Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-02-2016, 03:46 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Today is even more damning that yesterday, if that's possible.
  #152  
Old 03-02-2016, 03:55 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
Today is even more damning that yesterday, if that's possible.
Isn't it. So pissed off that I have to start work in 6min
  #153  
Old 03-03-2016, 03:21 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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.
Precisely. coremelt your whole "I'm right so there, anyone who points out any irritating fault in my facts or reasoning is 'playing games'" schtick started out lame, and is now getting old.
  #154  
Old 03-03-2016, 03:26 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
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.
Your ability to miss the point is truly spectacular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
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.
So you are advocating the confiscation of property from a community organisation because they belong to the same religion as some people who did something wrong?

Let's just be clear here. You are really that much of a bigoted asshole?
  #155  
Old 03-03-2016, 03:49 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
So you are advocating the confiscation of property from a community organisation because they belong to the same religion as some people who did something wrong?

Let's just be clear here. You are really that much of a bigoted asshole?
Yes, let's. I am saying that if the local diocese is successfully sued for wrongs within that diocese, they will have to get the money from somewhere. It's up to the Vatican as to whether or not it relieves the burden of the diocese and pays the victims directly or lets the diocese potentially lose major assets.
  #156  
Old 03-03-2016, 04:28 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
I would like to amend my OP. Having George appear before the RC in absentia so to speak has given us the opportunity to see him in the wild, something that would not have happened if he'd appeared in person.

Thank you George. May you sleep well tonight.
  #157  
Old 03-03-2016, 04:43 AM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
I would like to amend my OP. Having George appear before the RC in absentia so to speak has given us the opportunity to see him in the wild, something that would not have happened if he'd appeared in person.

Thank you George. May you sleep well tonight.
What amazes me the most is how willing he was to paint the Church as essentially conspiring to protect paedophiles, with Pell being the only innocent man in town. I mean, if we accept his testimony at face value, we're led to believe that there was systemic corruption all around him wherever he operated.

And even if we accept that these were different times with different social mores, the actions of several priests were so shocking and abhorrent that parents and teachers had to devise strategies in order to keep the children safe.

Not really a flattering picture Pell was painting...
  #158  
Old 03-03-2016, 06:54 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
Not really a flattering picture Pell was painting...
It certainly isn't.

But there is, and should be, a huge gulf between "not flattering," and "criminal."
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #159  
Old 03-03-2016, 07:18 AM
bucketybuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3,197
There is always somebody who wants to stand up for the peadophiles.
  #160  
Old 03-03-2016, 09:59 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 32,318
I do not like thee, Cardinal Pell,
The reason why - I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Cardinal Pell

(Apologies to Tom Brown.)
  #161  
Old 03-03-2016, 12:40 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
It certainly isn't.

But there is, and should be, a huge gulf between "not flattering," and "criminal."
True, but time will tell on that front. I have no opinion about how likely that is.
  #162  
Old 03-03-2016, 01:43 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post

So you are advocating the confiscation of property from a community organisation because they belong to the same religion as some people who did something wrong?
I am confused here. What is the community organization you refer to here?
  #163  
Old 03-03-2016, 02:07 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
True, but time will tell on that front. I have no opinion about how likely that is.
If your argument is simply that Pell was a moral coward who went along with turning a blind eye to suspicious behavior, then I completely agree with you.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #164  
Old 03-03-2016, 02:23 PM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
If your argument is simply that Pell was a moral coward who went along with turning a blind eye to suspicious behavior, then I completely agree with you.
Then even if he can't be sanctioned by the law, he should be by the church. What are the odds they already know his version of events, and has the Church taken any steps to punish him? Are cardinals defrocked, or is there some special term for someone at that level of the hierarchy?
  #165  
Old 03-03-2016, 05:22 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Then even if he can't be sanctioned by the law, he should be by the church. What are the odds they already know his version of events, and has the Church taken any steps to punish him? Are cardinals defrocked, or is there some special term for someone at that level of the hierarchy?
I sense you believe that, unlike a country's criminal law, the Church can simply punish someone even if they did not break a specific church law. Is my sense correct?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-03-2016 at 05:25 PM.
  #166  
Old 03-04-2016, 01:37 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I sense you believe that, unlike a country's criminal law, the Church can simply punish someone even if they did not break a specific church law. Is my sense correct?
Your senses are certainly deficient in many ways Bricker.

Maybe you'd like to try again? This time with more sensitivity.

Pun intended.
  #167  
Old 03-04-2016, 02:16 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
Yes, let's. I am saying that if the local diocese is successfully sued for wrongs within that diocese, they will have to get the money from somewhere. It's up to the Vatican as to whether or not it relieves the burden of the diocese and pays the victims directly or lets the diocese potentially lose major assets.
Oh, OK, so despite purportedly responding to what I've been saying for the last few pages, you are actually discussing something quite different to me.

I don't know why I bother, half the time.
  #168  
Old 03-04-2016, 05:55 AM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I sense you believe that, unlike a country's criminal law, the Church can simply punish someone even if they did not break a specific church law. Is my sense correct?
Don't know, but if they can't punish their own for moral failings, when they hold themselves out as moral exemplars, they are one fucked up church. Oh wait, I forgot, they ARE one fucked up church.
  #169  
Old 03-04-2016, 06:26 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Don't know, but if they can't punish their own for moral failings, when they hold themselves out as moral exemplars, they are one fucked up church. Oh wait, I forgot, they ARE one fucked up church.
As a general rule, I would suggest you don't really understand a number of concepts in play. The Church does not hold its officials out as moral exemplars. The first Pope was Peter, who, after Christ was arrested, was notable for denying three different times that he even knew the criminal! The Church has always held that it teaches faith and morals correctly, to be sure, but does not claim it teaches this by unfailing moral behavior of its priests. To the contrary, the Church knows that priests are men, and men are perfectly capable of sin.

Secondly: the Roman Catholic Church is not an ad-hoc organization. It has its own code of law, it's own court system, it's own appeals process. The penalties for various offenses are not a matter of opinion; the EXISTENCE of various offenses is not a matter of opinion.

The Church has no trouble punishing a cardinal who is caught with child pornography. That's a clear violation.

"Being a moral coward, when you should have had the courage to investigate an odd situation," is not a clear violation.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #170  
Old 03-04-2016, 06:39 AM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Oh, fuck that. I grew up a catholic, and I went to catholic school and I saw with my own eyes how horrible that system is. That's why I'm no longer a catholic. The fact that your defend their actions on what are essentially legal technicalities tells me there's a great deal that YOU don't understand about the nature of the world.
  #171  
Old 03-04-2016, 07:01 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
Your senses are certainly deficient in many ways Bricker.

Maybe you'd like to try again? This time with more sensitivity.

Pun intended.
What does this mean? Boyo's response suggests I was not mistaken.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #172  
Old 03-04-2016, 07:07 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Oh, fuck that. I grew up a catholic, and I went to catholic school and I saw with my own eyes how horrible that system is. That's why I'm no longer a catholic. The fact that your defend their actions on what are essentially legal technicalities tells me there's a great deal that YOU don't understand about the nature of the world.
Please be more specific.

You're throwing around a lot of general sentiments. I am talking about the specifics of canon law, which you dismiss as legal technicalities.

So can you explain what, specifically, you mean? Are you saying the Church should disregard existing canon law?

Are you saying that in your understanding of God's will for man, the Church's canon law system does not produce the correct result?

Be specific.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #173  
Old 03-04-2016, 07:37 AM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Please be more specific.

You're throwing around a lot of general sentiments. I am talking about the specifics of canon law, which you dismiss as legal technicalities.

So can you explain what, specifically, you mean? Are you saying the Church should disregard existing canon law?

Are you saying that in your understanding of God's will for man, the Church's canon law system does not produce the correct result?

Be specific.
Of course I don't understand God's will for man, because there is no God. But yes, the church claims to be a moral authority in and of itself, and if canon law protects scumbags, then it should be discarded. There seems no dispute at all that this guy is morally unfit, aside from the question of whether he was criminally liable.
  #174  
Old 03-04-2016, 10:18 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Of course I don't understand God's will for man, because there is no God. But yes, the church claims to be a moral authority in and of itself, and if canon law protects scumbags, then it should be discarded. There seems no dispute at all that this guy is morally unfit, aside from the question of whether he was criminally liable.
Two questions:

1) is this also true about our country's law?

2) if you believe there is no God, then why do you think it's likely you will come to the same conclusions about how to create and apply the law of a church as the church itself, which does believe in a God? Specifically as an example, can you understand that the church might make some provision for the soul in an afterlife, and rate that as more important than life here on Earth, while it's very unlikely that you would assign any weight at all to concerns about the disposition of a soul after death?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #175  
Old 03-04-2016, 10:30 AM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Are you under the impression that this thread is in Debates forum? I'm just not going to follow you down this trail any longer.
  #176  
Old 03-04-2016, 11:17 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Are you under the impression that this thread is in Debates forum? I'm just not going to follow you down this trail any longer.
Even in GD, you're free to walk away from a losing argument.

But in both GD and the Pit, the principles of logical reasoning exist. Your position is not objectively wrong, but it arises from a different set of postulates than those which motivate the Church. You are free to acknowledge this, refute it, or walk away, just as you are in GD. Here, of course, you're free to insult me as you choose one of the options, but that doesn't erase the underlying argument.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #177  
Old 03-04-2016, 11:20 AM
Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
I am not debating, nor arguing. I am stating my opinion.
  #178  
Old 03-04-2016, 11:48 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
I am not debating, nor arguing. I am stating my opinion.
Oh.

Ok.

Well, my opinion is that YOUR opinion arises from your initial assumptions, and those initial assumptions differ in material ways from the initial assumptions of the Church.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #179  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:37 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Here is a well written editorial from the SMH (no subscription required):
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/cardin...02-gn8o15.html

Apart from calling for Pell's resignation it also calls for a fundamental reform in canon law. Declaring that ALL Priests, Deacons etc of all levels world wide MUST report allegations of sexual abuse to police. This type of mandatory reporting is common , for teachers, childcare workers, social workers, psychologists etc. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Priests of ALL religions, not just Catholics. So far the RCC has refused to make this canon law.

I say until they do, levy punitive fines against every diocese individually until its made Canon Law. And yes same for Mormonism, Scientology, Islam and every other branch of Christianity.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-05-2016 at 12:38 AM.
  #180  
Old 03-05-2016, 08:53 AM
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 is a well written editorial from the SMH (no subscription required):
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/cardin...02-gn8o15.html

Apart from calling for Pell's resignation it also calls for a fundamental reform in canon law. Declaring that ALL Priests, Deacons etc of all levels world wide MUST report allegations of sexual abuse to police. This type of mandatory reporting is common , for teachers, childcare workers, social workers, psychologists etc. I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Priests of ALL religions, not just Catholics. So far the RCC has refused to make this canon law.

I say until they do, levy punitive fines against every diocese individually until its made Canon Law. And yes same for Mormonism, Scientology, Islam and every other branch of Christianity.
I say, don't do that.

Just trying to keep the debate to the intellectual level you're comfortable with. You know.... otherwise it's "playing games."
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-05-2016 at 08:54 AM.
  #181  
Old 03-05-2016, 11:58 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I say, don't do that.

Just trying to keep the debate to the intellectual level you're comfortable with. You know.... otherwise it's "playing games."
In otherwords you have no come back to my real reasoned argument. Answer me this, why should priests from any religion be exempt from the otherwise universal mandatory reporting laws that apply to anyone that deals with children in a position of authority?

If you oppose this position then really you have shown you are arguing for the sake of arguing, or else you are a slime bag who wants to protect pedophiles. Pick one, there is no other option.
  #182  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:35 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
In otherwords you have no come back to my real reasoned argument. Answer me this, why should priests from any religion be exempt from the otherwise universal mandatory reporting laws that apply to anyone that deals with children in a position of authority?

If you oppose this position then really you have shown you are arguing for the sake of arguing, or else you are a slime bag who wants to protect pedophiles. Pick one, there is no other option.
Every time I offer an actual argument, coremelt you retreat while announcing you're done "playing games."

Are you now interested in an actual argument?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #183  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:39 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Only if you are arguing from what you really believe in, rather than arguing because you think its your duty as the moderator of the pit.
  #184  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:43 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Only if you are arguing from what you really believe in, rather than arguing because you think its your duty as the moderator of the pit.
Man, you are dumb.
  #185  
Old 03-05-2016, 12:52 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
Only if you are arguing from what you really believe in, rather than arguing because you think its your duty as the moderator of the pit.
I'm not a moderator of any kind, either of the Pit or any other forum.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #186  
Old 03-05-2016, 08:35 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Man, you are dumb.
Sorry, its a type of blindness I have. I can't tell one asshole from another.
  #187  
Old 03-05-2016, 09:28 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
Sorry, its a type of blindness I have. I can't tell one asshole from another.

This is a deflection. Do you understand that I am not a moderator on this, or any other, forum?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #188  
Old 03-05-2016, 09:33 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Sorry, its a type of blindness I have. I can't tell one asshole from another.
Seriously? I agree with Bricker on very little (and with Miller rather a lot) but Bricker's title is pretty clearly NOT moderator - perhaps it's not a type of "blindness" you have, but merely a run of the mill lack of reading comprehension?

Last edited by raventhief; 03-05-2016 at 09:36 PM.
  #189  
Old 03-05-2016, 09:46 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
This is a deflection. Do you understand that I am not a moderator on this, or any other, forum?
Yes I do, it was late at night and I typed too quickly. Anyway back to Pell and the Pope.
The survivors are returning home, the Pope did not meet with them and the vatican has claimed "they never received" their request for a meeting *cough bullshit*.

The Catholic Church also praised Pell for his "coherent and dignified" testimony. Which means they've clearly stated their position, the cover ups will continue. Well fuck the entire RCC then.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/natio...australia.html

Cardinal Pell is #3 highest ranking in the Vatican, he's the equivalent of a CFO in a multi billion dollar organisation. Do you think any public company would allow someone who had stated "i wasn't much interested" when hearing rumours of a pedophile amongst his employees would be allowed to stay as CFO? Fuck no, the shareholders would demand his resignation even if the CEO didn't fire him. Also the Royal Commission is apparently going to set up a redress scheme which will fine the RCC billions of dollars over a period of years.

The RCC will pay one way or another, attendance in Australia is already down, if Francis does not make Pell resign then you'll see a huge amount of Australian Catholics leaving the church.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-05-2016 at 09:48 PM.
  #190  
Old 03-05-2016, 11:03 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
Yes I do, it was late at night and I typed too quickly.
The problem is that factual errors litter your posts.

Unless most of your posting is done at night and too quickly, this seems insufficient.

Quote:
Cardinal Pell is #3 highest ranking in the Vatican, he's the equivalent of a CFO in a multi billion dollar organisation.
Not correct.

It's unclear if you mean the Vatican or the Holy See, but the ranking claim is wrong either way.

The Pope is the sovereign, both head of state and head of government. He delegates the head of secular government role of Vatican City to the President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, who by holding that position is President of the Governorate.

That is currently Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, who is fairly described as the second highest ranking in Vatican State. Under him are the various administrative heads of Vatican State departments, none of which are Cardinal Pell.

If you meant "The Holy See," you're also wrong. Pell's job is significant, but it's not in the direct chain of supervision. He is responsible for the budget, yes, and that is important and "CFO" is a fair description.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #191  
Old 03-05-2016, 11:37 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Rightly or wrongly he has been described as "Vatican #3" widely by the media.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...quisition.html

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...n_9343090.html

refers to him as "Vaticanís third highest ranking official". Theres a load more just use google.

So since you didn't argue with any of my other points and only tried to nitpick (incorrectly) I presume you agree with the Royal Commission that the RCC should pay billions in damages to abuse survivors?
  #192  
Old 03-06-2016, 12:08 AM
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
Rightly or wrongly he has been described as "Vatican #3" widely by the media.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...quisition.html

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/201...n_9343090.html

refers to him as "Vatican’s third highest ranking official". Theres a load more just use google.

So since you didn't argue with any of my other points and only tried to nitpick (incorrectly) I presume you agree with the Royal Commission that the RCC should pay billions in damages to abuse survivors?
No. I agree that your mistake is one promulgated by many other sources, but it doesn't make it correct.

I also don't see the basis for billions of dollars in damages to be paid by any entity. To the extent that there are damages remaining to be paid, those damages rest with the Australian dioceses involved.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #193  
Old 03-06-2016, 12:30 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I also don't see the basis for billions of dollars in damages to be paid by any entity. To the extent that there are damages remaining to be paid, those damages rest with the Australian dioceses involved.
It up to the Australian courts to decide if the shell games the RCC tries to play to disclaim responsibility for what its dioceses do are legal or not, not up to you. Or they could simply fine the Diocese so much that they go bankrupt, leaving the RCC to decide to bail them out or having no Catholic church in that region. Either way the RCC will end up paying whatever the Royal Commission decides.
  #194  
Old 03-06-2016, 02:40 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Oh and Bricker, the media is correct. They are talking about third highest ranked official of the Holy See. Number 1 is the pope, Number 2 is the Secretariat of State, Number 3 is Secretariat for the Economy, George Pell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_...ariat_of_State

No doubt you'll come back with some legal bullshit which no one cares about. Makes no difference, he's Vatican number 3 no matter what boring anal retentive nitpickery you come up with.
  #195  
Old 03-06-2016, 04:02 AM
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
It up to the Australian courts to decide if the shell games the RCC tries to play to disclaim responsibility for what its dioceses do are legal or not, not up to you. Or they could simply fine the Diocese so much that they go bankrupt, leaving the RCC to decide to bail them out or having no Catholic church in that region. Either way the RCC will end up paying whatever the Royal Commission decides.
I fully admit that I am not an expert in Australian law, but as a general rule, bankruptcy does not lead to the result you imagine.

Do you have a specific prediction about what will happen? I agree that the Royal Commission will probably not order an amount that cannot be paid, so while it's true that whatever they decide will likely happen, I don't agree that billions, or even one billion, is possible.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #196  
Old 03-06-2016, 04:05 AM
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
Oh and Bricker, the media is correct. They are talking about third highest ranked official of the Holy See. Number 1 is the pope, Number 2 is the Secretariat of State, Number 3 is Secretariat for the Economy, George Pell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_...ariat_of_State

No doubt you'll come back with some legal bullshit which no one cares about. Makes no difference, he's Vatican number 3 no matter what boring anal retentive nitpickery you come up with.
Why is the Secretariat for the Economy above other positions in the Curia? (Except, according to you, the Secretariat of State?)
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #197  
Old 03-06-2016, 05:58 AM
don't ask is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,271
It is difficult to work out how much the Catholic Church could be liable for. The figure of $4.3 billion quoted frequently in the press is the total amount expected to be paid out to cover redress and civil litigation after the proceedings: Final report Redress and Civil Litigation. This amount covers all complainants against all institutions and postulates 60,000 victims. The average payment is expected to be $65,000 and the maximum $200,000.

Recent reports suggest 400 to 500 complaints in Melbourne against the church since 1980 with $17 million paid to 300 of them. Extrapolating from this one would get nowhere near billions of dollars but I have been unable to find an estimate of a total number of victims by agency.
  #198  
Old 03-06-2016, 07:11 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Bricker do you believe that Priests should be mandatory reporters of sexual abuse? If not why not?

Meanwhile Pell is not out of it yet, the Royal Commission is going back to question Ronald Mulkearns who was Bishop when the notorious convicted pedophile Gerald Ridsdale was "rooting boys" in Pell's words (yes he joked about it). Pell has tried to blame everyone except himself, and apparently that doesn't sit well with Ronald Mulkearns who its believed will give testimony that directly contradicts Pell's testimony to the Royal Commission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mulkearns

Last edited by coremelt; 03-06-2016 at 07:12 AM.
  #199  
Old 03-06-2016, 09:42 AM
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
Bricker do you believe that Priests should be mandatory reporters of sexual abuse? If not why not?
Yes, with the exception that anything they learn in the context of priest-penitent confession remains, as it is now, not part of such a reporting requirement.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #200  
Old 03-06-2016, 05:11 PM
quiltguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes, with the exception that anything they learn in the context of priest-penitent confession remains, as it is now, not part of such a reporting requirement.
Would you counsel(or expect) a confessor to withhold absolution until the aspiring penitent "did the right thing" and submitted himself to local police authority? I seem to recall from grade school religious instruction that priests must listen to anyone who wishes to confess, but would instruct a penitent who confessed to a heinous crime(murder, rape, arson etc.) to admit to what he'd done to law enforcement first, before absolution was a possibility.
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 06:08 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