TTSOML #89: Al Kennedy For Archdiocese Bankruptcy

What pissed me off, pardon the expression, but from the beginning, even if some of these plaintiffs attorneys were sincere, I question how well prepared they were to take on the Catholic church from the beginning. I don't think they did their homework. On one hand, at least some of them had to be in it to help and make a difference, and you can't read and research everything. But you had, at the first hearing for the Archdiocese bankrtuptcy, for example, the HEAD attorney, Al Kennedy, saying stupid things like, "Did you get permission from the Vatican to file this bankruptcy?"

The guy didn't even know the difference between "the Vatican" and "The Holy See". One wouldn't GET "permission" from the Vatican, because the "Vatican" refers to a geographical boundary and location. It is "The Holy See" that is the governing body, from which permission could be requested. By asking stupid questions like this and not knowing how to distinguish even the small things, the church could and did get away with, I would say, quite a lot. The church could say "No" under oath to this stupid question, and not even be perjuring themselves, because they would know the question was in improper form to begin with.

I question whether Kennedy was stupid and arrogant, or whether he was a part of the whole deal, and was willing to sell his soul or was a part of the Catholic church's strategy to begin with

I already posted this at the end of my last post (TTSOML #88) but I think it bears repeating.

And if anyone doubts me, this line of questioning was recorded by the newspaper, The Oregonian, which quotes both Al Kennedy asking his question, and then actually quotes ME, asking the question in proper form, about the Holy See, not the "Vatican".

I only mention this, to prove a point. That sometimes the experts are not the experts afterall, and sometimes, even the experts are corrupt. I'm not making a claim that Kennedy is or was ever corrupt. But ill-equipped? Well, one or the other.