Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 03-06-2016, 05:43 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by quiltguy View Post
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.
Absolutely. In fact, that is one of the key reasons I would urge legal effect for the confessional seal.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #202  
Old 03-06-2016, 09:36 PM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
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.
This is at least the second time you have tried this gambit and it is dumbass. No one here thinks they are the actual decision maker on the stuff we talk about. Additionally, if stating one's position on an issue amounts to inappropriately setting oneself up as authoritative as you seem to imply, then it applies as equally to you as Bricker.

Although I guess maybe your reasoning is that your positions are almost totally incoherent, whereas Bricker's positions are not so I suppose it's a fair point that no one would ever mistake you for someone with authority, but maybe someone could make that mistake about Bricker.

Quote:
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.
This is the sort of comment that absolves you from the potential crime of impersonating someone with a clue.

Fines are set by courts. Not by executives implementing strategies for the bankruptcy of the defendant.

The Royal Commission is only investigative. It cannot make decisions about payment but can at most make recommendations. Any fool who has even a passing knowledge of the history of Royal Commissions in this country would know their recommendations are only actually implemented a certain percentage of the time.

You don't rise to the level of "any fool".
  #203  
Old 03-07-2016, 12:39 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
No my position is perfectly coherent. The RCC tries to have to both ways by claiming that the Diocese are all independent and the Vatican / Holy See is not responsible for what they do. This is despite the fact that the Pope / Vatican directly sets Canon law that all the diocese have to follow, and despite the fact that there is a clear line of promotion from Bishops / Archbishops of diocese to Vatican staff / cardinal. They're playing silly buggers to limit liability and they might get away with it legally, but morally they certainly shouldn't get away with it.

In my opinion a church should hold itself to a higher moral standard than a corporation that exists only to make profits for share holders. Thats a reasonable expectation, and the fact that they so far have resisted making it canon law that all priests should be mandatory reporters (outside the confession booth) is just one thing that makes the entire RCC pit worthy. Their sleazy attempts to deny responsibility for what the Diocese do, when they are following the canon law that they set is also pit worthy.
  #204  
Old 03-07-2016, 01:06 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
No my position is perfectly coherent. The RCC tries to have to both ways by claiming that the Diocese are all independent and the Vatican / Holy See is not responsible for what they do. This is despite the fact that the Pope / Vatican directly sets Canon law that all the diocese have to follow, and despite the fact that there is a clear line of promotion from Bishops / Archbishops of diocese to Vatican staff / cardinal. They're playing silly buggers to limit liability and they might get away with it legally, but morally they certainly shouldn't get away with it.

In my opinion a church should hold itself to a higher moral standard than a corporation that exists only to make profits for share holders. Thats a reasonable expectation, and the fact that they so far have resisted making it canon law that all priests should be mandatory reporters (outside the confession booth) is just one thing that makes the entire RCC pit worthy. Their sleazy attempts to deny responsibility for what the Diocese do, when they are following the canon law that they set is also pit worthy.
Quoted in entirety with my endorsement.
  #205  
Old 03-07-2016, 01:43 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
No my position is perfectly coherent. The RCC tries to have to both ways by claiming that the Diocese are all independent and the Vatican / Holy See is not responsible for what they do. This is despite the fact that the Pope / Vatican directly sets Canon law that all the diocese have to follow, and despite the fact that there is a clear line of promotion from Bishops / Archbishops of diocese to Vatican staff / cardinal. They're playing silly buggers to limit liability and they might get away with it legally, but morally they certainly shouldn't get away with it.
Laws exist for a reason.

A perverted priest and a cowardly bishop should not be able to expose the worldwide Catholic Church to billions of dollars of liability.

Quote:
In my opinion a church should hold itself to a higher moral standard than a corporation that exists only to make profits for share holders. Thats a reasonable expectation, and the fact that they so far have resisted making it canon law that all priests should be mandatory reporters (outside the confession booth) is just one thing that makes the entire RCC pit worthy. Their sleazy attempts to deny responsibility for what the Diocese do, when they are following the canon law that they set is also pit worthy.
Why shouldn't mandatory reporting be a matter for secular, country law to mandate?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #206  
Old 03-07-2016, 02:10 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Laws exist for a reason.

A perverted priest and a cowardly bishop should not be able to expose the worldwide Catholic Church to billions of dollars of liability.
The evidence before us is that it's not a single priest nor a cowardly bishop. And given your previous posts, why shouldn't the church itself be held liable?



Quote:
Why shouldn't mandatory reporting be a matter for secular, country law to mandate?
It has done.....for every other profession except the Catholic Church and their precious 'confession' rules.
  #207  
Old 03-07-2016, 07:15 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
No my position is perfectly coherent. The RCC tries to have to both ways by claiming that the Diocese are all independent and the Vatican / Holy See is not responsible for what they do. This is despite the fact that the Pope / Vatican directly sets Canon law that all the diocese have to follow, and despite the fact that there is a clear line of promotion from Bishops / Archbishops of diocese to Vatican staff / cardinal. They're playing silly buggers to limit liability and they might get away with it legally, but morally they certainly shouldn't get away with it.

In my opinion a church should hold itself to a higher moral standard than a corporation that exists only to make profits for share holders. Thats a reasonable expectation, and the fact that they so far have resisted making it canon law that all priests should be mandatory reporters (outside the confession booth) is just one thing that makes the entire RCC pit worthy. Their sleazy attempts to deny responsibility for what the Diocese do, when they are following the canon law that they set is also pit worthy.
Neither of these paragraphs in any way meets the points I was making. It's as if because you are in a self righteous rage any whargarble you vomit up is OK; because Paedophilia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
The evidence before us is that it's not a single priest nor a cowardly bishop. And given your previous posts, why shouldn't the church itself be held liable?
Because the Church is a conglomerate comprising in substantial part (indeed, it's most important part) millions of ordinary parishioners. When a parish or diocese goes bankrupt, it isn't the Big Enchilada (or the 3rd biggest Enchilada) in Rome who suffers, it's a bunch of ordinary people who did not participate in or condone paedophilia. The very same ordinary people who either suffered from or were/are at risk of suffering from paedophilia will suffer further as a consequence of the stripping of the assets of their community.

You used an analogy of shareholders above; I didn't bother commenting above but it is frankly completely inapt. Shareholders put their money in hoping for financial return and take their chance. If the company effs up, they lose. That was always their investment risk.

A church is not like this. Parishioners don't hope to make money out of the money they "invest" in their local parish (weirdass "prosperity gospel" churches notwithstanding). The local parishioners are more like customers than shareholders.

Last edited by Princhester; 03-07-2016 at 07:16 AM.
  #208  
Old 03-07-2016, 07:51 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
The evidence before us is that it's not a single priest nor a cowardly bishop. And given your previous posts, why shouldn't the church itself be held liable?
For the same reason that a crooked mechanic and service manager at a Ford dealership cannot place Ford itself in financial liability.

As my previous posts make clear.

I have no idea whether you understand the general concept, and support ignoring it only in the case of the Church, or whether you have a childlike belief that all related companies should count as one for purposes of civil liability.

Quote:
It has done.....for every other profession except the Catholic Church and their precious 'confession' rules.
Lawyers are not required to report past sexual abuse they discover by way of client communication.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #209  
Old 03-07-2016, 08:28 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
A perverted priest and a cowardly bishop should not be able to expose the worldwide Catholic Church to billions of dollars of liability.
They should when its the churchs canon law dictated from the vatican which leads to those abuses being covered up or ignored. As it right now new priests being trained are being told they do not have to report allegations of abuse to local police (that is allegations made outside the confession box). The RCC has a systematic problem and they refuse to address it with their own laws. Thats why the RCC as a whole should morally be liable.

Quote:
Why shouldn't mandatory reporting be a matter for secular, country law to mandate?
Because in many poorer developing countries the RCC is extremely powerful and can lobby against this. If they want to show the world they have dealt with this problem they need to make a stand, dictating globally that priests are to report allegations of abuse to local police as a matter of canon law would do that. And if they have nothing to hide why shouldn't they do that?

Last edited by coremelt; 03-07-2016 at 08:29 AM.
  #210  
Old 03-07-2016, 09:56 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
They should when its the churchs canon law dictated from the vatican which leads to those abuses being covered up or ignored. As it right now new priests being trained are being told they do not have to report allegations of abuse to local police (that is allegations made outside the confession box).
Is anyone keeping count of coremelt's demonstrably false claims of fact in this thread?

This claim is false.

Not to help you along -- although certainly someone needs to -- but it's perhaps possible you are thinking of this story:

Quote:
The statement comes amid controversy over a Vatican training course for new Catholic bishops around the world held in September 2015, in which French Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a psychologist known for his views on homosexuality and “gender theory,” told bishops they had no obligation to report abuse charges to law enforcement.
Anatrella argued that the decision to report should be up to victims and their families, and that while bishops have the right to inform police and other public authorities, they are not required to do so under Church law.


The story immediately points out, however:



Quote:
However, in a strongly worded statement Monday, the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, a body created by Pope Francis in 2014 and led by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, insisted that Catholic officials should make such reports.
In either event, new PRIESTS, as opposed to bishops, are taught to follow the zero-tolerance reporting requirements adopted by every Catholic episcopal conference. If it helps, think of these as "state law," or "provincial law," and canon law as "federal law." Canon law is for the universal church, and doesn't typically impose requirements that would depend on the individual country -- as a reporting requirement would.

Quote:

Because in many poorer developing countries the RCC is extremely powerful and can lobby against this. If they want to show the world they have dealt with this problem they need to make a stand, dictating globally that priests are to report allegations of abuse to local police as a matter of canon law would do that. And if they have nothing to hide why shouldn't they do that?
If a priest's report of the sexual abuse of a sixteen year old girl led to her being killed as an "honor killing," as happens in some countries, then the balance of harms might weigh against reporting it.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #211  
Old 03-07-2016, 10:08 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Is anyone keeping count of coremelt's demonstrably false claims of fact in this thread?

This claim is false.
No-one believes what I say is false except you and princhester and you two can wank yourselves together in solace.

Its very simple, the pope should issue canon law that mandatory reporting is global law and applies to priests and bishops and cardinals. Your argument about honour killings is bullshit because it doesn't generally occur in catholic countries.

And especially the pope should make an example of Pell, who ignored Ridsdale "rooting boys" because he was too concerned about his own career. If the pope doesn't dismiss Pell then he's a hypocrite of the worst kind.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-07-2016 at 10:09 AM.
  #212  
Old 03-07-2016, 10:52 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
No-one believes what I say is false except you and princhester and you two can wank yourselves together in solace.
Really?

Do you have any cite for this claim you made?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
As it right now new priests being trained are being told they do not have to report allegations of abuse to local police (that is allegations made outside the confession box).
That's a false claim. I assume every person reading this believes it's false, because it arose from your imagination, perhaps confused with new bishops' training.


Quote:
Its very simple, the pope should issue canon law that mandatory reporting is global law and applies to priests and bishops and cardinals. Your argument about honour killings is bullshit because it doesn't generally occur in catholic countries.
The Catholic Church has dioceses in every country.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-07-2016 at 10:55 AM.
  #213  
Old 03-07-2016, 04:15 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
What if a small community's daycare centre has a lawsuit brought against them for gross negligence, and the suit results in the business collapsing? The community has lost a very valuable asset, and the parents who took their children to the centre are now without a very useful service.

So, the parents in the community are now worse off. Does this mean the centre should have been shielded from lawsuits?
  #214  
Old 03-07-2016, 04:57 PM
Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
As it right now new priests being trained are being told they do not have to report allegations of abuse to local police (that is allegations made outside the confession box).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
That's a false claim. I assume every person reading this believes it's false, because it arose from your imagination, perhaps confused with new bishops' training.
Hmm .. it seems like a legit claim to me. From The Guardian ...

Quote:
“According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,” the training document states.
That seems to match up with coremelt's claim. Can you explain how they are different, other than referring to bishops instead of priests?
  #215  
Old 03-07-2016, 09:04 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The Catholic Church has dioceses in every country.
False, they have no diocese in Saudi Arabia, its part of an Apostolic Vicariate in theory, but there are no churches in Saudi Arabia and catholic guest workers are banned from practising their religion. Five minutes on google shows me there are numerous other countries with no Diocese. So just as false as the other sleazy bullshit you make up to justify your defence of the poor innocent RCC which is being so unfairly picked on.
  #216  
Old 03-07-2016, 10:39 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrander View Post
Hmm .. it seems like a legit claim to me. From The Guardian ...



That seems to match up with coremelt's claim. Can you explain how they are different, other than referring to bishops instead of priests?
That is the precise difference. As I said here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
....because it arose from your imagination, [/b]perhaps confused with new bishops' training.[/b]
That's not a typo. New bishops are priests of many years' standing; new priests are much more numerous and have no experience.

In post 210 I added additional detail about why the claim was wrong in any event.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-07-2016 at 10:39 PM.
  #217  
Old 03-07-2016, 10:47 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
False, they have no diocese in Saudi Arabia, its part of an Apostolic Vicariate in theory, but there are no churches in Saudi Arabia and catholic guest workers are banned from practising their religion. Five minutes on google shows me there are numerous other countries with no Diocese. So just as false as the other sleazy bullshit you make up to justify your defence of the poor innocent RCC which is being so unfairly picked on.
Fair point. You are correct.

In canon law, an apostolic vicariate is similar to, but not identical to, a diocese.

The point I was trying to make is that canon law would apply in Saudi Arabia. But you are correct, and I was wrong: not every country has a diocese.

Every country has a diocese, or some other structure such as an apostolic prefecture or apostolic vicariate which would be affected by the canon law change you propose.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #218  
Old 03-08-2016, 01:03 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
But Bricker, apart from your pontificating about points of law, canonical or otherwise, what do YOU think should happen to Cardinal Pell (given the evidence presented to the Royal Commission here in Australia)?

And given that Cardinal Pell was a representative of the Catholic Church at the time of his deficiency in reporting said abuses, why shouldn't the Church itself be held culpable?
  #219  
Old 03-08-2016, 03:00 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
No-one believes what I say is false except you and princhester and you two can wank yourselves together in solace.
I have no opinion on the fact in question but given your record I'm not in a rush to assume you are correct. As for wanking with Bricker, he's too far away, amongst other much more important things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
What if a small community's daycare centre has a lawsuit brought against them for gross negligence, and the suit results in the business collapsing? The community has lost a very valuable asset, and the parents who took their children to the centre are now without a very useful service.

So, the parents in the community are now worse off. Does this mean the centre should have been shielded from lawsuits?
This isn't about anyone being shielded from lawsuits. Nobody has suggested that any church entity should be shielded from a liability that would ordinarily arise at law.

All anyone has said is that other entities associated by religion with the liable entity should not have their assets stripped to pay for the latter's liabilities.

Your daycare centre analogy is not apt because the assets associated with the operation of the daycare centre would be owned or leased by the very entity that has primary liability. Nobody is suggesting that such an entity should be shielded from liability.

As to the community, the physical daycare centre will still exist after the operator has gone bankrupt and will probably be sold off to a new operator as a going concern and the community will lose nothing.
  #220  
Old 03-08-2016, 03:03 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
But Bricker, apart from your pontificating about points of law, canonical or otherwise, what do YOU think should happen to Cardinal Pell (given the evidence presented to the Royal Commission here in Australia)?

And given that Cardinal Pell was a representative of the Catholic Church at the time of his deficiency in reporting said abuses, why shouldn't the Church itself be held culpable?
I shouldn't speak for Bricker but my understanding is that he thinks Pell should be liable (criminally and civilly) for whatever he's done, and his employer similarly insofar as it has vicarious liability.

The issue in dispute is to the extent that other entities should be made liable by association.
  #221  
Old 03-08-2016, 05:40 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
But Bricker, apart from your pontificating about points of law, canonical or otherwise, what do YOU think should happen to Cardinal Pell (given the evidence presented to the Royal Commission here in Australia)?

And given that Cardinal Pell was a representative of the Catholic Church at the time of his deficiency in reporting said abuses, why shouldn't the Church itself be held culpable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
I shouldn't speak for Bricker but my understanding is that he thinks Pell should be liable (criminally and civilly) for whatever he's done, and his employer similarly insofar as it has vicarious liability.

The issue in dispute is to the extent that other entities should be made liable by association.
Correct.

As an analogy, Ford Motor makes cars. They have exclusive relationships with various dealers who sell those cars..... "Brown's Ford," sells and services Ford cars.

Now we have John, a mechanic at Brown's Ford, who intentionally damages cars when he works on them, and falsely claims that work needs to be done, in order to increase his own income.

John can, and should, be fined and jailed for his actions. Brown's Ford may be fined as well, if they were negligent in hiring or training him, or if his actions were in furtherance of their business.

Ford Motors is not liable.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #222  
Old 03-08-2016, 12:19 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
That's the whole problem. You guys are acting like each diocese operates completely in isolation. In a strictly legal sense, that may be true, but in practice it's clearly false. There's coordination between dioceses, each belonging to a hierarchy, and a culture of abuse and cover-up within that hierarchy is evident.

If the Church wants to pretend that the legal truth is the whole truth, so be it, but that will only further sour their reputation.
  #223  
Old 03-08-2016, 02:46 PM
Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
That's not a typo. New bishops are priests of many years' standing; new priests are much more numerous and have no experience.
If you want to play pedantic games, I'll point out that Bishops are priests. So some priests are being trained as such, just not inexperienced ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
That's the whole problem. You guys are acting like each diocese operates completely in isolation. In a strictly legal sense, that may be true, but in practice it's clearly false. There's coordination between dioceses, each belonging to a hierarchy, and a culture of abuse and cover-up within that hierarchy is evident.
This. So much this. It seems obvious to me that the church cares more about it's own image and liability than the actual victims of sexual abuse.
  #224  
Old 03-08-2016, 03:28 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrander View Post
If you want to play pedantic games, I'll point out that Bishops are priests. So some priests are being trained as such, just not inexperienced one.
Right. And coremelt claimed that new priests were being trained thusly. As you yourself concede above, bishops, although priests, are not NEW priests.


Quote:
This. So much this. It seems obvious to me that the church cares more about it's own image and liability than the actual victims of sexual abuse.

No. But at the same time, the Church has fiduciary responsibilities over assets.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #225  
Old 03-09-2016, 09:47 AM
Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Right. And coremelt claimed that new priests were being trained thusly. As you yourself concede above, bishops, although priests, are not NEW priests.
You know, after ten years hanging around this place I should know better than play pedantic games with retired lawyers. I missed the part of his claim that it was specifically new priests, so that's a fair call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No. But at the same time, the Church has fiduciary responsibilities over assets.
I didn't say that the church didn't. I said that my perception is that it cares more about that fiduciary responsibility than it does about the safety of it's members. The way that Pell has been sheltered by the Vatican just strengthens that perception in my mind. Can you cite anything that shows the church putting victims of sexual abuse ahead of it's priesthood? Not words from some bigwig claiming that it's doing so, but actual actions taken by the church or priesthood?
  #226  
Old 03-09-2016, 10:05 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrander View Post
You know, after ten years hanging around this place I should know better than play pedantic games with retired lawyers. I missed the part of his claim that it was specifically new priests, so that's a fair call.
Thank you.

What amazes me after seventeen years of hanging around this place is the unwillingness of so many people to acknowledge their own error. I appreciate the fact that you are not in that group.

Quote:
I didn't say that the church didn't. I said that my perception is that it cares more about that fiduciary responsibility than it does about the safety of it's members. The way that Pell has been sheltered by the Vatican just strengthens that perception in my mind. Can you cite anything that shows the church putting victims of sexual abuse ahead of it's priesthood? Not words from some bigwig claiming that it's doing so, but actual actions taken by the church or priesthood?

Yes.

The new policy adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops requires an immediate report to civil authorities and an immediate suspension from ministry when an accusation against a priest is made, in contrast to policies that left the reporting entirely discretionary.

Here is one example of that policy being carried out. The suspended priest has had no opportunity to defend himself, no chance to confront his accuser, none of the protections that would ordinarily be in place before a government or an employer takes such action. But the new policy places the need for safety above those protections and the priest is suspended first, while the investigation commences.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-09-2016 at 10:05 AM.
  #227  
Old 03-09-2016, 05:46 PM
Crazy Canuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,433
Thanks for the cite Bricker, it's nice to see the church moving in the right direction.
  #228  
Old 03-09-2016, 11:27 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,455
The problem is, it took real world consequences for the Church to do what is right. And that is not the way things should be in a Church. A Church is supposed to be, above all, good. And that goodness should go above the requirements of the law.

Of course the Church should choose to do what is right before the law tells them to. To get all James on you, even the heathens follow the law when they are afraid of being punished.

Look, I have no idea how the law will work. I know how it should work, but I don't know how it does. But that has no relevance as far as I'm concerned. The law is just this thing that forces horrible people to do a semblance of what is right. Good people don't need the law to dictate how they act. Heck, Good people will violate the law if the law is not good.

And that is the bare minimum I expect out of every single clergy person. If they can't adhere to that, then we need to be trying to tear them down and replace them with someone who will.

That's what it means to fight the good fight.
  #229  
Old 03-09-2016, 11:56 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The problem is, it took real world consequences for the Church to do what is right. And that is not the way things should be in a Church. A Church is supposed to be, above all, good. And that goodness should go above the requirements of the law.

Of course the Church should choose to do what is right before the law tells them to. To get all James on you, even the heathens follow the law when they are afraid of being punished.

Look, I have no idea how the law will work. I know how it should work, but I don't know how it does. But that has no relevance as far as I'm concerned. The law is just this thing that forces horrible people to do a semblance of what is right. Good people don't need the law to dictate how they act. Heck, Good people will violate the law if the law is not good.

And that is the bare minimum I expect out of every single clergy person. If they can't adhere to that, then we need to be trying to tear them down and replace them with someone who will.

That's what it means to fight the good fight.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #230  
Old 03-10-2016, 02:36 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
What a totally fucked thing to say Bricker. Your dismissive attitude doesn't become you, nor the causes you rally for.

Either challenge the poster on his points, or not as you choose. But making a comment like that?

Pretty bloody shameful in my opinion.
  #231  
Old 03-10-2016, 02:50 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithrander View Post
I said that my perception is that it cares more about that fiduciary responsibility than it does about the safety of it's members. The way that Pell has been sheltered by the Vatican just strengthens that perception in my mind. Can you cite anything that shows the church putting victims of sexual abuse ahead of it's priesthood? Not words from some bigwig claiming that it's doing so, but actual actions taken by the church or priesthood?
The church set up "Towards Healing" in Australia. I don't know much about it but I understand it involved money, apologies and so on. IIRC it was set up in significant part because of a recognition that legal problems such as time limitations, the inability to find a financially viable defendant and so on were hurting victims.

It's been criticised as not working fully in practice, and the financial settlements offered being too low, but it seems to have been well intended. However, given that (a) the church probably had no legal liability and (b) the victims were unlikely ever to recognise any amount as being sufficient, I think it's hard to objectively deny that the church was trying to take an ethical approach rather than one based on hard nosed protection of its assets.

You can read about it a bit hereand actually the article as a whole is a good read because it describes the issues discussed by Bricker and I in this thread and it is neither condemning of the church nor supporting.

Finally, I'm curious about the allegation that Pell is being sheltered by the Vatican. How precisely has Pell been sheltered? Again I am not a historian of the subject, but as I understand it, he's given evidence to at least two commissions, he's had complaints to police against him investigated fully (and he co-operated in those investigations) and so on. How exactly has he been meaningfully sheltered? Feel free to be precise.
  #232  
Old 03-10-2016, 02:52 AM
Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobot View Post
That's the whole problem. You guys are acting like each diocese operates completely in isolation. In a strictly legal sense, that may be true, but in practice it's clearly false. There's coordination between dioceses, each belonging to a hierarchy, and a culture of abuse and cover-up within that hierarchy is evident.
The point you are missing is this: if someone for whom a diocese is responsible did something wrong, nobody here is saying their diocese should not be liable. If a person committed or aided and abetted abuse, then that person and (if they are person for whom a diocese has responsibility) their diocese should be liable.

The dioceses don't act in isolation; but the extent to which they should be responsible for one another should depend on precisely what they did together not on some vague allegation they don't act in isolation.

The problem is that (as is usually the case with bigotry) you want to gloss over the whole issue of considering whether any given person or entity actually did anything wrong. Doesn't matter if a given diocese had no abuse problems and didn't participate in a cover up, all them JewsCatholics are the same, they're all in on it.
  #233  
Old 03-10-2016, 05:32 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 32,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Heh, point to Big T.
  #234  
Old 03-10-2016, 08:52 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
What a totally fucked thing to say Bricker. Your dismissive attitude doesn't become you, nor the causes you rally for.

Either challenge the poster on his points, or not as you choose. But making a comment like that?

Pretty bloody shameful in my opinion.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #235  
Old 03-10-2016, 08:57 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Heh, point to Big T.
You're welcome to take it that way.

But I am not going to debate requirements of morality with BigT, because he and I don't share a common framework from which to deduce moral principles. He makes broad assertions about what is moral from his point of view, and implicitly demands that these claims be accepted as universal principles.

I don't concede to him the power or insight to declare universally applicable moral principles, much less operating principles for the Church or what it means to "fight the good fight."
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-10-2016 at 09:01 AM.
  #236  
Old 03-10-2016, 09:06 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 32,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You're welcome to take it that way.

But I am not going to debate requirements of morality with BigT, because he and I don't share a common framework from which to deduce moral principles. He makes broad assertions about what is moral from his point of view, and implicitly demands that these claims be accepted as universal principles.

I don't concede to him the power or insight to declare universally applicable moral principles, much less operating principles for the Church or what it means to "fight the good fight."
Thank you for the clarification.
  #237  
Old 03-10-2016, 12:30 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Correct.

As an analogy, Ford Motor makes cars. They have exclusive relationships with various dealers who sell those cars..... "Brown's Ford," sells and services Ford cars.

Now we have John, a mechanic at Brown's Ford, who intentionally damages cars when he works on them, and falsely claims that work needs to be done, in order to increase his own income.

John can, and should, be fined and jailed for his actions. Brown's Ford may be fined as well, if they were negligent in hiring or training him, or if his actions were in furtherance of their business.

Ford Motors is not liable.
While that is the general rule, it is by no means absolute even in US law. I am not Catholic, of course, but I suspect that the average parishioner (lacking your knowledge of canon law and the corporate structure of the church) would be surprised to learn that the church is insulated from the liability for the actions of its dioceses.
  #238  
Old 03-10-2016, 03:54 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
While that is the general rule, it is by no means absolute even in US law. I am not Catholic, of course, but I suspect that the average parishioner (lacking your knowledge of canon law and the corporate structure of the church) would be surprised to learn that the church is insulated from the liability for the actions of its dioceses.
Um.... doesn't that case you linked affirm a summary judgement against a plaintiff who sought to argue agency as between McDonald's and a franchisee?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #239  
Old 03-10-2016, 04:38 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princhester View Post
The problem is that (as is usually the case with bigotry) you want to gloss over the whole issue of considering whether any given person or entity actually did anything wrong. Doesn't matter if a given diocese had no abuse problems and didn't participate in a cover up, all them JewsCatholics are the same, they're all in on it.
Hmm, yes. Having no tolerance for a systemic culture of abuse and cover-up in an organisation which claims the ultimate moral high-ground is exactly like anti-semitism.

And "systemic" is the keyword there. It seems to me that it's easier for you to shout "bigotry" than to actually listen to what people are saying. This is not about targeting unrelated dioceses; it's about recognising that the organisation itself has a toxic culture even if individual parts seem to operate well enough.
  #240  
Old 03-10-2016, 04:44 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Um.... doesn't that case you linked affirm a summary judgement against a plaintiff who sought to argue agency as between McDonald's and a franchisee?
Yes. I just used that one because it explains the principles of apparent agency and is well known.
  #241  
Old 03-10-2016, 08:17 PM
Krav Manga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Yes. I just used that one because it explains the principles of apparent agency and is well known.
Principles that were summarily dismissed when applied to the relationship between franchisee and franchisor. I don't see how this supports your position.
  #242  
Old 03-10-2016, 08:41 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krav Manga View Post
Principles that were summarily dismissed when applied to the relationship between franchisee and franchisor. I don't see how this supports your position.
I think he's simply offering it for the discussion of applicable law -- of what kinds of things would need to be true for actual agency to exist, and for apparent agency to exist.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #243  
Old 03-11-2016, 08:41 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krav Manga View Post
Principles that were summarily dismissed when applied to the relationship between franchisee and franchisor. I don't see how this supports your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I think he's simply offering it for the discussion of applicable law -- of what kinds of things would need to be true for actual agency to exist, and for apparent agency to exist.
This. I am simply saying that it is possible for the average Joe's lack of understanding of church structure to work against the church here. I am not suggesting that Catholic churches are "franchises," or even that the apparent agency doctrine applies, just that it could.
  #244  
Old 03-11-2016, 01:15 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You're welcome to take it that way.

But I am not going to debate requirements of morality with BigT, because he and I don't share a common framework from which to deduce moral principles. He makes broad assertions about what is moral from his point of view, and implicitly demands that these claims be accepted as universal principles.

I don't concede to him the power or insight to declare universally applicable moral principles, much less operating principles for the Church or what it means to "fight the good fight."
And, this is just another cop out. You've had no problem arguing with moral claims throughout this entire thread. This is what you bring up when you don't actually have a counterargument.

You know as well as I do that we actually share at least one moral framework. We are Christians, and while you have additional laws as a Catholic, we both adhere to the Bible as a source of what is moral.

The concept I referenced is Biblical. You don't get to just follow what the law of the land says. I can reference a verse, like the one where Peter says that we must follow God's law and not man's law, but I don't even have to do that. It's just all over the book. You can't have a book that has moral laws in it and not think those laws are supposed to be followed.

And, let's not forget, you even admitted that what the guy did was bad. So we share that common thread of morality. We share the broad definition of sin, so you said that what he did was sinful. He did not adhere to God's command to be perfect--which is in Sermon on the Mount so it's Moral Law for you.

There's nothing remotely controversial about what I said. I pointed out that priests, like every other Christian, are expected to go beyond what man's law says. But it contradicts what you said to someone else (while arguing morality, BTW), so we just don't share a common moral framework. You pretend I'm dictating what is right and wrong. You act like what I'm saying has no relevance to the entire thread, when it's the same stuff you are arguing about with everyone else. (They just happen to leave in bits you can unravel.)

Again, it's just a cop out
  #245  
Old 03-11-2016, 02:22 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And, this is just another cop out. You've had no problem arguing with moral claims throughout this entire thread. This is what you bring up when you don't actually have a counterargument.
Where? At best, you may have seen me deny someone else's assertion of a moral claim, in the same way I deny yours. That's all.

Quote:
You know as well as I do that we actually share at least one moral framework. We are Christians, and while you have additional laws as a Catholic, we both adhere to the Bible as a source of what is moral.
Not exactly. I recognize the Bible, as interpreted by tradition and the ordinary magisterium of the Church, is a source of authority.


Quote:
And, let's not forget, you even admitted that what the guy did was bad. So we share that common thread of morality. We share the broad definition of sin, so you said that what he did was sinful. He did not adhere to God's command to be perfect--which is in Sermon on the Mount so it's Moral Law for you.
Do you know how many different ways Christians interpret the Sermon? Do you understand the distinction between, say, inaugurated eschatology and Walter Rauschenbusch's "social goals" movement?

Or are you saying to me that you're on-board with St. Augustine's teachings -- that I was wrong and we really do both view the Sermon, and indeed all of Christ's teachings, the same way? Really?

Quote:
There's nothing remotely controversial about what I said. I pointed out that priests, like every other Christian, are expected to go beyond what man's law says. But it contradicts what you said to someone else (while arguing morality, BTW), so we just don't share a common moral framework. You pretend I'm dictating what is right and wrong. You act like what I'm saying has no relevance to the entire thread, when it's the same stuff you are arguing about with everyone else. (They just happen to leave in bits you can unravel.)
No. You're completely mystified, it seems, if you believe I have been having any kind of a moral argument with anyone.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #246  
Old 03-11-2016, 03:51 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Why shouldn't mandatory reporting be a matter for secular, country law to mandate?
It should be. At the same time, one would hope that an group of people claiming to be the representatives of God and Jesus Christ Themselves would not wait for the legislature to force them to do the right thing.
  #247  
Old 03-11-2016, 06:06 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It should be. At the same time, one would hope that an group of people claiming to be the representatives of God and Jesus Christ Themselves would not wait for the legislature to force them to do the right thing.
They have. I don't agree that mandatory reporting in canon law is "the right thing." Canon law is church-wide law concerned with internal church processes and does not typically involve how the church might interact with secular law, especially since the same law has to apply to a diocese in Grand Rapids and one in Jakarta.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has adopted mandatory reporting rules for the entire United States. In what way do you feel that is insufficient for the United States?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #248  
Old 03-11-2016, 08:17 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Mandatory reporting is about alerting the authorities and is completely separate from what secular law in that jurisdiction determines is the proper course from that point forward. I don't see the issue.
  #249  
Old 03-11-2016, 09:33 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 Lobot View Post
Mandatory reporting is about alerting the authorities and is completely separate from what secular law in that jurisdiction determines is the proper course from that point forward. I don't see the issue.
What about societies where the secular law is to punish the victim of the rape?
  #250  
Old 03-11-2016, 09:45 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
What about societies where the secular law is to punish the victim of the rape?
Fair point. I guess that all you can hope for from a universal law in that case is that the Church at least protects parishioners by removing the priest/brother/etc. and not (and this is crucial) moving him to where he can attack others.

But it's kind of funny that the emphasis has been on how each diocese is its own separate entity and yet now the discussion has shifted to how canon law must be universally applied across all dioceses.
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 06:00 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