In otherwords you have no come back to my real reasoned argument. Answer me this, why should priests from any religion be exempt from the otherwise universal mandatory reporting laws that apply to anyone that deals with children in a position of authority?
If you oppose this position then really you have shown you are arguing for the sake of arguing, or else you are a slime bag who wants to protect pedophiles. Pick one, there is no other option.
Every time I offer an actual argument, coremelt you retreat while announcing you’re done “playing games.”
Are you now interested in an actual argument?
Only if you are arguing from what you really believe in, rather than arguing because you think its your duty as the moderator of the pit.
Man, you are dumb.
I’m not a moderator of any kind, either of the Pit or any other forum.
Sorry, its a type of blindness I have. I can’t tell one asshole from another.
This is a deflection. Do you understand that I am not a moderator on this, or any other, forum?
Seriously? I agree with Bricker on very little (and with Miller rather a lot) but Bricker’s title is pretty clearly NOT moderator - perhaps it’s not a type of “blindness” you have, but merely a run of the mill lack of reading comprehension?
Yes I do, it was late at night and I typed too quickly. Anyway back to Pell and the Pope.
The survivors are returning home, the Pope did not meet with them and the vatican has claimed “they never received” their request for a meeting cough bullshit.
The Catholic Church also praised Pell for his “coherent and dignified” testimony. Which means they’ve clearly stated their position, the cover ups will continue. Well fuck the entire RCC then.
Cardinal Pell is #3 highest ranking in the Vatican, he’s the equivalent of a CFO in a multi billion dollar organisation. Do you think any public company would allow someone who had stated “i wasn’t much interested” when hearing rumours of a pedophile amongst his employees would be allowed to stay as CFO? Fuck no, the shareholders would demand his resignation even if the CEO didn’t fire him. Also the Royal Commission is apparently going to set up a redress scheme which will fine the RCC billions of dollars over a period of years.
The RCC will pay one way or another, attendance in Australia is already down, if Francis does not make Pell resign then you’ll see a huge amount of Australian Catholics leaving the church.
The problem is that factual errors litter your posts.
Unless most of your posting is done at night and too quickly, this seems insufficient.
Not correct.
It’s unclear if you mean the Vatican or the Holy See, but the ranking claim is wrong either way.
The Pope is the sovereign, both head of state and head of government. He delegates the head of secular government role of Vatican City to the President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, who by holding that position is President of the Governorate.
That is currently Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello, who is fairly described as the second highest ranking in Vatican State. Under him are the various administrative heads of Vatican State departments, none of which are Cardinal Pell.
If you meant “The Holy See,” you’re also wrong. Pell’s job is significant, but it’s not in the direct chain of supervision. He is responsible for the budget, yes, and that is important and “CFO” is a fair description.
Rightly or wrongly he has been described as “Vatican #3” widely by the media.
and
refers to him as “Vatican’s third highest ranking official”. Theres a load more just use google.
So since you didn’t argue with any of my other points and only tried to nitpick (incorrectly) I presume you agree with the Royal Commission that the RCC should pay billions in damages to abuse survivors?
No. I agree that your mistake is one promulgated by many other sources, but it doesn’t make it correct.
I also don’t see the basis for billions of dollars in damages to be paid by any entity. To the extent that there are damages remaining to be paid, those damages rest with the Australian dioceses involved.
It up to the Australian courts to decide if the shell games the RCC tries to play to disclaim responsibility for what its dioceses do are legal or not, not up to you. Or they could simply fine the Diocese so much that they go bankrupt, leaving the RCC to decide to bail them out or having no Catholic church in that region. Either way the RCC will end up paying whatever the Royal Commission decides.
Oh and Bricker, the media is correct. They are talking about third highest ranked official of the Holy See. Number 1 is the pope, Number 2 is the Secretariat of State, Number 3 is Secretariat for the Economy, George Pell.
No doubt you’ll come back with some legal bullshit which no one cares about. Makes no difference, he’s Vatican number 3 no matter what boring anal retentive nitpickery you come up with.
I fully admit that I am not an expert in Australian law, but as a general rule, bankruptcy does not lead to the result you imagine.
Do you have a specific prediction about what will happen? I agree that the Royal Commission will probably not order an amount that cannot be paid, so while it’s true that whatever they decide will likely happen, I don’t agree that billions, or even one billion, is possible.
Why is the Secretariat for the Economy above other positions in the Curia? (Except, according to you, the Secretariat of State?)
It is difficult to work out how much the Catholic Church could be liable for. The figure of $4.3 billion quoted frequently in the press is the total amount expected to be paid out to cover redress and civil litigation after the proceedings: Final report Redress and Civil Litigation. This amount covers all complainants against all institutions and postulates 60,000 victims. The average payment is expected to be $65,000 and the maximum $200,000.
Recent reports suggest 400 to 500 complaints in Melbourne against the church since 1980 with $17 million paid to 300 of them. Extrapolating from this one would get nowhere near billions of dollars but I have been unable to find an estimate of a total number of victims by agency.
Bricker do you believe that Priests should be mandatory reporters of sexual abuse? If not why not?
Meanwhile Pell is not out of it yet, the Royal Commission is going back to question Ronald Mulkearns who was Bishop when the notorious convicted pedophile Gerald Ridsdale was “rooting boys” in Pell’s words (yes he joked about it). Pell has tried to blame everyone except himself, and apparently that doesn’t sit well with Ronald Mulkearns who its believed will give testimony that directly contradicts Pell’s testimony to the Royal Commission.
Yes, with the exception that anything they learn in the context of priest-penitent confession remains, as it is now, not part of such a reporting requirement.
Would you counsel(or expect) a confessor to withhold absolution until the aspiring penitent “did the right thing” and submitted himself to local police authority? I seem to recall from grade school religious instruction that priests must listen to anyone who wishes to confess, but would instruct a penitent who confessed to a heinous crime(murder, rape, arson etc.) to admit to what he’d done to law enforcement first, before absolution was a possibility.