A
AndyF
Guest
Certain decisions of the Church do not reconcile.
Although I understand the need for the Church to become more active in the pedophile
problem, I question it’s methods. I have 2 grandaughters. These toddlers are very dear to me and I care about them very much. I have 2 other grandchildren, 10 and 7 years of age.
For one, the Church by reason of the common good, obtains from the Civil Institution a list of names of past offenders who are entered in the civil entity’s criminal record file. These people are categorized by the Church in three levels of severity of job prospects in the Church. 1 and 2 being less severe and not requiring a criminal check. The 3rd stage being the most severe and highest of security. The list implies restriction, and since the restriction is based on conduct, and one gleaned from a source it deems just, then there is only one judicial area where this applies in the Ecclesiastical realm, and that is the restriction of communal participation in the Church, which comes about through excommunication, either partial or in whole.
Therefore the Church has no choice but to complete a process it has come to conclude, and this by a decree of an initial process that has prompted this excommunication.
So the effect is that the entity the Church is using a facility of a more fallible entity, civil justice, to obtain information for it’s own use. This implies that it finds the information accurate in every case, and since the Church responds only to Spiritual advice of the most perfection, therefore has decided there could have never been a case where a conviction was in error or aquital was in error. (Milgard?
) Now, the character of any Institution is of first priority by the Church which God declares has the supreme Authority on earth, that same Church that claims to expound the adherence to scripture. If so we can turn to Sirach on the advice that all entities are to distance themselves from immoral entities, and the Church, practicing what it preaches, we are assured it does the same. 
Civil institution is obstinate in implementing changes recommended by the Church, we know this from the dialogue between the Vatican and nations. It applies post sentences not admitted at trial where God strictly commands us to “settle” accounts. Since something cannot be applied where there is no cause, we find the cause of a criminal record is a crime, and further, a sentence is expected from a crime. So we see that anything that is applied that has it’s cause through crime is a sentence. Investigation finds no mention of this CR was mentioned at sentencing, so by default and authorization of God’s rule, the criminal record then is post sentencing that should have been mentioned and is unjustified. Applying our moral model that all entities are not exempt from the Authority, the Church is therefore to shun association from the entity until it changes, not make use of it’s facilities until that becomes resolved, has this is the overriding prime issue, not the second.
The Church is completely aware, and has a more visual indicator that makes the civil institution suspect, and taints the Church’s credibility has virtuous and impartial governing body. What should have caught the Church’s eye and made it it’s argument is that the civil entity admits to know the solution to recidivism and that is, incarceration or the separation of the suspect offender from the remainder of society. So the remedy is known, and we find this example at it’s source has instructed in Mathew, and that is in the court system itself where sentencing and resolution of offenses is conducted. So in a particular case, the Church should not expect to receive applicants who do not meet serious affronts to justice, but only the pool of category 2 and 1 remain for selection.
(Part II)
Andy
Although I understand the need for the Church to become more active in the pedophile
problem, I question it’s methods. I have 2 grandaughters. These toddlers are very dear to me and I care about them very much. I have 2 other grandchildren, 10 and 7 years of age.
For one, the Church by reason of the common good, obtains from the Civil Institution a list of names of past offenders who are entered in the civil entity’s criminal record file. These people are categorized by the Church in three levels of severity of job prospects in the Church. 1 and 2 being less severe and not requiring a criminal check. The 3rd stage being the most severe and highest of security. The list implies restriction, and since the restriction is based on conduct, and one gleaned from a source it deems just, then there is only one judicial area where this applies in the Ecclesiastical realm, and that is the restriction of communal participation in the Church, which comes about through excommunication, either partial or in whole.
Therefore the Church has no choice but to complete a process it has come to conclude, and this by a decree of an initial process that has prompted this excommunication.
So the effect is that the entity the Church is using a facility of a more fallible entity, civil justice, to obtain information for it’s own use. This implies that it finds the information accurate in every case, and since the Church responds only to Spiritual advice of the most perfection, therefore has decided there could have never been a case where a conviction was in error or aquital was in error. (Milgard?
) Now, the character of any Institution is of first priority by the Church which God declares has the supreme Authority on earth, that same Church that claims to expound the adherence to scripture. If so we can turn to Sirach on the advice that all entities are to distance themselves from immoral entities, and the Church, practicing what it preaches, we are assured it does the same. Civil institution is obstinate in implementing changes recommended by the Church, we know this from the dialogue between the Vatican and nations. It applies post sentences not admitted at trial where God strictly commands us to “settle” accounts. Since something cannot be applied where there is no cause, we find the cause of a criminal record is a crime, and further, a sentence is expected from a crime. So we see that anything that is applied that has it’s cause through crime is a sentence. Investigation finds no mention of this CR was mentioned at sentencing, so by default and authorization of God’s rule, the criminal record then is post sentencing that should have been mentioned and is unjustified. Applying our moral model that all entities are not exempt from the Authority, the Church is therefore to shun association from the entity until it changes, not make use of it’s facilities until that becomes resolved, has this is the overriding prime issue, not the second.
The Church is completely aware, and has a more visual indicator that makes the civil institution suspect, and taints the Church’s credibility has virtuous and impartial governing body. What should have caught the Church’s eye and made it it’s argument is that the civil entity admits to know the solution to recidivism and that is, incarceration or the separation of the suspect offender from the remainder of society. So the remedy is known, and we find this example at it’s source has instructed in Mathew, and that is in the court system itself where sentencing and resolution of offenses is conducted. So in a particular case, the Church should not expect to receive applicants who do not meet serious affronts to justice, but only the pool of category 2 and 1 remain for selection.
(Part II)
Andy