This is how you avoid accepting responsibility.

[Roger Ramjets]

5. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC was correctly found liable for violating it, but the RCC has the right to attempt to avoid paying the judgement by legal manipulations. I think that this is the topic of this thread, based on the OP. In which case, I would argue, as I have, that making such an argument is legally allowed, although I hope the courts will ultimately reject it.

This thread is not about the RCC, it is about the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee and how it thinks it can 'avoid accepting responsibility' by claiming that being forced to pay a judgement is a violation of its religious freedom.

Which is their right, just as it is for any organization who believes they are entitled to religious freedom (eg. Hobby Lobby, Ethical Society of Austin). Let's wait until the courts decide, and if it goes wrong the way then you can blame the US Constitution and legal system for allowing it to happen.

Morally, I find it reprehensible that an institution that claims to provide moral guidance to others would use what I consider a sleazy attempt to avoid their own moral responsibility.

The lawyers and accountants who are handling the diocese's affairs probably consider it their legal and moral responsibility to get the best deal they can for their client. They may be going about it in the wrong way, but they would probably do exactly the same for any other business.

Like it or not, the US Constitution gives churches certain rights, including the right to spend their money as they wish. If the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee thinks it can get away with not paying a judgement then it is their constitutional right to try, and why should we be surprised when they do? We know that they tolerate child sex abuse so their lack of morality has already been established, and now we know that they worship the same god as the rest of America - Money.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This thread is not about the RCC, it is about the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee and how it thinks it can 'avoid accepting responsibility' by claiming that being forced to pay a judgement is a violation of its religious freedom.

Wrong, it's about the pervasive culture of rape, enabling and abetting that constitutes the core character of the RCC.

 

[MikeG]

Answer the question.

I think the answer given said all that we need to know about the intent to answer straight questions.

 

[abaddon]

Wrong, it's about the pervasive culture of rape, enabling and abetting that constitutes the core character of the RCC.

Yup. Archdiocese of Milwaukee wrote fawnlingly to the Vatican in the person of Dolan about how they could protect RCC loot. It goes far beyond Milwaukee. Dolan was simply reporting in to Kiddie-Diddler central about how great he was at hiding the money which should rightly go to the victims. Certain members are OK with such scurrilous actions, insincere apologies notwithstanding. Certain members have indelibly coloured my perception of them forevermore by attempting to defend such scurrilous actions, let alone the original crimes.

It had to be said.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yup. Archdiocese of Milwaukee wrote fawnlingly to the Vatican in the person of Dolan about how they could protect RCC loot. It goes far beyond Milwaukee. Dolan was simply reporting in to Kiddie-Diddler central about how great he was at hiding the money which should rightly go to the victims. Certain members are OK with such scurrilous actions, insincere apologies notwithstanding. Certain members have indelibly coloured my perception of them forevermore by attempting to defend such scurrilous actions, let alone the original crimes.

It had to be said.

It pretty much had to go all the way to the top, because the people at the top were once parish functionaries. And I'm confident that the abuse was an open secret and ignored by anyone who was to stay in the clergy.

 

[abaddon]

Okay, this is not just addressed at you two, but in general.

Now we are skeptics, so how do we objectively describe and explain this human phenomenon?
That is it! In the general sense of what science does, I ask this question: How do we objectively describe, explain and understand this?

Simple. Black clad cross dressing bastages got caught raping children. Court orders damages, cross dressing bastages try to hide the money and claim bankruptcy, another scurrilous move.

Now it is up to you, who object, to decide if you want to report this as a derail or not. I am honest now, I know it can be considered a derail, but it can also fall within the rules.

I don't think it should be reported. It is a fine example of how people trip over their feet an fall into RCC apologism. Have at it.

So do you want to continue here? Should we make another thread?

You would like that, no? Having hitched your wagon to indefensible criminal actions, suddenly you want to distance yourself from that idea. I wonder why that might be?

Or should we just conclude that religion is a special phenomenon, which falls outside the general reality; i.e. that is irrelevant, because it is wrong, unnatural and so on? In other words what has happen is wrong and we don't have to try to understand it objectively, because it is wrong?

Please, please stop attempting to justify child rape.

On the other hand if religion is not a special case, then there might be some underlying general structures, which could be of interest to understand if we want to remove religion, because the general structures if there may resurface outside religion.

You can equivocate all you like about religions and structures and "special" cases until the cows come home. Child rape remains wrong, and thos bastages in the dresses deserve the punishment that has been handed out to them.

So if religion as a virus of evil is something we fight against, my question is what does it have in common with other viruses of evil and besides fighting this particular virus of evil, how do we in general fight viruses of evil?

Analogy fail. Viruses don't care. The RCC does.

In the end, I am a former professional soldier and I have no problem fighting the enemy, but I have also learned to question the plan. That is part of the way how I was trained.
So in the context of fighting the evil virus of religion, is there something we might have overlooked if we only concentrate on the aspect of religion?

Nope. It's evil. Doesn't mean there are no other evils which should be addressed, but certainly doesn't mean the blatant evil of religion should somehow be ignored.

So if you find that this is a derail, report it. But before you do, you could ask yourself if it is an arbitrary derail or if it is a natural thread drift, because how we fight evil, is not restricted to religion?

With regards

No, it is quite valuable. This discourse exposes the reality of the world view which you claim to espouse.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

5. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC was correctly found liable for violating it, but the RCC has the right to attempt to avoid paying the judgement by legal manipulations. I think that this is the topic of this thread, based on the OP. In which case, I would argue, as I have, that making such an argument is legally allowed, although I hope the courts will ultimately reject it. Morally, I find it reprehensible that an institution that claims to provide moral guidance to others would use what I consider a sleazy attempt to avoid their own moral responsibility. This is a cynical claim based on a concept that it is more important to place flowers on the graves of dead people than to help the living victims of the child abuse that they aided and abetted. Further, in my own opinion, it has nothing to do with grave decoration at all, but it is a way to retain money for broad use by the Church for the infinite future.

Poor showing of me not to make my own opinion clear while still participating in such a topic. See above.

 

[stanfr]

5. There should be a law against child sex abuse, and the RCC was correctly found liable for violating it, but the RCC has the right to attempt to avoid paying the judgement by legal manipulations. I think that this is the topic of this thread, based on the OP. In which case, I would argue, as I have, that making such an argument is legally allowed, although I hope the courts will ultimately reject it. Morally, I find it reprehensible that an institution that claims to provide moral guidance to others would use what I consider a sleazy attempt to avoid their own moral responsibility. This is a cynical claim based on a concept that it is more important to place flowers on the graves of dead people than to help the living victims of the child abuse that they aided and abetted. Further, in my own opinion, it has nothing to do with grave decoration at all, but it is a way to retain money for broad use by the Church for the infinite future.

That was a decent post, Giordano, so ill respond. I'm with you on #5 90% of the way. I think the highlighted portion is where I have doubts, since the courts expressly held that abuse came to light down the line here. I still think they should bear the responsibility to pay up, but it gets a bit murkier at that point because, again, we are not hearing the Archdiocese's side of the argument--just the biased opinions of others who are commenting on their actions. It would be interesting to hear their side of the story, cause I can think of examples where use of a trust does not necessarily imply fraud or dishonesty. For example, people put property into trusts to avoid paying taxes--doesn't make them evil traitors who are trying to steal from the government, they're just taking advantage of a traditional legal framework
Likewise, suppose you were an employer who spent your whole life creating a business, and then you discovered, much to your dismay, that one of your former employees touched someone in the wrong way five years ago. All of a sudden, dozens of additional victims come forward and a judgment is reached against your business that requires you to pay them millions of dollars, more money than your business is worth. Would you gladly pay them, as any good moral person would? If your business didn't have the money, should they be able to get the judgment from your personal assets? Better sell all your possessions as well. Does that sound extreme to you? And, yet, if you read the responses here, that is exactly what some forum members think is the correct resolution. I think it's a bit more complicated.

 

[abaddon]

That was a decent post, Giordano, so ill respond. I'm with you on #5 90% of the way. I think the highlighted portion is where I have doubts, since the courts expressly held that abuse came to light down the line here. I still think they should bear the responsibility to pay up, but it gets a bit murkier at that point because, again, we are not hearing the Archdiocese's side of the argument--just the biased opinions of others who are commenting on their actions. It would be interesting to hear their side of the story, cause I can think of examples where use of a trust does not necessarily imply fraud or dishonesty. For example, people put property into trusts to avoid paying taxes--doesn't make them evil traitors who are trying to steal from the government, they're just taking advantage of a traditional legal framework

Wow. Obvious RCC apologist is obvious.

Likewise, suppose you were an employer who spent your whole life creating a business, and then you discovered, much to your dismay, that one of your former employees touched someone in the wrong way five years ago. All of a sudden, dozens of additional victims come forward and a judgment is reached against your business that requires you to pay them millions of dollars, more money than your business is worth. Would you gladly pay them, as any good moral person would? If your business didn't have the money, should they be able to get the judgment from your personal assets? Better sell all your possessions as well. Does that sound extreme to you? And, yet, if you read the responses here, that is exactly what some forum members think is the correct resolution. I think it's a bit more complicated.

Then you should be judged, sentenced and forced to pay compensation. The very notion that if one could cover up the sins so as to avoid penalty is anathema to any right thinking individual. The RCC does not get a bye any more than Lucent, or...hell anyone. Even as individuals. "were the RCC therefore the rules which apply to everyone else do not apply to us"
That is not going to wash. The RCC insists that their rules apply to you, me and everyone else. Just not to them.

 

[oopsboom]

For example, people put property into trusts to avoid paying taxes--doesn't make them evil traitors who are trying to steal from the government, they're just taking advantage of a traditional legal framework

Most people don't do that right after the money has been awarded by a judgement to someone else. Granted, IANAL, but I think if I owned property but put it all in a trust, declared bankruptcy and told the gov't I couldn't afford to pay taxes on it I'd have an auditor knocking on my door. They're not in a situation where they can't pay, they're artificially creating a situation where they appear to be unable to pay, or where paying would appear to create hardship in order to try to avoid payment that has been ordered.

Likewise, suppose you were an employer who spent your whole life creating a business, and [...] a judgment is reached against your business that requires you to pay them millions of dollars, more money than your business is worth. Would you gladly pay them, as any good moral person would? If your business didn't have the money, should they be able to get the judgment from your personal assets? Better sell all your possessions as well. Does that sound extreme to you?

There are any number of structures they could have set up beforehand to limit liability. If those had been in place the judgement could never have been made. Without having the specifics I can't say what happened obviously. If they chose some other model then they probably made that decision to get some other benefit from it and well, that's a risk you take, I guess. Maybe they should quit being a church and try being a for-profit corporation, those guys don't seem to have this issue.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They're already a for-profit in everything except name.

 

[tsig]

They're already a for-profit in everything except name.

They sell salvation and it ain't cheap.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They sell salvation and it ain't cheap.

Not for the consumer, anyway. Salvation costs nothing to produce and requires no labor. You just stand up in front of people and lie, lie, lie.

 

[Giordano]

This thread is not about the RCC, it is about the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee and how it thinks it can 'avoid accepting responsibility' by claiming that being forced to pay a judgement is a violation of its religious freedom.

Which is their right, just as it is for any organization who believes they are entitled to religious freedom (eg. Hobby Lobby, Ethical Society of Austin). Let's wait until the courts decide, and if it goes wrong the way then you can blame the US Constitution and legal system for allowing it to happen.

The lawyers and accountants who are handling the diocese's affairs probably consider it their legal and moral responsibility to get the best deal they can for their client. They may be going about it in the wrong way, but they would probably do exactly the same for any other business.

Like it or not, the US Constitution gives churches certain rights, including the right to spend their money as they wish. If the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee thinks it can get away with not paying a judgement then it is their constitutional right to try, and why should we be surprised when they do? We know that they tolerate child sex abuse so their lack of morality has already been established, and now we know that they worship the same god as the rest of America - Money.

Several points:
1. To distinguish the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee from the Roman Catholic Church as a whole is a legal construct, but absolutely ignores the moral reality. The CAM is completely under the control of the RCC as a whole, the RCC appoints the people who run the CAM, and money and personnel are frequently exchanged. Do people who pray in churches in Milwaukee define themselves as other than Roman Catholic? To define the CAM as a separate entity is legally useful and can be a convenience that is morally neutral, but to use it to avoid paying a legal settlement that could be paid by the Mother Church is morally unethical.

2. Anyone can claim "religious freedom" to request that a court invalidate a particular law; I can claim that my parking tickets go against my religion. But whether such a claim is morally legitimate is a different issue. In fact, in many cases the courts have held that a particular religious freedom claim is not legal either. Personally, I strongly believe that the right to cite "religious freedom" stops when your actions hurt other people. Am I to assume the the CAM is arguing that its right to "religious freedom" means that it can facilitate child molestation and not be held accountable to the USA laws that prohibit such actions? Or that CAM alone should be the judge of such actions? Why does the CAM eagerly accept the USA laws that allow it to be a separate legal entity from the RCC as a whole, and thus to declare bankruptcy, but then to reject that USA laws have authority when these laws hold the MAM responsible for a criminal action?

3. I presume that you are not citing lawyers and the law as the ultimate test of morality. I have no problem with lawyers seeking the best legal deal for their clients; that is their job. Lawyers do (and should) routinely defend clients obviously guilty of awful crimes, although honestly I had trouble coming up with one (for the sake of argument) worse than the one currently under discussion. I am addressing the morality of the CAM for agreeing to these legal strategies, especially when the CAM tries to present itself as the central source of morality and ethics.

My lawyer may legally use every trick to try to avoid me being convicted of murder, even it I did it; that doesn't mean that it was morally ethical for me to commit the murder, or for me to lie on the stand and claim that I didn't do it (I believe that I cannot confess to my lawyer, and then deny the murder in court, given that my lawyer is an officer of the court, but I am presuming that I never confessed to my lawyer).

4. As to your last point- yes, again the CAM should have the same legal rights as any other legal creation in the USA. I disagree with the CAM that it should have more, and I believe that the Constitution does not give it more. How courts see the legality of their actions, as I already mentioned, will need to be determined. But yes I agree with you, I think that their actions have already clarified their perspective on morality.

 

[Giordano]

That was a decent post, Giordano, so ill respond. I'm with you on #5 90% of the way. I think the highlighted portion is where I have doubts, since the courts expressly held that abuse came to light down the line here. I still think they should bear the responsibility to pay up, but it gets a bit murkier at that point because, again, we are not hearing the Archdiocese's side of the argument--just the biased opinions of others who are commenting on their actions. It would be interesting to hear their side of the story, cause I can think of examples where use of a trust does not necessarily imply fraud or dishonesty. For example, people put property into trusts to avoid paying taxes--doesn't make them evil traitors who are trying to steal from the government, they're just taking advantage of a traditional legal framework
Likewise, suppose you were an employer who spent your whole life creating a business, and then you discovered, much to your dismay, that one of your former employees touched someone in the wrong way five years ago. All of a sudden, dozens of additional victims come forward and a judgment is reached against your business that requires you to pay them millions of dollars, more money than your business is worth. Would you gladly pay them, as any good moral person would? If your business didn't have the money, should they be able to get the judgment from your personal assets? Better sell all your possessions as well. Does that sound extreme to you? And, yet, if you read the responses here, that is exactly what some forum members think is the correct resolution. I think it's a bit more complicated.

Thank you.

I have tried to separate legal from moral in this discussion. One can legally set up a trust to avoid inheritance taxes; if it it moral probably depends on the circumstances. But here the church is attempting to avoid paying a legal settlement to victims of child abuse. Not quite the same level. We do already know some of the church's arguments from their own statements. These will be settled in a court of law. But from what I've seen, the "moral" argument of the church is that it morally must set aside enough money to put flowers on graves rather than to pay out leaving victims of child abuse. If you know of other arguments that present the church's argument in a better light, I would be happy to hear them.

As to protecting a business. I think it is very clear from multiple court cases, church documents, church official testimonies, and victims, that the church was not only well aware of wide-spread child abuse, but covered up this child abuse, failed to report this child abuse (as required by law) to local officials, and protected the abusers. Over a period of many decades. This is a bit different from your scenario of a business totally ignorant of, and totally uninvolved in, one abuser who was employed there. True, in several cases businesses have been legally found to be partially responsible when they knew (or should have known) of the abuse and did not try to end it. The problem is much worse when a pattern of abuse and a pattern of the business ignoring such abuse can be proven. That is why businesses now are required to have procedures to deter employees from these types of crimes, and to ensure that reports of such actions are rapidly evaluated and acted on.

So the cases are not in any way comparable. I don't think that many people believe that a business that did what it should to avoid and detect abuse, but had a case of abuse slip under its radar, should be significantly punished (and juries are made of people). But this is not such a case. I would also add that if a business is incorporated, such as the church under discussion, the courts cannot come after your personal assets if the business assets are inadequate to pay the judgement.

 

[stanfr]

Most people don't do that right after the money has been awarded by a judgement to someone else. Granted, IANAL, but I think if I owned property but put it all in a trust, declared bankruptcy and told the gov't I couldn't afford to pay taxes on it I'd have an auditor knocking on my door. They're not in a situation where they can't pay, they're artificially creating a situation where they appear to be unable to pay, or where paying would appear to create hardship in order to try to avoid payment that has been ordered....

From what I read, the trust was created before any judgment was rendered (and 4 yrs before bankruptcy) And, yes, in certain situations you can indeed avoid taxes in the scenario you described, depending on the exact fact. For example, the general rule for purposes of estate taxation is that the trust was created 5 years prior (to the person dying) I agree it doesn't look good on the surface here, but we don't know their side of the story. I'm not apologizing for anyone--just pointing out the obvious!

 

[Leumas]

Likewise, suppose you were an employer who spent your whole life creating a business, and then you discovered, much to your dismay, that one of your former employees touched someone in the wrong way five years ago. All of a sudden, dozens of additional victims come forward and a judgment is reached against your business that requires you to pay them millions of dollars, more money than your business is worth. Would you gladly pay them, as any good moral person would? If your business didn't have the money, should they be able to get the judgment from your personal assets? Better sell all your possessions as well. Does that sound extreme to you? And, yet, if you read the responses here, that is exactly what some forum members think is the correct resolution. I think it's a bit more complicated.

Isn't a CHRISTIAN CHURCH supposed to be JESUS' "business"?

What do you think JESUS should do in the scenario you describe above?

Do you think Jesus should hide behind legal shenanigans and employ legal loopholes?

Do you think JESUS the J-MartCHURCH BUSINESS OWNER should have prevented his employees from sodomizing little children who came to enjoy the theme park he is running?

Jesus can't claim lack of knowledge or inability to stop those employees HE WATCHED AND STOOD BY WHILE they were buggering little innocent children.... can he now?

Do you think Jesus should be held responsible for his LACK OF ACTION to prevent a crime ON HIS PREMISES with his FULL KNOWLEDGE and ability to stop it but not doing so?

Do you think Jesus' J-Mart Corporations .... that is a plural... should pay restitution and penalties no matter what sleazy lawyering they can hide behind?

After all.... we cannot hold Jesus to the same standards as we hold a normal BANKSTER or CEO or negligent BOSS.... at least that is what Christians keep on telling us.... no?

 

[stanfr]

Isn't a CHRISTIAN CHURCH supposed to be JESUS' "business"?

What do you think JESUS should do in the scenario you describe above?

Do you think Jesus should hide behind legal shenanigans and employ legal loopholes?

Do you think JESUS the J-MartCHURCH BUSINESS OWNER should have prevented his employees from sodomizing little children who came to enjoy the theme park he is running?

Jesus can't claim lack of knowledge or inability to stop those employees HE WATCHED AND STOOD BY WHILE they were buggering little innocent children.... can he now?

Do you think Jesus should be held responsible for his LACK OF ACTION to prevent a crime ON HIS PREMISES with his FULL KNOWLEDGE and ability to stop it but not doing so?

What are you babbling about? There are many forum members who think that Jesus was just a fictional character, and even if he wasn't, he died a couple thousand years ago. Get with the program, man!

 

[stanfr]

Thank you.

I have tried to separate legal from moral in this discussion. One can legally set up a trust to avoid inheritance taxes; if it it moral probably depends on the circumstances. But here the church is attempting to avoid paying a legal settlement to victims of child abuse. Not quite the same level. We do already know some of the church's arguments from their own statements. These will be settled in a court of law. But from what I've seen, the "moral" argument of the church is that it morally must set aside enough money to put flowers on graves rather than to pay out leaving victims of child abuse. If you know of other arguments that present the church's argument in a better light, I would be happy to hear them.

As to protecting a business. I think it is very clear from multiple court cases, church documents, church official testimonies, and victims, that the church was not only well aware of wide-spread child abuse, but covered up this child abuse, failed to report this child abuse (as required by law) to local officials, and protected the abusers. Over a period of many decades. This is a bit different from your scenario of a business totally ignorant of, and totally uninvolved in, one abuser who was employed there. True, in several cases businesses have been legally found to be partially responsible when they knew (or should have known) of the abuse and did not try to end it. The problem is much worse when a pattern of abuse and a pattern of the business ignoring such abuse can be proven. That is why businesses now are required to have procedures to deter employees from these types of crimes, and to ensure that reports of such actions are rapidly evaluated and acted on.

So the cases are not in any way comparable. I don't think that many people believe that a business that did what it should to avoid and detect abuse, but had a case of abuse slip under its radar, should be significantly punished (and juries are made of people). But this is not such a case. I would also add that if a business is incorporated, such as the church under discussion, the courts cannot come after your personal assets if the business assets are inadequate to pay the judgement.

I completely understand, and I agree with you to a certain point. I think the problem is you are deciding the 'guilt' in this particular case based on a number of other cases that happened years and/or thousands of miles a part. That aint kosher either in a legal proceeding or a skeptic's forum. Where is the evidence that the church officials in this case "aided and abetted" the abuse? Show me that, and I fully concede!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I completely understand, and I agree with you to a certain point. I think the problem is you are deciding the 'guilt' in this particular case based on a number of other cases that happened years and/or thousands of miles a part. That aint kosher either in a legal proceeding or a skeptic's forum. Where is the evidence that the church officials in this case "aided and abetted" the abuse? Show me that, and I fully concede!

Seriously? The Church is in the habit (get it?) of moving priests around to avoid prosecution on pedophilia charges. This is not a question, it's been proven in court. If you think this bunch is different you'll have to show how.