Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 03-11-2016, 09:56 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
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.
Each state in the United States is a separately sovereign entity, and yet federal law applies in all of them.

Also funny?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #252  
Old 03-11-2016, 10:04 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Each state in the United States is a separately sovereign entity, and yet federal law applies in all of them.

Also funny?
Nobody would argue that the U.S. is not also an entity in itself, despite the semi-autonomous nature of its states. Yet in this thread it's been argued that the RCC is like some kind of ad hoc collection of independent dioceses. It's not--it's a hierarchical organisation.
  #253  
Old 03-11-2016, 10:12 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
Nobody would argue that the U.S. is not also an entity in itself, despite the semi-autonomous nature of its states. Yet in this thread it's been argued that the RCC is like some kind of ad hoc collection of independent dioceses. It's not--it's a hierarchical organisation.
It's both. It's a hierarchical organization, composed of largely autonomous dioceses.

Just like the United States is both a sovereign entity and a collection of fifty separately entities.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #254  
Old 03-12-2016, 04:46 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
It's both. It's a hierarchical organization, composed of largely autonomous dioceses.

Just like the United States is both a sovereign entity and a collection of fifty separately entities.
You're still trying to pull this bullshit over people's eyes Bricker? Give it up, you're convincing exactly no body. It's very simple the Pope can declare universal canon law which all dioceses have to follow. Is that true or not? Answer please.

So if the vatican sets policies that contribute to covering up child abuse (eg encouraging priests not to go to police with abuse allegations), then the vatican / holy see itself is liable, because they set the church policies globally through canon law. I have no doubt that the RCC's lawyers will try the exact weasel trick you are arguing but hopefully they get smacked down.
  #255  
Old 03-12-2016, 04:59 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
You're still trying to pull this bullshit over people's eyes Bricker? Give it up, you're convincing exactly no body.
I'm convincing nobody.... except for the fact that the Vatican has never once been held liable under this theory, not once in history. So it seems like at least one or two people are convinced that what I am saying is correct.

(Admittedly they may not be reading what I write -- the point I am making is that what I am saying is correct, as opposed to my specific words convincing anyone).

Quote:
It's very simple the Pope can declare universal canon law which all dioceses have to follow. Is that true or not? Answer please.
True.

Quote:
So if the vatican sets policies that contribute to covering up child abuse (eg encouraging priests not to go to police with abuse allegations), then the vatican / holy see itself is liable, because they set the church policies globally through canon law.
Untrue.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-12-2016 at 05:03 AM.
  #256  
Old 03-12-2016, 05:35 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I'm convincing nobody.... except for the fact that the Vatican has never once been held liable under this theory, not once in history. So it seems like at least one or two people are convinced that what I am saying is correct.
Theres a first time for everything. This is also the first time such a high ranking vatican official has directly been questioned on the issue. You can keep parroting the vatican's official line all you want. Sorry they also claim that a piece of biscuit is literally the body of christ, this is explicitly not a metaphor, the dogma is that it is "transubstantiated".

Since they are so blatantly wrong about a piece of biscuit turning into human flesh, they can also be wrong in their claims about not being a single organisation.
  #257  
Old 03-12-2016, 07:56 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
Theres a first time for everything.
Scientists could be wrong about global warming, because there's a first time for everything. Rubio could come from behind to win the nomination because there's a first time for everything. Pi could be equal to 7, because there's a first time for everything.

Or.... perhaps there is not a first time for everything.

Quote:
This is also the first time such a high ranking vatican official has directly been questioned on the issue.
On which issue? The separation of liability between diocese and Vatican? Or the nature of abuses that occurred when the high ranking official held a diocesan position?

Quote:
You can keep parroting the vatican's official line all you want. Sorry they also claim that a piece of biscuit is literally the body of christ, this is explicitly not a metaphor, the dogma is that it is "transubstantiated".



Since they are so blatantly wrong about a piece of biscuit turning into human flesh, they can also be wrong in their claims about not being a single organisation.


How do you know they are wrong?

Transubstantiation means that the underlying essence of the material changes, but the "accidents," the physical aspect that we perceive, remains unchanged. Are you saying you know of some way to test this claim, such that you can show they are blatantly wrong?

You don't, of course. The best you can say is that their claim is untestable.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #258  
Old 03-12-2016, 10:37 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Ok bricker, how about this, anyone that believes that the biscuit is literally the body of christ will also believe that the catholic church is not one organisation.

I think you'll find most rational people including most lawyers for nations will laugh at you and say "nice try but no". Your argument that you've got away with so far doesn't mean anything towards whether you will get away with it in future or not.
  #259  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:25 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
Ok bricker, how about this, anyone that believes that the biscuit is literally the body of christ will also believe that the catholic church is not one organisation.
Probably false. I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and I ALSO believe that for the purposes of liability, each diocese is a separate organization.

Quote:
I think you'll find most rational people including most lawyers for nations will laugh at you and say "nice try but no". Your argument that you've got away with so far doesn't mean anything towards whether you will get away with it in future or not.

Yes. It does.

These issues are not decided by rolling a pair of dice. If they were, your idea would be defensible: "It's just a matter of time before they roll snake-eyes!"

Instead, these issues are decided by the law -- an area in which precedent has sway, and in which the analytical principles are well understood.

Except by you.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #260  
Old 03-12-2016, 11:38 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
You should realise that actually you are defending the right of the Catholic church to protect pedophiles. I think this wins you very few, if any friends.

You are saying this "the church is powerful and has so far succeeded in its sleazy tactics" so no one will ever change that. Can you honestly say that morally they are right to disclaim all responsibility? What does your heart tell you? What do you personally gain by protecting the Catholic church this way?
  #261  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:11 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
You should realise that actually you are defending the right of the Catholic church to protect pedophiles. I think this wins you very few, if any friends.
You feel I would win more friends by inaccurately stating the applicable law?


Quote:
You are saying this "the church is powerful and has so far succeeded in its sleazy tactics" so no one will ever change that. Can you honestly say that morally they are right to disclaim all responsibility? What does your heart tell you? What do you personally gain by protecting the Catholic church this way?

Do you think that my heart and its beliefs will change the law?

Your argument is an appeal to emotion. That doesn't change the facts. The law does not really provide for a way to hold the Vatican civilly liable. Would you feel better if I lied to you and said it did? What would then happen after the law did not act thusly? Would you believe that mysterious forces intervened?

Are you really proposing that we should all close our eyes and chant that it will happen, it will!
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #262  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:29 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
Weirdo.

<3

Last edited by Lobohan; 03-12-2016 at 12:29 PM.
  #263  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:55 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
Weirdo.

<3

Well, I admit it's an untestable truth. Not sure how it makes me weird.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #264  
Old 03-12-2016, 12:57 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Well, I admit it's an untestable truth. Not sure how it makes me weird.
You think a first century craftsman inhabits baked goods on occasion. It's weird.
  #265  
Old 03-12-2016, 01:21 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
You think a first century craftsman inhabits baked goods on occasion. It's weird.

It's weird because it's weird?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #266  
Old 03-12-2016, 01:40 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
It's weird because it's weird?
You don't think the creator of the universe, who's omnipotent, communing with His followers via cookie, is a bit weird?

It's common and comfortable for you, so you don't see it, but yeah, it's weird.
  #267  
Old 03-12-2016, 03:38 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobohan View Post
You don't think the creator of the universe, who's omnipotent, communing with His followers via cookie, is a bit weird?



It's common and comfortable for you, so you don't see it, but yeah, it's weird.

No, because I understand the context in which He chose to institute that particular sacrament. Absent that context, I suppose it's weird.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #268  
Old 03-12-2016, 08:02 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
. The law does not really provide for a way to hold the Vatican civilly liable.
Absolutely the law does provide methods. Sovereign nations can be sued and so the Catholic Church with it's weird "we're a religion and also a country" shtick can also be sued. It would be a very expensive and complicated lawsuit and I agree the result would not be certain one way or the other but it could certainly happen. If the Catholic Church does not clean up its act seriously then eventually it will happen.

I'll remind you that Scientology also gets away with bullshit because they intimidated the IRS. They launched so many frivolous lawsuits against the IRS that the IRS backed down and now leaves them alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

In both cases we have a religion getting away with something thats morally repugnant because they have money and lawyers. Do you think this is right?
  #269  
Old 03-13-2016, 03:14 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Absolutely the law does provide methods. Sovereign nations can be sued and so the Catholic Church with it's weird "we're a religion and also a country" shtick can also be sued.

In both cases we have a religion getting away with something thats morally repugnant because they have money and lawyers. Do you think this is right?
C'mon, you and I both know that Bricker doesn't 'grok' right. He gets legalese, he gets legislation, he gets canon law....but he never concedes what is morally or ethically 'right'.
  #270  
Old 03-13-2016, 03:31 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
C'mon, you and I both know that Bricker doesn't 'grok' right. He gets legalese, he gets legislation, he gets canon law....but he never concedes what is morally or ethically 'right'.
Yep, I don't think I have ever met such an anally retentive pedantic rules lawyer in my life. I bet he got beat up a lot when he was a kid. He was the one interrupting games of tag and arguing about the rules.

Hint Bricker. The Law is not an ever unchanging set of rules set in concrete. The law changes as society changes and the law is rapidly catching up to the Catholic Church. Society does not tolerate people any more that claim that "abortion is a worse moral problem than abuse of children" Thats a quote from Cardinal Pell.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-13-2016 at 03:35 AM.
  #271  
Old 03-13-2016, 04:55 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
C'mon, you and I both know that Bricker doesn't 'grok' right. He gets legalese, he gets legislation, he gets canon law....but he never concedes what is morally or ethically 'right'.
Certainly I do. I simply don't discuss it here, because as a general rule, I don't believe the participants here share a moral or ethical framework with me that makes it meaningful. coremelt and I do not agree on what is moral or right, and these are propositions that are not subject to objective demonstration. These discussions simply devolve into, "Well, I say that *I* am right."

For this reason, I limit my discussions here to what the law says. That does not prevent dopey objections, I admit, but the difference is that I can refute such objections by citation to relevant authority.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #272  
Old 03-13-2016, 05:18 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
Absolutely the law does provide methods. Sovereign nations can be sued and so the Catholic Church with it's weird "we're a religion and also a country" shtick can also be sued. It would be a very expensive and complicated lawsuit and I agree the result would not be certain one way or the other but it could certainly happen.
Again, "It could happen," may be used to describe any future event. Why don't I say that Cardinal Pell will return to Australia, resign as Cardinal, and get elected as the next Prime Minister? After all, it could happen. The law provides methods for such a thing. People could accept him. It could happen.

The operative question should be: "How likely, given the current state of the law, is the outcome you predict?"

Quote:
I'll remind you that Scientology also gets away with bullshit because they intimidated the IRS. They launched so many frivolous lawsuits against the IRS that the IRS backed down and now leaves them alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
Your link does not describe a campaign of frivolous lawsuits. It describes a criminal conspiracy by Scientology executives to steal documents from IRS (and other U.S. agencies, and other countries' agencies) which was uncovered and resulted in criminal convictions for a number of senior Scientology officials.

I have no sympathy for Scientology, but even less sympathy for your continued inability to form an argument. For your future use: an argument is a connected series of factual assertions, supported by citation to relevant authority, that establish or strengthen the ultimate issue of fact you are seeking to advance.

A key element is accurate factual statements. It is in this area you struggle, seemingly believing that righteous indignation is a sufficient substitute for accuracy.

It is not.

Quote:
In both cases we have a religion getting away with something thats morally repugnant because they have money and lawyers. Do you think this is right?
In neither case have you established this. Your Scientology link shows a criminal conspiracy to alter, remove, or destroy documents, and resulted in criminal convictions.

Your discussion of the Catholic Church doesn't show anything happening merely because money and lawyers are involved -- rather, it shows things happening in accord with existing law. For example, when an accused criminal avoids criminal prosecution because the statute of limitations has passed before charges are brought, that is not "getting away with it" because the accused has money and lawyers. I agree it's "getting away with it," but the accused would be free if he were wealthy or impecunious.

I always ask you for specific examples, and you always respond with general allegations, factual errors, and a strong sense of moral indignation, as though the latter is all that is needed to sustain the argument.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #273  
Old 03-13-2016, 05:33 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
Society does not tolerate people any more that claim that "abortion is a worse moral problem than abuse of children" Thats a quote from Cardinal Pell.
This is a perfect example of why I don't enter into discussions of morality here.

Comparing acts of moral depravity is rarely a useful exercise,

Whose is a worse moral sin? William Dathan Holbert killed his victims after befriending them, then buried the bodies and stole their homes and money.

Or a serial rapist with fifty victims, but no deaths, a worse moral actor?

Frankly, it's a horrid and useless question. But as a general rule, I would say that a murder is a worse sin than multiple rapes.

This is a horrible discussion to have, because it appears to diminish the "lesser" moral evil.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-13-2016 at 05:38 AM.
  #274  
Old 03-13-2016, 09:49 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
This is a perfect example of why I don't enter into discussions of morality here
Comparing acts of moral depravity is rarely a useful exercise,
Yes this is why Catholics equate wearing a condom with murder. Sorry sperm is not in any way conscious or alive and pope Francis is an evil mother fucker because he refuses to allow his followers in Africa where AIDS is epidemic to use condoms.

Fuck the entire Catholic Church for this genocidal belief. The Catholic Church cannot make any claim to morality for a rational individual, its precepts are objectively evil.
  #275  
Old 03-13-2016, 10:10 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
Yes this is why Catholics equate wearing a condom with murder.
I can't imagine what statement from the Church inspired this belief from you. Would you care to provide the citation for that claim?

Quote:
Sorry sperm is not in any way conscious or alive and pope Francis is an evil mother fucker because he refuses to allow his followers in Africa where AIDS is epidemic to use condoms.
I agree that sperm is not alive or conscious, and no one (except you) has made the claim that it is. (Well, there was the Monty Python skit with the song, "Every Sperm is Sacred," but that is surprisingly not a valid source of Catholic theology).

You have conflated that false claim with a true one. The Pope has never said that use of condoms is licit.

Quote:
Fuck the entire Catholic Church for this genocidal belief. The Catholic Church cannot make any claim to morality for a rational individual, its precepts are objectively evil.
This, again, is why I don't debate moral issues with people like you. From my point if view, your understanding of morality is uninformed.

The Church also tells her followers to remain monogamous within marriage and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.

It is unfair for you to focus on the teaching about condoms and ignore those other teachings. If all were followed, it's much more effective in halting the spread of AIDS. You choose to focus myopically on the prohibition against condoms and complain about the ill effects that prohibition creates. But the teaching concerning condoms is only viable in light of the Church's total teachings, and not something that stands alone.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #276  
Old 03-14-2016, 08:32 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
The Church also tells her followers to remain monogamous within marriage and to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage.
So suppose the wife is a good catholic and only has sex with her husband. However the husband is a cheating scum bag and bangs prostitutes with HIV on the weekends. Your faithful Catholic wife gets infected because of her beliefs.

The Catholic church is spreading lies and disinformation in Africa, telling people that condoms actually increase the spread of HIV and not to use them:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...in_africa.html

This makes the RCC culpable in millions of preventable deaths.
  #277  
Old 03-14-2016, 10:34 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
So suppose the wife is a good catholic and only has sex with her husband. However the husband is a cheating scum bag and bangs prostitutes with HIV on the weekends. Your faithful Catholic wife gets infected because of her beliefs.
Married couples are permitted to use condoms if the intention is to stop the spread of disease.

This is called the principle of double effect, and your own cite refers to a Kenyan archbishop making that ruling clear.

Quote:
The Catholic church is spreading lies and disinformation in Africa, telling people that condoms actually increase the spread of HIV and not to use them:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health...in_africa.html

This makes the RCC culpable in millions of preventable deaths.
The theory advanced in your cite is: contraception creates a culture of uninhibited sex, and after a while, people continue the sex but stop using the condom:

Quote:
Otieno’s theory of why condoms cause HIV in Homa Bay goes something like this: Condoms are ubiquitous. Contraception creates a culture of uninhibited sex. After a while, the youth will stop using condoms but keep having sex. It means that more people will become infected with HIV.
Can you explain how that makes them culpable?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #278  
Old 03-14-2016, 10:41 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Because there is not one shred of evidence that they will keep having sex but stop using condoms. Especially not if the government keeps giving them out free and educating people. The Rcc is very influential in poor African countries, their message countering the effectiveness of safe sex unfortunately works. Thus they are partly to blame for millions of preventable deaths.
  #279  
Old 03-14-2016, 11:22 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
Because there is not one shred of evidence that they will keep having sex but stop using condoms.



Maybe he read this article.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #280  
Old 03-14-2016, 07:53 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I ALSO believe that for the purposes of liability, each diocese is a separate organization.
Suppose you have a parent corporation that owns a bunch of little companies. The parent picks the managers/officers of those little companies and can choose to micromanage them if they so desire. Unbeknownst to the parent corporation the little company does something illegal - lets say sexual descrimination. Is the parent corporation not liable to some degree?
  #281  
Old 03-14-2016, 08:20 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Suppose you have a parent corporation that owns a bunch of little companies. The parent picks the managers/officers of those little companies and can choose to micromanage them if they so desire. Unbeknownst to the parent corporation the little company does something illegal - lets say sexual descrimination. Is the parent corporation not liable to some degree?
Not per se, no. There's a world of detail in that "if they so desire."
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #282  
Old 03-16-2016, 08:22 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Not per se, no. There's a world of detail in that "if they so desire."
As usual Bricker give us the party line and misses out key details. Ever heard of "piercing the corporate veil" ? Its possible not only just to hold the parent company liable but to personally charge officers and "shareholders".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierci...corporate_veil

Quote:
"In English criminal law there have been cases in which the courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of incorporation". Australia follows almost exactly the same system as England / UK in criminal law.
This type of corporate law is extremely complicated and expensive to litigate but it is possible. And frankly you win no friends for the Catholic Church by this argument that it is entitled to use these kind of corporate tricks to avoid liability. In fact keep going, you're just making them look slimier and slimier by your own words Bricker.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-16-2016 at 08:24 AM.
  #283  
Old 03-16-2016, 08:28 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
That's especially true if the parent organization's entire claimed purpose is to provide moral leadership. If you have to ignore morality and resort to lawyer tricks to defend it, isn't it time to pause, step back, and reassess?
  #284  
Old 03-16-2016, 08:45 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
As usual Bricker give us the party line and misses out key details. Ever heard of "piercing the corporate veil" ? Its possible not only just to hold the parent company liable but to personally charge officers and "shareholders".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierci...corporate_veil

Quote:
"In English criminal law there have been cases in which the courts have been prepared to pierce the veil of incorporation". Australia follows almost exactly the same system as England / UK in criminal law.
This type of corporate law is extremely complicated and expensive to litigate but it is possible. And frankly you win no friends for the Catholic Church by this argument that it is entitled to use these kind of corporate tricks to avoid liability. In fact keep going, you're just making them look slimier and slimier by your own words Bricker.
Yes, I have heard the phrase once or twice.

As a general rule, the necessary conditions for piercing the corporate veil are abuses of the corporate form such as dodging service of process (Comprehensive Sports Planning, Inc. v. Pleasant Valley Country Club, 341 N.Y.S.2d 914 (1973) as a good example), flimsy under-capitalization ( Minton v. Cavaney, 364 P.2d 473 (1961), no true corporate directors (DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit CoH, and the like.

Since you mention the law, then, can you explain what specific factors here are consistent with previous court decisions to pierce the corporate veil?

I have no particular interest in convincing you of any moral issue. But from a factual standpoint, your posts have been abysmal. I intend to continue to highlight the lack of factual accuracy in your posts without the slightest worry that I am making anyone beyond you look bad. Or slimy.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 03-16-2016 at 08:45 AM.
  #285  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:23 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
. I intend to continue to highlight the lack of factual accuracy in your posts without the slightest worry that I am making anyone beyond you look bad. Or slimy.
You're only succeeding in making yourself look like an anally retentive twat and the Catholic church look like some kind of dodgy pyramid scheme, in which the founders fly off to Belize leaving their underlings to face criminal charges.

Anyway, oops, today is not your day. Seems Friars from a Franciscan order (which originated as a branch of Catholicism) have just today been charged with knowingly turning a blind eye to sexual abuse. This case is the first of its kind and will no doubt set a precedent for international judiciary to refer to.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...ous_order.html

You can can bet that the Australian Royal Commission will take notice of this case in forming it's own recommendations. As I said Bricker, there's a first time for everything.
  #286  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:38 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
You're only succeeding in making yourself look like an anally retentive twat and the Catholic church look like some kind of dodgy pyramid scheme, in which the founders fly off to Belize leaving their underlings to face criminal charges.

Anyway, oops, today is not your day. Seems Friars from a Franciscan order (which originated as a branch of Catholicism) have just today been charged with knowingly turning a blind eye to sexual abuse. This case is the first of its kind and will no doubt set a precedent for international judiciary to refer to.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...ous_order.html

You can can bet that the Australian Royal Commission will take notice of this case in forming it's own recommendations. As I said Bricker, there's a first time for everything.
What portion of this case relates to piercing the corporate veil or finding the Vatican liable? The case you linked to involves three leaders of the Franciscan Friars being charged for what they did, and failed to do, with assignments given to a Franciscan order priest. What specific aspects of this case do you believe are relevant to the foregoing discussions?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #287  
Old 03-16-2016, 09:52 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
What portion of this case relates to piercing the corporate veil or finding the Vatican liable? The case you linked to involves three leaders of the Franciscan Friars being charged for what they did, and failed to do, with assignments given to a Franciscan order priest. What specific aspects of this case do you believe are relevant to the foregoing discussions?
Ok if you can't make the connection then you are really an idiot instead of pretending to be one. A precedent has been set that could allow Cardinal Pell to face criminal charges for turning a blind eye to the abuse of priests who were re-assigned and shuffled around under his watch. Yes you will have some legal argument why they are not comparable, but the law is not just a series of unbending facts, its shaped by precedent which is partly political and partly social, something you seem incapable of understanding.

Last edited by coremelt; 03-16-2016 at 09:54 AM.
  #288  
Old 03-16-2016, 10:36 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
Ok if you can't make the connection then you are really an idiot instead of pretending to be one. A precedent has been set that could allow Cardinal Pell to face criminal charges for turning a blind eye to the abuse of priests who were re-assigned and shuffled around under his watch. Yes you will have some legal argument why they are not comparable, but the law is not just a series of unbending facts, its shaped by precedent which is partly political and partly social, something you seem incapable of understanding.
Oh, I see.... we've moved back to Pell facing criminal charges.

Well, let's talk about criminal law.

I don't know a great amount about Australian law, but a fundamental principle in American criminal law is the prohibition against ex post facto criminal liability.

What does that mean? It means that if you commit an act of mopery in December 2014, and the people are outraged because there is no law against mopery, the legislature may well, as a result of your example, pass a law in January 2015 against mopery.

But -- you can't be charged under that law for your actions in December. Of course, should you commit mopery again in February 2015, you're liable for criminal conviction. But the legislature cannot retroactively create a crime.

This is not a rule that I believe is in serious danger of change from "partly social," pressure.

Do you understand so far?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #289  
Old 03-16-2016, 10:52 AM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
I have not researched this in detail, but there also may be statute of limitations problems here. Although maybe not -- the statute clock is tolled when the accused leaves the state, and all three of the accused here were living outside Pennsylvania as of 2016. I have no idea how long, though.

In any event, a grand jury indictment is not difficult to obtain.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #290  
Old 03-18-2016, 11:44 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Ok Bricker, I admit I am not a lawyer so I do not have a detailed knowledge of the exact laws that you do. However it is my understanding from reading the royal commission that Pell could face charges, I am not sure exactly which charges those are yet. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they do turn.

And here's another useful item, a former melbourne Vicar general has claimed publically that the Melbourne diocese has secret 'red files' on child abuse and called on the Royal Commision to subpoena them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-1...oenaed/7252882

Oops, another bad day for Pell.
  #291  
Old 03-19-2016, 03:00 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
Ok Bricker, I admit I am not a lawyer so I do not have a detailed knowledge of the exact laws that you do. However it is my understanding from reading the royal commission that Pell could face charges, I am not sure exactly which charges those are yet. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they do turn.

And here's another useful item, a former melbourne Vicar general has claimed publically that the Melbourne diocese has secret 'red files' on child abuse and called on the Royal Commision to subpoena them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-1...oenaed/7252882

Oops, another bad day for Pell.
From your link:

Quote:
...Monsignor Cudmore ended up resigning as Vicar General because he did not like Cardinal George Pell's handling of abuse claims, which he thought was too legalistic.
Pell acted illegally! We know this because .... er..... he acted too legalistically!

The careless way you read and comprehend is almost funny. The former vicar general didn't say anything publicly. Ms. Last said that the former vicar general told her something which she is now repeating publicly.

But Australia is free to subpoena whatever files they wish.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #292  
Old 03-25-2016, 06:34 AM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Theres a bumper sticker "abstinence makes the church grow fondlers". You want to end priest abuse? How about get rid of the requirement priests be celibate. It's a recent (in RCC terms) requirement, it only started in the middle ages, there's no justification for it in biblical writings.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696

Allow RCC priests to marry and you'll solve the problem of declining numbers of people wanting to be priests and be less likely to attract diddlers at the same time (or be forced to tolerate them because its pretty damn hard to recruit when "never getting to have sex or have a child" is a requirement). There would still be plenty of room for voluntarily celibacy for particular devout priests or monastic orders.
  #293  
Old 03-25-2016, 07:53 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
Theres a bumper sticker "abstinence makes the church grow fondlers". You want to end priest abuse? How about get rid of the requirement priests be celibate. It's a recent (in RCC terms) requirement, it only started in the middle ages, there's no justification for it in biblical writings.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696

Allow RCC priests to marry and you'll solve the problem of declining numbers of people wanting to be priests and be less likely to attract diddlers at the same time (or be forced to tolerate them because its pretty damn hard to recruit when "never getting to have sex or have a child" is a requirement). There would still be plenty of room for voluntarily celibacy for particular devout priests or monastic orders.
My understanding is that the majority of criminal convictions in the United States for child molestation are of men that are married or in heteronormative adult sexual relationships.

Can you reconcile this fact with your belief that ending the celibacy requirement for priests will end, or meaningfully reduce, abuse by priests?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #294  
Old 03-25-2016, 08:08 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
My understanding is that the majority of criminal convictions in the United States for child molestation are of men that are married or in heteronormative adult sexual relationships.

Can you reconcile this fact with your belief that ending the celibacy requirement for priests will end, or meaningfully reduce, abuse by priests?
Bricker, I've enjoyed following your side of this discussion. I'm not ready to convert; Athe has her hooks too deep in me.

Happy Easter/Felices Pascuas!
  #295  
Old 03-25-2016, 03:33 PM
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
Bricker, I've enjoyed following your side of this discussion. I'm not ready to convert; Athe has her hooks too deep in me.

Happy Easter/Felices Pascuas!
Let us rejoice and be glad!
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #296  
Old 03-25-2016, 08:52 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Can you reconcile this fact with your belief that ending the celibacy requirement for priests will end, or meaningfully reduce, abuse by priests?
Bzzt. Fail. My argument was that the RCC had to tolerate pedophiles in the 70s / 80s because it was so hard to recruit people that agreed to lifelong celibacy. Open up recruitment of priests to married people and women and all of a sudden you'll have plenty of recruits and you can bin the pedophiles without having a shortage of priests.
  #297  
Old 03-25-2016, 09:21 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
Bzzt. Fail. My argument was that the RCC had to tolerate pedophiles in the 70s / 80s because it was so hard to recruit people that agreed to lifelong celibacy. Open up recruitment of priests to married people and women and all of a sudden you'll have plenty of recruits and you can bin the pedophiles without having a shortage of priests.
Do you contend this problem still exists now?
  #298  
Old 03-25-2016, 10:28 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
I personally believe that people with a strong Catholic background struggling with their sexuality will be attracted to the priesthood just because an asexual lifestyle will make sexuality a moot point. "Am I a monster?" is not a question you'd expect to need to face.

So if you're a paedophile who is in denial about your inclinations, the priesthood will look pretty good: on the one hand, you get to escape facing the fact that you have unhealthy impulses, and on the other hand, you get to hang out with children unsupervised. It's the perfect institution to attract paedophiles, actually.
  #299  
Old 03-25-2016, 10:46 PM
coremelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Do you contend this problem still exists now?
Bricker, your entire Schtick is to ignore correct points people make and pounce on trivial irrelevant inaccuracies and then claim that makes the entire argument invalid. It's a boring tedious game and I'm not interested in playing anymore. My critiques of the RCC are valid and many millions of people agree with me. Either the RCC will do genuine reform or it will continue to decline in worshipper numbers in the western world.
  #300  
Old 03-25-2016, 10:49 PM
Lobot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by coremelt View Post
Either the RCC will do genuine reform or it will continue to decline in worshipper numbers in the western world.
That's ultimately what it all comes down to, yes. And the Church will no doubt choose a slow death over genuine reform.
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 05:54 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