Catholic Church doing the right thing

[Papewaio]

Church drops silence clause in sex payouts

But the leader of the order in Western Australia and South Australia, Kevin Ryan, said it was no longer thought appropriate to stop victims speaking freely. He believed the confidentiality clauses - which were standard in all deeds on legal advice - had been dropped from recent agreements.

"The critical issue is that it wasn't achieving anything, either for the person or for ourselves," he said. "Also, we want to continue to be seen to be dealing with this openly and transparently."

Good News.

[Kraxis]

In Australia... Now only the rest of the world need wait.

[Soulforged]

"The right thing". Not so sure...mmm

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This kind of openness is good for the Church. I hope his Holiness makes this the norm for all dioceases.

Also, notice the speed of reform is improving. Took us 4 centuries + with Galilei, this is much faster.

Seamus

[Don Corleone]

I suppose that quietly, behind the scenes, his Holiness will call upon his vassal, the Friar of the Order and demand this practice stop. I can assure you, public acknowledgement of wrongdoing by members of the clergy will not be allowed to continue.

It's not that they don't know that their members that were the offenders were wrong. It has to do with the derivation of the power they wield. On a whole host of issues, including the right of the layity to read the bible directly, the Church speaks from 2000 years of tradition, upon the presumption that it cannot be wrong. For them to come forward and publicly admit wrongdoing will dismantle the last power structure they have in place, the assumption they are always right. They cannot afford to lose that and, will not allow it.

[Soulforged]

I suppose that quietly, behind the scenes, his Holiness will call upon his vassal, the Friar of the Order and demand this practice stop. I can assure you, public acknowledgement of wrongdoing by members of the clergy will not be allowed to continue.

It's not that they don't know that their members that were the offenders were wrong. It has to do with the derivation of the power they wield. On a whole host of issues, including the right of the layity to read the bible directly, the Church speaks from 2000 years of tradition, upon the presumption that it cannot be wrong. For them to come forward and publicly admit wrongdoing will dismantle the last power structure they have in place, the assumption they are always right. They cannot afford to lose that and, will not allow it.

Yes that's why I said I was not sure...Perhaps the nation will turn into a "vigilant" nation, everyone passing rumors about anyone. The things said to the priest must remain with him, as if he was a lawyer or psychologist.

[Samurai Waki]

I don't think the Catholic Church is in any danger of crumbling because of openness or faulty individuals... It may actually be a breath of fresh air as Catholic Doctrine has been stagnating for the last 500 years. I don't think a few child molesters are going to bring a religion of 1 Billion people to their knees. If anything, like most things the Catholic Church does anymore, they will sweep it under the rug and try to forget about it... and in most cases people will forget rather quickly.

[ichi]

Here in the US several diocese are divesting themselves of all their assets, like giving local parishes the title to their church and other facilities. This is to reduce their liabity in abuse case settlements and awards.

ichi

[Papewaio]

I don't think a few child molesters are going to bring a religion of 1 Billion people to their knees.

Must pass oppourtunity, trying to be good.

[Soulforged]

I don't think the Catholic Church is in any danger of crumbling because of openness or faulty individuals...

I don't fear for the Catholic Church (if it depended on me the Catholic church will be already finished forever) I fear for the rest of us. The priest is the person who receives the cofessions of other mans and it's his duty to make that an exclusivelly bilateral relationship, it's a guarantee for us, not for the church. I really don't want to see the "trusted mans" to become in the vigilants and informers of others affairs, that will be unjust.

Wait I didn't undertand the topic well. Ignore all my posts.

[Del Arroyo]

SoulForged, I don't think they're talking about priests blabbing what they hear during confessional. I think they're talking about something totally different-- when the church has paid money to victims of priest sex abuse, there has always been the condition that those recieving the money can never speak publicly about the matter.

In Australia they are thinking of changing this. From what I understand this is totally unrelated to confessionals.

DA

[Soulforged]

SoulForged, I don't think they're talking about priests blabbing what they hear during confessional. I think they're talking about something totally different-- when the church has paid money to victims of priest sex abuse, there has always been the condition that those recieving the money can never speak publicly about the matter.

In Australia they are thinking of changing this. From what I understand this is totally unrelated to confessionals.

DA

Yes I know. I gave my apologies already.

[Tribesman]

Here in the US several diocese are divesting themselves of all their assets, like giving local parishes the title to their church and other facilities. This is to reduce their liabity in abuse case settlements and awards.

Thats OK , over here they signed some land and cash over to the government , and now the tax-payer is liable for all the settlements and awards . Whichare currently estimated at about 10X the value of what was handed over .
As for the orginal story . It is good that they are dropping the silence clause . Though if the victim had taken it to court there would be no silence claus anyway and if he had won then there would be no denial of liability .

[Papewaio]

I thought the divestment would only be applicable for cases after that point, prior to that point the original configuration is still liable.

[Tribesman]

I thought the divestment would only be applicable for cases after that point, prior to that point the original configuration is still liable.
Do you mean accusations of events after the dispersal of assets or cases launched after the dispersal ?
Over here the government(tax-payer) is now liable for both ongoing and any future claims . And there are a hell of a lot of them .

[Papewaio]

How can a body (person, corporate or state) give assets away and have that linked to criminal charges. It is as if the assets are guilty not the people.

If I give my house to the council, is the council now liable for all my crimes? Seems an absurd loophole.

[Tribesman]

Thats Ireland for ya
Hey we had the poorbox in the courts over here , make a suitable donation to the Judges favourite charity and you walk away scot-free

[Soulforged]

Thats Ireland for ya
Hey we had the poorbox in the courts over here , make a suitable donation to the Judges favourite charity and you walk away scot-free

You're not alone Irishs, Argentina makes some company.

How can a body (person, corporate or state) give assets away and have that linked to criminal charges. It is as if the assets are guilty not the people.
If I give my house to the council, is the council now liable for all my crimes? Seems an absurd loophole.

If the Council receives those wrong-got assets, knowing of their precedence, then they can be charged with a criminal or civil accusation.

[Papewaio]

No the assets aren't part of the crime, they just belonged to the person when they commited the crime.

I do not see how you can divest property and divest yourself of an unlinked crime...

[Soulforged]

No the assets aren't part of the crime, they just belonged to the person when they commited the crime.

I do not see how you can divest property and divest yourself of an unlinked crime...

You can't. I believed that you were talking about stealed assets or at least fraudulent, that passed to the Council.