Of course he won't.
-
On a serious note, why should he resign? If he has done wrong (and he has) then the law should take its course. It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
Wrong. The church is specifically espousing a morality as a fundamental precept of the organization itself. It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Citation please. As I've said, I've not heard this so perhaps I've just been reading the wrong things.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so. A lot of it is in land, and stored treasures. That doesn't affect people giving donations now does it? I get it - you don't like the Catholic church. Fair enough. A lot of people do though, so perhaps it's reasonable to take the moral high ground here and just let them get on with it, or are you going to descend to the same petty levels as those who want to impose their views on you. Try the high ground. The view's lovely up here.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so.
Pretty sure that the actual accumulation didn't span 2000 years. Also pretty sure that at least some of that wealth was accumulated in ways that, one might suppose, that many current members would object to. So hypothetically one might suppose that a moral and apologitic way to deal with that now would be to sell it and use the proceeds to to help others. Versus the current policy which I suspect is that current tithes are being used to buy more even if it is some small percentage. Presuming it is small, say less than 1%. But I suspect it is larger than that.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
Wrong. The church is specifically espousing a morality as a fundamental precept of the organization itself. It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
jschell wrote:
It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
No, no it's not. Not remotely similar. it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
jschell wrote:
It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
No, no it's not. Not remotely similar. it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
Completely specious. First you are referring to an aspect of law and actually the law of a very limited (if not only one) number of countries. And that has nothing to do with the fundamental aspect of the church itself. Second if that concept is relevant in any way then why were they moving priests around?
_Maxxx_ wrote:
it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
Again morality is a fundamental precept of the religion. So your analogy is not apt because it ignores the connection between the specific nature of the religion and the act. For your analogy to be apt the priests would have needed to have been engaging in ponzi schemes.