A Convenient Morality

[89Hen]

My final thoughts on this as we are going to have to agree to disagree. If CHI had settled, do you think this makes any news outlet of any kind? The only thing it would have done was prevented this story from coming out. You could argue that would be worth the money as damage control, but I'd argue that's borderline extortion and it wouldn't have helped their side. As it is, it's gotten people talking about this law, which is what needs to happen if there's any chance of changing it.

[D1B]

My final thoughts on this as we are going to have to agree to disagree. If CHI had settled, do you think this makes any news outlet of any kind? The only thing it would have done was prevented this story from coming out. You could argue that would be worth the money as damage control, but I'd argue that's borderline extortion and it wouldn't have helped their side. As it is, it's gotten people talking about this law, which is what needs to happen if there's any chance of changing it.

Sure thing, Hen.

[D1B]

Bullshit. You have not done enough. The victims, yes, you sheep, **** no. You still bow to the authority of your criminal leaders and defend their actions more than you challenge them. A handful of journalists have done more that a couple billion kneeling automatons.

The blame ultimately lies with you. You're the only group who can challenge your leadership, but, like the German citizen, you sat and watched.

And this is why you are just a blowhard on a website. You talk a good game but in the end all you do is type posts without thought and pat yourself on the back while you sit in front of a screen in your underwear with doritos crumbs all over the place. Your entire premise in all of this is that you hate religion - you are a self admitted bigot after all - and you twist anything you can to suit that premise. You ignore that the only reason why these crimes have come to light is because the lay population of the Church stood up and brought it to light and continues to this day to demand that these crimes never happen again. You ignore it because again, it doesn't fit your pre-conceived bigotted outlook. Luckily, for the victims and the children out there, there are people who genuinely care about the kids. I'm not sure you even know the kids exist as you hate-spew away. Shame on you.

Personal attacks, nice.

Billions of comfortably blind sheep didn't do a thing.

[D1B]

It's interesting that you bring up the German citizens. There is much evidence of the Germans rioting, protesting the Nazis after some laws were passed. And after all the protests, the Nazis repealed some of the rules. It's actually quite interesting that they confronted the Nazis on many laws (which dealt with marrying citizens of other countries, laws in regards to Christianity, etc...) and the Nazis backed off.

Of course, most Europeans were anti-semantic and didn't raise much of a stink when it came to the Jews.

yeah, great, they rioted and pushed back some laws like marrying people from other countries, but then lined up to help immolate 6 million people because their were Jews. So I guess they weren't all that bad since they pushed back on many of the laws - no reason to castigate them because they turned a blind eye and actually encouraged and helped the Holocaust.

Religion - fertile ground for demagogues.

[GannonFan]

yeah, great, they rioted and pushed back some laws like marrying people from other countries, but then lined up to help immolate 6 million people because their were Jews. So I guess they weren't all that bad since they pushed back on many of the laws - no reason to castigate them because they turned a blind eye and actually encouraged and helped the Holocaust.

Religion - fertile ground for demagogues.

And any entity that involves children under adult supervision is fertile ground for pedophiles. The answer isn't to eliminate those entities, the answer is to fix them so that pedophiles don't get the chance to commit their crimes.

But, oh, sorry, I forgot that you don't care about the kids, it's the religion part your after. Just ignore my part about the kids then, didn't want to distract your bigotry.

[D1B]

Religion - fertile ground for demagogues.

And any entity that involves children under adult supervision is fertile ground for pedophiles. The answer isn't to eliminate those entities, the answer is to fix them so that pedophiles don't get the chance to commit their crimes.

But, oh, sorry, I forgot that you don't care about the kids, it's the religion part your after. Just ignore my part about the kids then, didn't want to distract your bigotry.

Again, personal attacks.

Agree, but related to child abuse,there this fertile ground of the secular arena:



and the catholic church's fertile ground pictured here:



The church needs to get rid of the Vatican.

[UNI88]

My final thoughts on this as we are going to have to agree to disagree. If CHI had settled, do you think this makes any news outlet of any kind? The only thing it would have done was prevented this story from coming out. You could argue that would be worth the money as damage control, but I'd argue that's borderline extortion and it wouldn't have helped their side. As it is, it's gotten people talking about this law, which is what needs to happen if there's any chance of changing it.

You are correct, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I also agree that it likely wouldn't have made the news if CHI had settled and that they did bring attention to the issue which could serve their purpose in the long run.

I do strongly believe however that they gave up the moral high ground when they used the legal definition rather than their own. When their own beliefs are at a higher standard than the law, I believe that a religious organization should follow their own beliefs. So from my perspective, this instance damaged the Catholic Church's credibility and the best way to restore a portion of that credibility is to admit to making a mistake and doing the best you can to rectify that mistake.

[Ibanez]

Eh, I've said all along I don't believe the Church is consistent anyway when it comes to birth control. Natural Family Planning (with the graphing of morning temperature, check of the fluids downstairs, etc), if done correctly, has the same effectiveness as condoms or other birth control. Heck, the Church actively advertises it as a way to postpone childbirth and to have children when it makes sense to have children. And non-Catholics who are having trouble getting pregnant use that method, or variance of it, to pinpoint when they can get pregnant.

If the Church says on one hand that you can plan pregnancies and when to have kids, and then on the other hand says you can't do it the same thing with a latex condom, then all they are saying is that God's kryptonite, apparently, is the all-mighty latex. Frankly, I think the creator of the universe should be able to overcome latex if he wanted to. I'm all for birth control, in spite of the Church's teachings on it.

As many things, there is no religious basis for this. The contraceptive issue is from a bygone era and further evidence the the RCC is hesitant to change

[Ibanez]

It's interesting that you bring up the German citizens. There is much evidence of the Germans rioting, protesting the Nazis after some laws were passed. And after all the protests, the Nazis repealed some of the rules. It's actually quite interesting that they confronted the Nazis on many laws (which dealt with marrying citizens of other countries, laws in regards to Christianity, etc...) and the Nazis backed off.

Of course, most Europeans were anti-semantic and didn't raise much of a stink when it came to the Jews.

yeah, great, they rioted and pushed back some laws like marrying people from other countries, but then lined up to help immolate 6 million people because their were Jews. So I guess they weren't all that bad since they pushed back on many of the laws - no reason to castigate them because they turned a blind eye and actually encouraged and helped the Holocaust.

That isn't what I said. I just posted an interesting fact that many people don't know. It doesn't excuse the collective guilt.

[89Hen]

I also agree that it likely wouldn't have made the news if CHI had settled and that they did bring attention to the issue which could serve their purpose in the long run.

Then what are we arguing? We're not arguing about whether they didn't try to save the lives of the twins. We're arguing about whether the widower has a legal case. According to the law, he does not. What would he have settled for? $1M, $2M, $5M? As I said, they pay that and NOTHING is written about it. It doesn't further the cause one bit. Again, we're talking about whether the widower gets paid, not whether CHI believes in the sanctity of human life from conception.

BTW, I guess that wasn't the my last thoughts.

[Ibanez]

I also agree that it likely wouldn't have made the news if CHI had settled and that they did bring attention to the issue which could serve their purpose in the long run.

Then what are we arguing? We're not arguing about whether they didn't try to save the lives of the twins. We're arguing about whether the widower has a legal case. According to the law, he does not. What would he have settled for? $1M, $2M, $5M? As I said, they pay that and NOTHING is written about it. It doesn't further the cause one bit. Again, we're talking about whether the widower gets paid, not whether CHI believes in the sanctity of human life from conception.

BTW, I guess that wasn't the my last thoughts.

I thought issue was that CHI believes in the sanctity of human life, however when its legal team used a law which is contradiction to RCC values.

Am I off base or is that another discussion?

[UNI88]

I also agree that it likely wouldn't have made the news if CHI had settled and that they did bring attention to the issue which could serve their purpose in the long run.

Then what are we arguing? We're not arguing about whether they didn't try to save the lives of the twins. We're arguing about whether the widower has a legal case. According to the law, he does not. What would he have settled for? $1M, $2M, $5M? As I said, they pay that and NOTHING is written about it. It doesn't further the cause one bit. Again, we're talking about whether the widower gets paid, not whether CHI believes in the sanctity of human life from conception.

BTW, I guess that wasn't the my last thoughts.

We aren't arguing, we're engaged in civil discourse. I think it's a difference in perspective - to me it's about CHI putting their money where their mouth is and backing up their belief that human life begins at conception. They chose not to and IMO that brings into question how seriously they believe it and thus their credibility.

[89Hen]

I think it's a difference in perspective - to me it's about CHI putting their money where their mouth is and backing up their belief that human life begins at conception. They chose not to and IMO that brings into question how seriously they believe it and thus their credibility.

I get it, but why would they settle a malpractice case where they don't believe they were neglegent? Remember, that's what this is about.

The only alternative I can think of is let it go to trial and tell their lawyers to not use the legal definition of person and instead defend the case only as far as neglegence goes. Would that have been better in your eyes? Then they could have spent the money and saved face?

[UNI88]

I think it's a difference in perspective - to me it's about CHI putting their money where their mouth is and backing up their belief that human life begins at conception. They chose not to and IMO that brings into question how seriously they believe it and thus their credibility.

I get it, but why would they settle a malpractice case where they don't believe they were neglegent? Remember, that's what this is about.

The only alternative I can think of is let it go to trial and tell their lawyers to not use the legal definition of person and instead defend the case only as far as neglegence goes. Would that have been better in your eyes? Then they could have spent the money and saved face?

I have no problem with them fighting the suit because they didn't think they were negligent. My issue is that they used an argument that while legal runs completely counter to the church's teachings. They set aside their moral principles in order to win a lawsuit.

[89Hen]

I get it, but why would they settle a malpractice case where they don't believe they were neglegent? Remember, that's what this is about.

The only alternative I can think of is let it go to trial and tell their lawyers to not use the legal definition of person and instead defend the case only as far as neglegence goes. Would that have been better in your eyes? Then they could have spent the money and saved face?

I have no problem with them fighting the suit because they didn't think they were negligent. My issue is that they used an argument that while legal runs completely counter to the church's teachings. They set aside their moral principles in order to win a lawsuit.

So you're OK with them fighting the law suit, but not allowing the attornies all the benefit of the law. Do you think even fighting the law suit would leave a sour taste in many peoples mouths?

[UNI88]

I have no problem with them fighting the suit because they didn't think they were negligent. My issue is that they used an argument that while legal runs completely counter to the church's teachings. They set aside their moral principles in order to win a lawsuit.

So you're OK with them fighting the law suit, but not allowing the attornies all the benefit of the law. Do you think even fighting the law suit would leave a sour taste in many peoples mouths?

It's not about the legal aspects of the case, it's about the PR aspects. Using the argument that they did caused damage from a PR/credibility perspective with the media and the general public. Why should people listen to them when they preach against pre-marital sex, abortion, etc. when they were willing to set aside their belief of when life begins in order to win a lawsuit? With all of the pedophilia scandals, the Catholic Church needs to be rebuilding its image and credibility and this was not a positive step.

[89Hen]

Why should people listen to them when they preach against pre-marital sex, abortion, etc. when they were willing to set aside their belief of when life begins in order to win a lawsuit?

Because it's the law?

The judge should have thrown out the case with them having to say a word.

[GannonFan]

So you're OK with them fighting the law suit, but not allowing the attornies all the benefit of the law. Do you think even fighting the law suit would leave a sour taste in many peoples mouths?

It's not about the legal aspects of the case, it's about the PR aspects. Using the argument that they did caused damage from a PR/credibility perspective with the media and the general public. Why should people listen to them when they preach against pre-marital sex, abortion, etc. when they were willing to set aside their belief of when life begins in order to win a lawsuit? With all of the pedophilia scandals, the Catholic Church needs to be rebuilding its image and credibility and this was not a positive step.

But at the end of the day, it's a legal case that is debated and argued on the legal merits of the case at the time of the case. Do people really feel better and have better perceptions about certain religions when they have adherents taken to court to force them to medicate their children who are very sick, even if it's against their particular religion to use that medication? No, those religions are scoffed at for trying to live by their rules and to think that they trump existing law. There's no PR benefit for those religions to go to court and lose, but to stand by their religious belief.

The Catholic Church is well within their right, as are those who hold similar beliefs, to try to actively change laws within the democratic process that would fit better with their belief systems. That's just what societies do. But until they are able to change the laws, they are also well within their right to live by the laws that are on the books today. This case, when it comes down to it, especially related to the pedophile scandal, has about zero to do with the public's perception of that religion - no matter how this case was resolved. The other scandal, much more deservedly, will easily trump any PR aspects of this case.

[D1B]

It's not about the legal aspects of the case, it's about the PR aspects. Using the argument that they did caused damage from a PR/credibility perspective with the media and the general public. Why should people listen to them when they preach against pre-marital sex, abortion, etc. when they were willing to set aside their belief of when life begins in order to win a lawsuit? With all of the pedophilia scandals, the Catholic Church needs to be rebuilding its image and credibility and this was not a positive step.

But at the end of the day, it's a legal case that is debated and argued on the legal merits of the case at the time of the case. Do people really feel better and have better perceptions about certain religions when they have adherents taken to court to force them to medicate their children who are very sick, even if it's against their particular religion to use that medication? No, those religions are scoffed at for trying to live by their rules and to think that they trump existing law. There's no PR benefit for those religions to go to court and lose, but to stand by their religious belief.

The Catholic Church is well within their right, as are those who hold similar beliefs, to try to actively change laws within the democratic process that would fit better with their belief systems. That's just what societies do. But until they are able to change the laws, they are also well within their right to live by the laws that are on the books today. This case, when it comes down to it, especially related to the pedophile scandal, has about zero to do with the public's perception of that religion - no matter how this case was resolved. The other scandal, much more deservedly, will easily trump any PR aspects of this case.

The catholic church is actively lobbying to stop efforts to change laws that protect children, specifically statute of limitation guidelines so they can save money, and keep their pedophiles safe.

Joan Fitz-Gerald, former president of the Colorado Senate, who proposed the window legislation, was an active Catholic who said she was stunned to find in church one Sunday in 2006 that the archdiocese had asked priests to raise the issue during a Mass and distribute lobbying postcards.

“It was the most brutal thing I’ve ever been through,” she said of the church campaign. “The politics, the deception, the lack of concern for not only the children in the past, but for children today.” She has since left the church.

The Massachusetts Catholic Conference has spoken out strongly against a bill that would eliminate both criminal and civil statutes of limitations, but advocates still hope to win a two-year window for filing civil claims.

If that happens, “we’ll see a lot more victims come forward, and we’ll find out more about who the abusers are,” said Jetta Bernier, director of the advocacy group Massachusetts Citizens for Children.

The landmark trial of Msgr. William J. Lynn in Philadelphia, who is accused of allowing predators to remain in ministry, almost did not happen because of the statute of limitations.

A scathing grand jury report in 2005 described dozens of victims and offending priests and said that officials, including Philadelphia’s cardinal, had “excused and enabled the abuse.” But the law in place at the time of the crimes required victims to come forth by age 23. “As a result,” the report said, “these priests and officials will necessarily escape criminal prosecution.”

But victims emerged whose abuse fell within the deadline and in 2011, a new grand jury brought charges against Monsignor Lynn, who had supervised priest assignments.

Pennsylvania expanded the limits, and for crimes from 2007 on, charges will be possible up to the time that victims reach age 50. Advocates are now pushing to abolish the statute of limitations for child sex abuse and open a window for civil suits over long-past abuses. But the legislation appears stalled in the face of church opposition.

[UNI88]

It's not about the legal aspects of the case, it's about the PR aspects. Using the argument that they did caused damage from a PR/credibility perspective with the media and the general public. Why should people listen to them when they preach against pre-marital sex, abortion, etc. when they were willing to set aside their belief of when life begins in order to win a lawsuit? With all of the pedophilia scandals, the Catholic Church needs to be rebuilding its image and credibility and this was not a positive step.

But at the end of the day, it's a legal case that is debated and argued on the legal merits of the case at the time of the case. Do people really feel better and have better perceptions about certain religions when they have adherents taken to court to force them to medicate their children who are very sick, even if it's against their particular religion to use that medication? No, those religions are scoffed at for trying to live by their rules and to think that they trump existing law. There's no PR benefit for those religions to go to court and lose, but to stand by their religious belief.

The Catholic Church is well within their right, as are those who hold similar beliefs, to try to actively change laws within the democratic process that would fit better with their belief systems. That's just what societies do. But until they are able to change the laws, they are also well within their right to live by the laws that are on the books today. This case, when it comes down to it, especially related to the pedophile scandal, has about zero to do with the public's perception of that religion - no matter how this case was resolved. The other scandal, much more deservedly, will easily trump any PR aspects of this case.

I agree that any church is well within its rights to use the laws on the books to defend themselves. I also feel that it was hypocrisy in this situation for CHI to use a lower, legal definition of when life begins when the Catholic Church is adamant about a higher, more stringent definition. It's not a question of pure Vulcan logic, it's a question of leadership and virtue and in the end what you think of it is a matter of opinion. A religious institution by its very nature positions itself as a guide and guardian of morality and as such, I personally hold them to a higher standard than I would an individual or corporation. They need to lead by example and that can mean taking the difficult path. They took the easy path in this situation and it damaged their credibility from my perspective. You and 89 can disagree but everyone can have a different opinion on this and all are valid.

[D1B]

But at the end of the day, it's a legal case that is debated and argued on the legal merits of the case at the time of the case. Do people really feel better and have better perceptions about certain religions when they have adherents taken to court to force them to medicate their children who are very sick, even if it's against their particular religion to use that medication? No, those religions are scoffed at for trying to live by their rules and to think that they trump existing law. There's no PR benefit for those religions to go to court and lose, but to stand by their religious belief.

The Catholic Church is well within their right, as are those who hold similar beliefs, to try to actively change laws within the democratic process that would fit better with their belief systems. That's just what societies do. But until they are able to change the laws, they are also well within their right to live by the laws that are on the books today. This case, when it comes down to it, especially related to the pedophile scandal, has about zero to do with the public's perception of that religion - no matter how this case was resolved. The other scandal, much more deservedly, will easily trump any PR aspects of this case.

I agree that any church is well within its rights to use the laws on the books to defend themselves. I also feel that it was hypocrisy in this situation for CHI to use a lower, legal definition of when life begins when the Catholic Church is adamant about a higher, more stringent definition. It's not a question of pure Vulcan logic, it's a question of leadership and virtue and in the end what you think of it is a matter of opinion. A religious institution by its very nature positions itself as a guide and guardian of morality and as such, I personally hold them to a higher standard than I would an individual or corporation. They need to lead by example and that can mean taking the difficult path. They took the easy path in this situation and it damaged their credibility from my perspective. You and 89 can disagree but everyone can have a different opinion on this and all are valid.

Man, don't waste your time with him. Dude is a fucking automaton who'd step over his dead mothers body to marginally improve his position.

[ASUMountaineer]

It's not about the legal aspects of the case, it's about the PR aspects. Using the argument that they did caused damage from a PR/credibility perspective with the media and the general public. Why should people listen to them when they preach against pre-marital sex, abortion, etc. when they were willing to set aside their belief of when life begins in order to win a lawsuit? With all of the pedophilia scandals, the Catholic Church needs to be rebuilding its image and credibility and this was not a positive step.

But at the end of the day, it's a legal case that is debated and argued on the legal merits of the case at the time of the case. Do people really feel better and have better perceptions about certain religions when they have adherents taken to court to force them to medicate their children who are very sick, even if it's against their particular religion to use that medication? No, those religions are scoffed at for trying to live by their rules and to think that they trump existing law. There's no PR benefit for those religions to go to court and lose, but to stand by their religious belief.

The Catholic Church is well within their right, as are those who hold similar beliefs, to try to actively change laws within the democratic process that would fit better with their belief systems. That's just what societies do. But until they are able to change the laws, they are also well within their right to live by the laws that are on the books today. This case, when it comes down to it, especially related to the pedophile scandal, has about zero to do with the public's perception of that religion - no matter how this case was resolved. The other scandal, much more deservedly, will easily trump any PR aspects of this case.

No one is questioning their right to "live by the laws that are on the books today."

They tell their adherents that abortion is wrong, yet a Catholic would be "well within their right to live by the laws that are on the books today" and get an abortion. Do you agree? Does that make abortion OK? Just because someone has the right to "live by the laws that are on the books today" doesn't mean that is the right thing to do.

Those of us that would have liked to have seen CHI take the higher ground are simply voicing that, and pointing out that, rightly or wrongly, it comes across as hypocritical for CHI. That is a separate issue than what legal arguments CHI had available to support its case.

[89Hen]

everyone can have a different opinion on this and all are valid.

I don't think I've said otherwise, but it would seem several this thread don't agree.

[ASUMountaineer]

everyone can have a different opinion on this and all are valid.

I don't think I've said otherwise, but it would seem several this thread don't agree.

I think several enjoy getting away when they can for a distraction, and this thread provided that. You seemed perfectly happy to give as much as you received.

[D1B]

I don't think I've said otherwise, but it would seem several this thread don't agree.

I think several enjoy getting away when they can for a distraction, and this thread provided that. You seemed perfectly happy to give as much as you received.

You both are entitled to your opinons, but don't think for a second that asshole's opinon is better or more noble than yours'. It aint. You did good.