doctorow at February 21st, 2014 10:01 — #1
bradgall at February 21st, 2014 10:04 — #2
Glad to see my tax dollars going to a good cause.
johneightthirty at February 21st, 2014 10:14 — #3
Wow, you're a real fuckwad, Your Grace.
Not tax dollars, though. It's the Catholic Archdiocese, so they're funded not by taxpayers but by, uh. . . people who give money to the Church. What's the word? "Chumps", I suppose.
wearysky at February 21st, 2014 10:14 — #4
I am confuse. How do your tax dollars fund this?
euansmith at February 21st, 2014 10:20 — #5
Maybe bradgall meant tithe dollars
fuzzyfungus at February 21st, 2014 10:26 — #6
As much as this guy is an unmitigated asshole who would probably be engaged in all the wackiest simoniacal hijinks of the pre-reformation church, were they still an option, I must admit that his behavior has its upsides:
If he were bright enough, or not so consumed by hubris, he'd be a much lower profile target, probably still have the long history of flouting the law and sheltering pedophiles; but that would be a lot of dusty paper and decades-old he said/he said stuff. Interesting to the wonks and the victims and the lawyers, but dry as a dust.
The McPalace, the preening, the insistence on fancy titles, all that, are unlikely to be the worst of his crimes; but they are highly visible, and overtly contrary to any theories of clerical asceticism, humility, etc.
In an ideal world, of course, you wouldn't be faced with bad people; but if that's on the docket, let them be noisily bad, and expensive.
chgoliz at February 21st, 2014 10:26 — #7
Because the Catholic church does not have to pay any taxes on its income, real estate, etc., we taxpayers have to make up the difference. They don't even pay sales tax.
bradgall at February 21st, 2014 10:37 — #8
knowwildfood at February 21st, 2014 10:54 — #9
An age old(e) problem. As Chaucer wrote:
What sholde he studie and make hymselven wood,
Upon a book in cloystre alwey to poure,
Or swynken with his handes, and laboure,
As austyn bit? how shal the world be served?
His bootes souple, his hors in greet estaat.
Now certeinly he was a fair prelaat;
He was nat pale as a forpyned goost.
A fat swan loved he best of any roost.
His palfrey was as broun as is a berye.
jerwin at February 21st, 2014 10:59 — #10
he's not a duke.
cardinals and archbishops merit "eminence" and "excellency", respectively.
jerwin at February 21st, 2014 11:01 — #11
Clerical asceticism seems to be a choice, not a rule.
ironedithkidd at February 21st, 2014 11:34 — #12
I do so hope that Francis puts an epic smack-down on this guy as he did for the Bishop of Bling.
::grabs popcorn in anticipation::
mister44 at February 21st, 2014 11:38 — #13
Priests and employees pay sales tax on their groceries etc. In US at least. I heard in Ireland they don't.
lemoutan at February 21st, 2014 11:41 — #14
Grabbing some knitting might be better.
daneel at February 21st, 2014 11:46 — #15
stephen_schenck at February 21st, 2014 12:03 — #16
Taxpayers fund society. Religious institutions and the clergy do not pay their fair share of taxes. We're in effect subsidizing them.
gilbertwham at February 21st, 2014 12:07 — #17
That and 'these are very small, those are far away' are two of my favourite gags from that show.
wearysky at February 21st, 2014 12:14 — #18
That's a fairly roundabout way of saying that tax dollars are paying for this. Especially since, even if the church had to pay taxes, our good friend the Archbishop would have done exactly the same thing.
steampunkbanana at February 21st, 2014 12:19 — #19
Let's go ahead and add all these places to the Rolls of the Damned as well:
It's not just a Catholic thing.
ironedithkidd at February 21st, 2014 12:29 — #20
Should Francis choose to defrock him, there would be no need to incorporate the archbishop's name into my afghan. Besides, most of the available space is already occupied by economic and political oppressors.
next page →