Ongoing religious scandals

Peregrinus · 14-04-2020 8:41am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is not the same and it is also impossible. Courts of law don't prove innocence. They can only prove or overturn proof of guilt. Your post is an extremely disingenuous form of gas lighting. You know perfectly well a court can't say that he is innocent. If you read the ruling, you'd know the judge said the accuser's account isn't possible (not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.), which is a bar rarely achieved and the closest they can go to saying he is innocent.

I have read the judgment. The words you present in italics do not appear anywhere in it. If anyone in this conversation is being disingenuous or engaging in gaslighting, it's not me, Yellow_Fern.

You are correct to say that courts do not establish innocence; they only test whether guilt has been proven. Which was my point all along; your belief in Pell's innocence is not based on any explicit or implicit finding by the court that Pell is innocent; you go much further than the court did. You're perfectly eneitled to do that, but you can't present your position as one that is endorsed or validated by the court finding.

It's quite wrong to say that what the court said about Pell is "the closest they can go to saying that he is innocent". In other cases, courts have often gone much further in that direction, holding e.g. that the evidence falls far short of what would justify a conviction, that particular elements of the offence had not be proven, etc, etc. In this case they only say that there is a "signficant possibility" that Pell is innocent, and that the totality of the evidence "required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a doubt as to [Pell's] guilt". But they also refer, several times, to the fact that is it possible that the assaults did occur as alleged. They do not overturn the conviction because they think it impossible or unlikely that the assaults occurred, but because they think asking "is it possible?" is the wrong question to ask.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2020 12:24pm

Police in Victoria have opened an investigation into Pell on allegations that date back to the 1970s when he shared a house with paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale in Ballarat.

Asked about Ridsdale, Pell said "“It was a sad story and of not much interest to me. I had no reason to turn my mind to the evils Ridsdale had perpetrated.”
Which strikes me as a strange response - surly a 'man of God' would want to turn his mind to evil in order to combat it? Is that not in the job spec?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/14/police-investigating-george-pell-over-fresh-child-sexual-abuse-allegation-report

Gerald Ridsdale was convicted of sexual abuse of 65 children, over the course of 40 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/27/gerald-risdale-victim-to-receive-more-than-1m-from-catholic-church

Yellow_Fern · 14-04-2020 1:21pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have read the judgment. The words you present in italics do not appear anywhere in it. If anyone in this conversation is being disingenuous or engaging in gaslighting, it's not me, Yellow_Fern.

I was quoting an article by Professor Mirko Bagaric, Dean of Law at Swinburne University and Director of the Evidence-based Criminal Justice and Sentencing Project, which was written for ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. I provided the link. Are you accusing Prof Bagaric and their public broadcaster of gaslighting, isn that a bit far fetched?

Please explain how I am gaslighting by quoting the professor?

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are correct to say that courts do not establish innocence; they only test whether guilt has been proven. Which was my point all along; your belief in Pell's innocence is not based on any explicit or implicit finding by the court that Pell is innocent; you go much further than the court did. You're perfectly eneitled to do that, but you can't present your position as one that is endorsed or validated by the court finding.

If it was your point that courts can only prove guilt or disprove guilt, why did you claim earlier that he has not been found innocent, as if is noteworthy, even though a court can not do this. That is gaslighting. You were trying to cast doubt on Pells vindication. You painted this as a response to my comment but that was a red herring. My language was precise, because I have clarity of thought. I never claimed he was innocent and I never claimed the court found he was innocent. I even stated I cant be sure he is innocent. Do not put words in my mouth.

The prosecution was a joke. Key evidence was never examined for example his diary which would have given a date. The media coverage here and in Australia was so biased. Why was the accuser referred to as the victim? Where was details leaked from the prosecutor's office to the ABC? A unanimous ruling casts a very dark shadow on the professionalism of the prosecutor's office but there is very coverage of this. There was also numerous article that implied that Pell was hiding overseas from justice before the police had even pressed charges. And then you have the airing of Tim Minchin's hateful libous song against Pell, released before any charges were pressed.

Yellow_Fern · 14-04-2020 1:24pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Police in Victoria have opened an investigation into Pell on allegations that date back to the 1970s when he shared a house with paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale in Ballarat.

Asked about Ridsdale, Pell said "“It was a sad story and of not much interest to me. I had no reason to turn my mind to the evils Ridsdale had perpetrated.”
Which strikes me as a strange response - surly a 'man of God' would want to turn his mind to evil in order to combat it? Is that not in the job spec?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/14/police-investigating-george-pell-over-fresh-child-sexual-abuse-allegation-report

Gerald Ridsdale was convicted of sexual abuse of 65 children, over the course of 40 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/27/gerald-risdale-victim-to-receive-more-than-1m-from-catholic-church

He established Australia's first independent commissioner to handle child sexual abuse complaints church nearly 20 years ago. he did his bit. Despite his good work protecting kids, the mob has destroyed his career and he isnt the church leader that he once was. Working on child abuse will be the job of a successor.

smacl · 14-04-2020 1:44pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I was quoting an article by Professor Mirko Bagaric, Dean of Law at Swinburne University and Director of the Evidence-based Criminal Justice and Sentencing Project, which was written for ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. I provided the link. Are you accusing Prof Bagaric and their public broadcaster of gaslighting, isn that a bit far fetched?

Please explain how I am gaslighting by quoting the professor?

Misattribution by my reading. You said

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The High Court noted that it is not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.

Yet it appears the High Court said no such thing, this was a comment by a third party.

Bannasidhe · 14-04-2020 1:47pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Despite his good work protecting kids, the mob has destroyed his career and he isnt the church leader that he once was. Working on child abuse will be the job of a successor.

Bull crap.

Protecting children was his job. He failed.
His former housemate and friend abused at least 65 children and that didn't 'interest' Pell.

Peregrinus · 15-04-2020 4:25am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I was quoting an article by Professor Mirko Bagaric, Dean of Law at Swinburne University and Director of the Evidence-based Criminal Justice and Sentencing Project, which was written for ABC, Australia's national broadcaster. I provided the link. Are you accusing Prof Bagaric and their public broadcaster of gaslighting, isn that a bit far fetched?

No, not the professor. Just you, Yellow.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Please explain how I am gaslighting by quoting the professor?

Because you didn't say you were quoting the professor; in fact you seemed to be trying to create the impression that you were quoting the court. This is what you said:

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

. . .If you read the ruling, you'd know the judge said the accuser's account isn't possible (not reasonable to reason that Pell had the opportunity to commit the offences.), which is a bar rarely achieved and the closest they can go to saying he is innocent.

I have read the ruling, though the most charitable explanation for your posts is that you haven't. The court doesn't say that the accuser's account isn't possible, and the italicised words which you have placed so as to create the impression that they are quote from the ruling that you imply but do not state that you have read, when in fact you now admit that they are not. They're a quote from someone else entirely, a fact you didn't bother to mention when you quoted them. How is this not gaslighting?

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If it was your point that courts can only prove guilt or disprove guilt, why did you claim earlier that he has not been found innocent, as if is noteworthy, even though a court can not do this. That is gaslighting. You were trying to cast doubt on Pells vindication. You painted this as a response to my comment but that was a red herring. My language was precise, because I have clarity of thought. I never claimed he was innocent and I never claimed the court found he was innocent. I even stated I cant be sure he is innocent. Do not put words in my mouth.

I didn't put words in your mouth, which you should already have noticed if your thinking is as clear as you claim. I posted as I did because I sought to counter the incorrect impression that your post tended to create, that the court finding supports the view that Pell is likely innocent. I have read the court ruling; it does not support that view. If your thinking is as clear as you like to believe, and if you have in fact read the court ruling yourself, you will agree with me.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The prosecution was a joke. Key evidence was never examined for example his diary which would have given a date.

The failure to lead evidence which might exculpate Pell is a criticism of the defence, surely?

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The media coverage here and in Australia was so biased. Why was the accuser referred to as the victim? Where was details leaked from the prosecutor's office to the ABC? A unanimous ruling casts a very dark shadow on the professionalism of the prosecutor's office but there is very coverage of this.

The ruling says - as you already know, if you have read it - nothing either explicitly or by implication about the conduct or professionalism of the prosecution. It focusses entirely on the questions which the trial court and the appeal court asked themselves and if you insist on reading it as critical of anybody it is critical of the lower courts.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

There was also numerous article that implied that Pell was hiding overseas from justice before the police had even pressed charges. And then you have the airing of Tim Minchin's hateful libous song against Pell, released before any charges were pressed.

I don't see how you can blame the prosecution authorities for things done by other people before any charges were laid. A clear thinker would spot the problem there, surely?

ohnonotgmail · 15-04-2020 5:11pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have read the ruling, though the most charitable explanation for your posts is that you haven't. The court doesn't say that the accuser's account isn't possible, and the italicised words which you have placed so as to create the impression that they are quote from the ruling that you imply but do not state that you have read, when in fact you now admit that they are not. They're a quote from someone else entirely, a fact you didn't bother to mention when you quoted them. How is this not gaslighting?

Is it not more correct to say it was a straight up lie? They said they were quoting the court when they knew (as they admitted themselves) that the quote came from elsewhere.

Bannasidhe · 15-04-2020 11:44pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is it not more correct to say it was a straight up lie? They said they were quoting the court when they knew (as they admitted themselves) that the quote came from elsewhere.

MOD
May I take this opportunity to remind you of the Charter which states:

Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters. In the normal run of discussion, posters should avoid disputed terms without agreeing on what precisely the terms might mean, and should definitions be agreed, these terms should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward. An example of such a disputed term is "murder" in the context of abortion.

Consider your wrist slapped and the naughty step waved at in a warningish way.

Yellow_Fern · 23-04-2020 9:46pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not the professor. Just you, Yellow.

Did you read the ABC article? Because you keep telling me how you read the ruling and was I literally quoting the professor.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because you didn't say you were quoting the professor;in fact you seemed to be trying to create the impression that you were quoting the court. This is what you said:

I provided the link!

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have read the ruling, though the most charitable explanation for your posts is that you haven't. The court doesn't say that the accuser's account isn't possible, and the italicised words which you have placed so as to create the impression that they are quote from the ruling that you imply but do not state that you have read, when in fact you now admit that they are not. They're a quote from someone else entirely, a fact you didn't bother to mention when you quoted them. How is this not gaslighting?

You cast the impression that the court concluding cast doubt on the innocence of Pell, which is something they dont do. This is gaslighting.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't put words in your mouth, which you should already have noticed if your thinking is as clear as you claim. I posted as I did because I sought to counter the incorrect impression that your post tended to create, that the court finding supports the view that Pell is likely innocent. I have read the court ruling; it does not support that view. If your thinking is as clear as you like to believe, and if you have in fact read the court ruling yourself, you will agree with me.
The failure to lead evidence which might exculpate Pell is a criticism of the defence, surely?

The ruling says - as you already know, if you have read it - nothing either explicitly or by implication about the conduct or professionalism of the prosecution. It focusses entirely on the questions which the trial court and the appeal court asked themselves and if you insist on reading it as critical of anybody it is critical of the lower courts.

The prosecution wasnt on trial. There was a lot of failings there that have been put out in the press that undercut the reliability of case.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see how you can blame the prosecution authorities for things done by other people before any charges were laid. A clear thinker would spot the problem there, surely?

Such a screw up doesnt typically occur due to one error in one system. Several errors in several of the involved systems.

Yellow_Fern · 23-04-2020 9:52pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is it not more correct to say it was a straight up lie? They said they were quoting the court when they knew (as they admitted themselves) that the quote came from elsewhere.

Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

Bannasidhe · 23-04-2020 11:57pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

MOD.

Accusing another poster of "wilful dishonesty" is also indirectly calling them a liar which is breach of the forum charter - quoted above.
All variations on the theme of "pants on fire" stops now or cards will be flourished.
Thanking you

ohnonotgmail · 24-04-2020 8:49am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

what is dishonest about what i posted? you claimed the quote came from the court. it didnt.

smacl · 24-04-2020 10:11am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Wilful dishonesty at play in this comment. If you think the statement is untrue then the writer, Prof Mirko Bagaric, writing for Australia's equivalent of RTE is being dishonest, not me.

As already pointed out, you misattributed what this commentator said as having being noted by the high court. It is not the veracity of the opinion of Prof Mirko Bagaric that is being questioned, it is the incorrect attribution of this statement to the high court on your part. Saying that person X said A is not the same as saying person X said B and person Y considers this equivalent to saying A. Experienced legal professionals tend to be very precise in what they say and how they word it. If a judge does not say something specifically, the omission is also well considered.

smacl · 07-05-2020 8:50am

I see Pell is back in the new again. The Australian royal commission says he was aware of ongoing child sexual abuse. The commission report states "We are also satisfied that by 1973, Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but he also considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it". More here.

Peregrinus · 07-05-2020 8:59am

smacl wrote: »

I see Pell is back in the new again. The Australian royal commission says he was aware of ongoing child sexual abuse. The commission report states "We are also satisfied that by 1973, Cardinal Pell was not only conscious of child sexual abuse by clergy, but he also considered measures of avoiding situations which might provoke gossip about it". More here.

To be fair to Pell - much as I dislike being fair to Pell - I understand that what the Commission is talking about there is measure adopted by Pell to forbid priests from taking boys on overnight camps, etc., because such events (a) created opportunities for abuse, and (b) gave rise to gossip or speculation about abuse, even if there was in fact no abuse. Pell wanted to avoid these situations not only because they might spark gossip but also because they might facilitate abuse.

The point here is not that Pell was more concerned about the church's reputation than about the welfare of children; the measure was aimed at protecting both. The point is that this undermines any claim by Pell that he was generally unaware at the time of the phenomenon of child abuse by clergy of the diocese. If he was taking measures to prevent it, and to prevent gossipa about it, then he obviously knew it was a problem.

smacl · 07-05-2020 10:54am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point here is not that Pell was more concerned about the church's reputation than about the welfare of children; the measure was aimed at protecting both. The point is that this undermines any claim by Pell that he was generally unaware at the time of the phenomenon of child abuse by clergy of the diocese. If he was taking measures to prevent it, and to prevent gossipa about it, then he obviously knew it was a problem.

My reading of it that he was covering up the abuse first and foremost and removing specific opportunity for repetition. While this was most certainly motivated to protect the church on the one hand, on what basis do you suppose he also had equal concerns for the welfare of those being abused? Failing to report the abusers to the authorities while moving them to other parishes where they could re-offend doesn't suggest any concern for the victims to me.

Hotblack Desiato · 07-05-2020 1:06pm

Allegations against 7% of Australian priests is a pretty shocking level, IIRC in the Dublin diocese it was about 3% of priests who had allegations made against them, and that was regarded as shocking when the report came out...

robindch · 07-05-2020 4:14pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Allegations against 7% of Australian priests is a pretty shocking level, IIRC in the Dublin diocese it was about 3% of priests who had allegations made against them, and that was regarded as shocking when the report came out...

So far as I recall, and from the various reports issued by the various governments looking into the issue of clerical abuse, somewhere between 5% and 15% of priests had either been convicted of abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them. The percentage varied according to the place and the year - and were not very much different here in Ireland from the levels reported by the US Bishops' Conference for the US - of the graduating class of 1970, for example, around 10% subsequently engaged in child abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them.

Separately - these high figures, plus the church's internal bush telegraph, make claims that nobody knew what was happening, frankly implausible.

Odhinn · 07-05-2020 5:30pm

robindch wrote: »

So far as I recall, and from the various reports issued by the various governments looking into the issue of clerical abuse, somewhere between 5% and 15% of priests had either been convicted of abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them. The percentage varied according to the place and the year - and were not very much different here in Ireland from the levels reported by the US Bishops' Conference for the US - of the graduating class of 1970, for example, around 10% subsequently engaged in child abuse, or had plausible allegations made against them.

Separately - these high figures, plus the church's internal bush telegraph, make claims that nobody knew what was happening, frankly implausible.

I think it was the Murphy report that noted that abuse and abusers - Fr Tony Walsh as an example - were common knowledge in the church.

Peregrinus · 08-05-2020 3:02am

smacl wrote: »

My reading of it that he was covering up the abuse first and foremost and removing specific opportunity for repetition. While this was most certainly motivated to protect the church on the one hand, on what basis do you suppose he also had equal concerns for the welfare of those being abused? Failing to report the abusers to the authorities while moving them to other parishes where they could re-offend doesn't suggest any concern for the victims to me.

I think the point is that, viewed objectively, the measures concerned would both (a) have reduced particular opportunities for abuse, and (b) reduced gossip or speculation about abuse that those opportunities would have generated. How can we say that Pell was motivated by (b), but not by (a)? The Royal Commission's suggestion is that he was motivated by both considerations, and indeed they point to this to argue that he must have known at the time that child abuse was a real phenomemon, and not merely speculative gossip.

The timeline here is relevant. 1n 1973, Pell was concerned about a particular priest (Gerald Ridsdale) taking boys away on camping trips. Pell was then an assistant priest in a parish in Ballarat; he was not making, or in a position to make, decisions about moving clergy around the diocese. (Ridsdale was another assistant priest in the same parish.) It's nearly 10 years later, in 1982, that Pell is said to have been involved in decisions to respond to admissions of child abuse by priests by moving the priest concerned but not reporting the matter to the police.

The signficance of the 1973 incident is not that it shows that Pell was concerned to protect the church but not to protect victims; the measure he urged would have served both purposes, and there is nothing to suggest that he was concerned about one but indifferent to the other. The signficance is the light it casts on Pell's claim to have been unconscious of the phenomenon of clerical child abuse in 1873, and for many years afterwards.

smacl · 08-05-2020 8:29am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the point is that, viewed objectively, the measures concerned would both (a) have reduced particular opportunities for abuse, and (b) reduced gossip or speculation about abuse that those opportunities would have generated. How can we say that Pell was motivated by (b), but not by (a)? The Royal Commission's suggestion is that he was motivated by both considerations, and indeed they point to this to argue that he must have known at the time that child abuse was a real phenomemon, and not merely speculative gossip.

I have no doubt Pell was motivated by both (a) and (b) above but would question whether reducing opportunity for abuse was done primarily to protect future potential victims or to protect the church from future potential scandal. While I'd guess there was an element of both the cynic in me suspects the latter was the prime driver.

Peregrinus · 08-05-2020 9:24am

smacl wrote: »

I have no doubt Pell was motivated by both (a) and (b) above but would question whether reducing opportunity for abuse was done primarily to protect future potential victims or to protect the church from future potential scandal. While I'd guess there was an element of both the cynic in me suspects the latter was the prime driver.

I cannot avoid the same unworthy suspicion. But honest compels me to admit that this may reveal as much or more about you and me as it does about Pell. What we suspect isn't a finding of the Royal Commission; it's a construction that you and I are disposed to put on the finding of the Commission.

The truth is that Pell didn't need to ask himself, and probably didn't ask himself, which of the two motives predominated for him; there was no tension between them and he didn't have to prioritise one over the other.

(I don't think the same is true regarding the choices he was making ten years later, though, about moving clergy around.)

smacl · 08-05-2020 10:02am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I cannot avoid the same unworthy suspicion. But honest compels me to admit that this may reveal as much or more about you and me as it does about Pell. What we suspect isn't a finding of the Royal Commission; it's a construction that you and I are disposed to put on the finding of the Commission.

The truth is that Pell didn't need to ask himself, and probably didn't ask himself, which of the two motives predominated for him; there was no tension between them and he didn't have to prioritise one over the other.

(I don't think the same is true regarding the choices he was making ten years later, though, about moving clergy around.)

It is not an entirely unfounded suspicion though, there is some underlying rationale. If we agree certain of his actions were done solely to protect the church that implies he was motivated to protect the church. For the same to be true of protecting child sexual abuse victims we're need to find similar actions done solely to protect these victims without otherwise protecting the church. While we know he was motivated to protect the church, we don't have any reason to believe that protecting child sexual abuse victims was anything more than incidental to protecting the church.

More simply perhaps, we know protecting child sexual abuse victims was at best a secondary concern because if it was a primary concern he would have declared it to the authorities rather than cover it up.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-05-2020 3:14pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The signficance of the 1973 incident is not that it shows that Pell was concerned to protect the church but not to protect victims; the measure he urged would have served both purposes

Protecting victims? He didn't report what he knew to the police, if he had any concern about victims and potential victims, or any morals or human decency at all really, he would have.

The signficance is the light it casts on Pell's claim to have been unconscious of the phenomenon of clerical child abuse in 1873, and for many years afterwards.

We know he's a self-serving liar, only question is how far the lies go... I think he should have served longer in prison than he has, for the cover-up alone.

The other day I chanced across a thread from about ten years ago with lots of posters demanding that justice be done in this country... depressing reading. Of course nothing happened and time and age ensures that nothing will happen, just like how they're stalling on Tuam until all concerned are dead.

robindch · 15-06-2020 5:26pm

The Irish College in Rome - once a hotbed of generally compliant priests - has announced that there will be no Irish amongst this year's intake. The available news articles don't make clear whether this is due to covid or yet further declines in the number of priests (or both).

https://www.irishcatholic.com/no-irish-seminarians-to-be-in-formation-in-the-irish-college-in-rome-for-2020-2021/

Peregrinus · 16-06-2020 1:44am

robindch wrote: »

The Irish College in Rome - once a hotbed of generally compliant priests - has announced that there will be no Irish amongst this year's intake. The available news articles don't make clear whether this is due to covid or yet further declines in the number of priests (or both).

https://www.irishcatholic.com/no-irish-seminarians-to-be-in-formation-in-the-irish-college-in-rome-for-2020-2021/

Could be both of those plus also (c), in recent years fewer and fewer Irish bishops have been sending their clerical students - the few they have - to the Irish College. Other seminaries are available.

Bannasidhe · 22-07-2020 9:31pm

It really is beginning to seems never ending.

A new lawsuit accuses former cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of managing a “sex cabal” among seminarians, altar boys and priests at a New Jersey beach house in the 1980s.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/22/theodore-mccarrick-disgraced-cleric-accused-runnin/

Hotblack Desiato · 22-07-2020 11:35pm

I wasn't aware of this guy until very recently, but he was quite the piece of work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Maskell

And of course he was of Irish descent, his protectors in the hierarchy were also, and he was sent off to Ireland when things got too hot for him in the States.

Unbelievably, (or, perhaps, very believably) he found employment in the South Eastern Health Board as a psychologist "counselling" underage sex abuse victims, and no Garda vetting appears to have been done.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/hse-investigates-activities-of-us-priest-featured-in-netflix-series-1.3106138

He was also accused of murder...

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-07-2020 11:22am

Speaking of scandals, can anyone do a quick unbiased summary of what is going on with AAI at the moment? As someone who refuses to read or use Twitter in any way, and where possible not read anything even ABOUT twitter in any way, I only heard in a very very round about way that there is even something going on.

But one of their head guys is the recent victim of cancel culture for using the word "retard" I believe? More than this I have not yet heard.

Hotblack Desiato · 31-07-2020 1:26pm

I was blissfully unaware of all this until on your prompting I did a brief search - unfortunately it seems that this will have real-world implications for atheists at risk of persecution:

https://www.atheistalliance.org/announcements/michael-sherlock/

nozzferrahhtoo · 31-07-2020 1:27pm

Ah elevator gate. That had its ups and downs. But was wrong on so many levels.

Hotblack Desiato · 31-07-2020 1:30pm

Post edited to reflect that it's potentially a lot more serious than elevatorgate

Odhinn · 08-08-2020 7:37pm

This is just odd

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53703294

#freethebelly
#flabflyfree

Hotblack Desiato · 10-08-2020 12:58am

robindch · 24-08-2020 11:36pm

Falwell? Nah, Fall Badly

Jerry Falwell Jr, son of religious mogul and founder of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Sr - about whom Christopher Hitchens once said, "If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox" - ran into a spot of online bother earlier this month when he posted an instagram photo of himself with his arm in an unusual position around the waist of his wife's pregnant assistant, with - drumroll, please - the trousers of both the assistiant and Mr Falwell (the alive one) not as closed as one would have expected.

The photo was rapidly deleted, but it lead to Eyebrows Being Raised, Questions Being Asked, then People Coming Forward, the most unexpected of which is one Giancarlo Granda, Falwell's "pool boy", who claims that Falwell's sexual interests were spread, like the welcoming limbs of his wife Becki, a little wider than decorum and Jesus would recommend.

Giancarlo Granda wrote:

Becki and I developed an intimate relationship and Jerry enjoyed watching from the corner of the room.

Some weeks ago, Mr Falwell was placed on indefinite leave from LU, and today, he resigned:

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/24/jerry-falwell-resigns-liberty-university-alleged-affair-trump-pool-attendant/

By way of comparison with private behaviour, here's Mrs Falwell publicly discussing "Family Values" in a video produced by the Trump campaign in September of last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlE4-dHvpSY

Igotadose · 25-08-2020 9:24am

Falwell, Jr. has now resigned as Prez of Liberty U. due to his ongoing sex scandal with the pool boy. He was already on 'furlough' due to photos of him cosplaying "Trailer Park Boys" on a yacht with various younger women, not his wife of course. Hilarious.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-falwell-relationship/

robindch · 25-08-2020 10:45am

The online daughter of Jerry and Becki Falwell has issued a statement on the latest jiggery-pokery:

https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1298026613871910912

Igotadose · 25-08-2020 11:45am

robindch wrote: »

The online daughter of Jerry and Becki Falwell has issued a statement on the latest jiggery-pokery:

https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1298026613871910912

Uhh..

Hill freaking larious!

In other related news, Fallingwell endorsed the #IMPOTUS in 2016 in exchange for Michael Cohen "persuading" the pool boy to be quiet https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-jerry-falwell-jr-miami-beach-pool-boy-evangelical-explained-850380/amp/

ohnonotgmail · 25-08-2020 11:55am

robindch wrote: »

The online daughter of Jerry and Becki Falwell has issued a statement on the latest jiggery-pokery:

https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1298026613871910912

upside down scuba diver cheek sucker woman head

her knowledge of sexual positions is better than mine. off to urban dictionary i go.

Hilarious when she said that it never happened but if it did her father only watched to make sure she was doing it in a christian way. On the other hand i do feel sorry for her and she seems to be really struggling to understand what has happened.

Peregrinus · 25-08-2020 11:57am

(It's a spoof, ohnonotgmail.)

ohnonotgmail · 25-08-2020 11:58am

Peregrinus wrote: »

(It's a spoof, ohnonotgmail.)

ah jaysis. what a sucker i am.

Peregrinus · 25-08-2020 12:01pm

To be fair, it's a very good spoof.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-08-2020 12:23pm

Was it deleted? I'm only seeing a big portrait picture.

Peregrinus · 25-08-2020 12:28pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Was it deleted? I'm only seeing a big portrait picture.

Should be an embedded link to a tweet with a video. Works for me.

ohnonotgmail · 26-08-2020 9:19am

Liberty University sent out a scheduled tweet asking students what class they were most excited about. the responses are hilarious.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/24/liberty-u-seriously-asked-students-what-class-theyre-most-excited-about/

robindch · 26-08-2020 10:23pm

Resignations have many reasons, in this case, there are ten point five million reasons:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/26/us/jerry-falwell-jr-resignation-payment/index.html

Hotblack Desiato · 27-08-2020 2:30am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Should be an embedded link to a tweet with a video. Works for me.

Ah OK didn't work on my phone but does on laptop.

Odhinn · 29-08-2020 4:34pm

Fallwell - the pool boy speaks

https://abcnews.go.com/US/pool-attendant-details-alleged-relationship-becki-jerry-falwell/story?id=72649159&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_headlines_hed

Hotblack Desiato · 31-08-2020 12:50am

https://www.rte.ie/player/b/movie/land-without-god-e1/148527655978

Three generations of a family utterly abused by the church, and the state authorities in the thrall of the church.

Disgusting, horrifying, appalling.

Still no justice for victims. Still no accountability. Still no nuns, priests, bishops or brothers in jail. The powers that be will delay and deny until everyone who could be held accountable for these horrors are dead.

Tuam is just the tip of the iceberg.

How and why are we allowing this to happen?

Ongoing religious scandals

Comments