Printable View
Oh, now I UNDERSTAND why AtariCC forbids religious talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Talking about catholic church is to talk about an institution that uses people money to subsidize sexual behavior of priests...
And of course, sex is not allowed there.
And it makes me think that church should be classified by ESRB as "R".
No membership or attendance of kids anymore.
Ok, that makes sense, sort of. You're saying that in the end the entire church is one big community that should hang in together.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You understand that offering a service to a community will cost money in today's society no matter how you turn it? So this community 'catholic church' is going to be back at some point after going bust, with funds. Maybe it will be poorer than it was before, but it will still have money and can't really deny liability for the damages awarded. Because if they would, they would no longer be part of the wider catholic community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
The way they have found to cope with the loss is temporary, through a mortgage. Now they are asking their parishioners to help pay for that debt. That means however that parishioners are going to pay for the abuse indirectly.
I think that was always the case and I don't understand the outrage now that somebody has said the obvious; the catholic church doesn't make money out of thin air and every cent of damages awarded is going to be paid for in one way or another by people who detest the abuse. It's really funny how people try to close their eyes to the fact that when all is said and done the church hasn't had any other role than that of a conduit passing money from one innocent party to the other innocent party.
I'm saying the service can be rendered at a much smaller cost, and by those not as closely tied to the abuse. A personal anecdote here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Due to the fact that I no longer wish to be a part of Christianity or the Catholic Church as a whole, I've only been to church when my family decides to go for holidays. This leaves a large gap between Church visits. During last year's gap a wealthy parishioner died and left a large sum of money to the church my family frequents. Did they do something reasonable or charitable with it? Nope...it was funneled directly into aesthetic upgrades for the church and those associated with it. It wasn't really necessary either, as it wasn't like the place was run down. Basically it could be summed up like this:
If it was made of brass it was replaced with gold or gold plating. If it was granite or another stone, it was replaced with marble. If it was plastic, it was replaced with glass or crystal. If it was glass, it was replaced with better glass. If it was wood, it was re-varnished and polished. If it was carpet, it was completely replaced. If it was unpainted, it was painted. If there was a sculpture of a saint/holy figure, it was replaced with a better sculpture of the same saint/holy figure. If it was electrical, it was replaced. In ceiling microphones were added to the coir area, replacing the standard hand-held and stand-mounted ones. Anyone else who needed a mic got a clip-on wireless one. If it was cotton, its now silk. If it wasn't cotton, it now is. The main Bible that is read at the altar is now larger, with gold trimmed pages, and intricate metalwork (gold-plated or gold-looking) on the front and back-cover.
Improvement to the actual services? Minimal or non-existent. Increase in the number of people attending? Actually less, and declining. Amount of times they implore the parish to donate money because they need it? At the same or increasing levels.
:bored:
Why can't the church just file bankruptcy? These people seeking restitution would then become a creditor like everybody else.
Are the settlements attempting to exact retribution for the offenses themselves, or the church cover-up? Or for allowing them to happen? Or... what?
Seems to me that makes a difference to who should be paying the settlement.
Why ? In both cases it seems to me that the church is asked to pay at all because they have some sort of liability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Ok. so you didn't like how they spent the money. Now, let's assume all the money is gone, the buildings and art sold and they get together in someone's barn on sundays but there are still victims waiting for their retribution? Are you ok with the fact that they don't get anything because they were late in the line and the community is too stingy to pay up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
That's called a targeted donation. The parishioner may have "earmarked" the bequeathment for that specific church, and only its physical upgrades not related to daily operational expenditures (like heat bills or paying staff) or mission purposes (feeding the poor or going toward adoption services). It could also have been made as a "discretionary" expenditure, which means the priest and staff/parish gets to decide the priority and if the money goes to its nursery or its school, or the building, or its parishioners in services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
That's all a legal contractual thing related to a dead donor, unrelated to the OP--since Hazir says there's no money or assets to pay the litigant's claim. I'm guessing if this church Illusions posted about was the one sued, some court judgment might say they have to sell all that to pay their liability debt.
Community too stingy to pay up? Look, they didn't molest anyone, nor provoke the molestation, so the options is either to have the innocent parishioners pay someone money for being molested by a priest, or said molested person not get any money because as much monetary revenge as possible has already been dolled out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
If you were a part of a club or other non-religious group and one of its members went out and molested someone, do you feel that you should have to pay out of pocket if the offending member can't?
But if that were the case; why should anybody but the offender pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
There is another option, though. Just like any business with a larger figurehead and structure that lays the foundation and finances at local levels. The Vatican should pay if the diocese or parish can't.
But you know that's not really the way the catholic church is structured. The dioceses don't belong to the Vatican. Also, how much has been doled out already, and how many more claims are there? Even if you take all real estate and all art as 'richdom' of the Vatican, then still its resources aren't unlimited.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Not to forget the fact that you are facing the moral dilemma about paying those damages out of funds that could have been used to educate or give health care in a third world country.
I'm not Catholic so no, I don't really "know". But every diocese funnels money to the Vatican.
It's not a moral dilemma as far as I'm concerned. If the Roman Catholic Church has priests molesting children all over the world, and clerics covering it up, the other good global works they do is tainted.
Are you seriously claiming that the crimes of the few is justification for punishing the entire community?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Maybe what's wrong with all of this is that people expect damages from people other than the ones who harmed them. Mostly because those particular people don't have enough money to satisfy their desire for revenge.
Make each abuser to add a 0.5% tax on catholic church revenue.
I bet money can push harder than God inside their bureaucracy.
When it comes to law suits for child molestation and how to compensate the victims? When it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and how they've shown a pattern of denial, cover-up, and abrogation? Yes.
EDIT you did a fast edit before I posted, Hazir. The "problem" is that the RCC has a history of priests molesting children, going back decades. Instead of dealing with it head-on, they just moved the priests to other parishes, where they continued to molest.
If it the issue is the cover up then it is appropriate for the organization as whole to fit the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Or the people who did it. I don't think the catholic church has a policy to abuse children and then cover that abuse up. This didn't happen everywhere it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Yes, which is why the question of what the compensation is for is important.
They already do that, to a moderate extent. There has long been a redistributionist trend between Catholic organizations and regions. Now it may well be that others elsewhere, including the Vatican itself, simply don't have the available resources to divert, or rank this as too low a priority on the list, but to refuse to even appeal for aid from the rest of the community is irresponsible. It also strikes me as somewhat reprehensible to ask the harmed community for such aid and not anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
That's such an odd decision that I can't help but suspect the bequest included direction that the money be spent on such a project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Because the church itself or someone overseeing it may have played a role in covering up the molestation. This is the general gist I get from these claims, that Priest X molested someone or some group, Church Y overseeing them covers it up, so Church Y becomes an offender too. It could also be argued that if Church Y was ignorant of Priest X's abuses that Church Y still has to pay out because of the Catholic Church's manner of handling property etc. They're not like a corporation or an individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
It would have to be terribly specific. As in the money be spent immediately, instead of over time (which would be useful as then it could be used for repairs as needed)...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yes, but who does the 'money' belong to? Is it for the priests or bishops to dispense of in the pursuit of their illicit pleasures or does it belong to the community that makes up the church? I'm affraid I don't see how the 'handling of property by the church' should have any bearing on the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
It happens all the time and is of all times. In the old days people gave money to build chapels etc.Quote:
It would have to be terribly specific. As in the money be spent immediately, instead of over time (which would be useful as then it could be used for repairs as needed)...