VOTF

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

But even when a bishop has chosen to take a priest at his word and not the child at his or her word, is it right that Catholic parents are denied the information to make their own, independent judgement

What are they being denied, Katherine2?! Civil authority provides necessary protection, and if sought through the proper channels, judicial authority will allow everyone to receive any information they wish provided that individual rights are not destroyed.

I had made this same point on the previous thread. Remember? Constitution issues start to come into play when we start revealing information about others. Is your Corporation seeking to deny Constitutional rights to priests in the civil arena? You may not realize this Katherine2, but the Bishops do have to be aware of the possibility of being sued not only by victims but by everyone in their employ!!! This makes the line that the Bishops had to walk all the more finer!!! It’s a violation of my privacy rights if my employer were to start sharing information with everyone!!!

If you’re really involved with the VOTF Corporation, I think you would be wise to invest in some sort of legal handbooks or something before you start trampling all over everyone’s civil liberties, Katherine2. You have previously discribed yourself as a “progressive.” You certainly have Stalinistic ideas and attitudes about civil liberity!!!

Why on earth would you impose different legal standards on people outside of the civil arena??

You said:

And the laity have a role in that.

I agree with you on this. Where we disagree is what role the laity should have. We disagree on what that role should be. Unless you can establish that the role the laity should take is different from the one it has taken for the past 2,000 years, I think I’ll follow the prescribed path.

VOTF doesn’t claim any exclusive right to address the problem. In fact, VOTF is quite clear that they expect others to join in addressing problem, specifically bishops, priests, and lay Catholics not affiliated with VOTF.

Do we really need VOTF to tell us this? How stupid does your corporation think we lay Catholics are, Katherine2?

For the same reasons the bishops have said they don’t believe that Civil Authority already provides **all **the protection necessary and punishment necessary.

Then as Christians, shouldn’t we focus are involvement with Civil Authority in these issues?! Also, I’m not sure what this statement means exactly. Do the U.S. Bishops think the death penalty should be applied to this crime? Is this the protection and punishment that you had in mind, Katherine2?

But I’m worried more about the long term matter. if catholics parents feel they can’t trust their clergy to be alone with their children, will this result in their faith being hurt because parents will limit their child’s unsupervised interaction with clergy? CYO, CCD, altar servers, retreats, etc?

I’m worried about the long term effect of this as well. But fortunately your Corporation will always be there to remind us of how malicious our Catholic Clergy is.

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

What are they being denied, Katherine2?! Civil authority provides necessary protection, and if sought through the proper channels, judicial authority will allow everyone to receive any information they wish provided that individual rights are not destroyed.

Again, it is the bishops themselves that have sid this is not a matter than is simply one for the legal system to handle. You are deabting VOTF over a principle they hold in common with the bishops.

I had made this same point on the previous thread. Remember? Constitution issues start to come into play when we start revealing information about others. Is your Corporation seeking to deny Constitutional rights to priests in the civil arena? You may not realize this Katherine2, but the Bishops do have to be aware of the possibility of being sued not only by victims but by everyone in their employ!!! This makes the line that the Bishops had to walk all the more finer!!! It’s a violation of my privacy rights if my employer were to start sharing information with everyone!!!

One of the ideas endorsed by VOTF that has been adopted by most bishops is a lay review board. Lay consultation need not mean making confidential information public. Whiel respecting any contrary views you have, the bishops and VOTF already seem in philosophical agreement here. You note that bishops rightfully have a certain relationship and trust towards their priests. Not superceeding but balancing this with laypeople with the natural concern they have for their children has been what VOTF and the bishops agree on. (Let me note while we VOTF and the bishops are in philosophical agreement, a few bishops have not fully implemented lay review boards and a few others have received criticism from VOTF for the way they have structured them or the believed lack of independence. I think the fact that in 90% of the diocese VOTF and the bishops have agreement is remarkable).

If you’re really involved with the VOTF Corporation, I think you would be wise to invest in some sort of legal handbooks or something before you start trampling all over everyone’s civil liberties, Katherine2. You have previously discribed yourself as a “progressive.” You certainly have Stalinistic ideas and attitudes about civil liberity!!!

see the above.

Why on earth would you impose different legal standards on people outside of the civil arena??

Again, the bishops have done the same. Is your reservation abotu VOTF not that it dissents from the Church but that it is too much in alliance with recent actions of the bishops?

Where we disagree is what role the laity should have. We disagree on what that role should be. Unless you can establish that the role the laity should take is different from the one it has taken for the past 2,000 years, I think I’ll follow the prescribed path.

You’ve proven the need for the education provided by some of the speakers at VOTF conferences. In the 2,000 year history of the Church, the role of the laity has taken many different forms. Your unawarness of that would give you a difficulty in understanding VOTF. I think this may be the crux of all the reservations you have.

Do we really need VOTF to tell us this? How stupid does your corporation think we lay Catholics are, Katherine2?

You may a suggestion to the contray, and when I refute it, you say it is self-evident.

Then as Christians, shouldn’t we focus are [our?] involvement with Civil Authority in these issues?! Also, I’m not sure what this statement means exactly. Do the U.S. Bishops think the death penalty should be applied to this crime? Is this the protection and punishment that you had in mind, Katherine2?

No. The bishops and VOTF both agree that protecting our children means more than simply parents who are aware of a crime reporting to the police. The bishops and VOTF have both agreed that the Catholic community needs to take its own action to protect children in addition to the government criminal justice system.

I’m worried about the long term effect of this as well. But fortunately your Corporation will always be there to remind us of how malicious our Catholic Clergy is.

The bishops failed and they have admitted they failed.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

First, thank you for the response. I may get some interruption here, but let me start with this:

Let me note while we VOTF and the bishops are in philosophical agreement, a few bishops have not fully implemented lay review boards and a few others have received criticism from VOTF for the way they have structured them or the believed lack of independence. I think the fact that in 90% of the diocese VOTF and the bishops have agreement is remarkable).

The poor judgment of the bishops seems to be what has ignited VOTF’s fire in the first place. I wonder what assurances VOTF can give us that because of VOTF’s voice, the bishops have now heard the truth and are responding appropriately? I’m not being facetious, here. This is a critical issue that VOTF needs to be able to answer for us ordinary lay Catholics in the pews. Just because VOTF and the Bishops agree on issues in no way assures protection for are children; nor is that an assurance that the proper decisions are being made. In fact, because of this collusion, if VOTF is to take responsibility for any successes of these programs, I am sure hoping that VOTF will also take responsibility for the failures. In fact, appeasing VOTF may be the bishops’ wisest move from a political perspective. Sin is sin; human nature is human nature. Whether the VOTF corporation is stirring the pot with its finger or not, abuses of some sort will undoubtedly arise in the future. With an alliance to VOTF, VOTF now becomes culpable.

Again, the bishops have done the same. Is your reservation abotu VOTF not that it dissents from the Church but that it is too much in alliance with recent actions of the bishops?

My reservations about VOTF are that it is a corporation borne out of reaction. It is a corporation that can’t seem to describe its vision…I think we’ve been through all of this before…

The bishops and VOTF both agree that protecting our children means more than simply parents who are aware of a crime reporting to the police. The bishops and VOTF have both agreed that the Catholic community needs to take its own action to protect children in addition to the government criminal justice system.

There’s nothing wrong with the Catholic community wanting to protect its children. It’s ridiculous to suggest that this has ever ceased being a concern of the Catholic community even in spite of the fact that abuse has occurred. Just because bishops and VOTF agree on issues as vague and broad as things like the color of the sky does not mean that the bishops and VOTF align themselves in such a way that I as a member of neither need to pretend that the two entities fully agree with one another. Let’s accept the fact that protecting children is a goal. Let’s accept the fact that for better or worse, lay review boards have been instituted. What protection, exactly, is given to my children because of this? Is this preventive protection?

Fiat

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

First, thank you for the response. I may get some interruption here, but let me start with this:

Let me note while we VOTF and the bishops are in philosophical agreement, a few bishops have not fully implemented lay review boards and a few others have received criticism from VOTF for the way they have structured them or the believed lack of independence. I think the fact that in 90% of the diocese VOTF and the bishops have agreement is remarkable).

The poor judgment of the bishops seems to be what has ignited VOTF’s fire in the first place. I wonder what assurances VOTF can give us that because of VOTF’s voice, the bishops have now heard the truth and are responding appropriately? I’m not being facetious, here. This is a critical issue that VOTF needs to be able to answer for us ordinary lay Catholics in the pews. Just because VOTF and the Bishops agree on issues in no way assures protection for are children; nor is that an assurance that the proper decisions are being made. In fact, because of this collusion, if VOTF is to take responsibility for any successes of these programs, I am sure hoping that VOTF will also take responsibility for the failures. In fact, appeasing VOTF may be the bishops’ wisest move from a political perspective. Sin is sin; human nature is human nature. Whether the VOTF corporation is stirring the pot with its finger or not, abuses of some sort will undoubtedly arise in the future. With an alliance to VOTF, VOTF now becomes culpable.

Again, the bishops have done the same. Is your reservation abotu VOTF not that it dissents from the Church but that it is too much in alliance with recent actions of the bishops?

My reservations about VOTF are that it is a corporation borne out of reaction. It is a corporation that can’t seem to describe its vision…I think we’ve been through all of this before…

The bishops and VOTF both agree that protecting our children means more than simply parents who are aware of a crime reporting to the police. The bishops and VOTF have both agreed that the Catholic community needs to take its own action to protect children in addition to the government criminal justice system.

There’s nothing wrong with the Catholic community wanting to protect its children. It’s ridiculous to suggest that this has ever ceased being a concern of the Catholic community even in spite of the fact that abuse has occurred. Just because bishops and VOTF agree on issues as vague and broad as things like the color of the sky does not mean that the bishops and VOTF align themselves in such a way that I as a member of neither need to pretend that the two entities fully agree with one another. Let’s accept the fact that protecting children is a goal. Let’s accept the fact that for better or worse, lay review boards have been instituted. What protection, exactly, is given to my children because of this? Is this preventive protection?

Fiat

 

[Fiat]

Again, it is the bishops themselves that have sid this is not a matter than is simply one for the legal system to handle. You are deabting VOTF over a principle they hold in common with the bishops.

Be careful about the smoke and mirrors. Just because the Bishops assert that this matter is not one simply for the legal system to address does not mean that the Bishops need to adopt VOTF Corporate ideology.

Fiat

 

[Fiat]

Lay consultation need not mean making confidential information public

It need not now, but disclosing that information before those avenues were created would have been signifcantly problematic for the bishops. Much of the anger hurled at bishops by some VOTF’ers blames the bishops for their mis/malfeasance. Little do those people know what options were actually available legally. For the bishop to disclose information that may not have been true would without a doubt cause liability problems. On the other hand, the bishop was aware that the victims always had civil authority at their fingers.

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

First, thank you for the response. I may get some interruption here, but let me start with this:

I appreciate your response and the time you give me. I’m sure you have other duties. Thank you.

The poor judgment of the bishops seems to be what has ignited VOTF’s fire in the first place.

I think that is fair and accurate.

I wonder what assurances VOTF can give us that because of VOTF’s voice, the bishops have now heard the truth and are responding appropriately? I’m not being facetious, here. This is a critical issue that VOTF needs to be able to answer for us ordinary lay Catholics in the pews. Just because VOTF and the Bishops agree on issues in no way assures protection for are children; nor is that an assurance that the proper decisions are being made.

You are totally right. There are no guarantees in this business. For all of us, all we can do is try our best. I respect your concern for accused priest’s right to privacy. But I think VOTF is right that that a good deal of the repeat abuse would have been avoided if bishops had to explain their policies with a straight face before a representative group of lay people and Catholic parents – I am talking about without revealing actual names.

In fact, because of this collusion, if VOTF is to take responsibility for any successes of these programs, I am sure hoping that VOTF will also take responsibility for the failures. In fact, appeasing VOTF may be the bishops’ wisest move from a political perspective. Sin is sin; human nature is human nature. Whether the VOTF corporation is stirring the pot with its finger or not, abuses of some sort will undoubtedly arise in the future. With an alliance to VOTF, VOTF now becomes culpable.

And that is a heavy burden VOTF carries. Let’s all earnestly pray the programs implemented are successful.

My reservations about VOTF are that it is a corporation borne out of reaction.

On that point, I think you are right.

It is a corporation that can’t seem to describe its vision…I think we’ve been through all of this before…

Yes. Some people listen to VOTF and understand their vision, others don’t.

There’s nothing wrong with the Catholic community wanting to protect its children.

And further, there is nothing wrong with taking action to protect our children.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that this has ever ceased being a concern of the Catholic community even in spite of the fact that abuse has occurred.

We have the testimony of victims and parents of victims that they deeply regret not taking action and instead trusting bishops to do the right thing. It must be very painful for them. Many are participating in VOTF, though I think one of the positive features of VOTF is that it is not predominately a victims group.

Just because bishops and VOTF agree on issues as vague and broad as things like the color of the sky does not mean that the bishops and VOTF align themselves in such a way that I as a member of neither need to pretend that the two entities fully agree with one another.

Fully agree? No. But the lay review boards are certainly a point of common agreement (VOTF and the bishops, I respect yoru right to have your own opinion) that is far more real, corporal and specific than an agreement on the color of the sky.

Let’s accept the fact that protecting children is a goal.

agreed.

Let’s accept the fact that for better or worse, lay review boards have been instituted.

agreed.

What protection, exactly, is given to my children because of this? Is this preventive protection?
Fiat

Well, let’s move to what VOTF has indicated as the crux of the scandal, which I have been assuming we all agreed on, but maybe not. I speak of the REPETITIVE abusers. Priests who committed an abuse, admitted to it, were re-assigned by the bishop to another parish with children keeping all of this secret from the congregation and even at times demanding the victims agree to silence in a resistution deal. And then a second or even third re-assignment after new acts of abuse.

I agree with VOTF that the secrecy and at times even dishonesty on the bishops part indicates that these re-assignments would never have happended if Catholic parents had not been in the dark. Bringing parents and other laypeople into this can only help.

And – to take this discussion to the next step, even though this may be premature – having pulled the veil back on child abusing priests, the next question we have is about money and the temporal goods of the Church.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Be careful about the smoke and mirrors. Just because the Bishops assert that this matter is not one simply for the legal system to address does not mean that the Bishops need to adopt VOTF Corporate ideology.

Fiat

Of course. But they have firmly reject the theory that this is matter that can be fully handled by the legal system. Since some are pushing for that viewpoint, VOTF is pleased the bishops did not go in that direction and instead agreed with VOTF’s stance.

Do they need to adopt VOTF’s other positions? I think they need to strongly consider them.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

It need not now, but disclosing that information before those avenues were created would have been signifcantly problematic for the bishops.

You are right. Hence’s VOTF’s position that structual reform is what is needed.

Much of the anger hurled at bishops by some VOTF’ers blames the bishops for their mis/malfeasance. Little do those people know what options were actually available legally. For the bishop to disclose information that may not have been true would without a doubt cause liability problems. On the other hand, the bishop was aware that the victims always had civil authority at their fingers.

Fiat

In a majority of the cases, there was no dispute of fact, so the liability around what may or may not be true was not an issue.

In the minority of cases where there was a dispute of fact, self-admission on the bishops’ part as well as hindsight tells us that they did use poor judgement in discerning the facts.

I respect your desire to insist on the rights of priests accused of abuse. I think you are a little harsh on the (alleged) victims , but I recognize that may just be a difference of opinion we have.

 

[Fiat]

Dear Katherine2:

My weekend usually starts at 4:30 p.m., on Friday, and I rarely get on-line over the weekend, so I’m going to do my best to get in a couple responses here.

First, I enjoy the way you and I debate with one another. Every now and then we will both slip in some sarcasm, but thank goodness we have so far avoided silly affectations (like sweetie and pudding-face). Also, we can take a few sentences or paragraphs to chat with one another on a human level and recognize each other as united by the blood of Our Lord.

Now, you stated:

Well, let’s move to what VOTF has indicated as the crux of the scandal, which I have been assuming we all agreed on, but maybe not. I speak of the REPETITIVE abusers. Priests who committed an abuse, admitted to it, were re-assigned by the bishop to another parish with children keeping all of this secret from the congregation and even at times demanding the victims agree to silence in a resistution deal. And then a second or even third re-assignment after new acts of abuse.

Herein lies my personal difficulty with what seems to be the VOTF position. The problem at the heart of the scandal is NOT that the Bishops reassigned priests. The problem is that children were abused by priests. Whether a bishop moves a priest from one parish to the next has nothing to do with the fact that the priest suffers from a serious problem and needs to be prayed for, forgiven, treated, punished, admonished, etc. Unless the Church deals with that specific issue, the problem will arise again.

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Dear Katherine2:

My weekend usually starts at 4:30 p.m., on Friday, and I rarely get on-line over the weekend, so I’m going to do my best to get in a couple responses here.

Enjoy your weekend. Let’s take a break until Monday.

First, I enjoy the way you and I debate with one another. Every now and then we will both slip in some sarcasm, but thank goodness we have so far avoided silly affectations (like sweetie and pudding-face). Also, we can take a few sentences or paragraphs to chat with one another on a human level and recognize each other as united by the blood of Our Lord.

You are very kind to keep engaging me. I suspect you have mamy more obligations than I do.

Herein lies my personal difficulty with what seems to be the VOTF position. The problem at the heart of the scandal is NOT that the Bishops reassigned priests. The problem is that children were abused by priests. Whether a bishop moves a priest from one parish to the next has nothing to do with the fact that the priest suffers from a serious problem and needs to be prayed for, forgiven, treated, punished, admonished, etc. Unless the Church deals with that specific issue, the problem will arise again.

Fiat

I don’t think what you call for excludes what the bishops and VOTF are calling for. Its a BOTHA?AND not either/or.

Anyway, enjoy the weekend.

 

[Weeorphan]

On reviewing this long thread, please allow me to summarize its common ground:

1.We all agree that the Church blundered badly in handling pederast priests by moving them around with little regard for the victims.

2.We all agree that VOTF has a large constituency of radical liberals with private agendas that makes VOTF look bad.

3.We all agree that a permanent ‘fix’ would be essential to prevent future damaging episodes and their huge expense.

1. We all love our Church despite its flaws.

However, some are arguing that the bishops have already solved the problem and any structural change is dangerous and unprecedented.

The minority on this Forum thread argue that so-called self-policing will never work in the long run, requiring some structural change with more lay involvement in guidance and governance of the Church. I agree with this.

First, let me make short work of the concept that structural change would be dangerous and unprecedented. Please refer to the link for church history. It is thorough and convincing that important structural changes have often occurred and will occur again. bc.edu/church21/resources/sheeran/
On reading this report, you will find yourself convinced that change is intimate to the organic adaptability and survival of our Church.

To draw on Charles Darwin’s quote, ***“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” *** I submit that our Church has survived 2000 years by the Holy Spirit allowing its appropriate response to needed change.(but not in holy doctrine, mind you)

Some of you think structural change is anathema to Church doctrine. Not so. *Change the Church, Keep the Faith is attempting to state that concept. *Obviously, the Church desperately needs to change the status quo. "To agree on keeping a status quo that can’t be kept has nothing to do with consensus. It’s decadence." Hilmar Kopper. It’s also a comfortable, lazy avoidance of the janitorial work:… fixing the clogged toiletry that has made our clergy scandal a stench to high heaven.

For the reasonable and prudent, all that remains is to effect this change so as to keep intact the Church and the holy doctrine of Catholicism. VOTF may not be the corporation to do that, but for now it serves as the gadfly to that end. Perhaps the Church will invent a lay-monitored clergy policing mechanism without VOTF. However, we now have the proof that clergy self-policing doesn’t work.

Will the squeaky-clean OPUS DEI volunteer for this essential function? How about Catholic Answers? How about EWTN?
Will any of these organizations have the courage to demand a fix that will really work for the ages? Otherwise, for now I guess we are stuck with VOTF .

 

[Fiat]

Hi Weeorphan:

Interesting thoughts. For my own part, I welcome change. However, should VOTF be responsible for that change? Should the laity be responsible for that change? Why don’t you think groups like Opus Dei or EWTN can affect (not effect) change? I realize that the poll associated with this thread isn’t a scientific one, but VOTF certainly has some appeal problems, at least with the people who frequent this forum. Shouldn’t VOTF carefully consider why that is the case?

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Weeorphan,

I want to thank you for a thoughtful post that seems very much to try to move matters forward in a way all can be open to.

I do have to disagree with your item #2.

Also, VOTF does not offer itself as the agent for this needed change. The laity must be the agent for this change, VOTF is simply one initiative to organize the laity to take up this task. VOTF doesn’t claim any exclusivity but welcome all to take up this task.

So let’s do it!!! Let’s get going.

 

[Theodred]

It is thorough and convincing that important structural changes have often occurred and will occur again.

And you totally ignore the origins of reform. Don’t quote history to me.

 

[fix]

VOTF claims they respect the teachings of the Catholic Church, however, “you will not find any (Catholic) today, or any other period of history who will stand up and say, ‘I am a heretic’,” noted Prof. Hitchcock. “On the contrary, they sincerely believe they are orthodox. VOTF can claim they are faithful to the church and respect its authority, but only if you let them define the terms.”

“If the VOTF were a bland featureless organization that did not take stands on controversial issues like homosexuality, clerical celibacy, or women priests, but merely wanted more openness in the church, most of the people who so ardently belong probably wouldn’t have joined in the first place,” Prof. Hitchcock concluded. “They tend to use bland phrases like ‘lay participation in pastoral selection.’ They don’t spell out what this means, but it is not unrealistic to believe this means they should chose their own pastors and bishops.”

In the broader context of American dissent, VOTF, “is simply another incarnation of a movement that has been around since Vatican II, aiming at a radical restructuring of the Church. This includes taking away hierarchical authority and (imposing) group decision-making. They are reluctant to admit that the dogmas and catechisms of the Catholic Church are unchanging, and in many cases insist that they be opened to change. They have serious problems with the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality, and while they have been depressingly successful in our universities, in our schools, in the seminaries, and among many priests, but they have not won the decisive victory they anticipated in the 60’s.”

What isn’t clear is how VOTF would provide any kind of a solution because of their unwillingness to confront homosexuality as the source of the problem. Prof. Hitchcock noted that in Long Island priest who organized for VOTF was recently exposed as a pedophile. The response was noteworthy because, “there was a certain amount of surprise, but no agonizing self-reappraisal (by VOTF.) It should come as no surprise that priests in rebellion against the church’s teaching on sexuality find themselves attracted to dissident groups like VOTF, which are mounting campaigns against (allegedly) outmoded teachings.”

“Homosexuality is the issue VOTF cannot address,” observes Hitchcock. "It is preposterous to conclude anything but that homosexual clergy have been the source of the scandal. Even though efforts have been made to deny this or explain it away, it is overwhelmingly obvious that clerical homosexuality is the problem.

catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=6707

 

[Weeorphan]

Dear Theodred:

It seems we can’t quote Scripture OR Church history without your expressing clerical indignation. One might infer from your bitter, indignant tone that you still hold to that justified medieval attitude spawned in the dark ages where only clerics could read, write, understand or quote Scripture and Church history. You might consider uncollaring your biased perspective on occasion to draw in a breath of fresh air, to finally notice that times have dramatically changed, that we First-world peoples are much better educated in all disciplines, that the Internet has loosed a torrent of once arcane information now easily accessed by unlettered, unfettered lay folks. You may finally come to realize that neither the medics nor the attorneys nor the clergy have exclusive access to their respective domains anymore. It must be so threatening to prestigious professionals who cling to concepts of privileged knowledge, to pedestals of high status, but the great leveler, the great humbler called Advanced Technology is at work here — with no turning back.

Without high technology’s swift, uncensored communication, perhaps the clergy scandal would have continued undetected and unheralded. This tectonic shift in technolgy might also explain the multimillion dollar tsunami settlements sweeping the Church through SNAP’s internet collaborations, and why the computer literate laity in VOTF is gathering more support for participation in the governance and guidance of its Church. It is understandable that professionals like yourself would resist this threatening change from high technology, so we forgive you. But again we have to request, *please refrain from your ‘put down’ comments which only belie the grace and dignity of your spiritual calling. *

 

[Fiat]

You may finally come to realize that neither the medics nor the attorneys nor the clergy have exclusive access to their respective domains anymore

Considering the fact that it is against the law to practice medicine without a license; considering the fact that it is against the law to practice law without a license; and considering the fact that only the ordained may confect the sacraments, I’m a little at a loss by what you mean here. I would also point out that public libraries have been a part of the American landscape since the revolution. What’s your point here?

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

everyone has the right to engage in the act of protecting children. You don’t need a licence

 

[Fiat]

One might infer from your bitter, indignant tone that you still hold to that justified medieval attitude spawned in the dark ages where only clerics could read, write, understand or quote Scripture and Church history. You might consider uncollaring your biased perspective on occasion to draw in a breath of fresh air, to finally notice that times have dramatically changed, that we First-world peoples are much better educated in all disciplines, that the Internet has loosed a torrent of once arcane information now easily accessed by unlettered, unfettered lay folks.

Katherine2: Was that the point of Weeorphan’s post? I missed that.

Fiat