Michael Vorris demonstrates through his campaign a false model of criminal liability. In Latin law responsibility for crime is individual while he advocates, in between the lines, collective responsibility against Society and Church. For i.e. "The criminal negligence of no fewer than three SSPX clergy so shocked the prosecutor that he shouted in court that it should have been the Society put on …More
Michael Vorris demonstrates through his campaign a false model of criminal liability. In Latin law responsibility for crime is individual while he advocates, in between the lines, collective responsibility against Society and Church. For i.e. "The criminal negligence of no fewer than three SSPX clergy so shocked the prosecutor that he shouted in court that it should have been the Society put on trial instead of just Abbet." Neither Society nor the Catholic Church complies with three prerequisites to be qualified for collective liability for any crimes. Therefore Michael Vorris in intending to combat pedophilia is in reality attempting to "empty-out the bathing-tub along with the baby."
Rafał, although you're right to state that criminal responsability is an individual matter, your reasoning is wrong on several counts. A legal entity can be held civilly liable (it's extremely common) or even criminally responsible (in French law, for example). This does not violate the principle of individual responsability because it does not mean that each individual member of the SSPX would be …More
Rafał, although you're right to state that criminal responsability is an individual matter, your reasoning is wrong on several counts. A legal entity can be held civilly liable (it's extremely common) or even criminally responsible (in French law, for example). This does not violate the principle of individual responsability because it does not mean that each individual member of the SSPX would be held liable or responsible for the misdemeanours of one. Rather, it means that the SSPX as such, as a corporate legal entity, would be held accountable. Such a situation is perfectly possible - and please bear in mind that it was the crown prosecutor who stated that the SSPX should have been in the dock. I assume the he is more knowledgeable about law than you! Think twice before posting.
Larstue please reexamine your erroneous position after researching the prerequisites for any organization (nation, society, family, business etc) to be qualified for collective criminal liability... Also consider the fact that fundamentals and principles of Western Roman law are under continuous stress of impairment and destruction exemplified in the enormously unjust and malignant prosecution of …More
Larstue please reexamine your erroneous position after researching the prerequisites for any organization (nation, society, family, business etc) to be qualified for collective criminal liability... Also consider the fact that fundamentals and principles of Western Roman law are under continuous stress of impairment and destruction exemplified in the enormously unjust and malignant prosecution of Cardinal Pell & many other cases... Then I will further reply...
Rafał, sorry you're talking nonsense and it's you who should reexamine your erroneous position. You're completely off the mark when referring to "collective criminal liability". As I stated (but are you able to real?...), it is possible under French law, for example, to charge a corporate entity in criminal terms. This is a FACT, whether you like it or not. Second, it is extremely common in many …More
Rafał, sorry you're talking nonsense and it's you who should reexamine your erroneous position. You're completely off the mark when referring to "collective criminal liability". As I stated (but are you able to real?...), it is possible under French law, for example, to charge a corporate entity in criminal terms. This is a FACT, whether you like it or not. Second, it is extremely common in many countries to sue a legal entity in civil terms. This is also a FACT. You obviously have lost sight of the principle "Contra factum non fit argumentum". Taking legal action against a legal entity does NOT equate to "collective criminal liability". As I explained (but are you unable to read, I wonder?), it is about the corporate liability of the organization as such, not about the collective liability of its members.
Last but not least, as I said (once more), the Brussels crown prosecutor, who called for the SSPX to be sued, is bound to be more competent in Belgian law than you are. Give us a break.
Larstue 1. The source of justice is neither French law nor any other nation. Since you do not want to do the recommended research, also available in my profile comments, then at least study what is law based on Scholastic philosophical theology, specifically its kinds. Law is an ordinance of reason because it must be reasonable or based in reason and not merely in the will of the legislator, or …More
Larstue 1. The source of justice is neither French law nor any other nation. Since you do not want to do the recommended research, also available in my profile comments, then at least study what is law based on Scholastic philosophical theology, specifically its kinds. Law is an ordinance of reason because it must be reasonable or based in reason and not merely in the will of the legislator, or ideologies i.e. of the Brussels crown legislator, Michael Vorris, yourself or any other.
2. Only then you may be able to deduce by process of reasoning which eliminates cognitive errors, such as from i.e. the formation of the modern concept of 'argumentum ad verecundiam'. The above method may also help you make distinct the Church and FSSPX Society from any other entity, spiritual from temporal, Church from international corporation. Good luck!
OK, so your intention is to reform the Belgian legal system (as this is about the Abbet case in Brussels)? Then, my advice is for you to ask King Philippe to appoint you as Belgium's Justice Minister. It will be your job in a lieftime, you will be able to revamp everything as you please and I hope you'll then shut up and give us a break.
@sepp Benedikt> You are in essence, using 'gutter type' language and 'character assassination' similar to that which you accuse Voris and Niles of resorting to. That aside, I agree with your concluding sentiments.
Negative. I am using the Truth against servants of satan. These scum think they are immune from the same sort of scrutiny and invective they are spewing on the SSPX. Time to fight back, hit hard, and crush those who in their arrogance think themselves above reproach. So if you can't take it, don't like it, then don't read it and block me.
Please note, that in all likelihood this was a priest who went into the so-called resistance. These folks could not accept the authority of their superiors in many matters and act much like protestants. Voris is a toxic narcissist sodomite and Niles divorced her husband of 11 years. Their journalism is of the gutter variety, in that it is all about money and click bait.
a toxic narcissist sodomite and Niles divorced her husband of 11 years are not only wrong (Voris has repented since and Niles had only a civil marriage, i. e. was not validly married) but alos completely pointless. You're spewing hatred at Church Militant because you have no arguments against their reports. The bottomline is that their reports are correct, say the truth. They expose the filth in …More
a toxic narcissist sodomite and Niles divorced her husband of 11 years are not only wrong (Voris has repented since and Niles had only a civil marriage, i. e. was not validly married) but alos completely pointless. You're spewing hatred at Church Militant because you have no arguments against their reports. The bottomline is that their reports are correct, say the truth. They expose the filth in the SSPX and that's the real point.
Ah Larstue, how wrong you are. #1, watch Sodomite Voris' interview with unrepentant sodomite Milo. There you will see his joy at talking to a sodo buddy and how he overlooks Milo's vile persona. #2 you obviously do NOT understand the sacrament of marriage. The sacrament is an agreement between the husband and wife, and cannot be broken without a valid annulment, civil or no.
"In all likelihood this was a priest who went into the so-called resistance. These folks could not accept the authority of their superiors in many matters and act much like protestants". Completely wrong, Sepp Benedikt: the priest who wrote that letter did not join the Resistance in any way. Your assumption was just pure malicious presumption and your conclusion about protestantism blabla is thus …More
"In all likelihood this was a priest who went into the so-called resistance. These folks could not accept the authority of their superiors in many matters and act much like protestants". Completely wrong, Sepp Benedikt: the priest who wrote that letter did not join the Resistance in any way. Your assumption was just pure malicious presumption and your conclusion about protestantism blabla is thus 100% wrong.
Ahhh, Larstue afraid to use his own name, Voris and Niles (and you) think they can attack using NO journalistic method and get away with it. Nope. We will reveal the Truth you and they try to hide...
Sepp Benedikt, this is enough! I proved you wrong on two counts and you start vociferating because you're upset, you have no counter-argument and you've been defeated. Just blame yourself for your false arguments and shut up. It will give us a break.
