|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 10, 2019 13:54:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 10, 2019 15:55:08 GMT
Perhaps. Or not. Yep, it looks like they're going with the "I would prefer not to" approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 10, 2019 16:26:21 GMT
Only an idiot organization would want laws to retroactively prosecute them and it’s silly to suggest that fighting that means the organization doesn’t care now.
They may not care now but not because they don’t want to pay for past crimes when they didn’t care a hoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 10, 2019 17:02:45 GMT
Only an idiot organization would want laws to retroactively prosecute them and it’s silly to suggest that fighting that means the organization doesn’t care now. They may not care now but not because they don’t want to pay for past crimes when they didn’t care a hoot. So, an organization that resolves to do the right thing even when it stands to cost them money is, in your eyes, not an honorable organization, but "an idiot organization". No need to point out the stench of that view; it's readily apparent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 20:53:04 GMT
Only an idiot organization would want laws to retroactively prosecute them and it’s silly to suggest that fighting that means the organization doesn’t care now. They may not care now but not because they don’t want to pay for past crimes when they didn’t care a hoot. So, an organization that resolves to do the right thing even when it stands to cost them money is, in your eyes, not an honorable organization, but "an idiot organization". No need to point out the stench of that view; it's readily apparent.
Come on, it's not like the catholic church goes around lecturing people about morality, or claims to have any kind of special moral status. They're an organisation governed by self-interest, like every other major organisation in the world. And why not? There's no reason for it to be otherwise, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2019 21:05:04 GMT
So, an organization that resolves to do the right thing even when it stands to cost them money is, in your eyes, not an honorable organization, but "an idiot organization". No need to point out the stench of that view; it's readily apparent.
Come on, it's not like the catholic church goes around lecturing people about morality, or claims to have any kind of special moral status. They're an organisation governed by self-interest, like every other major organisation in the world. And why not? There's no reason for it to be otherwise, of course. ...then it should pay taxes, especially Land Taxes and have audits.....like Trump! 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 21:13:51 GMT
Come on, it's not like the catholic church goes around lecturing people about morality, or claims to have any kind of special moral status. They're an organisation governed by self-interest, like every other major organisation in the world. And why not? There's no reason for it to be otherwise, of course. ...then it should pay taxes, especially Land Taxes and have audits.....like Trump! Hell yes. Profit is profit, tax those pedo lovers!
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 12, 2019 22:15:04 GMT
Well apparently there are many false abuse claims against the Catholic church... www.themediareport.com/2019/05/13/false-accsuations-against-catholic-priests-facts/so while there are some legitimate claims, many are either exaggerated or a flat out lie. so if they changed laws to make it easier to sue the Catholic church, I would have to assume, given that articles info there, many more false claims would be made and that takes $ away from the church which would be used for good. but since the general mainstream media is anti-Christian they will promote anything that makes Christianity (especially the Catholic church) look bad. but anything that makes Islam look bad they sweep under the rug. just shows you how corrupt they are when they attack what's proven good here (i.e. Christianity) and accept what's basically opposed to Christianity (i.e. Islam). but with that said... it's a touchy subject as you want those legitimately abused to get some form of compensation but at the same time, people being people, they lie just to get $ etc which downplays those with legitimate claims. besides... say someone was abused 20-30-40 years ago and they make a claim, how can they prove it happened? ; because without proof, or at least something to strongly suggest it occurred etc, it's easy to see how people will abuse this as a $ opportunity. so without proof, or something pretty darn close to hard proof, you have to default to the 'innocent til proven guilty' thing. because once someone ignores that, those who are innocent will be convicted by accusation. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2019 22:43:10 GMT
Well apparently there are many false abuse claims against the Catholic church... www.themediareport.com/2019/05/13/false-accsuations-against-catholic-priests-facts/so while there are some legitimate claims, many are either exaggerated or a flat out lie. so if they changed laws to make it easier to sue the Catholic church, I would have to assume, given that articles info there, many more false claims would be made and that takes $ away from the church which would be used for good. but since the general mainstream media is anti-Christian they will promote anything that makes Christianity (especially the Catholic church) look bad. but anything that makes Islam look bad they sweep under the rug. just shows you how corrupt they are when they attack what's proven good here (i.e. Christianity) and accept what's basically opposed to Christianity (i.e. Islam). but with that said... it's a touchy subject as you want those legitimately abused to get some form of compensation but at the same time, people being people, they lie just to get $ etc which downplays those with legitimate claims. besides... say someone was abused 20-30-40 years ago and they make a claim, how can they prove it happened? ; because without proof, or at least something to strongly suggest it occurred etc, it's easy to see how people will abuse this as a $ opportunity. so without proof, or something pretty darn close to hard proof, you have to default to the 'innocent til proven guilty' thing. because once someone ignores that, those who are innocent will be convicted by accusation. What a surprise! A pathetic Catholic apologist trying to minimise the level of criminality amongst Catholic priests and the cover up for centuries AND blame the victims for not having 'evidence' to be credible. You are disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 13, 2019 0:23:16 GMT
goz Put it this way, regardless of this particular subject... when someone is accused of a crime it's up to the person accusing them to produce proof. it's the whole 'innocent til proven guilty' thing and the way the law works. so what's so disgraceful about that? that stuff cannot be ignored otherwise someone can simply accuse someone of a crime and they are guilty because a person said they were without any proof. that's how innocent people get screwed over. you can surely see this much, right?
p.s. while I might be biased for the Catholic church (I am because it's the true church of Jesus Christ and the one He started, which makes it good at it's very core, and while some of it's members can become corrupt, it's official teachings are the truth on morals etc which makes it good), your clearly biased against it (along with the mainstream media in general). that's why what I said above is best as it removes bias, for or against, and relies on facts/evidence instead of accusation. but you seem to rely more on accusations (i.e. guilt by accusation) which is a bad way of looking at serious stuff like this since that will get many innocents convicted. because many people lie or exaggerate things in general to where if they make a serious accusation, it's not unreasonable to be a bit hesitant to believe them without some reasonable level of evidence to support their claim. because with your mindset/reasoning... someone could simply accuse you of something serious and you would be convicted and, obviously, you would not like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2019 1:02:05 GMT
goz Put it this way, regardless of this particular subject... when someone is accused of a crime it's up to the person accusing them to produce proof. it's the whole 'innocent til proven guilty' thing and the way the law works. so what's so disgraceful about that? that stuff cannot be ignored otherwise someone can simply accuse someone of a crime and they are guilty because a person said they were without any proof. that's how innocent people get screwed over. you can surely see this much, right?
p.s. while I might be biased for the Catholic church, your clearly biased against it (along with the mainstream media in general). that's why what I said above is best as it removes bias, for or against, and relies on facts/evidence instead of accusation.
What is disgraceful is the way the Catholic Church and now Catholic apologists like yourself covered up the evidence of these crimes for so many years so that it would be ore difficult for the victims who were mostly children at the time to be believed, and THEN claim that they are 'fake' claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 13, 2019 1:18:20 GMT
gozYou completely ignored the whole basic 'innocent til proven guilty' thing above. which is a major problem right there. but that aside for a moment... I doubt any decent person, Catholic or not, would cover up legitimate abuse unless they are quite corrupt. anyone with a conscience would not ignore that if they knew for certain some child/kid etc is being abused. those that do will be culpable before God for it as even if they did not directly take part in the abuse, if they cover it up, they are going to pay dearly for that. so sure, it seems pretty safe to say there are cases of abuse that have happened in the Catholic church. but when it comes to giving someone jail time and other serious claims... you have to have some sort of proof otherwise the accused would be innocent by default as it's just the way things work. so sure, it sucks that things have been covered up but without proof, what can you really do? ; as without proof one has to be assumed innocent as it's just the way things work. either way, even if some corrupt priests etc get away with the abuse in this life, they will pay severely for it in the next as they can't cheat God.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2019 1:39:00 GMT
goz You completely ignored the whole basic 'innocent til proven guilty' thing above. which is a major problem right there. but that aside for a moment... I doubt any decent person, Catholic or not, would cover up legitimate abuse unless they are quite corrupt. anyone with a conscience would not ignore that if they knew for certain some child/kid etc is being abused. those that do will be culpable before God for it as even if they did not directly take part in the abuse, if they cover it up, they are going to pay dearly for that. so sure, it seems pretty safe to say there are cases of abuse that have happened in the Catholic church. but when it comes to giving someone jail time and other serious claims... you have to have some sort of proof otherwise the accused would be innocent by default as it's just the way things work. so sure, it sucks that things have been covered up but without proof, what can you really do? ; as without proof one has to be assumed innocent as it's just the way things work. either way, even if some corrupt priests etc get away with the abuse in this life, they will pay severely for it in the next as they can't cheat God. The innocent until proven guilty thing is a given, however the cards are stacked against young victims of 'historical' crimes. ...and yet the Catholic Church hierarchy did this consistently persistently and endemically to protect the reputation of a corrupt church. Do you want to know the reason I get so angry about this? It is because as an atheist who doesn't believe in the next life and God, in MY view they have got away with horrendous crimes against young people ( and some women) for decades and centuries scott free, due to this evil hypocritical criminal institution we call the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2019 1:51:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 13, 2019 2:00:05 GMT
goz Yeah, it's sad. but what can you really do about it? I understand being upset, but the world ain't perfect, so sometimes horrible crimes do happen. But the church itself is good. sure, there are some corrupt people in there but the church has done far more good than bad in the long term. I can see your point here in that if they are not punished in this world then for you they will get away with it. but it's not a criminal institution as that's just you being biased against it as they do far more good in the world than bad as it's official teachings are good. so don't let the actions of a few make you think the entire thing is corrupt, it's not.
Yeah, that's a good point.
because even if they gave a victim a million dollars... it's not really going to do much to help that person since it's just money(it's not going to cure that person of their suffering etc), but a million dollars can be quite beneficial to help a lot of others with charity etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2019 2:23:54 GMT
goz Yeah, it's sad. but what can you really do about it? I understand being upset, but the world ain't perfect, so sometimes horrible crimes do happen. But the church itself is good. sure, there are some corrupt people in there but the church has done far more good than bad in the long term. I can see your point here in that if they are not punished in this world then for you they will get away with it. but it's not a criminal institution as that's just you being biased against it as they do far more good in the world than bad as it's official teachings are good. so don't let the actions of a few make you think the entire thing is corrupt, it's not.
Yeah, that's a good point.
because even if they gave a victim a million dollars... it's not really going to do much to help that person since it's just money(it's not going to cure that person of their suffering etc), but a million dollars can be quite beneficial to help a lot of others with charity etc.
I have two comments. 1. The Catholic Church cannot be classified as good and moral when they systematically covered up sexual crimes for decades and centuries. At best it is hypocritical and self serving, putting its own reputation ahead of the suffering of those buggered or sexually assaulted by paedophile priests whose activities were known and were hidden covered up or moved, at worst, and I believe it to be criminally negligent and open to payouts to the victims who can somehow prove their cases..as in the case of George Pell.etc 2. It has been proven that it is a criminal institution in this wholesale coverup of criminals performing criminal behaviours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2019 8:34:26 GMT
Yeah, that's a good point.
because even if they gave a victim a million dollars... it's not really going to do much to help that person since it's just money(it's not going to cure that person of their suffering etc), but a million dollars can be quite beneficial to help a lot of others with charity etc.
And I answered that point, and I'll repeat it. The diocese should apply to the Vatican for reimbursement. The Vatican needs to make good on any losses the diocese suffers, since it was Vatican policy they were carrying out. As to the award (a million or whatever amount) to the victim, it is not expected to cure their psychological damage. It compensates the victim by curing the kinds of practical problems that can be solved by having enough money.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 13, 2019 12:39:46 GMT
Well apparently there are many false abuse claims against the Catholic church... www.themediareport.com/2019/05/13/false-accsuations-against-catholic-priests-facts/
so while there are some legitimate claims, many are either exaggerated or a flat out lie. so if they changed laws to make it easier to sue the Catholic church, I would have to assume, given that articles info there, many more false claims would be made and that takes $ away from the church which would be used for good.but since the general mainstream media is anti-Christian they will promote anything that makes Christianity (especially the Catholic church) look bad. but anything that makes Islam look bad they sweep under the rug. just shows you how corrupt they are when they attack what's proven good here (i.e. Christianity) and accept what's basically opposed to Christianity (i.e. Islam). but with that said... it's a touchy subject as you want those legitimately abused to get some form of compensation but at the same time, people being people, they lie just to get $ etc which downplays those with legitimate claims. besides... say someone was abused 20-30-40 years ago and they make a claim, how can they prove it happened? ; because without proof, or at least something to strongly suggest it occurred etc, it's easy to see how people will abuse this as a $ opportunity. so without proof, or something pretty darn close to hard proof, you have to default to the 'innocent til proven guilty' thing. because once someone ignores that, those who are innocent will be convicted by accusation. Nice going. I'm glad to see that you're at least broad-minded enough to allow that 'some' of those claims might be true. I wonder if you're as willing to admit that 'some' of those priests were covered up for and moved about by the Church 'some' of the time--meaning many, many priests, many, many times. Of course, we all know that it's anti-Xtian to acknowledge that the Church is a human institution, run by fallible humans, prone to both human error and the typical human desire to cover up error rather than admit it, right? I wonder if you'd be so tolerant of the whole thing were there to be a story regarding large-scale molestation and abuse of children in the institutions of another religion, say Judaism or Islam. Somehow, I get a very strong feeling you'd be well in the forefront of the torch and pitchfork mob, screaming for the blood of these degenerate infidels; but because Christ's name has been tacked onto the whole shameful mess, we should treat the matter as one for utter skepticism and the open suggestion that the majority of victims should be automatically disbelieved, and any past wrongdoing ought to be quietly swept beneath the rug. Even though I think Christ is a fairy tale, I can attach enough integrity to the ethical teachings of that fairy tale to have a strong suspicion of what that Christ would have thought of a viewpoint such as yours.
|
|
