Every sperm is sacred.....unless.....

NSMike wrote:
LarryC wrote:

The woman was having a massive heart attack. In general, you want a cardiologist for that. An OB would be of very limited use to a person suffering from a heart problem. Unless the OB was the only MD in the entire area for some reason, he was under no obligation to attend to this problem.

No argument from me here.

The problem was that he was not available to do, instruct, or oversee an emergency post-mortem CS, which may or may not have saved the twins. It is not clear that they died because he wasn't around, but they certainly never had the chance they otherwise would have.

This is a different argument than the one made in the case. If that was valid under U.S. law, the lawyers would've gone there first. He was paged. He didn't respond. He was negligent in his duties. The only argument the lawyers pursued was that it didn't matter because they were fetuses, not people.

Your getting dragged into an irrelevant argument, NSMike. Whether the doctors or hospital were responsible for the twins death is beside the point, because they argued that even if they were, it doesn't matter. The issue is that the hospital wants their deaths stricken from the case.

The insurance company does have a right to use the law to avoid paying for damages it is legally not obligated to pay. But according to those Colorado Bishops, "CHI assured them Thursday 'of their intention to observe the moral and ethical obligations of the Catholic Church.'" The church may have to pay extra for this kind of coverage, but that seems to be the agreement.

If the a jury or judge finds that the doctors or hospital is not liable for the twins deaths, then all is good. The argument is that the church is trying to avoid having it even brought up in court. And despite the the arguments of apologists, the Bishops in Colorado do seem to have gotten the message.

Jayhawker:

To me, it seems more like the bishops in Colorado have understood how much damage this kind of situation can do for their cause. That's media management, not moral integrity.

The fact that the church encourages usage of the Rhythm Method is not news. There's another term for couples who use the Rhythm Method: Parents. It doesn't work. It's not scientific. And it's not effective family planning. It's not even contraception when it works, if we are to look at semantics, which we always do when you're involved, Larry.

AIDS is a syndrome, and maybe calling it a disease is easier for the public to understand, but we both know that it's not. Regardless, let's look at section 14 of the Encyclical (any emphasis added is mine):

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

A little more context here points out the culture encouraged by the document you're citing. The first bolded item is a prohibition of condom use, without explicitly saying "condom," because it would be an action before intercourse intended to prevent procreation. The second and third bolded items demonstrate that condom use, even for the protection or the promotion of "the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general" is an evil. The very document you're using to defend condoms clearly condemns them. In that context, the idea that item 15 could even remotely refer to condoms is ludicrous.

Even with all of this, we're way off course.

LarryC wrote:

Jayhawker:

To me, it seems more like the bishops in Colorado have understood how much damage this kind of situation can do for their cause. That's media management, not moral integrity.

Welcome to America.

NSMike:

The fact that the church encourages usage of the Rhythm Method is not news. There's another term for couples who use the Rhythm Method: Parents. It doesn't work. It's not scientific. And it's not effective family planning. It's not even contraception when it works, if we are to look at semantics, which we always do when you're involved, Larry.

The Rhythm Method is famously bad. The local CBCP-funded and supported efforts generally make a point of saying that. We're supposed to still give good advice, and percentage efficacy is important information. There are other methods. Basal Temp, Cervical Mucus, Abstinence, I forget the others.

And yes, these do constitute "contraception" in layman terms, medical books, and pretty much every source I can find for the term, so it's even semantically correct to refer to them that way.

By the by, the Rhythm Method is actually "scientific" in that it's based on principles taken from medical science. Real actual science, not whatever the hell it means in American English. The fertile periods are estimated from empirical observations and rules of thumb derived from them. Of course, the science also tells us how bad it is, for a number of very specific factors.

AIDS is a syndrome, and maybe calling it a disease is easier for the public to understand, but we both know that it's not.

AIDS is not a disease in the same way that "cough" is not a disease. For the purposes and meaning we're using, the distinction is irrelevant. You may not have known that. Now you do. If you prefer, we can call it "HIV disease," if the terminology is important.

A little more context here points out the culture encouraged by the document you're citing. The first bolded item is a prohibition of condom use, without explicitly saying "condom," because it would be an action before intercourse intended to prevent procreation. The second and third bolded items demonstrate that condom use, even for the protection or the promotion of "the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general" is an evil. The very document you're using to defend condoms clearly condemns them. In that context, the idea that item 15 could even remotely refer to condoms is ludicrous.

You're totally misreading the meaning of those statements. If that's what you got, your catechism did you a grave disservice. The prohibition is based on stopping procreation. If there's no procreation to stop (say, you got a vasectomy - not approved by the Catholic Church, but let's say you ignored that), condom use for other good purposes is not morally objectionable.

But like you said, getting off topic. I'm also consulting my priest friend on this and so far, he's totally vetted what I've said. I'll update you via PM if he happens to say something at odds with what I've said here so far. As this is off-topic, feel free to PM me if you are still interested in this topic.

Not really interested in furthering that discussion, no. I'm under no illusions that the Catholic Church never taught "Condoms are bad, mmkay?"

It's probable that your local American Catholic authorities are using their position and Vatican theology to push local agendas and local political interests. It wouldn't be the first time religion was used to rationalize and/or legitimize human motives inconsistent with Catholic doctrines. Nor would religion be the only means by which rationalization or legitimization was achieved.

I told you once that it's probably your people that are the problem. I suspect that this is more of the same.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

If you want to present the argument that the Catholic Church prohibits condoms in themselves; in cases where it doesn't interfere with procreation, feel free to do so.

More on topic, the wording on the legal defense is quite, quite clear, as Paleocon has posted it:

should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive.

The Act refers to a particular set of people from which the fetuses were excluded, therefore, the case has no legal merit. This is a legal discussion, not a moral one. The legal team was not saying that the fetuses were not people, nor that the Catholic Church says that. They (legal counsel) are simply saying that this particular Act cannot be called upon because the plaintiff's case does not fit the defined terms as stipulated in law.

As far as I can tell, Paleocon is suggesting that the Catholic Church doctrine encourages lawsuits and pursuing moral wrongs through legal redress. I am not familiar that it does. In general, Catholic teaching where I live is to advise the wrongful person of the fault and wherefores of the moral wrongdoing, and for the aggrieved party to strive to grant forgiveness.

I am not aware that Catholic doctrine prescribes similar proceedings and restitutions similar to the areas in which it is practiced. That is, just because the State of Colorado issued a Wrongful Death Act doesn't mean that the Vatican is forced to adjust Catholic doctrine to include it.

LarryC wrote:

More on topic, the wording on the legal defense is quite, quite clear, as Paleocon has posted it:

should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive.

The Act refers to a particular set of people from which the fetuses were excluded, therefore, the case has no legal merit. This is a legal discussion, not a moral one. The legal team was not saying that the fetuses were not people, nor that the Catholic Church says that. They (legal counsel) are simply saying that this particular Act cannot be called upon because the plaintiff's case does not fit the defined terms as stipulated in law.

As far as I can tell, Paleocon is suggesting that the Catholic Church doctrine encourages lawsuits and pursuing moral wrongs through legal redress. I am not familiar that it does. In general, Catholic teaching where I live is to advise the wrongful person of the fault and wherefores of the moral wrongdoing, and for the aggrieved party to strive to grant forgiveness.

I am not aware that Catholic doctrine prescribes similar proceedings and restitutions similar to the areas in which it is practiced. That is, just because the State of Colorado issued a Wrongful Death Act doesn't mean that the Vatican is forced to adjust Catholic doctrine to include it.

So here's the question us critics want answered: If the Church thinks the court "should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive," why have they argued so fervently that the term "person" should encompass the unborn when used in other laws?
We're pretty sure the answer is either A) Because money, or B) The unborn are only really people when they can be used against "sluts."

Or, because the Church is a law-abiding entity and wants to see the law enforced as it is worded? That seems pretty plausible and doesn't require us to presume all manner of malevolent intent.

Once again, for clarification.

1. It's NOT the Catholic Church that's saying this. It's the legal team of a Catholic-affiliated hospital. The legal team of a US Marine accused of rape locally put forth a defense that a level of intoxication that incapacitated the victim to the point where she was unable to physically resist advances did not constitute enough incapacitation to rule the case as rape just from that factor. Can I just assume that every American under the sun supports this stance? Perhaps it's just the SCOTUS?

2. Saying that the law should be followed as-is doesn't imply that they don't want to change the law: to have the legal status of fetuses changed. In fact, the Catholic Church in the US, last I heard, was lobbying for exactly that.

Point of interest:

How common is slut-shaming world-wide and historically?

Spoiler:

I have to claim a lack of familiarity with this phenomenon. Despite the supposedly Catholic and monogamous bent of the Philippines, multiple sexual partners and families for men (polygamy) is relatively commonplace. It's all under the books, of course. It's a little hard suicidal to shame a powerful, wealthy woman in control of a private army with an LTR going on with a strong politician.

I'm asking because the theological interests of the Vatican through the history of the Church seems somewhat... ...distant from the cultural practices of post-60's America. I know it makes sense in the movies that every single world-shaking event seems to happen in the US, but in reality, most of us get on and have events in our lives completely separate from American events and concerns.

What I'm asking here is, what's the likelihood that a Catholic leadership based in Europe with a world-wide organization and multinational concerns would structure its theology to support the cultural war concerns of a few niche American Conservatives?

LarryC wrote:

Or, because the Church is a law-abiding entity and wants to see the law enforced as it is worded? That seems pretty plausible and doesn't require us to presume all manner of malevolent intent.

Once again, for clarification.

1. It's NOT the Catholic Church that's saying this. It's the legal team of a Catholic-affiliated hospital. The legal team of a US Marine accused of rape locally put forth a defense that a level of intoxication that incapacitated the victim to the point where she was unable to physically resist advances did not constitute enough incapacitation to rule the case as rape just from that factor. Can I just assume that every American under the sun supports this stance? Perhaps it's just the SCOTUS?

2. Saying that the law should be followed as-is doesn't imply that they don't want to change the law: to have the legal status of fetuses changed. In fact, the Catholic Church in the US, last I heard, was lobbying for exactly that.

Point of interest:

How common is slut-shaming world-wide and historically?

Spoiler:

I have to claim a lack of familiarity with this phenomenon. Despite the supposedly Catholic and monogamous bent of the Philippines, multiple sexual partners and families for men (polygamy) is relatively commonplace. It's all under the books, of course. It's a little hard suicidal to shame a powerful, wealthy woman in control of a private army with an LTR going on with a strong politician.

I'm asking because the theological interests of the Vatican through the history of the Church seems somewhat... ...distant from the cultural practices of post-60's America. I know it makes sense in the movies that every single world-shaking event seems to happen in the US, but in reality, most of us get on and have events in our lives completely separate from American events and concerns.

What I'm asking here is, what's the likelihood that a Catholic leadership based in Europe with a world-wide organization and multinational concerns would structure its theology to support the cultural war concerns of a few niche American Conservatives?

For your 1, that's a bullsh*t excuse and I hope to hell it didn't fly when they tried it. It's a common tactic used over here as well, and considered just as poor a defense as you rightly view it to be.
For 2, While that is exactly what's happening, it shows a lack of integrity. You'd think that the Catholic leadership not having integrity wouldn't be surprising after their long history of being accomplices to the sexual abuse of minors came to light, but it somehow still is.

For your PoI, slut-shaming is incredibly wide-spread and common in western culture. It's not a case of Catholicism changing for American conservatives, it's a case of Catholicism and American conservatives sharing a common goal. If you still haven't realized it from all the other times it's come up, Catholicism in the Philippines seems to be quite a bit different from Catholicism in the western world. To be fair to Catholics, they're not nearly as bad as evangelicals are in this regard.

For your 1, that's a bullsh*t excuse and I hope to hell it didn't fly when they tried it. It's a common tactic used over here as well, and considered just as poor a defense as you rightly view it to be.

FWIW. He got convicted. The US Embassy got him off on a plea deal on appeal.

For 2, While that is exactly what's happening, it shows a lack of integrity. You'd think that the Catholic leadership not having integrity wouldn't be surprising after their long history of being accomplices to the sexual abuse of minors came to light, but it somehow still is.

This is one of those times where I read something over and over and it's just not making sense in my head. Whatever you mean by "integrity," it's not the same as what I mean. Let's say that the Catholic Church does hold Catholic Health morally responsible for the incident within its own framework. As far as I understand it, the Church's doctrines and values preach forgiveness and discretion anyway. It's more consistent for them not to make a big deal of this publicly even if they did find Catholic Health in error.

I dunno. Sometimes I think I live in bizarro world where everything is opposite. Then as soon as I communicate with the world at large, things stop making any kind of sense.

FWIW, I've already stipulated to NSMike that I'll just defer to you guys' assessment of American Catholicism, since it's becoming increasingly apparent that I know bupkiss about it, despite being a Catholic.

LarryC wrote:
For 2, While that is exactly what's happening, it shows a lack of integrity. You'd think that the Catholic leadership not having integrity wouldn't be surprising after their long history of being accomplices to the sexual abuse of minors came to light, but it somehow still is.

This is one of those times where I read something over and over and it's just not making sense in my head. Whatever you mean by "integrity," it's not the same as what I mean.

I'm using it as akin to personal honesty. What they did was counter to the values they professed to hold. However, the sex-abuse scandal was in keeping with how they've historically conducted themselves, so they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals (whether they admit them or not).

Stengah:

Thanks for trying to explain. American concepts of personal honesty and lying confuse me as well. I actually find Japanese social "truthiness" concepts (omote and ura) easier to understand. I'll keep plugging away at it.

Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:
For 2, While that is exactly what's happening, it shows a lack of integrity. You'd think that the Catholic leadership not having integrity wouldn't be surprising after their long history of being accomplices to the sexual abuse of minors came to light, but it somehow still is.

This is one of those times where I read something over and over and it's just not making sense in my head. Whatever you mean by "integrity," it's not the same as what I mean.

I'm using it as akin to personal honesty. What they did was counter to the values they professed to hold. However, the sex-abuse scandal was in keeping with how they've historically conducted themselves, so they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals (whether they admit them or not).

If you consider avoiding legal responsibility to be a core value of theirs, then attempting to avoid legal responsibility in this case isn't counter to their values. It just doesn't involve going so far as being above the law or a cover-up.

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does. If they've publicly stated that the laws of others don't apply to them, then yes, they would have acted with integrity. Sh*tty integrity, but integrity nonetheless.
Note that I said "if you view" not "I view" and further clarified that I judge integrity by comparing how they say others should act with how they themselves have acted, not by comparing what I think their values are with how they've acted.

LarryC wrote:

Or, because the Church is a law-abiding entity and wants to see the law enforced as it is worded?

Unless that law says that all health insurance must provide free contraception. That law be bullsh*t yo.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does.

When have they ever publicly said covering up crimes is a core principle of theirs?

My experience as an employee of a conservative parish in the Archdiocese of Seattle was that when it comes to contraception and abortion, Catholics (even very orthodox Catholics) are very earnestly about the sanctity of human life and very much not about "slut shaming." Maybe my experience is not typical, but based on my experience I just do not think that's a sentiment held by rank and file American Catholics.

I do believe that it's a dog whistle that's routinely blown by conservative Cathoic politicians (*cough* Santorum *cough*) but I think that's more to appeal to good old fashioned American puritanism, and not the Catholic faithful.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does.

When have they ever publicly said covering up crimes is a core principle of theirs?

That's kind of my point.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does.

When have they ever publicly said covering up crimes is a core principle of theirs?

That's kind of my point.

Hmm?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does.

When have they ever publicly said covering up crimes is a core principle of theirs?

That's kind of my point.

Hmm?

What?

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does.

When have they ever publicly said covering up crimes is a core principle of theirs?

That's kind of my point.

Hmm?

What?

Exactly.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

If the standard you're using for "personal honesty" is how they've historically conducted themselves, I'm sure you can find plenty of incidents like this in the Church's record.

No doubt.
The standard I use for it is how well what they practice what they preach. In this case, the result is "not well."

But the result is well. If you consider one of their core values to be avoiding legal responsibility--you said "they maintained their integrity if you view holding themselves as above the law and attempting to cover-up their crimes as some of their core principals"--then they are practicing what you consider them to be preaching.

What I think their core principles are doesn't matter, what they publicly say are their core principles does.

When have they ever publicly said covering up crimes is a core principle of theirs?

That's kind of my point.

Hmm?

What?

Exactly.

Of course.

Podunk wrote:

I do believe that it's a dog whistle that's routinely blown by conservative Catholic politicians (*cough* Santorum *cough*) but I think that's more to appeal to good old fashioned American puritanism, and not the Catholic faithful.

I'd even say at this point, conservative Catholic politicians are looking more towards conservative non-Catholic Christians to respond to their message.

Well, the doctrine of forgiveness has been used for nearly a century to justify not reporting rapes, child molestation, fraud, theft and other serious crimes to local authorities. Instead, the Church has a long history of simply reassigning priests and others to areas where they are not known, and there have been new offenses in many of those cases. The Vatican itself puts the number of priests involved in just sex offenses between 1960 and 2010 at over 3,000, which were not usually reported to authorities outside the Church.

After the 2004 revelations of priests committing sexual offenses in the US, the Church in the Phillipines apologized for what it says were as many as 200 incidents in 20 years, said it would establish a policy for dealing with these offenses, and began to encourage victims to contact authorities. 2004. And that's what they were willing to admit to.

Covering up crimes has been a consistent behavior in the Catholic Church worldwide, and at times the Vatican has officially required that crimes committed by priests be reported to Rome to decide how to handle them. It's hard to see how that behavior does not reflect a policy of trying to handle crimes internally, perhaps to avoid bad publicity. It's equally clear that they failed miserably to prevent further crimes, and that they prevented thousands of priests and employees from being exposed to legal penalties for their actions.

It's equally hard to accept claims that the Church is law-abiding in light of this history, not just in the US, but all over the world.