Philly court vs. the Papacy

[loinburger]

Making 'special' rules for priests is wrong.

Then why do you keep insisting that criminal priests be treated differently than criminal non-priests?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would you complain about this hypothetical case where the priest would first gets punished by secular courts and then transferred to the vatican to be tried by your ecclesiastical court?

Because it's not JUST about the USA. The Church has to deal with everything, and many jurisdictions, priests are actually outlawed. They can be executed. Does it make sense for the priests to submit themselves to 'local justice'?

Rather then depending on whatever the 'local' justice happens to be - it's better to send the priest to the ecclesiastical courts, if the priest chooses to submit to their discipline. If the priest doesn't, then turn them over to the secular courts. In all cases, the secular penalty is more lenient then what the ecclesiastical courts will lay down.

You said that the punishment of the ecclesiastical court is harsher than that of the secular court. Well, then it would be no problem for the ecclesiastical court, to put a few years house arrest on top of the years of prison that the priest served prior to getting transferred to the vatican.

That's not the way the legal system works - once the priest has been tried, convicted and served time - the priest is free to go and the Vatican can't put him in house arrest. Once he submits to the legal system - then only their punishment applies.

This way you render unto the state what´s the states and unto the church what is the churchs

Indeed, priest being devoted to God make them His and not the state. Ergo they should be tried by the Church and not the state.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why do you keep insisting that criminal priests be treated differently than criminal non-priests?

The Church isn't an impartial body. The Criminal justice system is. The criminal justice system can't say, "oh, we're going to dump things like the statute of limitations just for priests so we can secure convictions."

The Church otoh, can discipline priests in a different fashion than the laity.

[giblets]

it's better to send the priest to the ecclesiastical courts, if the priest chooses to submit to their discipline. If the priest doesn't, then turn them over to the secular courts. In all cases, the secular penalty is more lenient then what the ecclesiastical courts will lay down.

Why would a priest choose ecclesiastical courts if ecclesiastical courts are less lenient? Apparently you think giving priests the additional option of going to ecclesiastical courts will make them worse off even though they are free to choose?

[giblets]

The Church isn't an impartial body. The Criminal justice system is. The criminal justice system can't say, "oh, we're going to dump things like the statute of limitations just for priests so we can secure convictions."

The Church otoh, can discipline priests in a different fashion than the laity.

No one is suggesting dumping the statute of limitations for priests and only for priests, you troll.

[loinburger]

Indeed, priest being devoted to God make them His and not the state. Ergo they should be tried by the Church and not the state.

"Does this apply to non-Catholic clerics as well? E.g., Muslim clerics?" "Of course not, why would you even suggest that Muslim clerics should have the same status as Catholic clerics? It's almost as though you believe that Catholics shouldn't enjoy a privileged position wherever they go."

[giblets]

If a Muslim cleric commits a crime obviously they should be tried by their own courts! I didn't know Ben supported the spread of Sharia law.

[Ben Kenobi]

No one is suggesting dumping the statute of limitations for priests and only for priests, you troll.

Which is why they *did* suggest that priests should be executed like they were by Luther and his acolytes?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would a priest choose ecclesiastical courts if ecclesiastical courts are less lenient?

Because they believe their vows meant something?

Apparently you think giving priests the additional option of going to ecclesiastical courts will make them worse off even though they are free to choose?

I said that they were more stringent. I did not say that the priests would be worse off. You are equating greater stringency with being worse off.

I don't see that as the case. They will be better off being confined from society than they will be in prison and then released after two years. They will be freer under a secular system, but I don't believe that the secular system serves society or the well-being of the priest.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Does this apply to non-Catholic clerics as well? E.g., Muslim clerics?" "Of course not, why would you even suggest that Muslim clerics should have the same status as Catholic clerics? It's almost as though you believe that Catholics shouldn't enjoy a privileged position wherever they go."

Since when does Sharia apply only to Imams? Sharia is applied, not just to the imams, but to all muslims, and to the kaffir too. But then Loinburger already knew this before he made his invalid comparison.

That being said - if Imams want to be tried by the ecclesiastical courts in Mecca, I'm fine with that. Deport them, send them home.

Apparently Loinburger forgot about that part.

[giblets]

I said that they were more stringent. I did not say that the priests would be worse off. You are equating greater stringency with being worse off.

I don't see that as the case. They will be better off being confined from society than they will be in prison and then released after two years. They will be freer under a secular system, but I don't believe that the secular system serves society or the well-being of the priest.

So one of the merits of your proposed alternative is... the criminal suffers less for their crime...?

[giblets]

Which is why they *did* suggest that priests should be executed like they were by Luther and his acolytes?

If the rape children, sure, execute them.
Don't like it? Don't rape boys.

[Proteus_MST]

Because it's not JUST about the USA. The Church has to deal with everything, and many jurisdictions, priests are actually outlawed. They can be executed. Does it make sense for the priests to submit themselves to 'local justice'?

Rather then depending on whatever the 'local' justice happens to be - it's better to send the priest to the ecclesiastical courts, if the priest chooses to submit to their discipline. If the priest doesn't, then turn them over to the secular courts. In all cases, the secular penalty is more lenient then what the ecclesiastical courts will lay down.

Not sure which laws you mean ...
the laws with regards to proselytizing that are in place in certain muslim countries?
If I remember correctly this is a risk that christian laymans (who, for example, distribute bibles or talk to muslim about Jesus) face as well as priests. And laymen don´t have this level of protection that priests obviously have (by being able to flee worldly justice and submit themselves to an ecclesiastical court).

That's not the way the legal system works - once the priest has been tried, convicted and served time - the priest is free to go and the Vatican can't put him in house arrest. Once he submits to the legal system - then only their punishment applies.

The vatican is free to make up his own rules within its state territory. Therefore it is also free to try someone for something for which this person already served a prison sentence. It also shouldn´t be a problem for a worldly jury to impose a sentence in which the convicted person first serves a prison sentence and then is extradited to vatican state territory.

Indeed, priest being devoted to God make them His and not the state. Ergo they should be tried by the Church and not the state.

Let me see...
Jesus talks to his disciples about paying taxes as ordinary citizens should do,
Jesus even submits himself to earthly justice and zalks to his disciples about not resisting it.
And didn´t also several apostles and disciples of Jesus submit themselves to worldly justice, without trying to flee, which often ended in their dead?

This all seems to indicate to me like a strict separation between worldy matters (which includes justice, not just taxes) and spiritual matters. Cannot remember hearing of anyone in initial christianity (which, after all, has to count as purest form of christianity) who used "only god/the church is allowed to judge me" as an excusation to flee worldy justice.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The fact that you are calling for special rules for special people. .

No. I'm asking for the same single system of criminal justice be applied to all, consistently and fairly. And that means Catholic priests accused of child abuse get tried in criminal courts like absolutely everyone else. And, if found guilty, go to prison like everyone else.

You're going to lose this- but how badly do you want to lose?

[loinburger]

Since when does Sharia apply only to Imams? Sharia is applied, not just to the imams, but to all muslims, and to the kaffir too. But then Loinburger already knew this before he made his invalid comparison.

"Of course non-Catholics shouldn't get their own justice system - their system is different than the Catholic system, and since only the Catholic system is valid this means that any system that deviates from the Catholic system is invalid."

"What do you man 'you haven't established the validity of the Catholic system'? Obviously you want to murder all priests!!!"

"Strawman argument? What's that? Sounds suspiciously Muslim to me."