This is how you avoid accepting responsibility.

Gawdzilla Sama

121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Gawdzilla Sama
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
42,180
Location
Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee says paying victims of sexual assault is a violation of its religious freedom.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee, which owes victims of pedophile priests (including one, Think Progress notes, who was accused of assaulting approximately 200 deaf children) $17 million has decided to put that money into a fund reserved for cemeteries and claims that to pay the victims what they're owed is a violation of the church's religious freedom. After all, if there's one thing we've learned about Jesus is that he would have likely also placed millions of dollars into an untouchable fund to avoid paying the victims of his followers. It's just the christly thing to do.

The archdiocese claims that the church has much to do before they pay any victim any money for anything. According to their religious guidelines, the church must maintain any and all burial places and mausoleums in perpetuity lest they fall into disrepair. The Archdiocese has been bankrupt since 2011 and in 2013 a court agreed that they had the right to transfer the money into an account meant for the upkeep of religious burial places, but the seventh circuit court of appeals has issued an important message to the church: Hell naw.

What's even more heinous than the fact that the church doesn't want to pay the victims the money they're owed (and Think Progress points out that the latest appeal isn't about paying anyone anything, the verdict just means that the money the church is hoarding can't only be used for cemetaries) is that the "burial places account" wasn't even created until after the archdiocese was told they needed to pay the victims and that other lawsuits against priests could "go forward." So they must not have been that worried about mausoleums then? But now, they're all about them.
Click to expand...
Continues...
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Christians are the current topic. I have no respect for any religion. I'm not picking on anyone in particular, just stupidity in general.
Click to expand...

So is stupidity limited to religion or can anybody be stupid? If someone is stupid, then how do you know that this someone is stupid?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Any of this relevant to the OP?
Click to expand...

I don't know how it is relevant for the OP. You brought up stupid people. So I asked for evidence. How do you know that people are stupid?

If you want to stay within the OP, they are justing trying any legal avenue open to them. How is that stupid?
 
Tommy Jeppesen,

Clearly the Archdiocese will be able to legally do what the courts eventually let them do. And in a legally bankrupt business, the courts can define which creditors you pay first.

However, I think that dead people have much less of a right to the money than live sex abuse victims, and that this would be the normal decision of a court dealing with a secular business. I find the claim of "religious freedom" particularly disturbing in this case, given the history of the churches in sexual abuse, that this is a clear end run to avoid paying the money for any purpose (it allows the Church to hold the money for an infinite future purpose), and I find it interesting that I personally am not allowed to follow my own religion, which forbids the payment of parking tickets (they are a Sin in the eyes of God!).
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I don't know how it is relevant for the OP. You brought up stupid people. So I asked for evidence. How do you know that people are stupid?

If you want to stay within the OP, they are justing trying any legal avenue open to them. How is that stupid?
Click to expand...

And your original post in this thread was relevant how?
 
Giordano said:
Tommy Jeppesen,

Clearly the Archdiocese will be able to legally do what the courts eventually let them do. And in a legally bankrupt business, the courts can define which creditors you pay first.

However, I think that dead people have much less of a right to the money than live sex abuse victims, and that this would be the normal decision of a court dealing with a secular business. I find the claim of "religious freedom" particularly disturbing in this case, given the history of the churches in sexual abuse, that this is a clear end run to avoid paying the money for any purpose (it allows the Church to hold the money for an infinite future purpose), and I find it interesting that I personally am not allowed to follow my own religion, which forbids the payment of parking tickets (they are a Sin in the eyes of God!).
Click to expand...

As long as we agree that a part of this is feelings/emotions. :)
 
Has this become a thread dominated by the question, "Is the Catholic Church stupid?" I don't see that as the point of the OP (in which the word stupid doesn't even appear). Stupid only entered the discussion as a very general term meant to be broadly applied to actions of many different organizations.

If it helps move this thread beyond this, I think that the officials of the Catholic Church who thought up this scheme were attempting to be "sly" rather than stupid. Depending on the public reaction, they may have achieved "sly" or, instead, "stupid," but we will have to wait and see which. In neither case do I see it as laudable.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
And it is relevant to the OP how? Can you get past the butt-hurt and make a statement?
Click to expand...

How do you know that I have butt-hurt?

A statement relevant to the OP - there seems to be a general movement towards general secular universal human-rights. Let us hope it holds. :)
 
Giordano said:
Has this become a thread dominated by the question, "Is the Catholic Church stupid?" I don't see that as the point of the OP (in which the word stupid doesn't even appear). Stupid only entered the discussion as a very general term meant to be broadly applied to actions of many different organizations.

If it helps move this thread beyond this, I think that the officials of the Catholic Church who thought up this scheme were attempting to be "sly" rather than stupid. Depending on the public reaction, they may have achieved "sly" or, instead, "stupid," but we will have to wait and see which. In neither case do I see it as laudable.
Click to expand...

No, it is not laudable, but its the rule of law. If they can get away with that, then that is how the system works.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yes, I do believe it is wrong( it is a bit more complicated than that), but I have no evidence for it. So I believe in something for which I have no evidence, so ...
Click to expand...



I really don't know what your agenda is. And you clearly have one, even if it's only as a wind up merchant, however, I could not let the bolded bit go unhighlighted.

You believe that there is equivocation available over whether it is wrong to rape small children? You believe that that question is 'a bit more complicated than that'?

Could you explain in what way you think there's a moral complication here?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, it is not laudable, but its the rule of law. If they can get away with that, then that is how the system works.
Click to expand...

If they can get away with it legally, it may still be incredibly stupid from a moral and public relations point of view. Of course, there is the general public expectation that a church would be an example of moral behavior, and would keep true to the doctrines it preaches, but this is not a legal requirement. I have my suspicions as to how this will work out, but we will need to see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom