Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10
Pope Benedict protected child molester
Topic Started: Mar 13 2010, 01:42 AM (4,474 Views)
Piano*Dad
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
OK Quirt, we disagree. Not for the first time. :lol2:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
JBryan
Mar 15 2010, 03:53 PM
I agree with PD.
As do I, but that was already known.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
QuirtEvans
Mar 15 2010, 03:52 PM
I don't agree.

The church's standard for making a decision shouldn't be the same as the criminal law standard. And, really, that's what this is all about. Can you reach a judgment based on the evidence that we know, in the absence of the evidence we don't know? In a criminal court, probably not, but the Catholic Church is not a criminal court.

I have to agree with Jon here ... both on the substance and on his take on IT's argument.
Speaking of personae. :lol2:

But hey - they're talking. It's a good thread.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Mar 15 2010, 03:52 PM
I don't agree.

The church's standard for making a decision shouldn't be the same as the criminal law standard. And, really, that's what this is all about. Can you reach a judgment based on the evidence that we know, in the absence of the evidence we don't know? In a criminal court, probably not, but the Catholic Church is not a criminal court.

I have to agree with Jon here ... both on the substance and on his take on IT's argument.
We are not talking about the evidentiary process of canonical court in the Catholic Church.

We are talking about on what basis Jon can make the definitive claim that Ratzinger failed in his moral duty in the court of Jon's own conscience.

I am merely pointing out that he really does not seem to know enough about the true facts of this situation, and he admits to assumptions, and he is quite clear and explicit that he thinks Catholicism is foul. Each of these by themselves, let alone collectively, suggest that he should be adverse to making particular judgments if he wants to be fair minded in judging the particular facts of this case.

His interest might well make him a good prosecutor in this case, but his bias should preclude him from being a judge or a jury member -- even in the court of his own conscience.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 15 2010, 06:12 PM
His interest might well make him a good prosecutor in this case, but his bias should preclude him from being a judge or a jury member -- even in the court of his own conscience.
As your own interest might well make you a good Defence lawyer in this case with a bias which should preclude you from being a judge or jury member.

It's a two way street.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10