Ongoing religious scandals

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?


It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

This generation covered it up.
The current Pope denies Rome had any role to play in the cover up.

As a matter of interest -Why should you pay taxes to support older generations?
When you are a pensioner will you refuse to take a pension as the generations to come will be funding it?

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?


It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

Surely it's better for the Vatican to pay than the Irish non-Catholic Taxpayers who had absolutely no involvement in it what-so-ever.

Why should my taxes be spent paying for the crimes of the Church?

qrrgprgua

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This generation covered it up.
The current Pope denies Rome had any role to play in the cover up.

As a matter of interest -Why should you pay taxes to support older generations?
When you are a pensioner will you refuse to take a pension and the generations to come will be funding it?

Then we should pay the thousands of religous who did not abuse and who gave their time unpaid to teach irish children for generations... I know a right does not make the wrong right, but you have to balance the argument. The current Pope did not abuse or coverup, he actually exposed abuse, atleast the case we brought to him of Fr. Maciel...

The church did a lot of good in ireland,

qrrgprgua

Sonics2k wrote: »

Surely it's better for the Vatican to pay than the Irish non-Catholic Taxpayers who had absolutely no involvement in it what-so-ever.

Why should my taxes be spent paying for the crimes of the Church?

You are also paying for the abused in protestant institutions... It wasn't just the catholic church.

It was the state who sent them to the churchs.

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its not theirs to flog... It belongs to all catholics.... And was inherited... Its like lenister house should be sold to pay the bailout

So was the liability for past crimes.

And no, the Pieta is not like Leinster House. One is the seat of a government - the other is a statue behind a glass case.

We are however looking at selling off other 'national assets' to fund the bailout so why shouldn't Rome sell off some of it's assets to meet it's liabilities?

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You are also paying for the abused in protestant institutions... It wasn't just the catholic church.

It was the state who sent them to the churchs.

And the Churches and those who covered it up should pay, not the taxpayers.

Give me a good reason why I should pay for what your Church covered up, when it's one of the richest organizations in the world?

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?


It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

So you reckon that victims of child abuse shouldn't be compensated by the religious orders for crimes committed by the order because either the members are dead or the percentage of abusers within the clergy was in the minority?

The religious orders gave the abusers places of privilege and authority within communities. The abusers had access to the children due to their position in the religious orders. If the orders had any integrity, they would be tripping over themselves to make sure that victims were compensated for the abuse.

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You are also paying for the abused in protestant institutions... It wasn't just the catholic church.

It was the state who sent them to the churchs.

And it was members of the churches who abused the children. The state is paying compensation for their part, the religious orders can do likewise.

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Then we should pay the thousands of religous who did not abuse and who gave their time unpaid to teach irish children for generations... I know a right does not make the wrong right, but you have to balance the argument. The current Pope did not abuse or coverup, he actually exposed abuse, atleast the case we brought to him of Fr. Maciel...

The church did a lot of good in ireland,

Unpaid were they?
Does the provision of food, accommodation, health care, a stipend, etc not count?

So you are saying that because the majority of clergy did not abuse children the RCC should not have to pay compensation? The majority of taxpayers did not abuse children either - so why should the State pay?

The RCC was tasked with the care and education of children by the State. In many of the institutions run by the RCC those children were physically, mentally and sexually abused and the RCC not only covered it up, but moved the abusers to other locations where they continued to commit their appalling crimes.
The State is paying compensation for it's role.
Why shouldn't the RCC?

qrrgprgua

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Unpaid were they?
Does the provision of food, accommodation, health care, a stipend, etc not count?

So you are saying that because the majority of clergy did not abuse children the RCC should not have to pay compensation? The majority of taxpayers did not abuse children either - so why should the State pay?

The RCC was tasked with the care and education of children by the State. In many of the institutions run by the RCC those children were physically, mentally and sexually abused and the RCC not only covered it up, but moved the abusers to other locations where they continued to commit their appalling crimes.
The State is paying compensation for it's role.
Why shouldn't the RCC?

I know yu think the churchi is one institution, but its not. For example christian brothers in ireland has nothing to do with jesuits. Abuse commited by christian brother should be paid by them. However the only way they can pay is by selling property, mostly schools, which are held in trust. the state is welcome to the property, as most of the christian brothers are old and they are no longer running the schools. The institutions are no hiding money in bank accounts somewhere,, its all transparent. There isn,t the money and who will buy the schools ?

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I know yu think the churchi is one institution, but its not. For example christian brothers in ireland has nothing to do with jesuits. Abuse commited by christian brother should be paid by them. However the only way they can pay is by selling property, mostly schools, which are held in trust. the state is welcome to the property, as most of the christian brothers are old and they are no longer running the schools. The institutions are no hiding money in bank accounts somewhere,, its all transparent. There isn,t the money and who will buy the schools ?

Yes it is one institution.
One institution that has many branches.
Christian Brothers, Jesuits, Sacred Heart Missionaries, Presentation Brothers, Parish priests, Bishops, Cardinals etc etc all answer to Rome.
It is one institution with the Pope as it's head.

Would you also claim that only the department of education is responsible rather then the whole Irish Government? After all - what does the department of agriculture have to do with what happened in schools?

Indeed, why should the Irish State pay anything? According to your argument the abuse happened under previous governments, many of those who were TDs and ministers then are dead or have retired - so why should we all be paying?

F12

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?
It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

Are you serious? Are you not a Christian? The whole basis of culpability of humans according to the Christian belief system is that every generation is similarly culpable for the evils of the fathers. Remember the theory of 'Original Sin', twisted illogic that it may be?

If you inherited the faith that caused such perversion and misery, of course you are to the inheritor of that same abusive ideology that permitted and excused the perversion in the first place, so you must make good the evils done by your forefathers. The stain of that evil is on you by way of inheritance of ideology, just like any other thing passed down to you. The laws of the religion that allowed wilful ignorance to persist and flourish so that the most vulnerable of individuals in society could be abused in the pursuit of blind and blinkered obedience to a perverted priesthood, is part of your inheritance.
If your father owned a fortune and left it to you, would you not rightly claim it? If he left debts, they likewise would be yours. Pay the debt and put things right. It could not be simpler.

qrrgprgua

F12 wrote: »

If you inherited the faith that caused such perversion and misery

Ok so I presume all the atheists will pay for crimes committed by Atheists?

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Ok so I presume all the atheists will pay for crimes committed by Atheists?

Not that they were all atheists (Himmler was a devout Catholic) - but the people of Germany did pay compensation for the crimes committed by the Nazis.

Exactly what crimes have been committed by an Atheist institution in Ireland?

If I knew an atheist was abusing children I would not hesitate to inform the Gardaí - pity those in power in the RCC didn't do likewise when the abusers were Catholic clergy eh?

As I am currently paying for the crimes committed by Catholics I assume that were an Atheist to commit crimes of a similar nature you would be willing to pay -

MrPudding

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?


It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

This is pretty much bollocks. It is a well established principle of law that a master is liable for the misdeeds of his servants. In more modern terms, an employer is generally liable for the crimes and damage of its employees.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Ok so I presume all the atheists will pay for crimes committed by Atheists?

As I mention above, this is not a case of all people with a particular label being liable for the actions of other with that label, it is an employer being liable for the damage caused by employees.

I take it then that you are against rape victims being compensated for their injuries? Otherwise, how else would they be compensated? Given that some priests raped dozens of children, how would you expect those children to secure compensation?

The principle of vicarious liability exists so victims can be adequately compensated for the crimes perpetrated against them. If you don't think they should be adequately compensated then I reckon you need to think long and hard about your supposedly christian beliefs and ask yourself not what would Jesus do, but what would any decent human being do.

MrP

F12

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Ok so I presume all the atheists will pay for crimes committed by Atheists?

That's a silly argument. There is no collective body or church of 'Atheism', unlile the RCC, no hierarchy, no congregations who act in accordance with the will or whim of a pope-like figure. There are no prayers, rituals, no dances, no chantings, no prostrating of the body before altars of some unseen power by men in lace and frocks who mumble words in bibilical verbiage. Yet again this is the typical strawman argument used to divert attention away from the discussion at hand, and on to someone else or other group, which is part of the mindset that allowed and promoted the evils in the first place.

Any group, religious, secular, political or otherwise, whose members tolerate harm to be done whilst the abusers claim the benefit of being a member of that group, allow it to continue, and then try to weasle out of their collective and individual responsibility when caught, should always and ever be made to answer for the evils permitted. No excuses, no ifs and buts, but stand up on their hind legs and made full amends, no matter what needs to be done. It's what Christians talk about, and supposedly must do, but like many other things, they selectively choose to believe what suits them and ignore what doesn't, so it ends up being seen for what it is - weak excuse.

Delirium

I must say that I am enjoying the irony of a poster who I assume is a Christian complaining about paying compensation for abuse carried out by a previous generation, while he/she is a member of a religious group that believes all people have to be saved for a sin that is centuries old.

F12

Sonics2k wrote: »

Surely it's better for the Vatican to pay than the Irish non-Catholic Taxpayers who had absolutely no involvement in it what-so-ever.

Why should my taxes be spent paying for the crimes of the Church?

Ah well, that would be a euchemenical matter....;) LINK

marienbad

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Don't see why the orders should have to pay in the first place..... Its like saying I should have to pay for my Fathers mistakes or my Grandfathers mistakes.

Unless you were part of the abuse either in the order or as part of the government, Why should you pay for it.

That said, most orders are paying, its just that the wealth they had 5 years ago was mostly property, property is now worth less than 50% of what it was worth. No point beating a dead horse over it.

Will you get real for God's sake, the catholic church is no different that any other organisation when it has found to be at, and accepted, fault.

It pays compensation, just like union carbide and bhopal, I am sure the shareholders and pension funds who had nothing to do with that disaster were just as outraged as you- but if your managers don't manage there is a price to be paid.

smokingman

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Ok so I presume all the atheists will pay for crimes committed by Atheists?

I would guess there's far less crimes committed by atheists to be honest. Seeing as they don't have to be told what's right or wrong and can figure it out by themselves without the carrot of eternal ignorance or the threat of eternal condescension.

By the way, how's the Tesco boycott going?

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

This is pretty much bollocks. It is a well established principle of law that a master is liable for the misdeeds of his servants. In more modern terms, an employer is generally liable for the crimes and damage of its employees.

I agree.
and the Irish church rather than go into vcourt set up their own compensationsystem whiuch
1. dint require proof and just asked the victims to tell them their stories
2. Had five levels of abuse
3. awarded quicker thzan state system
4. awarded higher levels of compensation in comparison to state awards in the UK or australia. Not forgetting these higher levels are with a lower indeed zero standard f proof.
5. Brought in vetting procedures for seminarians and new reporting procedures and child protection procedures . In comparison the charity "one in four" only brought in manditory reporting of abuse last year. the church has it for over ten years.

It isnt by any means perfect but it shows the church is acting faster than the state.

ISAW

F12 wrote: »

T

Any group, religious, secular, political or otherwise, whose members tolerate harm to be done whilst the abusers claim the benefit of being a member of that group, allow it to continue, and then try to weasle out of their collective and individual responsibility when caught, should always and ever be made to answer for the evils permitted. No excuses, no ifs and buts, but stand up on their hind legs and made full amends, no matter what needs to be done. .

Exactly! just what the RCC say and implement in their policies.

robindch

marienbad wrote: »

[...] the catholic church is no different that any other organisation when it has found to be at, and accepted, fault.

Just on a point of fact -- the Vatican (as opposed to the dioceses) has accepted no responsibility at any point for the abuse scandal that has engulfed it for the last twenty years. On the contrary, in every public statement it's made, Ratzinger and his predecessor have explicitly denied corporate responsibility for the actions of the employees they appointed.

Read, for example, the pastoral letter from Ratzinger to the catholics (not the people, mind!) of Ireland:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

It's a masterpiece of amoral, political jesuitical wordslicing.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

F12 wrote: »

No excuses, no ifs and buts, but stand up on their hind legs and made full amends, no matter what needs to be done. .

Exactly! just what the RCC say and implement in their policies.

The Vatican has not instructed its client dioceses and orders around the world to co-operate fully with the local civil authorities. Hence:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minister-says-orders-cant-pay-their-share-of-15bn-abuse-bill-3073838.html

theIndo wrote:

EDUCATION Minister Ruairi Quinn yesterday admitted publicly for the first time that religious orders don't have the cash or assets to pay their share of the compensation bill for abuse. And he said he had no intention of bankrupting the orders -- which leaves him facing a massive battle to recover their half of a €1.5bn bill. The taxpayer is already picking up €750m of the expected final cost but now faces having to pay far more.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

The Vatican has not instructed its client dioceses and orders around the world to co-operate fully with the local civil authorities.

Wrong again!
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

Motu Proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (MP SST) of 30 April 2001 together with the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

Interesting to see that, since (AFAIR) Ratzinger mentioned in a speech a couple of years ago, that local civil law should not always be followed, since it could lead to people making false allegations against priests. A quick google doesn't produce the quote unfortunately.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Interesting to see that, since (AFAIR) Ratzinger mentioned in a speech a couple of years ago, that local civil law should not always be followed, since it could lead to people making false allegations against priests. A quick google doesn't produce the quote unfortunately.

Hmmm deja vu
- a bit like the evidence proving 6.5% of convicted pedophiles being priests -you didnt produce that and the evidence about 4% of pedophiles being priests -didnt produce that.

Now you claim the Pope had a policy of not reporting -also not produced.

When does "no evidence of dragons" become "no dragons"?

AFAIK before he even became Pôpe Ratzinger updated and clarified reporting procedures
I think it was back around 2001. But the procedures he clarified were already there in the canon law of the 1980s. - I reproduce the references to it above.

Canon law by the way is NOT criminal law. the church deals wit its own business - whether or not it allows a priest to operate as a priest. the state has no hand act or part in that. Nor does church try local crimes. That is for the local law in that state.

It is another part of the myth of "Vatican collusion to quash criminal prosecution".

Sarky

You seem to be missing the part where a bunch of priests raped a load of children. It really doesn't matter how separate you want Canon law to be. They committed horrible crimes, should be subject to local law, and the higher offices in the church are doing their damndest to interfere with that and deny their responsibility.

In the face of such frankly evil douchebaggery, all your arguments ring increasingly hollow.









I'd say about 6.5% more hollow each time. :pac:

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

You seem to be missing the part where a bunch of priests raped a load of children. It really doesn't matter how separate you want Canon law to be. They committed horrible crimes, should be subject to local law, and the higher offices in the church are doing their damndest to interfere with that and deny their responsibility.

In the face of such frankly evil douchebaggery, all your arguments ring increasingly hollow.









I'd say about 6.5% more hollow each time. :pac:

FYI. Whilst your post was good, I thanked you merely for the excellent use of my new favourite word: douchebaggery.

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

FYI. Whilst your post was good, I thanked you merely for the excellent use of my new favourite word: douchebaggery.

MrP

I also applaud 'douchbaggery' and posit that the hollowness of the argument has now reached 65.0%