|
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 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 23, 2019 10:42:38 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. Her motives are increasingly more suspect in my opinion as well.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2019 10:22:12 GMT
Are you serious? He is a convicted criminal!!! FFS!!!! 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.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2019 10:13:47 GMT
Neither you nor I have the right to tell the Catholic Church what to do with their own members. As I have already posted I think they are going through the motions of a process where they think they are protecting the rights of their own. If Pell had been a Mormon leader he would not only have been removed from his position upon conviction in a civil court, he would have been automatically excommunicated by a church court. Some innocent people have been thrown out of the church this way. I think the Catholics are superior to the Mormons in this regard. Pell should be given what amounts to better ''due process" and not just suffer religious ramificationd by them just accepting civil authority being correct when it comes to conducting internal church affairs.Are you serious? He is a convicted criminal!!! FFS!!!! 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2019 9:02:08 GMT
I think you still misunderstand what the Vatican position is on Pell. They have acknowledged his conviction in Australia. All they are doing is pondering what to do about his status as a Cardinal. They must defrock him despite any 'in-house' enquiry which will actually be useless...just more face saving lip service to justice, from The corrupt Catholic Church.. Neither you nor I have the right to tell the Catholic Church what to do with their own members. As I have already posted I think they are going through the motions of a process where they think they are protecting the rights of their own. If Pell had been a Mormon leader he would not only have been removed from his position upon conviction in a civil court, he would have been automatically excommunicated by a church court. Some innocent people have been thrown out of the church this way. I think the Catholics are superior to the Mormons in this regard. Pell should be given what amounts to better ''due process" and not just suffer religious ramificationd by them just accepting civil authority being correct when it comes to conducting internal church affairs.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2019 6:16:19 GMT
That was Christchurch. She lived in Auckland. Oh yeah. Christchurch casualties she takes joy in, because they're better off than she is, and they deserve it. Remember, good loving Christian!
I seem to have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the lady in in the striped stockings under the house shown here:
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 23, 2019 5:41:34 GMT
I am not keen on sweeping generalities. The way you have worded this no rank and file Catholics complained about the transgressions of errant priests. Undoubtedly some have done do in multiple places through the years. I am more familiar with the situation in the Mormon church, where some men in leadership positions and contact with the youth committed similar transgressions as Catholic priests. I have read of similar problems in the Baptist Church and other faiths. In instances in the Mormon church some committing crimes were shielded by the leadership above them. This is not just a Catholic problem. Some of the rank and file Mormons have complained about what has happened and had church lawyers attempt to discredit their stories. Some have been excommunicated, some have left the church over what is happening. Sometimes it is the victims and their supporters who get blamed by church authorities. I'll bet some of the same has happened in Catholic circles. The complaints by LDS members, and members who have left over these matters have caused top leadership to react and improve procedures to lessen the chance of men being able to molest children. Unfortunately the leadership takes credit for the changes or even day that God revealed the changes. It is difficult for very believing individuals to find fault in their religious leaders, who they have been taught to follow without questioning. Churches act defensively and try to protect their image. This is human nature, but covering up serious troubles ultimately does not do right by the organizations in question. That is a very interesting and 'almost' believable viewpoint. To me it just re-enforces the power of hierarchies in churches, and the level of delusion in the laity. Just one of the many reasons I am an agnostic atheist and have no wish to be associated with ANY quasi atheist movement if there were such a thing. I am sure you are right, yet it amazes me that there was not and is not, a greater uprising amongst the laity now that these matters are open knowledge. Catholics STILL support their church and give any manner of special pleading for things that were and still are endemic in the Catholic ( and other) churches. Witness the Vatican wishing to 'handle' ( pardon the pun) the case of Cardinal George Pell 'in house' with little credence to the fact that he is in jail in Australia a convicted criminal and paedophile. To me it sucks donkey balls. I think you still misunderstand what the Vatican position is on Pell. They have acknowledged his conviction in Australia. All they are doing is pondering what to do about his status as a Cardinal.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 15:35:55 GMT
Thought a house had dropped on her. Somebody has proven that it didn't?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 10:29:51 GMT
for the way that the Catholic Church has shielded criminals and paedophiles from secular law? It seems incomprehensible that allegedly moral Catholics didn't put pressure on their church hierarchy to take action when their fellow parishioners of the most vulnerable kind were violated. Can someone explain this to me, please? I am not keen on sweeping generalities. The way you have worded this no rank and file Catholics complained about the transgressions of errant priests. Undoubtedly some have done do in multiple places through the years. I am more familiar with the situation in the Mormon church, where some men in leadership positions and contact with the youth committed similar transgressions as Catholic priests. I have read of similar problems in the Baptist Church and other faiths. In instances in the Mormon church some committing crimes were shielded by the leadership above them. This is not just a Catholic problem. Some of the rank and file Mormons have complained about what has happened and had church lawyers attempt to discredit their stories. Some have been excommunicated, some have left the church over what is happening. Sometimes it is the victims and their supporters who get blamed by church authorities. I'll bet some of the same has happened in Catholic circles. The complaints by LDS members, and members who have left over these matters have caused top leadership to react and improve procedures to lessen the chance of men being able to molest children. Unfortunately the leadership takes credit for the changes or even day that God revealed the changes. It is difficult for very believing individuals to find fault in their religious leaders, who they have been taught to follow without questioning. Churches act defensively and try to protect their image. This is human nature, but covering up serious troubles ultimately does not do right by the organizations in question.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 8:56:22 GMT
Why on earth are you replying to 2 and a half year old threads? Because I missed seeing it back then, and just read them.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 8:52:48 GMT
I think the Vatican is between a rock and a hard place in this case. "Faggioli says he is sympathetic to survivors of clerical sexual abuse who expect more from the Vatican." “So even though it is frustrating — because it’s about waiting for the justice — it’s the only possible way and it is really quite astonishing in a good way for the Vatican to say ‘We don’t interfere with this, we trust secular justice in individual countries, and we will wait,'” he says. “That is quite new by historical standards.” link to article
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 8:15:25 GMT
He would have been one of my top 5 choices, as he seems fairly level headed and it seems as though it would probably be difficult to upset him. indeed.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 8:12:52 GMT
Don't you mean Molar's sister Maya? Yeah, perhaps he did.
|
|
|
So...
Aug 22, 2019 8:07:16 GMT
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 8:07:16 GMT
The movie will be called "The Brotherhood of the So... Thread"....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 8:04:33 GMT
I was gonna say "my Sweet Lord" but it barely missed the cutoff (released on Harrison solo debut album in 1970): Interesting trivia, "My Sweet Lord" was well um "inspired" by the Chiffons "He's So Fine" (Harrison was even taken to court): Technically, 1970 is regarded by many to be the last year to be included in the 60s. 1960 would be included in the 50s.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 7:58:47 GMT
Actually the question usually posed is whether or not he was sympathetic to fascists and Nazis. Unlikely as he died in 1914. Sorry, my mistake. Wrong Pope Pius.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 7:56:53 GMT
My mother played with one as a little girl. When I was a kid she bought one and thought it would be fun for us to play with. When my brother and I tried it out, it did nothing. We had been skeptical that it would work. But with my mother and cousin it was spelling out all kinds of answers to questions. My cousin freaked out and refused to continue. My mother was amazed, and amused. It obviously works from the subconscious mind. Nothing occult about it.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 6:38:18 GMT
I wonder if he buggered little altar boys! Actually the question usually posed is whether or not he was sympathetic to fascists and Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 6:21:06 GMT
No, I read that bit. There was no reason to respond to it since it is irrelevant to the point I was making. It would have no impact at all on the decision of the civil court if a Catholic tribunal found Pell innocent. As I wrote, and you have ignored yet again, the only impact would likely be Pell's standing as a cardinal, which is an internal church matter. The witness would obviously not be a part of a secret church court.... Unless of course demanding to be a part. It is reslly implicit that it would just use records from the trial. That is the "all evidence" part. The POINT is that the Catholic Church should de-frock Cardinal Pell because he is a convicted criminal in ail. End of Story. Any internal trial is a mockery because of the church itself being complicit in his crimes having appointed him when he was already a suspect in the crimes of which he is now convicted. They harboured him and he had to be extradited to his own country to face trial. Perhaps you are finally getting my point. The Vatican has no jurisdiction in Australia regarding the judgement of criminal cases. They can only take religious action against him. But really, what is this all about? Isn't it a possible attempt by the church to look as good as possible in a terrible situation? By holding a secret court and finding Pell guilty they can claim they took proper action without simply relying upon outside civil judgements.... open to some saying Pell was not given a fair shake. How likely do you think it is that Pell would be declared innocent in a church proceeding? The damage in PR would be enormous. Their conclusion would almost undoubtedly be a rubber stamp of the civil court.
|
|