Kevin Annett + Common Law = The End of Goliath?
- Thread starter Ritafee
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Alex
Teddy Bear lookin for lovin and hugin
Often con men and women will use vague speech and other rhetorical devices to deceive and manipulate others into doing their actions. However alone it is evidence of nothing.....
However there are other aspects of con men and women that reveal the person as such when added to the rhetorical devices like vague language and grammer . Including lieing. For example his claim of an endorsement by Chomsky is denied by Chomsky. Kevin has since withdrawn his claim. This and other claims like being partially responsible for the resignation of Pope Ben adds to the baskets of characteristics.
Another thing that raises red flags as to his character is how organisations of survivors and First Nations groups will have nothing to do with him and many have denounced him as a fraud. In particular many were upset that when he finds bones around residential schools, he removes them and than refuses to turn them over to First Nations people to handle, or to the police. He is actually re victimizing the survivors and their children by these actions. Should he show someone the bones?
Another thing that concerns many is his recent association with the Freeman movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land There are as many as 30,000 members in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...concerns-canadian-legal-communities-1.1345486.
Many Freeman are heavily armed.
Kevin has recently taken to calling for violence against those he claims are criminals. Including the Pope the Queen, UCC ministers and Aboriginal leaders in Canada. He has said on facebook that some criminals should be shot, and has made other statements that are vague but would be seen by many as a call to violence.
However there are other aspects of con men and women that reveal the person as such when added to the rhetorical devices like vague language and grammer . Including lieing. For example his claim of an endorsement by Chomsky is denied by Chomsky. Kevin has since withdrawn his claim. This and other claims like being partially responsible for the resignation of Pope Ben adds to the baskets of characteristics.
Another thing that raises red flags as to his character is how organisations of survivors and First Nations groups will have nothing to do with him and many have denounced him as a fraud. In particular many were upset that when he finds bones around residential schools, he removes them and than refuses to turn them over to First Nations people to handle, or to the police. He is actually re victimizing the survivors and their children by these actions. Should he show someone the bones?
Another thing that concerns many is his recent association with the Freeman movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land There are as many as 30,000 members in Canada http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...concerns-canadian-legal-communities-1.1345486.
Many Freeman are heavily armed.
Kevin has recently taken to calling for violence against those he claims are criminals. Including the Pope the Queen, UCC ministers and Aboriginal leaders in Canada. He has said on facebook that some criminals should be shot, and has made other statements that are vague but would be seen by many as a call to violence.
Last edited:
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Thank you GeoFee for recognizing the error(s) for what they were.
revjohn ... I honestly meant no disrespect to you or anyone else that has contributed to this thread.
I have read each and every response to my initial thread and appreciate each and all of your posts with an open mind ... wide open!
I am not looking for a retrial of any of the issues that have been brought up in this thread. What I am looking for is members to look beyond my errors of logic, syntax, grammar and such and work with me to decipher some of the information I am trying to digest in my quest to understand and examine ways to carry on my simple day to day life and still be a part of the resistance to tyranny.
When I stumble across a story like Kevin Annett's ...
UK MP: Queen may derail March 2014 Brussels trial with Pope by arresting Kevin Annett for sedition
Secret Holyrood Agreement to merge Catholic and Anglican Churches
I just want it to be possible ... that these untouchables ... could be held lawfully accountable... to the human beings that they have sworn to respect and protect ... for their part in so many of the crimes against humanity under their cloaks of secrecy.
Conspiracies do exist ... is it always necessary to dismiss any investigation into something that we don't want to believe as Conspiracy Theory? Perhaps .... Investigative Journalism? Research Initiators? Accountability Requests?
revjohn ... I honestly meant no disrespect to you or anyone else that has contributed to this thread.
I have read each and every response to my initial thread and appreciate each and all of your posts with an open mind ... wide open!
I am not looking for a retrial of any of the issues that have been brought up in this thread. What I am looking for is members to look beyond my errors of logic, syntax, grammar and such and work with me to decipher some of the information I am trying to digest in my quest to understand and examine ways to carry on my simple day to day life and still be a part of the resistance to tyranny.
When I stumble across a story like Kevin Annett's ...
UK MP: Queen may derail March 2014 Brussels trial with Pope by arresting Kevin Annett for sedition
- VANCOUVER, BC – Kevin Annett, field secretary of the International Tribunal for Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS.ORG) declared today that he was informed by a British Member of Parliament that the Crown of England’s Privy Council in London is considering issuing an order to the Canadian Governor General and Prime Minister’s office to have him arrested and prosecuted for sedition. Kevin Annett’s lawyers have prepared an application for political asylum in the United States in the event that Mr. Annett should be arrested on orders of the Queen. Kevin Annett’s declarations came in an ExopoliticsTV interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre.
- Kevin Annett announced the commencement of a trial at the International Common Law Court of Justice in Brussels on March 31, 2014 against Queen Elizabeth, Pope Francis I, and the Jesuit Order and others for continuing child genocide and child trafficking.
Secret Holyrood Agreement to merge Catholic and Anglican Churches
- Mr. Annett stated, “Last Monday, our organization revealed that on September 16, 2010, the Vatican and the Crown of England, through their chief officers, entered into a formal criminal conspiracy to traffick children and aid and abet child rapists throughout the world.
- “That conspiracy occurred between Queen Elizabeth Windsor and former Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, at Holyrood Castle in Edinburgh, where as a condition of the merger of the Church of England and the Church of Rome, the Queen agreed to place all Anglicans under the notorious catholic law known as Crimen Sollicitationas. This law requires that all child rape be covered up within the church, thereby obstructing justice and the sovereign laws of every country in the world in which catholicism or anglicanism operates, including the United States and Canada.
- “The present Pope Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, has not only concealed this conspiracy but has recently been accused by a key eyewitness of organizing the trafficking of children of political prisoners in Argentina under the military dictatorship there.”
I just want it to be possible ... that these untouchables ... could be held lawfully accountable... to the human beings that they have sworn to respect and protect ... for their part in so many of the crimes against humanity under their cloaks of secrecy.
Conspiracies do exist ... is it always necessary to dismiss any investigation into something that we don't want to believe as Conspiracy Theory? Perhaps .... Investigative Journalism? Research Initiators? Accountability Requests?
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
No MP from Britain contacted Kevin Annett. I'm almost certain of that. Nobody has heard of him. He doesn't represent those wronged, or at least not a significant number of them. Claiming that unnamed people informed him of things is apparently his MO. He's an idiot.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
UnDefinitive said:
Fair enough.
UnDefinitive said:
Which would be difficult if we are not aware of which direction we should be looking.
I don't come here to parse grammar or syntax. I'd have to be much better at my own before I dared to correct those of another.
At the same time I do not know if offence is meant if I do not challenge what is said.
UnDefinitive said:
Part of that deciphering is going to require examination of logic and possibly grammar and syntax since I presume none of us are mind readers.
UnDefinitive said:
With respect to the above video what about it makes you presume that it is a truthful account?
UnDefinitive said:
Which presumes that they are in fact guilty of all charges even though no such trial has been held?
Why do you want it possible for allegations to be accepted as proven without a trial? Would you want to be equally vulnerable to charges laid against you? Would you be comfortable operating in a system where guilt, rather than innocence is presumed?
In several cases the Church and the Crown have been found liable. Damages were awarded against both the Church and the Crown. Individuals (like Arthur Plint) were found guilty and sentenced to prison time (in Plint's case 12 years).
The Queen is not going to go to jail for what Arthur Plint and others did.
The Prime Minister is not going to jail for what Arthur Plint and others did.
Both (in terms of the office rather than the individual) can be found responsible and they can be required to pay damages. Which was the case in the Blackwater v. Plint trial.
Willie Blackwater is a hero and he does not hold Mr. Annett in high regard.
Lorraine Mallinder said:
The link to the article from which the quote was taken is found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7860552.stm
And what does Annett think of Blackwater?
Annett said:
There is more in the same letter which can be found here: http://www.mwpr.ca/go3287a/Kevin_Annett_Update
Again, there is no dispute that First Nations individuals were treated horribly because of the Residential Schools Policy.
There is no dispute that the Government and all involved Churches should have exercised better oversight.
There is no dispute that abuses did happen in these schools.
There is no dispute that the Churches and the Government should be held accountable.
There is dispute surrounding many claims that Mr. Annett makes.
And bit by bit there is a growing tale of how Mr. Annett steals the voice of the Residential School Survivors rather than letting those voices speak for themselves.
Last edited:
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Which suggests, among other things, a woeful understanding of how a constitutional monarchy actually functions.
Not to mention that the "International Tribunal For Crimes of Church and State" is hardly that. RationalWiki describes it much more succinctly than I can : "The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (or ITCCS) is a one-man blog that pretends to be a tribunal established to enforce common law. Despite claims of being based in Brussels, the whole thing is written in Canada by Kevin D. Annett, a defrocked United Church of Canada minister."
Sorry, but once I see the word "conspiracy" followed by something ridiculous I tend to lose interest, What makes this one ridiculous, of course, is that we're back to that "woeful understanding of how a constitutional monarchy actually functions" thingy.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I stumbled across Kevin Annetts story ... I did not say that I believed the story ... I had hope that there was merit in it ... and time will tell ... It seems that there are too many people intent on bringing him down for me to dissmiss him entirely ... I will continue to follow this story for awhile and thank you all for giving me your views on the matter ...
I have a suspicion that the crown and the vatican do abuse their power ... I call them untouchables because so far they are ... public apologies and financial compensation are not enough ... this is not about the united church or Kevin or Blackwater or Plint to me ... it is about going straight to the top of the food chain ... the crown and the vatican ...
'the Queen agreed to place all Anglicans under the notorious catholic law known as Crimen Sollicitationas. This law requires that all child rape be covered up within the church, thereby obstructing justice and the sovereign laws of every country in the world'
Does this law exist and if it does ... anyone who supports/enforces it should be charged with aiding and abetting and giving free license to child rapists and abusers ... This is where I was hoping that perhaps Kevin Annet might be aiming in the right direction with his common law initiatives.
I have a suspicion that the crown and the vatican do abuse their power ... I call them untouchables because so far they are ... public apologies and financial compensation are not enough ... this is not about the united church or Kevin or Blackwater or Plint to me ... it is about going straight to the top of the food chain ... the crown and the vatican ...
'the Queen agreed to place all Anglicans under the notorious catholic law known as Crimen Sollicitationas. This law requires that all child rape be covered up within the church, thereby obstructing justice and the sovereign laws of every country in the world'
Does this law exist and if it does ... anyone who supports/enforces it should be charged with aiding and abetting and giving free license to child rapists and abusers ... This is where I was hoping that perhaps Kevin Annet might be aiming in the right direction with his common law initiatives.
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
from here: http://stopkevinannett.wordpress.co...unts-dead-children-to-gain-support-for-itccs/
"On December 13, 2013, Kevin Annett announced that the skeletons of 30 children were unearthed in a mass grave at the Indian Residential School in Port Alberni, British Columbia. The grave, according to Kevin, and ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER SOURCE IN THE MEDIA OR ANYWHERE, was discovered by pipe-fitters working in the area. Now, what Kevin doesn’t know is that I spoke to people there while on my Christmas vacation and to a family member who happens to be a pipe-fitter working in that area to see if this claim held any water. Neither the elder I spoke with from the Nuu-Chul-Nuth First Nations people, or my cousin, had heard of any such thing. The Elder I spoke with stated too that if anything like that were discovered it would not be without the knowledge or the consent of the Tribal Council, which is what we saw with the dig at Brantford. And, according to my cousin any time remains are found that are questionable as to being human or not, the RCMP and the local Tribal Council are immediately notified. Universities get involved. Coroners and Forensics experts swoop in and do their job. Not like what we saw with the dig at Brantford. A fact Kevin missed is that many of the guys working with my cousin are Native and there is no way that such a discovery would be treated lightly or with disrespect against the Native people living and working there."
Lots of stuff on that web page...
Conspiracies are fun
There are some really cool historical ones...like the conspiracy that created the USA. The P2 conspiracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due). The French Revolution conspiracy.
Now we have the internet--where virtually anyone's voice can be heard
From me to you to someone like Alfred Webre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Webre) , a very active and interesting fellow who, among many things, worked with Dennis Kucinich to help make an act that would ban space weapons, including HAARP and who believes that there was a conspiracy between Vancouver police & Robert Pickton to help commit satanic ritual sacrifices...
People are awesomely weird and I do hope they never change :3
(including the ones who grok how tagging 'conspiracy' on to something immediately causes it to lose status...)
"On December 13, 2013, Kevin Annett announced that the skeletons of 30 children were unearthed in a mass grave at the Indian Residential School in Port Alberni, British Columbia. The grave, according to Kevin, and ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER SOURCE IN THE MEDIA OR ANYWHERE, was discovered by pipe-fitters working in the area. Now, what Kevin doesn’t know is that I spoke to people there while on my Christmas vacation and to a family member who happens to be a pipe-fitter working in that area to see if this claim held any water. Neither the elder I spoke with from the Nuu-Chul-Nuth First Nations people, or my cousin, had heard of any such thing. The Elder I spoke with stated too that if anything like that were discovered it would not be without the knowledge or the consent of the Tribal Council, which is what we saw with the dig at Brantford. And, according to my cousin any time remains are found that are questionable as to being human or not, the RCMP and the local Tribal Council are immediately notified. Universities get involved. Coroners and Forensics experts swoop in and do their job. Not like what we saw with the dig at Brantford. A fact Kevin missed is that many of the guys working with my cousin are Native and there is no way that such a discovery would be treated lightly or with disrespect against the Native people living and working there."
Lots of stuff on that web page...
Conspiracies are fun
There are some really cool historical ones...like the conspiracy that created the USA. The P2 conspiracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due). The French Revolution conspiracy.
Now we have the internet--where virtually anyone's voice can be heard
From me to you to someone like Alfred Webre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Webre) , a very active and interesting fellow who, among many things, worked with Dennis Kucinich to help make an act that would ban space weapons, including HAARP and who believes that there was a conspiracy between Vancouver police & Robert Pickton to help commit satanic ritual sacrifices...
People are awesomely weird and I do hope they never change :3
(including the ones who grok how tagging 'conspiracy' on to something immediately causes it to lose status...)
Last edited:
revjohn
Well-Known Member
UnDefinitive said:
No. It doesn't.
Please consult the following entries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis#Contents
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0815.htm
[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]It doesn't matter how many different sites include Annett's allegations. Since he is wrong about them once that error is simply multiplied by every site participating in his lie.
UnDefinitive said:
That being the case it would appear that it isn't even about facts or truth. You have fixed your belief and you will clutch at whatever allegations support it.
Last edited:
Ritafee
Is Being Human
RevJon "That being the case it would appear that it isn't even about facts or truth. You have fixed your belief and you will clutch at whatever allegations support it "...
Kathleen A. Shaw
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
The hierarchy of the Catholic church has been instructed by the Vatican at least since 1962 to keep certain cases of clergy sexual abuse secret under pain of excommunication, according to Boston lawyer Carmen L. Durso.
A copy of the directive was sent yesterday to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan at his Boston office by Mr. Durso, who said he believes the church has been obstructing justice.
Mr. Durso said it might also explain why Cardinal Bernard F. Law and bishops of the Boston Archdiocese and elsewhere covered up sexual abuse of children by clergy.
Mr. Durso yesterday asked Mr. Sullivan to find legal grounds under federal laws to prosecute those in the hierarchy who have covered up these sexual abuse cases.
Houston lawyer Daniel J. Shea provided Mr. Durso with a copy of the Vatican document, called "On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation" (Latin title: "Crimen Sollicitones"). Both lawyers are representing alleged clergy abuse victims in Central Massachusetts.
Paul Baier, president of Survivors First, a victims' advocacy group, who is also familiar with the document, called the church's action in concealing instances of sexual abuse "a coordinated effort of conspiracy."
Bryan Smith of Hubbardston, Worcester area leader of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said people in the church who covered up for priests "should be prosecuted.
"If it were anyone else, they would be in jail by now," he said.
Mr. Durso's action came after Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly issued a grand jury report last week that was critical of the hierarchy of the Boston Archdiocese for its failure to protect children from abusive priests. He said he had no grounds for criminal charges. He determined that at least 800 children were sexually abused by 250 priests in the archdiocese dating from 1940.
"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Mr. Durso said. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed "a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Mr. Durso told the federal attorney.
"Indeed, the directions regarding both the hiding and the destruction of documents should be evaluated in terms of the crime of obstruction of justice," he said.
Mr. Durso, accompanied by representatives of various statewide victim advocacy groups, went to Mr. Sullivan's office in Boston, where he hand-delivered the letter.
The 40-page document, which was obtained by the Telegram & Gazette, was promulgated in 1962 by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII and was printed by the Vatican Press. It is marked confidential and states it is to be stored in the "secret archives" and is to be treated as "strictly confidential."
It specifically tells bishops, archbishops and patriarchs, including those of the Eastern Rite, how to handle allegations that a priest made sexual advances toward a person in the confessional. Confession is a sacrament of the Catholic Church.
Two civil suits in the Worcester Diocese involve allegations that a priest made improper advances to children in the confessional and subsequently sexually abused them. The allegations were made by Karen Pedersen of Fitchburg in her suit against the Rev. Robert E. Kelley and by Timothy P. Staney of Worcester in his suit against the Rev. Jean-Paul Gagnon. The priests have denied the allegations.
One section states that the bishop, who is called the ordinary, has control over such investigations and in cases of accused members of religious orders, the superior can remove the accused priest from ministry and "will also be able to transfer him to another (assignment), unless the ordinary of the place has forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and begun the inquisition."
The document said that because of the great care necessary with these cases, those investigating "are to be restrained by a perpetual silence" and are required "to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication..."
The oath of secrecy also is required of those accusing the priest and any witnesses.
The directive also says the person who is solicited in the confessional must report the incident to the bishop within a month or to the Holy Office. The accused confessor is required to warn the person confessing of this duty.
A person who knowingly failed to denounce the priest incurs excommunication.
The directive calls for destruction of documents if the investigators find an accusation "totally lacks a foundation." If the accusation is "vague and indeterminate or uncertain" the records should go to the archives in case "something else happens in the future."
If the accusation is considered "serious enough" but not sufficient to begin an accusatorial process, information should go to the archive.
Should an accused priest go before a church trial, "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."
Mr. Shea in a separate letter to Mr. Sullivan explained that the 1962 Vatican document appears in a footnote to a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated May 18, 2002, to all bishops of the Catholic church.
Samantha Martin, a spokesman for Mr. Sullivan, said he would have no immediate comment.
"We have received the letter from the group and we also have a copy of the (attorney general's) report, and all the materials are under review," Ms. Martin said.
RevJon ... It seems that I can find a lot of allegations around this issue ... It also seems that you can find a lot of denials wherever I find allegations. And so on and so on ...
How many allegations of abuse by priests have been reported and how many of those priests were actually imprisoned for their crimes against humanity ... Plint, Annett, and Blackwater & the United Church have all been exposed and tried and been prosecuted or persecuted or victimized because of that exposure ... I do not think it is 'clutching' at allegations to be interested in exposing abuse at the level of Crown & Vatican and having them subject to same laws of the people that they are supposed to be serving.
- Vatican document instructed secrecy in abuse cases
Kathleen A. Shaw
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
The hierarchy of the Catholic church has been instructed by the Vatican at least since 1962 to keep certain cases of clergy sexual abuse secret under pain of excommunication, according to Boston lawyer Carmen L. Durso.
A copy of the directive was sent yesterday to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan at his Boston office by Mr. Durso, who said he believes the church has been obstructing justice.
Mr. Durso said it might also explain why Cardinal Bernard F. Law and bishops of the Boston Archdiocese and elsewhere covered up sexual abuse of children by clergy.
Mr. Durso yesterday asked Mr. Sullivan to find legal grounds under federal laws to prosecute those in the hierarchy who have covered up these sexual abuse cases.
Houston lawyer Daniel J. Shea provided Mr. Durso with a copy of the Vatican document, called "On the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation" (Latin title: "Crimen Sollicitones"). Both lawyers are representing alleged clergy abuse victims in Central Massachusetts.
Paul Baier, president of Survivors First, a victims' advocacy group, who is also familiar with the document, called the church's action in concealing instances of sexual abuse "a coordinated effort of conspiracy."
Bryan Smith of Hubbardston, Worcester area leader of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said people in the church who covered up for priests "should be prosecuted.
"If it were anyone else, they would be in jail by now," he said.
Mr. Durso's action came after Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly issued a grand jury report last week that was critical of the hierarchy of the Boston Archdiocese for its failure to protect children from abusive priests. He said he had no grounds for criminal charges. He determined that at least 800 children were sexually abused by 250 priests in the archdiocese dating from 1940.
"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Mr. Durso said. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed "a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Mr. Durso told the federal attorney.
"Indeed, the directions regarding both the hiding and the destruction of documents should be evaluated in terms of the crime of obstruction of justice," he said.
Mr. Durso, accompanied by representatives of various statewide victim advocacy groups, went to Mr. Sullivan's office in Boston, where he hand-delivered the letter.
The 40-page document, which was obtained by the Telegram & Gazette, was promulgated in 1962 by the Supreme and Holy Congregation of the Holy Office under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII and was printed by the Vatican Press. It is marked confidential and states it is to be stored in the "secret archives" and is to be treated as "strictly confidential."
It specifically tells bishops, archbishops and patriarchs, including those of the Eastern Rite, how to handle allegations that a priest made sexual advances toward a person in the confessional. Confession is a sacrament of the Catholic Church.
Two civil suits in the Worcester Diocese involve allegations that a priest made improper advances to children in the confessional and subsequently sexually abused them. The allegations were made by Karen Pedersen of Fitchburg in her suit against the Rev. Robert E. Kelley and by Timothy P. Staney of Worcester in his suit against the Rev. Jean-Paul Gagnon. The priests have denied the allegations.
One section states that the bishop, who is called the ordinary, has control over such investigations and in cases of accused members of religious orders, the superior can remove the accused priest from ministry and "will also be able to transfer him to another (assignment), unless the ordinary of the place has forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and begun the inquisition."
The document said that because of the great care necessary with these cases, those investigating "are to be restrained by a perpetual silence" and are required "to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication..."
The oath of secrecy also is required of those accusing the priest and any witnesses.
The directive also says the person who is solicited in the confessional must report the incident to the bishop within a month or to the Holy Office. The accused confessor is required to warn the person confessing of this duty.
A person who knowingly failed to denounce the priest incurs excommunication.
The directive calls for destruction of documents if the investigators find an accusation "totally lacks a foundation." If the accusation is "vague and indeterminate or uncertain" the records should go to the archives in case "something else happens in the future."
If the accusation is considered "serious enough" but not sufficient to begin an accusatorial process, information should go to the archive.
Should an accused priest go before a church trial, "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."
Mr. Shea in a separate letter to Mr. Sullivan explained that the 1962 Vatican document appears in a footnote to a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated May 18, 2002, to all bishops of the Catholic church.
Samantha Martin, a spokesman for Mr. Sullivan, said he would have no immediate comment.
"We have received the letter from the group and we also have a copy of the (attorney general's) report, and all the materials are under review," Ms. Martin said.
RevJon ... It seems that I can find a lot of allegations around this issue ... It also seems that you can find a lot of denials wherever I find allegations. And so on and so on ...
How many allegations of abuse by priests have been reported and how many of those priests were actually imprisoned for their crimes against humanity ... Plint, Annett, and Blackwater & the United Church have all been exposed and tried and been prosecuted or persecuted or victimized because of that exposure ... I do not think it is 'clutching' at allegations to be interested in exposing abuse at the level of Crown & Vatican and having them subject to same laws of the people that they are supposed to be serving.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
We've been over Ratzinger's letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the old site. Yes, the Catholic Church has been operating much like a criminal organization. The smoking gun is in the open, and the only reason Ratzinger isn't behind bars for life is that he used to be a leader of the largest church in the world. If he was the CEO of an international chain of daycare, he might be executed by now. He certainly would never see the outside of a jail cell again.
But Annett didn't discover that, and riding on those coattails is curious at best.
Annett, best I can tell, is a jackass. He is a conspiracy theorist. So are you, assuming you're not Annett himself. He has followers, but not many. He isn't helping the cause he pretends to champion, and the organizations he pretends to lead have no standing, and are mostly just him.
But Annett didn't discover that, and riding on those coattails is curious at best.
Annett, best I can tell, is a jackass. He is a conspiracy theorist. So are you, assuming you're not Annett himself. He has followers, but not many. He isn't helping the cause he pretends to champion, and the organizations he pretends to lead have no standing, and are mostly just him.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
UnDefinitive said:
That is the nature of the internet. Point and counterpoint after point and counterpoint. Some of it is legitimate and a lot of it isn't.
UnDefinitive said:
I don't have access to those stats.
I also don't have access to the number of times abuse by priests was alleged and how many times a court of law found the allegation to be without merit.
Not that statistics make things better or worse.
If the conviction rate was 100% it would not remove one offence from ever having happened.
UnDefinitive said:
Plint was found guilty and sentenced to 12 years. Was it enough? Nobody but Plint complained it was too much.
In fact, when Plint made an application for early parole the United Church publicly opposed it.
http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1998/p116
Annett has never been tried save for a ministry fitness review which found him to be seriously lacking and led to him being placed on the discontinued service list.
Blackwater was never prosecuted against but rather was plaintiff against the United Church of Canada. It was a shameful and embarrassing trial with the Defence lawyers for the Church doing everything they could to discredit Blackwater's testimony. They failed and the United Church was found liable. Annett persecutes him by naming him a top RCMP informant or stooge and suggesting that he is a planted witness rather than an actual victim.
The Church was successful in dragging the Federal Government into the damages phase and the Federal Government was assigned damages as well.
Why did Plint go to jail? Because he was guilty of criminal acts and that was proven in a criminal trial.
Why didn't the Moderator or the Executive Secretary of the United Church of Canada go to jail? They weren't charged. Why not? Because they did not abuse any of the children at the Residential Schools nor did they ever instruct anyone to sexually abuse the children at the Residential Schools.
If they had been named and charges had been laid against them there would have been a trial of some kind.
Because the Church should have been aware of what was happening (duty of oversight) it was held liable for damages in a civil suit though there has never been criminal proceedings against the Church as a whole.
Such a proceeding could not even begin to happen until some evidence was found that suggests the sexual abuse and/or the physical abuse was planned and deliberate strategy of the Church.
LIkewise the PM and/or the Queen. They never assaulted or abused nor directed staff at the Residential Schools to assault or abuse therefore they will never be held criminally responsible for the assaults and abuses of the Residential School Program. The Federal Government has been found liable for damages in civil suits so it will pay those damages.
With respect to the article by Kathleen Shaw you have shared it recounts only allegations made in a specific case, it does not recount whether the allegations were ever proven nor does it recount whether or not the allegations were even contested. All that can be gleaned from the article is what was alleged.
UnDefinitive said:
Until a charge is actually laid (none have been) we cannot comment on whether or not such individuals would be protected or even that they are not subject to the same laws of the people.
No witnesses place Queen Elizabeth at any residential school committing unspeakable acts against children.
No witnesses place Pope Benedict at any residential school committing unspeakable acts against children.
No witnesses place Prime Minister Harper at any residential school committing unspeakable acts against children.
The minute we change our legal system so that no such proof is necessary for these three to be charged and imprisoned you and I are an allegation away from prison ourselves.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Thank you Chansen for this ...
RevJon ...
"The minute we change our legal system so that no such proof is necessary for these three to be charged and imprisoned you and I are an allegation away from prison ourselves"
Methinks you and I have pretty much always been an allegation away from prison ourselves ... and once charged we will find ourselves guilty until we can afford to buy/prove our innocence ... that's just the way I see things ... call me jaded ... If the Queen, the Prime Minister or Pope decide to allege that I have done something wrong without witness proof (even if I have not) I would bet I will be incarcerated (or disappear) before they prove that I have done something wrong ... If I allege that the Queen , the Prime Minister or the Pope have done something wrong without witnesses (not to say that there are no witnesses ... just that the witnesses are unable or unwilling to come forward in my defense) I would bet I would be the one incarcerated (or I would disappear) as well.
- We've been over Ratzinger's letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the old site. Yes, the Catholic Church has been operating much like a criminal organization. The smoking gun is in the open, and the only reason Ratzinger isn't behind bars for life is that he used to be a leader of the largest church in the world. If he was the CEO of an international chain of daycare, he might be executed by now. He certainly would never see the outside of a jail cell again.
RevJon ...
"The minute we change our legal system so that no such proof is necessary for these three to be charged and imprisoned you and I are an allegation away from prison ourselves"
Methinks you and I have pretty much always been an allegation away from prison ourselves ... and once charged we will find ourselves guilty until we can afford to buy/prove our innocence ... that's just the way I see things ... call me jaded ... If the Queen, the Prime Minister or Pope decide to allege that I have done something wrong without witness proof (even if I have not) I would bet I will be incarcerated (or disappear) before they prove that I have done something wrong ... If I allege that the Queen , the Prime Minister or the Pope have done something wrong without witnesses (not to say that there are no witnesses ... just that the witnesses are unable or unwilling to come forward in my defense) I would bet I would be the one incarcerated (or I would disappear) as well.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
UnDefinitive said:
It would probably depend upon the charge.
Odds are very long that I would be charged with assault or murder without anything approaching just cause.
An allegation of sexual misconduct would cook my goose in the court of public opinion in a hurry. All that would be needed is for an arrest to be made, information fed to the nearest media outlet and presto I'm page one. No trial necessary. And if I came through a trial intact the papers that put my allegation on the front page would only carry my acquittal begrudgingly if at all.
Don't know who you are in real life but if you are a teacher, doctor, politician of something of similar public trust you'd probably go through the same thing yourself.
And there would be folk who wouldn't believe you or I could be guilty of such activity.
There would also be folk who wouldn't believe you or I could be anything but guilty of such activity.
UnDefinitive said:
I don't share that belief.
For starters I'm not anybody who poses any kind of threat to the Queen, the Prime Minister or the Pope.
And of these three I think only the current Prime Minister is petty enough to take notice of any criticism I might offer of him personally or his office. That isn't going to result in me disappearing, or facing trumped up charges. It might mean that Revenue Canada is grumpy with my filing.
In the grand scheme of things I'm no threat to the Prime Minister's person but I might have the power to sway public sentiment. At the moment that wouldn't draw his attention. If I got the attention of too many others I would expect threats of some kind or another. Not likely trumped up criminal charges because any competent lawyer would be able to expose that in a court of law. Most likely threats for my congregation to loose their charitable organization status and more fine tooth combs running through my finances.
If the Queen or the Pope were as vindictive or petty as you believe them to be Annett would have disappeared long before you or I had ever heard of him.
As it stands I imagine that it is a twice a day event that somebody in the world stands up and makes outrageous allegations against either the Pope or the Queen and the reason why Annett is able to do so freely is because he has zero proof and he has been crying wolf so long that he has reduced himself to a background level of noise that is easily ignored.
Last edited:
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Which, of course, means that "the Crown" (which UnDefinitive keeps referring to) has been found liable, because the federal government always acts with the authority of the Crown and the Crown does not act except on the advice of the federal government. (Sort of like, "I and the Father are one.") There's that constitutional monarchy thingy raising its head again. Unless UnDefinitive is seriously alleging that Queen Elizabeth personally and secretly and unconstititionally instructed people to sexually abuse children, which I would reject as a ludicrous proposition.
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
be ware of ideology, of the various saviours, prophets, cults, etc who will try to save you
how cults work
grok yourelf
oh, i remember living through these -- there'd be media stories aboot 'Satanists' in the wilds of Vancouver Island who would descend upon birthing wards and steal babies...there are more modern panics, like finding Illuminati/Satanic/Baphomet/Babylonian symbolism in Madonna concerts
Different people with their different societies can have different moral panics (which, even if they turn out to be false, can lead to real effects -- like this infamous one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial the accused was jailed for 5 years without being convicted...no convictions, $15 million wasted, people's lives & reputations harmed)
so as always with information: know your dealer (know who is giving you information), know your drug (what is the information), and know your environment (know thyself & be willing to defrag your own ideas and be willing to have more than two truths as to 'what happened' -- the more the merrier imho)
how cults work
grok yourelf
oh, i remember living through these -- there'd be media stories aboot 'Satanists' in the wilds of Vancouver Island who would descend upon birthing wards and steal babies...there are more modern panics, like finding Illuminati/Satanic/Baphomet/Babylonian symbolism in Madonna concerts
Different people with their different societies can have different moral panics (which, even if they turn out to be false, can lead to real effects -- like this infamous one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial the accused was jailed for 5 years without being convicted...no convictions, $15 million wasted, people's lives & reputations harmed)
so as always with information: know your dealer (know who is giving you information), know your drug (what is the information), and know your environment (know thyself & be willing to defrag your own ideas and be willing to have more than two truths as to 'what happened' -- the more the merrier imho)
Last edited:
GeoFee
I am who I am becoming...
Some years ago folks built a boat. They crossed an ocean. They claimed a land as their property. They began to profit by their ownership of this property. At the top of the power pole was a monarch of one stripe or another. The whole enterprise was soundly blessed by clerical authority.
Stuff did not simply happen to the peoples indigenous to the discovered land (whatever continent you name). Stuff was imposed on them. This stuff went under the general heading of expanding enlightened civilization. Some justified it as advancement of the gospel. High on the agenda was suppression of indigenous culture. Forced education for conformity while estranged from parental and elder influence served this objective well.
I am not much interested in who did what when. My concern is with present precept and practice. Do we lament the subjection and oppression of a land and a people accomplished by means of law and order? Do we lament the exploitation of creation and creature now undertaken in the name of one golden calf or another?
UnDefinitive has expressed desire and will for responsibility before the problematic of our time. This is a value I appreciate an encourage in and through all my relations. Each day the travesty of power abused for the sake of profit grows in proportion and implication. The king of Nineveh, if contrary to Mr. Hobbes I am permitted resort to metaphor, knew enough to repent and call for a dedicated fast. Not likely Harper will call such a fast. He is full bore devoted to the capitalization of opportunity for the increase of commerce.
Harper is deeply implicated in the logic of colonization, as are the Queen and the Pope. We see the Pope speaking a word which signals a new possibility. Will Harper and the Queen affirm that word in word and in deed? Will the bankers let them?
Based on my experience under the law and the jurisdiction of the United Church, calling persons seeking power on the nature of the game can be risky business. It requires strong determination for the realization of freedom, responsibility, creativity and courage, not as cliché but as lived experience.
So we have Kevin exposed and fair game for ridicule and disdain?
All while the highnesses and the esteemed are washed white as fresh fallen snow?
George
Stuff did not simply happen to the peoples indigenous to the discovered land (whatever continent you name). Stuff was imposed on them. This stuff went under the general heading of expanding enlightened civilization. Some justified it as advancement of the gospel. High on the agenda was suppression of indigenous culture. Forced education for conformity while estranged from parental and elder influence served this objective well.
I am not much interested in who did what when. My concern is with present precept and practice. Do we lament the subjection and oppression of a land and a people accomplished by means of law and order? Do we lament the exploitation of creation and creature now undertaken in the name of one golden calf or another?
UnDefinitive has expressed desire and will for responsibility before the problematic of our time. This is a value I appreciate an encourage in and through all my relations. Each day the travesty of power abused for the sake of profit grows in proportion and implication. The king of Nineveh, if contrary to Mr. Hobbes I am permitted resort to metaphor, knew enough to repent and call for a dedicated fast. Not likely Harper will call such a fast. He is full bore devoted to the capitalization of opportunity for the increase of commerce.
Harper is deeply implicated in the logic of colonization, as are the Queen and the Pope. We see the Pope speaking a word which signals a new possibility. Will Harper and the Queen affirm that word in word and in deed? Will the bankers let them?
Based on my experience under the law and the jurisdiction of the United Church, calling persons seeking power on the nature of the game can be risky business. It requires strong determination for the realization of freedom, responsibility, creativity and courage, not as cliché but as lived experience.
So we have Kevin exposed and fair game for ridicule and disdain?
All while the highnesses and the esteemed are washed white as fresh fallen snow?
George
Last edited:
Delightful Life
M&M, Cascadian Lovers
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I will admit that I was surprised by my immediate reaction to the OP -- that of 'this is bulls**t!' and was also surprised at me thinking in ways that I find personally annoying (poisoning the well, confirmation bias, 'conspiracy theory' as demonization, ridicule...)
I'm also glad that various viruses & algae & other cellular forms have regarded their invasion and killing of other experiments and felt some remorse for them
I am also glad that volcanos and gamma ray bursts are sorry for the life that they destroy and the further experiments that arise during & after them
Personally, I think the best thing that can come from this thread is for people to be knocked out of their complacency...to be aware of one's BS etc etc etc
What I've said aboot cults, saviours, etc also applies to the Kevins & mes of the world...we so easily mistake the finger for the moon
I think that if people are to base their beliefs on Kevin, if they take him literally, they are responsible for what happens...from what little I've seen, there is some question as to the veracity of some of his claims...but t'me, Kevin isn't important -- what is more important to me are things like people becoming aware of their own BS (Belief Systems) etc
The global spiritual marketplace grows and grows
I'm also glad that various viruses & algae & other cellular forms have regarded their invasion and killing of other experiments and felt some remorse for them
I am also glad that volcanos and gamma ray bursts are sorry for the life that they destroy and the further experiments that arise during & after them
Personally, I think the best thing that can come from this thread is for people to be knocked out of their complacency...to be aware of one's BS etc etc etc
What I've said aboot cults, saviours, etc also applies to the Kevins & mes of the world...we so easily mistake the finger for the moon
I think that if people are to base their beliefs on Kevin, if they take him literally, they are responsible for what happens...from what little I've seen, there is some question as to the veracity of some of his claims...but t'me, Kevin isn't important -- what is more important to me are things like people becoming aware of their own BS (Belief Systems) etc
The global spiritual marketplace grows and grows
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
That's a stretch, Geofee, and a big one. One can ridicule and disdain Kevin's views (as I do) and still hold the powers that be accountable for their sins. The problem with Kevin is not a problem with holding the powers that be accountable. It is holding them accountable for things that they have really done rather than for unproven conspiracies. The residential schools, the treatment of the aboriginal peoples in general, are very real issues in our history and in our present society and we need to hold those in power responsible for dealing with them. No doubt of that. It is my opinion and that of, I think, others who have responded to Undefinitive, that chasing after unproven, quite probably imaginary conspiracy theories does not serve that purpose, but distracts from it.