Yes, you do defend Law...by blindly defending those that have protected him from being held accountable, just as Law himself protected (and thus facilitated) the child rapists.
Why is Law still a cardinal? Why is Law still in the church at all? He has been protected by the church...that's why.
Slandering people who question the church on this as ‘anti-catholic’ is aiding and abbedding the church (not catholics) in it's attempts to avoid accountability.
posted on 03/15/2013 3:53:07 PM PDT
('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
Oy vey. Slandering people who question the church on this as anti-catholic is aiding and abbedding the church (not catholics) in it's attempts
If you're intent on insulting someone, at least use spell-check and proper grammar. Your sentence should read:
Slandering people who question the church on this as "anti-Catholic" is aiding and abetting the church (not Catholics) in its attempts
posted on 03/15/2013 4:01:29 PM PDT
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
I am no expert in Canon Law, but as I understand it, if Cardinal Law were laicized, he would no longer be under clerical supervision. Therefore nobody in the Church could actually order him, e.g. into a monastery, or anyplace else.
If this is true, it's better for him to be in the clergy, and under supervision, rather than "kicked out" and not under supervision.
posted on 03/15/2013 5:07:17 PM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
( "You can observe a lot just by watchin'. " -- Yogi Berra)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson