Just one Catholic behaving badly

[Yahzi]

The bishop of Phoenix, who was granted immunity this month from prosecution in the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, was arrested on Monday, charged with leaving the scene of a fatal hit-and-run accident over the weekend, police said.

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2938251
He just got immunity for covering up the sex stuff. Then he does a hit-and-run.

I guess coverups are just a habit for him now.

The guy was jay-walking... why would a Bishop run? All I can figure is he was drunk.

But he waited until the cops found him. What the hell was he thinking?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Yahzi

why would a Bishop run?

Maybe he had a naked alter boy in the front seat with him?

[MRC_Hans]

More interesting question IMHO: How the HeII can a bishop get immunity from prosecution????????????

Hans

[Tricky]

It is even possible that his explanation is true. He thought he hit a dog or someone threw something at his car. If it is true then he certainly has no business driving at night, but it is possible there was no attempt to escape prosecution. It certainly doesn't look as if he "tried to make a run for it".

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is even possible that his explanation is true. He thought he hit a dog or someone threw something at his car. If it is true then he certainly has no business driving at night, but it is possible there was no attempt to escape prosecution. It certainly doesn't look as if he "tried to make a run for it".

You do have a point. But - if they do charge the Bishop w/ leaving the scene on top of vehicular manslaughter he will do serious time. I mean there is a big difference between a man and a dog!

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is even possible that his explanation is true. He thought he hit a dog or someone threw something at his car.


That's a pretty weak story. I saw the pix of the windshield (or at least what was represented to be the pix of the windshield). there is no way that he really thought he hit a dog. Im-friggin'-possible. No freakin way. Uh-uh. :rolleyes:


If it is true then he certainly has no business driving at night, but it is possible there was no attempt to escape prosecution. It certainly doesn't look as if he "tried to make a run for it".

Hmm...I dunno about that. That's exactly what it looks like to me so far.

I was astounded that they only charged him with leaving the scene...hopefully a charge of at least vehicular manslaughter will follow.

[Checkmite]

The manslaughter charge would be tough. According to the article, the victim was hit by the Bishop's car first, then fell or bounced into the path of a second car, which also hit him (and which also left). I think that, in order to pin a manslaughter charge on him, it would have to be proven that it was the collision with the Bishop's car and not the second car that resulted in the fatal injury.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The manslaughter charge would be tough. According to the article, the victim was hit by the Bishop's car first, then fell or bounced into the path of a second car, which also hit him (and which also left). I think that, in order to pin a manslaughter charge on him, it would have to be proven that it was the collision with the Bishop's car and not the second car that resulted in the fatal injury.

Hey, maybe God put that 2nd car in there to help the Bishop out. ;)

Here is the most appalling line;
O'Brien's arrest came two weeks after he cut a deal that granted him immunity from prosecution in exchange for acknowledging that he allowed local priests accused of child sexual abuse to work with minors in other posts without disclosing the allegations.

I hope this guy rots in jail!!!

:mad:

Barkhorn.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
I hope this guy rots in jail!!!

:mad:

Barkhorn.
I take it you think O'Brien shouldn't have gotten a deal from the prosecutor and should have been indicted, convicted and sentenced. But the bishop was threatened only with obstruction of justice charges, and since when do people rot in jail for that (even assuming a conviction was warranted)? It barely qualifies as a felony under Arizona law (Class 5: generally an 18-month sentence for a single count, first offense).

Maybe you think that this fellow intentionally or maliciously placed children in danger, or was otherwise complicit in their abuse. That would certainly merit rotting in jail. However, since even the prosecutor never made such a claim (and believe me, if he thought there was even a reasonable chance of there being any demonstrable truth to it, he'd have suggested the possibility), I'm not sure what you would base that conclusion on.

O'Brien is almost certainly not guilty of any serious crimes (except possibly in relation to his driving). Neverthless, criminal or no, his boss should sack him.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

O'Brien is almost certainly not guilty of any serious crimes (except possibly in relation to his driving). Neverthless, criminal or no, his boss should sack him.

And those who sack him should subsequently be sacked!

[Yahzi]

Ceo-esq is right. O'Brien's part in the sex scandal was basically choosing bad friends and going along with the system. For an individual, that's not very prosecutable. But for a system, it's an indication of just how corrupt it is.

I just don't get this hit-and-run thing. Jaywalkers get killed all the time: chances are the Bishop would not have even gotten a ticket. But the difference between a crime and an accident is what you do after the fact: and even if he thought it was just a dog, why in the heck didn't he stop? Isn't he supposed to be a model of accountability?

If you hit something in your car, you stop and see if you can fix it. It's called basic responsibility.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi
even if he thought it was just a dog, why in the heck didn't he stop?


Because... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000056H26/qid=1055875283/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-6007295-1399333?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846)

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


O'Brien is almost certainly not guilty of any serious crimes (except possibly in relation to his driving). Neverthless, criminal or no, his boss should sack him.

From a legal standpoint perhaps not. But as a Catholic bishop, he supposedly answers to a higher moral authority and his actions regarding pedo-Priests are reprehensible. I disagree w/ you regarding his driving, as leaving the scene of a fatal accident is indeed a serious crime (leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether or not the bishop caused the death of this pedestrian).

I suppose you will respond that - at this point - he has only been charged and not convicted. I would respond that from a legal standpoint you are again correct. However, the damage to his car, the eyewitness testimony and his own admission regarding "driving in the area" make a trial (or should anyway) a pro forma affair.

I am not trying him in any case - so I don't have to go through any legal motions to say that the guy should rot in jail!! It is a well deserved punishment for failing to protect the children intrusted to the care of his wonderful institution and not having the common decency to try and help a man he just ran into w/ his car.

Barkhorn.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


Because... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000056H26/qid=1055875283/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-6007295-1399333?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846)
:D :D :D

[ceo_esq]

This just in: Bishop O'Brien's resignation has been accepted by the Vatican.

Barkhorn, I specifically said that O'Brien might well be guilty of a serious crime in relation to his driving. We don't disagree there. Leaving the scene of a fatal accident is a serious matter, and the bishop could be sentenced to nearly four years if convicted on the felony hit-and-run charge.

Why would a bishop answer to a higher moral authority than you or I do? That said, though, the bishop didn't set a great example with his Deathrace 2000 impression.

Chaucer said it well:

... if gold ruste, what shal Iren do?
For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste,
No wonder is a lewed man to ruste!
And shame it is, if a preest take keepe,
A shiten shepherde and a clene sheepe.

[Darat]

Originally posted by ceo_esq


Because... (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000056H26/qid=1055875283/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-6007295-1399333?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846)

LOL :D

[Darat]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
...snip...

Why would a bishop answer to a higher moral authority than you or I do?

...snip...

I had an instant kneejerk reaction of "of course he should answer to a higher moral authority", but when I think about why should he?

And I'm now trying to understand why I, automatically, thought he should do. Thanks for making me think.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Why would a bishop answer to a higher moral authority than you or I do?


Hold on there. I stated, "SUPPOSEDLY answers to higher moral authority" - due to his position as a Bishop in the Catholic Church.

Barkhorn.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Hold on there. I stated, "SUPPOSEDLY answers to higher moral authority" - due to his position as a Bishop in the Catholic Church.

Barkhorn.
But aren't we all supposedly answerable to the same moral authority to whom the bishop supposedly answers?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

But aren't we all supposedly answerable to the same moral authority to whom the bishop supposedly answers?

Not me - I'm not bound by the 10 Commandments - except where they overlap US Civil Law. The Bishop however is (was) bound by them. There is a big difference between God's law and the US Constitution.

You're a lawyer, correct?? You must know the difference.

Barkhorn.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by kerfer


That's a pretty weak story. I saw the pix of the windshield (or at least what was represented to be the pix of the windshield). there is no way that he really thought he hit a dog. Im-friggin'-possible. No freakin way. Uh-uh. :rolleyes:

After having seen more of the evidence, I have to agree with you. I was just unwilling to rush to judgment based on incomplete info. With the pics and things I've seen, my scenario is implausable at best. It's pennance time.

[Dancing David]

The real question was wether he thought he hit an atheist or theist. If he struck an atheist then he thought it was justice, if it was a theist then he should crawl to the Vatican on his knees.

It just goes to show that when you set up people as moral authorities you need to ensure that they have morals.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Not me - I'm not bound by the 10 Commandments - except where they overlap US Civil Law. The Bishop however is (was) bound by them. There is a big difference between God's law and the US Constitution.

You're a lawyer, correct?? You must know the difference.

Barkhorn.
A couple of observations:

1. The civil law, in my opinion, is not a source of morality, albeit that its prescriptions may coincide with, or reflect, an external moral order.

2. Consider these two (non-exhaustive) possibilities: (A) the bishop's moral philosophy is substantially correct, in which case the bishop and everyone else are answerable to the same moral authority (i.e. the Christian God) or (B) your moral philosophy is substantially correct, in which case the notion of the Christian God and his laws possesses no objective authority, in which case whatever you think holds legitimate moral authority in this world (perhaps just a set of universal, abstract rational moral principles) presumably applies to the bishop as well as everyone else. In either event I, you, and the bishop are all "answerable" to the same moral authority, whether we realize it or not. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where this would not hold true, unless one discards the notion of universally applicable morality - and in that event, it becomes problematic to speak of moral "authority" in the conventional sense.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

A couple of observations:

1. The civil law, in my opinion, is not a source of morality, albeit that its prescriptions may coincide with, or reflect, an external moral order.

In my opinion there is no SOURCE of morality, rather there are social norms that vary over time and place. Civil law tends to reinforce these social norms.

The (not so) good bishop however, believes in a SOURCE of morality, and really blew it in terms of living up to his master's legacy.

Barkhorn.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
In my opinion there is no SOURCE of morality, rather there are social norms that vary over time and place. Civil law tends to reinforce these social norms.

Nonsense. Civil norms are not arbitrary decisions made in a perfect vaccum. They have to reflect real world conditions (or the society that follows them will soon cease to exist). This alone demonstrates that morality comes from the physical, objective, empirical world.

Theory of mind + social existance = morality.

Morality is as objective as mathematics is. We might not be able to explain why math solves problems in the real world, but it does. And the same for morality.

Note: obviously lots of merely arbitrary civil norms have been falsely asserted as base morality, but that only serves to show that people really do understand there is an objective morality, and try to anoint their silly rules with the status of objectivity. This is no more significant than people who make up mathematics and then pretend they are doing serious math.

Second Note: Just because morality is as objective as math doesn't mean it is easy. Pick a really hard math, like differential equations, or something even more convoluted and obscure, and pretend I said morality was as objective as that.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Nonsense. Civil norms are not arbitrary decisions made in a perfect vaccum.

Err...I never said they were arbitrary or were made in a perfect vaccum, just that they vary over time and place. Want some examples??

Theory of mind + social existance = morality.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Morality is as objective as mathematics is. We might not be able to explain why math solves problems in the real world, but it does. And the same for morality.
Prove it.

Note: obviously lots of merely arbitrary civil norms have been falsely asserted as base morality, but that only serves to show that people really do understand there is an objective morality, and try to anoint their silly rules with the status of objectivity. This is no more significant than people who make up mathematics and then pretend they are doing serious math.
Well then please describe/list/enumerate "base morality".

Second Note: Just because morality is as objective as math doesn't mean it is easy. Pick a really hard math, like differential equations, or something even more convoluted and obscure, and pretend I said morality was as objective as that.

Sounds like "obscurantism" to me.

Barkhorn.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

I have no idea what you mean here.

Well, I could go into the long explanation, but I don't feel like repeating myself for the umpteenth time.

The idea that human beings come into the world tabula rosa is simply too archaic to even be disputed.

[evildave]

You know, it's question time.

To become a Bishop, theoretically you must have stood out among the other clergy to have been chosen.

Is this the best they could find?

Or is it like the Dilbert Principle, the best were doing good work, so they promoted incompetence to its own level?

Is this why we have 'W' as president?