Gay marriage thread

[Flosshilde]

Getting rather off-topic (but on a byway explored up-thread), the Catholic Church has failed in its attempt to disassociate itself from its priests & nuns who are accused of physical and sexual assault by claiming that they are not employees of the church. The supreme court has said, in effect, that if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck it is a duck, & the church is liable for any compensation claims. As the story below points out this will have implications for other churches, & organisations that use volunteers in an employee-like way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/28/catholic-church-abuse-claims-compensation

[scottycelt]

Getting rather off-topic (but on a byway explored up-thread), the Catholic Church has failed in its attempt to disassociate itself from its priests & nuns who are accused of physical and sexual assault by claiming that they are not employees of the church. The supreme court has said, in effect, that if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck it is a duck, & the church is liable for any compensation claims. As the story below points out this will have implications for other churches, & organisations that use volunteers in an employee-like way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...s-compensation

It is significant that the sexual assault and beatings are 'alleged'. Here we go again, guilty before proven innocent. The priest alleged to have been involved in the sexual assault last century is now dead, so little chance of proving any innocence.

Thousands of kids must have been 'beaten' the very same day in all sorts of schools all over the UK forty years ago. I, and probably the majority of my fellow-pupils, were at some time 'beaten' by a teacher. Many were 'beaten' by their loving parents for being naughty. That's the way it was, corporal punishment was legal in those days. Should the Government and the then parents (if still alive) be sued for 'compensation'?

I don't blame any organisation for trying to protect itself from some greedy people exploiting the current furore over historical child-abuse. This whole thing is now becoming like the banks' insurance 'scandal'. Soon we'll have adverts on the TV inviting middle-aged and elderly people to claim compensation for childhood abuse on a 'NO WIN, NO FEE' basis.

Genuine victims of abuse in childhood deserve full justice. Those who exploit others' tragedy for their own gain are nothing short of contemptible.

[amateur51]

It is significant that the sexual assault and beatings are 'alleged'. Here we go again, guilty before proven innocent. The priest alleged to have been involved in the sexual assault last century is now dead, so little chance of proving any innocence.

Thousands of kids must have been 'beaten' the very same day in all sorts of schools all over the UK forty years ago. I, and probably the majority of my fellow-pupils, were at some time 'beaten' by a teacher. Many were 'beaten' by their loving parents for being naughty. That's the way it was, corporal punishment was legal in those days. Should the Government and the then parents (if still alive) be sued for 'compensation'?

I don't blame any organisation for trying to protect itself from some greedy people exploiting the current furore over historical child-abuse. This whole thing is now becoming like the banks' insurance 'scandal'. Soon we'll have adverts on the TV inviting middle-aged and elderly people to claim compensation for childhood abuse on a 'NO WIN, NO FEE' basis.

Genuine victims of abuse in childhood deserve full justice. Those who exploit their tragedy for their own gain are nothing short of contemptible.

As are those who persist in blaming the victims of abuse for seeking to get their voices heard in the hope of justice at last. The pendulum has swung the other way, scotty.

[Flosshilde]

Genuine victims of abuse in childhood deserve full justice. Those who exploit their tragedy for their own gain are nothing short of contemptible.

So some abuse is 'genuine' & some not?

This case might be the start of the Catholic church (&, eventually, others) beginning to accept that it has some responsibility for the actions of its priests. Of course, there will always be some who, like Scotty, deny that anything is wrong.

[scottycelt]

So some abuse is 'genuine' & some not?

This case might be the start of the Catholic church (&, eventually, others) beginning to accept that it has some responsibility for the actions of its priests. Of course, there will always be some who, like Scotty, deny that anything is wrong.

Never have done, never will do, and that last puerile statement is, quite frankly, the words of one frantically searching for anything particularly useful to contribute to any sort of reasonably intelligent debate.

One might as well argue that M&S should be sued if one of its employees robs a bank.

I simply find it extremely difficult to go along with such an eccentrically radical view.

Surely appropriate action should be taken against the perpetrator and not the wholly innocent employer?

[MrGongGong]

Surely appropriate action should be taken against the perpetrator and not the wholly innocent employer?

FFS Scotty
what on earth is the matter with you ?

The Catholic Church IS NOT innocent
even though we might get another pope who calls himself innocent the organisation is hardly that

[scottycelt]

FFS Scotty
what on earth is the matter with you ?

The Catholic Church IS NOT innocent
even though we might get another pope who calls himself innocent the organisation is hardly that

Crikey ... what a revelation.

The Catholic Church is made up of ordinary human beings ... WOW!

Any more interesting exposé Mr/Ms GG ... ?

[ahinton]

It is significant that the sexual assault and beatings are 'alleged'. Here we go again, guilty before proven innocent. The priest alleged to have been involved in the sexual assault last century is now dead, so little chance of proving any innocence.

Don't do that, scotty; you really let yourself down if you do. Frances Andrade is dead; did and does that make her allegations any the less worth listening to? Of course allegations are no more than allegations until they are tried in Court but, when they are, those responsible have to take the consequences if found against, dead or alive.

Thousands of kids must have been 'beaten' the very same day in all sorts of schools all over the UK forty years ago. I, and probably the majority of my fellow-pupils, were at some time 'beaten' by a teacher. Many were 'beaten' by their loving parents for being naughty. That's the way it was, corporal punishment was legal in those days. Should the Government and the then parents (if still alive) be sued for 'compensation'?

It's a good point but it's also a matter of degree which you seem not to accept or appreciate; whilst this kind of behaviour on the part of teachers and parents was and remains wholly unacceptable and was on occasion quite severely damaging in the long term, most (though not all) cases of this kind of thing are hardly on a par with the kind of persistent agenda-driven sexual and predatory abuse that can and indeed often did screw up some of its victims for life.

I don't blame any organisation for trying to protect itself from some greedy people exploiting the current furore over historical child-abuse. This whole thing is now becoming like the banks' insurance 'scandal'. Soon we'll have adverts on the TV inviting middle-aged and elderly people to claim compensation for childhood abuse on a 'NO WIN, NO FEE' basis.

No one in his/her right mind wants to see the rise of allegations of this nature lead to a culture of exploitativity, especially since the abuse that did occur was itself gravely exploitative, but each case brought forward that gets to a Court of law will have to be judged in accordance with current British law whether or not brought under a Conditional Fee Agreement and, since you mention that facility, I shold perhaps point out that it is of no use to anyone who wins a case, as it is designed only to help funding for litigants who lose cases.

Genuine victims of abuse in childhood deserve full justice. Those who exploit their tragedy for their own gain are nothing short of contemptible.

I can only agree with you 100% on this, as I'm pretty sure most here would also do in principle.

[amateur51]

Crikey ... what a revelation.

The Catholic Church is made up of ordinary human beings ... WOW!

Any more interesting exposé Mr/Ms GG ... ?

Oh here we go again.

We have covered this ground so many times.

The Catholic Church, not alone perhaps amongst religious organisations, seeks often to place itself outside the secular law. The Catholic Church time and again has instructed its priests and bishops et al not to involve the police but to refer incidents up the Vatican's chain of command. The instruction to this effect, available on the internet was written by a man named Ratzinger.

I would hope that in time more and more will come out about this, but not any time soon as the Pope Emeritus will be living still in the Vatican and his close friend and private secretary Georg Gänswein will be the new Pope's Prefect, his office manager. Would such machinations be possible in any other organisation, I wonder?

[ahinton]

Crikey ... what a revelation.

The Catholic Church is made up of ordinary human beings ... WOW!

Any more interesting exposé Mr/Ms GG ... ?

For what I really do sincerely hope will be the last time here, it's not JUST the Catholic Church that's potentially and/or actually in the dock here, but it is nevertheless one such organisation that is under scrutiny and, as it is a Church, it has less right than most to try to complain about being scrutinised rather more heavily than some others, given the very purpose of its existence and its duties towards society.

[ahinton]

Oh here we go again.

We have covered this ground so many times.

The Catholic Church, not alone perhaps amongst religious organisations, seeks often to place itself outside the secular law. The Catholic Church time and again has instructed its priests and bishops et al not to involve the police but to refer incidents up the Vatican's chain of command. The instruction to this effect, available on the internet was written by a man named Ratzinger.

I would hope that in time more and more will come out about this, but not any time soon as the Pope Emeritus will be living still in the Vatican and his close friend and private secretary Georg Gänswein will be the new Pope's Prefect, his office manager. Would such machinations be possible in any other organisation, I wonder?

Sadly so, I fear, but that in no wise excuses any wilful and secretive abnegation of responsibilites on the part of those authorities charged with due investigation of past events.

[scottycelt]

For what I really do sincerely hope will be the last time here, it's not JUST the Catholic Church that's potentially and/or actually in the dock here, but it is nevertheless one such organisation that is under scrutiny and, as it is a Church, it has less right than most to try to complain about being scrutinised rather more heavily than some others, given the very purpose of its existence and its duties towards society.

I can only find myself in full agreement with you on that, ahinton ...

That is a very fair and valid singular point.

[ahinton]

I can only find myself in full agreement with you on that, ahinton ...

That is a very fair and valid singular point.

Thank you scotty - but this is nothing new from me, as it accords to what I've written previously on this matter.

I also trust that it is not deemed to be out of order for a non-Christian (but but no means an anti-Christian) such as me to comment on the conduct and legacy of certain Christian Churches in as pragmatic a way as I can manage, for the hopeful avoidance of doubt, incidentally, by a "non-Christian" I mean, of course, one who has not been "confirmed" into a Christian Church.

[scottycelt]

Thank you scotty - but this is nothing new from me, as it accords to what I've written previously on this matter.

I also trust that it is not deemed to be out of order for a non-Christian (but but no means an anti-Christian) such as me to comment on the conduct and legacy of certain Christian Churches in as pragmatic a way as I can manage, for the hopeful avoidance of doubt, incidentally, by a "non-Christian" I mean, of course, one who has not been "confirmed" into a Christian Church.

Let's just conclude (and even celebrate) that we both agree on your 'singular' point, ahinton.

That, in itself, is a quite substantial and thoroughly welcome advance on this forum.

[MrGongGong]

One way of putting it

(not for the sensitive but it does feature the Sydney Symphony Orchestra )