Bishops Behaving Badly

User avatar
TheEuropean
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:13 am

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#26

Post by TheEuropean » Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:46 pm

RoadScholar wrote:Like a Supreme Being would lose sleep over the apparent conflict between One and Many. :think:
Neither do I. The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of scholarly people (all men) who hold office in the Catholic Church . I do not blame the woman in labor for praying to her Mother Godess who can feel her pain so much better than any male God.



User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#27

Post by magdalen77 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 2:47 pm

TheEuropean wrote:Suranis, Magdalen (a very! catholic name) and Tarrant are right.
It's my mother's name. I have fairly uncommon name and when I first went on line it was too easy to identify me. However, grandma wanted to name my mother "Madeline", but she was told by the priest that that wasn't a saint's name. So, she went with Magdalen.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18280
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#28

Post by Volkonski » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:00 pm

magdalen77 wrote:
TheEuropean wrote:Suranis, Magdalen (a very! catholic name) and Tarrant are right.
It's my mother's name. I have fairly uncommon name and when I first went on line it was too easy to identify me. However, grandma wanted to name my mother "Madeline", but she was told by the priest that that wasn't a saint's name. So, she went with Magdalen.
That priest was wrong-
http://www.americancatholic.org/Feature ... px?id=1398


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34518
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#29

Post by realist » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:03 pm

That priest was wrong-
Can't happen. ;)


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#30

Post by magdalen77 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:31 pm

Volkonski wrote:
magdalen77 wrote:
TheEuropean wrote:Suranis, Magdalen (a very! catholic name) and Tarrant are right.
It's my mother's name. I have fairly uncommon name and when I first went on line it was too easy to identify me. However, grandma wanted to name my mother "Madeline", but she was told by the priest that that wasn't a saint's name. So, she went with Magdalen.
That priest was wrong-
http://www.americancatholic.org/Feature ... px?id=1398
She was canonized in 1925. It's likely that an old Irish monsignor might have missed one of the more recently sainted. He was probably telling people for years that they couldn't name their daughters "Madeline".



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14640
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#31

Post by ZekeB » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:53 pm

How does a saint qualify to become a saint when they go through life without benefit of a saint's name?


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18280
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#32

Post by Volkonski » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:58 pm

Found some more French ones. Slightly different spelling.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php?lst=M


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7182
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#33

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:20 pm

TheEuropean wrote:
RoadScholar wrote:Like a Supreme Being would lose sleep over the apparent conflict between One and Many. :think:
Neither do I. The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of scholarly people (all men) who hold office in the Catholic Church . I do not blame the woman in labor for praying to her Mother Godess who can feel her pain so much better than any male God.
You bet. Well put.

I like the Hindu description of the different faces of God; they call them "aspects" of God. So, what do you suppose the limit on how many aspects a Supreme Being could present to us is?

From my experiences, I'm convinced there is a Higher Power. But after that, what? Say a Higher Power is broadcasting his/her/its message on all possible frequencies, all the time. But we have very rudimentary radios. We can only tune into one frequency, and it comes in badly or clearly. Who am I to say what you hear on your radio is somehow incorrect?

And how crazy is it to claim only one radio is tuning in the Supreme Being clearly, and all the rest are tuning in garbage or Satan?


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#34

Post by magdalen77 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:41 pm

ZekeB wrote:How does a saint qualify to become a saint when they go through life without benefit of a saint's name?
I think it was more this old Irish monsignor's thing than an actual requirement. Of course, he had a way of saying things like they were religious law.



User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#35

Post by magdalen77 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:43 pm

Volkonski wrote:Found some more French ones. Slightly different spelling.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php?lst=M

I'm kind of suspicious about them all being Madeleines since they seem to come from the same incident during the French Revolution. It looks like most of the ones that were beatified got the upgrade from John Paul II (which was long after mommy was born). I wonder when the prioress and sub-prioress achieved sainthood.



User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#36

Post by magdalen77 » Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:46 pm

He wouldn't let people baptize their daughters "Shirley" either for the same reason. I think he was grumpy about "trendy" names.



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11943
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#37

Post by Plutodog » Mon Aug 03, 2015 8:34 pm

To me, any amount of infallibility in any way in a human being is the hard part to believe. And in that respect, saying it's only about matters of faith and doctrine can conceivably by my interpretation of those fields, still be interpreted to cover a pretty fair sized piece of intellectual and spiritual territory. So like, if a church teaches something about reality in it's doctrine that they think is pretty core, basic to the faith and science comes along and comes up with a theory that shows that it may well be different and even that Occam's Razor would give the nod to the scientific theory over the church doctrine, would that not be a place where the church might be expected to say...uh, uh, infallible head clergyperson says otherwise. I'm asking, not saying. Because again, to my way of thinking, having a human claim infallibility over the narrowest of fields is still...hard to believe. And we're just talking, exchanging our own ideas, perspectives. I don't mean to dump on the Catholics because I don't believe in any of the gods or any of the religious dogma, anywhere, at any time in our history. I could be wrong, I don't know anything for 100% sure in that regard but I have what some call a reasonable certainty until something convincing comes to my attention.
RoadScholar wrote:From my experiences, I'm convinced there is a Higher Power. But after that, what? Say a Higher Power is broadcasting his/her/its message on all possible frequencies, all the time. But we have very rudimentary radios. We can only tune into one frequency, and it comes in badly or clearly. Who am I to say what you hear on your radio is somehow incorrect?

And how crazy is it to claim only one radio is tuning in the Supreme Being clearly, and all the rest are tuning in garbage or Satan?
I don't get how any deity would be broadcasting in any frequency that would be scratchy, fading, inaudible to ANY, let alone EVERY one of her sentient creations. It just seems faulty, inexplicable as a rational way for a god to communicate unless he's got less than pure, all-loving motives and all-powerful capabilities.

So when you're reduced to kindly saying that I can't be sure that my radio frequency is better than yours so I must give your belief in your god the benefit of the doubt, because your god may actually have given you better reception, that doesn't compute for me. It is just deep in the weeds of a phantom god, an undependable deity, not an Almighty.

Deism would make more sense in that regard...where this powerful being made everything for his own entertainment, amusement but then went on to other things, caring not in the slightest how the old creation gets on or about any sentient beings that were created or developed naturally from his seed creation. A not wanting to communicate creator would just make a more fundamental sense even while such a god would be in most every way irrelevant to us "left behind" sentient beings and the universe we so briefly occupy.

JMO, of course.


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7182
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#38

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Aug 03, 2015 9:37 pm

What I meant was that our tuners are more or less faulty, not the 'broadcast'. It is just a metaphor after all. And I am also not 100% sure about a Higher Power. But all my life since rejecting the idea that one religion is right and the rest are wrong, I've tried to understand a way that all of them could have been based on the same seed of Divine Stuff, but which immediately got covered with Man(kind) Stuff. All the hierarchies and bureaucracies and zealotry and brutality and misogyny and... well, you get the picture. Man stuff.

What has me as convinced as I'm ever going to get was AA. Millions of alcoholics and addicts, whose addictions were impervious to car crashes, lost jobs, broken families, jail, squandered fortunes, the best efforts of their loved ones... recovered through finding a Higher Power. But especially fascinating to me vis-a-vis my search for the Seed Source is the fact that they do not require any further definition. A higher power, of your choice. Not necessarily Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, or even an "entity" at all. And that works where nothing else did. Pretty amazing.

A number of scientists I've met were happiest with the Transcendentalist definition: The Divine Creative Intelligence of the Universe. An attribute, not a being... something innate in all (if you will) Creation. When Joseph Campbell, who had been wrestling with spiritual legends and stories and rituals all his life was asked to consult on a spiritual undepinning for the Star Wars plots, he suggested The Force for just that reason: he couldn't see it as a Being, let alone a Man with a Beard in the Sky. Some seekers have picked a sort of Collective Unconscious as their higher power... something produced by humanity, not brought in from outside it. The only definition being no one definition that fits everybody.

Could it just be a function of the brain, that it recovers from addiction by deluding itself about a higher power? Sure. Julian Jaynes' book, that Sterngard once mentioned, walks that fine line, leaving open the possibility that something spiritual is going on... or it could just be the brain. Anyone who claims to be 100% sure about any of this stuff is suspect in my book. But I gotta say, the old hippie in me simply finds the universe suspiciously groovy. On the other hand, I have not a single bone to pick with anyone who thinks nothing is going on beyond physics and biology.

So what is the Message? Most religious beliefs share a similar theme: Don't be evil. Rise above the Animal. Be Noble, not Base. Be clean, not dirty. Love each other. Perhaps the founders all wanted to just make us better people, and no higher power was involved? They would very likely agree on those goals, right? Or is there a Force trying to get us to stop being such swine?

Who can say?


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
TheEuropean
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:13 am

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#39

Post by TheEuropean » Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:42 am

/Very Offtopic - It helps if you understand German and even better if you understand Bavarian, though the Comic is self explaining, I hope. A summary in English and the full German/Bavarian text is here: http://www.endlesssunshine.com/Muenchne ... Himmel.htm

The Government of Bavaria sought once Heavenly Advice. Here is what happened:

[bbvideo=560,315][/bbvideo]



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11943
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#40

Post by Plutodog » Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:30 am

RoadScholar wrote:What I meant was that our tuners are more or less faulty, not the 'broadcast'. It is just a metaphor after all. And I am also not 100% sure about a Higher Power. But all my life since rejecting the idea that one religion is right and the rest are wrong, I've tried to understand a way that all of them could have been based on the same seed of Divine Stuff, but which immediately got covered with Man(kind) Stuff. All the hierarchies and bureaucracies and zealotry and brutality and misogyny and... well, you get the picture. Man stuff.
Yeah, then we get into how HP is so haphazardly or unrighteously disbursing the tuners that we are.
RoadScholar wrote:What has me as convinced as I'm ever going to get was AA. Millions of alcoholics and addicts, whose addictions were impervious to car crashes, lost jobs, broken families, jail, squandered fortunes, the best efforts of their loved ones... recovered through finding a Higher Power. But especially fascinating to me vis-a-vis my search for the Seed Source is the fact that they do not require any further definition. A higher power, of your choice. Not necessarily Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, or even an "entity" at all. And that works where nothing else did. Pretty amazing.
Worked for me to the degree needed to get off the self-medication for undiagnosed Asperger's. And working the steps worked out a boatload of the poison of unnatural and natural guilt. And finally the dx worked, works increasingly for ejecting the whole moral, character condemnation that started out from "god" and parents/authority figures" and understanding that I have a differently "wired" brain instead that works best when not encumbered with the judgmental crap. But to the extent that I was able to deal with HP, it was a nebulous All That Is and Good Orderly Direction.

What it finally boiled down to for me in terms of the effectiveness of 12-step programs was 1) learning to admit powerlessness--defeat, ask for help from others, 2) helping another rather than drowning in our own sorrows, our own toxic shit, and then 3) "group consciousness", all of us reasoning together, empathizing with each other, holding each other up finding rational solutions to problems of living. So what do you call those as principles? Not that it matters to me to better boil them down. They worked.

I still came to believe, given that this HP wasn't available for the ongoing problems of theodicity ("evil") in a clean and sober world, that it wasn't a god or even a good orderly direction of any magical, supernatural powers -- not a personal god, a caring being of any kind whatsoever. And there's comfort in ceasing the flailing and wailing under the load of that apparently fruitless search.

So at some point (FWIW), I also understood I wasn't a drunk, an addict, and didn't need to self-medicate anymore. I can drink sparingly, moderately, pretty much, and I'm not interested, mostly, in any other drugs. Still an Aspergian but largely out from under the load of that craziness of being a unknowing alien in your neuro-typical land. And AA/NA played a role in saving my life.

YMMV, in terms of still being an alkie or addict in recovery and of having a functioning HP of whatever kind, of course.


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3998
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#41

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:22 pm

TheEuropean wrote:Church should separate itself from science: Cardinal George Pell says "The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters. We believe in the autonomy of science. "http://nycity.today/content/283519-chur ... -pell-says
"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but how one goes to heaven."
-- Pope John Paul II, addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences prior to its meeting on cosmology and cosmogony, October 1981



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3998
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#42

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:00 pm

Bob Rich was in his 20s when he won an $850,000 settlement from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis — compensation for years of sexual abuse at the hands of the Rev. Robert Michael Thurner.

Rich wanted his case to go to trial and was hoping for a multimillion-dollar settlement. But then the archdiocese threw a curve ball: a threat to countersue Rich’s father for failing to protect him from Thurner.

Wanting to shield his parents — Flanders had already been deposed — Rich chose to settle.
Countersuing parents for failing to protect their kid from your predator? That's truly horrible.



User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2382
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#43

Post by mmmirele » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:51 pm

DejaMoo wrote:
Bob Rich was in his 20s when he won an $850,000 settlement from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis — compensation for years of sexual abuse at the hands of the Rev. Robert Michael Thurner.

Rich wanted his case to go to trial and was hoping for a multimillion-dollar settlement. But then the archdiocese threw a curve ball: a threat to countersue Rich’s father for failing to protect him from Thurner.

Wanting to shield his parents — Flanders had already been deposed — Rich chose to settle.
Countersuing parents for failing to protect their kid from your predator? That's truly horrible.
Yeah, I thought Scientology's lawyers were bad, but my real wake-up call was an article in the Boston Phoenix (sadly now defunct) around 1999ish describing the motion and deposition practices of the lawyers representing the Archdiocese of Boston. And this was *before* everything just blew up in 2002.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15876
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#44

Post by Suranis » Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:19 pm

*sigh*

You're off by a decade MMRele. Everything "blew up" in 1990 or so. I know because I was in the Catholic Seminary of Maynooth at the time. So by the time of that Boston hearing the constant media hysteria had been rolling along for 12 years.

And thinking Catholics were fucking sick of it and the staggering hypocrisy.

Among a load of other things that you no doubt believe but are completely false, they were and are sick of being the only origination that is not allowed to aggressively defend themselves from their accusers. The fact is that suing your accusers is not an uncommon thing and is actually pretty standard practice. But people are so fucking programmed into "Catholics Bad" that ANYTHING the Catholic church does even if its standard practice will be reported and believed as something that is monstrous. Hell the first thing Nixon's lawyers did when he was sued over Watergate was to counter-sue.

So I don't condone this but I can understand it. Hell I daresay if it was any other organization they wouldn't have bothered to threaten to counter-sue, they would have just done it. And not doing it could be construed as not serving the best interests of the client.

Oh Btw, it is actually possible for a priest to be falsely accused of being a kiddie fiddler so aggressive defense is sometimes appropriate. Check out the "mission to prey" saga in Ireland where a Priest sued the Irish state Media over falsely reporting that he had sex with an under age woman and had a child in Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Prey

Oh the same station RTE recently settled a case with an ex-archbishop over saying he was a pedophile in the same programme and had to issue a grovelling apology.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-an ... -1.2270875

In fact, one priest in America has gotten so sick of being falsely accused that he is suing back. Cue fainting spells.
After being twice accused and cleared on wild charges of sex abuse, Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang has filed a federal lawsuit against his accusers, the lawyer-funded, anti-Catholic group SNAP, and members of the St. Louis police department for publicly accusing him of being a child molester.

In both 2012 and 2014, Rev. Jiang was publicly accused of abuse charges which received wide media attention with SNAP breathlessly claiming that Jiang was a dangerous child molester on the prowl. Yet even at a glance the accusations against Jiang were clearly bogus.

In his lawsuit, Fr. Jiang sets forth a litany of facts which demonstrate just how crazy one accuser's claims were from the start:

The accuser's fourth-grade teacher has stated that it was "virtually impossible" that Fr. Jiang pulled the accuser "out of line" at school and abused him as claimed;
"The alleged victim had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse";
"[The accuser's] fourth-grade teacher indicated that [the accuser] was a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional'";
"[The accuser's] parents had a history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain";
"[The accuser] has never had any personal acquaintance with Fr. Joseph, and he could not identify Fr. Joseph's name when he made the allegation";
"[A parent of the accuser once] physically assaulted the principal of [a Catholic school] by choking him or her";
"The accusations were brought by a deeply troubled and unreliable 12-year-old boy at the suggestion of his abusive father."
http://www.themediareport.com/2015/06/3 ... suit-snap/

Link to the complaint

http://www.themediareport.com/wp-conten ... 062515.pdf

Yes that is a very biased website, but who else is going to report on this? The New York Times?

So the point is, sometimes what seems pretty horrific as reported is actually lawyers doing their best to defend a client. And shockingly, the Catholic church has the right to defend itself under law, even if it had less pedophiles than the general population and covered them up. Um, what?

And I am really really sick of listening and having to respond to 25 years of rampant hypocrisy.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20658
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#45

Post by TollandRCR » Wed Sep 02, 2015 7:42 pm

Any institution, including a religious institution, certainly has the right and even the responsibility to protect itself and its members from false accusations. There certainly have been people who brought false accusations in the hope of financial gain. It is worth noting that charges of child sexual abuse have been brought against men and women in many religious institutions, not just the Roman Catholic Church.

What I find morally repulsive here is the threat of a countersuit against the parents for not adequately protecting their child. I rather hope the story as told is either misleading or incomplete. If it is true, then this bishop deserves (or deserved) to be drummed out of the hierarchy. This is not how moral leaders think, much less behave.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15876
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#46

Post by Suranis » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:05 pm

Yeah, I've read and reread the article. I actually thought the Diocese had filed for bankruptcy before threatening to countersue, but it actually only did that in January. Rereading it its a really sad case, and if things happened as written I cant justify that threat at all.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 8645
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:17 am
Location: FEMA Camp 2112 - a joint project of the U.S. and Canada
Contact:

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#47

Post by Kriselda Gray » Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:51 am

If i understand this situation correctly, by claiming that the parents didn't adequately protect their child, the Church is essentially admitting the molestation did happen, but that they shouldn't shoulder all of the blame because his parents weren't protective enough. I think there's a significant difference between defending oneself from false accusations and essentially admitting the accusations are true, but that somine else is to blame for one's own malfeasance.


Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand... - "Witch Hunt" by Rush

SCMP = SovCits/Militias/Patriots.

Thor promised to slay the Ice Giants
God promised to quell all evil
-----
I'm not seeing any Ice Giants...

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15876
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#48

Post by Suranis » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 am

Not exactly. From my reading of this the fact of the molestation was not in dispute. Rich's suit was a civil suit over damages, not a criminal trial over whether he was abused or not
The abuse continued until Rich left for college. In November 1982, Thurner told Archbishop John Roach that he’d had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy — Rich — and submitted a letter of resignation shortly afterward.

But by the summer of 1983, Thurner had been reassigned to a church in West St. Paul. He is accused of abusing a girl there who was about 7 years old.

Thurner retired in December 1991, days before Rich’s suit was filed. He was permanently removed from ministry in 2002.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 26663
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#49

Post by Foggy » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:21 am

So if I rob a bank and manage to make it out the door with some money, I can sue them if I get caught later because they negligently allowed me to escape with the money?

Good news! :-D


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Bishops Behaving Bad

#50

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:26 am

The Archdoicese in Los Angeles viciously defended itself against its harmed parishioners. Most lawyers wouldn't do what the Archdiocese's lawyers did with glee, at the direction of Cardinal Mahony. The burn it to the ground take no prisoners defense strategy would be awful for a company to undertake. For the Catholic Church to do it was mind boggling.

Here are some samples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opini ... .html?_r=0

http://www.snapnetwork.org/legal_courts ... cusers.htm

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archi ... 32103f.htm

http://graphics.latimes.com/mahony/ (starting 1/3 way down)



Post Reply

Return to “Religion”