Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975
Comments
-
The chain of command stops at the bishop as each diocese is autonomous in the church.
Absolute cobblers.
So Bishops do not then follow commands, cannon laws (inner rules from the boss on his throne) and do not heed and follow edicts, requests and orders from Rome?
Your still living in Lala land and are refusing to see and understand the legal laws that say different.
The chain of command stops at a bishop?
:pac: :pac: :pac:
Like it or lump it, the Org in Rome is eventually open to having compensation claimed from them.
Get used to that legal fact or carry on in you own totally disillusioned world.
There are others for other countries which say the very same thing.
...And thats before we get to already mentioned liability by chain of command, issues and further connections within any one organisation within the confines of Irish law.
Wake up. Stop just swallowing just what your hearing disseminated from Rome heads and their latter day disciples.
De minimis non curat lex - The law does not concern itself with trifles (Legal Term)
Dura lex, sed lex - The law is hard, but it is the law (Legal term)0 -
-
Thanks, but I honestly thought I was on to more of a winner here but seemingly not..steddyeddy wrote: »That deserves a thousand thanks0 -
Take a business, a franchise. If one, say store, restaurant or whatever does something which causes litigation to be pressed upon it, the head office is inherently going to be brought in to it. Legally, I don't believe they are looked upon as separate entities like you propose. If the church is actually looked upon in this way then that is a glaring flaw in the system. But before we get to that point, care to prove its veracity?Absolute cobblers.
So Bishops do not then follow commands, cannon laws (inner rules from the boss on his throne) and do not heed and follow edicts, requests and orders from Rome?
Your still living in Lala land and are refusing to see and understand the legal laws that say different.
The chain of command stops at a bishop?
:pac: :pac: :pac:
Like it or lump it, the Org in Rome is eventually open to having compensation claimed from them.
Get used to that legal fact or carry on in you own totally disillusioned world.
There are others for other countries which say the very same thing.
...And thats before we get to already mentioned liability by chain of command, issues and further connections within any one organisation within the confines of Irish law.
Wake up. Stop just swallowing just what your hearing disseminated from Rome heads and their latter day disciples.
De minimis non curat lex - The law does not concern itself with trifles (Legal Term)
Dura lex, sed lex - The law is hard, but it is the law (Legal term)
It is the bishops who ordains a priest, it is a bishop who does confimation because he is suppose to be the same as one of the twelve apostles in terms of his role in the church.
The bishop is the person who has political and sacramental control over the area (his diocese) that he rules.
I think some don't understand why the Pope has to be a bishop too when he becomes Pope, as in he taks over the diocese of St Peter which is the Diocese of Rome. Just like the the bishop of Armagh is viewed as the most senior bishop in Ireland because it is the diocese that belonged to St Patrick.
Across the world it is the diocese where the abuse happened where the compensation comes from - in Boston forexample the diocese there had to even sell off some churches to pay the compensation which angered some locals there. This is because of the political and autonomous nature of a diocese.
Please look it up and you will see where the compensation comes from, it comes from the diocese where the abuse happened to the person who was abused in that diocese.
It is not like a franchise. The collections at mass are one is for the local parish, the other is for the bishop to redistribute to where it is needed. Once a year there is the Peter's pence collection which is for the Pope who then distributes it to the most needy people on this planet.
Canon law is not from Rome, a bishop exercises canon law, he doesn't need permission from Rome.
When changes are made in the church it is the bishops who make them, remember everone from bishop upto the Pope is also a bishop. It was the bishops who together as a church came up with the canon law.
You see it in the acts of the apostles in the bible how they came together and decided on things for the early church.
There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the role of a bishop, and why even the Pope at a most basic level has to be a bishop.0 -
It is the bishops who ordains a priest, it is a bishop who does confimation because he is suppose to be the same as one of the twelve apostles in terms of his role in the church.
The bishop is the person who has political and sacramental control over the area (his diocese) that he rules.
I think some don't understand why the Pope has to be a bishop too when he becomes Pope, as in he taks over the diocese of St Peter which is the Diocese of Rome. Just like the the bishop of Armagh is viewed as the most senior bishop in Ireland because it is the diocese that belonged to St Patrick.
Across the world it is the diocese where the abuse happened where the compensation comes from - in Boston forexample the diocese there had to even sell off some churches to pay the compensation which angered some locals there. This is because of the political and autonomous nature of a diocese.
Please look it up and you will see where the compensation comes from, it comes from the diocese where the abuse happened to the person who was abused in that diocese.
It is not like a franchise. The collections at mass are one is for the local parish, the other is for the bishop to redistribute to where it is needed. Once a year there is the Peter's pence collection which is for the Pope who then distributes it to the most needy people on this planet.
Canon law is not from Rome, a bishop exercises canon law, he doesn't need permission from Rome.
When changes are made in the church it is the bishops who make them, remember everone from bishop upto the Pope is also a bishop. It was the bishops who together as a church came up with the canon law.
You see it in the acts of the apostles in the bible how they came together and decided on things for the early church.
There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the role of a bishop, and why even the Pope at a most basic level has to be a bishop.
After all that typing you still don't get it - I don't think you want to!
The pope has the final say.
With the help of his under-staff (who obey his commands!)...
The pope hands down the rules having finally signed off on them.
The pope appoints with his final permission, those that will gain higher further status within the organisation.
The pope appoints and or has the final say as to the Cardinals/bishops and their positions and locations.
The pope (with the help of his staff) allocates money, a manager and oversees the Vatican bank. The buck(s) stops with him.
The pope is the person underdogs are called to when their are to be censured, praised or to be stripped of their rank.
He is the head of the Catholic church and has the final say on everything pertaining thereto.
Now having said all that crap - here AGAIN is the bit your brain doesn't seem to get - or I think wants to!
...All that crap above is non-detriment to the law here in Ireland, England or many places elsewhere.
In fact because of the above AND A LOT MORE, the connection between Pope to cardinal, cardinal to bishop, bishop to priest, is all laid out in age old established structure that only an idiot would continue to spout that there is no connection from pope to bishop or priest in formal connection.
This rubbish that
...Is the ramblings of pure stupidity.The chain of command stops at a bishop
A cardinal, archbishop, a bishop, a priest, a nun, etc... ALL need permission and follow the rules laid out, updated and and thus fortified by any sitting pope and his authoritarian signature, to do the things their do if they wish to stay within their own orgs rules and not be chastised/censured.
In fact if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you would have mentioned that every 5 years the (arch)bishop(s) visit the pope in what is called an ad limina visit. At this, they confirm with the pope, their BOSS, what has been happening in the (arch)diocese and establish future plans, which are then signed off with their BOSS, the popes permission.
...But you (conveniently?) forgot to mention this in your wrong PR spinning postings!
Absolute stupidity!The chain of command stops at a bishop
Why the hell are they walking/running/flying/sailing to some man called "the Pope", beholden to him, obeying his commands and words, if the pope supposedly is not connected to them whatsoever!
Absolute stupidity is being rambled about supposed no connection of command between pope and those under him.
"The chain of command stops at a bishop" - pure laughable!
O' look, here is a picture of something a pope as boss, gets to do: http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10003569-pope-appoints-new-bishops-names-22-cardinals?lite
Or another: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-gives-three-new-bishops-to-us-dioceses/
Or another: http://www.zenit.org/article-34214?l=english
Or another: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201151.htm
Weird that this stranger called 'pope' is appointing all these positions and many, many more over centuries...The chain of command stops at a bishop
LOL :pac:
Again, for clarity and for the record:
The pope(s) is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
Politically and diplomatically they are the head of state for Vatican City, where their ultimate HQ exists.
Managerially they as top person, run the Roman Catholic Church, an extensive global organisation.
Theologically they are the ultimate authority on theological matters for the Roman Catholic Church.
Finally - and this once again is the bit you cannot seem to get your head around...
The Org in Rome CAN be held accountable for any liabilities that is deemed to be their responsibility to/for - and the right of the people to seek redress is enshrined in many state laws against ANY organisation.
...And you refuse to get that!
Please do feel free to carry on with the daftness though, we are all falling for it.0 -
-
The church is too busy to deal with these scandals. After all, when they spend their time on things like this, well what needs to be said?
...Or they are too busy trying to control others that are worth just a petty €27.44 billion.
(and remember, these are just one of the smaller sections under the eventual rule of Rome!)
Seven priests from Legion of Christ investigated by Vatican for alleged child sex abuse
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seven-priests-from-legion-of-christ-investigated-by-vatican-for-alleged-child-sex-abuse-3104795.htmlNews reports have estimated the Legion has assets totalling €27.44billion in a holding company headed by the order’s current number two.
...But O' wait...The chain of command stops at a bishop
Jeasus, how dare this pope stranger, pop-up out of nowhere and inject himself into things he's not connected to!
:rolleyes:0 -
After all that typing you still don't get it - I don't think you want to!
The pope has the final say.
With the help of his under-staff (who obey his commands!)...
The pope hands down the rules having finally signed off on them.
The pope appoints with his final permission, those that will gain higher further status within the organisation.
The pope appoints and or has the final say as to the Cardinals/bishops and their positions and locations.
The pope (with the help of his staff) allocates money, a manager and oversees the Vatican bank. The buck(s) stops with him.
The pope is the person underdogs are called to when their are to be censured, praised or to be stripped of their rank.
He is the head of the Catholic church and has the final say on everything pertaining thereto.
Now having said all that crap - here AGAIN is the bit your brain doesn't seem to get - or I think wants to!
...All that crap above is non-detriment to the law here in Ireland, England or many places elsewhere.
In fact because of the above AND A LOT MORE, the connection between Pope to cardinal, cardinal to bishop, bishop to priest, is all laid out in age old established structure that only an idiot would continue to spout that there is no connection from pope to bishop or priest in formal connection.
This rubbish that
...Is the ramblings of pure stupidity.
A cardinal, archbishop, a bishop, a priest, a nun, etc... ALL need permission and follow the rules laid out, updated and and thus fortified by any sitting pope and his authoritarian signature, to do the things their do if they wish to stay within their own orgs rules and not be chastised/censured.
In fact if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you would have mentioned that every 5 years the (arch)bishop(s) visit the pope in what is called an ad limina visit. At this, they confirm with the pope, their BOSS, what has been happening in the (arch)diocese and establish future plans, which are then signed off with their BOSS, the popes permission.
...But you (conveniently?) forgot to mention this in your wrong PR spinning postings!
Absolute stupidity!
Why the hell are they walking/running/flying/sailing to some man called "the Pope", beholden to him, obeying his commands and words, if the pope supposedly is not connected to them whatsoever!
Absolute stupidity is being rambled about supposed no connection of command between pope and those under him.
"The chain of command stops at a bishop" - pure laughable!
O' look, here is a picture of something a pope as boss, gets to do: http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/06/10003569-pope-appoints-new-bishops-names-22-cardinals?lite
Or another: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-gives-three-new-bishops-to-us-dioceses/
Or another: http://www.zenit.org/article-34214?l=english
Or another: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201151.htm
Weird that this stranger called 'pope' is appointing all these positions and many, many more over centuries...
LOL :pac:
Again, for clarity and for the record:
The pope(s) is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
Politically and diplomatically they are the head of state for Vatican City, where their ultimate HQ exists.
Managerially they as top person, run the Roman Catholic Church, an extensive global organisation.
Theologically they are the ultimate authority on theological matters for the Roman Catholic Church.
Finally - and this once again is the bit you cannot seem to get your head around...
The Org in Rome CAN be held accountable for any liabilities that is deemed to be their responsibility to/for - and the right of the people to seek redress is enshrined in many state laws against ANY organisation.
...And you refuse to get that!
Please do feel free to carry on with the daftness though, we are all falling for it.
Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII, it was atended by all the bishops to discuss and decide on how the church should operate.
The Pope didn't have the authority to do this alone, the Pope only has authority to say something ex cahedra which has to be backed up by what is in the bible.
The bishops of the world came together for Vatican II which discussed the following:
The dogmatic constitution of the church
The dogmatic constitution of divine revelation.
The pastoral constitution of the church
The liturgical constitution of the church.
Then they decided on 9 decrees and 3 declarations. It was the bishops who came together along with about 60 lay people and people from other churches who decided how the catholic church is run.
2,600 bishops from around the world attended Vatican II to decide on how the modern church should operate..
This is what happened in the Acts of the apostles in the bible, where in Jerusalem the leaders of the early church came together and decided on how the church should operate.
The point with legal law is the diocese or bishop is where one would sue, the bishop is the person with the authority in the diocese, with rules that all the bishops from the various diocese around the world agreed on.
There is no point thinking you know how the church came up with it's dogma and canon law if you fail to realise it took the bishops coming together as in Vatican II for example to come up with how the church is run.
The bishop is a ruler in the church both in a political sense as well as in sacramental sense.0 -
Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII, it was atended by all the bishops to discuss and decide on how the church should operate.
The Pope didn't have the authority to do this alone, the Pope only has authority to say something ex cahedra which has to be backed up by what is in the bible.
The bishops of the world came together for Vatican II which discussed the following:
The dogmatic constitution of the church
The dogmatic constitution of divine revelation.
The pastoral constitution of the church
The liturgical constitution of the church.
Then they decided on 9 decrees and 3 declarations. It was the bishops who came together along with about 60 lay people and people from other churches who decided how the catholic church is run.
2,600 bishops from around the world attended Vatican II to decide on how the modern church should operate..
This is what happened in the Acts of the apostles in the bible, where in Jerusalem the leaders of the early church came together and decided on how the church should operate.
What the hell has all that waffle got to do with state laws that allows any citizen of a state, to sue an organisation?
Christ, you can come out with some drivel!
Stop avoiding the following:
The Org in Rome CAN be held accountable for any liabilities that is deemed to be their responsibility to/for - and the right of the people to seek redress is enshrined in many state laws against ANY organisation.The point with legal law is the diocese or bishop is where one would sue...
Really - well once again to show you that you have not got a clue...
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094001/Frenchman-71-takes-Catholic-Church-court-landmark-case-refuses-nullify-baptism.html
Frenchman, 71, takes Catholic Church to court...
* http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643808-high-court-rules-catholic-church-liable-over-priests
High Court rules Catholic Church liable over priests
And I quote:Jon Brown, from the children's charity, said: "All organisations that work with children have a clear responsibility to ensure their safety. Religious organisations are no different.
"This is a ruling in favour of children and rightly places the responsibility on the Church to ensure that they select and monitor priests carefully and have robust procedures in place to take steps to protect children when there are concerns."
So there you have it just with two examples - let me repeat it again for you seem to be deaf:
The Org in Rome CAN be held accountable for any liabilities that is deemed to be their responsibility to/for - and the right of the people to seek redress is enshrined in many state laws against ANY organisation.
Now where one priest can cost the Rome org €46.35 million for abuses committed (look up Fr Sean Fortune) - its no wonder that fools will try and spin it that the Rome Org is not liable - but HELLO!!!
They are!
Carry on retorting with more crap!0 -
...Or they are too busy trying to control others that are worth just a petty €27.44 billion.
(and remember, these are just one of the smaller sections under the eventual rule of Rome!)
Seven priests from Legion of Christ investigated by Vatican for alleged child sex abuse
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seven-priests-from-legion-of-christ-investigated-by-vatican-for-alleged-child-sex-abuse-3104795.html
...But O' wait...
Jeasus, how dare this pope stranger, pop-up out of nowhere and inject himself into things he's not connected to!
:rolleyes:
The legion of Christ are a religious order which is a huge difference from a priest who operates under a diocesan bishop.
A diocesan bishop has no control over a religious order that may reside within his diocese.
The diocesan bishop only has control over the priests in his diocese that operate under him, which is not what a priest in a religious order is subject to as they operate differently and have taken different vows to that of a diocesan priest.
There are other differences too.
The Pope has authority when it comes to religious orders and it was not a diocesan bishop he appointed when it came to taking action against the order for the alleged sexual abuse. The archbishop is a titular bishop of Telepte, a place in Tunisia that was where one of the founding fathers of the church resided.
You do not understand the role of a diocesan bishop and the difference between a diocesan bishop and who has control to order a church investigation into a religious order.
A diocesan bishop can have a church investigation into a priest under his administration along with the mandatory reporting to civil authorities, but the same diocesan bishop does not have the authority when it comes to religious orders.0 -
Advertisement
-
What the hell has all that waffle got to do with state laws that allows any citizen of a state, to sue an organisation?
Christ, you can come out with some drivel!
Stop avoiding the following:
The Org in Rome CAN be held accountable for any liabilities that is deemed to be their responsibility to/for - and the right of the people to seek redress is enshrined in many state laws against ANY organisation.
Really - well once again to show you that you have not got a clue...
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094001/Frenchman-71-takes-Catholic-Church-court-landmark-case-refuses-nullify-baptism.html
Frenchman, 71, takes Catholic Church to court...
* http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643808-high-court-rules-catholic-church-liable-over-priests
High Court rules Catholic Church liable over priests
And I quote:
So there you have it just with two examples - let me repeat it again for you seem to be deaf:
The Org in Rome CAN be held accountable for any liabilities that is deemed to be their responsibility to/for - and the right of the people to seek redress is enshrined in many state laws against ANY organisation.
We can talk about state laws when you understand how the church operates and where the authority resides in regards to the parish priest - it stops at the bishop.
How many times has the Vatican being sued successfully over abuse?0 -
We can talk about state laws when you understand how the church operates and where the authority resides in regards to the parish priest - it stops at the bishop.
How many times has the Vatican being sued successfully over abuse?
You tell us (I have not the time all day to count the following) - a google search throws up many cases of people taking the option to hold the Rome Organisation accountable.
Seeing as your refusing to read that anyone in the state can hold the Vatican organisation liable - here is some video instead:
Now after all your waffle, please still tell us all that the Rome org cannot be sued or be held liable!
Please do!
Please show us again how much your wrong.0 -
The legion of Christ are a religious order which is a huge difference from a priest who operates under a diocesan bishop...
I was hoping someone would come out with that - so the point that you have CLEARLY missed is that - and this is important - not only does the pope control those under him in his direct organisation, he also by orders given by himself (downwards in chain of command) also take control of others attached to the Vatican in Rome and which is following his edicts. Through them, the whole further combined structure can be held accountable.
There is a chain of command as with any structural organisation.
As such, that organisation can be held accountable for the actions of those under its 'roof', its members, and/or for those attached to the organisation that is operating under its guidelines.
Recognising that fact (which you seem to outright refuse to do in craziness) as many others have, thus the Rome Org can be taken to task. End of story.
...And thats the law, state law in many countries.0 -
Vatican II was called by Pope John XXIII, it was atended by all the bishops to discuss and decide on how the church should operate.
The Pope didn't have the authority to do this alone, the Pope only has authority to say something ex cahedra which has to be backed up by what is in the bible.
The bishops of the world came together for Vatican II which discussed the following:
The dogmatic constitution of the church
The dogmatic constitution of divine revelation.
The pastoral constitution of the church
The liturgical constitution of the church.
Then they decided on 9 decrees and 3 declarations. It was the bishops who came together along with about 60 lay people and people from other churches who decided how the catholic church is run.
2,600 bishops from around the world attended Vatican II to decide on how the modern church should operate..
This is what happened in the Acts of the apostles in the bible, where in Jerusalem the leaders of the early church came together and decided on how the church should operate.
The point with legal law is the diocese or bishop is where one would sue, the bishop is the person with the authority in the diocese, with rules that all the bishops from the various diocese around the world agreed on.
There is no point thinking you know how the church came up with it's dogma and canon law if you fail to realise it took the bishops coming together as in Vatican II for example to come up with how the church is run.
The bishop is a ruler in the church both in a political sense as well as in sacramental sense.
....yet he had the power to veto the oking of contraception.0 -
The chain of command stops at the bishop as each diocese is autonomous in the church.
ahahaha. My fucking eye it is.
Should a Bishop open his yap and stray from the party line about Priests marrying, gays marrying, abortion or anything else Il Papa has a bug in his bonnet about and ye'd see how "autonomous" they are.
You still haven't explained why you're here, deflecting for S Brady?0 -
-
....yet he had the power to veto the oking of contraception.
All explained in Humanae vitae.
Lets face it contraception has lead to a lot of people taking part in sex that is not within marriage which goes against the bible.
Humanae vitae said about marriage - "Love is total — that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself."
In other words a child is a gift and if the couple love eachother they won't mind producing a child out of that love.
There are lots of people now who use contraception and are having sex and are not married, contraception has promoted sex outside of marriage which goes against the teaching of the church and bible.0 -
All explained......bible.
I'm sure it is. It was still vetoed by the pope though, which was the point.
You still haven't explained why you're here deflecting for S Brady. I'm fairly sure thats not explained in "Humanae Vitae". Any reason you refuse to answer, or acknowledge the question?0 -
I'm sure it is. It was still vetoed by the pope though, which was the point.
You still haven't explained why you're here deflecting for S Brady. I'm fairly sure thats not explained in "Humanae Vitae". Any reason you refuse to answer, or acknowledge the question?
Na, Min would rather take this thread further off topic than have it concentrate on Brady who is an abysmal failure and should have resigned long ago - and should still.0 -
Advertisement
-
ahahaha. My fucking eye it is.
Should a Bishop open his yap and stray from the party line about Priests marrying, gays marrying, abortion or anything else Il Papa has a bug in his bonnet about and ye'd see how "autonomous" they are.
You still haven't explained why you're here, deflecting for S Brady?
The authority of the church is in the magisterium which is made up of the bishops and the pope.
Tell me of a Catholic bishop that supports abortion or gay marriage or is against the Pope?
Priests marrying is a different area given St Peter was married so celebate priests is not a dogmatic requirement but then there is support in the bible for celebate priests. The church has chosen to have celebate priests.
I am not delfecting anything, earlier in this topic I said the responsibility in regards to Brendan Smyth resided with the bishop, as the buck stopped with him.0 -
...earlier in this topic I said the responsibility in regards to Brendan Smyth resided with the bishop, as the buck stopped with him.
..And he did nothing, thereafter anyone else if they were a decent human being, would have informed the Garda south of the border, the police North of the border and every parent of the abused.
What did the now present top man in Ireland do that is supposed to espouse an example of goodness and charity?
NOTHING!
Disgustingly NOTHING!
Instead, he applied by his own methods, enough 'persuasion' to get the kids to stay silent.
It was bad enough that the kids of the the were abused repeated physically - Brady then compacted their injuries by laying on additional mental complications - for years and years.
He is a disgusting disgrace.
No wonder he is in hiding presently!0 -
The authority of the church is in the magisterium which is made up of the bishops and the pope.
Tell me of a Catholic bishop that supports abortion or gay marriage or is against the Pope?
Priests marrying is a different area given St Peter was married so celebate priests is not a dogmatic requirement but then there is support in the bible for celebate priests. The church has chosen to have celebate priests..
http://ncronline.org/news/women/pope-removes-bishop-who-expressed-openness-ordaining-womenVATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI has removed Australian Bishop William M. Morris of Toowoomba from office five years after he wrote a pastoral letter indicating he would be open to ordaining women and married men if church rules changed to allow such a possibility.I am not delfecting anything, earlier in this topic I said the responsibility in regards to Brendan Smyth resided with the bishop, as the buck stopped with him.
So you don't believe Brady should step down then . Wunderbar.0 -
I was hoping someone would come out with that - so the point that you have CLEARLY missed is that - and this is important - not only does the pope control those under him in his direct organisation, he also by orders given by himself (downwards in chain of command) also take control of others attached to the Vatican in Rome and which is following his edicts. Through them, the whole further combined structure can be held accountable.
There is a chain of command as with any structural organisation.
As such, that organisation can be held accountable for the actions of those under its 'roof', its members, and/or for those attached to the organisation that is operating under its guidelines.
Recognising that fact (which you seem to outright refuse to do in craziness) as many others have, thus the Rome Org can be taken to task. End of story.
...And thats the law, state law in many countries.
The Pope doesn't control those orders, it is the congregation for institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life which is made up of a lot of cardinals and bishops - no pope in sight.
They deal with the governing of religious orders, discipline and so on.
The Pope is not directly involved, he has the authority to order an investigation and assign someone to investigate but it is the congregation named above that deals with the religious orders.
I think you will find that a lot of the work is done on a lot of matters before it reaches the Pope, like choosing a bishop, the congregation for bishops would have the debates on which of three candidates is the best one for the job and then it goes to the Pope but the work is mostly done by that stage and he would the information from the congregation to make the decision.
The chain of command in the church is not straightforward like you want to make out. The magisterium for example which rules the church is made up of the bishops and the pope. This is what the catechism of the church says: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
The bishops aand Pope are equal in authority in the magisterium from the basic level to the top level where the Pope issues something ex cathedra and the bishops are in union with the pope. There is also a believe that the pope is infallible which is untrue, the pope is only infallible when something is specifically declared ex cathedra which isn't that often, I think the last time a pope made something ex cathedra was over 60 years ago - and this would have been in union with the bishops.
In canon law 401 it says that a bishop unable to fulfill his office for health or some other grave reason is "earnestly requested" to resign. The Pope as such doesn't have the authority to make him resign.
In the USA, the Obama administration's solicitor general said lower courts were wrong to conclude both that an abuser was acting within "the scope of his employment" and also that as his "employer," the Vatican could be sued. - http://www.catholiccourier.com/news/world-nation/justice-attorney-backs-vaticans-claim-of-immunity-from-abuse-lawsuit/0 -
http://ncronline.org/news/women/pope-removes-bishop-who-expressed-openness-ordaining-women
So you don't believe Brady should step down then . Wunderbar.
I think the bishop whose responsibility it was to deal with Brendan Smyth has gotten away lightly in all of this and there would be nothing about Cardinal Brady if the bishop in question was still alive or if the abbot in the monastery was still alive.
That bishop who expressed an a will to ordain women was not following dogma.0 -
I think the bishop whose responsibility it was to deal with Brendan Smyth has gotten away lightly in all of this and there would be nothing about Cardinal Brady if the bishop in question was still alive or if the abbot in the monastery was still alive..
....but he's dead and gone, and now a man who asked a child if they found being molested enjoyable is the highest ranked catholic church member in Ireland. Seeing as that means hes authority and influence over schools, that strikes me as problematical.
My guess is that if that Bishop was still in charge,or if it was him that made it to Cardinal, you'd be deflecting on his behalf.That bishop who expressed an a will to ordain women was not following dogma.
...and was out of there in a shot. Like I said, Rome is in charge.0 -
Advertisement
-
....but he's dead and gone, and now a man who asked a child if they found being molested enjoyable is the highest ranked catholic church member in Ireland. Seeing as that means hes authority and influence over schools, that strikes me as problematical.
My guess is that if that Bishop was still in charge,or if it was him that made it to Cardinal, you'd be deflecting on his behalf.
...and was out of there in a shot. Like I said, Rome is in charge.
No, it would be like bishop Comiskey who offered his resignation which the Pope accepted.
It would have been his fellow bishops who agreed that the ordaination of women was not compatible with the magisterium. That is the worldwide church and if Rome removed him over that then it is far more than Rome in charge.0 -
...In canon law 401 it says that a bishop unable to fulfill his office for health or some other grave reason is "earnestly requested" to resign. The Pope as such doesn't have the authority to make him resign.
In the USA, the Obama administration's solicitor general said lower courts were wrong to conclude both that an abuser was acting within "the scope of his employment" and also that as his "employer," the Vatican could be sued. - http://www.catholiccourier.com/news/world-nation/justice-attorney-backs-vaticans-claim-of-immunity-from-abuse-lawsuit/
The fact is that in 2002, Cardinal Law in the EXACT same circumstances as Brady is now, resigned.
For those that want a quick education go HERE and click play.
Brady presently doesn't have the decency even to so this.
O' and for the record seeing as you brought up America, here is a list of churchs (with backup info links) presently that is filing for bankrupts so that they can avoid paying out for their victims there:
Archdiocese of Portland OR (filed 7/6/04)
Diocese of Tucson (filed 9/20/04)
Diocese of Spokane WA (filed 12/6/04)
Diocese of Davenport IA (filed 10/10/06)
Diocese of San Diego CA (filed 2/27/07)
Diocese of Fairbanks AK (filed 3/1/08)
Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus (filed 2/17/09)
Diocese of Wilmington DE and MD (announced 10/18/09)
Archdiocese of Milwaukee (filed 1/4/11)
Congregation of the Christian Brothers/Christian Brothers Institute/Christian Brothers of Ireland (filed 4/28/11)
In EVERY case - and I CAN provide links to verify the above, hell I'll give them though one link below... - the churches in America feared all the above court cases and files for chapter 11 instead to cover their asses.
And I additionally quote:Sexual abuse litigation in the United States almost always ends in settlement. Until recently, the Catholic bishops dealt with the cases one-by-one and required confidentiality agreements as a condition of settlement. This strategy was apparently intended to keep victims from connecting with each other and to keep cases out of the media. The Kos trial in the late 1990s, with its large monetary award, confirmed the bishops in their fear of the courtroom. We know of 41 cases that have gone to trial since 1950 out of more than 3,000.
Want the link for the above? Here ya go: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/
The CIVIL cases that was taken for a period is listed on that link.
Pay attention to the section "Largest Settlements by Total Dollar Amount"
What did they pay out for those legal cases in the states?
€1,921,273,974.81
...And they were just the victims that came forward!
Back to Brady though!
Brady - not even as a priest - as a decent human being, if he ever was one, should have informed the Garda/police.
Good god man - that was the LAW!
The LAW. Something in prior state statue and theory he still could be arrested for alone.
(He won't, our current lot, like the last FF mob don't have the balls.)
The law...Offences against the State Act 1939 Legislation states:
17.—(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
( a ) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace, or
( d ) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the Commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act.
So - and lets get this VERY STRAIGHT.
* He made kids shut up.
* He told the parents nothing.
* He broke the law in TWO countries by not reporting the activities of the pervert, to the Gardi or the Police.
..And the disgusting gobschite still won't resign where at least others previous in the same situation, had the grace to do!
In the aftermath of the Murphy report November 2009, he gave some of the bishops implicated in that truly shocking document a push out the door by saying: "If I found myself in the situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."
Well guess what - he had failed to act and now he's backtracking to save his precious ass!
Pity he didn't think at previous times of other asses he could have protected - but he didn't!0 -
No, it would be like bishop Comiskey who offered his resignation which the Pope accepted.
It would have been his fellow bishops who agreed that the ordaination of women was not compatible with the magisterium. That is the worldwide church and if Rome removed him over that then it is far more than Rome in charge.
.....if you were my defence lawyer, I'd try to defend myself at this stage, as it seems you've concluded that volume is equivalent to quality.
O by the way its not "if rome removed him", its "Rome removed him", because thats what happened.
Why are you not discomfited by the thought of S Brady in charge of schools, or having influence on them?0 -
The authority of the church is in the magisterium which is made up of the bishops and the pope.
Tell me of a Catholic bishop that supports abortion or gay marriage or is against the Pope?
Priests marrying is a different area given St Peter was married so celebate priests is not a dogmatic requirement but then there is support in the bible for celebate priests. The church has chosen to have celebate priests.
I am not delfecting anything, earlier in this topic I said the responsibility in regards to Brendan Smyth resided with the bishop, as the buck stopped with him.
If you knew that a child was being sexually abused you wouldnt go to the police?0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »If you knew that a child was being sexually abused you wouldnt go to the police?
I didn't say that and I dealt with that earlier in this thread in regards to Cardinal Brady.0 -
Advertisement
-
The fact is that in 2002, Cardinal Law in the EXACT same circumstances as Brady is now, resigned.
For those that want a quick education go HERE and click play.
Brady presently doesn't have the decency even to so this.
O' and for the record seeing as you brought up America, here is a list of churchs (with backup info links) presently that is filing for bankrupts so that they can avoid paying out for their victims there:
Archdiocese of Portland OR (filed 7/6/04)
Diocese of Tucson (filed 9/20/04)
Diocese of Spokane WA (filed 12/6/04)
Diocese of Davenport IA (filed 10/10/06)
Diocese of San Diego CA (filed 2/27/07)
Diocese of Fairbanks AK (filed 3/1/08)
Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus (filed 2/17/09)
Diocese of Wilmington DE and MD (announced 10/18/09)
Archdiocese of Milwaukee (filed 1/4/11)
Congregation of the Christian Brothers/Christian Brothers Institute/Christian Brothers of Ireland (filed 4/28/11)
In EVERY case - and I CAN provide links to verify the above, hell I'll give them though one link below... - the churches in America feared all the above court cases and files for chapter 11 instead to cover their asses.
And I additionally quote:
Want the link for the above? Here ya go: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/
The CIVIL cases that was taken for a period is listed on that link.
Pay attention to the section "Largest Settlements by Total Dollar Amount"
What did they pay out for those legal cases in the states?
€1,921,273,974.81
...And they were just the victims that came forward!
Back to Brady though!
Brady - not even as a priest - as a decent human being, if he ever was one, should have informed the Garda/police.
Good god man - that was the LAW!
The LAW. Something in prior state statue and theory he still could be arrested for alone.
(He won't, our current lot, like the last FF mob don't have the balls.)
The law...
So - and lets get this VERY STRAIGHT.
* He made kids shut up.
* He told the parents nothing.
* He broke the law in TWO countries by not reporting the activities of the pervert, to the Gardi or the Police.
..And the disgusting gobschite still won't resign where at least others previous in the same situation, had the grace to do!
In the aftermath of the Murphy report November 2009, he gave some of the bishops implicated in that truly shocking document a push out the door by saying: "If I found myself in the situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."
Well guess what - he had failed to act and now he's backtracking to save his precious ass!
Pity he didn't think at previous times of other asses he could have protected - but he didn't!
Lots of inaccuracies in your post which I will deal with later as I have now other things to do.0 -
Lots of inaccuracies in your post which I will deal with later as I have now other things to do.
O, please, if there was any inaccuracies as regards those cases, €1,921,273,974.81 in SETTLEMENT wouldn't have been paid out with, to begin with!
...And we can be fairly sure the Church orgs MANY legal teams would have pointed them out too - if only to save further money!0 -
-
-
In the meantime for the record, here is some background data to Brady and Smyth:
Source: http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Rev._Brendan_SmythRev. Brendan Smyth
Smyth case Rev. Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest who became a notorious figure in the annals of clergy abuse before his death in prison in 1997.
Brendan Smyth Rev. Brendan Gerard Smyth (1927 -1997), a priest and member of the Norbertine order (Premonstratensians) from 1945 at the age of 18, ordained in 1951. He spent short periods in Scotland, Wales and the US, before returning to Ireland, where he had no formal ministry, but did summer relief work and work in hospitals. From the beginning of his ministry he organised activities that would bring him into contact with children – for example choirs, catechism classes and altar boy training sessions. Dubbed “the most evil man in Ireland.” Smyth dies suddenly in prison. 22 August 1997.
Smyth treatment Smyth is referred for the first of a number of treatments for child abuse, 1968. Abbot, Fr Kevin Smith revealed that between 1968 and 1993 Smyth was referred repeatedly by his order for treatment in England, Belfast and Dublin. During this time he abused hundreds of children.
Norbertine responsibility Abbot, Fr. Kevin Smith, who resigned following the Smyth controversy, acknowledged that the order had made mistakes in dealing with Smyth. He said his “problem” with children emerged soon after his ordination, and the policy of the order at the time was “frequent reassignment”, which he acknowledged was inadequate.
Norbertine failure Norbertine priest Rev. Bruno Mulvihill repeatedly tried to inform senior members of the order about Smyth’s pedophilia, but to no avail, late 1960s. He said that a “strict decree” was issued in Rome that he was not to leave the abbey premises alone or without permission, but this was ignored, in the late 1960s.
Smyth Ireland Rev. Brendan Smyth sexually abused children before he left Ireland in 1965. When he left, the local paper praised his pastoral works and the "hour after hour of unofficial attention to the girl scouts". His admissions to assaulting numerous children in Ireland are said to have figured prominently in the collapse of the coalition government there in the 1990s.
One fool called Msgr Maurice Dooley tried to state that it was neither a civil crime nor a sin against the law of God for the clergy not to report such matters to gardaí.
I guess the fool had not heard of the following but instead like his breathern and Brady, did chose to ignore it.Offences against the State Act 1939 Legislation states:
17.—(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
( a ) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace, or
( d ) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the Commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act.
Dooley is a supposed professor of Cannon law - he's clearly an idiot when it come to state law!
Cardinal Brady settles latest claim by abuse victim he swore to secrecy
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Cardinal-Brady-settles-latest-claim-by-abuse-victim-he-swore-to-secrecy-134741158.html#ixzz1ugMjRYnTA leading Irish cardinal has reached a financial settlement with a victim of child abuse he swore to secrecy in 1975.
Cardinal Sean Brady has settled a case brought against him by Brendan Boland, one of two victims of infamous priest Fr Brendan Smyth.
The High Court in Dublin has been told that settlement has been reached in the case brought by Boland, now 50. The Cardinal settled a case with another victim Marie McCormack last year for a sum believed to be in the region of 270,395.55€0 -
I think this pun says it all:
"One Pope should have been enough to make Cardinal Brady grey"
(Solution to pun, swap "P" and "Gr" sounds...: http://contrepeter.ie/?p=1040)
Why did it take 2 Popes to get to a resolution... not thanks to the Popes one might add?
Why did it take all these years of actively protecting repetitive abuse, before something was done.
Now all that will be done, all he will pay for, is very little. (A lot to him, but nothing to decent humans)
- He will retire disgracefully.
- That's it. :mad:0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG5vG665gtU
Advertisement