RCC NY defrocks pedophile priest - appeals take eight years?

[ShadowDragon8685]

What the shit?

New York (CNN) -- A high-ranking New York priest has been found guilty by a church tribunal of sexually abusing a minor in the 1970s, according to a statement obtained Saturday from the Catholic Archdiocese of New York.

Monsignor Charles M. Kavanagh was dismissed from the priesthood following the decision Wednesday by the tribunal, which was acting on authority from the Vatican.

The accuser, a former seminary student of Kavanagh's, brought the case to the Manhattan district attorney in 2002. He then wrote to Edward Cardinal Egan, the former Archbishop of New York, informing him of his claim, according to the Office of Communications for the Archdiocese.

Between July 2002 and July 2003 the district attorney's office worked closely with the Archdiocese and found the allegations to be credible. Following an initial investigation that was conducted under the policies of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Archdiocese of New York, Kavanagh's priestly faculties were removed, according to Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the New York diocese. Kavanagh was instructed not to engage in any active ministry or even appear to be a priest.

Kavanagh requested a canonical trial as approved by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, according to Zwilling.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith ordered the trial, which was conducted outside the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of New York in 2004, Zwilling said. The trial found Kavanagh guilty and dismissed him from the clerical state.

Kavanagh requested the decision be reviewed by a church appellate court, also outside the jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of New York. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision on Wednesday, Zwilling said.

In a phone interview Saturday, accuser Daniel Donohue, who was a teenager when the abuse occurred, criticized the judicial process.

"This was an eight-year process with not a lot of transparency," he said. "The judicial system under the Vatican is not an open system, unlike our judicial system. Nobody has access to the testimony. You're sitting on the outside doing this difficult thing and in the situation under that system, only the clerics and the priests have rights. In my case, this was the Archdiocese of New York Vs. Kavanaugh, not Donohue vs. Kavanagh."

Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan apologized to Donohue in a statement.

"It is my prayer that the resolution of this case will bring a sense of peace and consolation to all who have been affected by this tragic situation," he said.

The decision of the appellate court cannot be appealed, bringing a definitive conclusion to the eight-year process of appeals.

On the one hand, it is nice to see a change of pace from denial, denial, cover-up, cover-up, statuette of limitations, statuette of limitations, bullshit bullshit bullshit. I won't deny that, but...

This whole article is disturbing to me. It reads like the report of a criminal trial and appeals process, except that instead of it being the City of New York and the State of New York, it's the Archdiocese of New York and the Vatican. They're behaving like they have the power of and respect which is due to a legal system, and even more frightening is the fact that they seem to be conducting themselves in such a manner freely.

The idea of a group of people whose first devotion is to the invisible sky pixie instead of the law, acting like people can come to them for legal remedy when they have been wronged, is just highly disturbing to me. I don't think it's proper or just that this sort of thing should go on - obviously, there's no real way of preventing a group from privately policing itself however they see fit within the law, but the fact that CNN reported it exactly like they would report a criminal trial for the same crime, including comments from the victim and statements and all...

I just find it highly disturbing, that much authority concentrated into the hands of religious officials. Am I alone in finding this disturbing?

[Zed]

Is this really your first confrontation with ecclesiastical courts? Precisely why is it 'highly disturbing' that large corporate entities set up rules by which they can discipline their members?

[Thanas]

This whole article is disturbing to me. It reads like the report of a criminal trial and appeals process, except that instead of it being the City of New York and the State of New York, it's the Archdiocese of New York and the Vatican. They're behaving like they have the power of and respect which is due to a legal system, and even more frightening is the fact that they seem to be conducting themselves in such a manner freely.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with canon law. Yes, the church does have its own legal system (which coincidentally was more advanced than the rest of Europe for the vast majority of civilization). Yes, they have a right to it, as the states gave it to them or consented to them having it.

So yes, they not only behave like a legal system, they are a legal system and they deserve the respect shown to it. Especially considering the american system, I do not think you have a leg to stand on to claim moral superiority over the canon law system.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Is this really your first confrontation with ecclesiastical courts? Precisely why is it 'highly disturbing' that large corporate entities set up rules by which they can discipline their members?

Rules by which an entity can discipline its own members are one thing.

This... Entirely too closely mirrors the normal justice system for my tastes. To me, it seems to be blurring the line between religion and government, that religion is trying to assume unto itself the power and authority of government, and that people are going along with it.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with canon law. Yes, the church does have its own legal system (which coincidentally was more advanced than the rest of Europe for the vast majority of civilization). Yes, they have a right to it, as the states gave it to them or consented to them having it.

In the middle ages that may have been true, but in modern day I see this as little better than those assclown collections douchenozzles who impersonated the legal system to scare people into paying, and only better because they're not actually lying about who they are.

So yes, they not only behave like a legal system, they are a legal system and they deserve the respect shown to it. Especially considering the american system, I do not think you have a leg to stand on to claim moral superiority over the canon law system.

They are not a legal system outside of the State of the Vatican, and they do not 'deserve' the respect to be shown to a judicial system. What I find disturbing is that they are being respected as if they were a judicial system.

I read this story and I think "Wow. Okay, so the church fired him, good, so fucking what? When the fuck is this assclown going to face a jury of twelve random citizens and get thrown in irons?" But CNN is covering this as if justice has been served in full, and it hasn't! This isn't justice, this is a douchenozzle being fired from his place of employment.

As for a leg to stand on and claiming moral superiority, where the flying smoke-signal do you come up with that horse-shit? Did I mention any of that crap?

[Thanas]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with canon law. Yes, the church does have its own legal system (which coincidentally was more advanced than the rest of Europe for the vast majority of civilization). Yes, they have a right to it, as the states gave it to them or consented to them having it.

In the middle ages that may have been true, but in modern day I see this as little better than those assclown collections douchenozzles who impersonated the legal system to scare people into paying, and only better because they're not actually lying about who they are.

Get lost. Your ignorance over canon law is telling. You will now list the things you find bad about canon law, using canon law as your source.

They are not a legal system outside of the State of the Vatican, and they do not 'deserve' the respect to be shown to a judicial system. What I find disturbing is that they are being respected as if they were a judicial system.

Are you an imbecile? Why yes, you are. What differentiates them from a judicial system in your mind? They are a legal system outside the state of the vatican, considering that every diocese has its own canonical court.

But CNN is covering this as if justice has been served in full, and it hasn't! This isn't justice, this is a douchenozzle being fired from his place of employment.

...canonical law does not provide for imprisonment as they are barred from judging criminal cases. This was about the defrocking. If you want him getting punished, get the DA involved.

As for a leg to stand on and claiming moral superiority, where the flying smoke-signal do you come up with that horse-shit? Did I mention any of that crap?

It was pretty much implicit in your ignorant claim about the judicial system and your self-rightous attitude.

[Shroom Man 777]

I don't get what Shadowdragon is blubbering about. Is it also disturbing that organizations of, say, doctors or nurses or lawyers can also set up their own commissions and end up revoking the licenses to practice of their members who are at fault (which is basically what happens when a pedo priest is defrocked, right?)? Isn't defrocking the religious equivalent of a lawyer getting disbarred?

[Serafina]

I don't get what Shadowdragon is blubbering about. Is it also disturbing that organizations of, say, doctors or nurses or lawyers can also set up their own commissions and end up revoking the licenses to practice of their members who are at fault (which is basically what happens when a pedo priest is defrocked, right?)? Isn't defrocking the religious equivalent of a lawyer getting disbarred?

Shadowdragon is a moron (granted, nothing unusual) and apparently thinks that canonical courts replace state persecution in the case of crimes (say, a priest who murdered someone will not see a normal court, and a canonic court instead). Thanas has already pointed out that this is uttery wrong, therefore making Shadowdragons rant entirely moot.

[Invictus ChiKen]

I don't get what Shadowdragon is blubbering about. Is it also disturbing that organizations of, say, doctors or nurses or lawyers can also set up their own commissions and end up revoking the licenses to practice of their members who are at fault (which is basically what happens when a pedo priest is defrocked, right?)? Isn't defrocking the religious equivalent of a lawyer getting disbarred?

I think he was trying to score points by attack religion.

[Thanas]

I don't get what Shadowdragon is blubbering about. Is it also disturbing that organizations of, say, doctors or nurses or lawyers can also set up their own commissions and end up revoking the licenses to practice of their members who are at fault (which is basically what happens when a pedo priest is defrocked, right?)? Isn't defrocking the religious equivalent of a lawyer getting disbarred?

Yes.

[Thanas]

To add: I find it almost hilarious how some people attack the church for not doing enough to stop pedophile priests - and when they then move towards defrocking such priests then attack them for doing so.

[Molyneux]

So...when is this guy going to be brought up on actual charges in a real court? Hurrah, he's no longer a priest, that's better than nothing, but I'm scratching my head over why he isn't in danger of actually going to real prison over raping kids.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

It happened in the 1970's. The statute of limitations on sexual assault of a minor is less than 40 years in most places, so it seems unlikely he'll face actual criminal charges unless another, more recent victim can come forward.

[Teebs]

So...when is this guy going to be brought up on actual charges in a real court? Hurrah, he's no longer a priest, that's better than nothing, but I'm scratching my head over why he isn't in danger of actually going to real prison over raping kids.

If I had to guess I would say that the prosecutors didn't think they could get a conviction. The standard of proof required may well be different in canonical courts. That's only a guess though, if they could have managed a conviction in a real court then they absolutely should have charged him.

[Siege]

So...when is this guy going to be brought up on actual charges in a real court?

The alledged abuse took place in the 1970s so chances are the time for criminal prosecution has expired.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Get lost. Your ignorance over canon law is telling. You will now list the things you find bad about canon law, using canon law as your source.

You're not dialing in on what I'm transmitting, mate. It's not that I'm saying "I find this part of canon law disturbing," I'm saying I find the existance of an extragovernmental judicial system that comports itself as any kind of a legal system disturbing.

Are you an imbecile? Why yes, you are. What differentiates them from a judicial system in your mind? They are a legal system outside the state of the vatican, considering that every diocese has its own canonical court.

So if I decide to set up the Greater Lesser Court of Bumfuck County, empowered by myself to hear, preside over and pass judgement upon any and all cases that anyone who enters into a contract with me cares to bring, I can?

It's bullshit, pure bullshit. They're not a judicial system because they are not a government outside of the Vatican!

...canonical law does not provide for imprisonment as they are barred from judging criminal cases. This was about the defrocking. If you want him getting punished, get the DA involved.

Which is all the more disturbing. I know it was about defrocking, you imbecile, I said that. I even said good on them for actually rescinding the pedo's pretty collar, but it's everything else that disturbs me - the legalistic proceedings that took place and the whole "order not to comport priestly functions or even appear as a priest."

When did the RCC gain the authority, in the United States of America, to establish a dress code for someone who was a former member of their organization?

I don't want the schmuck dressing in a priest's outfit, mind you - I don't want him wearing anything but orange for a good long while - but the idea that they have the authority to pass an order like that with the implied threat of being able to enforce it somehow is wrong in my mind, and highly disturbing to me!

It was pretty much implicit in your ignorant claim about the judicial system and your self-rightous attitude.

Q.Q. moar. You bitched about something that wasn't implicit at all - I'd be just as disturbed if they were passing judgements like this in the United Kingdom or Germany or Taiwan or wherever the fuck else.

I don't get what Shadowdragon is blubbering about. Is it also disturbing that organizations of, say, doctors or nurses or lawyers can also set up their own commissions and end up revoking the licenses to practice of their members who are at fault (which is basically what happens when a pedo priest is defrocked, right?)? Isn't defrocking the religious equivalent of a lawyer getting disbarred?

I have no problem with the RCC having the authority to eject someone from their organization. It's everything else that went on, from the legalistic proceedings (that took eight friggin' years to grind through the appeals?!) to the whole "you can't dress how you like" business.

Shadowdragon is a moron (granted, nothing unusual) and apparently thinks that canonical courts replace state persecution in the case of crimes (say, a priest who murdered someone will not see a normal court, and a canonic court instead). Thanas has already pointed out that this is uttery wrong, therefore making Shadowdragons rant entirely moot.

No, I don't, you imbecilic attack-dog. What I think is exactly what I said: that I find this whole legalistic proceedings, undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church, complete with bullshit about jurisdictionary notes, to be disturbing.

I find that to be disturbing, I find the way CNN is reporting this in the same way they'd report his actual, criminal trial before a court of the state of New York, to be disturbing, as if to say to the public "it's okay if this guy never sees the inside of a courthouse run by the government, you can always get the Church to put him on trial, too." I don't even like the implication of a court run by a religious authority, let alone the idea that those outside of their little play-nation might look to them for legal remedy for anything.

I think he was trying to score points by attack religion.

I don't need to score points, you asshole. I was asking if anybody else found this implication disturbing.

To add: I find it almost hilarious how some people attack the church for not doing enough to stop pedophile priests - and when they then move towards defrocking such priests then attack them for doing so.

Thanas, grow a brain in your head. I am not attacking them for defrocking the bastard, I'm stating my disturbance with the way they chose to do so. It's ridiculous, overbearing, and disturbingly like they're trying to assume some of the functions of government unto themselves.

All that an organization like the RCC should have to do to banish a member is to say "we've heard what this guy has to say, we find it clear and compelling, you're not a priest, hand in your collar and get the fuck out."

So...when is this guy going to be brought up on actual charges in a real court? Hurrah, he's no longer a priest, that's better than nothing, but I'm scratching my head over why he isn't in danger of actually going to real prison over raping kids.

Probably the statuette of limitations. I think (but don't quote me,) that some places are now changing their laws so that crimes against minors have either no statuette of limitations or don't begin to tick down until the minor reaches the age of majority, among them New York, but I don't think that would matter for most of these old cases because you can't say "guess what, that crime you did where the statuette of limitations expired? The statuette is repealed, your ass is grass." That would be nailing somebody ex post facto, and you're not allowed to do that.

[Straha]

I don't know, but considering that the article mentions, explicitly, that the New York District Attorney worked with the Church here I imagine that avenue was explored but found to be a dead end either due to statute of limitations or some other extenuating circumstance (given that the victim seems to be a willing participant).

I'll also point out that the charge of "this is taking too long" comes from the victim, which is an understandable claim considering he's been waiting decades for justice. However, it looks like there was a year long investigation into what actually happened, followed by a administrative decision and then a trial over the administrative decision within a year. Fond as I am of the United States court system, that's a far quicker resolution than would have been available anywhere else. That decision came in 2004, and the final appeal was just settled. That means even if the initial decision came on January 1st 2004, the case was only in the appellate system for, at most, just under seven years, and most likely around six years even. Which means it escalated up through the appeals courts (I think there are multiple levels of appeal, but it's been a long time since my Jesuit education on the Vatican's courts) to a final decision far quicker than could be expected in most first world legal systems.

By contrast, if you lookup New York City public schools and "rubber room" you'll find school teachers who are pederasts, drug addicts, and child abusers being kept on the payroll, and sometimes in teaching classrooms, for years after the incidents in question. So, the Roman Catholic Church in New York City is better than the New York City public school system.

Good on the church. Especially considering that a quick search of the New York Daily News reveals a long history of articles detailing the priest's parish coming to his side and demanding that the church stop their trial and reinstate him as a priest.

[Serafina]

You're not dialing in on what I'm transmitting, mate. It's not that I'm saying "I find this part of canon law disturbing," I'm saying I find the existance of an extragovernmental judicial system that comports itself as any kind of a legal system disturbing.

Except that it's not a "extragovernmental judicial system". Well, not any more than a corporate board deciding to fire someone. It's a purely internal affair and does not replace the actual judicial system.

So if I decide to set up the Greater Lesser Court of Bumfuck County, empowered by myself to hear, preside over and pass judgement upon any and all cases that anyone who enters into a contract with me cares to bring, I can?

Sure you can. As long as you don't hand out any punishment that violates the law (not yours, the governments) - oh, and it won't protect anyone who has committed an actual crime from being persecuted by the government, of course.

It's bullshit, pure bullshit. They're not a judicial system because they are not a government outside of the Vatican!

They are a judicial system because they operate like on.
They are not a LEGAL system because they are not the local government. But if you had actually listened (and were intelligent enough to grasp basic things), you would already know that.

Which is all the more disturbing. I know it was about defrocking, you imbecile, I said that. I even said good on them for actually rescinding the pedo's pretty collar, but it's everything else that disturbs me - the legalistic proceedings that took place and the whole "order not to comport priestly functions or even appear as a priest."

Wait - so what you are objecting to is that they are using legal procedures?
You would actually prefer if they threw out people on a whim, rather than following a procedure that is designed to find out the truth and act according to it (you know, like our legal system)?
And you are actually calling Thanas an imbecile? That's like...i don't know, a kindergartener calling Hawkings an idiot (given that a kindergartener is probably more astute than you are, this might be an accurate comparision).

No, I don't, you imbecilic attack-dog. What I think is exactly what I said: that I find this whole legalistic proceedings, undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church, complete with bullshit about jurisdictionary notes, to be disturbing.

Already addressed. I still can't believe that you don't get that this was a purely internal affair, and that you would prefer whimsinsical decisions over proper procedures.

Thanas, grow a brain in your head. I am not attacking them for defrocking the bastard, I'm stating my disturbance with the way they chose to do so. It's ridiculous, overbearing, and disturbingly like they're trying to assume some of the functions of government unto themselves.

Uh...why are you repeating yourself over and over again? When talking to the same person, in the same post?


You know, you really earned that VI. You are so dumb that you actually made me defend the RCC due the sheer idiocy dripping from your statement murking my contempt for them.

[Thanas]

Serafina, please stay out of this, I got it.

You're not dialing in on what I'm transmitting, mate.

Ah, good. That allows me to point out another of your idiotic habits, namely using the word mate. You are a) not a Brit b) not a chav and c) I am not your mate. You think using this word makes you appear sophisticated, despite your actual level of speech being closer to that of a redneck stereotype.

It's not that I'm saying "I find this part of canon law disturbing," I'm saying I find the existance of an extragovernmental judicial system that comports itself as any kind of a legal system disturbing.

And here we come back to the imbecile part. It has been a legal system far longer than the United States has existed. So screech all you want, but the fact is that it existed far longer and was here first. That said, your ignorance is also showing in that you seem to think that it replaces "normal" courts (parenthesis used because a trial under canon law is much fairer and much more professional than any US trial) when it does not, except for in extremely narrow circumstances in which the state has voluntarily relinquished jurisdiction and never would have had it in the first place.

Several other churches in the USA are allowed to do the exact same thing. Grow up and realize the world is not as you think it is.

So if I decide to set up the Greater Lesser Court of Bumfuck County, empowered by myself to hear, preside over and pass judgement upon any and all cases that anyone who enters into a contract with me cares to bring, I can?

It's bullshit, pure bullshit. They're not a judicial system because they are not a government outside of the Vatican!

A government is not a pre-requisite for having jurisdiction over things. The International criminal court for warcrimes in former Yugoslavia is no governemnt, but by international treaties has jurisdiction over specific issues, just like the canonical law court.

That said, if you manage to get the United States to declare you a sovereign entity and to relinquish jurisdiction over all cases to you then yes, you could theoretically set up your court. However, as you are a proven ignoramus and imbecile, I doubt they would give it to you.

By the way, the qualifications required to even being allowed to pass judgement or argue before a canonical law court are way higher than they are for lawyers to argue before the United States Supreme Court. Think about that for a second, will you?

Which is all the more disturbing. I know it was about defrocking, you imbecile, I said that. I even said good on them for actually rescinding the pedo's pretty collar, but it's everything else that disturbs me - the legalistic proceedings that took place and the whole "order not to comport priestly functions or even appear as a priest."

So due process taking place disturbs you?

When did the RCC gain the authority, in the United States of America, to establish a dress code for someone who was a former member of their organization?

I don't want the schmuck dressing in a priest's outfit, mind you - I don't want him wearing anything but orange for a good long while - but the idea that they have the authority to pass an order like that with the implied threat of being able to enforce it somehow is wrong in my mind, and highly disturbing to me!

How? If a lawyer gets disbarred, he is being warned not to appear in court. Why should this be any different, especially considering the frock is the most visible symbol of priesthood? If a Naval officer gets thrown out, should he still be allowed to wear the uniform?

Q.Q. moar.

PR 1. Go violate it some more, eventually this will come to a resolution highly beneficial to the board.

You bitched about something that wasn't implicit at all - I'd be just as disturbed if they were passing judgements like this in the United Kingdom or Germany or Taiwan or wherever the fuck else.

Funny, nobody else is. This happens all over the world and the only one who is so hurt about it that your tears and whimpers are as plentiful as raindrops is you. Oh no, how dare the catholic church regulate who is and who is not allowed to wear the insignias of priesthood?

Thanas, grow a brain in your head. I am not attacking them for defrocking the bastard, I'm stating my disturbance with the way they chose to do so. It's ridiculous, overbearing, and disturbingly like they're trying to assume some of the functions of government unto themselves.

All that an organization like the RCC should have to do to banish a member is to say "we've heard what this guy has to say, we find it clear and compelling, you're not a priest, hand in your collar and get the fuck out."

That is exactly what they did, idiot.

[Darth Yan]

Shadow, they aren't determining his overall fate; they are simply saying "you are not fit to be in our group anymore." Given that the military and corporations are allowed the same thing, why the fuck shouldn't the catholic church be allwoed to try members for violating club rules and only club rules? Question; if a dumbass violated his company's policy but not any major state laws be tried in a public court (which has nothing to do with his company's laws) or by the company (who can boot him at worst?) If the catholic court sentenced the guy to go to prison you might have a point, but they aren't, so shut up and don't open your mouth unless you have real evidence that you want to contribute. If you don't, then you will probaly wind up like Axis Kast, Picard, Darkstar and every other imbecille who debated like a moronic child: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ythpzsu18

[Thanas]

^Hey look, another idiot who decided dogpiling was a good idea. If I asked Serafina to stop, what makes you think you were in any way better qualified or asked to do precisely that?

[Shroom Man 777]

[EDIT: Ah, nevermind.]

[ShadowDragon8685]

You're not dialing in on what I'm transmitting, mate.

Ah, good. That allows me to point out another of your idiotic habits, namely using the word mate. You are a) not a Brit b) not a chav and c) I am not your mate. You think using this word makes you appear sophisticated, despite your actual level of speech being closer to that of a redneck stereotype.

1: No, but when I've been spending hours speaking with Brits (or South Africans, or Australians,) on Skype, I shift towards using their idioms. For what it's worth, that was typed in an Australian accent.
2: Certainly not. (Nor a bogan, either.)
3: Would you have preferred "wanker" or something even more derogatory? I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt in explaining that you were not understanding what I was attempting to communicate, but now it's clear you're just being an asshole.

It's not that I'm saying "I find this part of canon law disturbing," I'm saying I find the existance of an extragovernmental judicial system that comports itself as any kind of a legal system disturbing.

And here we come back to the imbecile part. It has been a legal system far longer than the United States has existed. So screech all you want, but the fact is that it existed far longer and was here first. That said, your ignorance is also showing in that you seem to think that it replaces "normal" courts (parenthesis used because a trial under canon law is much fairer and much more professional than any US trial) when it does not, except for in extremely narrow circumstances in which the state has voluntarily relinquished jurisdiction and never would have had it in the first place.

Several other churches in the USA are allowed to do the exact same thing. Grow up and realize the world is not as you think it is.

Duration does not equal jurisdiction. It is not a legal system empowered to pass judgment of law in this country at the least, and the fact that they masquerade as such and comport themselves in the trappings thereof is disturbing to me. "Screech" about that, jackass.

A government is not a pre-requisite for having jurisdiction over things. The International criminal court for warcrimes in former Yugoslavia is no governemnt, but by international treaties has jurisdiction over specific issues, just like the canonical law court.

The ICC is empowered by governments, and effectively is a governmental function of many governments. The RCC, on the other hand, is a religious institution. Apples and martians.

That said, if you manage to get the United States to declare you a sovereign entity and to relinquish jurisdiction over all cases to you then yes, you could theoretically set up your court. However, as you are a proven ignoramus and imbecile, I doubt they would give it to you.

When, exactly, did the United States of America cede jurisdiction at all to the Roman Catholic Church?

By the way, the qualifications required to even being allowed to pass judgement or argue before a canonical law court are way higher than they are for lawyers to argue before the United States Supreme Court. Think about that for a second, will you?

You're quite right.

You're not required to be a Roman Catholic to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, for instance.

Or what, did you expect me to be impressed by their "exacting standards"? When any of those standards include religious qualifications, that's frightening, not impressive.

So due process taking place disturbs you?

When it's taking place under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church instead of, say, a court of law, yes. Yes it does.

How? If a lawyer gets disbarred, he is being warned not to appear in court. Why should this be any different, especially considering the frock is the most visible symbol of priesthood? If a Naval officer gets thrown out, should he still be allowed to wear the uniform?

If a lawyer gets disbarred, the Bar association can't tell him he's not allowed to wear Armani business suits and carry a briefcase, just that he's not allowed to argue a case in court. They can have legal action taken against him for misrepresenting himself as a practicing attorney, but they can't tell him how to dress.

Whereas, apples to martians again, you're comparing an actual government armed force to the Roman Catholic Church. The difference is the force of law:

18 USC section 711 states:

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may
wear -
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive
part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps.

A civilian impersonating a member of the Navy is committing a crime as defined by Federal law. The Federal government, being the actual government of the United States of America, has both a compelling interest in, and the legal authority to regulate civilians wearing the garb of its employees, whereas the Roman Catholic Church may have a compelling interest in such regulation, but they are not empowered to enact such regulation in this country.

That whole "wall of separation between Church and State" thing, you know.

Q.Q. moar.

PR 1. Go violate it some more, eventually this will come to a resolution highly beneficial to the board.

"Q.Q". is an understood emoticon to represent a pair of crying human eyes, just as if I had told you "chill out and go have a , maybe you'll feel better." And "moar" is a deliberate misspelling which is likewise understood in context to mean that you should feel free to continue bitching.

But to clarify: Feel free to continue bawling your baby blue eyes out because you're gifted with approximately the comprehension faculties a fruitcake possesses after having been processed by the gastro-intestinal tract of a dog with a bowel upset disorder.

Funny, nobody else is. This happens all over the world and the only one who is so hurt about it that your tears and whimpers are as plentiful as raindrops is you. Oh no, how dare the catholic church regulate who is and who is not allowed to wear the insignias of priesthood?

You're exactly right. How dare they? Frankly I find it disturbing to the highest degree that the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to exercise the regulatory functions of government - to wit, restricting a person's freedom of expression by attempting to forbid him from wearing garb - within a secular nation which purports to have a law preventing the state from respecting an establishment of religion.

The options that I can see are three, and all are disturbing:
1: In clear violation of the Establishment Clause, the Roman Catholic Church may forbid a person from wearing something and some governmental arm of the United States of America will enforce that restriction for them.
2: The Roman Catholic Church is pronouncing a judgment forbidding a person from wearing what he likes as though they had the authority to do so when in fact they do not and there can be no enforcement of the judgment.
3: The Roman Catholic Church is forbidding a person from wearing what he likes, and should he violate that judgment they will act on their own to enforce the ruling.

Thanas, grow a brain in your head. I am not attacking them for defrocking the bastard, I'm stating my disturbance with the way they chose to do so. It's ridiculous, overbearing, and disturbingly like they're trying to assume some of the functions of government unto themselves.

All that an organization like the RCC should have to do to banish a member is to say "we've heard what this guy has to say, we find it clear and compelling, you're not a priest, hand in your collar and get the fuck out."

That is exactly what they did, idiot.

No, telling a person to hand in their badge of office and get the fuck out takes approximately five minutes, even if you've gone out of your way to compose a particularly eloquent dismissal or vitriol-dripping lengthy diatribe. Listening to what the other people have to say, even if we get outrageous and assume a complicated, muddled affair, should take at most two, three months, and that's only if there's a lot of travel time and/or tracking down people involved.

This took eight years and required two freaking appeals to go through, all enshrouded in the trappings of law as if that law had legitimacy! And the press is reporting it as if it were a criminal prosecution being undertaken by the District Attorney of New York, lending them that sort of legitimacy.

Are you really so blind as to be unable to see why I find this disturbing?! Or are you just scoring cool points with the other oldbies by mauling a titled newbie?

[Shroom Man 777]

BUT THANAS!

A mall/hospital/restaurant/establishment fires an employee for stealing/being a shmuck/whatever. The mall/hospital/restaurant/establishment orders the former employee not to wear the uniform of the mall.

OMG the idea that they have the authority to pass an order like that with the implied threat of being able to enforce it somehow is wrong in my mind, and highly disturbing to me!

It's the idea, Thanas! After all... What is the most resilient parasite? Bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm? An idea. Resilient... highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to eradicate. An idea that is fully formed - fully understood - that sticks; right in there somewhere.

What is "real"? How do you define "real"? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.



Seriously. What would be people's reaction if, instead of Catlick priests and kiddy fiddlers, this was just a McDonalds burger flipper who had typhoid fever and contaminated a bunch of burgers? And McDonalds ends up defrocking this burger flipper and bans him from ever wearing the McD's uniform? Would there be outrage? Would there be gnashing of teeth? Or would we want some fries with that?

Or, shit, what about if in the Boys Scout, they defrock one of their own members and ban him from wearing his MERIT BADGES? That is DISTURBIA!!! And the Boy Scouts are also known for having pedos in 'em, just leik the Catlick Church. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

What's fucking wrong with organizations having legalistic internal proceedings, anyway? I wonder if [NAME REDACTED] was angry when he saw The Social Network, because those rich dweebs had pseudo-legalistic proceedings going on in their private discussion or whatever? The fact that private organizations have procedures within them is disturbing!


[I hope I'm not dogpiling, Thanas mang. ]

[Thanas]

1: No, but when I've been spending hours speaking with Brits (or South Africans, or Australians,) on Skype, I shift towards using their idioms. For what it's worth, that was typed in an Australian accent.
2: Certainly not. (Nor a bogan, either.)
3: Would you have preferred "wanker" or something even more derogatory? I was attempting to give you the benefit of the doubt in explaining that you were not understanding what I was attempting to communicate, but now it's clear you're just being an asshole.

Don't let me pointing out it makes you look like an idiot stop you then. BTW, this is not just me. About everybody who is British, Australian, is of the opinion that it makes you look stupid. Idioms got nothing to do with it, for I somehow have the mental capacity not to do so and I bet I speak with more Brits than you do.

Duration does not equal jurisdiction. It is not a legal system empowered to pass judgment of law in this country at the least, and the fact that they masquerade as such and comport themselves in the trappings thereof is disturbing to me. "Screech" about that, jackass.

How sad. Even when you repeat the point, you miss it. Of course it is a legal system empowered to pass judgement of law in church matters, you idiot. Otherwise they would not have been allowed to judicate this case with the assistance of the DA in the first place.

A government is not a pre-requisite for having jurisdiction over things. The International criminal court for warcrimes in former Yugoslavia is no governemnt, but by international treaties has jurisdiction over specific issues, just like the canonical law court.

The ICC is empowered by governments, and effectively is a governmental function of many governments. The RCC, on the other hand, is a religious institution. Apples and martians.

The Holy See is both recognized as an international law object capable of holding its own courts and a religious institution. How sad, that despite this being pointed out to you you still miss the point.

When, exactly, did the United States of America cede jurisdiction at all to the Roman Catholic Church?

Ever since its existence?

By the way, the qualifications required to even being allowed to pass judgement or argue before a canonical law court are way higher than they are for lawyers to argue before the United States Supreme Court. Think about that for a second, will you?

You're quite right.

You're not required to be a Roman Catholic to argue before the Supreme Court of the United States of America, for instance.

Or what, did you expect me to be impressed by their "exacting standards"? When any of those standards include religious qualifications, that's frightening, not impressive.

Get lost, imbecile. A church might have religious qualifications for its members? Oh noes, the world is ending. You freaking know-nothing are not even making the slightest attempt to educate yourself, no, like the fat pig you are, you simply wallow in your ignorance. For your information, to argue in canon law one needs a law degree (J.D.) and a special degree (usually a doctorate) in canon law, which takes another 2-4 years. This is higher than the requirements to argue before the bar, so once again, your ignorance is obvious to everybody with eyes.

When it's taking place under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church instead of, say, a court of law, yes. Yes it does.

Professional organizations are not allowed to self-regulate now? What great proponent of liberty you are, requiring US courts to pass judgement over professional organizations. Oh, btw, freedom of religion. Choke on that.

How? If a lawyer gets disbarred, he is being warned not to appear in court. Why should this be any different, especially considering the frock is the most visible symbol of priesthood? If a Naval officer gets thrown out, should he still be allowed to wear the uniform?

If a lawyer gets disbarred, the Bar association can't tell him he's not allowed to wear Armani business suits and carry a briefcase, just that he's not allowed to argue a case in court. They can have legal action taken against him for misrepresenting himself as a practicing attorney, but they can't tell him how to dress.

A priest's frock is the most visible symbol of his status. If anybody wears it, he is misrepresenting himself as a priest.

Whereas, apples to martians again, you're comparing an actual government armed force to the Roman Catholic Church. The difference is the force of law:

18 USC section 711 states:

Except as otherwise provided by law, no person except a member of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as the case may be, may
wear -
(1) the uniform, or a distinctive part of the uniform, of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps; or
(2) a uniform any part of which is similar to a distinctive
part of the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine
Corps.

A civilian impersonating a member of the Navy is committing a crime as defined by Federal law. The Federal government, being the actual government of the United States of America, has both a compelling interest in, and the legal authority to regulate civilians wearing the garb of its employees, whereas the Roman Catholic Church may have a compelling interest in such regulation, but they are not empowered to enact such regulation in this country.

Actually, it is also a crime to impersonate a clergyman in at least one state.

Whoever, being in a public place, fraudulently pretends by garb or outward array to be a minister of any religion, or nun, priest, rabbi or other member of the clergy, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or confinement in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Alabama code, Section 13A-14-4

That whole "wall of separation between Church and State" thing, you know.

Yes, let us talk some about that. Under your impression of it, you would have the state decide who does or does not get to be a priest, instead of the churches. Turns out seperation between church and state does exactly demand the state to keep out of it.

"Q.Q". is an understood emoticon to represent a pair of crying human eyes, just as if I had told you "chill out and go have a , maybe you'll feel better." And "moar" is a deliberate misspelling which is likewise understood in context to mean that you should feel free to continue bitching.

But to clarify: Feel free to continue bawling your baby blue eyes out because you're gifted with approximately the comprehension faculties a fruitcake possesses after having been processed by the gastro-intestinal tract of a dog with a bowel upset disorder.

You're exactly right. How dare they? Frankly I find it disturbing to the highest degree that the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to exercise the regulatory functions of government - to wit, restricting a person's freedom of expression by attempting to forbid him from wearing garb - within a secular nation which purports to have a law preventing the state from respecting an establishment of religion.

The options that I can see are three, and all are disturbing:
1: In clear violation of the Establishment Clause, the Roman Catholic Church may forbid a person from wearing something and some governmental arm of the United States of America will enforce that restriction for them.
2: The Roman Catholic Church is pronouncing a judgment forbidding a person from wearing what he likes as though they had the authority to do so when in fact they do not and there can be no enforcement of the judgment.
3: The Roman Catholic Church is forbidding a person from wearing what he likes, and should he violate that judgment they will act on their own to enforce the ruling.

You missed the obvious 4: The Roman Catholic Church is forbidding a child abuser to wear the frock of a priest and get authority that way, with full consent of the USA and the DA's office.

Really, only an absolute idiot like you could continue crying like this over an issue which nobody, not a single person over the centuries, has had any issue with.

No, telling a person to hand in their badge of office and get the fuck out takes approximately five minutes,

BWAHAHAHAHAAA. You got no idea of how the real world works, do you? Have you ever had a fulltime job? Ever? If you did, then you obviously payed no attention to it or otherwise you would not make such an obviously stupid argument.

even if you've gone out of your way to compose a particularly eloquent dismissal or vitriol-dripping lengthy diatribe. Listening to what the other people have to say, even if we get outrageous and assume a complicated, muddled affair, should take at most two, three months, and that's only if there's a lot of travel time and/or tracking down people involved.

This took eight years and required two freaking appeals to go through, all enshrouded in the trappings of law as if that law had legitimacy!

It has legitimacy and had it for over a thousand years. What arrogance to declare it illegitmate. The world does not turn the way you want it to.

BTW:

I'll also point out that the charge of "this is taking too long" comes from the victim, which is an understandable claim considering he's been waiting decades for justice. However, it looks like there was a year long investigation into what actually happened, followed by a administrative decision and then a trial over the administrative decision within a year. Fond as I am of the United States court system, that's a far quicker resolution than would have been available anywhere else. That decision came in 2004, and the final appeal was just settled. That means even if the initial decision came on January 1st 2004, the case was only in the appellate system for, at most, just under seven years, and most likely around six years even. Which means it escalated up through the appeals courts (I think there are multiple levels of appeal, but it's been a long time since my Jesuit education on the Vatican's courts) to a final decision far quicker than could be expected in most first world legal systems.

So: How is canon law suddenly illegitimate?

And the press is reporting it as if it were a criminal prosecution being undertaken by the District Attorney of New York, lending them that sort of legitimacy.

It is? Kindly point me out to where the press says that.

Are you really so blind as to be unable to see why I find this disturbing?! Or are you just scoring cool points with the other oldbies by mauling a titled newbie?

[/quote]

Waaah. Mean Thanas is out to get me. Waah. I CAN'T HANDLE THE MEAN LAWYER TELLING ME I AM FULL OF IT REGARDING LAW. WAAAAAH.

No, I am saying this because I consider your points to be the highlights of stupidity. It has been what, half a year since you got the title you so aptly deserve? And you have not grown up or educated yourself one bit since then. Very disappointing.