Thank you. What you have stated clearly is that your argument is “the RCC is rich and powerful and their accounting / legal tricks have got away with covering up their priests fucking children before and because they are rich and powerful they will get away with it again”. I think reading other peoples responses on here thats its clear that most people on this board think you are just as slimy a piece of shit as Cardinal Pell is.
Yes. Every diocese is a separate corporation.
Catholics don’t really use the word “tithe,” in the same way that some evangelical faiths do, to mean a mandatory ten percent contribution to the church from each member’s wages. But ultimately, donations from people are the only real source of new income apart from interest on investment and sale of property.
So, correct: there is no direct financial impact on the Vatican. Several dioceses declared bankruptcy in the wake of large judgements against them: Portland, Oregon; Davenport, Iowa; and San Diego, California come to mind as examples,
In the Roman Catholic Churchs legal fiction you mean. It’s certainly within a governments power to declare that they are all answerable to one authority and so the greater church, the Holy See / Vatican should be liable. It hasn’t happened yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
You said: “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.”
I am asking you if that has ever happened.
Are you abandoning that line of argument?
Thus far, your approach here has been to declare your wishes to be historical fact, and then angrily reject challenges to those declarations as “games.”
I don’t know what most people on this board think. I hope that, on a board voted to fighting ignorance, that most people can discern the difference between your sequential bullshit and actual facts, especially when I point out the specifics of your error.
You seem to feel that Cardinal Pell is a person of moral cowardice. I don’t disagree. But you also seem to feel that because he is morally corrupt, any accusation you make must pass unchallenged. You confuse an attack on your specific claims with a defense of Pell in general.
In that, I fervently hope you are in the minority here.
You are absolutely right. It is within a government’s power.
Do you contend it is realistic? For example, typically governments work within the framework of law. This means that there are pre-existing standards used to judge that kind of determination.
Do you know what those standards are? Do you know how how they apply in this case?
Or are you simply saying that there is some non-zero chance that it could happen, in the same way that I could point out we could be visited by alien intelligences, or discover cold fusion, or that the Sharknado film franchise will offer an entry that wins the Academy Award for Best Picture? That kind of “It hasn’t happened yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen?”
I’m saying that you Bricker are full of shit. The Australian Royal Commission will finish it’s job without taking one iota of opinion of what you think. And if they decide to charge Cardinal Pell with criminal offences then the law will play out as it should.
And nothing you posted here will matter at all.
That’s certainly true.
But my underlying contention here is that I understand, far better than you, the rules under which such processes operate. I don’t say that my words here CHANGE the result: I say that my words here are a more accurate DESCRIPTION of the result.
To that end, I say that the Royal Commission will NOT charge Cardinal Pell with a single criminal offense.
What do you say?
The parishioners are, for the most part, blameless. But if their local church must be torn down and the land sold in order to pay for restitution for victims, so be it. Like I said, however, the issues with the Church are systemic, and furthermore, it’s not like the Vatican is wanting for money, so if the diocese is left to its own devices when it comes to finding necessary funds, that’s ultimately the fault and choice of the RCC.
I’d personally like to see the RCC sued into oblivion and religions of all stripes lose their tax-exempt status.
Well, seeing as we’re nit-picking and dancing around semantics, I’ll play along too.
You are right, the Royal Commission will not charge Pell with anything. It is not within their powers to do so. However, when their final report is released (some time early 2018 I’ll guess) they can certainly recommend that charges be laid. And RC’s are not some toothless tiger…their advisories are taken EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY here in Aus, and will be followed.
Given Pell’s testimony to date, and the comments of the RC (which I have been watching live and not relying upon the media to feed me) I believe it is highly unlikely that Pell will escape charges in the future.
I disagree. I predict that Pell will not be criminally charged, period.
If I am right, and by, say, April 2018, no Australian criminal charges have been leveled against Pell, will you concede I understand this process better than you do?
Today is even more damning that yesterday, if that’s possible.
Isn’t it. So pissed off that I have to start work in 6min 
Precisely. coremelt your whole “I’m right so there, anyone who points out any irritating fault in my facts or reasoning is ‘playing games’” schtick started out lame, and is now getting old.
Your ability to miss the point is truly spectacular.
So you are advocating the confiscation of property from a community organisation because they belong to the same religion as some people who did something wrong?
Let’s just be clear here. You are really that much of a bigoted asshole?
Yes, let’s. I am saying that if the local diocese is successfully sued for wrongs within that diocese, they will have to get the money from somewhere. It’s up to the Vatican as to whether or not it relieves the burden of the diocese and pays the victims directly or lets the diocese potentially lose major assets.
I would like to amend my OP. Having George appear before the RC in absentia so to speak has given us the opportunity to see him in the wild, something that would not have happened if he’d appeared in person.
Thank you George. May you sleep well tonight.
What amazes me the most is how willing he was to paint the Church as essentially conspiring to protect paedophiles, with Pell being the only innocent man in town. I mean, if we accept his testimony at face value, we’re led to believe that there was systemic corruption all around him wherever he operated.
And even if we accept that these were different times with different social mores, the actions of several priests were so shocking and abhorrent that parents and teachers had to devise strategies in order to keep the children safe.
Not really a flattering picture Pell was painting…
It certainly isn’t.
But there is, and should be, a huge gulf between “not flattering,” and “criminal.”
There is always somebody who wants to stand up for the peadophiles.
I do not like thee, Cardinal Pell,
The reason why - I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Cardinal Pell
(Apologies to Tom Brown.)