CRI (3)
wash2u: CRI = Church Related Injuires.
Bit from Lateline tonight.
The Courts have ruled that there is a difference between the "trusts" who manage church property and the actions of its priests.
The Greens have indicated that they do not care who is responsible for managing the Church's assets, as long as somebody can provide "compensation" to those that have suffered from individuals in the church as long as they can sue someone (priests take a "Vow of poverty" and therefore cannot offer $s in compensation).
Bit from Lateline tonight.
The Courts have ruled that there is a difference between the "trusts" who manage church property and the actions of its priests.
The Greens have indicated that they do not care who is responsible for managing the Church's assets, as long as somebody can provide "compensation" to those that have suffered from individuals in the church as long as they can sue someone (priests take a "Vow of poverty" and therefore cannot offer $s in compensation).
Well if they can't sue the priests, can't they sue the "Church"? Are these trusts designed to keep church assets safe from this eventuality?
wash2u: CRI = Church Related Injuires.
Bit from Lateline tonight.
The Courts have ruled that there is a difference between the "trusts" who manage church property and the actions of its priests.
The Greens have indicated that they do not care who is responsible for managing the Church's assets, as long as somebody can provide "compensation" to those that have suffered from individuals in the church as long as they can sue someone (priests take a "Vow of poverty" and therefore cannot offer $s in compensation).
Bit from Lateline tonight.
The Courts have ruled that there is a difference between the "trusts" who manage church property and the actions of its priests.
The Greens have indicated that they do not care who is responsible for managing the Church's assets, as long as somebody can provide "compensation" to those that have suffered from individuals in the church as long as they can sue someone (priests take a "Vow of poverty" and therefore cannot offer $s in compensation).
I guess they will argue that the priests weren't actually 'employed' by the Church? Do they get paid a wage I wonder? Do they have a 'Job Description' (mind boggles) and Minimum Working Conditions?
More Threads
beauty of the heart
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
If Our Profiles Were Truly Honest
This is a thread that might become a poll..about charging everyone for membership but read!!!
biggest lie
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
Cat Calling
Democrats destroyed America
Trump on Trial
Should CS charge EVERYone a fee to keep fake profiles and scammers out?
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
450 Views
2 Comments
Created: Feb 2013
Last Viewed: Apr 7
Last Commented: Feb 2013
0 Likes
Bit from Lateline tonight.
The Courts have ruled that there is a difference between the "trusts" who manage church property and the actions of its priests.
The Greens have indicated that they do not care who is responsible for managing the Church's assets, as long as somebody can provide "compensation" to those that have suffered from individuals in the church as long as they can sue someone (priests take a "Vow of poverty" and therefore cannot offer $s in compensation).