**Steophan **has been frothing about people who “make false accusations”, but when I asked him for a specific cite of anyone specifically saying that they want Law punished by the law even if he didn’t break a law, he said:
So Stephan is simply assuming that ElvisL1ves wanted Law sent back for unofficial punishment. That assumption is a false accusation because there’s no proof to support it. In other words, I was saying that **Steophan **is a hypocrite. Worse, he’s a *loud *hypocrite, which is the worst kind.
I do sympathize, up to a point, with people who are still having trouble processing the fact that an organization they’ve been used to respecting and revering, usually for their entire lives, has in fact been *responsible *for so much pain and evil and suffering of innocents. Really, I do understand the difficulty that those who have been indoctrinated for their entire lives must have in accepting the magnitude of the lies they have swallowed. Denial is much easier, certainly, and denunciation of those who have not been deluded and try to explain the evil they have supported is virtually required as a coping mechanism.
But many ex-Catholics have indeed made that journey, many are on it, and a few, like a couple of our most insistent apologists here, have not yet been able to begin. Sad, yes, but their numbers are shrinking, as they should.
Steophan, I’m sure you can force yourself to recognize why Bergoglio, like his predecessors, has chosen to hide Law from public sight, not even stripping him of his rank, regardless or not of legal issues involved. Even if you can’t recognize the horribleness of the sins he committed and for which he has not provided signs of penitence. Or maybe you can’t understand, not yet, you’re not far enough along your journey out of the cult, even if you’ve begun it.
Please demonstrate, in what way, this post (which may or may not have a connection to reality) demonstrates that the crimes which Law by you is alleged to have committed are subject to Massachusetts law or the law of any other state. Shithead.
I, for one, would be delighted to find that Law or his contemporaries could be sent to jail or prison for his crimes. I only, for some reason, require that those be proved crimes. Go figure. Shithead.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
In a part of the country where that crime family is not as revered, is there any real doubt there would have been charges placed relating to being an accessory, harboring fugitives, obstructing justice, hell, use your imagination?
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so you haven’t read the thread.
[/QUOTE]
This doesn’t work. We’re applying **Steophan **levels of proof here, where just as we don’t get to read between the lines for what Law was doing, so he also doesn’t get to read between the lines for what **ElvisL1ves **is saying. If he claims that ElvisL1ves wanted Law sent back for “unofficial punishment” then he must provide specific evidence that ElvisL1ves wanted Law sent back for “unofficial punishment”. He doesn’t get to re-interpret his words, or assume he said something that he didn’t *specifically *say, he must provide specific evidence. And if he can’t, then he’s the one guilty of the one thing he’s accusing everyone else of.
Nope. Canon 350 provides that Every. Cardinal is assigned as either a Cardinal bishop (the highest Cardinal rank; there are only six), Cardinal priest, or Cardinal deacon. 350 ß2 requires the Pope to assign to each Cardinal priest and Cardinal deacon a deanery in Rome.
If I offer up a confident declaration, with no caveats about possible error, and I am wrong, you are welcome to skewer me. I will deserve it.
This part here is probably why Bricker and quite a few others feel compelled to keep engaging you in this. You cannot have a phrase like “**regardless or not of legal issues involved **” in your argument without allowing (or even forcing) people to infer that you are willing, in some instances, to disregard the law. I hope it doesn’t need to be spelled out for you precisely why this is, in absolute terms, a spectacularly BAD thing to be willing to do.
I’m sure that if you return to the RCC, get yourself boned* up on canon law, until you’re the world’s preeminent expert on the subject, and come up with a way to apply it to Law’s behavior that permits the Pope to strip him of his ecclesiastical rank, you’ll be rewarded with instant beatification, without even having to be dead first. But, until somebody does that, the limits of canon law will continue to be observed by the RCC, and that observance will not serve as proof that the RCC exists solely for the purpose of molesting innocent children.
If I may, I’d like to bring this up. Speaking for myself, there are a number of the metaphysical concepts that I do not share with the RCC, or with Christendom on the whole. This does not mean I have no understanding of them at all, and it’s my understanding that adequate provision of “signs of penitence” is a matter between the individual and his deity of choice (and, unless I am mistaken, the individual’s confessor, in the case of the RCC). It is not for outside observers to judge, and it is not particularly admirable for you to pass judgement upon another outsider because he does not assess such “signs of penitence” using your standards.
And one last thing: Your tone throughout this debate (in all threads in which it has proflierated) suggests that you view the RCC as your enemy. I suggest that until you no longer feel the need to view it as such, your own “journey out of the cult” still has a way to go.
I’ve never been Catholic, and never will be, and consider the RCC one of the more dangerous institutions on the planet. It may be more dangerous than other religions due to its organisation, but only a small amount.
But, regardless of the morality involved, we don’t get to punish a person or institution simply for harming innocents, beyond the personal level of boycotting said institution and publicising the wrongdoing. For any organised punishment, there should be clear breaches of laws, or the internal rules of the organisation. None of which you can show about Bernard Law.
To my knowledge, Bricker is the only Catholic in this discussion, but one can observe whether state or canon law has been broken regardless of religion.
I’m glad to see, as kaylasdad99 points out, that you explicitly what him punished “regardless or not” of the laws involved. The Church, and the Pope, are not free to act on their whims, they have a strict code of laws to follow, and their treatment of Law followed those rules. If you disagree, you need to cite the laws that were broken.
Whether he’s provided enough “penitence” for his “sins” is irrelevant to me, as I don’t accept either concept. The Church probably has an opinion on that, and except as it affects his rights under canon law, I’m uninterested in what that is
As for stripping him of his rank, by what mechanism would they do that? He has rights under canon law, which should be respected by the Church as much as any other legal rights should be respected. Or do you really think that the Vatican is an “at will employment” state?
You clearly think the Church should have acted other than it did. Please explain what you think it should have done, and how that would be consistent with canon law. If your answer is that it should have ignored that law, you will simply provide further confirmation that you want him to receive punishment despite the law.
That post didn’t say that **Elv1sLives **wanted him punished “regardless or not” of the laws involved. When you use the word “explicitly” you are lying:
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Steophan, I’m sure you can force yourself to recognize why Bergoglio, like his predecessors, has chosen to hide Law from public sight, not even stripping him of his rank, regardless or not of legal issues involved.
[/quote]
This post doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says, so you are falsely accusing someone. I believe that makes you a black baby lyncher.
He certainly does appear to view at least (Law) being stripped of his cardinaldom (cardinalship? no, spellcheck doesn’t like that one either. And I’m NOT going to try “cardinality,” even if it would work, because that’s just stupid when applied to a person) as an option, “regardless or not” of the legal issues.
And YOU appear to have a pretty high bar for the use of the word “explicitly.” How would it have affected your assessment of Steophan’s post had he used “constructively” instead? If that would make it okey-doke, then “overstating” would be a more apt word than “lying.”
I’m simply applying **Steophan’s **criteria to his own posts. It’s a high standard, I agree, but Steophan likes to apply it to other people, accuse them of false accusations based on that standard, and them call them “literally identical to those who lynched black people.” Basically I’m just pointing out that he’s a hypocrite.
Nope, he asked why the RCC didn’t punish him, regardless of the law. Explicitly. The answer, of course, is that they shouldn’t act regardless of the law, an answer that he - and you - continually reject.
My standard is, and remains, that if you want people to act to punish someone regardless of the law, then you are no better than a lynch mob.
Nice to see you’re continuing to misrepresent what I said, though. That makes you as bad as, oh I don’t know, Tony Blair or something.
[QUOTE=Steophan]
I’m glad to see, as kaylasdad99 points out, that you explicitly what him punished “regardless or not” of the laws involved.
[/quote]
So I can see that you are lying about what you said previously; for example I don’t see the word “asked” anywhere in your prior post. You said, and I quote, “you explicitly what[sic] him punished “regardless or not” of the laws involved.” That was a lie. You have falsely accused him. You are no better than a lynch mob.
I quoted you. I didn’t misrepresent you. You are lying and falsely accusing me. You have just done the equivalent of lynching another person. When will your madness end!?
Nope. First of all, I’m accurately interpreting what he said. Secondly, I’ve never said lying is equivalent to lynching, so your claim to be judging me by my own standards is false.
So, you’re either an idiot, a liar, or most likely both.
No, we don’t. And we can’t, we haven’t any such power. We are not obligated to meet those standards, for we are not the law.
Why is it necessary for us to adopt legal standards for our opinions? If I were sworn to jury duty, of course I would be expected to conform to those standards, it is part of the safe guards built in with an eye to protecting the innocent. Even if that means some of the guilty get away with shit.
But we are perfectly at liberty to have and share the opinion that Bernard Law is a criminal, in that his actions and their injury to the innocent is criminal behavior, worthy of sanction. The fact that no legitimate legal mechanism exists to make that happen changes nothing.
If I were empowered to send Law to prison, yes, indeed, I need to adhere to a stricter set of requirements. I am not, therefore, I am not compelled to such standards and my opinion about the crimes of Bernard Law is my privilege. If I want to call that a “crime” and someone wants to nitpick with me about the definition of “crime”, that’s more a semantic argument than a moral one.
