False! That fails the **Steophan **rules of proof! You don’t get to make judgements based on your interpretation. You must state what specific law he’s broken. Or else you’re worse than a lynch mob!
Wrong again! I said it was your false accusations that made you no better than a lynch mob, not your lying. Your lying makes you no better than a child rapist!
Gets first pick of the alter boys?
If laws have been created to prevent what this person did from recurring primarily because of that person, then it seems to make sense that he could be charged under those new laws if he was still currently doing those evil deeds and would likely be convicted. So, technically he isn’t guilty of any crime that may have existed at the time, but would probably be charged and convicted under current laws.
The church is a club. “Management reserves the right to makes changes as it, or god, sees fit at any time.” There is a guy wearing funny headgear and a dress that ‘speaks for god’, that can make up rules at a whim. If they want to charge him, kick him out, or whatever, then they can do so at any time. Realistically, because it is a club, all they can really do is bar him from the premises. They haven’t done so and thus condone his actions.
The reductiveness of all that contribute mightily to its nearly complete wrongness.
Says you.
Sure, its a club. And Godzilla is a lizard. And Chuck Norris is an asshole.
Folks avoid this because they will have to acknowledge that the RCC has escape clauses (like all major organizations) in all of their laws/rules giving them the right to act on anyone who they deem inappropriate. The fact they chose not to use one of their own “catch all” designations in the scenario where children were victimized is telling, and they know it.
Bottom line, the church is a like a club. They chose not to take action against one of their members who acted despicably. Defenders use “laws” of that club to justify this and they hide behind them to justify why the club is still a decent, good thing.
Now, regrettably, since the club did not expel the member (which any club can do whenever they want), they have to circle the wagons and use lawyer speak to justify why they were unable to take stern action.
Amazing, a club that claims they act for Christ, is unable to make Christ-like decisions because the club made rules saying that some UnChrist-like behavior is not punishable because we forgot to add it to the book. As if protecting child molestors and moving them to places where they can act again needs any fucking rule against it in some book.
If something’s not illegal, it’s not a crime. If you want to call that a semantic argument, then go for it, but using words as they are normally understood is the basis of communication, so if someone says that someone is a criminal, I’m going to ask what laws they broke. And I’m going to assume that someone who says that he can be a criminal despite not having broken any laws is a fucking moron.
None of that is actually true, not one word. For fuck’s sake, if you want to attack the RCC, at least figure out what it is, it’s not that complicated. But to attack it for following its own laws, and the laws of the states it operates in is asinine.
Or, you know, keep claiming that the church should have punished someone who didn’t break any laws. It’s not often I’d say that they have the moral high ground, but when someone makes such a claim, they definitely do.
Bernard Law was, at best, dangerously naive, and at worst, he intentionally sent priests to places with the specific intention that they would rape children there. But, even that worst hasn’t been shown to be against state law, or against a canon law that would enable him to be stripped of position in or membership of the Church.
I’m perfectly content to call that a failure of Canon Law. And I certainly hope that Canon law has been changed since these events came to light, to a degree that a cardinal who behaved as Cardinal Law did today would be subject to a range of penalties up to and including being stripped of his cardinalhood.
But this raises an interesting question: do the Catholic Church’s rules prohibit the enactment of ex post facto canon laws? 
So, there isn’t a guy wearing a funny hat and a dress who gets messages direct from god on what Catholics are supposed to do or not do? I’m kind of confused because I think I’ve seen him mentioned in the news and on TV. I’m also confused that this thing you call Canon Law is in any way a higher authority than god himself. And if the guy in the pointy hat says god told him to throw someone out of the church that it won’t happen? Funny how god cares about people wearing condoms, but not pedophiles and their helpers representing him.
No, nobody gets messages from God. The Pope claims he does, but (except in very specific situations - so specific that it’s happened twice in the 2000 year history of the Church) doesn’t speak directly for God to control people.
You’re not confused, you are ignorant about much and lying about that little you do know.
No, it is (at least in its own claim) the authority of god.
Correct.
Yep, that really sucks - or would if there was a god. As it happens, the church (like all religions) cares more about controlling people than caring for them.
However, the church has recently (far too recently) both acted against abusers and enablers as it has the power to do, and changed its laws to increase those powers going forward.
But hey, bring up something from 30 years ago that’s been dealt with, instead of attacking them for the actual harm they’re doing. Good call. Especially as by doing so you’re attacking the basic principle of justice that people can’t be punished for something that’s not against the rules.
That’s really a caricature of reality, and I say that as a former Catholic, and somebody who carries much resentment towards the RCC, as they’re still trying to metaphorically screw me and my life.
Hey, great job for keeping the line going that they can’t change the fucking club rules as they see fit when they see fit. You and I both know that the whole thing is a scam, but the believers don’t, so if pope says he speaks for god then there isn’t anyone in the club who is going to contradict him because the whole house of cards would crumble if they did. And we both know that it is far more important to keep shearing the sheep than to do the right thing like kicking out bad apples. I’m not asking he be put in jail, just kicked out of the club assuming the club doesn’t condone his actions. Which proves my point that they do condone what he did.
I agree. But there isn’t much of reality about the church and its teachings so I think I’m on safe ground.
Of course they can change the fucking rules, that doesn’t make it right to apply them retroactively. Especially as the Church did condone what he did at the time, but has since changed its view, and its procedures.
But even if they didn’t condone it, it wasn’t behaviour that allowed him to be kicked out. It’s not a club, and constantly referring to that is absurd. It’s closest to a state employer, and has responsibilities as such. Which they fulfilled by giving Law a sinecure befitting his rank, and preventing him from doing much of anything, harmful or otherwise.
Why don’t you make some effort to find out what actually happened, and base your opinions on that, rather than on your fantasies and distortions?
Who says the Church can’t apply rules retroactively? Last I heard the Vatican wasn’t in the US.
In your hypothetical, are you asking:
(A) God does in fact speak to the Pope, and conveys the message that Law should be kicked out if the Church?
or
(B) God does not speak to the Pope, but the Pope claims He did in order to justify kicking Law out of the Church?
Well, maybe they can. Ethically, they shouldn’t - no-one should. Hopefully the RCC, for all its faults, won’t sink to your level.
Why can’t the U.S. apply laws retroactively? It’s just a constitutional prohibition that forbids it. We changed the Constitution 27 times in our history, and many more by court decision.
That’s a good idea to you, right? Get rid of the Ex Post Facto clause so we can hang Law?
If not, why not?
There is no god, so default is B. That he doesn’t do so means he condones the guys actions.
What level? They either want the guy in the club or not. I’m not asking for hanging here. And if the clause doesn’t exist then they aren’t hampered by it, are they?
It is interesting how you think some laws should apply and others shouldn’t. If a country isn’t limited by a retroactive clause, then they could pass a law that is retroactive and you’d have nothing to complain about. Supremacy of Parliament and all that.
But I’ve not asked you to change any laws. I’ve asked if the Vatican is restricted by Ex Post Facto clauses and only because someone assumed they are. I don’t know if they have such a rule, they probably do for all I know, but I really don’t care because they aren’t limited by any rule that they can’t change if they wish to do so, or more importantly, if their god wishes them to do so. While I don’t agree with your point A above, many Catholics believe that people speak to god with the main one being the pope. If god were to tell them, or him, that canon law doesn’t apply and new rules are in force, who is there to argue with that and how would they do it? Call god to the stand as confirmation?