The RCC now has zero tolerance for child abuse. Well, except...

[Bricker]

@Reyemile

If I replaced every instance of “Liberal” with “Conservative” in this sentence, you would sound exactly like Der Trihs.

A liberal poster, yes?

There you go.

[Evil_Economist]

@Bricker

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.

List the posters who have explicitly stated that Law should be punished “regardless of extant laws, or by the telling of a conscious and deliberate lie,” along with their political affiliation, please. Let’s see the basis you have for this conclusion.

[Reyemile]

@Bricker

Wishing ill is a generic description.

For f’s sake, you can’t help yourself but nitpick, can you?

I was sympathizing with the emotions and *sentiment *that led Uzi to an opinion that I agree is fucking stupid–and you decide to nitpick my phrasing of “wishing ill?” I agree with you. You don’t need to do this pedantic bull.

@Bricker

Those people, so far as I can tell, are fairly described as liberal,

So your post is your sight?

Seriously, I asked a direct question about why you think it’s liberal, and the best you can answer is “so far as I can tell, it’s liberal?”

@Bricker

A liberal poster, yes?

There you go.

…I…what…huh?

I don’t understand what you think you’re proving here. Maybe you were too busy nitpicking my first post to think about the meaning of my second?

To rephrase, as precisely as I can: “Your posts are indistinguishable from those of one of the worst liberal hacks on this board, with the exception of the transposition of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’.”

[Steophan]

@ElvisL1ves

What the fuck gives you that idea? :dubious:

The significant amount of abusers that have been punished under canon law and state law, with evidence provided by the church.

Please note that the facilitators of abuse, and protectors of abusers, are abusers themselves.

No, actually they’re not. Don’t trivialise the crime of abuse like that.

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.

As far as I recall, no-one in this thread has talked about the victims, including you. Why do you care more about punishing someone who broke no laws than helping the victims of people who did? Have you no sense of morality?

Also, I’m not defending anyone specific. I’m defending the process of law, and the right of everyone to have it applied fairly to them. Including monsters.

@ElvisL1ves

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.

No, he can’t.

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.

Ooh, can we apply that thinking to Edward Snowden as well? Or is that somehow magically different? I know you lefties worship him.

There have been no extradition requests for either man, so there’s no protection going on. If the Vatican refuses a legitimate request, you’ll have an argument, but currently you don’t.

Weslowski has been laicised (“kicked out of the club” as you so vulgarly put it), and the Vatican, Poland and the Dominican Republic are supposedly cooperating with the investigation, although it looks like Poland are just butting in.

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.

Canon law is as real as any other, and in most countries an employer can’t just get rid of someone with little trouble. Here, for example, it’s illegal to act in such a way as to cause an employee to quit, among many other things.

You really think you scored a point with that, don’t you? Sad.

Not really, no. You’re an idiot who doesn’t care about the law or morality, and would quite happily see people punished by the government despite their innocence. That is despicable, far worse than moving a child abuser away from the abused children.

[Uzi]

@Bricker

… even if the Pope needs to explicitly and consciously lie.

He lies every day. Those lies cause uncounted misery throughout the world. Asking him to lie one more time to kick out such a person from his club isn’t such a stretch. The alternative is that he isn’t lying. That god does talk to him and tells him all sorts of things or guides him in his decision making. Those decisions allow Law to stay in the club.

Obviously this view is not held by all liberals, but only liberals seem to have it, so far as I can discern.

I think you are conflating conservative=religious and liberal=non-religious.

[QUOTE=Steophan]
… despite their innocence.
[/QUOTE]

Woah! How are you using the term ‘innocence’? The people who were abused were innocent until they felt there abusers hand on their shoulders. If you mean that the law can’t charge them for a crime then that doesn’t mean they are ‘innocent’ of wrong doing.

[Steophan]

@Uzi

I’m saying popes have always lied when they says god spoke to them.

Some, even many, may have done, but I’m absolutely certain that not all of them did, and of those that did, many didn’t always lie.

So, when he lies he may as well do it for a good reason.

Cite for the current pope lying, please.

A sovereign state that only exists because of its religion.

No more so than many others, and less than some.

A religion based upon a fictional sky pixie or, in other words, is made up.

Well yes, obviously, but that’s not really relevant.

The authority doesn’t come from the people, but from an imaginary being whose wishes are interpreted by the people who run the church.

The idea of democracy is just as invented as the idea of God, neither are actual things out there in the world. It’s in my opinion, a far better idea, but that still doesn’t make it any more than an idea.

It’s worth pointing out here that the authority of the church - any church for that matter, in modern times - comes solely from the members of that church believing in it, following it, and funding it. For whatever reason, the vast majority of Catholics ignore many of its teachings (contraception, abortion, pre-marital sex and so forth) yet still fund the church and attend mass.

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.

Cite for that happening? What you say is true of some religious organisations, the Mormons spring to mind, but not for the RCC. Their laws are changed by procedure, not by fiat.

[Uzi]

@Reyemile

…that led Uzi to an opinion that I agree is fucking stupid

Well, I appreciate the support, but how is my argument stupid? Those who claim to speak for god are not limited by mundane rules. What is stupid about that?

[Steophan]

@Uzi

The alternative is that he isn’t lying. That god does talk to him and tells him all sorts of things or guides him in his decision making. Those decisions allow Law to stay in the club.

They are not the only two alternatives. Why do you think the Pope is lying? You and I know there’s no god, but that’s irrelevant to what he believes.

Woah! How are you using the term ‘innocence’? The people who were abused were innocent until they felt there abusers hand on their shoulders. If you mean that the law can’t charge them for a crime then that doesn’t mean they are ‘innocent’ of wrong doing.

In the sense of “not proven guilty of a crime”. You know, how we should presume them until there is proof otherwise.

That no-one’s even been able to come up with an actual crime Law might have committed, let alone evidence that he did it, I’m extremely confident in saying he’s innocent. That you are so upset by this again suggests that you don’t give a shit about people having the protection of the law.

Which has nothing to do with whether he’s a good person, or whether his acts were laudable or disgraceful.

[Reyemile]

@Uzi

Well, I appreciate the support, but how is my argument stupid? Those who claim to speak for god are not limited by mundane rules. What is stupid about that?

Retroactively applying laws is stupid because of the precedent it sets–regardless of the severity of the offense, or the divine pretenses behind the given set of laws.

Edit: in other words, the Church has this particular point right. Your argument appears to be, “they get everything else wrong so they’re a lost cause–they might as well get this wrong, too!”

Edit edit: though, certainly expulsion is reasonable–presumably, priests are “at-will” employees of God, who can “fire” them (pun intended) regardless of written code.

[Uzi]

@Reyemile

Retroactively applying laws is stupid because of the precedent it sets–regardless of the severity of the offense, or the divine pretenses behind the given set of laws.

I have not said that secular governments should allow new laws to be retroactive, what I am saying is that the church isn’t limited by this. If god came down into the middle of St. Peter’s square and said, “Kick this fucker from my church”, then it would happen and no existing legal argument against it would prevent it.

But we are told god doesn’t act this way, he speaks in whispers. At least when he isn’t stating quite clearly that condoms and the ‘gay’ is evil. Those messages seem to come quite clearly through his voice on Earth, the RCC.

Edit edit: though, certainly expulsion is reasonable–presumably, priests are “at-will” employees of God, who can “fire” them (pun intended) regardless of written code.

I don’t think I’ve asked for anything more than that.

[Steophan]

@Uzi

I have not said that secular governments should allow new laws to be retroactive, what I am saying is that the church isn’t limited by this.

Repeatedly saying it won’t make it any more true.

[Reyemile]

@Uzi

I have not said that secular governments should allow new laws to be retroactive, what I am saying is that the church isn’t limited by this.

Emphasis added to quotation.

I hate to nitpick over what “is” is, but I don’t actually understand what you mean when you say the church isn’t limited. Do you mean it doesn’t have this limitation legally? Practically? Morally? Or some combination of the three?

[Uzi]

@Steophan

Repeatedly saying it won’t make it any more true.

What I find odd is that you think it isn’t true.
Canon law made easy

[kaylasdad99]

@ElvisL1ves

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.

Just so you know, you’re coming off as being just as dogmatic and implacable as any representative of ISIS.

Well done!

[kaylasdad99]

@Bricker

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.

Speaking as a proud liberal who is equally proud to be taking your side in this debate, I cordially invite you to stick your head up a duck’s bottom.

[kaylasdad99]

@Steophan

Not really, no. You’re an idiot who doesn’t care about the law or morality, and would quite happily see people punished by the government despite their innocence. That is despicable, far worse than moving a child abuser away from the abused children.

Is it far worse than moving the child abuser closer to more children for him to abuse?

[Captain_Amazing]

@ElvisL1ves

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.

According to the Fundamental Law of the Vatican City State (which, if we’re talking about Vatican City Law, and not Canon Law, is the Vatican’s Constitution),

1. The Commission exercises its power within the limits of the Law concerning the sources of law, according to the indications to be given below and its proper Regulations.

2. In the drawing up of draft laws, the Commission makes use of the collaboration of the Councillors of the State, of other experts and of the Organizations of the Holy See and of the State which could be affected by them.

3. The draft laws are submitted in advance, through the Secretariat of State, for the
   consideration of the Supreme Pontiff.

So, the Commission, which is a bunch of Cardinals named by the Pope to a 5 year term, drafts legislation, and then sends it to the Secretary of State for the Pope’s review and approval. Just in case you were curious.

[Steophan]

@Uzi

What I find odd is that you think it isn’t true.
Canon law made easy

Yep, the Pope can, but doesn’t. Just like the Queen can, but doesn’t. If they tried, they’d soon be de-poped, or de-queened. Or just ignored.

[Steophan]

@kaylasdad99

Is it far worse than moving the child abuser closer to more children for him to abuse?

Ignoring basic principles of justice is far worse than that, yes.

[Bricker]

@kaylasdad99

Speaking as a proud liberal who is equally proud to be taking your side in this debate, I cordially invite you to stick your head up a duck’s bottom.

As I said:

@Bricker

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.

Am I mistaken?