Christian Bros defend funding pedophile

[EvolveOrConvolve]

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/christian-bros-defend-funding-pedophile/news-story/0ade6da9c380aa6eb62536c55c580f08

The Christian Brothers say they only paid a convicted pedophile's latest legal fees after previously spending more than $1.5 million defending him because he decided to plead guilty.

A Victorian County Court judge says he is "blown away" that the Catholic Church still funds the legal defence for Brother Robert Best, who has been convicted of sex offences against 11 boys and this week admitted abusing a further 20.

...

Marist Brothers provincial Brother Peter Carroll said the order paid for the defence of brothers charged with child sex offences whether they pleaded guilty or not.
"I think it's a general policy that we fund it," he told the commission.

[guillaumeb]

1. Do accused people have the right to a defense? eom

[EvilAL]

3. of course they do.

If I was a member and found out my donations to the collection plate went towards defending this piece of shit I'd quit that denomination and never give any of them another fucking penny.

[guillaumeb]

11. And you have that right. Just as any accused person has the right to a defense.

And given that religious people generally have no personal assets, it follows that the defense money will come from somewhere.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Certainly. The RCC doesn't need to pay for it, though.

That people still give money to the RCC amazes me.

[guillaumeb]

16. If the accused works for the Church, we both understand the "why". eom

[Goblinmonger]

17. Yes. They can't have things coming back on them.

Which is stupid. He pleaded guilty. They don't need to spend 1.5 million on him.

[guillaumeb]

18. I agree with you, but neither of us made the decision. eom

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. Irrelevant question.

Everyone has the right to a legal defense.

No employer is required to pay their employee's legal expenses.

[guillaumeb]

20. I believe that employer made the choice to pay for a defense.

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. Exacty. The. Point.

They chose to spend money on a pedophile, ergo the criticism.

Are you even paying attention to this conversation, or are you just gainsaying everyone to whom you happen to reply?

[EvilAL]

2. paid for with

The tithing of the faithful.
I wonder if it bugs the congregation that their money goes to defending someone who preys on their children.

[rug]

4. Does it bug you that your taxes support wars?

BTW, these religious congregations do not have tithing.

[EvilAL]

5. A lot of things bug me with how tax money is spent.

I have to pay taxes though. Nobody has to give money to a church.

Where does the Catholic Church get its money then?
I know they don't have percentage of your income tithing.. but they pass the plate everytime I have to go to a Catholic Church.

Edit: Also as with taxes if I don't like how a particular group spends my tax money they can be removed through an election. Not the same with churches, they do what they want for how long they want, usually until they eventually die.. or in the case of ratzinger, resign in disgrace.

[rug]

6. If you're talking about these lawsuits, primarily from insurance.

Local parishes rely primarily on passing the basket. While some parishes, in wealthy areas, do quite well, most are not in wealthy areas and are not well off. Like it or not, Catholic churches around the world are more likely found among the poor than among the wealthy. That's because most of the world is very far from wealthy.

[EvilAL]

7. Someone has to pay those insurance premiums.

Either way.. the money comes from the faithful.
I'm not against giving money to a church to help it survive if that is what you want to do. A lot of poor areas and churches falling apart. 1.5 million dollars in legal defense for a pedophile could go a long way in helping the poorer parishes and rotting churches. That's probably where most parishioners think their money is going and once they find out that it millions go to defending pedophiles it must be a hard pill to swallow.
Pedophile insurance, wonder what the premiums are on that...
Roflmao..

[rug]

8. I doubt you'll find anyone in the pews defending pedophilia.

That's the problem with flamebait - it's not designed to burn down the building but the people inside.

As far as the insurance policy goes, it's not pedophilia insurance, it's insurance against negligence which is the basis for most of these lawsuit claims. The individuals doing the abuse are not insurance cases. They're criminal cases.

[EvilAL]

9. Yeah, my insurance thing

At the end there was just a little joke..
I didn't think they actually had pedophile insurance.
I still would assume that their premiums would be pretty high when such a large volume of cases seem to be sexually related.
I don't think it's about burning down the biding or the people, it's about making these things known. If someone can continually post atrocities by a particular institution it says more about the institution than the person pointing it out.

[rug]

10. The problem with that kind of posting is it's dishonest.

If someone already has a deep-seated hatred for an institution, let's say, oh, the Catholic Church, and has a spasm of posts about pedophilia, the purpose is rarely to discuss the problem of pedophilia but simply to attack the Catholic Church. The crimes of pedophilia become secondary props to the existing agenda of showing how religion poisons everything. These children are not props for some ulterior purpose.

[guillaumeb]

12. An agenda you say? Here?

I am shocked, shocked I say.

[rug]

13. Your winnings, sir.

[Lordquinton]

14. The real story here

is that a religious pedophile actually got sent to jail.