|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/3/11 下午 03:15:49
|
|
|
這不是笑談而是真的問題 - 如果在牧民議會中決議了一些遺反法律的決策,何人要負法律責任?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/3/11 下午 03:19:03
|
|
|
Be more specific - copyright infringement; racial discrimination; libel and slander - who would bear the liability?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2004/3/12 下午 04:37:05
|
|
|
施施姐,您是律師,怎麼會問我們呢?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2004/3/12 下午 04:46:25
|
|
|
牧民議會,按教會法只是諮議性質,行動的主體是堂區.
堂區在教會法是一個法人,以堂區主任為代表.
但堂區按普通法好像不是法人,天主教香港教區才是.
所以在民法上最終要負責的當然是教區.
但到時教區又有可能不承認牧民議會的決議,而堂區主任又不承認該行動是其受權的,那麼應會理解成"個別人士"的行為,那麼就是個別人士的責任.
不知我的看法對不對.
我有一個神學同學是律師,多年前我們也討論過這問題.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2004/3/12 下午 05:01:12
|
|
|
施施姐,說太多也沒用,不是出了事他們是不會識驚的.
大眾的法律意識不高嘛.
就像美國神父的性醜聞案.
行動的都是"個別神父","找數"的當然就是他們的教區了.奈何?
|
|
simon
|
Posted -
2004/3/12 下午 10:05:37
|
|
|
cecil,
我不明白你的意思，你是說牧民議會的決策有racial discrimination 嗎？
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/4/16 上午 09:57:48
|
|
|
SORRY,到現在才回應兩位.
我不愛在教會內說法律,但從現實看卻不能不談,因為真的每況愈下,有識的人人人躲開,沒見識的掌杈掌財(對不起,不是每个神父都會管理);大團體亂糟糟,餞又亂人又亂,盤數吓死人,又猛打壓忠言,見者心鶩。一年之中走四五个神父的堂區,何止是有racial discrimination? 這些早已有了四五年了啦！
一個一個的小圈子PARISH COUNCIL,是犯法的溫床來的,未出大事是全賴上主!
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2004/4/16 下午 12:22:48
|
|
|
Solid examples - racial discrimination: a) segregation decision against non-Chinese speaking faithful by putting up majority of Church announcements and notices in Chinese ONLY, under the pretext that the English-speakers will NOT join in the Parish activities. In reality, over 60% of those attending English masses ARE ethnic Chinese but they would not know the announcements if they do not ask others;
b) refusal to set up English mass representation at the Parish Council even upon suggestion of assistant parish priest.
Financial chaos - on the last accounts, for travelling expenses alone, the expenditure averaged at over $40,000 per month (not per annum). Mind you, the location is on Hong Kong Island, not New Territories.
These are by no means all. Others like copyright infringement, etc. are on-going every week.
|
|
