More Of The Same (RC Church Cover-Up)

[rubato]

If the Roman Catholic church were a moral institution they would have admitted fault and offered compensation as atonement.

They are less moral than maggots.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

If the Roman Catholic church were a Christian moral institution they would have admitted fault and offered compensation as atonement.

Fixed it for ya!

[BoSoxGal]

Bravo, jurors!

[Lord Jim]

If the Roman Catholic church were a Christian moral institution they would have admitted fault and offered compensation as atonement.

Fixed it for ya!

[RayThom]

Let's see what my atheist friends can find out about some of those in these straitlaced christian institutions to which you mention.

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/athei ... oup%3A3247

Oops! There it is. Do you really think they would admit fault and offer compensation as atonement? Pfft!People in socio-religious authority seem to feel they get a pass to conduct themselves a lot less morally than they expect their lowly minion to behave. Of course, it is these same over-trusting minions that exalt these smooth-tongued devils. Therein lies the true problem, but I digress. Maybe the days of these pseudo-pious, charlatan, assholes, to act with impunity are coming to a close. As far as catholic priests go, they are merely one piece of the pedophile, adulterer, criminal, puzzle.

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at (them)." John 8:7

and

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

[BoSoxGal]

World's largest Christian TV channel 'funds owners' exorbitant lifestyle'
Lawsuit brought by family members claims Trinity Broadcasting Network founder and his wife bought their jets with sham loan
guardian.co.uk, Fri 23 Mar 2012 15.53 GMT

The world's largest Christian TV channel, the California-based Trinity Broadcasting Network, has become embroiled in a multimillion-dollar financial scandal after members of the family that founded it alleged widespread embezzlement.
The claims – by Brittany Koper, whose grandfather Paul Crouch founded TBN, and by Joseph McVeigh, another family member – describe exorbitant spending on mansions in California, Tennessee and Florida, private jets and even a $100,000 (£63,000) mobile home to house the dogs of Crouch's flamboyant wife, Janice.
The network, which claims to broadcast in every continent except the Antarctic and has 18,000 affiliates, was set up by Crouch in the 1970s and preaches a "prosperity gospel" which promises material rewards to those who give generously.
Two years ago it declared a net worth of more than $800m, although in recent years it has faced increasing financial problems. Details of the claims are contained in cases filed with the California courts by McVeigh, who says he was targeted by the network, and 26-year-old Koper, who was fired in September.
According to the lawsuit, reported in US newspapers, Paul Crouch Sr obtained a $50m luxury jet for his personal use through a "sham loan", while church funds – many of which come from donations during events like its "Praise-a-thons" – paid for the dogs' mobile home.
McVeigh's lawsuit makes the most damning allegations, claiming "unlawful and unreported income distributions to Trinity Broadcasting's directors" with "multiple jet aircraft, including a $50m Global Express luxury jet aircraft purchased for the personal use of the Crouches through a sham loan … as well as an $8m Hawker jet aircraft purchased by Trinity Broadcasting for the personal use of director Janice Crouch".
It also describes the purchase of "multiple motor vehicles, including a $100,000 motor home purchased by Trinity Broadcasting as a mobile residence for director Janice Crouch's dogs".
Directors of the network are also accused of misusing funds to cover up sex scandals, including the alleged "cover-up and destruction of evidence concerning a bloody sexual assault involving Trinity Broadcasting and affiliated Holy Land Experience employees; the cover-up of director Janice Crouch's affair with a staff member at the Holy Land Experience; the cover-up of director Paul Crouch's use of Trinity Broadcasting funds to pay for a legal settlement with Enoch Lonnie Ford (a former TBN employee who said he had a homosexual affair with [founder] Paul Crouch)".
Brittany Koper, the network's former finance director, claims she was fired after she discovered the extent of the financial wrongdoing.
Her lawsuit follows one by the church against her – later dismissed – which alleged that Koper and her husband used forged documents to embezzle funds to buy cars, jewellery and a fishing boat.
"She blew the whistle and got terminated," Koper's lawyer, Tymothy MacLeod, told the Los Angeles Times. "Brittany has done the right thing. It's admirable that someone on the inside of TBN has come forward and is revealing to the world exactly what is going on behind those closed doors."
"These large ministries, they do become family enterprises… and in many ways that can be a most precarious problem for them," David E. Harrell, a professor emeritus of American religion at Auburn University, who has written about well-known televangelists told Associated Press. "Business squabbles, if they're complicated with family squabbles, can get nasty indeed."
TBN is no stranger to outside scrutiny. In 1998, the elder Crouch secretly paid an accuser $425,000 to keep quiet about allegations of a homosexual encounter which he has consistently denied, saying he settled only to avoid a costly and embarrassing trial.
In 2000, after a five-year battle, a federal appeals court overturned a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission that found Crouch had created a "sham" minority company to get around limits on the number of TV stations he could own.
The network's lawyer has denied allegations accusing McVeigh and the Kopers of working together to steal from the ministry. He said the Crouches travel by private jet because they have had "scores of death threats, more than the president of the United States".

[MajGenl.Meade]

preaches a "prosperity gospel" which promises material rewards to those who give generously[quote][/quote]

No doubt. Prosperity gospel is a false gospel which fairly begs (!) to be abused by those who preach it. I think that psychologically the apparent 'prosperity' of the preaching outfit serves to convince the Biblically ignorant that God does indeed shower material rewards upon those who give. As with pyramid schemes, the ones who are in at the beginning are able to reap benefits at the expense of those who sign up later.

One of the great dangers (and typical benefits to the cheats) of any TV ministry is that the majority of suckers sit by themselves at home eating up whatever they are told without benefit of belonging to a body of believers who are encouraged to meet together, to critically examine what is being said and to ensure that it comports with the entirety of biblical doctrine.

Here's another death threat for this bunch - you will die, guaranteed, and you will be judged, guaranteed.

Meade

[Gob]

Religion has always prayed on the stupid, weak, lonely, and sick. US TV evangelism is just the natural extension of that brought to its logical conclusion. Authors like Heinlein predicted it donkey's years ago.

Here's another death threat for this bunch - you will die, guaranteed, and you will be judged, guaranteed.

Meade

Why, why will we be judged? What a silly, "all to human" concept for a supreme being to be accused of.

[RayThom]

... "Here's another death threat for this bunch - you will die, guaranteed, and you will be judged, guaranteed."

Nope, the only GUARANTEE at the moment is that we will die. That we will be judged is merely a matter of personal conjecture. There is no absolute proof of this so called judgement -- never has, and never will be -- so my guarantee is that you speak from a position of not really knowing. And that makes your position is no better than my position. To think you hold the upper hand is absolute foolishness.

"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." MGM, that's fine if it truly works for you but I need something more substantial than a book based on fantasy to give my life meaning. I do, however, applaud your efforts in carrying on this timeless tradition. I expect no less from you.

[Econoline]

Well, even if we're not judged by a supernatural being we will most certainly be judged by other human beings. It's the punishment, not the judgement, which is a matter of conjecture.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There is no absolute proof of this so called judgement -- never has, and never will be

There is no absolute proof of anything, including this sentence or yours. So evidently RayThom you rely upon less than absolute proof for just about everything - no wait.... everything. Which means.... "your positition is no better than my position".... which means your position is (a) more accurate than mine; (b) less accurate than mine; (c) equally as accurate as mine?

Given that "there is a final judgement" stands against "there is no final judgement" and only one can be correct (whereas it is not true that both may be incorrect), have you just done away with the law of non-contradiction and finally judged it?

(And please guys and guyettes, no Monty Python replies)

Meade

[dgs49]

Come on, guys, the purpose of this thread is to give rubato, scooter, and others a vehicle to dump on the Roman Catholic Church.

If you want to dump on "born agains" start another fucking thread!

Jesus. Have a little respect.

[RayThom]

Jesus. That's all I'm looking for... respect. Tolerance might be nice. But, hell, I'll even settle for a little understanding. Understanding that other people make decisions and choices, even if they aren't the decisions and choices they would make for themselves.

A "Live and let live" philosophy works fairly well for me but to the overzealous religioso in here this just opens up yet another can o' worms, and another point of moral outrage. Obviously, I'm not going to find much camaraderie when these religious threads get heated up and out of hand.

Well, at least you know where I stand on all this God stuff. And all the flak I get for my belief? I guess that's just my cross to bear. I forgive you, for you know not what you do.

God bless America!

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm a little puzzled RT. There's a post about a crime of embezzlement committed by the leader(s) of a church devoted to prosperity gospel - the message of which is always "Give me all your money (or as much as I can take) and God will give you the same back, times one thousand". The message is never "Give your money to the poor and..." or "Give your money not to me but to hospitals, hospices, AIDS relief, etc etc and...." No - the message is always "God will shower blessings on you if you give your money to MY church".

Now I don't think that's the message of Christ. I don't think 'live and let live' is an appropriate societal response to embezzlement and theft.

What the Bible teaches is not prosperity. Jesus taught that there will come judgement - from him (not me). So if a so-called Christian teaches something contrary to Christ for the purpose of criminal enrichment, any decent thinking Christian and any decent thinking atheist and any decent thinking agnostic and any decent thinking Moslem, etc etc. should rightly say that they are wrong. And as a Christian think it is entirely appropriate to say that those who talk Christ while lying, cheating and stealing from the flock will eventually face their Lord and Maker - even if they get away with it here on Earth 1.

I am at a loss as to why you (apparently but surely not?) speak of toleration of people taking advantage of lonely, desperate and not very smart folks who toss money into a ponzi scheme dressed as religion.

As to your statement about absolute proof, I did not intend my asking about that to be "flak".

Meade

PS and you got it in the wrong order. God said it; it's true; I believe it.

[RayThom]

You know what you know. I know what I know. I'll not convince you about anything I believe and you'll not convince me about anything you believe. We will trust in death to reveal all the answers of the universe, and beyond... or not. How hard is it to understand how little I care about your opinions on religion? Now just leave me alone when it comes to all this nonsense. Your daily tomes asserting your special closeness to your God leaves me tired and blurry eyed.

Now... you're dismissed. And to all this I say, Amen.

DIXI

[dales]

Thy will be done.

[MajGenl.Meade]

RayThom, that's a shame. I thought this thread was about abuses of religion by churches - originally the RC church and then BSG gave us a post about a "prosperity gospel" church (non-RC) where leadership was fleecing the gullible.

The article said that the thieves had received "scores of death threats, more than the president of the United States".
Somewhat tongue in cheek I added a "death threat" that if those leaders truly believe in Christ, then they can be sure of judgement after death even if they get away with it in this life.

What I get from youn now is that you may make critical comments about religious groups taking advantage of deluded followers and yet I am condemned for agreeing with you!

Not once did I try to convince you of anything. I did ask about your upper hand knowledge and special closeness to truth in the statement "there is no absolute proof of...." because you attacked me with:

Nope, the only GUARANTEE at the moment is that we will die. That we will be judged is merely a matter of personal conjecture. There is no absolute proof of this so called judgement -- never has, and never will be -- so my guarantee is that you speak from a position of not really knowing. And that makes your position is no better than my position. To think you hold the upper hand is absolute foolishness.

Evidently "leaving (you) alone" also includes reading your wisdom-filled declarations and not replying to them at all. You are doomed to disappointment

Meade

[dgs49]

If he wants to be left alone about his lack of religious beliefs, all he has to do is stop posting on threads like this.

[Gob]

THREE of Australia's most senior Catholic clergy failed to tell authorities of evidence they received that a priest had repeatedly sexually abused boys as young as 10 in NSW.

The three priests are Brian Lucas, the secretary general of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference; John Usher, the former head of the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission; and Wayne Peters, the vicar general of the Armidale diocese.

The priest, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told a court in 2004 he admitted in a meeting with the men he molested boys between 1982 and 1984.

The scandal has also ensnared the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, who defended the three men, apparently unaware there was extensive documentation backing the assertion the alleged paedophile priest outlined his conduct to them.

The saga has intensified calls for a royal commission into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and allegations of widespread cover-ups.

Patrick Parkinson, a University of Sydney professor of law who has advised the church on sexual abuse cases, said: ''We need a royal commission with subpoena powers.

''The files of the Catholic Church must be opened up.''

A spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Sydney said the church was ''seeking further information'' about the meeting in which the admission was made. The head of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Denis Hart, also declined to comment.

Dubbed Father F, the priest was first accused of sexually abusing young boys in the early 1980s in Moree, ABC's Four Corners reported on Monday night. Arrested in 1987, he was brought to trial but the matter was dismissed by a magistrate because he judged the alleged victim Damian Jurd, who was then 15, as a witness whose credibility could not match the priest.

Father F was allowed to continue to serve as a priest in Parramatta, where he allegedly molested more altar boys.

The continued reports of sexual assaults at Parramatta prompted a meeting between Father F and three senior priests at St Mary's Cathedral in September 1992, Fathers Brian Lucas, John Usher and Wayne Peters.

Interviewed by Four Corners, Cardinal Pell insisted Father F made no admissions to the priests. A file note of the meeting proved this was the case, he said. The Catholic Church would not release the note yesterday.

A letter written by Father Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning of Armidale just eight days after the 1992 meeting with the priest describes in detail his admissions.

''He admitted there had been five boys around the age of 10 and 11 that he had sexually interfered with in varying degrees in the years approximately 1982 to 1984,'' the correspondence says.

Cardinal Pell's assurances were called into question after Four Corners revealed the priest

had also admitted under oath in a court case in 2004 that he had told the priests he had engaged in oral sex with young boys.

The court case involved one of the priest's alleged victims, Daniel Powell, being prosecuted for attempting to extort money from the priest.

Asked about the contradiction, Cardinal Pell said: ''I would take the word of the three priests against that allegation.''

In the minutes of the 1992 meeting, Father F ''indicated he wished to make certain admissions'', Father Peters wrote.

One of the boys he spoke of was Damian Jurd and Father F admitted to fondling ''the boy's genitals during a car trip from Moree to Narrabri''.

In relation to two of the other boys, ''he admitted that over a period of approximately 12 months he fondled genitals of each of these boys and to quote 'sucked off their dicks' ''.

The matter was never brought to the attention of the police or any relevant authority. Father F was banned from conducting Mass in 1992 but wasn't formally defrocked until 2005.

For Daniel Powell's mother, Renee, the saga has been devastating. Daniel, like Damian Jurd, killed himself after spiralling into a life of drug abuse. Both had received substantial payouts from the church but were haunted by their abuse and the fact the accused priest remained free.

''I want to see the mongrel prosecuted. The church should have stopped him in 1983,'' she said.

Claire Jurd, Damian's mother, said: ''He must be charged … he's not a bit regretful about what he's done.''

The priest lives in Armidale and is a prominent member of the community. He did not return calls, nor did Father Peters or Father Usher.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... z1zbhgWYVK

[rubato]

''I want to see the mongrel prosecuted. The church should have stopped him in 1983,'' she said."

And if they were a moral institution they would have.

They are an amoral institution which exists to feed itself; like lampreys or cancer cells.





yrs,
rubato