Catholicism in modern Ireland

Vangelis

Freelancer wrote:

You're a catholic, right? So why er did God sacrifice his only son for our sins

Because he loves Mankind, his Creation.

John's Gospel, 3:16 :
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Freelancer wrote:

In the cases of the above, the church has hid, protected and lied to protect paedophiles. The church as an institution has failed us. Whether the priest himselves had personally hid or sheltered a paedohphile he owes his parish an apology, and as a representive of the church, he owes a responsibility to the parish on behalf of the church.

This is true. And God grieves over the priest(s)'s actions.

Freelancer

Vangelis wrote:

Because he loves Mankind, his Creation.

John's Gospel, 3:16 :
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I am aware of the quotation however you'll notice I mentioned it in direct response to this part

WDK wrote:

Now my question is why should he have to apologise for another mans wrong doings.

me wrote:

You're a catholic, right? So why er did God sacrifice his only son for our sins

I was merely pointing out that WDK's question is rebutted by one of the central tennants of his faith. That whole guilt trip "Love God, he had his son tortured and killed for you" thing. Why should a priest apologise for another priests actions, the whole my brothers keeper thing.

But hey any excuse to take something someone else said, take a literally meaning of it, and get a chance to quote scripture, eh?

This is true. And God grieves over the priest(s)'s actions.

Gosh and being all powerful and mighty god hasn't he been lax with the smitting?

Or giving his priests the wisdom to investigate and expose these evil doers in their ranks, rather than to shield and protect them, and placing thousands more children in harms way.

Oh yeah I forgot, your God is kinda wacky that way.

StupidLikeAFox

Ok we get it, you're anti-Catholic church.

Anyway, i feel that priest shouldnt have had to apologise for the actions of others, as it really wasnt his responsibility. Unless of course he was apologising on behalf of the church as a whole.....

Im also a bit sad at how backs have been turned to the church, on both sides of the fence- People becoming priests for the power/social status that it has (or once had as the case is now). Lots and lots of mistakes have been made, but i dont see how the catholic church can be blamed instead of the individual people who carried out/covered up these acts.

Also, frequently on here you hear people saying about Islam "Condemn the extremists who are the bombers, but not the Islamic faith. I feel the same approach should be taken to the church, and am saddened that the actions of some sick and evil members should tarnish and take away from the religion itself.

Freelancer

ColHol wrote:

Ok we get it, you're anti-Catholic church.

And you're an apologist.

Anyway, i feel that priest shouldnt have had to apologise for the actions of others, as it really wasnt his responsibility. Unless of course he was apologising on behalf of the church as a whole.....

And again, I think every priest owes everyone an apology on behalf of the church. As a group.

Im also a bit sad at how backs have been turned to the church, on both sides of the fence- People becoming priests for the power/social status that it has (or once had as the case is now). Lots and lots of mistakes have been made, but i dont see how the catholic church can be blamed instead of the individual people who carried out/covered up these acts.

Because the church had an organisational policy to cover up the abuse. It ceases to be an individual act when it's organisational policy.

Also, frequently on here you hear people saying about Islam "Condemn the extremists who are the bombers, but not the Islamic faith. I feel the same approach should be taken to the church, and am saddened that the actions of some sick and evil members should tarnish and take away from the religion itself.

No it's an entirely different kettle of fish. If an Islamist church publically condemned suicide bombing, but it was later discovered to have offered pratical support to Al Qaida, your comparision would work.

These muslims groups wholly condemn suicide bombs, and wish no part in bombs, and believe them to be evil.

The fact is that not only that there was a network of paedophilia in the church, but the church went out of its way to protect, hide and cover up their acts. These pratices took place on every level of the church structure, from the pope down. To deny, to hide and to obfuscate any charges.

Now if for example I used catholic clerical abuse to condemn a different religion, for example Lutherian, your point would be valid. These are different sects of the same (general religion) which in the same way moderate muslims, can hold themselves as different from extremists.

You cannot different in this manner with the catholic church abuse, because it was systematic endemic and riddled throughout this one church.

Islam has a variety of sects and different beliefs, churchs and organisation, catholicism (and the abuse dealt out by it) has one set of beliefs, one church and one organisation.

The entire premise of your defence falls down on that basis.

Chong

Clearly freelancer is totally against Catholcism. I feel have not got the will to utter a response to your posts because you will simply see it as another opportunity to castigate catholcism.

cil_aine

ColHol wrote:

Also, frequently on here you hear people saying about Islam "Condemn the extremists who are the bombers, but not the Islamic faith. I feel the same approach should be taken to the church, and am saddened that the actions of some sick and evil members should tarnish and take away from the religion itself.

i completely agree with you there. many people i know however dont feel any animocity toward preists individually, but to the bigwigs of the catholic church in ireland for what they did (or didn't do) to people years ago. the laundries and child sex scandals COULD have been averted if there wasn't this sense of denial around the church at the time, and around the country.

WDK

WDK wrote:

Clearly freelancer is totally against Catholcism. I feel have not got the will to utter a response to your posts because you will simply see it as another opportunity to castigate catholcism.

Ad hominem. If you can't counter his arguments, accept it.

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

Because he loves Mankind, his Creation.

John's Gospel, 3:16 :
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Never really got this ... so God made the Jews and Romans conspire to execute Jesus? It was a good (well necessary) thing to happen, so Judas and everyone who betrayed Jesus were actually, unknowingly, were working for ultimate good?

Is that right? (I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't understand it but it does seem a bit strange to me)

To an athesist a more logical explaination would be Jesus got executed and the early Christian church had to figure out some way to explain why he was killed when he was actually the son of God. So the explaination was that he actually wanted to be executed as a trade (in the old Jewish tradition) for the sins of man kind.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

Clearly freelancer is totally against Catholcism. I feel have not got the will to utter a response to your posts because you will simply see it as another opportunity to castigate catholcism.

Deleted User wrote:

Ad hominem. If you can't counter his arguments, accept it.

Thank you saved me the hassle. WDK your argument was riddled with flaws. The church is responsible for the actions of it's priests, and the church as an organisation is responsible for the organised cover up and protected dished out to it's priests.

I suspect you didn't or couldn't have a position to defend and wanted to have a good whinge, about the bad things that they said about your priest.

Your priest, who, by your own description, interuppted his own heartfelt apology to tell you about the (verbal) abuse he endured. See an apology (to mean a damn) has to be heartfelt, it is not about making yourself feel better, it is about the feelings of the one(s) who has been wronged. Interjecting that ancedote, your priest played himself as another victim of abuse, to elicit sympathy from you. Thereby cheaping the apology and (and this is by your own description of the event) using it to garner sympathy.

I mean, what do you or he know of the man who called him names? Perhaps he was a victim of abuse? You don't know and your priest never bothered to find out. Was this person someone with a greater right to the apology your priest offered you? Thats a maybe, we don't know, what we do know is, in a that ancedote, your priest cast that man as the mob, and your priest got to play Mary Magdeline, the injustily abused victim.

Again this is going by your account of your priest's "apology".

Anyway don't post on a message board if you don't want to hear some less than pleasant opinions offered on your "pissed off catholic" views.

I'm a lapsed catholic and I'm going to be paying through my taxes to give the victims of your church some help.

Don't tell me I don't have the right to be pissed off.

lazydaisy

I agree it is sickenengly hypocritical to watch bourgie lapsed Catholics go to mass and spend 40,000 on a wedding, send their kids to 1st holy communion, etc etc, when they are clearly not into the religion and are doing it for purely superficial and non spiritual reasons.

But its also ridiculous to have a state endorsed religion. What meaning can faith have if its not a choice and its practised because the state is shoving it down your throat?

As for the clerical abuse, it is the church, the state, the vatican, the parents who are all responsible because they knew about it and CHOSE to do nothing about it. It happened because people let it happen.

And far from everyone is welcome in the church - illegitimate children, , homosexuals, cohabitating couples, divorcees are not allowed to receive the sacrament. Why is it women cant become priests?

Chong

Freelancer wrote:

Thank you saved me the hassle. WDK your argument was riddled with flaws. The church is responsible for the actions of it's priests, and the church as an organisation is responsible for the organised cover up and protected dished out to it's priests.

Tbh you have an opinion and your entitled to it. I dont know really where to go with this but you say if a priests molests a young boy in Dublin for instance , every other priest preaching the Catholic faith through the world should feel guilty for another mans transgressions. If someones brother for example rapes a woman then that persons family should be guilty for what their son or brother did hell no they shouldnt.

I suspect you didn't or couldn't have a position to defend and wanted to have a good whinge, about the bad things that they said about your priest.

Ya I did want to have a whinge because for the simple reason is no one deserved such treatment.

Your priest, who, by your own description, interuppted his own heartfelt apology to tell you about the (verbal) abuse he endured. See an apology (to mean a damn) has to be heartfelt, it is not about making yourself feel better, it is about the feelings of the one(s) who has been wronged. Interjecting that ancedote, your priest played himself as another victim of abuse, to elicit sympathy from you. Thereby cheaping the apology and (and this is by your own description of the event) using it to garner sympathy.

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes.

I'm a lapsed catholic and I'm going to be paying through my taxes to give the victims of your church some help.

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

Tbh you have an opinion and your entitled to it. I dont know really where to go with this but you say if a priests molests a young boy in Dublin for instance , every other priest preaching the Catholic faith through the world should feel guilty for another mans transgressions. If someones brother for example rapes a woman then that persons family should be guilty for what their son or brother did hell no they shouldnt.

And if the family intentially and willfully hide the crime?

This is were your logic flies out the window. Church members and leaders for decades, hid, and protected and moved paedophilias to protect the church, keeping saying that it was an isolated case, ignores the level and degree of how this scandal was hidden.

But good man yerself, ignore that side of the argument, and keep repeating that mantra

"not every priest was a kiddie fiddler"

And ignore the pressing matter, but many priest ignored or actively hid it, and it was church policy to do the same.

Frankly the decent siblings and parents of a person who's family member commits a serious crime, does feel guilt. You regret not doing more, try to figure out is there something you could have said and done before to have stopped them. Your family, your church, knew what their children where doing and went out of it's way to hid the crime. Knowing it was putting more children at risk. Your unwilliness to see this as an issue at this point is just laughable.

Ya I did want to have a whinge because for the simple reason is no one deserved such treatment.

Thats nice and ignores the thrust of my point to wit, where the hell does your priest get off demonising someone to make himself look better, while apologising for abuse

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes.

And again, what about the organised and systematic cover up?

"the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes"

thats not even english? The Magdelene sisters accept the burden of the crime? Gee wizz the last laundry closed around two decades ago. Victims of the Laundries are still alive, and you're ignoring the philosophical argument, "what kind of god would (to use your words) allow his representives to commit such abuse in his name for decades?"

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

And what the f*ck does that mean? That I begrudge spending my money helping the victims of one of the wealthiest churchs on the planet?

I don't begrudge them the help, the deserve it.

Tell me WDK what does the above mean? That I'm angry spending money of victims of abuse? I'm not. That I think your church should pay the bulk hell yes. Whats your point mate?

Chong

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters accept the people whom of commited these crimes.

What I meant to say:

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters, except the people whom of commited these crimes.

As far as term Lapsed Catholic , well once u turn your back the church and faith you should be considered as nothing as in if your not Catholic well then your not. I think the term is excommunicated.

And what the f*ck does that mean? That I begrudge spending my money helping the victims of one of the wealthiest churchs on the planet?

Tell me WDK what does the above mean? That I'm angry spending money of victims of abuse? I'm not. That I think your church should pay the bulk

You are starting repeat yourself , plus I am by no means your mate so please dont refer to me as one.

I would so love to go one step further in my opinion of you but I would be banned, ah well.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

What I meant to say:

I disagreed with him in the first place he or no one else in the church should have to apologise for what occured in relation to molestations and the Magdelene Sisters, except the people whom of commited these crimes.

And once again for the hard of thinking, the group who hid those crimes, have nothing to apologise for.

You're repeatadly ignoring the real thrust of my point.

As far as term Lapsed Catholic , well once u turn your back the church and faith you should be considered as nothing as in if your not Catholic well then your not. I think the term is excommunicated.

And as a catholic you knowledge of your faith isn't profound. A person can renounce their faith at any time, the church must go to lengths to excommunicate.

And as someone, who was bapisted a catholic, taught catholic faith came to a conscious decision to reject this faith, you claim to think I'm not in a position to comment on a faith, you prolcaim to hold yet I've now on two occasions on this thread that I know more about your own religion (on the subjects of excommunication and hell) yet you as practicing member of your own faith don't seem to grasp your religions shifting stance on the subject matter. Yet I'm not qualified to speak on the subject matter?

You are starting repeat yourself , plus I am by no means your mate so please dont refer to me as one.

Thats not a rebuttal, and tediously you're ignoring the central thrust of my argument. The church, as an organisation, sysmatically hid the evidence of abuse, which pokes a hole in your argument that individuals are the only people responsible for these crimes.

Furthermore it's tedious you make an implication that as a lapsed catholic I'm morally inferior, and when challenged you claim I'm repeating myself. So again, what did you mean by.

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

Now I ask you directly and specificaly [/b] what exactly did you mean by the above?

If you decline to do so I'll see it as a further example of the moral cowardice of refusing to answer the charges of my position.

I would so love to go one step further in my opinion of you but I would be banned, ah well.

Ah a threaten ad hominean attack, what we've come to expect for you.

You've ignored the thrust of my points you've declined to consider the implications for the church as whole for hiding the sins of the paedophiles and you've not even tried to grasp the hyprocritical behaviour of your priest, I've consistently addressed your main points, you've only lunged on the outskirts of my points and oozed moral outrage of dubious quality.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

you're ignoring the central thrust of my argument. The church, as an organisation, sysmatically hid the evidence of abuse, which pokes a hole in your argument that individuals are the only people responsible for these crimes.

Freelancer, I'm guessing that's the thrust of your arguement.

First of all the Church, as an organisation, never took, knowingly or unknowingly ANY policy decisions to hide the evidence of abuse here in Ireland and around the world. The responsibility lies in the hands of a large group of individuals, part of, but not the whole of, the church. To say the Church did the wrong would be correctm but to say the Church as an Organisation systematically and deliberately went out to hide the evidence would be incorrect and completely unprobable.

The fact that so many people were involved in these crimes beggars belief, however the idea that men, even holy men, are all fallible and prone to mistakes must be taken into account. Peer prussure on an extremely large scale, and covering the backs of the fellow priests was a large part of the problem but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophiles.'

The funny thing is you know that's true, but can't accept it.


Secondly, of course the church doesn't excommunicate you. It has rarely excommunicated anyone. Instead you have excommunicated yourself by stepping away from, and renouncing, the church.
It also has not done away with the idea of hell. Read the Catechism and all the updates to it - they are the official source of these doctrines.


Lastly I agree the Church has done plenty of wrong things in its lifetime, but it has apologised and continues to apologise.

To sin is Human, To forgive...


Patzer

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Freelancer, I'm guessing that's the thrust of your arguement.

First of all the Church, as an organisation, never took, knowingly or unknowingly ANY policy decisions to hide the evidence of abuse here in Ireland and around the world. The responsibility lies in the hands of a large group of individuals, part of, but not the whole of, the church. To say the Church did the wrong would be correctm but to say the Church as an Organisation systematically and deliberately went out to hide the evidence would be incorrect and completely unprobable.

The fact that so many people were involved in these crimes beggars belief, however the idea that men, even holy men, are all fallible and prone to mistakes must be taken into account. Peer prussure on an extremely large scale, and covering the backs of the fellow priests was a large part of the problem but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophiles.'

The funny thing is you know that's true, but can't accept it.

It's not funny it is in fact true
From the observer

'It was kept quiet - that's the way they felt it should be handled,' one priest, Father Vince Maffei, says now. 'That was the decision of the people in charge, and it has backfired something fierce.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,660927,00.html

Or one closer to home

As far back as the mid-1980s, the then Archbishop of Dublin sought legal advice as to the church’s liability for clerical sexual abuse. He was told that any bishop who knew there were grounds to suspect a priest of abuse and failed to withdraw him from ministry could be held legally liable for negligence. His sole response was to take out insurance cover against any resulting financial loss, and to advise every other bishop in the country to do the same. By 1990, most dioceses had this insurance in place. So they all knew this crime was prevalent enough to be a real concern, but their overriding instinct was to protect the institution from a financial hit, rather than to protect the children from the beasts who were raping and terrorising them. Prioritising money rather than people may well be a human failing, but in this case it was also a conscious, fully informed choice.

In 1988 Bishop Comiskey presided over a Confirmation ceremony in Monageer church in which he was assisted by a priest who had sexually abused some of the Confirmation girls just days before. Having specifically requested that James Grennan be absent from the ceremony, the girls’ families walked out in disgust. When first asked about it Bishop Comiskey flatly denied the walkout had happened.

Now that'd be senior clerics writing and setting out policy to hid evidence of abuse, its not funny and you refuse to see it.

Secondly, of course the church doesn't excommunicate you. It has rarely excommunicated anyone. Instead you have excommunicated yourself by stepping away from, and renouncing, the church.

So Galileo wasn't threatened with excommunication? More lies and half truths.

The church excommunicates you cannot excommunicate yourself otherwise there would be a thriving business among disgruntled teenagers.

The purpose of excommunication isn't to allow you to quit or make a political statement or pursue some other private agenda. It's to allow the church to throw you out. If you're already out--that is, if you don't partake of the sacraments or otherwise participate in Catholic activities (I assume this describes your situation)--excommunication is likely to strike church authorities as a waste of good holy water.

That's not to say you can't get excommunicated; on the contrary, canon law describes a number of situations in which excommunication is automatic. But these days formal proceedings are rare and reserved mostly for renegade clerics and such. Too bad you weren't around centuries ago, when they were bigger on this sort of thing. You could have gotten the old "book, bell, and candle" routine (more on this in a sec) or even been burned at the stake.

Strictly speaking, excommunication does not render you a non-Catholic. It merely means you're a Catholic who's been damned to hell. What's more, it isn't intended to permanently separate you from the church; rather, it's a "medicinal" procedure, meant to make you see the error of your ways. If in fact you do become reconciled later, you won't be rebaptized, just forgiven. In the eyes of the church, once a Catholic, always a Catholic. Irritating, I know, but as I say, this wasn't set up to accommodate you.

There's also a practical problem. You can't have your name stricken from the Catholic membership rolls, because there aren't any such rolls. Sure, some records may be kept at the parish level, and if you're the determined type I suppose you could get your name crossed off those. But the church maintains no central registry. They figure God can keep track.

Fine, you say, but I still want to get excommunicated. OK, let me get out my--whoops, Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft. Gotta get this library organized. Ah, here we are, the Codex Juris Canonici. As revised in 1983, there are nine grounds for excommunication--physical attack on the pope, "violating the sacred species," procuring an abortion, etc.... all a little drastic. Your best bet is "apostasy, heresy, or schism," canon 1364. Probably the simplest thing is to join the Presbyterians. Voila, latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_242.html

So not only did WDK use the word incorrectly, you did as well as you cannot excommunicate yourself.

It also has not done away with the idea of hell. Read the Catechism and all the updates to it - they are the official source of these doctrines.

I forget, remind me, is this pope infallible?

Lastly I agree the Church has done plenty of wrong things in its lifetime, but it has apologised and continues to apologise.

And these apologies are eventually rung out of the church, when they're left i a position where its lies, and deceptions are finally exposed.

To sin is Human, To forgive...

And Gods representives on earth have done plenty of sinning, and now ask a tremendous amount of forgiveness from us.

Asiaprod

patzer117 wrote:

The responsibility lies in the hands of a large group of individuals, part of, but not the whole of, the church. To say the Church did the wrong would be correctm but to say the Church as an Organisation systematically and deliberately went out to hide the evidence would be incorrect and completely unprobable.
Patzer

Did you actually read the Fines report?
The the only hands the responsibility lies in is in the hands of the priests who had their hands down the pants of all the kids that got abused. I was one of those kids so please don't preach where responsibility lies. Bertie Ahern did not have his hands down my pants. It was a representitive of the Catholic clergy that had. And they can pay for what they did, period. And I KNOW how they hid the evidence.

Chong

Tbh with yourself Freelancer, I dont think I can back up anything I have said in essence because I dont believe I have the ability to go any farther with my argument. I must say the argument or opinion that you have put forward is extremely if not most certainly relevent and well put together. I unfortunately have not got the oratory abilities to continue this debate with you. You have my respect for what you have and in some instances your most certainly correct especially in regards I what said about my priest. I know I will be slated for backing down and retreating on my opinion but as I said I feel I havent to ability to debate my opinions with freelancer. The one final thing I will say I find it a bit disconcerting is your total disdain for a church you were born into.

lazydaisy

The church only apologises when its been caught. Apologies dont cut it after they've ruined people'e lives. And yes they did deliberately cover it up. The Vatican knew about it, the authorities knew about, and parents knew about it. THe Ferns report is still covering it up. It doesnt name the guards that were informed, it doesnt include dates of reports, it reports of children going to their parents with blood all over their clothes after being raped by the clergy.

The church's priority has never been the protection of children but the preservation of its own power. When it found out about a priest it just moved him to another parish to ruin the lives of other children.

Too bad the excommunication list doesnt include the raping of little boys.

Ratzinger knew about it too and was part of the cover up. The dioscese in Texas are trying to remove his diplomatic immunity so they can press charges against him. I hope they succeed. I hope there is special hell invented just for these rapists. It is of EPIDEMIC proportions. People need to wake up. It's probably still going on now.

Quite frankly I dont know how anyone can accept the eucharist when we have no idea where the priests hands have been.

Freelancer

WDK wrote:

You have my respect for what you have

Then you'll damn well tell me exactly what you meant by this.

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

But hey I have your respect now, a couple of posts ago

I would so love to go one step further in my opinion of you but I would be banned, ah well.

You're frankly a bit of a joke, one post tells me you won't dignify me with a response another insinuates that because I'm a lapsed catholic, I'm morally inferior (or something you won't bother to elaborate) and another you threat to fling abuse at me. But now I have your respect. Well la te da christmas has come early I've just got my first unwanted gift.

WDK wrote:

The one final thing I will say I find it a bit disconcerting is your total disdain for a church you were born into.

*L* it's a disdain born out of awareness and understand at the depth of corruption of this church, the hyprocrisy of it's priests and it's lack of caring for it's flock.

I read, I observer, my foundings have solid basis you have dubious unsubstantiated faith to support you.

Tell me don you still deny that the church itself hid the allegations and the church as an organisation is morally responsible?

Vangelis

Freelancer wrote:

But hey any excuse to take something someone else said, take a literally meaning of it, and get a chance to quote scripture, eh?

Nope. I gave an explanation. You answered, and WDK had not replied, so I thought I'd quote the Bible. There is no use claiming that this and that is so if one cannot refer to anything in the Bible. So I did it.

Gosh and being all powerful and mighty god hasn't he been lax with the smitting?

Or giving his priests the wisdom to investigate and expose these evil doers in their ranks, rather than to shield and protect them, and placing thousands more children in harms way.

God grieves for all our ill-doings. But he does not give guidance and forgiveness unless one asks for it. "Pray and it will be given to you." That's another quote. (Cannot remember where it says, but I'll gladly look it up if you like.)

Edit: Right, so the church hid these atrocities. Well, I agree that they should apologise for that. In concealing it, they aided the continuation of the sexual abuse of children. Which is really condemnable. I have nothing more to say about that.

Freelancer

Vangelis wrote:

Nope. I gave an explanation. You answered, and WDK had not replied, so I thought I'd quote the Bible. There is no use claiming that this and that is so if one cannot refer to anything in the Bible. So I did it.

what? seriously? Theres no claiming that what what is what?

God grieves for all our ill-doings. But he does not give guidance and forgiveness unless one asks for it. "Pray and it will be given to you." That's another quote. (Cannot remember where it says, but I'll gladly look it up if you like.)

So you're telling me that every priest thought to themselves, "should I check with god before I go and take out insurance covering clerical abuse?, Nah".

Edit: Right, so the church hid these atrocities. Well, I agree that they should apologise for that. In concealing it, they aided the continuation of the sexual abuse of children. Which is really condemnable. I have nothing more to say about that.

But doesn't that trouble you on a philosophical level that the church could go so wrong so consistently for decades, and you still look to it for spiritual and moral guidance?

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

And Gods representives on earth have done plenty of sinning, and now ask a tremendous amount of forgiveness from us.

That they do. And I for one am willing to give it to some of them.

Great Observer Qoute. I believe Fr Vince. He says this therefore its true :rolleyes:
And of course the Archbishop took out insurance. Who wouldn't and why wouldn't they? to lose money? The conclusion drawn is incorrect. Just because he took out insurance does not mean he wasn't trying to tackle the problem. The idea that because someone takes out house insurance, he doesn't care that his house is going to be burned down and will do nothing to prevent it is about as ludicrous as this arguement so my point still stands.

Freelancer wrote:

Now that'd be senior clerics writing and setting out policy to hid evidence of abuse, its not funny and you refuse to see it.

That article does not draw that conclusion logically and it takes only a cursoury glance to notice that. One protects oneself, therefore one does not care if something bad happens is not logical. This does not state, or atttempt to state that the church set out a policy to hide abuse. It says they knew a problem could exist.

Even if one bishop did something wrong (and i strongly believe the bishop did), it was not a policy decision taken by the Church as an organisation, and you can't make it one by quoting the observer or whatever the other article was above.


And Galileo was neither excommunicated nor forced to recant his beliefs. And you conveniently didn't notice I used the word RARELY.

And my apologies, i did actually leave out the word essentially saying you excommunicated yourself, because essentially this is what you have done. And I don't believe you're going to hell because of it, and I don't believe you're a bad person because of it. Deal with the arguements and not with the people involved. I'd appreciate it if you did this with WDK also because he is intimidated by you attacking him rather than his arguements and while I don't care what you think of me, I do care about your arguements, but WDK cares and seems to take it personally so try to refrain from doing it in the future. It's in the charter too.

The Pope is infallible in matters of faith, but this is clearly ridiculous and is just another political device used by the Church which i disagree with. However as far as I know it hasn't been used in a goodwhile so is irrelevant to today's arguement.

As for the idea that the Church shouldn't interfere hmm...
The farmers believe that the CAP benefits them. The farmers believe that the CAP benefits society. Others don't. Why should the farmers lobby to retain the CAP? It doesn't affect everyone so why should we be forced to do something just because the farmers want it?
The Greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit them. The greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit society. Other's don't. Why should the greens lobby to increase the tax on bin disposal just because the Greens want it?
Goal believe that money donations from the government to help with their operation would help them. They believe this would help society. Other's don't think the government should donate money. Why should Goad lobby to get money for charity if everyone who wants to give can give? Why should I be forced to give money to something i don't want to? Why do Goal's views matter so much? They should stick with personal donations and leave the government alone.

hairyheretic wrote:

The church can advise or order its own adherents all it wants. It has no authority over those who choose not to follow its teachings, and should not try forcing that authority on them.

No wait, we accept these people lobbying. But when the Church does it... Oh No, That's VERY bad :rolleyes:. The church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit them. The Church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit society. Other's don't. However many people feel the church shouldn't be allowed to lobby the government. Whether what they say is right or wrong it is completely ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to suggest things to the government. That's simply prejudice against the church and completely and utterly illegal

hairyheretic

patzer117 wrote:

The farmers believe that the CAP benefits them. The farmers believe that the CAP benefits society. Others don't. Why should the farmers lobby to retain the CAP? It doesn't affect everyone so why should we be forced to do something just because the farmers want it?

I'm not familiar with the CAP, so I don't know how to respond to this. How exactly are you affected by the CAP existing or not existing?

patzer117 wrote:

The Greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit them. The greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit society. Other's don't. Why should the greens lobby to increase the tax on bin disposal just because the Greens want it?

There are already bin charges in place. That just seems to be the government trying new and interesting ways to exort money from people.

patzer117 wrote:

Goal believe that money donations from the government to help with their operation would help them. They believe this would help society. Other's don't think the government should donate money. Why should Goad lobby to get money for charity if everyone who wants to give can give? Why should I be forced to give money to something i don't want to? Why do Goal's views matter so much? They should stick with personal donations and leave the government alone.

How much do charities receive from the government?

patzer117 wrote:

No wait, we accept these people lobbying. But when the Church does it... Oh No, That's VERY bad :rolleyes:. The church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit them. The Church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit society. Other's don't.

The church is against any types of contraception, and decided to enforce that on the population. Perhaps because it believed that people would use it anyway, church orders or not?

patzer117 wrote:

However many people feel the church shouldn't be allowed to lobby the government. Whether what they say is right or wrong it is completely ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to suggest things to the government. That's simply prejudice against the church and completely and utterly illegal

Illegal? Really? Since when has it been illegal to feel it wrong for a religion that has absolutely no meaning to you to pass religiously based laws that affect you?

Do you obey jewish dietary restrictions?

Do you pray to Mecca 5 times a day?

Do you follow the religious laws based around any other religion?

No? Then why do you feel it acceptable to force others to obey the laws of your religion?

If the catholic church wants to tell its followers to dress as pirates on a tuesday, thats fine. It can make whatever proclamations it wants, and its up to its followers to accept or reject those. It has NO authority over those who do not subscribe to its beliefs, and therefore NO right to force those beliefs onto them.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

That they do. And I for one am willing to give it to some of them.

Great Observer Qoute. I believe Fr Vince. He says this therefore its true :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight you take the churches word in general put don't take the word of a priest in another? Why isn't the word of one of god reprentive good enough, is it just that Benedict is closer to god and gets better reception?

And of course the Archbishop took out insurance. Who wouldn't and why wouldn't they? to lose money? The conclusion drawn is incorrect. Just because he took out insurance does not mean he wasn't trying to tackle the problem.

And what evidence do you present to support your claim that he was trying to tackle the problem? What the article does do is point out that this was his only reaction to the claim and you offer no evidence to support your assertion that he was trying to deal with the problem. What can you show to suggest he did? I mean thats the central thrust of the piece. There was abuse, the Bishop's only reaction was to take out insurance, care to offer evidence that any real steps were taken to tackle the problem?

The idea that because someone takes out house insurance, he doesn't care that his house is going to be burned down and will do nothing to prevent it is about as ludicrous as this arguement so my point still stands.

Patzer baby I'm just getting warmed up.

You're suggesting its like house insurance? Like it's a possible accident that an organisation would have such insurance. But in the action Of Comiskey you've utterly failed to demonstrate any attempt to dig out the paedophilia's, by the church, instead over a period of years the church's only action was to take out insurance, not start investigation. I've demonstrated on (after 20 seconds on goggle) two examples of priests claiming or an example of systematic repression of accusations rather than investigation yet I'm making spurious claims?

To use an analogy if you knew your house's roof had a leak, and your reaction was to buy insurance, and not fix the leak, you'd be negligent if you were the landlord. Unless you can demostrate some other actions by Comiskey and the other dioceses you've now ignoring evidence that you claim doesn't exist.

That article does not draw that conclusion logically and it takes only a cursoury glance to notice that. One protects oneself, therefore one does not care if something bad happens is not logical. This does not state, or atttempt to state that the church set out a policy to hide abuse. It says they knew a problem could exist.

And later in the article......(read much?)

In 1988 Bishop Comiskey presided over a Confirmation ceremony in Monageer church in which he was assisted by a priest who had sexually abused some of the Confirmation girls just days before. Having specifically requested that James Grennan be absent from the ceremony, the girls’ families walked out in disgust. When first asked about it Bishop Comiskey flatly denied the walkout had happened.

Thats a pretty clear example of a priest aware of the problem (from previous quotes) but willfully ignoring it.

Even if one bishop did something wrong (and i strongly believe the bishop did), it was not a policy decision taken by the Church as an organisation, and you can't make it one by quoting the observer or whatever the other article was above.

Ah but I'm a little unclear exactly what point you feel the buck stops senior clerics from cardinals and....

Oh wait, lets look at what you said.

but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophile

Now our current pope is accused of......

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

That'd be a clear rebuttal of your assertion that the church NEVER had policy to hide abuse. The article comes from;

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html

And hey lets go nuts. Lets be specific. Lets talk about church policy;

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

Now you still support your claim?

Anyway, hey you fail to grasp the concept of excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html

And Galileo was neither excommunicated nor forced to recant his beliefs.

Er yes he was.

And you conveniently didn't notice I used the word RARELY.

And you conveniently ignore my point that you cannot support your claim.

You claim one can excommunicate themselves from the church, I offered proof to refute this, the onus is on you to support your claim. So offer some evidence or shut the hell up.

He was then detained for eighteen days in a room in the offices of the Inquisition (not in a dungeon cell). During this time the Commissary General of the Inquisition, Vincenzo (later Cardinal) Maculano, visited him for what amounted to plea bargaining, persuading Galileo to confess to having gone too far in writing the book. In a second hearing on April 30, Galileo confessed to having erred in the writing of the book, through vain ambition, ignorance, and inadvertence. He was then allowed to return to the home of the Tuscan ambassador. On May 10, he submitted his written defense, in which he defended himself against the charge of disobeying the Church's order, confessed to having erred through pride in writing the book, and asked for mercy in light of his age and ill health.

A month later (June 21), by order of the Pope, he was given an examination of intention, a formal process that involved showing the accused the instruments of torture. At this proceeding, he said, "I am here to obey, and have not held this [Copernican] opinion after the determination made, as I said."

On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition held the final hearing on Galileo, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Galileo was forced at this time to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following (insofar as there is any evidence) the plea bargain of two months earlier; nonetheless, he was convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy" and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

And my apologies, i did actually leave out the word essentially saying you excommunicated yourself, because essentially this is what you have done.

thats nice but ignores the fact that your church continues to beleive that I am a member of your church unless I go through several hoops to ensure it. Theres a world of difference between rejecting catholicism and having catholicism recognise that rejection that is frustration for someone trying to distance themselves from such a loathsome church.

And I don't believe you're going to hell because of it, and I don't believe you're a bad person because of it. Deal with the arguements and not with the people involved. I'd appreciate it if you did this with WDK also because he is intimidated by you attacking him rather than his arguements

I'm sorry this is the same WDK who offered Ad Homien attacks, threatened personal abuse, and insinuations, yet when offered a measured response to his criticism I'm told by you I'm attacking him? And what arguments? He's admited himself he's ill equiped to defend his shoddy position. Yet you dare suggest I'm the one in the weak position restoring to attacks? He started it, Ive been generous in my reponse.

The Pope is infallible in matters of faith, but this is clearly ridiculous and is just another political device used by the Church which i disagree with.

No it goes to my heart to the weakness of the church, the lack of faith the eagerness to re write history the sandbank of catholicism is no better illustrated than the changing position of the pope's infability.

Chong

To be honest this debate has morphed into a one sided argument, no matter what any pro catholic's say in this thread they are going to be shot down by Freelancer. This is prime reason why I gave up even trying to argue coupled with the fact he is right in alot of what he says , and actually stuff he said cant be argued in a way. But I go to church week in week out, I pray and I listen to our priest preaching the word of God and believe or not but I actually like being there. I am happy to say I am Catholic and in my mind it is not regarded to be a dirty word. I am happy with my faith I could be a bit better sometimes but what the hey so can most Catholic's. I am certainly not going to give up my faith based on the misgivings of priests nor am I going to sit in mass every week let what has gone wrong with the church effect my faith. As I said I go to church to pray , listen to the word of god and celebrate the sacrament of communion, thats it.

Willem D

turbot

Hi everyone,

One of the issues I've not seen even mentioned in this discussion is the idea of spirituality.

I don't think that the catholic church has got very much to do with a wholesome sense of spirituality. Nor do I think that getting people to attempt live in various degrees of denial is healthy or good for society.

I think there are many worthwhile people who due to life circumstance and childhood influences, grew up to regard themselves as catholics. My take on this is they are simply good people expressing their goodness through the metaphors of the catholic church. When you question these people, they often talk about the "essence of the catholic church" which is obviously their own understanding they've come to individually, though not neccessarily one explicity taught by the church.

Now, just because they are some nice people within the church however, does not mean that the organisation itself is either spiritual or wholesome at all.

For example, did you know that in 1935 the Pope of the time made a deal with the Nazi's:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/432/432p28.htm

Catholics and non catholics, what do you think about this?

Also, many of the original biblical texts were written in ancient languages such as assyrian and arameic. Many of these were then translated into Latin, and then into English.

When I transate from one language to another, say, english to french, I'm very aware that the linguistic structures lead to imperfect translations. You can convey the gist of something, but not the whole meaning with all the nuances, subtleties, assonance, poetic meaning...

It is my understanding that if you translate from one language to another to another, you have a major case of chinese whispers going on.

Do you honestly think that the bibles of today are accurate translations of early texts? What do you think about this?

And based upon everything you know, do you honestly trust the catholic church to do these translations with your best intentions at heart?

- Thomas

Asiaprod

This news is just breaking on CNN

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- The former vicar general of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix was arrested Monday on charges he fondled boys and young men and asked them prying questions about their sex lives that he pretended were part of confession.

Monsignor Dale Fushek, 53, becomes one of the highest-ranking priests to be charged in the sex scandal that has engulfed the church. The vicar general is the highest-ranking administrator of a diocese next to the bishop.

Fushek was charged with three counts of assault, five of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and two of indecent exposure. All are misdemeanors, punishable by no more than three years and nine months in all.

Fushek "used a relationship of trust to perform criminal acts, including but not limited to sexual activities, improper sexual discussions and physical contact, upon vulnerable minor and adult victims," prosecutors said in court papers.

Prosecutors said Fushek committed the acts between 1984 and 1994 at St. Timothy's Catholic Church in Mesa or on property belonging to the church. The alleged victims were seven young men and boys.

Fushek resigned as pastor of St. Timothy's in April after someone claimed to have recovered a repressed memory involving sexual improprieties by Fushek in 1985. He has denied the allegations and remains on administrative leave.

His attorney, Michael Manning, was out of the country and couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

Michael Haran, an attorney for the diocese, said the church knew of one of the alleged victims because it had settled with him previously, but the other six names were new to diocese officials.

Maricopa Attorney Andrew Thomas said the priest conducted "sham confessions" in which he extracted details about people's sex lives for his own gratification.

Thomas said the diocese has been cooperative. "I've been impressed by the overall atmosphere that has been projected by this new bishop," he said.

Prosecutors had clashed with the diocese over sex abuse allegations when it was headed by Bishop Thomas O'Brien. O'Brien resigned in 2003 after being arrested in a deadly hit-and-run. Fushek was O'Brien's top aide at the time. The diocese is now headed by Bishop Thomas Olmsted.

Freelancer

Oi WDK. Third try. What exactly did you mean by

WDK wrote:

Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

this?

This kind of santimonious arrogance that because I renounced my faith is sickening.

WDK wrote:

To be honest this debate has morphed into a one sided argument, no matter what any pro catholic's say in this thread they are going to be shot down by Freelancer.

So basically you're admitting I'm right you're wrong, you can't defend your position you're going to carry on believing it anyway.

Chong

Look in my books you have right end of story.