[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

The Papist Cult in Buffalo, NY would rather claim bankruptcy than offer the reparations asked for by their parishioners whom they repeatedly abused and humiliated. 260 cases against the global institution that functions to give pedophiles safe harbor seems to have woken up the cult. The diocese already paid $17.5 million to 106 victims in 2018 under a voluntary compensation program. The priests shelled out as little as $2000 for some buggery, and $650,000 for others.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

The Papist Cult in Buffalo, NY would rather claim bankruptcy than offer the reparations asked for by their parishioners whom they repeatedly abused and humiliated. 260 cases against the global institution that functions to give pedophiles safe harbor seems to have woken up the cult. The diocese already paid $17.5 million to 106 victims in 2018 under a voluntary compensation program. The priests shelled out as little as $2000 for some buggery, and $650,000 for others.

Surely the Vatican has enough money to shell out an average of $165,000 for every man, woman and child in Buffalo? The total would amount to about six months' of cleaning charges for wiping unmentionable stuff off the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

Ousted Cardinal McCarrick ran sex ring at N.J. beach house

Former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick allegedly ran a depraved sex ring of underage boys at a beach house on the Jersey Shore, a disturbing new lawsuit claims.

“McCarrick assigned sleeping arrangements, choosing his victims from the boys, seminarians and clerics present at the beach house,” according to the suit filed in state court under New Jersey’s Child Victims Act.

“On these occasions, minor boys were assigned to different rooms and paired with adult clerics.”

[WWJDnow]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

Why would a Catholic cardinal run a sex ring out of a beach house? Was the church building closed for renovation?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

“McCarrick assigned sleeping arrangements, choosing his victims from the boys, seminarians and clerics present at the beach house,”

Seminarian is such a poor choice of word here, don't you think? Semenarium might have been more appropriate.

[PrincessAmerica2004]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

I never understood those Mary-Worshippers. Why do they support these men who rape innocent boys?

Either way, they're all going to Hell.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

Sitting on billions, the Catholic Church amassed tax payer aid. There is no going too low for this greedy, slimy, club of pedophiles when it comes to Jewing the people out of their hard-earned money. Even during a pandemic when funds are desperately low, the bishops hoard more for themselves.

[Roland]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

I wonder if Mr. Rovagnati has something to say about this.

Is it truly selfish to molest dogs over kids?

I think they should keep far away from both. I like all the animals around me but I would not sacrifice the altar boys instead.

[Isabella White]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

I wonder if Mr. Rovagnati has something to say about this.

Is it truly selfish to molest dogs over kids?

Well, it appears that there will be the usual attempts by the Cathyolick priests to cover up the truth — such as by disguising the new victims!

[Dennis Lukes]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

[Romeo Rovagnati]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

I wonder if Mr. Rovagnati has something to say about this.

Is it truly selfish to molest dogs over kids?

It's not the priest's fault if he ends up getting seduced by kids (or even dogs). The entire clergy tries the best to avoid that.

[Philemon]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

it does not stop:

https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1559942379506917378

Yic ,


Phil

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Roman Catholic sex scandal of the day

Sitting on billions, . . .

Gobbledygook follows:

What is the “Roman Catholic Church,” and can its dioceses, parishes, and other institutions be treated as one single institution?

Dioceses are not subordinates or subsidiaries of the USCCB. There is no “national Catholic Church” that governs or manages “Catholic assets” in the U.S.

The global Catholic Church is a unity of communion -- defined in Catholic theology as a communion of discipline, teaching, and sacraments - but not a single legal or financial entity.

While the pope is defined in canon law as the supreme authority, “ownership of goods belongs to that juridic person [like a parish, school, charity, or religious order] which has acquired them legitimately.”

Put simply, Catholic legal entities are distinct from one another in American civil law because they are distinct from one another in Catholic theology and canon law — so much so that the Vatican has itself insisted that bishops never treat parishes and other institutions as part of a giant “Catholic” common fund.

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/a-s...SigningIn=true

In a number of cases where so-called Church Assets were discussed and reported on, it transpired that nobody actually "owned" anything, other than individual private citizens who comprise the dioceses. Church buildings have some weird category of title and there's a labyrinthine connection developed over many centuries whereby bizarre entities in Vatican City i.e. the state not the church, have access to resources unless that would create liability in which case it's the church not the state. Funds flowing from a diocese to third parties essentially come out of the collection plate, the word "diocese" signifying the congregation rather than any real assets.

The linked piece addresses this to some extent but any explanations I've ever heard just become more ridiculous the longer you listen. Vatican archives probably cover this in more detail but whatever details you've sought will not be found in whatever document you're reading because you'll have ferreted out the wrong document. I'm putting that at 100% and it's nice to have certainty because no explanation vomited forth so far has ever addressed the question being asked.