4588686 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Says reality. Nope, I don't say that, at all. But, even if I did, it would be beside the point. The release of sex offenders by the state uses similar logic, except in this case, there's a magical barrier between them and potential victims, by using the wonders of "registration". Totally works. Just like the magical gun barriers. Why should the state suddenly have the power to detain criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Father Fugee plead guilty as a sex offender in court. Per the Dallas Charter, "ARTICLE 5. We affirm the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: “There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.†Sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in the universal law of the Church (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1). Because of the seriousness of this matter, jurisdiction has been reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, AAS 93, 2001). Sexual abuse of a minor is also a crime in all civil jurisdictions in the United States.Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor*—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed fromministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical state." The point is, it IS NOT following the Charter for Protection of Children and Young Persons. Father Fugee plead guilty and is in a sex offender program. Father Fugee was and unsupervised Hospital Chaplin AFTER his conviction. Father Fugee is now the co-director of clergy formation. The Bishop had no other choice but to appoint him to a high level of responsibility dealing with young persons discerning a vocation? See Dr. Ed Peters' article. He is not in a ministry position, nor does he have a high level of responsibility dealing iwth young persons discerning a vocation. It is clergy formation, not vocations director. He is working with people who are already clergy, not young people discerning a vocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Why should the state suddenly have the power to detain criminals? People have the right to self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 People have the right to self defense. Why? He didn't sign any social contract? Why does the state have any power to detain him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Everything aside, I hope that as an assistant director of clergy or whatever, that he has very little influence on the actual spiritual direction of current or potential seminarians. Seriously, formation has been bad enough for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Also, he didn't molest the governments kids. So why do they have any right to get involved, in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Why? He didn't sign any social contract? Why does the state have any power to detain him? Social contract theory is used to justify theft, assault, and murder by the government, not to argue for recompense for crimes. That existed well prior to social contract bullcrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Social contract theory is used to justify theft, assault, and murder by the government, not to argue for recompense for crimes. That existed well prior to social contract bullcrap. Ok. So why does the state suddenly have the authority to do that. By the logic that you've been espousing for months now it shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 See Dr. Ed Peters' article. He is not in a ministry position, nor does he have a high level of responsibility dealing iwth young persons discerning a vocation. It is clergy formation, not vocations director. He is working with people who are already clergy, not young people discerning a vocation. yeah, because there is absolutely nothing wrong about a convicted sex offender priest helping other priests with their formation. nope. nothing wrong at all. /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Ok. So why does the state suddenly have the authority to do that. By the logic that you've been espousing for months now it shouldn't. "The State" doesn't. People do. It's not by blessing of a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, but because people have the right to self defense. The State claims a monopoly on legalized aggression. I reject that. But a police officer, being a human being, has the right to stop an assault in progress. From a practical standpoint, people will look to police officers for aid (even though the government has exonerated itself of responsibility to protect individuals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 "The State" doesn't. People do. It's not by blessing of a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, but because people have the right to self defense. The State claims a monopoly on legalized aggression. I reject that. But a police officer, being a human being, has the right to stop an assault in progress. From a practical standpoint, people will look to police officers for aid (even though the government has exonerated itself of responsibility to protect individuals). Ok. I think that selling guns to criminals is a lot worse than having an overly enthusiastic wrestling match with some young teenager. So I can shut down gun stores that I deem irresponsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Ok. I think that selling guns to criminals is a lot worse than having an overly enthusiastic wrestling match with some young teenager. So I can shut down gun stores that I deem irresponsible? How does selling guns violate your property rights? You seem to have no concept of aggression or crime. Edited February 8, 2013 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 What the Bishops were really saying in the Dallas Charter: any low level priest we don't like for any reason is guilty until proven innocent. Any low level priest who's our friend or in favor with us is innocent until proven guilty, but there's a certain number of motions we'll go through if there's an accusation we can't ignore. Bishops and any other members of the hierarchy are innocent until it's proven that there's a public outcry strong enough that we can't ignore it, and then we'll just do everything possible for PR damage control. Basically, the Dallas Charter isn't really a tool for protecting children, it's a tool for engaging in ecclesiastical politics, a weapon to use against those you don't like. There are some good things being done under its auspices, but the inherent hypocrisy in it just makes it an obvious blatant exercise in the worst and most disgusting forms of ecclesiastical politics there is. Sorry, but I call it like I see it, and it's rotten to the highest levels, there is no use in denying that. By its fruits you will know it, and you see the fruits of the Dallas Charter and current policies: they are basically the exact opposite of the Magnificat, the lowly are pushed down while the powerful are exalted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) N Edited February 8, 2013 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Ok. So why does the state suddenly have the authority to do that. By the logic that you've been espousing for months now it shouldn't. *sigh* Why does every thread turn in to a tiff between you and your boi toy? :detective: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now