[crycleascentyv]

I wonder what kind of bizarre, stupid and surreal claim Ben is going to make in this thread.

[Ganoshenko]

IIRC his old argument was just that the separation of church and state "cuts both ways." In all likelihood, he will not change his mind about that; he will simply say that this court is acting unjustly.

[Alupleintilla]

Average sentence of two years...?

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

What sentences do the Ecclesiastical Courts in Rome give?

[mloversia]

What sentences do the Ecclesiastical Courts in Rome give? Permanent house arrest, no contact with children, can no longer celebrate mass. When functioning properly, the ecclesiastical courts have far greater scope than secular courts, for the simple reason that the priest has vows that apply for the rest of their life.

[quottrethew]

In related news, I heard Sandusky was found guilty on 45 out of 48 charges. Didn't hear how long the sentence was, but I imagine he'll spend most, if not all, of his remaining years in prison.

[Ijkavylo]

Permanent house arrest

And how is that enforced?

What would happen if they violated the conditions?

[IssuessBratte]

And how is that enforced?

What would happen if they violated the conditions?

Excommunication, probably.

Boo hoo

[HunterM]

The accused should face the full force of the local legal system first. So when does the statute of limitations apply? See, that's the problem. 40 year allegations would be inadmissible and the priest would walk a free man. I am skeptical that the legal system can actually try these cases successfully.

Ecclesiastical courts, good or bad, are irrelevant outside the religion. They have real consequences for the priest, unlike the secular courts.

[viagbloggerz]

So when does the statute of limitations apply?

In Britain, never.

[zzbust]

Sorry, the man committed a crime in the United States jurisdiction and should be tried by the courts of the US for violations of US law and then afterwards can be sent to Rome for "ecclesiastic punishment" instead of the other way around. I'm think I'm seeing more and more what Martin Luther was going on about. And just how are you going to waive all the rules to try the cases? I'm seeing more of what Moore was going on about.

[neictscek]

In Britain, never. Well, then. Chop off all their heads. It's not like you haven't done that before...

[KixdricyArrip]

Because they are priests and they have obligations to the Catholic church. Look, we get it. You think that priests are evil. So did Elizabeth. It's not exactly an uncommon attitude. Priests should be protected from lynch mobs, whether it's in the USA or China.

How does simply suggesting they face the same treatment at law as absolutely every other human being equate to thinking priests are evil?

[vintsqyuid]

I still don't see why Ben thinks that Catholic priests should be treated any differently than, say, Scientologist ones. Or you know, just people in general.

[Pharmaciest2007]

I still don't see why Ben thinks that Catholic priests should be treated any differently than, say, Scientologist ones. Or you know, just people in general. *sigh*

You can't charge someone for something they did 40 years ago. If you want to see something other than priests being tried and walking away - then this is the answer. Making 'special' rules for priests is wrong.

[Dogxzysl]

Why would you complain about this hypothetical case where the priest would first gets punished by secular courts and then transferred to the vatican to be tried by your ecclesiastical court? Because it's not JUST about the USA. The Church has to deal with everything, and many jurisdictions, priests are actually outlawed. They can be executed. Does it make sense for the priests to submit themselves to 'local justice'?

Rather then depending on whatever the 'local' justice happens to be - it's better to send the priest to the ecclesiastical courts, if the priest chooses to submit to their discipline. If the priest doesn't, then turn them over to the secular courts. In all cases, the secular penalty is more lenient then what the ecclesiastical courts will lay down.

You said that the punishment of the ecclesiastical court is harsher than that of the secular court. Well, then it would be no problem for the ecclesiastical court, to put a few years house arrest on top of the years of prison that the priest served prior to getting transferred to the vatican. That's not the way the legal system works - once the priest has been tried, convicted and served time - the priest is free to go and the Vatican can't put him in house arrest. Once he submits to the legal system - then only their punishment applies.

This way you render unto the state what´s the states and unto the church what is the churchs Indeed, priest being devoted to God make them His and not the state. Ergo they should be tried by the Church and not the state.

[Abnorttrano]

it's better to send the priest to the ecclesiastical courts, if the priest chooses to submit to their discipline. If the priest doesn't, then turn them over to the secular courts. In all cases, the secular penalty is more lenient then what the ecclesiastical courts will lay down. Why would a priest choose ecclesiastical courts if ecclesiastical courts are less lenient? Apparently you think giving priests the additional option of going to ecclesiastical courts will make them worse off even though they are free to choose?

[Poowssnople]

Indeed, priest being devoted to God make them His and not the state. Ergo they should be tried by the Church and not the state.

"Does this apply to non-Catholic clerics as well? E.g., Muslim clerics?" "Of course not, why would you even suggest that Muslim clerics should have the same status as Catholic clerics? It's almost as though you believe that Catholics shouldn't enjoy a privileged position wherever they go."

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

No one is suggesting dumping the statute of limitations for priests and only for priests, you troll. Which is why they *did* suggest that priests should be executed like they were by Luther and his acolytes?

[sonsayx]

"Does this apply to non-Catholic clerics as well? E.g., Muslim clerics?" "Of course not, why would you even suggest that Muslim clerics should have the same status as Catholic clerics? It's almost as though you believe that Catholics shouldn't enjoy a privileged position wherever they go." Since when does Sharia apply only to Imams? Sharia is applied, not just to the imams, but to all muslims, and to the kaffir too. But then Loinburger already knew this before he made his invalid comparison.

That being said - if Imams want to be tried by the ecclesiastical courts in Mecca, I'm fine with that. Deport them, send them home.

Apparently Loinburger forgot about that part.