Russian orthodox pope wears $30,000 watch:

Originally posted by Green Paladin
What "truth" are you referring to? The fact that there were two sets of pictures in the public domain, one showing the Patriarch wearing the watch and one not?

"The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journal e said he'd "never worn the watch" then, later, he didn't 'recall' wearing the watch.

So before the deception was officially acknowledged Kirill went in for his gambit. Then afterwards, when the jig was up, he admitted to owning the watch but, conveniently, didn't recall wearing it. Remember, he said he'd "never worn the watch" then, later, he didn't 'recall' wearing the watch.

Which seems to be a very good argument that he genuinely forgot wearing the watch. The images were out; the scandal already uncovered; yet he still denied it in the face of the evidence. I would expect someone sincerely concerned to protect their image would sooner try to explain away wearing the watch rather than deny it. The best explanation is that he was genuinely confused.

Also, I sincerely doubt that Church PR issued the press release without his knowledge of it and his input. The scenario you present is the Church admitting to the doctoring and the Patriarch saying 'Damn, I've been found out. I should come clean now'. No doubt he and the Church together admitted the error. This points to his honesty rather than dishonesty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not disputing any of the article. But it is obvious that what the Patriarch
said is hearsay because the Journalist says it came from another person. The
journalist did not actually have a converation with the Patriarch. But in any
event, this will never be in a real court because no crime has even been alleged.

The real question, which I haven't heard any mention of, we accept the idea he was given the watch. But what was the quid pro quo? People don't give watches like that because they just love the guy. The Russian Orthodox church was basically subsidised by Stalin so had lots of money early on. So it seems to me the whole church is steeped in corruption.

Reminds me of the middle ages where the church sold 'indulgences', give me a hundred bucks, all your sins are forgiven.....

I think that should be what the real controversy should be all about, and the fact they tried to hide it just makes me more suspicious of some kind of quid pro quo had to have been going on in the back rooms.

Corruption doesn't have to include cash.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The real question, which I haven't heard any mention of, we accept the idea he was given the watch. But what was the quid pro quo? People don't give watches like that because they just love the guy. The Russian Orthodox church was basically subsidised by Stalin so had lots of money early on. So it seems to me the whole church is steeped in corruption.

R o had to have been going on in the back rooms.

Corruption doesn't have to include cash.

Reminds me of the middle ages where the church sold 'indulgences', give me a hundred bucks, all your sins are forgiven.....

Someone will have to confirm that for me. I accept that the practice of selling indulgences occurred but I am unaware that the purchase of those indulgences promised absolution from sins. In many ways, that would be unsound business practice. If the indulgence could do that, why even both with sacraments or church attendance?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The real question, which I haven't heard any mention of, we accept the idea he was given the watch. But what was the quid pro quo? People don't give watches like that because they just love the guy. The Russian Orthodox church was basically subsidised by Stalin so had lots of money early on. So it seems to me the whole church is steeped in corruption.

R ...[text shortened]... o had to have been going on in the back rooms.

Corruption doesn't have to include cash.

You are really getting extremely speculative here without any proof. Maybe,
the watch was stolen and the theif was trying to get rid of the evidence and
make up for his sin at the same time. There are all kinds of speculations we
could make, but without proof that is all they are.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are really getting extremely speculative here without any proof. Maybe,
the watch was stolen and the theif was trying to get rid of the evidence and
make up for his sin at the same time. There are all kinds of speculations we
could make, but without proof that is all they are.

Absolutely. How does Sonhouse know what gifts Patriarchs receive? I believe that a $30,000 watch is not unusual. What would you expect for the Pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Queen of England to receive either from dignitaries or friends?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]So before the deception was officially acknowledged Kirill went in for his gambit. Then afterwards, when the jig was up, he admitted to owning the watch but, conveniently, didn't recall wearing it. Remember, he said he'd "never worn the watch" then, later, he didn't 'recall' wearing the watch.

Which seems to be a very good argument that he genuine ...[text shortened]... Church together admitted the error. This points to his honesty rather than dishonesty.[/b]

You think denying something "in the face of the evidence" is a sign of honesty? I know you come from Down Under but is up really down where you're from?

Originally posted by Green Paladin
You think denying something "in the face of the evidence" is a sign of honesty? I know you come from Down Under but is up really down where you're from?

Sometimes, yes. Denying something in the face of evidence and then admitting error, without any prompting by the disclosure of new evidence, would seem to be a case of honest error rather than duplicity. It would be a different matter if the Patriarch admitted wearing the watch after the pictures emerged. It would then look more decidedly as though he were engaging in deception and that only when confronted with irrefutable evidence did he admit he was wrong.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sometimes, yes. Denying something in the face of evidence and then admitting error, without any prompting by the disclosure of new evidence, would seem to be a case of honest error rather than duplicity. It would be a different matter if the Patriarch admitted wearing the watch after the pictures emerged. It would then look more decidedly as though h ...[text shortened]... in deception and that only when confronted with irrefutable evidence did he admit he was wrong.

What do you mean "without any prompting by the disclosure of new evidence"? He said he'd "never worn the watch" before the scandal was uncovered; afterwards, the patriarchate admitted to the deception.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
What do you mean "without any prompting by the disclosure of new evidence"? He said he'd "never worn the watch" before the scandal was uncovered; afterwards, the patriarchate admitted to the deception.

He said he had never worn the watch after the scandal was uncovered.

Originally posted by Conrau K
He said he had never worn the watch after the scandal was uncovered.

"Coincidentally, the patriarch addressed the watch issue on Sunday, three days before the photo-doctoring scandal hit the blogosphere, in an interview with a prominent Kremlin-friendly television journalist, Vladimir Solovyov ... Sorting through gifts he had received over the years, the patriarch discovered that he did indeed own the Breguet, Mr. Solovyov said. But he insisted that he had never worn it and said he suspected that any photos of him wearing it had been altered with Photoshop [my emphasis]."

Originally posted by Green Paladin
"Coincidentally, [b]the patriarch addressed the watch issue on Sunday, three days before the photo-doctoring scandal hit the blogosphere, in an interview with a prominent Kremlin-friendly television journalist, Vladimir Solovyov ... Sorting through gifts he had received over the years, the patriarch discovered that he did indeed own the Breguet, Mr ...[text shortened]... he suspected that any photos of him wearing it had been altered with Photoshop [my emphasis]."[/b]

Don't get it. Do you believe that the Patriarch is influenced by blogosphere commentary or that blogosphere commentary is constitutive of a particular kind of evidence? Quite obvious the images were in the public domain, had been commented on in the public and that is what Patriarch Kirill had responded to.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Don't get it. Do you believe that the Patriarch is influenced by blogosphere commentary or that blogosphere commentary is constitutive of a particular kind of evidence? Quite obvious the images were in the public domain, had been commented on in the public and that is what Patriarch Kirill had responded to.

Yes.

"After heated debate about it in the Russian blogosphere the Patriarchate first removed the enlarged image from the site and then removed the image altogether."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17622820

The scandal was uncovered "when attentive Russian bloggers discovered the airbrushing".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/in-russia-a-watch-vanishes-up-orthodox-leaders-sleeve.html?_r=1

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Yes.

"After heated debate about it in the Russian blogosphere the Patriarchate first removed the enlarged image from the site and then removed the image altogether."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17622820

The scandal was uncovered "when attentive Russian bloggers discovered the airbrushing".

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/in-russia-a-watch-vanishes-up-orthodox-leaders-sleeve.html?_r=1

No. The Patriarch made these comments before it erupted on the blogosphere. You said that yourself. Or are you now claiming that he made a statement apropos of nothing to the effect that he does not wear $30,000 watches? Clearly the scandal was in the public long before, although perhaps it was only considered scandalous after blogosphere activity.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. The Patriarch made these comments before it erupted on the blogosphere. You said that yourself. Or are you now claiming that he made a statement apropos of nothing to the effect that he does not wear $30,000 watches? Clearly the scandal was in the public long before, although perhaps it was only considered scandalous after blogosphere activity.

You're descending into incoherence. Is it deliberate?

"In addition, one of the photos where a Breguet is visible on the Patriarch's wrist was crudely retouched in Photoshop and replaced in the old bulletins section of the official site. In the [retouched] image, the watch's reflection remained on the varnished surface of the table, and, although the photograph was taken and published in 2009, the metadata attached to the EXIF file was dated March 31, 2012.

In other words, we have evidence on the most official site of the Russian Orthodox Church that the Patriarch not only wore the watch repeatedly and for quite a long time, but also that a team was dispatched after his recent public statement to conceal this very fact and remove from the Church's site any photographs that included the watch."

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/04/07/russia-watching-news-of-patriarch-kirills-watch-travel/

First, the patriarch denied ever wearing the watch. Then the photograph, taken in 2009, was doctored on the 31st of March 2012. Four days later the ruse was discovered by "attentive Russian bloggers" and the scandal uncovered. So your statement, "Clearly the scandal was in the public long before, although perhaps it was only considered scandalous after blogosphere activity" is incorrect.

Actually, there's a contradiction above, the resolution of which casts the patriarch in an even poorer light. The image was doctored on Saturday the 31st of March, the interview took place the next day (Sunday, April Fools'😉, the ruse was discovered on Wednesday the 4th of April, and the patriarchate's acknowledgement of deception on Thursday the 5th of April. No wonder the patriarch could enjoy such confidence. The image had already been fudged!