A bishop who consecrates another bishop without the mandate of the pope, and the consecrated bishop
A bishop who ordains somebody who’s not his subject or who he doesn’t have appropriate letters allowing him to
A person who illegitimately performs a priestly function
27 A person who illegitimately makes a profit from a Mass
A person who gives or promises something to make a priest illegitimately perform a church function, and the priest receiving the gift
A priest who, hearing a confession, tries to seduce the penitent
A confessor who violates the seal of confession
A person who abuses an ecclesiastical function
A person who abuses an ecclesiastical function to harm another
A person who falsely accuses their confessor of trying to seduce them
A person who falsely denounces someone to their ecclesiastical superior or tries to harm their reputation
A person who makes a false ecclesiastical document, a person who knowingly uses one, or a person who asserts a falsehood in a public ecclesiastical document
36 Clerics who engage in a trade contrary to canonical precept
Someone who, given a penalty, violates those obligations
A priest who tries to marry
A Religious who tries to marry
A cleric who has a concubine
A cleric who has sex with someone by force, or threats, or publicly, or with someone under 16 years of age.
Someone holding ecclesiastical office who gravely violates residence obligations (ie, being Bishop of Tuscon, but living permanently in Miami)
A person who commits homicide, or kidnaps or gravely wounds someone
A person who procures an abortion
The only one that might fit is the last one, which is:
But, according to commentary on that provision (From the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law by John B. Beal), bolding mine.
We’ve been talking about Bernard Law - the Bishop who moved the child abusing priests to other jurisdictions rather than reporting them to the police, and whether he broke either local or canon law. There’s no question that the abusers broke both sets of laws.
Right. There’s no doubt that what the ambassador to the Dominican Republic is accused of broke canon law (and he’s already been judged by a chuch court, sentenced and defrocked, with the Vatican telling the Dominican Republic that they’d be open to an extradition request from the DR should it want to make one. Law, though, isn’t suspected of molesting kids himself, just helping to cover up molestation he had heard about, and while thats certainly evil and morally wrong, it doesn’t violate any specific canon law.