Another Lying Catholic Fuck Gets Caught

[Minimalist]

Technically speaking, any accused priests are guilty until proven innocent and removed from ministry immediately

What fucking planet are you from?


If they had done that they would not now be facing bankruptcy for trying to cover up the actions of pedo-priests and lets not forget that herr von popenfuhrer is the worst of the lot.

These holy cocksuckers care about one thing. Money.

The sooner you get that through your fucking head the better off you'll be.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

These holy cocksuckers care about one thing. Money.

Money is only a tool. The goal of organised religion is affluence, power and social control.

The glory days of the Church are mercifully long gone. If they were not, this forum would not exist and many of us would have been burned alive.

The last time a pope actually executed anyone was in Italy in in the nineteenth century,a few years before the unification. At that time the church was still castrating young boys to sing in the Sistine choir.

[Aiza]

If they had done that they would not now be facing bankruptcy for trying to cover up the actions of pedo-priests and lets not forget that herr von popenfuhrer is the worst of the lot.

These holy cocksuckers care about one thing. Money.

The sooner you get that through your fucking head the better off you'll be.

Restitution is due to victims regardless if any cover up occurred, and you don't see any cover ups in this case either. The Pope is not "the worst of the lot" nor did he ever cover up any abuse. Did you not read the news story you posted? None of it deals with cover ups, as you try to insinuate.

IF you REALLY want a balanced view, I refer you to 'The Case Of The Pope' by Geoffrey Robertson Qc, international jurist.

Roberston puts his finger on perhaps THE issue; to this day,the Church clearly believes Canon law trumps civil law. For centuries, the church has protected its clergy from civil authorities. It has been protecting pedophile priests since the second century,AS POLICY.

Canon law does trump civil law (though they RARELY ever come into conflict unless a government is explicitly trying to suppress Catholicism, as is currently the case in China). That being said, Canon law doesn't protect pedophile priests (on the contrary), nor is it all that "secretive" as much as some people like to fantasize. You can read the entirety of canon law on the Vatican's website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

And note also that Pope Benedict XVI, while head of the CDF, raised the age for severe punishments from 16 to 18, regardless of local age of consent law. Canon law is just general guidelines for the Church, its not the same thing as criminal law, and ecclesiastical trials are separate from criminal trials. The Vatican does not have the authority to throw a molester into prison or give him the chair or whatever the author is on about. They do have the authority to dissolve their vows or suspend their ministry, which they do. (Actually even the local bishop has the authority to suspend ministry). In the case of molestation, local laws concerning crime reports are to be followed, and the case is also to be reported to the Vatican that their vows be removed. I don't know of any molesters who were given a "warning" from a canon law trial, so either he's just talking about the penalties in general or he's making things up. Either way, you don't get away with it

None of this is relevant to this news story though, in which the Vatican isn't even involved.

[Minimalist]

You're simply full of shit, aiza.

Five days later, on Jan. 20, Cardinal Ratzinger’s office received a copy of the memo from his vicar general, Father Gruber, returning Father Hullermann to full duties, a spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed.

Father Hullermann resumed parish work practically on arrival in Munich, on Feb. 1, 1980. He was convicted in 1986 of molesting boys at another Bavarian parish.

In case you forgot...Cardinal Ratzinger is NOW the pedo-pope.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Canon law does trump civil law

Well actually, in fact, it does not,except in the self-serving opinion of the church. Not in my country or in ANY country of which I''m aware.

they RARELY ever come into conflict unless a government is explicitly trying to suppress Catholicism,

So what? 'Rarely 'is enough, as the obscenity of the child abuse scandal has shown.


The Church also claims it's above law with "the seal of confession", having no obligation to report ANY confessed crime to the civil authorities. To most non Catholics, such a claim is arrogant nonsense and should not be tolerated..

it's not the same thing as criminal law, and ecclesiastical trials are separate from criminal trials.

That is lie of half truth .


Yes, eccesliastical trials are separate from civil trials.However, they are also often INSTEAD of civil trials. If that was not the case, the scandal of CENTURIES of child abuse by clergy could never have occurred.

By all means show a shared moral bankruptcy with your church,as you continue to defend the indefensible.

[Aiza]

So what? 'Rarely 'is enough, as the obscenity of the child abuse scandal has shown.

lol what? The child abuse scandal is not an area where canon law comes into conflict with civil law. When I said "rarely" I meant in more state atheist or anti-Catholic regimes such as China who try to control the ordination of bishops, for example.

If you take the time to read canon law instead of going on with it second hand, it can only come into real conflict when a government is actually suppressing freedom of religion. And yes, my human rights do trump civil law any day.

The Church also claims it's above law with "the seal of confession", having no obligation to report ANY confessed crime to the civil authorities. To most non Catholics, such a claim is arrogant nonsense and should not be tolerated..

Confession is anonymous and a sacred rite within Catholicism. Priests have gone to torture and even been killed for it in the past. A priest can assign submission to legal authorities as a penance. And its funny because even if you did require such a thing all it would mean is that criminals wouldn't confess anything either, which shows it has nothing to do with "the law" and everything to do with trying to suppress Catholicism.

Most nations don't require it at all though. The Church isn't "above the law" its just excersizing their right to freedom of religion. Thats not to say some governments haven't tried with everything they can to quash it.

Yes, eccesliastical trials are separate from civil trials.However, they are also often INSTEAD of civil trials. If that was not the case, the scandal of CENTURIES of child abuse by clergy could never have occurred.

Well for most cases, the crimes that go to an ecclesiastical trial aren't the same as those which go to criminal trial.

However in the case of child abuse, they generally go to both, and every "cover up" story involved the bishop hiding the facts from the Vatican as well. Can you name a single case where an ecclesiastical trial was used in honest-to-god lieu of a criminal one? And not just ones where the civil authorities were informed but were either unwilling or unable to press charges, as per the Father Murphy (and plenty of others, unfortunately).

And while clergy are human and have abused, they are equally or less likely to be accused of abuse than the general population. Rather odd if they "know they can get away with it", as your earlier link posits.

By all means show a shared moral bankruptcy with your church,as you continue to defend the indefensible.

Truth = indefensible? I'm not defending child molestation or cover ups or anything else. I am just stating simple facts about canon law.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

lol what? The child abuse scandal is not an area where canon law comes into conflict with civil law.

Are you REALLY that stupid?

The church has chosen to deal with the matter under canon law INSTEAD of involving the authorities, AS POLICY,a clear breach of civil law.

Where a crime has been committed, not reporting it to the civil authorities is a a breach of civil law,which has also happened for centuries under the seal of confession,in which church claims a non-existent right under canon law.

For goodness sake read the book. Perhaps then you may make fewer risibly stupid comments.

Of course I'd be amazed if you read anything so confronting, I think you lack the moral courage. Instead you will ignore anything as prosaic as facts and evidence and continue making a pathetic fool of yourself defending those criminals.*


I'm done with you,I don't suffer fools.


*I refer to the corrupt senior members of a corrupt institution who protected perverts who sodomised little boys, for CENTURIES as official church policy. The excuse has always been that canon law trumps civil law,. Try arguing that wit ha lawyer or a judge. .(Geoffrey Robertson is a judge and expert in International law)

[Panglossian]

Who would jesus fuck??

The guy at the back, cause he's got the largest mouth.

[Reforged]

We don't need sanctimonious slime.
We don't need unwarranted guilt trips.
We don't need child rape.
We don't need corruption.
We don't need lies.
We don't need to give men with no expertese in anything other than a book on the finer points of barbarism any kind of authority beyond that of the villiage idiot.
Therefore we don't need Catholicism.

Now if you see any of the above that isn't a valid reason please let me know.
On the other hand if you want to let me know why any of the above offends you please feel free to tell someone who gives a shit.
Have a nice day Aiza. :-)

[Aiza]

The church has chosen to deal with the matter under canon law INSTEAD of involving the authorities, AS POLICY,a clear breach of civil law.

No they haven't. And I'm not stupid, you are being very ignorant here. The two are not mutually exclusive and in fact, canon law requires it be reported to authorities per the standards of the nation in question anyway.

Where a crime has been committed, not reporting it to the civil authorities is a a breach of civil law,which has also happened for centuries under the seal of confession,in which church claims a non-existent right under canon law.

They claim a right of religious freedom, and its not a breach of civil law in any nation which respects religious freedom. Also confessions are anonymous anyway.

For goodness sake read the book. Perhaps then you may make fewer risibly stupid comments.

If the book is saying that "AS POLICY" the Church "chooses to deal with the matter under canon law INSTEAD of involving the authorities" then the book is wrong. Its just another book in a long line of really ignorant anti-Catholic books that bigots love to take seriously without actually looking things up on their own. Did you read the actual canon law, for goodness sake?

Also I'm still waiting on that ONE sexual abuser you can name who was "dealt with" under canon law but where the authorities were not involved at all. If its being done for "centuries" as you say, you should be able to name at least one right? In the last 100 years or so? No?

Its sort of funny because I can name plenty of cases where the secular authorities were alerted but not the Vatican--including the story in this very OP. Funny how that works.

And again this is all totally irrelevant because here he was paying to remove people faster and saving money which is exactly what SNAP has traditionally wanted. None of it has anything to do with canon law and its perfectly in compliance with civil law as well, as shown by the fact its done in pubic school districts.