I hate the move to rename it as well but… Good luck with that. I can’t see why any court would even entertain such a suit.

Ohhh, Mr. “gotcha question” showed up.

Feel free to complain that I didn’t answer your question like you deserve one

Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.

Sure… But…

The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen’s duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.

Don’t be vague. We’re talking about trespassing. Somebody peaceably trespassing in your living room would be a pretty big deal.

It’s fine that they protested, but expect to be arrested when you refuse to vacate a building you’re trespassing in.

SCOTUS please FFS undo the ridiculous deference to the executive on the definition of “emergency”! We all know they’re no longer acting in anything resembling good faith. This is a power grab the likes of which we’ve never seen!

I specifically didn’t say they were being violent. When asked to leave their presence becomes trespass. Being somewhere you aren’t supposed to be gets to the far side of “peaceful”. You’re not violent, maybe, but you’re not lawful either. At that point the police are within their right to remove you.

slow clap

This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.

While this is true it turns out that the United States isn’t bound by Catholic dogma. And the Church’s methods for handling this sort of problem have thus far been… questionable at best.

Taking over a building is on the far end of “peaceful”.

Oof, yeah that tracks.

Progressive implies in comparison to what came before. This dude is not progressive in what comes from before. It is regressive behavior. The church took 3 steps forward and 2 back. This is called regression.

You’re using your definition of “progressive” and applying it to the way other people are using the same word though. That’s not how communication works. It’s like you’re trying to misunderstand.

Oh, I hear ya. It’s super frustrating. It’s often presented as as weird sort of “speaking truth to power” as well. “Doctors don’t know anything - my nurse friend says …”

I think a whole lot of it comes from the fact that doctors just don’t spend as much time with patients as nurses do. Nurses build a relationship with people and the doctor just swoops in for a few minutes here and there.

People trust a friend over an authority nine times out of ten. :-(

My whole point is that this dude isn’t progressive but, if anything, regressive.

Your whole point is wrong. That’s why you’re confused.

Compared to the “conservative wing” of the Catholic church he’s quite progressive. That’s why I said “it’s relative”. But that doesn’t mean he’s going to be smoking a joint at a pride parade while distributing condoms.

You then talk about how progress is needed for the church but then how the progress from Francis was too much?

You’re very “black and white” with your reasoning. You will find it hard to understand with that attitude. For some conservatives in the Catholic church it was definitely “too much”. But for others it was not. And there will be some in the middle who will be potentially swayed. For yet others it will be a welcome recognition of their point of view. What did you expect?

People are more easily convinced of a point of view by people they know and trust. If you’re a middle-of-the-road Catholic who now sees The Pope blessing homosexuals then maybe you start to accept the idea. “Guess it’s not so bad if the Pope even does it.” To the Fox News I-went-to-Sunday-school-once-as-a-kid-and-now-I’m-Catholic crowd that will be a bridge too far.

The pope leads the church - but no man rules alone.

An institution like the catholic church doesn’t change overnight. It couldn’t or it would lose its legitimacy and therefore its followers. Many US catholics have already started to push back. Some things take time. Frankly the pope being at least “comfortable” with gays probably did more to help change some minds than any amount of protesting has.

That said - protecting pedos was and is horrific. it’s not “progressive” one way or the other to condemn that.

Met any anti-vax nurses? I guarantee you that you could find some medical professionals who would do it.

“progressive” is a relative term.

Chief Justice John Roberts defended judicial independence as necessary to “check the excesses of the Congress or the executive” at an appearance in Buffalo, New York.

Also Roberts:

The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.

If figured with what Trump is doing that people would realize that it’s always worth defending things like “due process” and the rights to a good legal defence. Especially when the defendant is unlikeable since that’s when such rights are often eroded.

“The president gets expanded powers during an emergency”

“The president gets to declare what is an emergency”

Thanks Supreme Court and Congress. Who could have ever guessed that this system would be abused by an authoritarian. 🤷‍♂️

Christ he needs to explain it to Trump like he’s a child.

“So you have your toys and your sister has her toys. And no matter how much you offer her she’ll never sell you her toys.”