L'Eglise Aristotelicienne Romaine The Roman and Aristotelic Church

[Felipe...]

Dear brothers and sisters;

For several years now we have had an internal regulation that must be observed and complied with by all members of the Curia. Unfortunately, we have see how, sometimes, during the course of debates, these rules have been repeatedly violated, causing serious inconvenience and harm, not only to our brother cardinals personally, but also to the very functioning of this sacred chamber.

What is the point of having internal regulations if there is no sanctioning regime in the event that its members do not comply with them? It would be equivalent in secular law if the crime of theft, fraud or public nuisance did not carry an associated sentence if committed.

I would therefore ask the College of Cardinals and its dean to open a debate on this matter, to consider the appropriateness of a sanctioning regime, its drafting and its implementation. A set of minor sanctions that can be imposed immediately by the Dean in the event of multiple warnings or recidivism in the case of a breach of the rules by one of the cardinals.

[Kalixtus]

How should such a thing take place. The hierarchy of the Church is clear - only the Pope can impose sanctions on cardinals, or the Curia as a whole, or the courts. The dean does not have this power and should not be given this power.

_________________

[Felipe...]

You mean canonical sanctions, like imposed by the Pontifical Tribunal or the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

I am talking about disciplinary minor sanctions for non-compliance with the internal regulation of the Curia. That would certainly be something new.

However, I can modify my proposal: disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Holy Father at the request of the Dean.
_________________

_______.______Sanctae Mariae Rotundae cardinalis episcopus | Archiepiscopus Burdigalensis
__________..Secretarius brevium ad Principes | Sanctae Sedis Vice-cancillarius et Magnus Auditor

[Kalixtus]

I would not delegate such authority to the dean. He is not superior.

_________________

[Francesco_maria]

"I don't understand the need to change this regulation..."
_________________

[Felipe...]

[Francesco_maria]

"If a cardinal can't stand a rough confrontation with a brother, he'd better resign. How can he resist pretentious rulers or rebellious heretics if he lacks the courage or ability to answer to a brother? I am not someone who has an outgoing character as my other brothers may have but I am interested in the good of the Holy Church not to be a "fancy lady".

As long as the discussion is in these halls and we work together for our Holy Church, some fights and clashes are welcome, the important thing is then to be united in the world outside and against the Nameless Creature."
_________________

[Felipe...]

I am of the opposite opinion. If a cardinal is not capable of discussing opposing views without insults, harassment and confrontation, he should resign. But I am not so radical, I prefer a sanctioning regime, a middle ground whereby a cardinal, when the time comes, can be sanctioned for misbehaviour. All of us should be adult enough to know how to behave, especially in such a sacred place as the Curia should be.
_________________

_______.______Sanctae Mariae Rotundae cardinalis episcopus | Archiepiscopus Burdigalensis
__________..Secretarius brevium ad Principes | Sanctae Sedis Vice-cancillarius et Magnus Auditor

[Fenice]

I don't agree with

[Ettore_Asburgo_D'Argovia]

I think that if a Cardinal has behaved in an unworthy manner it is right that this action be reported to the Holy Father, however, I don't think it should be a function attributed only to the Dean.
_________________
+ Ettore Asburgo D'Argovia
Cardinale-Presbitero di San Barnaba a Ripa
Arcivescovo Metropolitano de L'Aquila
Decano del Tribunale della Rota Romana
Ufficiale dell'Ordine pontificio di Nicola V

[Kalixtus]

This body does not usually meet without the presence of the Holy Father. Why should one assume that even someone should denounce.

Besides, there are different views of what is or is not a border crossing.

I see it completely like Francesco.

I can't see when and where a cardinal feels offended in his honor or his existence or or because of some word.

Most people in high dignity believe that their farts smell like roses and I am of the opinion that we should not give the stage to this forum.

Otherwise, if free expression is limited and judged by the dean, then even fewer will speak here.

Of course, you can then join Adonnis in a tea party, Felipe and adulate yourselves. It is of course also a way to get rid of annoying discussants and inconvenient facts and opinions.

I can only reject this behavior and this proposal.

_________________

[Roderic_]

It is a complicated but necessary issue to deal with, on this point I join Brother Felipe and Fenice. The actions of this council have been most embarrassing, mixing personal issues with church issues. A mechanism is needed so that we can all talk to each other, without having to be interfered with because we do not share the same opinion as other brother cardinals.

Likewise, I don't think the Dean, as a figurehead, is the ideal person to do it, His Holiness could do it. or, failing that, that the proposal must have recourse to a certain number of cardinals in support of such an admonition. Which could be an alternative to what Brother Ettore proposes.
_________________

[Kalixtus]

It may be right or nonsense - but if you want to see it that way Roderic, then you must also define exactly what is now an attack on you and what is not.

I believe that this is absolutely individual. I feel rather amused and challenged by verbal attacks on me and my position instead of insulted and humiliated.

But if the same action produces different results, it cannot be sanctioned fairly and meaningfully.

_________________

[Fenice]

Brother Kalixtus, an insult is an insult not because someone feel insulted, but because there are some rules that we must share.

For example, I can't come here and say: Brother X, you are a stupid. This is an insult indeed, even in case X is the most easygoing and placid person in the world.
I mean, it is not necessary to write a list of forbidden words, but some general rules, above all, to separate opinions on proposals from judgments on persons.
Even if I am fiercely opposed to something, I must not attack the person proposing it.
_________________

[Kalixtus]

I understand, dear sister - but what do we do if he really is a stupid person. If he really does something very stupid.

Are we going to suppress the truth then because we want to be noble and polite and thus limit our expression.

Let's say I would kill someone. A man who bothers me because he keeps saying absurd things. Couldn't this be criticized as a stupid decision on my part - here in the Curia.

What follows:

I get a trial for murder.

You Fenice get a sanction for calling me stupid?

What about the people who are able to call other words for stupidity:

Uneducated
Absurd
Preposterous
Unenlightened
etc.

These are all equivalents that someone can title as insulting, as pejorative, as belittling.

If we become more concerned with a person's feelings, we will distort the facts and reality, making discourse impossible because we are busy trying to find a choice of words that will not insult or denigrate the other person. This then works to the disadvantage of the truth.

I consider that more problematic than calling someone a stupid when they deserve it.

_________________