Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

1…3435373940…48

Comments

  • #1082
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    In his own opinion, not Ratzinger's.

    Ratz co-signed the letter.

    As to why these parasites aren't jailed, you'd have to ask the State that......Alan Shatter didn't seem too keen to answer whether he would ever see the day that a bishop was jailed, so maybe it's because of the perceived backlash from people who believe the church can do no wrong, or that there's somehow something wrong with seeing the "chosen ones" brought to justice.

    Thankfully that misconception is changing and - despite what the church thinks - it won't be above the law for much longer.


  • #1083
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Einhard wrote: »
    I'm not sure it's anti-Catholic to state that nobody is above the law. Indeed, to state otherwise, is to suggest that priests be a privileged caste, whose status allows them to pick and chose which laws apply to them.

    I have already state no one is above the law, so who is disputing this ?
    Einhard wrote: »
    Seriously, Suzy, it gets a bit tiresome when somebody consistently makes demands, and then entirely ignores the responses. If you're not interested in a response, and desire only for obfuscation, then don't ask questions of people. It's a waste of their time. I already answered your queries, in direct response to them from an earlier post:

    Seriously, rather than rant at me if you can't debate he issue . . .

    I'll ask whatever questions I want, until I get clear facts.
    Hyperbole, semantics and hysterical opinions are not facts or a sufficient answer to anything.


  • #1084
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    ....until I get clear facts

    Hope you're not planning on asking the church for those......they've refused to pass them on.


  • #1085
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Ratz co-signed the letter.

    You quoted an interview where Bertone gave an opinion, not the letter
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    As to why these parasites aren't jailed, you'd have to ask the State that......

    No, everyone should be asking the state that


  • #1086
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Hope you're not planning on asking the church for those......they've refused to pass them on.

    So what are you operating on ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    You quoted an interview where Bertone gave an opinion, not the letter

    I had earlier quoted the letter; a letter which had more than enough in it on its own to suggest an attempted cover-up. But you don't want to accept that.
    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    So what are you operating on ?

    Sigh! :rolleyes: I'm operating on the fact that the church has no right not to pass on the info to the appropriate authorities.


  • #1088
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    That’s to deal with them under Canon law, which is a totally separate process. You might be declared innocent under state law, but still be sanctioned and excommunicated under canon law, and that process has to continue, regardless of what state law fails to see worth perusing.
    What do you make of the 'pontifical secret'? Do you think it obstructs (secular) justice or not?


  • #1089
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I had earlier quoted the letter; a letter which had more than enough in it on its own to suggest an attempted cover-up. But you don't want to accept that.



    Sigh! :rolleyes: I'm operating on the fact that the church has no right not to pass on the info to the appropriate authorities.

    I'm asking for the facts : so where does the church say it has that right ?


  • #1090
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    dvpower wrote: »
    What do you make of the 'pontifical secret'? Do you think it obstructs (secular) justice or not?

    I don't see how it prevents anyone reporting anything to the Police.
    The Police are confidential.


  • #1091
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    I don't see how it prevents anyone reporting anything to the Police.
    The Police are confidential.
    You don't see how it prevents clergy from reporting to the police?


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    I'm asking for the facts : so where does the church say it has that right ?

    Oh my good Jesus! Are you being deliberately naieve or have you just not bothered to read the letter in case it would dent your stance ?
    private tribunals........functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests

    LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE........in a completely NON-LEGAL TRIBUNAL answerable only to the PONTIFF.

    Proper LEGAL REPRESENTATION occurs within the LEGAL SYSTEM : police, lawyers, courts.


  • #1093
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Oh my good Jesus! Are you being deliberately naieve or have you just not bothered to read the letter in case it would dent your stance ?

    LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE........in a completely NON-LEGAL TRIBUNAL answerable only to the PONTIFF.

    Proper LEGAL REPRESENTATION occurs within the LEGAL SYSTEM : police, lawyers, courts.

    You're gettting hysterical again. I just want to deal with the facts.

    Now. I have read Ratzinger's letter, not a newspaper opinion of it, that's why I'm asking you to point out where is says do not report the matter to the Police. The quote you keep using refers to legal representation at Canon law trials and proceedings, these must occur even if the state does not wish to pursue the case.


  • #1094
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    The quote you keep using refers to legal representation at Canon law trials and proceedings, these must occur even if the state does not wish to pursue the case.

    Canon, schmanon. Canon law is not "law".


  • #1095
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Canon, schmanon. Canon law is not "law".

    Exactly, now your starting to get it.
    So can you please point out where the letter says do not report crimes to the police?


  • #1096
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Exactly, now your starting to get it.
    So can you please point out where the letter says do not report crimes to the police?

    "My starting to get it" ?

    One of the co-authors has said that that is what it means. Are you seriously prepared to give the other co-author the benefit of the doubt that that is not what he meant ?

    If so, you have more faith in someone who was prepared to write that letter than he deserves.

    When the archbishop said that in the interview, would you not expect the other co-author to come out and clarify his position immediately ?

    I know that if I co-authored a letter and the co-author made a claim like that, I would be refuting their claim like a shot in order not to be tarnished by the same brush.

    Ratz didn't refute the interview.


  • #1097
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Exactly, now your starting to get it.
    So can you please point out where the letter says do not report crimes to the police?

    This bit
    Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.


  • #1098
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    "My starting to get it" ?

    One of the co-authors has said that that is what it means.

    No he gave a personal opinion on the subject, not the letter, the newspaper then combined this opinion with the letter in the same story.

    I want facts.


  • #1099
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    dvpower wrote: »
    This bit

    That refers to canon law hearings within the Church, that’s the subject of the letter, these proceedings are carried out even if the state believes there is no case to answer, nothing to do with not reporting matters to the police.


  • #1100
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    That refers to canon law hearings within the Church, that’s the subject of the letter, these proceedings are carried out even if the state believes there is no case to answer, nothing to do with not reporting matters to the police.

    Are you saying that is it not prohibited for clergy to report to civil authorities a CDF case that is subject to 'pontifical secret'?


  • #1101
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    dvpower wrote: »
    Are you saying that is it not prohibited for clergy to report to civil authorities a CDF case that is subject to 'pontifical secret'?

    It is not prohibited, the Police treat all matters confidentially.

    If Ratzinger meant that, why on earth would he put something so obviously self in-criminating in a letter, he would just tell them verbally.

    Can you point out where it states that it is prohibited ?

    EDIT

    "When plaintiffs in Houston, Texas began a suit arguing obstruction of justice, in April 2005, the Archbishop of Houston, Joseph Fiorenza, issued a statement elucidating “pontifical secret”: “These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Pontifical_secret"


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Suzie Sue wrote: »



    Seriously, rather than rant at me if you can't debate he issue . . .

    I'll ask whatever questions I want, until I get clear facts.
    Hyperbole, semantics and hysterical opinions are not facts or a sufficient answer to anything.

    This is pathetic. You asked my position on an issue, and I gave it, yet you ignored it; and then you initiated the process again. I then re-posted my original response to your original query, and you proceed with distraction, obfuscation, and a general ignoring of the point. Why bother engage with others, if you have no interest in what they write?


  • #1103
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    No he gave a personal opinion on the subject, not the letter, the newspaper then combined this opinion with the letter in the same story.

    I want facts.

    His "personal opinion on the subject" would have been part of the reason that he co-wrote the letter.

    Do you SERIOUSLY think they wouldn't have discussed it while co-authoring the letter ?

    Yes, I am doubting the pope, but only because he co-authored a letter and did not clarify his own position on it when his co-author stated is despicable stance on its content.

    You might choose to give him the benefit of the doubt, but do not dismiss other people's right to question such a serious issue.


  • #1104
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Einhard wrote: »
    This is pathetic.

    Usually, whenever hysterical remarks like this are posted as a reply, I stop reading at this point, and little else in a post seriously.
    Einhard wrote: »
    You asked my position on an issue, and I gave it, yet you ignored it; and then you initiated the process again. I then re-posted my original response to your original query, and you proceed with distraction, obfuscation, and a general ignoring of the point. Why bother engage with others, if you have no interest in what they write?

    If yourself and the other posters stick to the facts and leave out the tantrums, sarcasm etc. etc. we might be able to continue the discussion.

    Buried among all the childish dross being thrown about, I have found your answer, apologies :
    Einhard wrote: »
    child abuse is in a special category of crime, because the victim is uniquely vulnerable, and the abuser often in such a position of power. Therefore, the odds on it being reported are likely to be much slimmer than other forms of crime. In a rape, the victim is an adult, or at least relatively mature, and has the capacity to evaluate their position, and decide on making a complaint or not. In a murder, there is generally a body, and if not, the lack of a body instigates a missing persons investigation. So, in the vast majority of crimes, either the very act of the commission of a crime, brings attention to the offence, or the victim is in a position to decide on how best to proceed.

    This is obviously not the case with child abuse, where there may be no outward signs of indicative mental or physical trauma, where the victim is generally not mature enough to take such a decision independently, and where the victim is generally close to, and living in fear of, the perpetrator.

    That's a rational reason, however, I also think the other crimes are just as heinous and the legislation should also apply to them.


  • #1105
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    His "personal opinion on the subject" would have been part of the reason that he co-wrote the letter.

    Do you SERIOUSLY think they wouldn't have discussed it while co-authoring the letter ?

    Yes, I am doubting the pope, but only because he co-authored a letter and did not clarify his own position on it when his co-author stated is despicable stance on its content.

    You might choose to give him the benefit of the doubt, but do not dismiss other people's right to question such a serious issue.

    A person’s personal opinion can be different to their official / intuition opinion, that applies in all walks of life, and Bertone's personal opinion, if reported correctly, is wrong, and no doubt that’s one of the reasons why Ratzinger made sure he co-authored the letter along with him.

    I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until I'm provided with concrete evidence to the contrary, not opinion, not hyperbole, not hysteria, just facts.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    but do not dismiss other people's right to question such a serious issue.

    You were doing ok, untill you threw out that dung. I question no such right. I do question throwing around unfounded allegations as fact.

    I would like to see Ratzinger appear before an international tribunal, where he has the proper opportunity to clear his name, and then each of the relevant cardinals in turn, until the guilty are separated from those telling the truth, and the facts are separated from the lies.


  • #1106
    Einhard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Usually, whenever hysterical remarks like this are posted as a reply, I stop reading at this point, and little else in a post seriously.



    If yourself and the other posters stick to the facts and leave out the tantrums, sarcasm etc. etc. we might be able to continue the discussion.

    Buried among all the childish dross being thrown about, I have found your answer, apologies :



    That's a rational reason, however, I also think the other crimes are just as heinous and the legislation should also apply to them.

    WTF?? You don't bother to read what you yourself acknowledge is my (twice posted) rational response to the question you posed, and then accuse me of obstructing the discussion? The "dross" and "tantrums" you speak of, are in reality my attempts to have you actually read the responses which you requested. Had you done so, this back and forth could have been avoided, and your use of the adjective "childish in relation to me, would be an awful lot less ironic. Anyway, I've had my fill on the matter. I couldn't be bothered continuing with someone who refuses to read posts, and then throws around insults even when acknowledging her own fault in the matter.


  • #1107
    aligator_am
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭aligator_am


    TBH, I think all organised religion should be banned in Ireland, that includes Christians, Muslims and all others.

    In the past few years this sickness has done nothing bar keep us back, they preach to the common folk about morality while some of them rape kids, or use kids as suicide bombers, how is this a message of peace???

    People should simply reject religion, it's a drug that too many are forced in to.

    Religion's greatest enenmy is education ;)


  • #1108
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    aligator_am wrote: »
    TBH, I think all organised religion should be banned in Ireland, that includes Christians, Muslims and all others.

    State atheism has been tried before, but it never ended too well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

    A truly secular state is neutral in matters of theism/atheism/religion.


  • #1109
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Einhard wrote: »
    WTF??

    Whatever you wrote after that, I have no idea, because I stopped reading as soon as I seen it.
    Calm down Einhard.


  • #1110
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    aligator_am wrote: »
    TBH, I think all organised religion should be banned in Ireland, that includes Christians, Muslims and all others.

    That's a pretty terrible idea.


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    aligator_am
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭aligator_am


    Undergod wrote: »
    That's a pretty terrible idea.

    Why? I didn't say that belief in whatever God / Gods should be illegal, I said that organised religion should be banned, belief + man's interfering and vindictive nature = religion.

    Personally, I believe that at this stage we should have moved past the need to believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky, look crooked and he'll send you to hell, but he loves you, and he NEEDS money :D many thanks to George Carlin for that :)


Advertisement