Children are little ****bags who should be used for baynet practice.

[Pax]

Al,
I'm a christian, I take it that your are probably not. I think the difference between Ben and the other christians on this site is that Ben is of the Catholic faith and most of the rest of us are not. Catholics have a much more rigid structure do to many factors like that the Catholic church at one time was pretty much a world government and even today has a tiny army. The other Christians here are Protestants meaning that we protest the Catholic church. The level of protest and the differences each of us will have with the Catholic church depend on our denomination and also the actual church we go to. For MOST(not all) Protestants, the head of our church is the actual pastor at the church so our teachings are going to vary. The other thing is also going to be our level of faith and agreement with the teachings of our church.
I'm a baptist and two key teachings my sect has is that the only proof of christianity, the bible, god, Jesus and etc is the bible itself and no other proof is needed for anything religious wise. Another point, in my sect is that we are sinners and we ask god forgiveness for our sins so that even when we are doing the wrong things god can forgive us.

I would also mention that in previous threads I have and still do question the validity of some passages in the bible because the bible has been susceptible to tampering by men. I have also pointed out that the only reason I am a baptist is because I was born a baptist and my religious background actually comes from the slaveowners that owned my family rather than any personal choice.

[Flubber]

The feeling of having sex with a woman with no contraception to me is like the feeling of having sex with a woman while she has a loaded gun pointed at my head.

Why? Is it the threat of a baby or the fear of disease?

and if the latter, why would you say contraception when you mean condoms?

[notyoueither]

It would be baby for me, although there are strains of STIs that are becoming or are drug resistant.

[Pax]

it's the idea of having another child that I would have to support for 17+ years and also have a tie to a woman that I may come to dislike.

[The Mad Monk]

Mine make smaller, chirping sorts of sounds.

My cat does that a least a third of the time.

So I nicknamed him "Squeeky".

[David Floyd]

Many modern nations are based on religion and are governed by religion.

And in which of these nations is a priest above the law?

And yes, it does in the end matter. To actually be a priest in these countries is to break the law. This is one of the reasons why America is unique because they never have been governed by a religion. This, btw was the case even in Britain for over 250 years, where priests could be executed if they were caught.

So forgive me if I'm skeptical about putting priests under local jurisdiction. It's been done before and it usually has a bad end.

I would argue that a law making religion illegal is a bad law. However, you still misunderstand the argument. It isn't up to the Church, or you, whether or not priests are under secular jurisdiction. It is solely up to the laws of the land in which they reside. Period. If the Pope said tomorrow that all Catholic clergy in the US are not bound by US law, it wouldn't change a thing and he would be laughed out of Rome, rightfully so.

This is especially relevant in countries with hate crimes legislation. What happens to a priest who preaches against homosexuality in a jurisdiction that argues that such is not permissible? Should he be arrested and thrown in jail?

He should be held to the same standard as everyone else. While I disagree with hate crimes legislation, you are changing the argument. If there is a law, then everyone should be held to it equally. If it's a bad law, it should be changed. If I was in a jury box, I would nullify any such law whether the defendant was a priest or not.

Aware and proven to have occurred, yes. Accusations are not always true.

Yes, and are you aware that failing to act IN GOOD FAITH to investigate and report allegations is also an actionable offense?

[Ben Kenobi]

Check your PMs, dude

Sorry to have to hassle you again...

[Ben Kenobi]

And in which of these nations is a priest above the law?

There's a difference from being above the law, and subject to the law of the country. The Law is broader than any one countries laws, and I think that a priest has an obligation to live by the law to the extent that it does not violate his faith.

I would argue that a law making religion illegal is a bad law. However, you still misunderstand the argument. It isn't up to the Church, or you, whether or not priests are under secular jurisdiction. It is solely up to the laws of the land in which they reside. Period. If the Pope said tomorrow that all Catholic clergy in the US are not bound by US law, it wouldn't change a thing and he would be laughed out of Rome, rightfully so.

Actually it would make headlines. Because the Church doesn't pass stuff for the US only.

He should be held to the same standard as everyone else. While I disagree with hate crimes legislation, you are changing the argument.

If the same priest same outcome different issue. This is part of the problem.

If it's a bad law, it should be changed. If I was in a jury box, I would nullify any such law whether the defendant was a priest or not.

So would I, but unfortuantely that's not the way the system works.

Yes, and are you aware that failing to act IN GOOD FAITH to investigate and report allegations is also an actionable offense?

Investigate? Oh, yes. Any diocese where the bishops been failing in this way should be hit with a class action suit specific to the diocese.

[David Floyd]

There's a difference from being above the law, and subject to the law of the country. The Law is broader than any one countries laws, and I think that a priest has an obligation to live by the law to the extent that it does not violate his faith.

Maybe, but the priest also has an obligation to obey the law in the country in which he lives. And the authorities have an obligation to enforce said law. There may be special circumstances where a law can be waived in the event of faith (f'rex, the draft), but being subject to legal, secular penalties for rape is not ever, not even once waived because of religious belief.

Actually it would make headlines. Because the Church doesn't pass stuff for the US only.

Fine, then say the Church decided that priests EVERYWHERE were not subject to secular law. They would still be laughed out of Rome and ignored.

So would I, but unfortuantely that's not the way the system works.

Actually it is - as a juror you can vote however you want. An attorney can't specifically ask for nullification but a juror can damn well decide to nullify.

Investigate? Oh, yes. Any diocese where the bishops been failing in this way should be hit with a class action suit specific to the diocese.

So, you agree that the diocese must investigate allegations in good faith, and must report violations of the law to the appropriate secular authority. How does our position differ?

[David Floyd]

And yes, I got your PM. No worries.

[David Floyd]

If the same priest same outcome different issue. This is part of the problem.

If you mean that priests might be held to different standards or laws in different countries, well, duh. So would you or I. That isn't unfair, unless you are advocating a one world government, which I doubt.

[Dr Strangelove]

Gee, I don't think even the Vatican asks that it's priests be accountable only to canon law anymore.

[giblets]

They know they have no chance of getting that. If you're just some loon voicing his opinions on the internet then there's no need to be realistic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Excellent that's a big load off.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe, but the priest also has an obligation to obey the law in the country in which he lives. And the authorities have an obligation to enforce said law. There may be special circumstances where a law can be waived in the event of faith (f'rex, the draft), but being subject to legal, secular penalties for rape is not ever, not even once waived because of religious belief.

Part of the problem is that secular justice in this case usually can't charge the priest because of regulations concerning the accused, and the protections that the accused has in a court of law. This is why most of what has happened has been class action suits against the church, not judgments against individual priests. Also because that's where the money is.

The other side of it is that the Church is exempt from things like labour regularions, etc. The Church isn't required to put out so much for their priests, ect. They can give monks and priests just a place to live, and food and get labour for them beyond what would be permitted in a secular environment.

I'm not convinced that turning it over to the secular authorities is going to net the result that people want, which is no abuse. There's lots of rules and laws that the church doesn't have to follow simply because things work better that way. What happens when a priest gets charged and gets off entirely due to a legal technicality? Happens all the time in a criminal justice environment.

Look at it like this, the Church has an interest in monitoring and controlling the priests to prevent these things from happening, just like any private business.

Actually it is - as a juror you can vote however you want. An attorney can't specifically ask for nullification but a juror can damn well decide to nullify.

There are no juries in the human rights commission.

So, you agree that the diocese must investigate allegations in good faith, and must report violations of the law to the appropriate secular authority. How does our position differ?

I'm not exactly sure either. Beats me.