tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post113783286042632237..comments2024-02-23T15:50:19.097-06:00Comments on Curmudgeon's Cave: Finally, my post on the SNAP CrowdCurmudgeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16958570482046462392noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138657531815393932006-01-30T15:45:00.000-06:002006-01-30T15:45:00.000-06:00CS someone did propose this law in Kansas. Of c...CS someone did propose this law in Kansas. Of course, it got no where. I do know that the lawyer for the dioceses who testified suggested that if you want to make priest mandatory reporters then you need to make mothers mandatory reporters. The statistics show that a very high rate of mothers cover up for boyfriends and step fathers. Never ever are they sued or generally prosecuted when it is found out about the cover up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138604261990740532006-01-30T00:57:00.000-06:002006-01-30T00:57:00.000-06:00The pet notion of Canon Law or that of the Law of ...The pet notion of Canon Law or that of the Law of Legal Lawlessness...I heard in ME, I think, someone proposed a bill that would force priests to reveal certain things they hear in the confessional...CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718542313798121855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138254903894783402006-01-25T23:55:00.000-06:002006-01-25T23:55:00.000-06:00Looking back, I see the following from Todd: "The...Looking back, I see the following from Todd: "There's not a convenient way to hold individual priests and bishops responsible without damaging someone's pet notion of the Church, be that some moral high ground or material possession."<BR/><BR/><I>Someone's pet notion of the Church? <B>Someone's pet notion of the Church?</B></I> How ridiculous. Look at Book IV of the current Code of Canon law. Is that someone's pet notion of the Church?Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958570482046462392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138077703851005762006-01-23T22:41:00.000-06:002006-01-23T22:41:00.000-06:00Oops, thinking out loud...Oops, thinking out loud...CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718542313798121855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138072741429751052006-01-23T21:19:00.000-06:002006-01-23T21:19:00.000-06:00CS, let's not give anyone any ideas!!!CS, let's not give anyone any ideas!!!Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958570482046462392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138043022198324412006-01-23T13:03:00.000-06:002006-01-23T13:03:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.CShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04718542313798121855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138032860475597482006-01-23T10:14:00.000-06:002006-01-23T10:14:00.000-06:00Curmudgeon,You're right on the money in my book, i...Curmudgeon,<BR/><BR/>You're right on the money in my book, if that helps at all.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how one can say that it is "justice" to take millions of dollars from people who never harmed them, in order to "compensate" for an evil doen against them.<BR/><BR/>The dioceses should and do have a moral obligation to offer spiritual help, financial assistance and even counselling for their wrongs and the wrongs of their priests. But having someone go in and demand (or sue for) millions doesn't repair or even start to make reparations for the wrongs done to them. It simply punishes the diocese and the other Catholics of the diocese.<BR/><BR/>I'm all for taking the bishops that allowed such things and priests and putting them in some ecclesiastical prison, some monastery where they would be confined to silence, prayer, meditation and penanace for the rest of their lives.<BR/><BR/>Stealing money from innocent people, even if it is done by a court system, is just as bad as the initial wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.Ian Andrew Palkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17705997337993937490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138028295147889642006-01-23T08:58:00.000-06:002006-01-23T08:58:00.000-06:00Perhaps the appropriate response to Todd's comment...Perhaps the appropriate response to Todd's comment is silence. But I'm not much for silence (except during the Canon of the Mass, of course). <BR/><BR/>Obviously Todd missed the last paragraph, where I conclude that Charity involves giving, but charity does not require--nay, it does not permit--us to let others be taken. At some point I'll take the Good Samaritan hypothetical and we'll extend and test it against the Scandal and its fallout to make my point.<BR/><BR/>Todd since you didn't read my post and you refuse to believe that the Enemy is using these litigious victims and their lawyers, as much as he's using the perverts who violated them, in his attempt to destroy the Church, I'll paraphrase my points:(1) we must approach the problem and its solution with the reason God gave us, so that emotions don't cause us to act rashly and facilitate a greater harm to society by crippling the Church and (2) we should and we DO help those who are suffering, but when the Church herself, and not just the perps, are attached, we must run to her defense. Recall (as I've discussed before) that Luther's revolt, and Henry VII's, were made on the pretext of reforming corruption. Recall, also, that the there are three parts to the church: militant, suffering, and triumphant, to which I'd add in this context the Church Anticipated, our descendants. Those you speak of as "most Catholics" are a small subset of only the "Church Militant" subset who are answering questions framed by the Enemy. <BR/><BR/>And, Todd, as for you not getting excited, well, you've surrendered yourself to modernist relativissm (if I hadn't screwed up my comments when I modified my template a couple of weeks ago, I'd point you to your comment justifying gay adoption from a while back, which you haven't recanted from). <BR/><BR/>I won't say there's not a Catholic argument to the contrary of mine, and I invite someone to make it but I will say that you don't make it--you just regurgitate the line that's coming from the City of Man. <BR/><BR/>More on this later, but I have to get to the office and attend to mundane matters of commerce.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958570482046462392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15621027.post-1138018312124792232006-01-23T06:11:00.000-06:002006-01-23T06:11:00.000-06:00One problem with the extreme end of your line of r...One problem with the extreme end of your line of reasoning is that many Catholics would gladly support the needs of people victimized by clergy predators and bishops tainted by exceedingly poor administrative judgment.<BR/><BR/>I confess I quit reading your post when you arrived at quoting your SNAP foils. People can make a good or poor argument (relatively speaking or in actuality) but it doesn't change the justice (or lack thereof) in the base cause.<BR/><BR/>We Catholics take care of clergy. There's not a convenient way to hold individual priests and bishops responsible without damaging someone's pet notion of the Church, be that some moral high ground or material possession.<BR/><BR/>About twenty to forty years ago, the Church was in a position to tell victims, "This priest was evil. We screwed up. What can we do to make things right?" And it was likely this approach would not have broken the bank.<BR/><BR/>As I've said before, I can't get excited about your issue here, my friend. I think you're pretty much going it alone.Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01191406902235512701noreply@blogger.com