• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is how you avoid accepting responsibility.

Let's tax religion, like everyone else. Inspections, audits, jail time for evasion, the whole nine yards. Make all financial donations by religious institutions taxable for their recipients, and so on.

I suppose taxable profits would be income from all sources, less real accounting costs, less bonafide donations/spending on identified third parties. Shipping money overseas requires full disclosure, as does receiving it. Salaries, wages and all other remuneration in monies or kind should all be required to be a matter of full public record. Contracts for goods and services subject to the same level of scrutiny, as would be invoices.

Taxes on property as for anyone else. Rent-free dwelling in church-owned property is taxable income. Etc.

You like shining lights? Good, let's turn them on you.

ETA: Might not prevent pederasty, but at least we are in the door, and watching out for foul play.
 
Last edited:
This is the Catholic Church we are talking about...no?

Does anyone believe the Catholic Church has gone bankrupt?

Filing Chapter 11 and getting away with this legal loophole is in itself an ADDITIONAL VIOLATION of the violated.... if this particular BRANCH of the BANK OF VATICAN owes money to creditors then let the headquarters pay out.... and let the headquarters of the BANKSTERS of the Catholic Church maintain the cemetery and other obligation of this branch.

Would anyone buy it that if a particular branch of Walmart has gone bankrupt that its creditors go unpaid?

Why is the Vatican J-Mart allowed to get away with such legal shenanigans? When one branch of J-Mart goes bankrupt the J-Mart corporation should still be held responsible for the debts of its branch.

But it looks like the Vatican J-Mart is run as a franchise system maybe??? Maybe we should call it the Vatican J-Mac??

Preach it!
 
This is the Catholic Church we are talking about...no?

Does anyone believe the Catholic Church has gone bankrupt?

Filing Chapter 11 and getting away with this legal loophole is in itself an ADDITIONAL VIOLATION of the violated.... if this particular BRANCH of the BANK OF VATICAN owes money to creditors then let the headquarters pay out.... and let the headquarters of the BANKSTERS of the Catholic Church maintain the cemetery and other obligation of this branch.

Would anyone buy it that if a particular branch of Walmart has gone bankrupt that its creditors go unpaid?

Why is the Vatican J-Mart allowed to get away with such legal shenanigans? When one branch of J-Mart goes bankrupt the J-Mart corporation should still be held responsible for the debts of its branch.

But it looks like the Vatican J-Mart is run as a franchise system maybe??? Maybe we should call it the Vatican J-Mac??

Yep- I am out of money in my right pocket. My left pocket? Why would you want to look there?

Yup. Take the money and run, that is the RCC MO.

When Francis has to work at a Wal-Mart in order to eat and have a roof over his head; when Benedict has to wash cars; when every work of torture porn (and the rest of the Vatican's collections, and the artifacts in the local dioceses, down to the last silver salver) are sold at auction and that money is gone; when every last priest and deacon goes about with only a pair of sandals and one robe, and lives on what they earn by tentmaking instead of extortion; then, and only then, can any part of the RCA be said to be financially bankrupt.

Good thing their 'god' has nothing to say about honesty, and fiduciary responsibility, and morality, and all that "bearing false witness" stuff, eh?
 
Last edited:
When Francis has to work at a Wal-Mart in order to eat and have a roof over his head; when Benedict has to wash cars; when every work of torture porn (and the rest of the Vatican's collections, and the artifacts in the local dioceses, down to the last silver salver) are sold at auction and that money is gone; when every last priest and deacon goes about with only a pair of sandals and one robe, and lives on what they earn by tentmaking instead of extortion; then, and only then, can any part of the RCA be said to be financially bankrupt.


Indeed!!!


Good thing their 'god' has nothing to say about honesty, and fiduciary responsibility, and morality, and all that "bearing false witness" stuff, eh?


In fact he does.... look at Acts 4:34 to 5:11 (see below).

Here we have poor Ananias and Sapphira being killed outright, right on the spot for withholding back some of their OWN money from the COMMUNIST CULT of JESUS.

They were killed by Jesus without any chance for repentance or for last rights.

They were murdered by Jesus for lying to the Jesus CULT and not giving them ALL OF their money.

Apparently according to Jesus, not giving all of your money to the Jesus cult warrants immediate murdering on the spot without any warning or a chance to repent or atone for one's sins.... murdered on the spot, immediately by the LOVING LAMB.

But yet, the very same Jesus the loving lamb stands by and watches while priests bugger little children who came under their authority only because their parents were stupid enough to belong to the JESUS CULT.

This LAMB who was infuriated by Ananias' and his wife's pecuniary trick so as to murder them then and there without any chance for redemption did not see fit to do the same to the child buggering priests.

Apparently to Jesus not paying out money to his cult is a much more heinous act than sodomizing little children.... and certainly this is a sentiment shared by his CULTISTS.

Acts 4:34-37
4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
4:35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
4:37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.​

Acts 5:1-11
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
5:2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5:5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
5:6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
5:7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
5:8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.5:10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
5:11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.​
 
Last edited:
If it's so patently obvious that the Catholic Church should fork over every last penny to anyone and everyone who alleges abuse, I'm kind of surprised the victims' lawyers didn't argue that ...Oh wait, im sure they did! :rolleyes:
 
If it's so patently obvious that the Catholic Church should fork over every last penny to anyone and everyone who alleges abuse, I'm kind of surprised the victims' lawyers didn't argue that ...Oh wait, im sure they did! :rolleyes:

Is that the issue here? Is this thread about whether everyone who tries to claim the money has the legal or ethical right to do so? The payout will only go to people who can prove legally that they are proper claimants. This is standard for any legal finding. This thread is expressly on the attempts by Catholic Church officials to limit or avoid paying out a legally mandated financial settlement as a whole . The Church's actions are unrelated to how to define legitimate from illegitimate claims of sexual abuse.

If you or the Church officials believe that the current legal criteria to differentiate valid from false claimants are insufficient, I would (1) suggest a different thread to discuss this very different point, and (2) suggest that this issue should/would have been brought up at the time of the judgement. If you do start a different thread on this different topic, perhaps you could begin by explaining the current criteria, why they fall short, and what you would suggest. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
33 posts have gone to AAH. Sadly, none of them was suitable as an OP for a thread about sexual predation in the military, which is a topic worthy of a thread - but it's not sufficiently connected with the subject matter of this thread to remain here. If anybody wants to begin a thread about sexual predation in the military please feel free to do so, though Social Issues and Current Events would be a better forum in which to start it.

In this thread, stay on topic as outlined in the OP.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Is that the issue here? Is this thread about whether everyone who tries to claim the money has the legal or ethical right to do so? The payout will only go to people who can prove legally that they are proper claimants. This is standard for any legal finding. This thread is expressly on the attempts by Catholic Church officials to limit or avoid paying out a legally mandated financial settlement as a whole [/I]. The Church's actions are unrelated to how to define legitimate from illegitimate claims of sexual abuse.

If you or the Church officials believe that the current legal criteria to differentiate valid from false claimants are insufficient, I would (1) suggest a different thread to discuss this very different point, and (2) suggest that this issue should/would have been brought up at the time of the judgement. If you do start a different thread on this different topic, perhaps you could begin by explaining the current criteria, why they fall short, and what you would suggest. Thanks.


Ha! You must have missed the multiple posts that prompted my response that completely ignore the issues here and instead go off on a tirade of how the entire Catholic Church is morally bankrupt and/or evil. The primary issue here is a legal one, which has gone back and forth in several court decisions and the latest one is likely to be appealed as well. Again, you can characterize the creation of a trust fund years before bankruptcy (and the ensuing hundreds of complaints, most of which were thrown out by the courts) as "an attempt to avoid paying out a settlement" (paraphrased). That's not the church's characterization of it, of course, but you won't hear there side of the story here because most of the respondents have a rabid hatred of the church. I personally have no fondness for it either, but I just find the lack of objectivity amusing in a skeptic's forum. Im done here for now, unless I see something substantive and/or intelligent being discussed, so you win, Giordano--congrats!
 
Are they the RCC? Is it official RCC doctrine?


Let's judge the RCC using Jesus' very own judging standards...shall we?

Matthew
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

I think History proves unequivocally the ROTTEN TO THE CORE nature of the RCC TREE and Christianity in General which is nothing but branches that have grown off of the already rotten trunk with brand new rot of their own.

But it is not as if Jesus was much of an expert on trees given his brat-like rage against the fig tree that did not have figs out of season (Matthew 21:19) and given his description of the mustard bush as a great tree (Luke 13:19).

But above all if we were to take seriously his suggestion in Matthew 3:10 we would have long ago deforested the entire planet.

He also seems to have been under the impression that trees can listen to orders from people and actually obey and get up and walk (Luke 17:6).

Matthew
3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees : therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.​


Luke
17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea ; and it should obey you.​
 
Last edited:
Ha! You must have missed the multiple posts that prompted my response that completely ignore the issues here and instead go off on a tirade of how the entire Catholic Church is morally bankrupt and/or evil. The primary issue here is a legal one, which has gone back and forth in several court decisions and the latest one is likely to be appealed as well. Again, you can characterize the creation of a trust fund years before bankruptcy (and the ensuing hundreds of complaints, most of which were thrown out by the courts) as "an attempt to avoid paying out a settlement" (paraphrased). That's not the church's characterization of it, of course, but you won't hear there side of the story here because most of the respondents have a rabid hatred of the church. I personally have no fondness for it either, but I just find the lack of objectivity amusing in a skeptic's forum. Im done here for now, unless I see something substantive and/or intelligent being discussed, so you win, Giordano--congrats!

There has been a big move of unrelated posts out of this thread. Again, if you wish to discuss how the legal claimants are or should be verified, that should be a distinct thread. Oddly, given the title of this thread, one should be able to argue if the Catholic Church is avoiding responsibility because it is evil. But that is not my point in this post.
 
Last edited:
Why hate? :)
Well let's see.

Child rape and abuse.
Covering up said rape and abuse.
Intentionally hiding the perps.
Hiding money to avoid paying reparations to aforementioned victims.

Aren't they the most cuddly, cute and adorable cross-dressing virgins you ever saw? Surely all of it is the fault of the victims.

You apologised earlier, yet immediately turn about and defend the most scurrilous and despicable acts of those perverts, yet again.

Why is that?
 

Back
Top Bottom