Is the Roman Catholic Church in Freefall?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by abaddon

What exactly is a "popewas"?

A ridiculous diversion.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Don't know why you are splitting hairs about this. The version you have quoted says the same thing as the one I did essentially. Here's another I found from a Catholic website:




Now which of these is the real thing then?

I would assume the Pope would have a look at different translations and give the nod if they were correct. Hang on though ....... if he were not doing his ex cathedra thing (which he does very sparingly), his opinion would not hold that much weight would it?

If he were not? You did not read your Wikipedia article at all.

It is fine, we get it

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

If he were not? You did not read your Wikipedia article at all.

It is fine, we get it

Why would I have any need for wiki? I was born and raised RCC.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Um, you might want to direct that question to the person quoting scripture in the first place to "support" a bastardized and completely false assertion about Catholic doctrine that the Popewas "using his divinely inspired judgment promotes others"

Which was subsequently falsely denied, and which fact was curiously was not addressed by any fellow travelers.

Our atheism, right or wrong, huh folks?

I'll direct the question to you if you don't mind. Because you are the one who referenced

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

The actual Catholic bible:
Matt 16 18-20

and I asked why I should be impressed by such a source unless I was already a Catholic. The quoted verse has nothing to do with Pius IX anyway, who declared himself infallible because his territorial possessions were about to be annexed by Italy.

And I pointed out that he was running a Ghetto for Jews right up to that time. The only one left in Europe in those years. That's not infallible, is it?

And I quoted sources for this, and I quoted and commented on the encyclical Vehementer nos, which is a monstrosity; and your only response is "huh folks". Do you wonder sometimes why religion is losing its grip on society in general, in the more advanced countries at least?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Why would I have any need for wiki? I was born and raised RCC.

I was replying to Thor, Thor cited Wikipedia.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

I was replying to Thor, Thor cited Wikipedia.

And I am citing the actual RCC as taught to the gullible masses.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Errr no, I didn't say that. I was just saying the Pope should have drawn on his non error making ability. I am not implying the big finger was coming down from the sky giving specific instructions on the issue.

Maybe I can help out here. Just to clarify the issue if as you are suggesting the Pope can only do the being infallible thing when it is ex cathedra.

From the Catholic Bible:

Matthew 16:18

"And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. "

Matthew 16:19

"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven.”

Perhaps should be changed to:

Matthew 16:18

"And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. "

Matthew 16:19

"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed, even in heaven. That is when you are speaking ex cathedra.”

Glad I could help with that.

Originally Posted by Craig B

I'll direct the question to you if you don't mind. Because you are the one who referenced and I asked why I should be impressed by such a source unless I was already a Catholic. The quoted verse has nothing to do with Pius IX anyway, who declared himself infallible because his territorial possessions were about to be annexed by Italy.

And I pointed out that he was running a Ghetto for Jews right up to that time. The only one left in Europe in those years. That's not infallible, is it?

And I quoted sources for this, and I quoted and commented on the encyclical Vehementer nos, which is a monstrosity; and your only response is "huh folks". Do you wonder sometimes why religion is losing its grip on society in general, in the more advanced countries at least?

Please read the thread.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by abaddon

And I am citing the actual RCC as taught to the gullible masses.

Cool, then you should have no trouble explaining it to him.

"Gullible masses".

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

If he were not? You did not read your Wikipedia article at all.

It is fine, we get it

What are you on about?

My argument is that the Catholic church is in trouble because the Catholic clergy are found wanting. A clergy that have enjoyed a special status in Christendom, because they are seen by their flock as an emissary, between themselves and God. A clergy that forgives sins and proscribes punishment on God's behalf. A clergy that manages to transform wine and wafers into the actual blood and body of Christ. A clergy ordained by God as it is precided over by the very rock that Jesus ordained as his spokesman on Earth. Someone incapable of error.

Other ex Catholics have written on these pages about the reverence accorded Priests in there former churches - a reverence not seen in many other Christian orders. Evangelical preachers are routinely caught out as sinners but only need confess there misdeeds and all is well. The congregations just swell all the more. My contention is this does not work in the Catholic Church because of the special status of priests. Just look at Craig B #354 quotation of Pius X.

Now we find from you, and the sources you quote, the Pope is capable of error most of the time, because he just doesn't use the God given power bestowed on him. He just hauls this out every couple of hundred years.

[The Big Dog]

I already explained, as did the very Wikipedia article upon which our correspondent relied, that ex cathedra only related to issues of faith and not "promotions"

Of course, if it behooves the argument to assert that everything is divinely inspired (except when one lies and claims it was not said) one should expect that things like facts ain't gonna get in the way.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Please read the thread.

So you are unable to tell me why I should pay attention to what Matthew tells us Jesus said to Peter?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

So you are unable to tell me why I should pay attention to what Matthew tells us Jesus said to Peter?

Rule of so.

Perhaps you should be paying attention to the post to which I was replying.

[Thor 2]

Straight from "Catholic Answers":

https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility


I am now the full bottle on papal infallibility.

Quote:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

It goes on for some pages. From my experience when something needs a great deal of explaining like this it is usually nonsensical to start with.

[The Big Dog]

Papal infaliabilty is generally misunderstood.

See: this thread.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Papal infaliabilty is generally misunderstood.

See: this thread.

Having read those few pages in "Catholic Answers" it is easy to understand why.

Do we agree that the infallibility thing is linked to:

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"

If so can you list for me some of the binding that Popes have done in the last 100 years or so?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Having read those few pages in "Catholic Answers" it is easy to understand why.

Do we agree that the infallibility thing is linked to:

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"

If so can you list for me some of the binding that Popes have done in the last 100 years or so?

How about before we head down this frolic and detour we spend some time cleaning up the mess that was made in this thread by the contention that the promotion of Pell was divinely inspired?

It was not, papal infallibility has no application whatsoever to that situation, and the contention that it was is false.

Anyone have any further doubts before the goalposts get moved again?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Cool, then you should have no trouble explaining it to him.

"Gullible masses".

Sorry, but I am an atheist. No way I am about to attempt to make excuses for the crossdressing child rapists. I leave that task to the faithful. Oddly, none of them have managed to do so.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Papal infaliabilty is generally misunderstood.

See: this thread.

It would seem not even by you.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Sorry, but I am an atheist. No way I am about to attempt to make excuses for the crossdressing child rapists. I leave that task to the faithful. Oddly, none of them have managed to do so.

Originally Posted by abaddon

It would seem not even by you.

Ah, that time of the thread, huh folks?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Straight from "Catholic Answers":

https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility


I am now the full bottle on papal infallibility.





It goes on for some pages. From my experience when something needs a great deal of explaining like this it is usually nonsensical to start with.

OK, I mentioned that I am an atheist, but was born and raised RCC.

You need to understand that there is a huge chasm between "official" RCC and what actually happens on the ground. This is the elephant in the room that TBD desperately avoids.

For example, what is the RCC position on contraception? Well, they are opposed to it in all it's forms, apart from the abacus method. They are quite happy to facilitate the spread of aids in Africa because god. And the Pope says so.

Find the ex-cathedra statement to that effect. You will search in vain. There is none.

Given that, the RCC congregation at large is quite free to ignore whatever the pope may say, and most do.

Take something more controversial, like abortion. The RCC is so vehemently opposed to to that, that they are willing to see women die needlessly. But still, no ex-cathedra statement about it.

It is simply the handiest of get-out clauses. One size fits nobody and the devil take the hindmost.

When the contraception thing reared it's ugly head, there were priests fulminating in the pulpit on the basis of authority they did not actually have.

I actually saw on such spittle flecked rant which provoked the entire congregation stand up and walk out mid sermon, which was astonishing, unprecedented.

But hey, what do I know, I only grew up in holy roman catholic Ireland in a catholic family, where sex was something that happened to other strange people.

Funny enough, also the first country to legalise same sex marriage, and by popular vote no less.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

How about before we head down this frolic and detour we spend some time cleaning up the mess that was made in this thread by the contention that the promotion of Pell was divinely inspired?

It was not, papal infallibility has no application whatsoever to that situation, and the contention that it was is false.

Anyone have any further doubts before the goalposts get moved again?

Boy it's hard to get this infallibility thing nailed down. All this talk about goalposts is not helping The Big Dog.

Have a look at the following extract from "Catholic Answers":

Quote:

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

That Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine had the balls to tell it as it was. None of the wishy washy stuff we get today from the Vatican, a Vatican that leaves the no errors stuff alone.

Can we try another tack perhaps (no, not moving goalposts), and talk about Priests giving absolution.

When a priest gives absolution, on behalf of God, is he capable of error?

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by abaddon

OK, I mentioned that I am an atheist, but was born and raised RCC.

You need to understand that there is a huge chasm between "official" RCC and what actually happens on the ground. This is the elephant in the room that TBD desperately avoids.

For example, what is the RCC position on contraception? Well, they are opposed to it in all it's forms, apart from the abacus method. They are quite happy to facilitate the spread of aids in Africa because god. And the Pope says so.

Find the ex-cathedra statement to that effect. You will search in vain. There is none.

Given that, the RCC congregation at large is quite free to ignore whatever the pope may say, and most do.

Take something more controversial, like abortion. The RCC is so vehemently opposed to to that, that they are willing to see women die needlessly. But still, no ex-cathedra statement about it.

It is simply the handiest of get-out clauses. One size fits nobody and the devil take the hindmost.

When the contraception thing reared it's ugly head, there were priests fulminating in the pulpit on the basis of authority they did not actually have.

I actually saw on such spittle flecked rant which provoked the entire congregation stand up and walk out mid sermon, which was astonishing, unprecedented.

But hey, what do I know, I only grew up in holy roman catholic Ireland in a catholic family, where sex was something that happened to other strange people.

Funny enough, also the first country to legalise same sex marriage, and by popular vote no less.

Would have loved to be there when that congregation walked out.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Boy it's hard to get this infallibility thing nailed down.

+

Nope, it is quite simple. This is wrong:

Originally Posted by Thor 2

So the Pope, using his divinely inspired judgment promotes others, who in turn promote those below them. An uninterrupted chain so if mistakes are made the authenticity of the divineness must be in question..

oh well, we already got the denial, now lets take alook where the goalposts go to next?

Maybe they can catch up to the "elephant in the room..." LOLZ!!

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Would have loved to be there when that congregation walked out.

It was really weird. There was no plan, there wasn't even the idea. Everyone simply got up and walked out, amusingly on moral grounds, they said after. I was floored. But it did give me pause for thought. If sheer masses of catholics walk out from moral indignation, where did that moral impulse come from? If it were god, then god is rejecting the RCC. If it was not god, then whence the motivation? Let me introduce Satan. Need to excuse the inexcusable? Cool, just invent yet another imaginary being, that will make everything better, right?

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Straight from "Catholic Answers":

https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility


I am now the full bottle on papal infallibility.





It goes on for some pages. From my experience when something needs a great deal of explaining like this it is usually nonsensical to start with.

Re that commission that Peter supposedly got from Jesus, according to rational wiki:

Quote:

Matthew 16:18-19[edit]
Matthew 16:18-19 reads, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This evidence of Peter's leadership role among the apostles does not appear in the parallel gospel accounts and interrupts the natural flow of the passage. It is doubtful Jesus would have used "church" to refer to Christianity, since it did not yet exist, and in fact the only other verse in the gospels where the word is used is in Matthew 18:17, itself a likely interpolation. Additionally, the phrase "gates of hell" appears nowhere else in the Bible.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_...tthew_16:18-19

I'm starting to suspect the whole question of apostolic succession is just a bit of ancient BS retcon. It's as if they based their authority on Greedo shooting first: It never happened.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Brainache

Re that commission that Peter supposedly got from Jesus, according to rational wiki:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_...tthew_16:18-19

I'm starting to suspect the whole question of apostolic succession is just a bit of ancient BS retcon. It's as if they based their authority on Greedo shooting first: It never happened.

Even if it did happen, how long did infallibility last? Until 1870 and beyond, as far as 1950? No, for it had evidently dissolved a mere four verses after Matt 16:19! In Matt 16:23 we read

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

These are harsh and surprising words to be addressed to a person whom God has just made infallible. I don't think, on the strength of that, we need to bother our heads much about the ridiculous Bodily Assumption defined in 1950.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Why should any non-believer attend to the verse anyway?

Originally Posted by Craig B

No, for it had evidently dissolved a mere four verses after Matt 16:19! In Matt 16:23 we read

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

lol

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

lol

You won't answer anything, will you?

Why should a non believer believe in a verse because it comes from a source like Matthew, when it is contradicted four verses later anyway? This Petrine proclamation supposedly makes Pius IX infallible, eighteen centuries later, but it didn't even make Peter himself infallible, to whom it was allegedly addressed, eighteen days later!

LOL indeed.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

You won't answer anything, will you?

Why should a non believer believe in a verse because it comes from a source like Matthew, when it is contradicted four verses later anyway? This Petrine proclamation supposedly makes Pius IX infallible, eighteen centuries later, but it didn't even make Peter himself infallible, to whom it was allegedly addressed, eighteen days later?

LOL indeed.

Why indeed, but of course that does not stop anti-catholicists from doing so, rooting around for "inconsistencies" where none exist. heck your claims would not be out of place in a Chick Tract or on the web pages of Fred Phelps. But you have found another one that reflects what theologians call the “stumbling-block of the Cross” 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. Here Peter the man was concerned about his friend, Jesus the man. And Jesus said, to put it in the lingo even the kids can understand: Peter, stop opposing me and get behind the plan! Or to put it another way:

Quote:

When Peter spoke rightly, Christ called him blessed, but when he was irrationally dismayed, and did not want Him to suffer, then Christ rebuked him and said, “Get thee behind Me, Satan.” “Satan” means “the adversary.” “Get thee behind Me,” that is, do not oppose Me, but follow My will. He calls Peter this because Satan, too, did not wish Christ to suffer. What He is saying, then, is this: with human reasoning you think that suffering does not befit Me, but you fail to understand that by this means God is accomplishing salvation and that this, on the contrary, greatly befits Me.

See Theophylact (a non-RCC!) as recounted in St Thomas Aquinas in Catena Aurea.

Must feel good to resurrect an argument that was rebutted 1000 years ago, and none of which you actually believe in the first place, huh?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Why indeed, but of course that does not stop anti-catholicists from doing so, rooting around for "inconsistencies" where none exist. heck ... Must feel good to resurrect an argument that was rebutted 1000 years ago, and none of which you actually believe in the first place, huh?

lol, heck, huh? What next, I wonder?

So, according to your source.

What He is saying, then, is this: with human reasoning you think that suffering does not befit Me, but you fail to understand that by this means God is accomplishing salvation and that this, on the contrary, greatly befits Me

So the first recipient of infallibility possesses only human reasoning, and therefore doesn't understand the means by which God accomplishes salvation. These are serious limitations in a person possessed of infallibility, I would think.

But I still take the view that in deciding if a person is infallible, one should pay attention to that person's deeds, not to the words allegedly addressed to another person two millennia earlier. Pius and his successors fail that infallibility test.

If one notes that the only use of Infallibility in practice has been to define the dogma of the Bodily Assumption in 1950, then it is of no relevance to the world at large. If God has in truth deigned to vouchsafe such a remarkable power to the Pope, why has He not made better use of it?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

lol, heck, huh? What next, I wonder?...

If God has in truth deigned to vouchsafe such a remarkable power to the Pope, why has He not made better use of it?

I notice you complain about the single word "heck" but slice off the remainer of the sentence...

Your analysis of "human reasoning" predates the crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost, the development of the Magisterium and the College of Cardinals. Plain cherry picking, folks.

Because it is a remarkable extraordinary power, that I have explained repeatedly. Here is another lesson from the wikipedia article:

Quote:

In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."[22] Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."[23] A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the Church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision.[24] The limitation on the pope's infallibility "on other matters" is frequently illustrated by Cardinal James Gibbons's recounting how the pope mistakenly called him Jibbons.[25]

but I guess the real question is why do you care? You don't believe a word of it anyway, right?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

I notice you complain about the single word "heck" but slice off the remainer of the sentence...

Your analysis of "human reasoning" predates the crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost, the development of the Magisterium and the College of Cardinals. Plain cherry picking, folks.

Because it is a remarkable extraordinary power, that I have explained repeatedly. Here is another lesson from the wikipedia article:



but I guess the real question is why do you care? You don't believe a word of it anyway, right?

No but others do. Don't you care about others? You will recall that I have pointed out how on the basis, purely and admittedly, of pontifical authority the Church has imposed the disastrous encyclical Humanae vitae^WP on now two generations of suffering people. Agreed, Catholics in my home country, Scotland, and in other advanced countries, pay little attention to its terms, and are not normally sanctioned by the Church for their laxity; but the consequences in the third world, where sacerdotal authoritarianism, ignorance and superstition are more prevalent, have been malign in the highest degree.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

No but others do. Don't you care about others? You will recall that I have pointed out how on the basis, purely and admittedly, of pontifical authority the Church has imposed the disastrous encyclical Humanae vitae^WP on now two generations of suffering people. Agreed, Catholics in my home country, Scotland, and in other advanced countries, pay little attention to its terms, and are not normally sanctioned by the Church for their laxity; but the consequences in the third world, where sacerdotal authoritarianism, ignorance and superstition are more prevalent, have been malign in the highest degree.

Ah, the Third World "ignorance and superstition"? arguments based on racism, that was your go to? Damn.

But a bit off topic, because the Catholic Church is doing quite well there.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Ah, the Third World "ignorance and superstition"? arguments based on racism, that was your go to? Damn.

But a bit off topic, because the Catholic Church is doing quite well there.

In what way is it an argument based on racism? I notice you've left my accusation of "sacerdotal authoritarianism" off your list. Why is that?

Yes, the Church does best where people have least. Or people have least in places where the Church does best; but to be fair, I think causality runs in the other order I put first.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

In what way is it an argument based on racism? I notice you've left my accusation of "sacerdotal authoritarianism" off your list. Why is that?

Yes, the Church does best where people have least. Or people have least in places where the Church does best; but to be fair, I think causality runs in the other order I put first.

I guess I was just blown away that that you went with the whole third world is filled with "ignorance and superstition."

I mean, claiming that "sacerdotal authoritarianism" "first" does not really do all that good of a job of walking back the whole racist "ignorance and superstition" that followed it, now does it, no matter what order you put it in, right?

Hey, I said a non-racist thing first, so that makes it pretty clear.

Say, thanks for posting today.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

I guess I was just blown away that that you went with the whole third world is filled with "ignorance and superstition."

No. I didn't. I went with

... the third world, where sacerdotal authoritarianism, ignorance and superstition are more prevalent

as you will see if you look at my post again.

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Say, thanks for posting today.

Heck, its no big deal. I might post again later, or tomorrow, OK, huh?

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Craig B

No. I didn't. I went with

... the third world, where sacerdotal authoritarianism, ignorance and superstition are more prevalent

as you will see if you look at my post again.

Yep, I saw that you did. Just to be clear you went with:

FIRST: sacerdotal authoritarianism!

SECOND: ignorance

THIRD: superstition

2 out of 3 racist, not really saved by your FIRST "point" but heck fire please don't let us forget :

"the third world, where sacerdotal authoritarianism, ignorance and superstition are more prevalent."

Heck, I look forward to more analysis about superstition, ignorance AND "sacerdotal authoritarianism" in the third world.

I made them three different colors in case any one got confused by the ignorance and superstition claims, and did not give proper heed to the equally important sacerdotal authoritarianism claim, which is also a thing.

[Thor 2]

Sorry to interrupt the friendly exchange between you guys but another news item of relevance is hot off the press.

It would seem the RCC are not changing much in spite of the rhetoric and breast beating by some. The "Good Name" of the church is floating in effluent and may be beyond resuscitation, but the coffers are being held in a tight grip.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-1...sation/9044660

Quote:

Russell Clark is just one of many survivors of abuse who signed deeds of release, which prevent them from taking further legal action or requesting more compensation.
.....

Catholic Church bodies are under fire for sticking to this and other historic settlements, signed with survivors of clergy child abuse for "pathetic" compensation sums despite the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Abuse and the church's own bodies recommending they be scrapped in light of changes to the law.
"People in the past, hundreds of thousands of them, have had to sign these deeds for pathetic amounts of money — $20,000, $30,000, $40,000," lawyer Judy Courtin, who represents dozens of clergy abuse survivors including Mr Clark, told 7.30.
By contrast, in 2015 the Victorian Supreme Court awarded its largest ever damages payout to a survivor of institutional abuse — in this case, in an Orthodox Jewish school — for $1.2 million.

By the By, as I understand it these "deeds of release" were something Pell had a hand in, and were part of the "response' he championed, and was lauded for by his supporters.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Sorry to interrupt the friendly exchange between you guys but another news item of relevance is hot off the press.

It would seem the RCC are not changing much in spite of the rhetoric and breast beating by some. The "Good Name" of the church is floating in effluent and may be beyond resuscitation, but the coffers are being held in a tight grip.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-1...sation/9044660

By the By, as I understand it these "deeds of release" were something Pell had a hand in, and were part of the "response' he championed, and was lauded for by his supporters.

So they settled the claim, signed a settlement document and now want to unroll that and get more money?

Is that something that is happening in all claims in Australia, are people who settled with doctors and hospitals and negligent drivers advocating for having their settlement agreements tossed aside because people who are going through trials now are getting more money?

"Catholic Church 'hiding behind the law' over historic abuse compensation claims." hiding behind the law? that is a hell of a way to put it by the ABC, or or it should be referred to as The Anti-Catholicism Broadcasting Network? Weren't they the ones who blatantly misrepresented the evidence on domestic violence in religious homes?

Yeah, that was them. Nice of them to act as press agent for the plaintiff's lawyer in support of her new case!

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

So they settled the claim, signed a settlement document and now want to unroll that and get more money?

Is that something that is happening in all claims in Australia, are people who settled with doctors and hospitals and negligent drivers advocating for having their settlement agreements tossed aside because people who are going through trials now are getting more money?

"Catholic Church 'hiding behind the law' over historic abuse compensation claims." hiding behind the law? that is a hell of a way to put it by the ABC, or or it should be referred to as The Anti-Catholicism Broadcasting Network? Weren't they the ones who blatantly misrepresented the evidence on domestic violence in religious homes?

Yeah, that was them. Nice of them to act as press agent for the plaintiff's lawyer in support of her new case!

Maybe you missed this bit:

Quote:

Catholic Church bodies are under fire for sticking to this and other historic settlements, signed with survivors of clergy child abuse for "pathetic" compensation sums despite the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses To Child Abuse and the church's own bodies recommending they be scrapped in light of changes to the law.

Yes that's right! Not only has the Royal Commission recommended the scrapping of the deeds of release but some of the "church's own bodies" agree.