Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-20-2016, 10:20 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by don't ask View Post
Oh I think Pell's prayers have, up to now, been answered.
Well his prayers for a cushy job at the Vatican were answered. Conveniently the vatican does not have an extradition treaty with Australia. As was mentioned above there is allegations that Pell himself was also a molester, apparently theres been a year long inquiry by the Victorian police.

He's a sick (in the head) man that doesn't deserve your sympathy. At the least he shuffled pedophile priests around to avoid a scandal. This is documented and is not disputed. At worst he himself also molested around 15-20 victims. If he did die on the plane back to Australia my only thought would be that he had got off far too easy.

Last edited by coremelt; 02-20-2016 at 10:21 PM.
  #52  
Old 02-21-2016, 01:21 AM
Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,365
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.
Paywalled, so can't access the link.
  #53  
Old 02-21-2016, 01:28 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Here's a different source:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30869867...-abuse-claims/
  #54  
Old 02-29-2016, 01:58 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And that the guy is probably guilty...
... of what? My understanding is that he's appeared in front of a number of tribunals, commissions etc and that the police have been investigating and charging people all over the place, but have not found anything on Pell.

What do you know they don't?
  #55  
Old 02-29-2016, 02:07 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
At the least he shuffled pedophile priests around to avoid a scandal. This is documented and is not disputed.
Is it? I don't know much about all this but I read quite a bit about his questioning earlier today and there didn't seem to be any direct suggestion of this. And when I read articles on this they seem to use weasel words that imply Pell was involved without actually saying that outright. And the body of the article usually seems to be to the effect he sat on a board or similar that moved a priest, without any evidence Pell was either a driver of the decision or knew why the priest was being moved.

Of course it is more than a little ironic that is what is being done to Pell and the RCC at the moment echoes what the RCC did in Europe for many decades. Not that anyone expected the latter.
  #56  
Old 02-29-2016, 07:35 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Is he driving to work every day? Or is he working from home?

I know his cardiologist has said he should not travel. It seems to me that the other doctors are speaking in general and not as a result of an assessment of his specific condition. Is that correct?



I am asking why his testimony via video is not sufficient. I don't see an answer in your response or in that link. Can you quote the section of that link that you believe answers that question?
You know, Bricker, I bet I'm not the only one who gets tired of your shtick of demanding a can-you-prove-this-in-court level of argument and exactitude from other posters.

This is a message board, not a courtroom. Get over yourself, you overly legalistic stuffed shirt.

Random Doper: "It's a nice day outside."

Bricker: "Can you prove that? Have you taken temperature readings at sufficiently numerous locations to demonstrate that it's not just a nice day exactly where you are? How about wind chill? Have you considered that? Have you checked to see if it's nice in the shade too, or is it chilly there, and only nice when you're in the sunshine?"

That's you, buddy. Own it.
__________________
"Don't be alarmed, this is just my vibe" - Father John Misty

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-29-2016 at 07:35 AM.
  #57  
Old 02-29-2016, 07:51 AM
elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,398
Why would anyone think, that this man, quite possibly guilty of shielding child molesting priests, would be anything BUT shielded by the church. It's what they do. And they kinda owe it to him, he did his part, after all. How can they do otherwise now?
  #58  
Old 02-29-2016, 08:12 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You know, Bricker, I bet I'm not the only one who gets tired of your shtick of demanding a can-you-prove-this-in-court level of argument and exactitude from other posters.

This is a message board, not a courtroom. Get over yourself, you overly legalistic stuffed shirt.

Random Doper: "It's a nice day outside."

Bricker: "Can you prove that? Have you taken temperature readings at sufficiently numerous locations to demonstrate that it's not just a nice day exactly where you are? How about wind chill? Have you considered that? Have you checked to see if it's nice in the shade too, or is it chilly there, and only nice when you're in the sunshine?"

That's you, buddy. Own it.
Whether it's a message board, a bar, or the congregation of smokers at the intermission of La Traviata is not remotely relevant to the requirement that the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving his claim. You confuse this as a courtroom requirement, but it's not: it's a requirement of logic.

I certainly understand your desire to dispense with that; given the majority of your beliefs, your desire to cloak yourself in an environment in which claims with which you agree are not challenged is perfectly understandable.

But unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the mission of fighting ignorance, you are not (yet) in a position in which your decrees can dispense with the mandates that logical debate demands.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 02-29-2016 at 08:14 AM.
  #59  
Old 02-29-2016, 10:28 PM
digs's Avatar
digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 9,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Get over yourself, you overly legalistic stuffed shirt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Whether it's a message board, a bar, or the congregation of smokers at the intermission of La Traviata is not remotely relevant to the requirement that the proponent of a claim bears the burden of proving his claim.
So that's a "no" on getting over yourself?
  #60  
Old 03-01-2016, 04:29 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by digs View Post
So that's a "no" on getting over yourself?


Correct. That's a no.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #61  
Old 03-01-2016, 04:37 AM
don't ask is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post


Correct. That's a no.
It is not customary to answer a rhetorical question. Or didn't you know that?
  #62  
Old 03-01-2016, 12:01 PM
quiltguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 998
I wonder if John Cleese and Michael Palin might be doing a little schadenfreude dance about now?
  #63  
Old 03-01-2016, 12:13 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by don't ask View Post
It is not customary to answer a rhetorical question. Or didn't you know that?
Sure. But I chose to flout that custom.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #64  
Old 03-01-2016, 01:06 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Here's the latest on Pell and it's written by a conservative Australian writer who has been up to now defending Pell. He flew to Rome to witness the testimony and what he saw was extremely unconvincing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opi...9fd078a31e5f68

Pell's quote about convicted Pedophile Priest Gerald Ridsdale "it wasn’t of much interest to me". So at the very least he was utterly indifferent to fellow priests raping children, even though he was on committees that were involved in moving Ridsdale from parish to parish multiple times to cover up his crimes.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-01-2016 at 01:08 PM.
  #65  
Old 03-01-2016, 02:41 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Here's the latest on Pell and it's written by a conservative Australian writer who has been up to now defending Pell. He flew to Rome to witness the testimony and what he saw was extremely unconvincing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opi...9fd078a31e5f68

Pell's quote about convicted Pedophile Priest Gerald Ridsdale "it wasn’t of much interest to me". So at the very least he was utterly indifferent to fellow priests raping children, even though he was on committees that were involved in moving Ridsdale from parish to parish multiple times to cover up his crimes.
Undoubtedly this latest link completely proves your case.

Sadly,I cannot read the content without paying a subscription.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-01-2016 at 02:42 PM.
  #66  
Old 03-01-2016, 02:57 PM
Cazzle's Avatar
Cazzle is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 7,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Undoubtedly this latest link completely proves your case.

Sadly,I cannot read the content without paying a subscription.
If you google the title of the article and follow the link to it from the search results, the paywall won't block you.
  #67  
Old 03-01-2016, 03:02 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Odd, there is links to that article from Facebook and google which work fine but they're playing silly buggers with the link.

More coverage:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia...for-his-career

http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/03/0...st-to-me-pell/

http://www.news.com.au/national/cour...e1776f72b2340f
  #68  
Old 03-01-2016, 05:36 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
I'm watching the 3rd day of the Royal Commission hearings as I write, and it's not looking good for you George.
  #69  
Old 03-01-2016, 05:46 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
It's fascinating - according to poor old George he was lied to by everyone who knew what was going on, both in the church (by a Bishop and Arch Bishop no less! and now the Catholic Education Office) and all the details were kept from him, even at the meetings held to discuss the issue that he attended.

He's a Saint I tell you, a Saint!!!!!! /sarcasm

Last edited by Battle Pope; 03-01-2016 at 05:46 PM.
  #70  
Old 03-01-2016, 05:51 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battle Pope View Post
It's fascinating - according to poor old George he was lied to by everyone who knew what was going on, both in the church (by a Bishop and Arch Bishop no less! and now the Catholic Education Office) and all the details were kept from him, even at the meetings held to discuss the issue that he attended.

He's a Saint I tell you, a Saint!!!!!! /sarcasm


And now Gail Furness SC has essentially called him a liar. Well, she used different words, saying his evidence is highly implausible, but that sorta means liar in my book.

Fascinating stuff indeed.
  #71  
Old 03-01-2016, 05:58 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
This is off the Guardian feed:

Quote:
Furness says to Pell: “Cardinal, I have to suggest to you that your evidence in relation to not being briefed properly or adequately by the Catholic Education Office [about Searson abusing children], and the reasons for that, are completely implausible.”

Pell replies; “Um, counsel, I can only tell you the truth, the whole story of Searson is quite implausible and the cover-up is equally implausible. I can only tell you the way it was as far as I’m concerned.”

Furnes: “I suggest,Cardinal, that the evidence you have given has been designed to deflect blame from you on doing nothing in relation to Father Searson that had any real effect after the delegation came to you.”


Pell: “Um, that is not accurate because I took up the matter with the Archbishop himself.”

Yesterday, Furness put it to Pell that it was implausible he did not know that notorious pedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale, was abusing children, given it was common knowledge and that Pell held a senior position within the Ballarat diocese, where Ridsdale was abusing. Pell denied the allegation.
That's about as close to "You're full of shit" that the commission can go.
  #72  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:15 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
There was a conspiracy against Pell because he would have asked tough questions!

Best exchange yet:

Furness: “There is reference... to Father Searson stabbing to death a bird in front of the children.”

Pell: “Yes.”

Furness: “Did that come to your attention?”

Pell: “At some stage I think, I don’t know whether the bird was already dead but at some stage I certainly was informed of this bizarre happening.”

Furness: “Does it matter whether the bird was dead or it was stabbed when it was dead?”

Pell: “Not really. Not really.”
  #73  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:18 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Cardinal Pell: They (Education Office) might not have been certain I would take decisive action but they would have been fearful that I would, and pretty certain that I would, have asked all sorts of inconvenient questions if I'd been better briefed.
I have this image of Pell draping his cassock over the lower part of his face, fading into the shadows while muttering "I'm Batman!"
  #74  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:20 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Yes, he's a superhero hamstrung by the status quo.

He's really squirming right now. It's quite amazing to watch.
  #75  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:28 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Pell tells the commission that he knew Father Searson was a serious problem. He has been presented with a list of concerns about Searson’s behaviour by the Catholic education office, which included a report that he had abused animals in front of children.

“Yes, I knew he was a serious problem,” Pell says.

Furness: “You knew he was such a serious problem that he shouldn’t be a priest, didn’t you?”

Pell: “No, I didn’t come to that conclusion. The position I accepted was the official position given to me that we did not have sufficient evidence to remove him.”


In case anyone is wondering about a sample of Searson's behaviour:


Quote:
Counsel Assisting: In March 1993, you will no doubt be aware from the material you have read that Searson held a knife to the chest of a young girl in the church saying to her "If you move, this will go through you".
Seems ideal material for a priest.
  #76  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:40 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Searson was, by all accounts, a complete psychopath as well as a paedophile. Not that those qualities were enough to disqualify him from being a Catholic priest--most likely, they only bolstered his CV.
  #77  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:49 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Does anybody know a rough time-frame for when the Royal Commission might wrap-up and report its findings?
  #78  
Old 03-01-2016, 06:55 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Does anybody know a rough time-frame for when the Royal Commission might wrap-up and report its findings?
On their website the terms of reference section extends the deadline from 15 December 2015 until 15 December 2017.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommissio...s-of-reference

Last edited by Battle Pope; 03-01-2016 at 06:56 PM. Reason: added link
  #79  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:09 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
For an auxiliary bishop, Pell seems staggeringly ignorant of the goings on in his diocese for that time.
  #80  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:10 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Thanks Battle Pope..

I'm sure Cardinal Pell will be very, very ill by the time the RC releases its report and recommendations.
  #81  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:12 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Thanks Battle Pope..

I'm sure Cardinal Pell will be very, very ill by the time the RC releases its report and recommendations.
Almost at deaths door I'd suspect, at least when the media is around.
  #82  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:29 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
This has been given double page spreads in the Italian media as well. As far as I'm concerned this is a watershed moment for Francis. If he forces Pell to resign within the next couple of weeks then I'll believe he's serious about tackling the problem of abuse in the church. At the very least he needs to send a message that turning a blind eye to abuse will not be tolerated, even if you are a cardinal.

If it's business as usual, well then my next pit thread will be pitting Francis and the entire Catholic church. Will Francis cut out the cancer or is he the cancer?
  #83  
Old 03-01-2016, 07:44 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Pell is willing to meet with victims, but no media and no lawyers, please.

Here's another damning exchange:

Furness: “You recall at this time, 1993, that that was an active issue in the church, how to protect its assets if it is successfully sued in child sexual abuse claims?”

Pell: “... that certainly wasn’t the only consideration but that certainly was a consideration.”

Furness: “This item in the minutes suggests that, at that stage, all that was being considered was how to protect diocese assets in the effect of successful litigation?”

Pell: “I don’t think that is a justified conclusion, either about myself or the other participates but it was very important to know where we were about the money.”
  #84  
Old 03-01-2016, 08:13 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Some more background for anyone not yet convinced of the utter callousness and amorality of Pell.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-...07-glh57s.html

Summary: In 1993 tried to bribe an abuse victim asking him "I want to know what it will take to keep you quiet."

Also, previous testimony from a victim "I said `Brother Dowlan is touching little boys'," said Mr Green, himself a victim of Dowlan.
"Father Pell said 'don't be ridiculous' and walked out."
  #85  
Old 03-01-2016, 08:43 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
This has been given double page spreads in the Italian media as well. As far as I'm concerned this is a watershed moment for Francis. If he forces Pell to resign within the next couple of weeks then I'll believe he's serious about tackling the problem of abuse in the church. At the very least he needs to send a message that turning a blind eye to abuse will not be tolerated, even if you are a cardinal.

If it's business as usual, well then my next pit thread will be pitting Francis and the entire Catholic church. Will Francis cut out the cancer or is he the cancer?
Fuck it, I'm at that point already. Seize all the assets of the Church, ignoring all the technicalities of ownership and asset protection, and distribute them to the victims. The true believers can go rebuild their church from scratch if they want to. We need a new Thomas Cromwell I reckon.
  #86  
Old 03-01-2016, 08:52 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Meh, I'll settle for revoking their tax free status in every country where there is hard evidence of ignoring or covering up abuse. They can earn tax free status back with 5-10 years of "good behaviour". Oh also, as a registered sex offender, the Catholic church wouldn't be able to have priests live within 300 meters of churches... oops....

Last edited by coremelt; 03-01-2016 at 08:55 PM.
  #87  
Old 03-01-2016, 09:00 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,726
While the rates bill would be crippling, I suspect it'd be too easy to wriggle out of paying any income tax payable though.

Last edited by lisiate; 03-01-2016 at 09:00 PM.
  #88  
Old 03-01-2016, 09:06 PM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
Fuck it, I'm at that point already. Seize all the assets of the Church, ignoring all the technicalities of ownership and asset protection, and distribute them to the victims. The true believers can go rebuild their church from scratch if they want to. We need a new Thomas Cromwell I reckon.
If I were the ordinary folks congregation who had been putting money and time into buying the land and building a church upon it for a few decades, and never had anything to do with paedophilia, I would think this totally fair, I assure you.
  #89  
Old 03-01-2016, 09:23 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
If I were the ordinary folks congregation who had been putting money and time into buying the land and building a church upon it for a few decades, and never had anything to do with paedophilia, I would think this totally fair, I assure you.
Whilst I'm not advocating seizing all assets, how is the church and its congregation any different to a corporation with shareholders? I should say WHY SHOULD the RCC (or any church for that matter) be treated differently?

Shareholders always shoulder a great burden when criminal and/or negligent companies rack up massive fines (eg, environmental devastation)....even though they personally had nothing to do with the acts. Why should Catholic parishioners be immune?
  #90  
Old 03-01-2016, 09:32 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,726
How fair was it when the institution they supported shielded the abusers of their sons and daughters?
  #91  
Old 03-01-2016, 09:48 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
If I were the ordinary folks congregation who had been putting money and time into buying the land and building a church upon it for a few decades, and never had anything to do with paedophilia, I would think this totally fair, I assure you.
How do the ordinary folks congregation who found their children victims of shuffled-around pedophile feel about the situation? I imagine they also find it totally fair. How about the ones who were at risk, but not victims (as far as been uncovered, that is)? Or the ones who inadvertently financially supported such shuffling of molesters, whether or not they had family members at risk? How about the children themselves? Hunky-dory, no doubt?

I am not a Catholic, so my imagined reaction is suspect at best, but Jesus God I would pissed if I were tithing to an organization that was shuffling pedophiles, giving greater access to innocent victims, and not holding the officials accountable for the damage they have done to countless communities.
  #92  
Old 03-01-2016, 10:06 PM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
How do the ordinary folks congregation who found their children victims of shuffled-around pedophile feel about the situation? I imagine they also find it totally fair. How about the ones who were at risk, but not victims (as far as been uncovered, that is)? Or the ones who inadvertently financially supported such shuffling of molesters, whether or not they had family members at risk? How about the children themselves? Hunky-dory, no doubt?

I am not a Catholic, so my imagined reaction is suspect at best, but Jesus God I would pissed if I were tithing to an organization that was shuffling pedophiles, giving greater access to innocent victims, and not holding the officials accountable for the damage they have done to countless communities.
Depends on how invested in the lifestyle they are.

See, I went to a catholic school at which at least two of the Brothers and a teacher were molesting the students. It's been shown that the hierarchy of the order knew what was going on and just moved this particular brother around ahead of the questions. He used to have a Year 7 kid (so, 13 or 14 years old) come to his room in the monastery every morning and 'wake' him up. The rest of the brothers apparently thought this was a bit unusual but didn't bother to ask any more questions.

There has been at least one suicide of a guy I was friends with which can be attributed to what went on.

I know several guys who were there at the same time and knew what went on but are still going to send their kids to the school because that's where they went and they are invested in the 'old boys' network.

Fuck that noise. Neither of my boys will ever set foot on the grounds and the reaction of the school and church once the activities of these fuckers was exposed was so cowardly and self-serving that it was the final push out the door for me away from the church.
  #93  
Old 03-01-2016, 10:08 PM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Shareholders always shoulder a great burden when criminal and/or negligent companies rack up massive fines (eg, environmental devastation)....even though they personally had nothing to do with the acts. Why should Catholic parishioners be immune?
Because Catholicism is a culture not a single legal entity. There is no single RCC. It isn't a company. There's a big entity in Rome, other major entities in other countries, and entities at parish level and various offshoots (orders of nuns and brothers and so on). These entities are related by culture and tradition.

It isn't like shareholders at all. It's more like your local football club or scout group forfeiting its clubhouse or den because of something FIFA or Scouting USA did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
How fair was it when the institution they supported shielded the abusers of their sons and daughters?
They didn't support the institution's infractions, any more than you support the infractions of other people of your culture or religion or sporting code in other places.

Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
How do the ordinary folks congregation who found their children victims of shuffled-around pedophile feel about the situation? I imagine they also find it totally fair. How about the ones who were at risk, but not victims (as far as been uncovered, that is)? Or the ones who inadvertently financially supported such shuffling of molesters, whether or not they had family members at risk? How about the children themselves? Hunky-dory, no doubt?
I don't know, do you? Personally I'd feel pretty bad about a football club or scout den or whatever in another state losing their assets because of what went on in my local football club or scout den or whatever. But perhaps I'm less inclined to throw all principle and fairness out the window when I've been wronged, and most people are quite prepared to do something on the flimsiest of justifications when they are lashing out in anger.

There are mosques in Australia which are purveyors of radical thought, up to and including terrorism. Should we declare all mosques in Australia forfeit?

Look I know the score here: the mob is angry, the pitchforks are out, and someone is going to burn. If the mob can't find the actual perpetrator (or is still angry after disposing of the actual perpetrator) then they are going to burn someone or something with some real or imagined connection to the perpetrator. But don't be under any illusion as to what is going on here.

I say all this as an atheist, with a repugnance for the Catholic Church. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Last edited by Princhester; 03-01-2016 at 10:10 PM.
  #94  
Old 03-01-2016, 10:51 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Its hard NOT to see it as a monolithic corporation, though. Does the Holy See have final authority? Does the Church ultimately make the decisions? Is the Vatican (as some see it) shielding Pell?
  #95  
Old 03-01-2016, 11:28 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
Because Catholicism is a culture not a single legal entity. There is no single RCC.
All Roman catholic churches are under the direct control of the holy see, actually they are more like a nation than a company, They have diplomats to other countries in the world and sovereign status. Heads of each nations church (arch bishops) are directly appointed by the vatican / pope / holy see. They may have some legal fictions of separation, but its undeniable they are a single hierarchical organisation.

Now I am not in favour of seizing their assets globally, but just pointing out the reality of the single RCC. However, sovereign nations can be sued, if a pattern can be shown of neglect of duty or shielding supects on an organisational scale then I think victims should be able to sue for damages against the mother church and holy see.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-01-2016 at 11:29 PM.
  #96  
Old 03-02-2016, 02:20 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
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.
IN your experience, what kind of involvement and knowledge does an auxiliary bishop typically have?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #97  
Old 03-02-2016, 02:45 AM
Battle Pope is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
IN your experience, what kind of involvement and knowledge does an auxiliary bishop typically have?
Play your games with someone else.
  #98  
Old 03-02-2016, 02:46 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
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.

Last edited by Princhester; 03-02-2016 at 02:48 AM.
  #99  
Old 03-02-2016, 02:48 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
IN your experience, what kind of involvement and knowledge does an auxiliary bishop typically have?
Bricker, I know you have a vested interest in playing Devil's advocate in favour of Pell. No unbiased observer could walk away after seeing today's testimony without a dim view of Pell, however. His testimony, if we take it at face value, relies on multiple sources within the Church actively concealing information from him, sometimes against their own interests and without any plausible reason.

Indeed, he often throws others in the Church under the bus, claiming a kind of conspiracy within the Church to keep him out of the loop. If you want to defend the Church, don't look to Pell--the man is basically painting himself as a noble maverick who was caught up in labyrinthine conspiracies within a corrupt organisation.

IOW, if you believe Pell, the Catholic Church is rotten to the core.
  #100  
Old 03-02-2016, 02:56 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Its hard NOT to see it as a monolithic corporation, though. Does the Holy See have final authority? Does the Church ultimately make the decisions? Is the Vatican (as some see it) shielding Pell?
There are none so blind etc...

Also, I don't quite understand what your sequence of questions is supposed to mean.
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 06:47 PM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017