If you haven't been caught up, there is now a second Elvira Arellano. Her name is Flor Crisostomo, and she is another illegal immigrant from Mexico who was caught, told to surrender herself for deportation, and decided to hole up in a Chicago church claiming "sanctuary" instead of going back to Mexico. She had the choice to give herself up, and she refused - deciding to become a fugitive instead of doing the right thing and going back to the country that accepts her as a citizen.
So here's the big question: Can a church really provide sanctuary to criminals to avoid arrest?
NO, IT CANNOT.
I am 99% certain that there is no law and no precedence for being able to legally claim "sanctuary" from US law by entering a church. I'm leaving that 1% open in case someone can actually cite law or precedence, since I'm not a lawyer or anything. The main reason why people have been getting away with it is a matter of public relations. The police and federal agents don't like the "bad press" if they were to storm into a church just to make an arrest of a fugitive. They have EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to do so, but they apparently choose not to, for appearance's sake.
I, for one, blame Disney for spreading this malarchy to the public's attention. It's all because of The Hunchback of Notre Dame that people think you can enter a church and claim "sanctuary" and then everything's hunky-dory as long as you stay inside the church's confines. That scene with Quasimodo screaming "SANCTUARY!!!" over and over tugs at your heartstrings, but don't let it affect your brain, people.
There is no such thing as church "sanctuary". Can you guess why?
Exactly. Then you'd need law governing what is and isn't a church. Would it apply only for Catholic churches? What about Evangelical? Lutheran? Protestant? Presbyterians? How about a synagogue? A mosque? Could I create my own religion, claim my house is my church, and claim sanctuary there?
No, because the police wouldn't bat an eyelash about storming through my door and arresting me, despite the fact I am the ordained Pope of Beefinatorix claiming "sanctuary" in the only Meatingplace of Beefinatorix.
Meanwhile, Flor Crisostomo is following Disney Law and has claimed "sanctuary" in that same church, under the assumption that as long as she stays inside, she can avoid her imminent arrest and deportation. If this is the case, how can people say with a straight face that "She has three kids who depend on her and what she sends from the U.S."? Of course, that quote comes from the last sanctuary-claimer of that church, Elvira Arellano, so you can't blame a criminal for devious tricks.
If she has three kids who depend on her to send them money, then what is the point of holing yourself up in some church? That is the OPPOSITE of work! It earns NO money! Flor Crisostomo is the only one to blame for her kids going hungry due to a lack of ill-gotten funds!
Call me a cynic, but the bitch should have given herself up instead of getting the public's attention - since that way she'd probably have gotten deported back to Mexico and sadly illegally entered America again within a very small timeframe.
It's very sad, but it's the truth. After all, that's exactly what Elvira Arellano did the FIRST time she got arrested and deported. The second time was when she decided to be a bitch with her sanctuary plot, making sure that the media attention would mean that after her inevitable arrest, sneaking back in would be exponentially more difficult thanks to her danged spotlight.
Also, this whole nonsense about becoming a fugitive to "take a stand" and "try and change U.S. immigration laws" is really pissing me off. Listen up, you criminal non-citizens! LEARN ABOUT AMERICA BEFORE YOU TRY AND CHANGE AMERICA! Maybe then Crisostomo would have known that laws are changed by US legislators and bureaucracy, and voted upon by CITIZENS.
Finally, the priest of that church should be locked up as well for aiding and abetting a known fugitive. He allowed her to enter and claim sanctuary, knowing fully well that is would make her a fugitive. That means that he willfully associated himself with the crime, which is pretty much the definition of "aiding and abetting" as far as I know.
If any of my information is wrong, please let me know.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The online version of the article)
Read more!
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Another Arellano??
I picked up the paper today with all the hopes of "I hope there's something in here I can rant about today" - and I was not at all disappointed. (I mean with finding something to rant about - the news itself is very disappointing.) Right there on the front page were the words "Church harbors another illegal immigrant", and I hurried to Page 8 to find out what the hell is going on in my city.
It turns out that the SAME CHURCH that sheltered Elvira Arellano for that horrible year plans to allow ANOTHER illegal immigrant to seek shelter there instead of turning herself over to the authorities like she is supposed to do today.
This new illegal immigrant criminal was arrested in 2006 as a result of a nationwide raid of the IFCO Systems pallet company, which resulted in 26 illegal immigrant workers being arrested. Flor Crisostomo is supposed to be surrendering to the federal immigration authorities today. After retreating to the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Humboldt Park where her FRIEND Elvira Arellano hid from the feds for a year, she is supposed to be "announcing" her decision today of whether she plans to turn herself in or the more likely option of thumbing her nose at the law like she did when she illegally entered the country from Oaxaca in 2001 and staying in the church and claiming sanctuary.
My biggest issue with all this nonsense, aside from the fact that the church does NOT provide sanctuary for criminals and it's about damned time the feds proved it by storming in and arresting her criminal ass, is that it's evoking the stupidest debates as a result. A criminal illegally enters the U.S., gets caught and arrested, refuses to accept the punishment, and all people are talking about is federal immigration reform??? What's even worse is the slew of comments being written down that are completely ass-backwards!
"It is very difficult to make this decision. Whatever it is, it will be worthwhile. ... It's not just to benefit me, it's to benefit the community," Crisostomo said in an interview inside the church.
No, you lawbreaking bitch, this IS about benefitting yourself and NOT AT ALL about benefitting the community. If allowing criminals to hang around your neighborhood actually benefitted communities, then property values in some southside neighborhoods would have skyrocketed past all of the upscale northside neighborhoods a long time ago. What WOULD benefit the community would be you giving yourself up to the federal agents and making an announcement to all of your illegal brethren to follow suit and say "let's all go back to Mexico." THAT would make property values rise and lower the crime rates significantly.
"I am taking a stand of civil disobedience ... I believe with all my heart that the United States and Mexico must end the system of undocumented labor," said Flor Crisostomo.
You know what, Flor? I completely agree. We must end the system of undocumented labor. By sending all the undocumented workers back to Mexico!! For the love of all things good and right in the world, you can't tell me that entering the U.S. illegally and getting work with a fake I.D. and sending money to your three kids and mother back in Mexico is a system we should be applauding or trying to help in any way! American workers are supposed to have that money and that job and help the U.S. economy and the rest of the legal citizens of this country. Some states and cities ARE trying to end the undocumented worker situation - by holding businesses more responsible in their hiring practices with the threat of losing their license if they hire an illegal immigrant.
Maybe one day, to add insult to injury, our federal agents will calculate how much money the United States have lost as a result of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, just so we can sue Mexico for damages. Maybe if they got their own shit together, people wouldn't be fleeing to steal jobs from Americans across the border. Maybe if they beefed up their OWN security at the border, less people would make it through and be stuck to help Mexico's failing economy for a change!
In the meantime, Flor Crisostomo should be reunited with her family, thanks to a deportation bus ride back to her hometown at the hands of federal agents. And Gail Montenegro, spokeswoman for the ICE here in Chicago? I know that you said "ICE officers are sworn to enforce the nation's immigration laws and will do so at appropriate times and places," but I just have to say:
The proper time is ALWAYS. The proper place is WHEREVER THESE CRIMINALS ARE HIDING.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The online version of the article)
Read more!
It turns out that the SAME CHURCH that sheltered Elvira Arellano for that horrible year plans to allow ANOTHER illegal immigrant to seek shelter there instead of turning herself over to the authorities like she is supposed to do today.
This new illegal immigrant criminal was arrested in 2006 as a result of a nationwide raid of the IFCO Systems pallet company, which resulted in 26 illegal immigrant workers being arrested. Flor Crisostomo is supposed to be surrendering to the federal immigration authorities today. After retreating to the Adalberto United Methodist Church in Humboldt Park where her FRIEND Elvira Arellano hid from the feds for a year, she is supposed to be "announcing" her decision today of whether she plans to turn herself in or the more likely option of thumbing her nose at the law like she did when she illegally entered the country from Oaxaca in 2001 and staying in the church and claiming sanctuary.
My biggest issue with all this nonsense, aside from the fact that the church does NOT provide sanctuary for criminals and it's about damned time the feds proved it by storming in and arresting her criminal ass, is that it's evoking the stupidest debates as a result. A criminal illegally enters the U.S., gets caught and arrested, refuses to accept the punishment, and all people are talking about is federal immigration reform??? What's even worse is the slew of comments being written down that are completely ass-backwards!
"It is very difficult to make this decision. Whatever it is, it will be worthwhile. ... It's not just to benefit me, it's to benefit the community," Crisostomo said in an interview inside the church.
No, you lawbreaking bitch, this IS about benefitting yourself and NOT AT ALL about benefitting the community. If allowing criminals to hang around your neighborhood actually benefitted communities, then property values in some southside neighborhoods would have skyrocketed past all of the upscale northside neighborhoods a long time ago. What WOULD benefit the community would be you giving yourself up to the federal agents and making an announcement to all of your illegal brethren to follow suit and say "let's all go back to Mexico." THAT would make property values rise and lower the crime rates significantly.
"I am taking a stand of civil disobedience ... I believe with all my heart that the United States and Mexico must end the system of undocumented labor," said Flor Crisostomo.
You know what, Flor? I completely agree. We must end the system of undocumented labor. By sending all the undocumented workers back to Mexico!! For the love of all things good and right in the world, you can't tell me that entering the U.S. illegally and getting work with a fake I.D. and sending money to your three kids and mother back in Mexico is a system we should be applauding or trying to help in any way! American workers are supposed to have that money and that job and help the U.S. economy and the rest of the legal citizens of this country. Some states and cities ARE trying to end the undocumented worker situation - by holding businesses more responsible in their hiring practices with the threat of losing their license if they hire an illegal immigrant.
Maybe one day, to add insult to injury, our federal agents will calculate how much money the United States have lost as a result of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, just so we can sue Mexico for damages. Maybe if they got their own shit together, people wouldn't be fleeing to steal jobs from Americans across the border. Maybe if they beefed up their OWN security at the border, less people would make it through and be stuck to help Mexico's failing economy for a change!
In the meantime, Flor Crisostomo should be reunited with her family, thanks to a deportation bus ride back to her hometown at the hands of federal agents. And Gail Montenegro, spokeswoman for the ICE here in Chicago? I know that you said "ICE officers are sworn to enforce the nation's immigration laws and will do so at appropriate times and places," but I just have to say:
The proper time is ALWAYS. The proper place is WHEREVER THESE CRIMINALS ARE HIDING.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS ILLEGAL.
(The online version of the article)
Read more!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Trunk-or-Treat?
Taking "trick-or-treating" to the next level (or rather just a different level), a new phenomenon has been on the rise, called "trunk-or-treating". You may have heard something about it in the human interest section of the news, or maybe have even participated in it. The question mostly being asked is, "What do you think about trunk-or-treating?" Frankly, I'm torn.
It's a good idea, in theory, but like all things that are good in theory, I'm not willing to trust it further than I can throw it. And since it's virtually impossible to throw an abstract concept, I obviously don't trust it very much.
In "trick-or-treating", children go from door to door in their neighborhood, knocking on the doors and positing the choice of dishing out treats or possibly getting tricked. The homeowner, usually preferring not to be tricked later in the night, doles out candy bars that are admittedly NOT a "fun size" - and the process continues down the street. In fact, it usually continues until someone passes out (from sleep deprivation or diabetic shock) or the haul is too large to physically move and the children must be picked up - preferably with some kind of crane or forklift.
In "trunk-or-treating", the rules change. Instead of lying in wait at the door of their homes, the candy offerings are poured into the trunk of the car and all of the cars meet in one spot for the neighborhood. Then children come to this parking lot candy buffet and visit all of the trunks. That's it.
Again, I am completely torn on this issue. The side of me that loves the idea is the child inside of me, who is currently cackling at the prospect of a "parking lot candy buffet". The side of me that is most against it is the adult inside of me, who is among the population deemed "too old" to be wandering about town in a disguise in attempts to not have to pay for candy, but rather has to pay for candy that will be doled out to your snot-nosed offspring. For him, the notion of making it EASIER for children to find my candy and eat it is one that I am not on board with at all.
Cue the "in my day" speech, possibly involving walking five miles uphill (both ways) just for one of those horrible white baggies of doorstop-kin marshmallows that tasted as bad as every other sense warned you about them.
Now that the demons in me have subsided, I will admit that it's not TOTALLY a horrible idea. I can see that for rural towns, where visiting four houses might actually entail walking five miles, a chance for everyone to get together in one place and have a celebration for the holiday and have the chance to have your kids actually get some candy - that sounds like an acceptable idea. But again, good in theory rarely means it's good in practice.
My concern is that most times you hear about these trunk-or-treat parties/events, they're taking place at CHURCHES. Not only that, but in the same sentence you'll often hear SOMETHING religious or with a religious theme, or even just the words "Veggie Tales". My concern is that the church is trying to steal away this holiday! To the religious, anything that promotes the slightest bit of happiness in relation to anything non-Jesus (be it a witch, zombie, or Thomas the Tank Engine) is something that must be stopped or captured and then brainwashed into oblivion. Mixing churches with Hallowe'en is like trying to have your bachelor's party at your grandmother's house - with her in it.
My other concern is the creepy tone set by the words themselves. With "trick-or-treat", you know what the two options are. "Give me a treat, or I will commit some kind of trick on you." With this new "trunk-or-treat" concept, what's at stake? Are they going to lock children in a trunk when they run out of candy? Just from a language standpoint, it's confusing and admittedly creepy-sounding.
Also, what are childless male adults supposed to do? We already get enough guff from society as a whole if we even take the slightest interest in anything related to children. Something tells me that if parents knew beforehand which houses on a block were inhabited by single male adults without children, they would specifically wanr their children to avoid those houses. Nevermind the fact that the intentions of my ilk are just to hand out candy to children - we're already seen as "predators" and "sociopaths" and "red flags" to parents. Something tells me that an adult male with no children, like myself, would get the crap beat out of him for showing up in a parking lot with a trunkload of candy - even if everything took place in plain sight of the parents.
What it all boils down to is that I'm really not all that into the trunk-or-treating concept. I think it's dangerous to the holiday itself, in spirit and in tradition. Would I recommend it to rural areas? Sure. Nothing makes the night easier for parents and children alike than meeting up, getting it all over with and doing minimal walking. Would I recommend it to children? Sure. Nothing beats a 500-foot walk in a parking lot to secure a huge sugar haul instead of the 5-mile-uphill-in-the-snow-both-ways walks of my day. Would I recommend it to true fans of Hallowe'en, who know the history of the day itself (including why I always spell it with an apostrophe) and live to decorate and spook and share the true experiences of this delightfully-devilish nighttime adventure? Not a chance.
And in return for an offering of Boo Berry, I'd gladly share some of my tales...
(The trunk-or-treating "ritual")
Read more!
It's a good idea, in theory, but like all things that are good in theory, I'm not willing to trust it further than I can throw it. And since it's virtually impossible to throw an abstract concept, I obviously don't trust it very much.
In "trick-or-treating", children go from door to door in their neighborhood, knocking on the doors and positing the choice of dishing out treats or possibly getting tricked. The homeowner, usually preferring not to be tricked later in the night, doles out candy bars that are admittedly NOT a "fun size" - and the process continues down the street. In fact, it usually continues until someone passes out (from sleep deprivation or diabetic shock) or the haul is too large to physically move and the children must be picked up - preferably with some kind of crane or forklift.
In "trunk-or-treating", the rules change. Instead of lying in wait at the door of their homes, the candy offerings are poured into the trunk of the car and all of the cars meet in one spot for the neighborhood. Then children come to this parking lot candy buffet and visit all of the trunks. That's it.
Again, I am completely torn on this issue. The side of me that loves the idea is the child inside of me, who is currently cackling at the prospect of a "parking lot candy buffet". The side of me that is most against it is the adult inside of me, who is among the population deemed "too old" to be wandering about town in a disguise in attempts to not have to pay for candy, but rather has to pay for candy that will be doled out to your snot-nosed offspring. For him, the notion of making it EASIER for children to find my candy and eat it is one that I am not on board with at all.
Cue the "in my day" speech, possibly involving walking five miles uphill (both ways) just for one of those horrible white baggies of doorstop-kin marshmallows that tasted as bad as every other sense warned you about them.
Now that the demons in me have subsided, I will admit that it's not TOTALLY a horrible idea. I can see that for rural towns, where visiting four houses might actually entail walking five miles, a chance for everyone to get together in one place and have a celebration for the holiday and have the chance to have your kids actually get some candy - that sounds like an acceptable idea. But again, good in theory rarely means it's good in practice.
My concern is that most times you hear about these trunk-or-treat parties/events, they're taking place at CHURCHES. Not only that, but in the same sentence you'll often hear SOMETHING religious or with a religious theme, or even just the words "Veggie Tales". My concern is that the church is trying to steal away this holiday! To the religious, anything that promotes the slightest bit of happiness in relation to anything non-Jesus (be it a witch, zombie, or Thomas the Tank Engine) is something that must be stopped or captured and then brainwashed into oblivion. Mixing churches with Hallowe'en is like trying to have your bachelor's party at your grandmother's house - with her in it.
My other concern is the creepy tone set by the words themselves. With "trick-or-treat", you know what the two options are. "Give me a treat, or I will commit some kind of trick on you." With this new "trunk-or-treat" concept, what's at stake? Are they going to lock children in a trunk when they run out of candy? Just from a language standpoint, it's confusing and admittedly creepy-sounding.
Also, what are childless male adults supposed to do? We already get enough guff from society as a whole if we even take the slightest interest in anything related to children. Something tells me that if parents knew beforehand which houses on a block were inhabited by single male adults without children, they would specifically wanr their children to avoid those houses. Nevermind the fact that the intentions of my ilk are just to hand out candy to children - we're already seen as "predators" and "sociopaths" and "red flags" to parents. Something tells me that an adult male with no children, like myself, would get the crap beat out of him for showing up in a parking lot with a trunkload of candy - even if everything took place in plain sight of the parents.
What it all boils down to is that I'm really not all that into the trunk-or-treating concept. I think it's dangerous to the holiday itself, in spirit and in tradition. Would I recommend it to rural areas? Sure. Nothing makes the night easier for parents and children alike than meeting up, getting it all over with and doing minimal walking. Would I recommend it to children? Sure. Nothing beats a 500-foot walk in a parking lot to secure a huge sugar haul instead of the 5-mile-uphill-in-the-snow-both-ways walks of my day. Would I recommend it to true fans of Hallowe'en, who know the history of the day itself (including why I always spell it with an apostrophe) and live to decorate and spook and share the true experiences of this delightfully-devilish nighttime adventure? Not a chance.
And in return for an offering of Boo Berry, I'd gladly share some of my tales...
(The trunk-or-treating "ritual")
Read more!
Thursday, October 04, 2007
How NOT to Sue a Church
The Rev. Luis Alfredo Rios, a priest at St. Thomas the Apostle Church, might not always be on his game. That's a given. But it was when Angel Llavona decided to take his opinions to the next level that things apparently started getting out of hand. He called up the reverend on his church line and left the following message:
"Father Rios, this is Angel Llavona. I attended mass on Sunday and I have seen poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records."
Feeling offended, or perhaps wanting to hear opinions from the rest of his audience, Rios decided to play the message for his Sunday mass, adding:
"This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That's why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That's why we didn't get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?"
After all, Llavona, a teacher at a high school in Des Plaines, did indeed serve as a volunteer with the parish's religious education program from September of 2005 to April of 2006. And while I could certainly attempt to make a few altar-boy-related jokes, I will refuse to do so - since I'm totally in favor of the church on this one. Especially because of what Llavona decided to do about being publicly outed as a jerk who complained to the preacher.
He sued. Not only did he sue Rev. Rios, he's also suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford - because somehow in his mind, the diocese is legally responsible for anything that any of their priests decide to do. So what, pray tell (no pun intended), is he suing for?
Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered "immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation." Llavona says the humiliation forced him to change parishes. He is seeking a minimum of $50,000 in damages.
That's when I became enraged, reading the article. While I'm the first one in line to say that the Catholic Church is loaded with parishoner money and is always willing to part with chunks of it to keep things settled, especially out-of-court, there are things you sue over and things that you do NOT sue over. Getting molested as a child? Go ahead and sue. Being kicked out for discriminatory reasons? Maybe you can get away with it - the case is in the details. Being a jerk and then getting called out for being a jerk? Suck it up and move on, buddy!
That in mind, this guy COULD have had a case - he just chose the WRONG case. He's decided to wimp out and beg for "you made me feel bad" money, which he should never get a penny for. You don't get to act like a jerk and then sue for monetary compensation when your actions are made known and everyone knows you're a jerk. If the guy had punched the priest in the face over the sermon's failures, and all the priest did (rather than sue for assault and battery) was tell the congregation, "Oh, my black eye? Angel Llavona punched me because he thought my sermon sucked" - Llavona would STILL have no case over the fact that he decided to switch parishes and was ratted out for being a jerk.
What Llavona COULD have argued was that he called the Reverend on his church line, expecting the privacy associated with the confidentiality laws applying between religious leaders and followers. Although it was in no way a "confession" (the usual conversation those laws apply to) - the law might be swayed on his side in a case of breaking confidentiality.
The only other thing that gets me irked about this (which has no legal grounds) is that it seems like the priest was commenting that he (and the congregation) had the power to send Llavona to hell. That just seems a little blasphemous in my mind. I'm pretty sure that in the Catholic faith, it's God who makes that decision, not an angry priest or a congregation. The afterlife is not determined through a democratic process. Also, it's contradictory that a priest is supposed to hear confessions and offer absolution for sins, and this one aired those sins and treated them as unforgivable.
Nevertheless - Llavona, you should be asking for an apology, not a sum of money. You suffered no monetary damages through these actions, which were all your fault for being a jackass anyway. What you should really be doing is making a case to the Catholic Diocese about removing a priest who would do un-priestly things like what Reverend Luis Alfredo Rios did.
Even so, I'm going to side with Rios and the Catholic Church on this impending lawsuit of uselessness and avarice.
Of course, I'm Jewish. So take this all with a grain of salt. And a margarita. L'chaim!
(The article about the lawsuit)
Read more!
"Father Rios, this is Angel Llavona. I attended mass on Sunday and I have seen poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records."
Feeling offended, or perhaps wanting to hear opinions from the rest of his audience, Rios decided to play the message for his Sunday mass, adding:
"This is the person in charge of religious education here last year. That's why it is no surprise to me [that] we had the kind of religious education we had. That's why we didn't get altar boys. What should we do? Should we send him to hell or to another parish?"
After all, Llavona, a teacher at a high school in Des Plaines, did indeed serve as a volunteer with the parish's religious education program from September of 2005 to April of 2006. And while I could certainly attempt to make a few altar-boy-related jokes, I will refuse to do so - since I'm totally in favor of the church on this one. Especially because of what Llavona decided to do about being publicly outed as a jerk who complained to the preacher.
He sued. Not only did he sue Rev. Rios, he's also suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford - because somehow in his mind, the diocese is legally responsible for anything that any of their priests decide to do. So what, pray tell (no pun intended), is he suing for?
Llavona claims in the lawsuit filed this week in McHenry County that he was defamed and suffered "immediate emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation." Llavona says the humiliation forced him to change parishes. He is seeking a minimum of $50,000 in damages.
That's when I became enraged, reading the article. While I'm the first one in line to say that the Catholic Church is loaded with parishoner money and is always willing to part with chunks of it to keep things settled, especially out-of-court, there are things you sue over and things that you do NOT sue over. Getting molested as a child? Go ahead and sue. Being kicked out for discriminatory reasons? Maybe you can get away with it - the case is in the details. Being a jerk and then getting called out for being a jerk? Suck it up and move on, buddy!
That in mind, this guy COULD have had a case - he just chose the WRONG case. He's decided to wimp out and beg for "you made me feel bad" money, which he should never get a penny for. You don't get to act like a jerk and then sue for monetary compensation when your actions are made known and everyone knows you're a jerk. If the guy had punched the priest in the face over the sermon's failures, and all the priest did (rather than sue for assault and battery) was tell the congregation, "Oh, my black eye? Angel Llavona punched me because he thought my sermon sucked" - Llavona would STILL have no case over the fact that he decided to switch parishes and was ratted out for being a jerk.
What Llavona COULD have argued was that he called the Reverend on his church line, expecting the privacy associated with the confidentiality laws applying between religious leaders and followers. Although it was in no way a "confession" (the usual conversation those laws apply to) - the law might be swayed on his side in a case of breaking confidentiality.
The only other thing that gets me irked about this (which has no legal grounds) is that it seems like the priest was commenting that he (and the congregation) had the power to send Llavona to hell. That just seems a little blasphemous in my mind. I'm pretty sure that in the Catholic faith, it's God who makes that decision, not an angry priest or a congregation. The afterlife is not determined through a democratic process. Also, it's contradictory that a priest is supposed to hear confessions and offer absolution for sins, and this one aired those sins and treated them as unforgivable.
Nevertheless - Llavona, you should be asking for an apology, not a sum of money. You suffered no monetary damages through these actions, which were all your fault for being a jackass anyway. What you should really be doing is making a case to the Catholic Diocese about removing a priest who would do un-priestly things like what Reverend Luis Alfredo Rios did.
Even so, I'm going to side with Rios and the Catholic Church on this impending lawsuit of uselessness and avarice.
Of course, I'm Jewish. So take this all with a grain of salt. And a margarita. L'chaim!
(The article about the lawsuit)
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
