Hello George,

I guess it is a coincidence that we (mainly me) have been comparing Catholic Church and Banks. Herein, we can monitor events and see if the ANZ acts like a Church. The CEO protecting staff or maybe sending documents off-shore to avoid summons to produce to authotities. My prediction is the ANZ will co-operate with police, hide no documents and transfer no one away from Australian legal jurisiction.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/anz-bank-reportedly-snared-in-drugs-probe-2010-05-13

Pericles,

Regarding my last post to George, as self-interest orientated, as are the Banks, I suspect the ANZ will co-operate with legal authorities. None of the staff alleged guilty of a crime will be subject to five year internal ANZ investigation, then tarnsferred where they have access to the control of huge sums of money, after a some sessions with a psychologist. I could be wrong, let's see.

TTM,

There are places where humans don't think, I hope you don't mind.

Hi Oliver,
>>I would suggest they turn themselves in<<
That is exactly what also the Church superior should do (have done) when arriving at the conclusion that his subordinate committed a crime punishable by secular law. If he fails (failed) to do that, he is (was) wrong (at least in the moral sense), whether the crime was pedophilia or importing drugs, as in your ANZ example. So we do not disagree on this.

I am sorry, but I am knowledgeable neither about the internal procedures of running a bank nor of running a one-billion large Church, to be able to follow or comment on your analogies, although I think they can go only that far. I am sure, if they apply, the attorneys - both of prosecution and defense, in case a churchman is charged with "cover-up" - will be aware of that.

>>I do not see the current debate in terms of theism Vs. enemies. <<
Nobody does. People, like myself, object to the FORM of some reporting (I earlier spelled out that objection) not to the fact of bringing to light unpleasant facts, including what you call cover-ups. Even Vatican recently appreciated, actually thanked, media for this (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051104.html and http://thecatholicspirit.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3681&Itemid=33). At last they seem to have realised that defensiveness combined with a catastrophic PR policy can only backfire, and cannot be blamed on the outsiders. Needless to say that neither does it contribute to finding the truth, justice and ways of preventing the same happening in the future. And biased, hostile reporting, ditto.

>>It is more like a police corruption scandal and cover-up.<<
This analogy would better fit if you did not have separation of Church and State (as you do not have separation of Police and State).

Pericles,
As I wrote in a previous post, “I got interested in this topic somewhat involuntarily when asked to explain the sad and convoluted situation … to people who used to live on the other side of the Iron Curtain”. I cannot hide my Catholic background - nor e.g. my “mathematical way of thinking” or that English is not my mother tongue - even if I wanted.

However, I tried to argue rationally, which includes offering counter-arguments to arguments presented, alternative links to compensate for those listed by others, etc. If it looks as special pleading to you, I cannot help that. Neither can e.g. Oliver help if somebody sees his arguments as special pleading for something else, and I do not blame him for that.

As I often say, one presents one’s perspective here not to “convert” the holder of another perspective, but to broaden ones own perspective and hopefully also contribute to the broadening of his/hers. Sometimes this must be done by first clarifying what the argument is all about, what are the disagreements and what just misunderstandings.

Hi George,

Thanks.

You might find the following interesting regarding Church and State in Australia, noting the Commonwealth and States have different Constitutions:

http://www.iheu.org/node/1044

I feel the Catholic Church (and other churches) in Australia and elsewhere in the World, might feel the scope of separation means the “Church” part allows parallel laws/rights to secular State laws: And, in some instances, Church policies and Canons have precedence over State laws. …That the Church is very unlike a Bank or the Police, owing to the particular status provided by “Church”, within “Church” and “State”. … e.g., a belief that the State cannot forcibly remove documents from the “Church” in the course of an investigation or a Commission should not treat a bishop or priest the same a police constable or bank clerk. However, it could be argued, perhaps, even with support from Jesus, that religious institutions and figures are very much subject to Caesar’s law. Herein, Church and State is a concord, whereby, the State will not interfere in matters of religion or create a religion. In matters of Caesar’s side of the bargain, the Church should be no different to a bank; noting with regards the ANZ drugs case:

“The Herald Sun reports the bank's internal e-mail servers have been studied as part of the police probe with employees alleged to have used code words to buy and sell drugs.” From

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Finance/2010/05/14/ANZ_branch_probed_on_drug_accusations_461934.html

Likewise, looking at through the Church’s email servers and bishopric correspondence might help identify any bishops, who covered-up cases over the past twenty years, many of whom, might still be alive. Cardinal Pell (and other cardinals around the World), like the ANZexecutive, should cooperate with civil authorities and not make the job harder, as claimed by the Phoenix DA in the US (above). It is in the Church’s best interests to move, even beyond the positive steps taken in very recent years, to fully address these matters. As with police corruption, the cover-up agents, after the fact, must go, not only the prime criminals. More worthy priests can replace the cover-up bishops.

Hi Oliver,

Thanks again for the thoughts and links. However, as I keep on saying, I do not have enough legal insights to comment on what you wrote. I actually did not even understand what of that was the actual legal state of affairs re Australia vs. Catholic Church, and what just your ideas about how it ought to be. For instance, I know that officially there is a separation of Church and State in the USA but not in Germany, whereas in practice it often looks the other way around.

As I said before, I am sure should an Australian or American bishop ever be charged with obstructing justice (or something similar), the attorneys - both of prosecution and defense - will understand, and make use of, the legal context you write about better than I ever could.

I really think we are either repeating ourselves or talk past each other. I am grateful for your many inputs; they certainly “broadened” my insight into the sad matter, and perhaps we should leave it at that.

Hi George,

Many thanks for your comments and insights.

I do recognise the Catholic Church has opened the door even so slightly. Now it has made this first small step, I trust it will continue open up.

Again thanks. I hope to meet you again on another thread.

Kind regards,

Oliver