I think the bit that says "Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret." is pretty explanatory, tbh, especially as it expliticty refers to minors.
I'm afraid that mis-reporting and consipracy theory has been well debunked.
Well, if the catholic educator says so...
I'm done, you're just desperate to believe what you want to believe. I shall leave you to it.
Evil is what is morally wrong or bad, perverse, immoral, wicked, evil deeds; an evil life, harmful; injurious to beings or things.
Evil is not a religious construct, for if it were then people who have no religion could not be determined to act evilly. To separate people from the evil that comes from them is like trying to separate wetness from water or air from wind. People are a product of their choices as exercised by the workings of their minds, and their minds are their responsibility, so evil is a choice. We all have capacities or tendencies for all sorts of things, but ultimately we choose how we act.
Just to make sure; you're not suggesting that i'm either a) defending the rapist priests or b) a pervert, are you? Because that would be silly.
It would indeed be silly, so it's not silly .
Let's assume, first of all, that all the clergy who knew about the abuse and did nothing did not do so because they too were mentally ill and thought raping children was ok.
Then those who you would assume to have better judgement than sick perverted rapists, against whom the population should be protected, failed to act and that to me is far more difficult to understand.
If they knew (were aware of it) then they could not be mentally ill, as they were in charge of their judgement, as knowing requires fact and recognition of the facts. If they knew the facts and chose to not recognise them or their implications for harm to befall any other being, then that was a deliberate choice to do evil, even if they might try to selectively believe there was any excuse to do otherwise.
There's plenty of people with defective brains that cause them to harm people but you would think that something like the catholic church hierarchy would have someone capable of acting with even the most basic amount of decency.
One might indeed think, expect, imagine, suppose, like to believe, but what it appears to show is that such people in either the body or the hierarchy of the Church are not the ones who have any part in acting so that the evils could be stopped.
To me that indicates that the system in which they function - the Catholic church itself, is rotten to the core and beyond redemption.
Yes. If the mind is sick, the body will become sick also, as the body is ruled and directed by the mind. Once the mind malfunctions, the body, though comprised of many organs, will cease to function correctly, both individually and collectively, thus destroying the whole being.
Likewise, if the fruit barrel becomes rotten by containing some bad apples, then the fault lies with those who are in charge of the fruit, doesn't it?
Well, it looks like the primates are the best candidates for the job then, as they are widely known of for their gymnastic abilities. Maybe they should go full on, and make a trinity of it, and then they could chant "Hear no evil, see no evil, I don't believe in evil".
No, "evil" is a religious concept.
Just because it's used in common terminology doesn't change that. It's part of the fabricated mythology of religion that tries to explain away the reality that the the world is so utterly rudderless by inventing a term to describe something that goes against gods will.
i.e., The world would be perfect if it wasn't for evil.
Well the world will never be perfect because perfection is subjective, and we are but carbon-based life forms who act in accordance with our nature.
This is evidenced in the poorest societies, the wealthiest, and in organisations like the catholic church who claim to represent the moral guardians fail to protect the most vulnerable life-forms out of an their innate need for self preservation.
No, I just like balance and facts. I have no decision made either way on the Benedict question. I have my mind made up about Brady and he should go, sometimes impartiality is not popular, but to be honest that does not bother me in the slightest.
So are you saying that a non-religious person can't do deliberate harm, either by way of direct action or inaction? Not sure if I'm getting you here Dades.
Do you really think so? How could it ber prefect if you have no choices? Surely, to have no choice would mean that we are harnessed to unending obligation to only do as programmed? Humans have varying capacities for reason, unlike a lump of carbon in the form of coal, which makes choice possible, and though it's a faculty that needs to be developed, each one chooses to develop that capacity, or not. If we act in accordance with some form of inanimate nature, then why are we not all identical in mind and form, like say, lumps of carbon?
I agree that we are all driven by self preservation, but making irrational choices that reduces or threaten our individual and collective capacities to do that very important thing, is a choice. We know we should not murder, rape etc, so no one can justify such actions and be considered human, but humanity is not a given and automatic plug-in product, but must be developed according to logical and reasoned principles, principles that can also be seen at work in the world and the universe around us, if we care to look and learn, that is.
F12, you seem to be talking about an existence that was designed, rather than me that just, well, evolved. I think we're getting into a bigger conversion here though, and I've had too much wine.
Hope the head has cleared Dades.
I see no evidence that any 'design' or pattern was created by some Goofy Old Deity who worried endlessly over whether a bunch of migrant tribes in the Levant would bow down and grovel type of thing. If it's anything, it seems to be a force that manifests itself by way of progressive impulse, like life itself, but to identify it as a being-entity makes no sense at all.
It appears obvious to me that the progressive pattern evolved and simply didn't pop into a full blown and complete end-product, as it is still moving and changing. That, to me at least, seems to be the natural order of things that progress, so mankind should also progress his thinking along similar lines. That's unlike the likes of Brady, who became stuck in an unnatural dogmatic evolutionary cul de sac and now can't work out simple things like the principles of good and evil that his type have mercilessly shoved down people's throats for generations.
I would think that that which does not evolve and change dies, even it dies slowly, like all false things that are not established in reality. It only survives for as long as it does because it feeds off the life of others, just like a parasite, giving nothing and taking all. By doing so, it shows that it does not have the interest of the common good of life itself, upon which it mercilessly feeds, at heart, no matter how righteous it might claim to so do. This is called hypocrisy, when one fails to live up to the standards it sets for others.
Filling the world with bloody people they can't feed!
What are we love?
Atheists and agnostics!!
And fiercely proud of it!
All this from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
No it's not, like any good Religious person, you take a text, alter it to suit your own means and change it completely from it's original meaning.
I know its bad form to quote posts from other forums but on the phone and can't get another source for the segments of an article biggins posted on AH. I've removed his own comments so that its only the article clips in the quote I've posted.
I would quote Father Ted (decided against) but i'll be honest it would be highly inappropriate to be quoting monty python films in a discussion about the cover up of the abuse children. I'm still not even sure of the purpose of Happy monday's quote.