Fair enough.
Under what statute/law/whatever was Weslowski convicted without a prior warning? Does murder also fall under the general “moral turpitude” category, in which you get a stern talk and told not to do it again? Again, not gotchas, it’s just that Cannon Law seems pretty disconnected from the general aim of criminal law, which actually worries me if Weslowski is ultimately indicted in the Vatican instead of extradited.
I think you keep misunderstanding the question. Who’s stopping the RCC from enforcing their own laws, if such exist. Which laws did Weslowski break that Law didn’t?
Bricker is the canon lawyer, not me, but I believe what he is saying is that there is canon law against what Weslowski did, and so Weslowski was tried and convicted under canon law for a first offense and defrocked. There is no canon law against what Law did on first offense.
So what’s “stopping the RCC from enforcing their own laws” in Law’s case is that there is no law to enforce, very much like what is stopping the US from enforcing its laws against Law is that there is no law against what he did.
Regards,
Shodan
This is an odd question.
Do you know what Weslowski did? He had sex with underage boys, himself, personally.
Do you know what Law did? He failed to take effective action to report offending priests.
Even without knowing specifics, doesn’t it sort of seem to you, as a common sense sort of analysis, that Weslowski broke laws that Bernard Law didn’t?
You *do *know Law did more than that. He did not fail to act, he acted all right, oh yes, he acted. An untold number of young people had their lives permanently crippled as a result of his actions, as you have utterly failed to even acknowledge in your attempts to find ways to get your crime family off the legal hook.
Or from changing them to fit the circumstances, which they can do with impunity, it not being real law anyway?
No, you didn’t. Please don’t lie when attempting to rebut something I said.
I asked for examples, and you answered:
That’s not an example. That’s a clumsy dodge.
“Fail to act” is an interesting way of puttting it. But yes, I know that technically they committed different crimes, though morally they’re pretty close in my book.
In any case, I want to see the language of the statute (or whatever they’re called in Cannon Law) under which Weslowski was indicted/convicted. I would also like to know what kind of standard of proof is required for a conviction.
Elvis is right about this one. He did not fail to take effective action. He acted to protect priests who abused children. He sent them to new Parishes with new potential victims with unaware parents.
His actions harmed children, families and the Church. He protected the priests. The Church protects him. They can all go fuck themselves.
If only it were so…
In other words, he gets fired, sort of. I envision a Monty Python sketch where after confessing to crimes against humanity, the perpetrator has to sing ‘I’m a lumberjack’ 5 times and gets a slap with a tulip.
You mean for someone who gets caught? Otherwise, there is no evidence that the church objects to their priests actions given how much they’ve tried to hide what they’ve done rather than putting a stop to it.
Consistent? It’s a club with club bylaws. The Capo di tutti capi puts on his sorting hat, waves his ‘magic’ wand, and makes declarations direct from the flying spaghetti monster himself. ‘Viola!’ a new bylaw is made.
Thanks. There’s more, though - his upper management acted as well, to protect him personally as well as try to whitewash their own image, by hiding Law away instead of requiring him to face the law and the people and families he had helped destroy. That makes Wojtyla as guilty as Law, and Ratzinger and Bergoglio complicit by failing to act despite their knowledge, despite all they’ve said about how they don’t condone that sort of thing (anymore).
Now, how about showing some compassion, or at least more than total indifference, to the raped kids, Bricker? Is your loyalty to the crime family for whom you serve as a pro bono counsel really so absolute that you cannot do that?
That’s not quite fair. Bricker has a great loyalty to his church, true, but he answers first to a higher calling, which is proving liberals and lefties wrong about stuff. He forthrightly accepts that was has happened was wrong and immoral. Its just that when you say it should make him criminally liable that you get in trouble.
He likes that, almost seems to live for it, changing the subject onto grounds where he feels most comfortable. He baits you, and a lot of you guys fall for it, suddenly its no longer whether or not Law is a creep, he is a creep, no question. But he’s not a criminally liable creep, so Bricker wins. He wins something very substantial, something very important.
He’s proven you wrong.
I’m curious as to what message you are hoping to communicate by referring to the Popes by their family names rather than their far more familiar regnal names.
How is it not “real law”? I mean, what makes a law “real law” vs “fake law”? I mean, all laws can change to fit the circumstances. I mean, arguably, the US Code is real law, but it 's different from what it was 100 years ago or 1 year ago, or even 2 months ago.
What makes the law different from an organization’s HR manual? You’re serious?
Regnal? They’re *kings *to you? :dubious: They’re not ordinary humans holding some office in an organization worthy of no special respect, and less than most? I wouldn’t refer to Bush by his frat nickname, either, would you? I wouldn’t refer to John Gotti as “Don”, either.
I’m curious as to what message you’re sending with your insistence that they’re something other than that, something special that deserves respect, their own record of sheltering the abetters of child rape notwithstanding. Any claim to holiness or reverence they may have, or that you’re willing to ascribe to them, is despite the facts and need not and should not be respected.
I think I am? It’s an an autonomous international organization/country that’s like 1500 years old, has its own law codes and judicial system, sends out ambassadors, has permanent observer status at the UN, enters into international treaties, etc. So what makes the Code of Canon Law, “fake law”, and what would it have to be to be “real law”?
You’re confusing the Vatican as a recognized nation-state with the Roman Catholic Church as a human association. It’s the latter we’re discussing.
Bush’s frat nickname is not commonly known, so using that would be confusing. No cites, but ISTM that the name a pope takes on when he becomes pope rapidly becomes FAR more well known than their original name. That is why it is appropriate to use their new name, not necessarily because of any sense of respect. I’m atheist and I will still call the current leader of the RCC “Pope Francis” because that is the most recognizable and easily remembered name.