Only if He can provide a long-form birth certificate.
No, I’ve said that they would be wrong to change the law retrospectively, and wrong to condemn Law for acting in accordance with their own policy. As has been repeatedly said in this thread, things can be wrong and legal, and sometimes right and illegal.
Referring to the Church as a “club”, with the implication that its laws have no force, continues to be idiotic. They have as much force as the laws of any other state.
Are you saying the Pope should lie, and claim God spoke to him?
You seem to acknowledge that God would not actually speak to the Pope. And you seem to acknowledge that the Pope’s ability to make an infallible pronouncement arises (in the Pope’s view) from God speaking directly to him. Which won’t ever happen…right?
So it would seem to follow that you’re asserting that, in order to invoke the Pope’s special authority, he should lie about a communication from God in order to impose a penalty on Law.
Is that correct?
The answer is: yes, canon law is only applied to future acts. The canon specifically notes that a law is only effective 3 months after it is published, and can apply only to future acts, not acts from before the law was published.
Ohh, crayons!
No, my setting aside legal considerations (is that permitted?) means I’m discussing moral ones (they do exist, and are not the same thing). Clear?
A. It’s the organization’s HR manual, nothing more, and B. They can do whatever the fuck they want with it, including changing it at will. We’ve been over that too.
The pope’s say-so is enough. None of them have said so yet, though, as you may have noticed.
True, they’ll continue to hide behind the excuse of an HR manual they themselves can change any time. But that doesn’t make it worthy of respect, now does it?
“Solely”? You talk about being taken seriously? No, they do more than that, obviously. But that is part of what they have done, and continue to do, as long as they don’t strip Law and Wesolowski of any claim to the protection of the leftover rump of a medieval state they keep for convenience’ sake, and any rank or recognition of the organization that keeps it for just such purposes.
And his victims, and the society in which he committed such sins, hmm? :dubious: Still waiting for that, btw.
Of course it fucking is. The wearing of a funny robe and the bestowing of a men’s-lodge title does not provide immunity from the judgments of his fellow human beings.
Those responsible for raping children, and their protectors and apologists, are the enemies of everyone. That *should *include you. Does it?
Never was, never could be. I’m a lifelong agnostic, never a member of any church, never able to swallow dogma. But I do recognize that many, many denominations do a lot of good, teach that we should be excellent to each other as Jesus and many others have preached, are not misogynistic or greedy, and do not condone raping children. So what if there’s some mystical mumbo-jumbo they practice too; if it gives them a sense of community and doesn’t hurt anybody then so what. There is a prominent exception to each of these, though, and they do not deserve the same respect.
When the child rapists are brought to justice, and there is no longer a danger of a repeat, then we can have peace. Not while the criminal enterprise remains unrehabilitated.
Nope to both, and that fact that you keep making these ridiculous assertions shows you for the idiot you are. Canon law, whether you like it or not, is the law of a sovereign state. It can no more be changed on a whim, by the pope or anyone else, than American law can, no matter how much Obama (the equivalent to the pope) might want to.
Also, in the civilised world, employment contracts can’t simply be changed on a whim either, no matter how much an employer might want to. That several US states don’t do this, and yet the despicable RCC does, should show you where your claim to the moral high ground lies…
So, now then? Now that the rules have been changed, not that child rape was ever allowed, and the abusers are being punished? Glad you’re happy with the current state of affairs.
I’m saying popes have always lied when they says god spoke to them. So, when he lies he may as well do it for a good reason.
[QUOTE=Steophan]
Canon law, whether you like it or not, is the law of a sovereign state. It can no more be changed on a whim, by the pope or anyone else, than American law can, no matter how much Obama (the equivalent to the pope) might want to.
[/QUOTE]
A sovereign state that only exists because of its religion. A religion based upon a fictional sky pixie or, in other words, is made up. The authority doesn’t come from the people, but from an imaginary being whose wishes are interpreted by the people who run the church. If they claim that the sky pixie wants a change, then it will change and prior rules, precedent, or what have you isn’t relevant if it does.
So, to be clear, you believe the Pope should lie in order to impose a legal penalty on Law.
For anyone who wanted another citation to a liberal who urges ignoring the law in order to impose legal consequences on Law, here it is.
No, I’m saying he should lie to kick him out of the club as he lies about any other conversation with god he may say he has had.
I’m saying he should modify club rules to kick a current member out. And I’m not a Liberal.
As a point of discussion: What penalties are there for a person who violates these laws that I’m equating with club rules? Link
Apparently, violence against a pope results in excommunication. What is the penalty for that? 20 years hard labor? Nope. A half hour time out sitting in the corner? Nope. Essentially, the same result as not paying your dues at the bowling league, you get kicked out of the club.
So far as I am aware, the Pope hasn’t made any such claim.
The last Pope to invoke the infallible authority was Pope Pius XII, when in 1950 he declared that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven.
So you are saying he should lie. You are specifically and directly saying he should lie in order to punish Law.
You’re willing and eager to see someone you don’t like punished even at the expense of obeying the legal system. That seems like a liberal tactic to me.
An obvious lie about something that makes no difference to anyone. Why are you insisting that I confirm that he is lying? Of course he is. He does it every day he continues to sit on his throne speaking for a non-existent fairy creature. That he won’t do so to get rid of a parasite, but will do so to say that god cares if you wear a condom, says buckets about what is important to him.
What punishment? All he can do is kick him out of the club.
Have you not been paying attention. Of course, a person should obey the law, when it makes sense, and even then they should expect a penalty for breaking it even if it doesn’t make sense.
What law or legal system are we talking about here? There is no punishment if the person who committed the crime doesn’t wish it to happen. He can walk across the street and open a convenience store thumbing his nose at the church or just walk away and become a baptist, or both. Try doing that the next time you help someone diddle a kid. Someone who molests kids or helps them do so probably doesn’t much believe in what they’re selling during the daytime, in any case.
What the fuck gives you that idea? :dubious: Please note that the facilitators of abuse, and protectors of abusers, are abusers themselves.
Please also note that you’re defending monsters, and that you’re showing no interest in the welfare of their victims. Someone with a developed sense of morality would have that reversed.
Really? What does it take - an act by the Vatican Senate, ratified by the House? You know better - the pope is supreme and can simply order it.
You’re also taking refuge, like Law and Wesolowski themselves, in the fact of the existence of a nation-state, which does not happen to be where their actions were committed, does it now? All it is is a refuge from the law and the public.
No, they do have to be compliant with the law - the *real *law. Do please note that a company that *wants *to get rid of an employee can find a legal way to do so with little trouble - and can keep one it *wants *to keep even more easily.
You really think you scored a point with that, don’t you? Sad.
Are you sure you know what that word means?
In what way does Uzi’s liberalism cover his opinion? What principles of liberal philosophy as you interpret it would lead other liberals to Uzi’s conclusion?
I happen to agree with you that it would be extremely unwise to retroactively change the law to punish someone, even someone obviously guilty as Law. I also happen to understand why a poster would wish ill upon someone who aided and abetted pedophilia for decades–irrespective of the side of the political spectrum.
No, I merely said that it seems like a liberal tactic to me. After all, the people that are posting here that are implying Law should be punished regardless of extant laws, or by the telling of a conscious and deliberate lie, are liberal in their outlook, targeting an institution that is hated by by liberals. It seems like a solid inference to me.
If I replaced every instance of “Liberal” with “Conservative” in this sentence, you would sound exactly like Der Trihs.
Hatred of child rape and child rapists is just a liberal thing? Really?
Not really a good idea to go there.
Wishing ill is a generic description. I don’t object to someone wishing Law gets bursitis or that his favorite soup gets burned. I’m speaking over the very specific subset of people who are suggesting, directly, that Law be punished by the action of the Pope, even if the Pope needs to explicitly and consciously lie. I am talking about the posters who suggest, directly or indirectly, that Law should be criminally charged and convicted even if there aren’t actual criminal laws that applied to his conduct.
Those people, so far as I can tell, are fairly described as liberal, and this mindset unites them. Obviously this view is not held by all liberals, but only liberals seem to have it, so far as I can discern.