What is bigotry?

Jan 2010
4,357
Atlanta, Georgia USA
And yet you still didn't bother reading anything. Like that quote I provided. You either stopped reading after 11 words, or you purposely omitted the rest because it didn't fit your narrative. That paragraph didn't end with "tempt a penitent", it kept going for a massive sentence.

The 11 words you pasted:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent "

The whole thing including underlined that you omitted for whatever reason (hopefully not purposeful):

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

The wording makes it absolutely plain that it doesn't have to happen inside the actual confessional, or during. And that the crime is not about breaking secrecy of the confessional (that you think it does shows you didn't read the PDF).

And its pretty clear you read the Guardian article. You regurgitated the Vatican spokesman talking point. You definitely read enough to know where to open the PDF.

You are claiming to be a lawyer while, numerous times including an edit, seriously threatening someone online with a lawsuit over libel over someone claiming you did read an article you're claiming you didn't, or that you didn't read a PDF document that you said you did. You really want to advertise you're that bad at your profession. The judge would laugh you right out of a court. Rightfully. You weren't libeled, you were ridiculed because you made ridiculous comments. You should know the difference, if you are a lawyer.

And threatening an anonymous online poster with threat of lawsuits because you've debated yourself into a corner is childish to say the least. Frankly its insulting. I've ducked sniper fire. I've been blown up by IEDs. I've survived cancer. I've held my twin babies who were born so premature they fit in my palm. You really think you're scaring me?
And yet you still didn't bother reading anything. Like that quote I provided. You either stopped reading after 11 words, or you purposely omitted the rest because it didn't fit your narrative. That paragraph didn't end with "tempt a penitent", it kept going for a massive sentence.

The 11 words you pasted:

"The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent "

The whole thing including underlined that you omitted for whatever reason (hopefully not purposeful):

The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in the place] other than that [usually] designated for the purpose of hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession."

The wording makes it absolutely plain that it doesn't have to happen inside the actual confessional, or during. And that the crime is not about breaking secrecy of the confessional (that you think it does shows you didn't read the PDF).

And its pretty clear you read the Guardian article. You regurgitated the Vatican spokesman talking point. You definitely read enough to know where to open the PDF.

You are claiming to be a lawyer while, numerous times including an edit, seriously threatening someone online with a lawsuit over libel over someone claiming you did read an article you're claiming you didn't, or that you didn't read a PDF document that you said you did. You really want to advertise you're that bad at your profession. The judge would laugh you right out of a court. Rightfully. You weren't libeled, you were ridiculed because you made ridiculous comments. You should know the difference, if you are a lawyer.

And threatening an anonymous online poster with threat of lawsuits because you've debated yourself into a corner is childish to say the least. Frankly its insulting. I've ducked sniper fire. I've been blown up by IEDs. I've survived cancer. I've held my twin babies who were born so premature they fit in my palm. You really think you're scaring me?
1. The crime is soliciting a penitent. The procedure—that is, the sealing of the proceedings—is in place to protect the secrecy of the confessional. I did look the article to find the link to the document but didn’t read the article itself. I guess you can’t accept that I could draw the same conclusion about the procedure as you tell me the spokespeople for the Church drew. But I did.

2. I didn’t threaten you with a lawsuit—it should have been clear to you from my revised comment that I’m facetious. Do you really think I’d sue you over whether or not I’d read the Guardian?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between at least one of our resident apologists and a common or garden variety troll.

Impossible to have a rational discussion with either. Doesn't matter, I don't feed either .
 
Similiar History Discussions History Forum Date
Philosophy / Sociology

Similar History Discussions