Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo, the "priest operating under authority of the bishop" arguement, ie, the bishop is culpable for the priest's actions can and should be extended to the bartender/drunk driver? The bishop should have known and so should have the bartender?
I know. In the United States, they are called Democrats.
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightNot at all. I don't think you understood my analysis. It has nothing to do with predictability or foreknowledge.
So, the "priest operating under authority of the bishop" arguement, ie, the bishop is culpable for the priest's actions can and should be extended to the bartender/drunk driver? The bishop should have known and so should have the bartender?
The drunk is not operating as an agent of the bartender, carrying out the bartender's delegated duties in his stead via authority and means conferred by the bartender upon the drunk.
The priest, on the other hand, is an agent of the Bishop, carrying out the delegated duties of the Bishop in his stead via the authority and means conferred by the Bishop upon the priest.
4 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesConsider another analogy.
Not at all. I don't think you understood my analysis. It has nothing to do with predictability or foreknowledge.
The drunk is not operating as an agent of the bartender, carrying out the bartender's delegated responsibilities in his stead via authority and means conferred by the bartender upon the drunk.
The priest, on the other hand, is an ...[text shortened]... of the Bishop in his stead via the authority and means conferred by the Bishop upon the priest.
Suppose I have a pet dog. I have to leave town, so I pick a guy off the street to petsit, and he doesn't feed the dog for a week. I have neglected my responsibility to ensure that the dog is fed. I hold myself culpable to the dog if the dog dies, and I hold the guy accountable to me. I can only delegate my caretaking duties, not my responsibility of ensuring the dog's well-being, as it is my pet.
Suppose I own a pet store. I sell a dog to a guy that comes in off the street. He doesn't feed the dog and the dog dies. After selling the dog, I no longer have a responsibility to care for the dog, and I do not hold myself culpable if the dog dies, and I do not hold the guy accountable to me.
The Bishop is, in a way, a caretaker of his members. He can delegate away to a priest his caretaking duties, but he can't delegate away to a priest his accountability and responsibilty for ensuring the well-being of his members.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, if you cared about your pet, you wouldn't pick some guy off the street ...
Consider another analogy.
Suppose I have a pet dog. I have to leave town, so I pick a guy off the street to petsit, and he doesn't feed the dog for a week. I have neglected my responsibility to ensure that the dog is fed. I hold myself culpable to the dog if the dog dies, and I hold the guy accountable to me. I can only delegate my caretaking ...[text shortened]... way to a priest his accountability and responsibilty for ensuring the well-being of his members.
You would choose someone you knew and trusted.
I'm not convinced that you have made the case for culpability ending with a sale for gun dealers yet extending to bishops in the case of nominating someone to be a priest.
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightExactly! And if I were a Bishop, I wouldn't turn a known or accused child molester loose on a new congregation.
Well, if you cared about your pet, you wouldn't pick some guy off the street ...
You would choose someone you knew and trusted.
But even if I did pick a trusted caretaker for my dog and he died, the culpability would remain with me. By taking on the dog as a pet, I take on a non-transferable responsibility for his well-being. By taking on a parish or diocese or whatever his flock is called, the Bishop is taking on a responsibility to that flock that is non-transferable for the duration of his reign.
Originally posted by KneverKnightI have shown how the two cases differ substantially and claim that that difference is sufficient justification for the difference in the culpability that I find. That's all there is to my argument. If you're unconvinced, then we have arrived at an axiomatic disconnect.
I'm not convinced that you have made the case for culpability ending with a sale for gun dealers yet extending to bishops in the case of nominating someone to be a priest.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn the interest of not thinking poorly of you without first fully understanding your actions, I would request that you clarify your recent behavious for me, preferrably here in the forum where it is most relevant but PM will suffice if needed.
Ha ha ha ha ......
What exactly is the cause for your recent outbursts and offense? Surely you have the maturity to take a joke or a differing opinion, even in "bad taste", without making a fuss.