0
   

ANOTHER TEXAS HIGH COURT RULING: EXORCISM IS PROTECTED

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 01:57 pm
The Catholic Church was liable for the misdeeds of the Priests because the Church actively kept the truth from the parents. Had the parents had the abilty to supply informed consent then the Church would not have been liable. Only given such situations can the parents shift their legal liability to the church.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 02:09 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
The Catholic Church was liable for the misdeeds of the Priests because the Church actively kept the truth from the parents. Had the parents had the abilty to supply informed consent then the Church would not have been liable. Only given such situations can the parents shift their legal liability to the church.


This doesn't make sense Hawkeye. The parents were not liable for priest misconduct because there is nothing in the doctrine, practices, discipline, or history of the Catholic Church that supports Priests abusing children. Therefore there is absolutely no reason for the parents to suspect that their kids will be in such danger at church. The Church is clearly liable because it is responsible for its staff in conduct of church business as are all businesses and organizations responsible for the conduct of their employees in the conduct of business. The parents do not give either implied or formal consent for their kids to be abused, and such abuse is clearly illegal in every state in the country.

Exorcism is not illegal and it is a standard practice among religious groups who believe in demon possession and the Biblical concept of casting out demons. How can one claim negligence by the parents for exposing their kids to a legal religious activity in a church they grew up in?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 02:09 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
The Catholic Church was liable for the misdeeds of the Priests because the Church actively kept the truth from the parents. Had the parents had the abilty to supply informed consent then the Church would not have been liable. Only given such situations can the parents shift their legal liability to the church.


This doesn't make sense Hawkeye. The parents are not liable for priest misconduct because there is nothing in the doctrine, practices, discipline, or history of the Catholic Church that supports Priests abusing children. Therefore there is absolutely no reason for the parents to suspect that their kids will be in such danger at church. The Church is clearly liable because it is responsible for its staff in conduct of church business as are all businesses and organizations responsible for the conduct of their employees in the conduct of business. The parents do not give either implied or formal consent for their kids to be abused by priests, and such abuse is clearly illegal in every state in the country.

Exorcism is not illegal and it is a standard practice among religious groups who believe in demon possession and the Biblical concept of casting out demons. How can one claim negligence by the parents for exposing their kids to a legal religious activity in a church they grew up in?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 02:34 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Apples and oranges. Marriage is a legal contract governed by state laws. The minor child must legally acquire a license which can be issued only by consent of the parents; therefore the likelihood of a church marrying a minor to anybody without parental consent is moot.


Perhaps you should be introduced to the members of the FLDS church - many, many of whom were married in the Church's eyes but not the eyes of the state.

Quote:
My argument is not that at all. However, if I send my kid to a playground, unless I instruct otherwise, I fully expect the kid to be running and playing frisbie or ball or sliding down the slide, riding on the merry-go-round, teetering on the totter, and doing all the activities normally associated with a playground. Likewise, if I send or take my kid to church, I expect the kid to be involved in the activities promoted by that church.


And you'd be happy to allow your kid to run around and play becuase those are NORMAL, ROUTINE and EXPECTED occurances. Is there anyone that DOESN'T know that on occassion a kid gets beat up on a playground? Probably not. But it isn't normal, routine or expected. Being held down against your will and having an exorcism performed on you against your wishes ISN'T a normal, routine or expected activity.

Quote:
So the issue before us is not whether exorcism is an activity promoted or sanctioned by the congregation in question. It clearly is. The issue is whether the Court erred in distinguishing between a 'normal church activity' and abuse. Remember I said early on that I tended to agree with the dissenting opinion of the Court just as you did. But I can also leave the door open here for consideration of other factors involved. It is those other factors that I am most interested in discussing.


No, that isn't the issue at all. For someone who claims to have read the decison you seem to have missed the entire opoint of it.


Quote:

Nope. But all Assembly of God congregations that I know of do believe in and practice exorcism.


Big deal. The Catholic Church also believes in and practices exorcism but they do it so infrequently that most members of the Church have never witnesed one. I am a former Assembly of God member (as well as a former Catholic) and never once saw an excorsim performed in either church.

Quote:
So for that activity to occur could easily be considered neither unusual nor abnormal any more than laying on of hands, spontaneous prayer or hymn singing, or an impromptu teaching would be considered unusual or abnormal.


And when people go out on dates it isn't unusual or abnormal for them to have sex either. But the minute you have a gang of 4 or 6 people pin the girl to a pool table in the local bar and force her to have sex it's called rape. But according to your theory it isn't right?

You are ignoring half of the entire picture. There are "normal activies" and then there "normal processes/procedures" for conducting those activities. When a person presents themselves at a place to participate in an activity the "reasonable person" standard holds they they expect "normal activity conducted in the normal manner". You are trying to look only at the activitiy and pretending that the manner the activity was conducted in doesn't matter. They are both of equeal importance.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 04:15 pm
Fishin, for me the interest here is the gray areas that appear to be manifested in this case between the First Amendment, parental authority, and protection of children. Apart from your illogical (and unsupported) conclusion that what the Catholics do must also be the norm for the Assembly of God churches, I thought I made my interest in this case fairly clear some posts back. If your interest is elsewhere, that is certainly your prerogative, but it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion when you insist on putting words in my mouth and/or assigning intent to my posts that simply are not there and continue to introduce red herrings that are unrelated to my interest here. So I will not continue further along that vein. I hope that is okay with you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 08:41:18