|
Post by goz on Aug 21, 2019 21:53:37 GMT
www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vatican-could-try-pell-under-church-law/ar-AAG700x?ocid=spartandhpThere are so many issues here. For the Vatican, it looks like they do too little too late to prosecute their clerics 'in house' and yet they still reserve the right to come to a different conclusion to a secualr court. It would indeed be embarrassing to the Vatican, if they prosecuted Pell and found him innocent, when the full judicial system in Australia has found otherwise and he remains in jail should there be Papal Election. As in all things,the Catholic Church needs to get their act together in a real world and they can no longer be 'closeted' away! An amusing aside to some of the defence evidence given by Pell's Lawyers. It was claimed that Cardinal Pell's Bishopric Vestments he was wearing at the time would have been to heavy to have allowed him to rape the two altar boys. I am therefore feeling incredibly sorry for all Bishops who would have to forego going to the bathroom for the full day upon which they wear those garments, unless they fully change their vestments everytime 'nature calls'
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 21, 2019 21:58:34 GMT
Religions should always judge their people based on their own without regard to secular law.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Aug 21, 2019 22:21:27 GMT
the integrity prayer
grant me the integrity to boldly point out the blatant hypocrisy revolving around multi-layered marketing investment ploys used solely to exploit the fear factors jack hammered into so many generations that it makes anyone mentioning peace on earth in the same breath as religious values appear to be higher than a kite soaring over a gethsemane where a broker from wall street resides solely to feather the pockets of one more generation duped into a make believe that only a naked emperor could retrieve and dare to bring back to an eternal life where the powerful meld the weak with an apparent god speak only they can understand so excuse me if i refuse to shake the hand of one more rear admiralty proclaiming to understand why life is just one more blood bath in an out of reach promised land.
sjw 08/21/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the little words in between the big ones.
from the ‘beguiled series’ of poems
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 21, 2019 22:23:31 GMT
the integrity prayer grant me the integrity to boldly point out the blatant hypocrisy revolving around multi-layered marketing investment ploys used solely to exploit the fear factors jack hammered into so many generations that it makes anyone mentioning peace on earth in the same breath as religious values appear to be higher than a kite soaring over a gethsemane where a broker from wall street resides solely to feather the pockets of one more generation duped into a make believe that only a naked emperor could retrieve and dare to bring back to an eternal life where the powerful meld the weak with an apparent god speak only they can understand so excuse me if i refuse to shake the hand of one more rear admiralty proclaiming to understand why life is just one more blood bath in an out of reach promised land. sjw 08/21/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the little words in between the big ones. from the ‘beguiled series’ of poems I really like that one!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 21, 2019 23:05:13 GMT
Religions should always judge their people based on their own without regard to secular law. Sorry but nope! Religious or non religious we are all under the jurisdiction of secular law. Much of secular law is derived from religious law, but many of these aspects are taking the common sense and rational approach to appropriate societal\community behaviour. I said nothing about removing secular law. A religious person simply faces up to two judgements.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 22, 2019 2:37:13 GMT
Religions should always judge their people based on their own without regard to secular law. I don't give a shit how religions judge their people as long as it does not impinge in any way on the application of secular law and its due process. The problem with the Catholic Church was that they put their reputation ahead of secular law by covering up the crimes of its clerics. It should be the same with any denomination ie that secular law comes BEFORE religious law and all religions should facilitate secular law, its application, process and punishments.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 4:04:16 GMT
Isn't a Vatican court more focused upon this than anything else:
"Another issue is that if there is a papal election before Pell turns 80 in two years time, will Pell be allowed to participate?"
If found guilty by this church action, will he not be defrocked?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 22, 2019 4:23:04 GMT
Isn't a Vatican court more focused upon this than anything else: "Another issue is that if there is a papal election before Pell turns 80 in two years time, will Pell be allowed to participate?" If found guilty by this church action, will he not be defrocked? I don't understand what you mean? The court of an institution which has ( and still does) hide criminals in its midst from secular law, is hardly more focused on the crime than a secular court. You are totally missing the point that if he is in prison in Australia, it would be embarrassing, to say the least, if he were still eligible to become Pope, as it is uncertain whether the Pope will go through with canonical court.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 4:30:30 GMT
Isn't a Vatican court more focused upon this than anything else: "Another issue is that if there is a papal election before Pell turns 80 in two years time, will Pell be allowed to participate?" If found guilty by this church action, will he not be defrocked? I don't understand what you mean? The court of an institution which has ( and still does) hide criminals in its midst from secular law, is hardly more focused on the crime than a secular court. You are totally missing the point that if he is in prison in Australia, it would be embarrassing, to say the least, if he were still eligible to become Pope, as it is uncertain whether the Pope will go through with canonical court. No, you missed my point. I think I fully understand the situation. But really, there is zero chance he would become Pope, the issue is whether or not he could vote to select one. As I wrote, I think the issue here is what action the Catholic Church takes against Pell. Does Pope Francis defrock Pell on the basis of a civil court's findings or does he think he requires a church tribunal to reach a conclusion if guilt before he takes such an action?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 22, 2019 5:29:06 GMT
I don't understand what you mean? The court of an institution which has ( and still does) hide criminals in its midst from secular law, is hardly more focused on the crime than a secular court. You are totally missing the point that if he is in prison in Australia, it would be embarrassing, to say the least, if he were still eligible to become Pope, as it is uncertain whether the Pope will go through with canonical court. No, you missed my point. I think I fully understand the situation. But really, there is zero chance he would become Pope, the issue is whether or not he could vote to select one. As I wrote, I think the issue here is what action the Catholic Church takes against Pell. Does Pope Francis defrock Pell on the basis of a civil court's findings or does he think he requires a church tribunal to reach a conclusion if guilt before he takes such an action? You missed this bit Imagine the results if they found him innocent in a Canon Law Court, in contradiction to the civil law cases which has already been upheld on appeal! This case depended on the testimony of a victim. How and why should he have to go through that again, and if he didn't it is not a truly representative case.? There was also another victim who committed suicide because f his abuse by Pell....What about the effect on his parents?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 22, 2019 6:02:57 GMT
No, you missed my point. I think I fully understand the situation. But really, there is zero chance he would become Pope, the issue is whether or not he could vote to select one. As I wrote, I think the issue here is what action the Catholic Church takes against Pell. Does Pope Francis defrock Pell on the basis of a civil court's findings or does he think he requires a church tribunal to reach a conclusion if guilt before he takes such an action? You missed this bit Imagine the results if they found him innocent in a Canon Law Court, in contradiction to the civil law cases which has already been upheld on appeal! This case depended on the testimony of a victim. How and why should he have to go through that again, and if he didn't it is not a truly representative case.? There was also another victim who committed suicide because f his abuse by Pell....What about the effect on his parents? 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.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 22, 2019 6:09:00 GMT
You missed this bit Imagine the results if they found him innocent in a Canon Law Court, in contradiction to the civil law cases which has already been upheld on appeal! This case depended on the testimony of a victim. How and why should he have to go through that again, and if he didn't it is not a truly representative case.? There was also another victim who committed suicide because f his abuse by Pell....What about the effect on his parents? 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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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 goz on Aug 22, 2019 8:55:33 GMT
I think the Vatican is between a rock and a hard place in this case. link to articleGood. My heart is not bleeding.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2019 10:41:59 GMT
I said nothing about removing secular law. A religious person simply faces up to two judgements. Neither did I. You said “without regard” for secular law. You have to regard it whether you like it or not. I didn't say the individual disregarded it. The Church certainly can. Secular law would have no bearing on Catholic rules. They may have a rule that has nothing to do with secular law and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 22, 2019 10:47:26 GMT
Religions should always judge their people based on their own without regard to secular law. I don't give a shit how religions judge their people as long as it does not impinge in any way on the application of secular law and its due process. The problem with the Catholic Church was that they put their reputation ahead of secular law by covering up the crimes of its clerics. It should be the same with any denomination ie that secular law comes BEFORE religious law and all religions should facilitate secular law, its application, process and punishments. Let's not pretend the church isn't facing repercussions of cover-ups. However, you are missing the point of your own post. The argument appears to be whether the vatican should waste time on a trial since the state has made a verdict or will make one. There is no logical reason why a secular court should all of a sudden have a say in a religious deliberation even indirectly. If they find the dude guilty and the church doesn;t, it has no bearing on whether said dude is going to prison or if a parish has to pay millions of dollars.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 22, 2019 21:00:26 GMT
I don't give a shit how religions judge their people as long as it does not impinge in any way on the application of secular law and its due process. The problem with the Catholic Church was that they put their reputation ahead of secular law by covering up the crimes of its clerics. It should be the same with any denomination ie that secular law comes BEFORE religious law and all religions should facilitate secular law, its application, process and punishments. Let's not pretend the church isn't facing repercussions of cover-ups. However, you are missing the point of your own post. The argument appears to be whether the vatican should waste time on a trial since the state has made a verdict or will make one. There is no logical reason why a secular court should all of a sudden have a say in a religious deliberation even indirectly. If they find the dude guilty and the church doesn;t, it has no bearing on whether said dude is going to prison or if a parish has to pay millions of dollars. No, YOU are missing the point. How can a religious court find a cardinal 'not guilty' when he has been proven guilty in a secular court? This is both a moral question and a practical one. ALSO, it would depend on what charges the Catholic court proceeded. If the charges are that he raped the two altar boys, ten the charges would be impossible at distance to prove or otherwise. However IF the Catholic court brought charges of bringing the Catholic church into disrepute by being convicted of this crime, then there might be some reason to have a process which would then have grounds to disrobe him.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 23, 2019 3:28:23 GMT
Let's not pretend the church isn't facing repercussions of cover-ups. However, you are missing the point of your own post. The argument appears to be whether the vatican should waste time on a trial since the state has made a verdict or will make one. There is no logical reason why a secular court should all of a sudden have a say in a religious deliberation even indirectly. If they find the dude guilty and the church doesn;t, it has no bearing on whether said dude is going to prison or if a parish has to pay millions of dollars. No, YOU are missing the point.
How can a religious court find a cardinal 'not guilty' when he has been proven guilty in a secular court? You literally quoted my answer to this. The two are not connected judgement wise. By your logic, if secular law banned a religion, then the religion would abide & simply stop existing. The state would control the belief which is silly.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 23, 2019 3:54:10 GMT
No, YOU are missing the point.
How can a religious court find a cardinal 'not guilty' when he has been proven guilty in a secular court? You literally quoted my answer to this. The two are not connected judgement wise. By your logic, if secular law banned a religion, then the religion would abide & simply stop existing. The state would control the belief which is silly. Yes , the two are connected judgement wise. If a religious court 'in house' finds a cleric guilty of paedophilia, there is no retribution from society unless the police are called, as has been shown to be the case with clerics merely being moved from position to position. HOWEVER ( perfect example is Cardinal Pell) if a cleric is found guilty in a secular court and is in fact in jail, it would be morally and practically impossible for a church 'in house' court to find him innocent. \ That is not what I am saying at all.
|
|