|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 23, 2019 14:04:09 GMT
The coverage feels like universal condemnation while the cover-up is not. Most priests are guilty of nothing except maybe confidentiality of confessions and trusting their cardinals but it sure does feel like all of them are boinking kids once "media" gets done with them.
Yeah, because the world hates the truth (which basically means liberals hate the truth) so it attacks the Catholic church as much as it can in a attempt to make it look bad and draw people away from it and turn them against it.
besides from what I have heard... it's more of a homosexual problem within the church than a pedophile problem. but the media won't acknowledge that because it does not play inline with their narrative as they can't make homosexuals look bad since it's unpopular with the liberal media. so they got to twist the truth and make it look like pedophiles so everyone hates the church more and I assume they convince some that there are pedophiles everywhere within the Catholic church when it's simply not true.
from a quick search...
a quote from one of the articles there...
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 23, 2019 16:34:01 GMT
My two cents.
People are responsible for what they do, not for what they don't do. So unless laity members of the RCC deliberately withheld courtroom-solid evidence that would have brought down pedophile clergymen, or deliberately lied, they are not responsible for the pedophiles within the RCC.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 21:16:53 GMT
Could you be any more stupid? Humanity is to blame for global warming. ( It was you who brought this stupid red herring onto this thread and I made a joke of it) Catholics form part of humanity. I post interesting and challenging topics for discussion. Others are discussing the topic, why can't you? I certainly am discussing it, by challenging your reason for posting it. FFS. Why does anyone post anything? It is a FACT that the Catholic Church has been corrupt and thousands if not millions ( over time) of young people have been affected by the crimes committed by priests etc. No-one stopped them for centuries. It is a more than fair question to ask why...your sensitivities notwithstanding. Care to give me your reasons?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 21:21:37 GMT
Of course I am serious. If you actually read all that I wrote you seem to have not understood what I have been saying. Why do you continue to not understand what I and others have posted about church courts? You keep attempting to make them equivalent to civil courts, when they are not. My guess is that you lack the knowledge that comes either through academic study or actual experience with a church organization. Or perhaps you do understand but are just posting out of a rabid hatred of the Catholic Church so you refuse them any latitude in conducting their internal affairs, and just want to take anything they do that is not to your liking as corruption? Congratulations, you have brought me to conclude that they are 100% correct in how they are proceeding. Yes, he was convicted, and probably guilty, but I was not in court and it is possible he didn't get a fair trial in some ways. He isn't going anyway anytime soon so cannot harm anyone whether still a Cardinal or not. Taking their own deliberate time to decide his fate is being prudent. What if they just threw him to the winds and he won an appeal in the civil process? Would they then not be obligated to restore him to the College of Cardinals? You seem to be mired in the 12th Century when there was a real debate in England over jurisdiction to try criminal offences by clerics. Henry II and Becket are long gone, and this is no longer a debate. Let me put it quite clearly for the dummies. In modern Western society, Church courts of any kind are meaningless and toothless tigers. In this case were they to try him in absentia, it would ONLY be a face saving mechanism for the Catholic Church and a case of too little too late. It matters little to his victims whether he is frocked or defrocked ( which he claimed as a reason in his defence, how could he bugger a little boy frocked? LOL) as he is now where he belongs ( admittedly rather too late) in jail.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 21:24:06 GMT
I certainly am discussing it, by challenging your reason for posting it. Her motives are increasingly more suspect in my opinion as well. WHAT, about truth do you religious bozos NOT understand?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 23, 2019 21:26:52 GMT
Let me put it quite clearly for the dummies. In modern Western society, Church courts of any kind are meaningless and toothless tigers. In this case were they to try him in absentia, it would ONLY be a face saving mechanism for the Catholic Church and a case of too little too late. It matters little to his victims whether he is frocked or defrocked ( which he claimed as a reason in his defence, how could he bugger a little boy frocked? LOL) as he is now where he belongs ( admittedly rather too late) in jail. They are not trying him on the basis of whether he is in jail. They are trying him in the basis of what they are supposed to do regardless of secular law. If the law found him not guilty would this trial still be “toothless”? Even secular law doesn’t follow that kind of logic. That is the thing you keep ignoring because you are insisting the church should live by secular law rather than their beliefs like all theophobiacs think.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 21:28:30 GMT
Yay, Congratulations, you just used one of the many logical fallacies, this ne called.. .'but Muslims'... saying that Catholics are not guilty because 'Look...someone else is worse'! You are a pathetic apologist. I made a relevant comparison, you stupid headless chicken. Western media (foremost from countries with a strong anti catholic attitude since the late Tudor monarchs) is obsessed with abuse cases within the catholic church that are often very old and at the same time, something that happens by the millions like circumcision, is seemingly accepted, because "it's their culture". Or if you think of Hollywood smugs patting themselves on the back for giving "Spotlight" the award for "Best picture" in 2016, only to fall flat on their noses just one year later in the #metoo era. The wonderful thing about social progress, particularly in Western societies, is that we break down the evils and moral indiscretions of the past and expose them for what they are. It is a long and complex topic to discuss comparisons between culture and religions and it is not ALWAYS relevent and equivalent....something about....apples and oranges?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 21:34:49 GMT
The coverage feels like universal condemnation while the cover-up is not. Most priests are guilty of nothing except maybe confidentiality of confessions and trusting their cardinals but it sure does feel like all of them are boinking kids once "media" gets done with them.
Yeah, because the world hates the truth (which basically means liberals hate the truth) so it attacks the Catholic church as much as it can in a attempt to make it look bad and draw people away from it and turn them against it.
besides from what I have heard... it's more of a homosexual problem within the church than a pedophile problem. but the media won't acknowledge that because it does not play inline with their narrative as they can't make homosexuals look bad since it's unpopular with the liberal media. so they got to twist the truth and make it look like pedophiles so everyone hates the church more and I assume they convince some that there are pedophiles everywhere within the Catholic church when it's simply not true.
from a quick search...
a quote from one of the articles there...
Nothing to see here, folks, move along, please. Apologist garbage only on display. NO, the world was appalled by the truth that Catholic priests were systematically and endemically abusing children with their crimes being covered up by the Catholic hierarchy for decades if not century. As if that was not bad enough, the Vatican is even now loath to act against carinals at the top of their hierarchy like George Pell despite him being found guilty and in ail.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 21:43:27 GMT
My two cents. People are responsible for what they do, not for what they don't do. So unless laity members of the RCC deliberately withheld courtroom-solid evidence that would have brought down pedophile clergymen, or deliberately lied, they are not responsible for the pedophiles within the RCC. ...and this is exactly the point. and the question I was attempting to ask before the apologists got on board and both disliked me asking it and questioning my motives. It raises an interesting subject which is in law ( depending on jurisdiction) is called 'an accessory after the fact' which is often a crime itself. It is a matter of supposition whether the laity fall into this category. It is obvious that many did and certainly the Catholic Church as an entity was guilty of this criminal behaviour. This is now what all the fuss is about. The 'lack' of action. With the quoted statement from you, are you stating categorically that the laity and Catholic hierarchy are innocent and guilt rests entirely with the perpetrators?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 23, 2019 22:55:26 GMT
I can't report what I don't know about.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 23, 2019 23:00:16 GMT
With the quoted statement from you, are you stating categorically that the laity and Catholic hierarchy are innocent and guilt rests entirely with the perpetrators? It depends. If members of or workers for the RCC (I'll call them bystanders) didn't know that particular RCC members (I'll call them perpetrators) molested children, then the bystanders are innocent. If the bystanders know that the perpetrators are guilty but do nothing, which includes not doing anything to hinder justice, then the bystanders are innocent as well IMO. They could say that they didn't want to believe the crimes were true. But if the bystanders actively prevent investigations and cover up what the perpetrators did, to prevent the perpetrators from facing secular justice, then the bystanders are guilty.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 24, 2019 3:03:24 GMT
With the quoted statement from you, are you stating categorically that the laity and Catholic hierarchy are innocent and guilt rests entirely with the perpetrators? It depends. If members of or workers for the RCC (I'll call them bystanders) didn't know that particular RCC members (I'll call them perpetrators) molested children, then the bystanders are innocent. If the bystanders know that the perpetrators are guilty but do nothing, which includes not doing anything to hinder justice, then the bystanders are innocent as well IMO. But if the bystanders actively prevent investigations and cover up what the perpetrators did, to prevent the perpetrators from facing secular justice, then the bystanders are guilty. then The first statement means that they would be lying in the second statement.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 24, 2019 4:47:49 GMT
Let me put it quite clearly for the dummies. In modern Western society, Church courts of any kind are meaningless and toothless tigers. In this case were they to try him in absentia, it would ONLY be a face saving mechanism for the Catholic Church and a case of too little too late. It matters little to his victims whether he is frocked or defrocked ( which he claimed as a reason in his defence, how could he bugger a little boy frocked? LOL) as he is now where he belongs ( admittedly rather too late) in jail. The only dummy I have seen posting in this thread appears to be yourself. Once again you appear to miss the point of church courts no matter how many times their modern purpose has been explained to you. They have a lot of meaning to a member of a faith, as their status in that faith or church is determined by them. I have rarely seen an example of anybody being so "thick" on this board. My guess is that your hatred for religion in general, and specifically Catholics, has blinded any objectively rational replies from you.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 24, 2019 4:56:29 GMT
Her motives are increasingly more suspect in my opinion as well. WHAT, about truth do you religious bozos NOT understand? What you cite as FACT is really just your opinion. At best your claims are exaggerated and a sweeping generality. What about objective and rational discussion do you not understand? You certainly seem to be failing badly on this score. You really didn't need to post about Pell at all since your real goal seems to be to brand the Catholic Church as corrupt and evil, and it has been throughout its history.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 24, 2019 5:22:53 GMT
Let me put it quite clearly for the dummies. In modern Western society, Church courts of any kind are meaningless and toothless tigers. In this case were they to try him in absentia, it would ONLY be a face saving mechanism for the Catholic Church and a case of too little too late. It matters little to his victims whether he is frocked or defrocked ( which he claimed as a reason in his defence, how could he bugger a little boy frocked? LOL) as he is now where he belongs ( admittedly rather too late) in jail. The only dummy I have seen posting in this thread appears to be yourself. Once again you appear to miss the point of church courts no matter how many times their modern purpose has been explained to you. They have a lot of meaning to a member of a faith, as their status in that faith or church is determined by them. I have rarely seen an example of anybody being so "thick" on this board. My guess is that your hatred for religion in general, and specifically Catholics, has blinded any objectively rational replies from you. Big Deal. In secular countries where we wisely have separation of church and state they are virtually meaningless. As I said before...toothless tigers... Rational arguments? That is all I have...church law is meaningless except to a very few in each different denomination who may be affected, and ONLY then in a 'religious' inconsequential way in the scheme of things. At least I don't rely on ad hominem to disagree with someone.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 24, 2019 5:27:23 GMT
WHAT, about truth do you religious bozos NOT understand? What you cite as FACT is really just your opinion. At best your claims are exaggerated and a sweeping generality. What about objective and rational discussion do you not understand? You certainly seem to be failing badly on this score. You really didn't need to post about Pell at all since your real goal seems to be to brand the Catholic Church as corrupt and evil, and it has been throughout its history. Are you seriously denying the FACT that the Catholic Church (amongst others) has had paedophile priests assaulting their youth on a large scale for centuries and we will never know the vast depth of this problem due to the endemic coverup? You are delusional. I re-iterate the content of your last sentence because it is true. The Catholic Church has been responsible for much harm in the world.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 24, 2019 6:40:20 GMT
then The first statement means that they would be lying in the second statement. Not if the bystanders say nothing at all. Not saying anything means: Not lying.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 24, 2019 7:16:52 GMT
If they 'know' and say nothing, they are concealing evidence of a crime.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 24, 2019 7:19:59 GMT
If they 'know' and say nothing, they are concealing evidence of a crime. "Not uncovering" is not the same as "concealing".
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 24, 2019 9:13:48 GMT
If they 'know' and say nothing, they are concealing evidence of a crime. "Not uncovering" is not the same as "concealing". if you 'know' that something is a crime, by not revealing it, you are concealing it. Imagine that your brother got drunk and killed his girlfriend. You were a witness. If you don't uncover this crime, you are concealing it if you don't call the police and will become an 'accessory after the fact' which in most countries is, itself a crime.
|
|