Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:06 AM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
It's not a game. I seldom agree with Bricker but if you can't answer his question how the hell do you think you can comment on what Pell would have known?

In my experience people can be reluctant to take embarrassing or difficult problems to the boss. They will do so if they want to pass the buck upstairs and are absolutely sure they won't get blamed for the problem. Otherwise they may well try to avoid the boss finding out. This is well known and trite. Except when people are angry at a corporation or big institution. Then the assumption is that the boss was a Svengali who somehow knew about everything that went on.
Fine.

Quote:
To Govern
This refers to meeting the needs of the local community (material, social, personal and spiritual) as well as ensuring that Church laws are observed.

He is ultimately responsible for training and supplying priests for parishes, for the finances of the diocese and for all church property.
Thats from here http://www.sandhurst.catholic.org.au...le-of-a-bishop

Different diocese but it seems pretty standard.

Lets look at some of the evidence from the last few days:

Quote:
The specifics of Ridsdale’s offending were known by senior church officials, including, the commission was told, the bishop of Ballarat at the time, Ronald Mulkearns, who continually moved Ridsdale to new parishesto shield him from prosecution and protect the church’s reputation.



The decision to move Ridsdale was taken by church consultors, of which Pell was one, at meetings at which Pell was present.
But Pell says he never knew anything of Ridsdale’s offending. He said Mulkearns and others at the meetings who knew of his offending had deceived him and lied to him about why he was being moved. He said there were many reasons why priests might be moved repeatedly, and rapidly, between parishes.
Quote:
Pell said he bore no responsibility for Ridsdale being moved to protect the paedophile from prosecution and the church from scandal, because, he says, he did not know Ridsdale was abusing children.
Quote:
He said he never knew that Ridsdale was living with a 14-year-old boy in the presbytery of the church at Mortlake, despite a slew of documents and correspondence detailing parishioners’ and others’ concerns about the arrangement
http://www.theguardian.com/australia...ophile-priests

Quote:
Carindal Pell is being directed to evidence before the commission
outlining children recounting events with Father Searson including;
  • Fear of sexual abuse
  • Concern Father Searson was dangerous
  • Father Searson hitting children on the wrist, chest and head
Cardinal Pell says he has no recollection of the incidents recounted by the children being raised at a meeting he attended and he was not shown the list of complaints.
Quote:
Counsel Assisting: So we now have the CEO deceiving you and the Archbishop deceiving you and concealing information from you as well as Bishop Mulkearns and one or more of the consultors in the Ballarat Diocese?

Cardinal Pell: That is correct.
Quote:
Counsel Assisting: Why would it be they would single out you not to tell information to when they'd readily told it to the Archbishop and the Vicar General who had the power?

Cardinal Pell: Because they realised very clearly I was not cut from the same cloth.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-0...-abuse/7212356

There is plenty more.

The auxiliary bishop is basically 2IC of the dioceses, with responsibilities very similar or the same as the bishop in charge.

Does Pell strike you as a man who knew what was going on on his patch?

The time I was a part of the RCC the local Bishop was always involved in the goings on of the community, he visited our school several times and was the ultimate authority of the RCC in the area.

IMO Pell failed miserably in his duties and was more concerned with protecting the church and the church finances than he was with the parishioners under his care (see my first quote).

Fuck him.
  #102  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:12 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Now I am not in favour of seizing their assets globally, but just pointing out the reality of the single RCC.
You aren't pointing out a reality, you are asserting something. And without much evidence. The RCC central authority involves a hierarchy to which associated entities accede to a greater or lesser extent. To some extent the authority is legally enforceable and to a much greater practical everyday extent its cultural. In other words " the Pope says we should so we will". There is a lot of politics and there can be substantial differences at a practical level between various orders and diocese.

I'm yet to here of any suggestion that any local congregation acceded to the idea their credit could be pledged by the Pope towards covering the fines or compensation payable for crimes or wrongs committed elsewhere and without the congregation's knowledge, consent or support.

To continue my example, your position is like saying that because FIFA is the governing body of soccer, and because if FIFA sets new rules your local club will follow, then your club has to pay if another interstate club does something criminal and FIFA covers it up.
  #103  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:14 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battle Pope View Post
Play your games with someone else.
You mean, "Don't highlight the weak inferences I make, because it embarrasses me?"
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #104  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:20 AM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You mean, "Don't highlight the weak inferences I make, because it embarrasses me?"
No I mean, "play your games with someone else".

I made my 'inference' based on Pell's continued statements of ignorance regarding events that were occurring in the dioceses he was either a priest or a bishop in for years despite ongoing complaints about his colleges to multiple levels of the church hierarchy.

Last edited by Battle Pope; 03-02-2016 at 04:21 AM.
  #105  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:25 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battle Pope View Post
The auxiliary bishop is basically 2IC of the dioceses, with responsibilities very similar or the same as the bishop in charge.
This is not necessarily true.

You're absolutely correct that the bishop is the person in charge of the diocese.

An auxiliary bishop may, or may not, have similar responsibilities. A diocese may have no auxiliary bishop, one, or several. When it has only one, canon law requires that the bishop appoint his auxiliary as Vicar General. When it has several, the others may hold responsibilities only in particular deaneries, and not have any real familiar with other operational areas.

In short, there is no reason whatsoever to say that the auxiliary bishop has "responsibilities very similar or the same as the bishop in charge." It's possible he might; it's possible he does not. It's by no means a safe assumption that he does.


Quote:
The time I was a part of the RCC the local Bishop was always involved in the goings on of the community, he visited our school several times and was the ultimate authority of the RCC in the area.
Yes. The bishop.

The local bishop is a very different position than any local auxiliary bishops.

Quote:
IMO Pell failed miserably in his duties and was more concerned with protecting the church and the church finances than he was with the parishioners under his care (see my first quote).

Fuck him.
Yes, your opinion is clear.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #106  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:26 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Whether legally or not, the RCC is, in practice, a single hierarchy. What's more, the same culture of disregard for the wellbeing of innocents is evident on a global scale, which is ironic, given that they ostensibly present as an organisation where care and compassion are cornerstone principles.
  #107  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:27 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battle Pope View Post
Fine.



Thats from here http://www.sandhurst.catholic.org.au...le-of-a-bishop

Different diocese but it seems pretty standard.

Lets look at some of the evidence from the last few days:







http://www.theguardian.com/australia...ophile-priests



[B]

[B]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-0...-abuse/7212356

There is plenty more.

The auxiliary bishop is basically 2IC of the dioceses, with responsibilities very similar or the same as the bishop in charge.

Does Pell strike you as a man who knew what was going on on his patch?

The time I was a part of the RCC the local Bishop was always involved in the goings on of the community, he visited our school several times and was the ultimate authority of the RCC in the area.

IMO Pell failed miserably in his duties and was more concerned with protecting the church and the church finances than he was with the parishioners under his care (see my first quote).

Fuck him.
So your quotes are to the effect he didn't know and he supplies a plausible reason why he wouldn't have been told. In my experience when something criminal is going on in an organisation, those involved don't tell anyone they don't have to. I'm not sure why this is seen as implausible as you imply. In any other context - where you hadn't already pre-judged the situation - I doubt you would think it anything but thoroughly plausible that people doing something dubious don't blab to those who may take a dim view.

Basically your position gets Pell coming or going: if he says he was known as a good man who would have been kept in the dark by his conniving colleagues you don't believe him and he's to blame. If he says he knew then he'd be to blame.

Your examples of your personal experience are weak sauce: official visits to schools and being the ultimate authority mean nothing when it comes to the local whispers. You couldn't have said more to convince me your local Bishop would have been the last person to know what was really going on.
  #108  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:28 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battle Pope View Post
No I mean, "play your games with someone else".

I made my 'inference' based on Pell's continued statements of ignorance regarding events that were occurring in the dioceses he was either a priest or a bishop in for years despite ongoing complaints about his colleges to multiple levels of the church hierarchy.
What inferences, if any, can I make about your willingness to opine about the duties of an auxiliary bishop when you clearly are ignorant about the position?

I notice now you are broadening your complaint to a more vague and thus more defensible one. I objected to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battle Pope View Post
For an auxiliary bishop, Pell seems staggeringly ignorant of the goings on in his diocese for that time.
You are correct to complain that Pell, as the Ordinary, disclaims knowledge. He may not have had actual knowledge, but he was ultimately responsible.

You are not correct to make a similar claim that as an auxiliary bishop, he must have had similar responsibility.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-02-2016 at 04:32 AM.
  #109  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:30 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
You aren't pointing out a reality, you are asserting something. And without much evidence. The RCC central authority involves a hierarchy to which associated entities accede to a greater or lesser extent.
You are playing games with weasel words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primac...Bishop_of_Rome

The pope appoints arch bishops in consultancy with other cardinals and advisers, the arch bishops appoint bishops, bishops look over their diocese and are in charge of the priests beneath them. Its a clear line of authority, the Pope can set church policy on a global level, and the issue is that although Francis has made some words about stopping abuses he hasn't backed them up with action yet, forcing suspected priests / bishops / archbishops, cardinals etc to resign. If he fails to do that then theres a case to be made that the Vatican / Holy See as an organisation is culpable in the abuse and it can and should be sued.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-02-2016 at 04:35 AM.
  #110  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:33 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You are playing games with weasel words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_supremacy

The pope appoints arch bishops in consultancy with other cardinals and advisers, the arch bishops appoint bishops, bishops look over their diocese and are in charge of the priests beneath them.
Factually incorrect.

But since you are full of righteous indignation, I'm sure it's OK.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #111  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:37 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
Whether legally or not, the RCC is, in practice, a single hierarchy.
Or to put it another way: "I don't really have anything to say to rebut you, so I'll just reassert my belief".

Your assertion of the monolithic nature of the RCC suits your purpose because it allows you to ignore the detail and make sweeping assignments of blame and responsibility. It's called bigotry. Muslims are all responsible for terrorism. Jews are all responsible for usury. Blacks are all responsible for high crime in ghettoes. Africans are all responsible for what various despots have done.
  #112  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:38 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Factually incorrect.

But since you are full of righteous indignation, I'm sure it's OK.
Stop playing games. Can the pope force any member of the church below him to resign or not? I don't care about legal theoretical limitations about dancing on heads of pins. I mean if the pope publicly called for a specific member of the church hierarchy to resign do you think they could actually realistically go against that?

Quote:
It's called bigotry. Muslims are all responsible for terrorism. Jews are all responsible for usury. Blacks are all responsible for high crime in ghettoes. Africans are all responsible for what various despots have done.
This is a utterly ridiculous comparison, in this case we are talking about a single organisation and pointing out failures of the organisation as a whole. Are you seriously trying to deny that Pell is part of the same organisation as the Pope?

Last edited by coremelt; 03-02-2016 at 04:42 AM.
  #113  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:41 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
So your quotes are to the effect he didn't know and he supplies a plausible reason why he wouldn't have been told.
It's not a plausible reason--that's the point. Want proof? Pell: "the whole story of Searson is implausible and the cover-up is equally implausible".

Pell maintains that the Education Office kept him in the dark. However, there was no reason for this. They had reported to his superior (IIRC, Little) and either they wanted action or they didn't. If they did, why not go to Pell since he was so well known as a noble maverick who would act; if they didn't, why report such things to others but not Pell? It makes no sense whatsoever: there is simply no motive to keep Pell in the dark.

He's bullshitting, IOW, and the commission rightly called him on it.
  #114  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:45 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You are playing games with weasel words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primac...Bishop_of_Rome

The pope appoints arch bishops in consultancy with other cardinals and advisers, the arch bishops appoint bishops, bishops look over their diocese and are in charge of the priests beneath them. Its a clear line of authority, the Pope can set church policy on a global level, and the issue is that although Francis has made some words about stopping abuses he hasn't backed them up with action yet, forcing suspected priests / bishops / archbishops, cardinals etc to resign. If he fails to do that then theres a case to be made that the Vatican / Holy See as an organisation is culpable in the abuse and it can and should be sued.
Which has what to do with why some local parish in Boggabadoo in which no priest has been accused of paedophilia and which never did anything to condone such conduct or covering it up should lose their congregation owned church?

Make no mistake; any entity that condoned or covered up paedophilia should pay the consequences and if that includes the Vatican I won't be losing a moment's sleep. Far from it.

But when, as above, people are proposing mass forfeiture of property based on cultural association we are getting into the realm of seriously f'ed up injustice.
  #115  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:46 AM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Lobot answered better than I could.

I'm bowing out for a while. This hits way to close to home.

Having been in a school where teachers (Catholic Brothers) were molesting other students, the school hierarchy knew and did nothing - proven in court BTW - and several of those students, including a a good friend, later killed themselves.

We'll you can see how the similarities would colour my perceptions.
  #116  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:51 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Stop playing games. Can the pope force any member of the church below him to resign or not? I don't care about legal theoretical limitations about dancing on heads of pins. I mean if the pope publicly called for a specific member of the church hierarchy to resign do you think they could actually realistically go against that?
Pointing out your factual errors is not playing games.

But claiming that it is becomes a useful tactic for you. Instead of taking responsibility for factual errors you make, you dismiss the corrections as "playing games."

The answer to your question is no.

The reason is: your scenario disclaims legal theoretical limits only on one side. That is, in your question, the Pope can disregard any political realities and demand anyone's resignation, but then, suddenly, political realities must be considered in answering whether the individual can resist.

So pick a world: are we talking about the rules of the church, or about the realities of governance?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #117  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:53 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
It's not a plausible reason--that's the point. Want proof? Pell: "the whole story of Searson is implausible and the cover-up is equally implausible".
I don't think you understand his point.

As to the rest; you might well be right. I have no particular love for Pell, in fact IIRC he's the sort of extreme social conservative I can't stand. But I don't like to see people being railroaded. I also tend not to believe media reports of legal or commission proceedings because once the media decide which way the popular wind is blowing, they make absolutely sure not to report anything that goes the other way, and indeed do things like take quotes out of context to change their meaning to fit the popular narrative. The popularity of recreational outrage wasn't first noticed by the denizens of the SDMB.
  #118  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:54 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
Or to put it another way: "I don't really have anything to say to rebut you, so I'll just reassert my belief".

Your assertion of the monolithic nature of the RCC suits your purpose because it allows you to ignore the detail and make sweeping assignments of blame and responsibility. It's called bigotry. Muslims are all responsible for terrorism. Jews are all responsible for usury. Blacks are all responsible for high crime in ghettoes. Africans are all responsible for what various despots have done.
I, personally, don't blame individuals simply because they're Catholics. There are many, many good people who happen to be Catholic.

The organisation, and the culture within that organisation can be criticised, however. Whenever there's some investigation into police corruption, and a culture of corruption is exposed, there's always some segment moaning about good cops being vilified by extension. The only people to blame are those in the hierarchy who (either directly or indirectly) allow the corruption to flourish. The organisation becomes rotten from the inside--it's systemic--and no number of good individuals acting as individuals can change that. Evils emerge not from individual actors but from a system that has become inherently toxic.

The same is true of the RCC.
  #119  
Old 03-02-2016, 04:57 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post

So pick a world: are we talking about the rules of the church, or about the realities of governance?
You are wrong in both cases.
"In the Catholic Church, a bishop, priest, or deacon may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offenses, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicization
  #120  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:06 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
I have no particular love for Pell, in fact IIRC he's the sort of extreme social conservative I can't stand. But I don't like to see people being railroaded. I also tend not to believe media reports of legal or commission proceedings because once the media decide which way the popular wind is blowing, they make absolutely sure not to report anything that goes the other way, and indeed do things like take quotes out of context to change their meaning to fit the popular narrative. The popularity of recreational outrage wasn't first noticed by the denizens of the SDMB.
I've been watching the proceedings live. Believe me, the media are not twisting his words. To be fair, I don't believe Pell to either be a paedophile or someone who wanted to directly protect paedophiles. But I also believe he's a man who is very comfortable when it comes to filtering out bits of reality that don't suit his purposes. Frankly, it's hard to expect the truth from a man who so habitually lies to himself.

And it's far worse, IMHO, for a man of the cloth to so willfully ignore the suffering of children because he's not into rocking the boat and/or damaging the status of the Church.
  #121  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:15 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Stop playing games. Can the pope force any member of the church below him to resign or not? I don't care about legal theoretical limitations about dancing on heads of pins. I mean if the pope publicly called for a specific member of the church hierarchy to resign do you think they could actually realistically go against that?
Its an interesting subject. Read the story of Peter Kennedy. The reason I know about it is his church is a few hundred yards from my house and there was a lot more detail in the papers at the time than is given in the Wikipedia article.

He was a maverick for years and the RCC knew all about him and did nothing. Then a weirdo extreme Catholic doctrine fanatic (who wasn't even from the same parish) started agitating for action because Kennedy wasn't saying the magic words properly and so on. The local Archbishop tried to get away with slapping Kennedy's wrist but didn't do anything serious because let's face it the RCC has enough difficult getting anyone to go to church these days and Kennedy was very popular and had a lot of support.

But this asshole fanatic would not let it go and kept petitioning higher and higher until it got to the Vatican who couldn't ultimately be seen to be allowing a priest to be doing the magic stuff wrong, so something had to be done. The key leverage was that the local Archdiocese owned the church so it was a simple lease issue and they kicked Kennedy out. They have since de-priested him.

Now you would say that this shows you are right. But manoeuvring Kennedy out took years and years and years, and was highly political, and for a long time it was a standoff between the local parishioners and the RCC hierarchy. If the local congregation had owned the church the local Archbishop would have been in an even more difficult position because he would not have been able to force Kennedy out, meaning he would have had to (in effect) lose a whole (large, vibrant) congregation by de-priesting Kennedy, who would have just carried on as before with his congregation behind him while the RCC found it had cut off it's nose to spite its face.

The point is, it ain't a monolith. It's a huge hodgepodge of people of a broad, non-uniform religious culture, with the distance and tenuousness of connection that implies.

It's a long way from that to "they fucked up, you are obliged to pay"

Quote:
This is a utterly ridiculous comparison, in this case we are talking about a single organisation and pointing out failures of the organisation as a whole. Are you seriously trying to deny that Pell is part of the same organisation as the Pope?
Look, going wookie on me ain't going to help you, sorry. The whole of Catholicism isn't a single organisation. Not legally. Some middle class liberal parish in a well to do suburb of Brisbane is not the same thing as an order of celibate guys living in cells in Italy. Doesn't matter how much you want it to be, it ain't.

Pell's relationship with the Pope seems close. Never denied it. Again, what precisely does that have to do with the congregation in Boggadanabri and their hard earned church and land?

There's usually a reason one needs to strawman, coremelt. You might like to think what it is in your case.

Muslims are a single organisation in the same way as the RCC is (or perhaps they are a few). So would you be OK with all mosques that are associated with any given order of Islam of which a particular mosque has terrorist links being forfeit?
  #122  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:17 AM
bluezooky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krav Manga View Post
The plot thickens To be fair to Pell (who may not deserve fairness) these 'allegations' seem fairly incredible, particularlu the time frame. The leaking of information by rhe police is concerning as well.
I don't know the truth or otherwise of the Pell case however having read most of the witness statement during the Satyananda Yoga case it seems likely the statute of limitation would protect the wrong doers, sadly the victims can do little but throw out "incredible allegations" and try the case in the court of public opinion. Everyone is hoping for government compensation, I can't see any real criminal charges at this late stage of proceedings .I'm not defending paedophile priests, would be happy to see them hang actually.
  #123  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:31 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
The organisation, and the culture within that organisation can be criticised, however. Whenever there's some investigation into police corruption, and a culture of corruption is exposed, there's always some segment moaning about good cops being vilified by extension.
I tend to point out inaccuracies or (in this case) what I perceive to be specific points of principle, without being partisan towards an entire cause at issue.

This tends to lead to cross purposes discussions that go like this:

Me: No, there is no evidence that slave ship overseers whipped their captives a thousand times a day for fun. It's a myth. They were undoubtedly assholes but they did not do this. Their slaves were valuable property. Why would they do this.

Others: Look Princhester you heartless beast, slave traders were complete assholes, who ripped innocent people from their former lives and sold them.

Me: yes, but they didn't whip their captives a thousand times a day for fun.

Others: Oh, so you are saying slave traders were good guys, are you? They were the most villainous scum to walk the earth, but you're defending them.

Me: well what I said was that they didn't whip their captives a thousand times a day, which you haven't rebutted.

Others: So you're some sort of slave trader fetishist are you? Do you realise that slaves died during transportation like flies? Don't you even care?

Yada, yada yada...

My point being, what I have said is that I see as unjust the suggestion that ordinary congregations who own their own assets should have them forfeited due to the wrongdoing of other unassociated congregations or parts of the RCC. Try to bear this in mind and if you are going to respond to me again, try to do so relevantly, could you? Last I checked, there hasn't been any suggestion cops should forfeit their assets because some other cop was corrupt.

Last edited by Princhester; 03-02-2016 at 05:32 AM.
  #124  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:31 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
Muslims are a single organisation in the same way as the RCC is (or perhaps they are a few).
This is completely false. There is no central authority of Islam, some specific sects of Islam have a central authority and some don't. Christianity as a whole has no central authority but the Roman Catholic Church very specifically does, the Pope. My cite above shows that the pope can laicize any priest or bishop with a papal decree.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-02-2016 at 05:32 AM.
  #125  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:38 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You are wrong in both cases.
"In the Catholic Church, a bishop, priest, or deacon may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offenses, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicization
You don't understand the point about the difference between political reality and the black letter of non-legally binding rules, do you?

Quote:
This is completely false. There is no central authority of Islam, some specific sects of Islam have a central authority and some don't. Christianity as a whole has no central authority but the Roman Catholic Church very specifically does, the Pope. My cite above shows that the pope can laicize any priest or bishop with a papal decree.
You seem to be struggling with the standard meaning of the term "completely".
  #126  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:44 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
You've asked for cites and I've given them, the Pope has the power to laicize a priest or bishop by Papal decree. You find me one example in history where the pope issued such a decree specifically to laicize a priest / bishop and it was ignored?

Last edited by coremelt; 03-02-2016 at 05:45 AM.
  #127  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:50 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You are wrong in both cases.
"In the Catholic Church, a bishop, priest, or deacon may be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for certain grave offenses, or by a papal decree granted for grave reasons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicization
I thought you didn't want to talk about legal technicalities?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #128  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:56 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I thought you didn't want to talk about legal technicalities?
My point is show that both by his papal power of issuing a decree AND by political pressure he can either laicize a priest forcibly or cause them to request to be voluntarily laicized. Neither you or Princhester have given me any cites to suspect this is not the case.
  #129  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:56 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You've asked for cites and I've given them, the Pope has the power to laicize a priest or bishop by Papal decree. You find me one example in history where the pope issued such a decree specifically to laicize a priest / bishop and it was ignored?
I'd like you to find the last time in history the Pope used a decree to dismiss a bishop from the clerical state.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #130  
Old 03-02-2016, 05:57 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
My point is show that both by his papal power of issuing a decree AND by political pressure he can either laicize a priest forcibly or cause them to request to be voluntarily laicized. Neither you or Princhester have given me any cites to suspect this is not the case.
Nor would I. It's absolutely factually accurate. The Pope has immediate executive authority over the entire Church.

What do you believe this proves?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #131  
Old 03-02-2016, 06:05 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
You've asked for cites and I've given them, the Pope has the power to laicize a priest or bishop by Papal decree. You find me one example in history where the pope issued such a decree specifically to laicize a priest / bishop and it was ignored?
Would you be happy with this sort of reasoning when it comes to responsibility for paedophiles?

Or to put it another way, can you point to the Canon Law that gives the Pope power to punish parishioners or priests for not doing or not covering up something illegal?
  #132  
Old 03-02-2016, 06:10 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
I see that while I've been typing you've admitted to politics being involved. Why would the Pope have the need? Couldn't he just wield the ban hammer? Or is it the case that he sits atop a coalition of groups that is not monolithic and which he has to keep together by gentler means?
  #133  
Old 03-02-2016, 06:11 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
Or to put it another way, can you point to the Canon Law that gives the Pope power to punish parishioners or priests for not doing or not covering up something illegal?
A vatican canonical trial can laiicize a Priest or Bishop after proceedings, this happened recently in 2014:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B...eso%C5%82owski

According to Church doctrine the Pope can also do this via Papal decree. The point of this is to show that clearly the RCC is one organisation because one central authority either a Vatican canonical court or the pope via a decree can order a priest or even a bishop to lose their position within the Church.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-02-2016 at 06:11 AM.
  #134  
Old 03-02-2016, 07:09 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Try reading what I wrote and then try again.
  #135  
Old 03-02-2016, 07:47 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post

Or to put it another way, can you point to the Canon Law that gives the Pope power to punish parishioners or priests for not doing or not covering up something illegal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
A vatican canonical trial can laiicize a Priest or Bishop after proceedings, this happened recently in 2014:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B...eso%C5%82owski
Your link shows that a cardinal was tried for possession of child pornography, NOT for covering something up or failing to do something.

Quote:
According to Church doctrine the Pope can also do this via Papal decree. The point of this is to show that clearly the RCC is one organisation because one central authority either a Vatican canonical court or the pope via a decree can order a priest or even a bishop to lose their position within the Church.
*sigh*

Is "The United States" one organization? How about "McDonald's?"
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #136  
Old 03-02-2016, 08:07 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Is "The United States" one organization? How about "McDonald's?"
I'm not playing your games Bricker. When damages are awarded against the RCC from victims of sex abuse its up to the courts in each country to decide if the RCC as an organisational whole is liable for the acts of certain high ranking members in its hierarchy. Legally the RCC tries to play games to say its not a single organisation in order to shield its assets, but its not up to you to decide that no matter how many times you state it.

They will certainly take the fact that central authority can dismiss (laiicize) priests worldwide as an interesting fact in making that decision.
  #137  
Old 03-02-2016, 09:03 AM
aldiboronti is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
There are those who believe the Vatican must remove that shield, that it is wrong and contrary to the teachings of JC Himself .....
You are aware that probably 90% of Vatican beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'teachings of JC'?

As for the Cardinal I think it quite probable that he's too frail and unwell to make the journey. It seems to me that video testimony would serve just as well, although not perhaps satisfying the desire of the media for spectacle and drama.
  #138  
Old 03-02-2016, 09:22 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
I'm not playing your games Bricker. When damages are awarded against the RCC from victims of sex abuse its up to the courts in each country to decide if the RCC as an organisational whole is liable for the acts of certain high ranking members in its hierarchy. Legally the RCC tries to play games to say its not a single organisation in order to shield its assets, but its not up to you to decide that no matter how many times you state it.

They will certainly take the fact that central authority can dismiss (laiicize) priests worldwide as an interesting fact in making that decision.
Can you name a single instance in which damages against a specific diocese have been imputed to "the RCC as an organisational whole?"

In other words, has what you're describing ever actually happened? Or is the answer to that question also a game?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #139  
Old 03-02-2016, 09:39 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,052
That raises an interesting question to me. The US Catholic church has paid out billions in relation to sex abuse. Does that money come from the diocese that made the settlements? And does that mean it came from tithes? I honestly don't know where all the money comes from; i assume from your question that each diocese has a separate "treasury" that would pay out. I take it that there is no direct financial impact on the Vatican ?

http://ncronline.org/news/accountabi...underestimated
  #140  
Old 03-02-2016, 10:50 AM
muldoonthief's Avatar
muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 11,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
That raises an interesting question to me. The US Catholic church has paid out billions in relation to sex abuse. Does that money come from the diocese that made the settlements? And does that mean it came from tithes? I honestly don't know where all the money comes from; i assume from your question that each diocese has a separate "treasury" that would pay out. I take it that there is no direct financial impact on the Vatican ?

http://ncronline.org/news/accountabi...underestimated
In the Boston case the archdiocese had to come up with the money themselves. Some of it was insurance, some from selling property, including archdiocese and local parish property. I'm guessing the insurance company was somewhat surprised when O'Malley filed the "is priests raping children covered?" claim.

Here's their report on the funding. it includes the $85 million settlement in 2003 with 522 victims, plus some other settlements for a total over $100 million.
  #141  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:21 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Can you name a single instance in which damages against a specific diocese have been imputed to "the RCC as an organisational whole?"

In other words, has what you're describing ever actually happened?
Thank you. What you have stated clearly is that your argument is "the RCC is rich and powerful and their accounting / legal tricks have got away with covering up their priests fucking children before and because they are rich and powerful they will get away with it again". I think reading other peoples responses on here thats its clear that most people on this board think you are just as slimy a piece of shit as Cardinal Pell is.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-02-2016 at 11:23 AM.
  #142  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:49 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
That raises an interesting question to me. The US Catholic church has paid out billions in relation to sex abuse. Does that money come from the diocese that made the settlements? And does that mean it came from tithes? I honestly don't know where all the money comes from; i assume from your question that each diocese has a separate "treasury" that would pay out. I take it that there is no direct financial impact on the Vatican ?

http://ncronline.org/news/accountabi...underestimated
Yes. Every diocese is a separate corporation.

Catholics don't really use the word "tithe," in the same way that some evangelical faiths do, to mean a mandatory ten percent contribution to the church from each member's wages. But ultimately, donations from people are the only real source of new income apart from interest on investment and sale of property.

So, correct: there is no direct financial impact on the Vatican. Several dioceses declared bankruptcy in the wake of large judgements against them: Portland, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa; and San Diego, California come to mind as examples,
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #143  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:53 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes. Every diocese is a separate corporation.
In the Roman Catholic Churchs legal fiction you mean. It's certainly within a governments power to declare that they are all answerable to one authority and so the greater church, the Holy See / Vatican should be liable. It hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
  #144  
Old 03-02-2016, 11:57 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Thank you. What you have stated clearly is that your argument is "the RCC is rich and powerful and their accounting / legal tricks have got away with covering up their priests fucking children before and because they are rich and powerful they will get away with it again". I think reading other peoples responses on here thats its clear that most people on this board think you are just as slimy a piece of shit as Cardinal Pell is.
You said: "When damages are awarded against the RCC from victims of sex abuse its up to the courts in each country to decide if the RCC as an organisational whole is liable for the acts of certain high ranking members in its hierarchy."

I am asking you if that has ever happened.

Are you abandoning that line of argument?

Thus far, your approach here has been to declare your wishes to be historical fact, and then angrily reject challenges to those declarations as "games."

I don't know what most people on this board think. I hope that, on a board voted to fighting ignorance, that most people can discern the difference between your sequential bullshit and actual facts, especially when I point out the specifics of your error.

You seem to feel that Cardinal Pell is a person of moral cowardice. I don't disagree. But you also seem to feel that because he is morally corrupt, any accusation you make must pass unchallenged. You confuse an attack on your specific claims with a defense of Pell in general.

In that, I fervently hope you are in the minority here.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #145  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:04 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
In the Roman Catholic Churchs legal fiction you mean. It's certainly within a governments power to declare that they are all answerable to one authority and so the greater church, the Holy See / Vatican should be liable. It hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
You are absolutely right. It is within a government's power.

Do you contend it is realistic? For example, typically governments work within the framework of law. This means that there are pre-existing standards used to judge that kind of determination.

Do you know what those standards are? Do you know how how they apply in this case?

Or are you simply saying that there is some non-zero chance that it could happen, in the same way that I could point out we could be visited by alien intelligences, or discover cold fusion, or that the Sharknado film franchise will offer an entry that wins the Academy Award for Best Picture? That kind of "It hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen?"
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-02-2016 at 12:04 PM.
  #146  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:28 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
I'm saying that you Bricker are full of shit. The Australian Royal Commission will finish it's job without taking one iota of opinion of what you think. And if they decide to charge Cardinal Pell with criminal offences then the law will play out as it should.

And nothing you posted here will matter at all.
  #147  
Old 03-02-2016, 12:37 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
I'm saying that you Bricker are full of shit. The Australian Royal Commission will finish it's job without taking one iota of opinion of what you think. And if they decide to charge Cardinal Pell with criminal offences then the law will play out as it should.

And nothing you posted here will matter at all.
That's certainly true.

But my underlying contention here is that I understand, far better than you, the rules under which such processes operate. I don't say that my words here CHANGE the result: I say that my words here are a more accurate DESCRIPTION of the result.

To that end, I say that the Royal Commission will NOT charge Cardinal Pell with a single criminal offense.

What do you say?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #148  
Old 03-02-2016, 03:04 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
My point being, what I have said is that I see as unjust the suggestion that ordinary congregations who own their own assets should have them forfeited due to the wrongdoing of other unassociated congregations or parts of the RCC. Try to bear this in mind and if you are going to respond to me again, try to do so relevantly, could you? Last I checked, there hasn't been any suggestion cops should forfeit their assets because some other cop was corrupt.
The parishioners are, for the most part, blameless. But if their local church must be torn down and the land sold in order to pay for restitution for victims, so be it. Like I said, however, the issues with the Church are systemic, and furthermore, it's not like the Vatican is wanting for money, so if the diocese is left to its own devices when it comes to finding necessary funds, that's ultimately the fault and choice of the RCC.

I'd personally like to see the RCC sued into oblivion and religions of all stripes lose their tax-exempt status.
  #149  
Old 03-02-2016, 03:35 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post

To that end, I say that the Royal Commission will NOT charge Cardinal Pell with a single criminal offense.

What do you say?
Well, seeing as we're nit-picking and dancing around semantics, I'll play along too.

You are right, the Royal Commission will not charge Pell with anything. It is not within their powers to do so. However, when their final report is released (some time early 2018 I'll guess) they can certainly recommend that charges be laid. And RC's are not some toothless tiger....their advisories are taken EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY here in Aus, and will be followed.

Given Pell's testimony to date, and the comments of the RC (which I have been watching live and not relying upon the media to feed me) I believe it is highly unlikely that Pell will escape charges in the future.
  #150  
Old 03-02-2016, 03:47 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Well, seeing as we're nit-picking and dancing around semantics, I'll play along too.



You are right, the Royal Commission will not charge Pell with anything. It is not within their powers to do so. However, when their final report is released (some time early 2018 I'll guess) they can certainly recommend that charges be laid. And RC's are not some toothless tiger....their advisories are taken EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY here in Aus, and will be followed.



Given Pell's testimony to date, and the comments of the RC (which I have been watching live and not relying upon the media to feed me) I believe it is highly unlikely that Pell will escape charges in the future.

I disagree. I predict that Pell will not be criminally charged, period.

If I am right, and by, say, April 2018, no Australian criminal charges have been leveled against Pell, will you concede I understand this process better than you do?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017