Oh poor George (Cardinal Pell)...might have been easier to come home!

The BBQ Pit
121

Its an interesting subject. Read the story of Peter Kennedy. The reason I know about it is his church is a few hundred yards from my house and there was a lot more detail in the papers at the time than is given in the Wikipedia article.

He was a maverick for years and the RCC knew all about him and did nothing. Then a weirdo extreme Catholic doctrine fanatic (who wasn’t even from the same parish) started agitating for action because Kennedy wasn’t saying the magic words properly and so on. The local Archbishop tried to get away with slapping Kennedy’s wrist but didn’t do anything serious because let’s face it the RCC has enough difficult getting anyone to go to church these days and Kennedy was very popular and had a lot of support.

But this asshole fanatic would not let it go and kept petitioning higher and higher until it got to the Vatican who couldn’t ultimately be seen to be allowing a priest to be doing the magic stuff wrong, so something had to be done. The key leverage was that the local Archdiocese owned the church so it was a simple lease issue and they kicked Kennedy out. They have since de-priested him.

Now you would say that this shows you are right. But manoeuvring Kennedy out took years and years and years, and was highly political, and for a long time it was a standoff between the local parishioners and the RCC hierarchy. If the local congregation had owned the church the local Archbishop would have been in an even more difficult position because he would not have been able to force Kennedy out, meaning he would have had to (in effect) lose a whole (large, vibrant) congregation by de-priesting Kennedy, who would have just carried on as before with his congregation behind him while the RCC found it had cut off it’s nose to spite its face.

The point is, it ain’t a monolith. It’s a huge hodgepodge of people of a broad, non-uniform religious culture, with the distance and tenuousness of connection that implies.

It’s a long way from that to “they fucked up, you are obliged to pay”

Look, going wookie on me ain’t going to help you, sorry. The whole of Catholicism isn’t a single organisation. Not legally. Some middle class liberal parish in a well to do suburb of Brisbane is not the same thing as an order of celibate guys living in cells in Italy. Doesn’t matter how much you want it to be, it ain’t.

Pell’s relationship with the Pope seems close. Never denied it. Again, what precisely does that have to do with the congregation in Boggadanabri and their hard earned church and land?

There’s usually a reason one needs to strawman, coremelt. You might like to think what it is in your case.

Muslims are a single organisation in the same way as the RCC is (or perhaps they are a few). So would you be OK with all mosques that are associated with any given order of Islam of which a particular mosque has terrorist links being forfeit?

122

I don’t know the truth or otherwise of the Pell case however having read most of the witness statement during the Satyananda Yoga case it seems likely the statute of limitation would protect the wrong doers, sadly the victims can do little but throw out “incredible allegations” and try the case in the court of public opinion. Everyone is hoping for government compensation, I can’t see any real criminal charges at this late stage of proceedings .I’m not defending paedophile priests, would be happy to see them hang actually.

123

I tend to point out inaccuracies or (in this case) what I perceive to be specific points of principle, without being partisan towards an entire cause at issue.

This tends to lead to cross purposes discussions that go like this:

Me: No, there is no evidence that slave ship overseers whipped their captives a thousand times a day for fun. It’s a myth. They were undoubtedly assholes but they did not do this. Their slaves were valuable property. Why would they do this.

Others: Look Princhester you heartless beast, slave traders were complete assholes, who ripped innocent people from their former lives and sold them.

Me: yes, but they didn’t whip their captives a thousand times a day for fun.

Others: Oh, so you are saying slave traders were good guys, are you? They were the most villainous scum to walk the earth, but you’re defending them.

Me: well what I said was that they didn’t whip their captives a thousand times a day, which you haven’t rebutted.

Others: So you’re some sort of slave trader fetishist are you? Do you realise that slaves died during transportation like flies? Don’t you even care?

Yada, yada yada…

My point being, what I have said is that I see as unjust the suggestion that ordinary congregations who own their own assets should have them forfeited due to the wrongdoing of other unassociated congregations or parts of the RCC. Try to bear this in mind and if you are going to respond to me again, try to do so relevantly, could you? Last I checked, there hasn’t been any suggestion cops should forfeit their assets because some other cop was corrupt.

124

This is completely false. There is no central authority of Islam, some specific sects of Islam have a central authority and some don’t. Christianity as a whole has no central authority but the Roman Catholic Church very specifically does, the Pope. My cite above shows that the pope can laicize any priest or bishop with a papal decree.

125

You don’t understand the point about the difference between political reality and the black letter of non-legally binding rules, do you?

You seem to be struggling with the standard meaning of the term “completely”.

126

You’ve asked for cites and I’ve given them, the Pope has the power to laicize a priest or bishop by Papal decree. You find me one example in history where the pope issued such a decree specifically to laicize a priest / bishop and it was ignored?

127

I thought you didn’t want to talk about legal technicalities?

128

My point is show that both by his papal power of issuing a decree AND by political pressure he can either laicize a priest forcibly or cause them to request to be voluntarily laicized. Neither you or Princhester have given me any cites to suspect this is not the case.

129

I’d like you to find the last time in history the Pope used a decree to dismiss a bishop from the clerical state.

130

Nor would I. It’s absolutely factually accurate. The Pope has immediate executive authority over the entire Church.

What do you believe this proves?

131

Would you be happy with this sort of reasoning when it comes to responsibility for paedophiles?

Or to put it another way, can you point to the Canon Law that gives the Pope power to punish parishioners or priests for not doing or not covering up something illegal?

132

I see that while I’ve been typing you’ve admitted to politics being involved. Why would the Pope have the need? Couldn’t he just wield the ban hammer? Or is it the case that he sits atop a coalition of groups that is not monolithic and which he has to keep together by gentler means?

133

A vatican canonical trial can laiicize a Priest or Bishop after proceedings, this happened recently in 2014:

According to Church doctrine the Pope can also do this via Papal decree. The point of this is to show that clearly the RCC is one organisation because one central authority either a Vatican canonical court or the pope via a decree can order a priest or even a bishop to lose their position within the Church.

134

Try reading what I wrote and then try again.

135

Your link shows that a cardinal was tried for possession of child pornography, NOT for covering something up or failing to do something.

sigh

Is “The United States” one organization? How about “McDonald’s?”

136

I’m not playing your games Bricker. When damages are awarded against the RCC from victims of sex abuse its up to the courts in each country to decide if the RCC as an organisational whole is liable for the acts of certain high ranking members in its hierarchy. Legally the RCC tries to play games to say its not a single organisation in order to shield its assets, but its not up to you to decide that no matter how many times you state it.

They will certainly take the fact that central authority can dismiss (laiicize) priests worldwide as an interesting fact in making that decision.

137

You are aware that probably 90% of Vatican beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the ‘teachings of JC’?

As for the Cardinal I think it quite probable that he’s too frail and unwell to make the journey. It seems to me that video testimony would serve just as well, although not perhaps satisfying the desire of the media for spectacle and drama.

138

Can you name a single instance in which damages against a specific diocese have been imputed to “the RCC as an organisational whole?”

In other words, has what you’re describing ever actually happened? Or is the answer to that question also a game?

139

That raises an interesting question to me. The US Catholic church has paid out billions in relation to sex abuse. Does that money come from the diocese that made the settlements? And does that mean it came from tithes? I honestly don’t know where all the money comes from; i assume from your question that each diocese has a separate “treasury” that would pay out. I take it that there is no direct financial impact on the Vatican ?

140

In the Boston case the archdiocese had to come up with the money themselves. Some of it was insurance, some from selling property, including archdiocese and local parish property. I’m guessing the insurance company was somewhat surprised when O’Malley filed the “is priests raping children covered?” claim.

Here’s their report on the funding. it includes the $85 million settlement in 2003 with 522 victims, plus some other settlements for a total over $100 million.