Absolutely. In fact, that is one of the key reasons I would urge legal effect for the confessional seal.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Why shouldn’t mandatory reporting be a matter for secular, country law to mandate?
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?
It has done…for every other profession except the Catholic Church and their precious ‘confession’ rules.
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.
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.
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.
Lawyers are not required to report past sexual abuse they discover by way of client communication.
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.
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?
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:
The story immediately points out, however:
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.
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.
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.
Really?
Do you have any cite for this claim you made?
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.
The Catholic Church has dioceses in every country.
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?
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?
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.
That is the precise difference. As I said here:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.