Catholicism in modern Ireland

Freelancer · 22-11-2005 5:32pm

WDK wrote:

Look in my books you have right end of story.

But you haven't said if I've changed your mind, was your church right? Does this make you question this religion.

And disgustingly you still have apologised for that snide accusation, or lowered yourself to explaining what you meant.

Weasel yourself away from the debate, what little you brought to thee table has been spent and you're only embarssing yourself further with these shambolic half excuses and explanations.

Vangelis · 22-11-2005 7:24pm

Freelancer wrote:

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

Re-read what I wrote. Or never mind.

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".

That's not what I said. I said that you have to pray to God for guidance, ask if something is right or wrong, or perhaps reading the Bible is enough to find an answer.

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?

The church is not the best place for spiritual and moral guidance if the church conceals its ill-doings, especially sexual abuse.

One should first search for spiritual and moral guidance in the Bible or by prayer. In this world, you cannot always be sure of who to trust.

But a person who sins can give correct spiritual/moral guidance in a matter that doesn't concern the thing they've done wrong.

You can say that someone who sins has no right to preach God's word, but we all sin. We all do something wrong(wrong-doing being a violation God's will/law), also when we know that we're doing something wrong.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 22-11-2005 7:58pm

One should first search for spiritual and moral guidance in the Bible or by prayer. In this world, you cannot always be sure of who to trust.

But the bible was written by men, how do you know you can trust them? It was put together by the church too, which apparently we can't trust now. Could we trust them then? They really did have an awful lot to gain from this book of propaganda.

uh.. just checked dictionary.com to check my spelling there and..I saw this, it made me chuckle

Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

*chuckle*

Vangelis · 23-11-2005 12:47am

Mordeth wrote:

But the bible was written by men, how do you know you can trust them? It was put together by the church too, which apparently we can't trust now. Could we trust them then? They really did have an awful lot to gain from this book of propaganda.

This is a matter of faith. The Biblical texts were written by men(and one woman) under spiritual inspiration. God put his thoughts inside these people and they wrote them down.

These priests haven't written any texts that they want to teach all Mankind as far as I know. It's all in the Bible.

Book of propaganda? I don't know what you're trying to achieve by calling it that.

Freelancer · 23-11-2005 2:10am

Vangelis wrote:

Re-read what I wrote. Or never mind.

So it was suprious quoting. Grand so.

That's not what I said. I said that you have to pray to God for guidance, ask if something is right or wrong, or perhaps reading the Bible is enough to find an answer.

I merely extrapoliated what you said. You said that god gives guidance to those who ask for it. I then just pointed out that by your logic either

A) No priest asked for guidance when asking whether they should cover up abuse.

Or they did ask for guidance and god offered poor advice.

So which is, no priest asked for guidance or they got crappy advice?

The church is not the best place for spiritual and moral guidance if the church conceals its ill-doings, especially sexual abuse.

One should first search for spiritual and moral guidance in the Bible or by prayer. In this world, you cannot always be sure of who to trust.

So to use another posters description God's Representive's on earth aren't the best people to ask. I'm staggered that someone can have belief in a hierarchal religion yet reject the hierarchy.

But a person who sins can give correct spiritual/moral guidance in a matter that doesn't concern the thing they've done wrong. How can someone who takes a vow of chasity feel morally capable of preaching on other topics while they breach a fundamental rule of the position they've undertaken?

In much the same way that a judge who commits fraud, or assault is in no position to offer his legal position, or a politican who preaches crime prevention but takes drugs in secret.

I'm not surprised hyprcrisy is a typical catholic stance.

You can say that someone who sins has no right to preach God's word, but we all sin. We all do something wrong(wrong-doing being a violation God's will/law), also when we know that we're doing something wrong.

Theres a world of difference between commiting massive abuse lies, sexual assault, and preaching that sex, lies, and immorality are wrong. Do you not seen how the pathetic that is? Theres a laughable irony between priests demanding people adhere to rules that they not only transgress, but do so while commiting one of the most adhorant and sickening acts imaginable. That a priest can condemn (to pick an example) consentual sex between homosexual couples while commiting rape aganist the most vunerable in society. Thats a joke.

MrPudding · 23-11-2005 3:09pm

WDK wrote:

The majority of this country now is made up of nothing but hypocrites. It sickens me when you hear some one you know has had a baby for instance and they get their son or daughter baptised. For what especially if the parents dont attend church regularily. Worst of all is the sacrament of communion, it is the single most sickening thing seeing children taking holy communion when they never attend church coupled with the fact of the lengths ppl go to outdue each other money wise. The church in my opinion should not baptise or bestow the sacrament of holy communion on people who dont attend church because simply they have no right to receive these sacraments.

Punish the innocent child for the actions or inactions of the parents. How very Christian of you.

Why don't the priests tell the parents the sacraments must be taken in School Uniform? It will not stop some parents spending 20k on the after bash but it will cut the need expense for dresses.

Newstalk 106 had a nun from from a organisation that helped prostitutes. She said the biggest driver for women to turn to prostitution was first holy communion. Those expensive dresses will not buy themselves. She said that, in Ireland, hundreds of women turn to prostitution in order to get extra money to help them pay for dresses. What is the point?

WDK wrote:

Worst of all and the most sickening part of lapsed catholics is the way they continually back mouth the church when they clearly have no right to do so. Could you imagine if the church closed its doors in the morning and no longer practised any of the sacraments, no more would we have the nouveau riish trying to out due each other at baptisms or communion or weddings. Plus with funerals all you would have is the funeral home and then buried, no prayers or blessings for the dead in question, with the body going nowhere no heaven or hell, no god, no satan, just rotting in a 6 foot hole in the ground.

Why do they have no right? Why does leaving an organisation remove your right to voice your opinion on that organisation? I don't remember signing an NDA at any point in relation to the Church so as far as I am concerned I have every right to voice my opinion.

Personally I have no respect for the Church at all. Call me old fashioned but, as has been mentioned by other posters, I cannot stomach taking moral direction from an organisation that allowed it members to repeatedly rape young children.

If I want to get married why should I have to get advise from a man who does not have sex, except maybe with small boys, and has not engaged in any kind of a romantic relationship with another person?

I don't want to listen to an organisation that blocks drug trials which could save lives cos the doctors would have to mention contraception.

Why should I be told what is moral or not from an organisation that refuses to endorse the use of comdom in countries where AIDS is rife and taking thousands of lives.

I could go on but I am sure you are getting the point. I have my morals and I know right from wrong. I don't need pointers from a morally backrupt old boys club.

MrP

Vangelis · 23-11-2005 4:29pm

Freelancer wrote:

So it was suprious quoting. Grand so.

I merely extrapoliated what you said. You said that god gives guidance to those who ask for it. I then just pointed out that by your logic either

A) No priest asked for guidance when asking whether they should cover up abuse.

Or they did ask for guidance and god offered poor advice.

So which is, no priest asked for guidance or they got crappy advice?

I don't know if you intend to be funny here, but you certainly make me laugh.

"Crappy advice" was fun.

Because I don't know the condition of these priests, their mental condition, their childhood, their emotions... and most importantly if they asked for guidance before or after abusing, or asked at all, I cannot really give any answer.

I saw a documentary about a paedophile who had abused an 8 year old boy. He was sentenced and interviewed by the people who made this documentary. The programme host explained that up to 80% of all those who sexually molest children have themselves been abused as children/youths.

Maybe paeodphiles become priests because they know that the church will hide them and have compassion with them? I cannot say, but that's one idea. And if that is true, and many of the priests are themselves childhood victims of sexual abuse, it'd be devastating news. And I would feel for them more than I do now(it makes me angry).

Either way it is clear that they have sinned.
Allthough, I suppose they are allready aware of this and feel ashamed.

So to use another posters description God's Representive's on earth aren't the best people to ask. I'm staggered that someone can have belief in a hierarchal religion yet reject the hierarchy.

Why do you call Christianity a hierarchical religion?

But a person who sins can give correct spiritual/moral guidance in a matter that doesn't concern the thing they've done wrong. How can someone who takes a vow of chasity feel morally capable of preaching on other topics while they breach a fundamental rule of the position they've undertaken?

It's a profound self-contradiction as far as I can see. An unwillingness in the priests to realise that they are themselves sinners.

There is a certain criteria in the Bible for church leaders in general. And the priests have vowed to live the way the Bible tells them to. They have an important role and should live as correctly as possible, but that does not mean that they are not humans who make mistakes. They are weak too and fall into temptation.

If they ask for forgiveness and for God to guide them the RIGHT way,
he will forgive them. I suppose that is their only hope.

In much the same way that a judge who commits fraud, or assault is in no position to offer his legal position, or a politican who preaches crime prevention but takes drugs in secret.

Yes, that's the same thing. It is human error, I'm afraid.

annR · 23-11-2005 4:30pm

I thought this discussion started off in a very interesting way however has turned into a very angry argument which I haven't fully followed.

I'm a lapsed Catholic who doesn't really have any respect for the church and I'm sure I don't need to list out why.

I do however respect other people's own faith and religion. I wouldn't dream of getting married in a church, out of respect for people who believe in the ceremony.

Otherwise I am quite happy to see the country becoming more secular. I agree that the church has a right to say what it thinks etc but I don't believe it should be involved in making laws and dare I say it, teaching children. I will certainly not be taking moral direction from it either.

Because of this I am interested in the OPs question about what does a secular society look like? Does it get worse or better? What does happen to morality? I don't think we should interpret that question as a Catholic saying that our morals will go down the drain if we don't all go to mass. It's an interesting question.

Vangelis · 23-11-2005 8:10pm

annR wrote:

I thought this discussion started off in a very interesting way however has turned into a very angry argument which I haven't fully followed.

Oh! Freelancer and I are having quite an interesting chat here at the moment. No hostility or anger as far as my senses can tell.

Because of this I am interested in the OPs question about what does a secular society look like? Does it get worse or better? What does happen to morality? I don't think we should interpret that question as a Catholic saying that our morals will go down the drain if we don't all go to mass. It's an interesting question.

Well, thank you for the question.

In a secular society, all religion is substituted by a secular humanistic world-view. One can argue that this is an imposition of faith and laws on a society, as religion is regarded to be. One the other hand, it allows for a neutrality to exist, the neutrality of today. That requires that seculars respect those with faith, or else secularism/humanism will feel like an imposition on religious individuals. The same old song.

I cannot see that secularism will harm society, after some reconsideration of my previous view-points. But I have met some seculars who have a hostile attitude to religion, want to illegalise religious symbols which happened in France.

My fear is, however unwarranted, that seculars will regard religion as a threat to rational thought. Of course, in the UN declaration of human rights states that religion should be respected, that everyone has freedom of speech and opinion.

From your point of view, Ann, do you think my fears are unreasonable?

I fear that since secularism in fair sense is about the individual's right to live as he wishes, that people will lose their sense of responsibility as members of a society because everything is me, me, me.

?

Freelancer · 23-11-2005 8:23pm

Vangelis wrote:

I don't know if you intend to be funny here, but you certainly make me laugh. "Crappy advice" was fun. Because I don't know the condition of these priests, their mental condition, their childhood, their emotions... and most importantly if they asked for guidance before or after abusing, or asked at all, I cannot really give any answer.

And again focus the debate on the kidder filders and ignore the number of priest who actively went out of their way to hide the paedophiles.

Please answer that question do you feel that group of priests asked for advice before engaging and during a decades long conspiracy of silence and suberfuge. ?

I saw a documentary about a paedophile who had abused an 8 year old boy. He was sentenced and interviewed by the people who made this documentary. The programme host explained that up to 80% of all those who sexually molest children have themselves been abused as children/youths.

Thats nice and you keep trying to restrict the debate to the priests who commited the abuse rather than the conspiracy of silence by thousands of priests and the catholic hierarchy.

Why do you call Christianity a hierarchical religion?

Again obfuscating the matter are we talking about christianity or catholicism? Because catholicism is hierarchal religion, and we're talking about (the clue is in the thread title)

There is a certain criteria in the Bible for church leaders in general. And the priests have vowed to live the way the Bible tells them to. They have an important role and should live as correctly as possible, but that does not mean that they are not humans who make mistakes. They are weak too and fall into temptation.

If they ask for forgiveness and for God to guide them the RIGHT way,
he will forgive them. I suppose that is their only hope.

This is very tedious your unwilliness to take the debate to a further level you want to restrict the debate to the individuals behaviour and not to contemplate the behaviour of the church as an organisation.

Yes, that's the same thing. It is human error, I'm afraid.

Yes and I find the hyprocrisy galling and they are stripped of the right to dare to preach to me how I should behave.

J.R.HARTLEY · 23-11-2005 8:40pm

i'll tell you what makes me laugh, the people who talk about how the church is holding is back, but they haven't been at a mass in sunday or practiced catholicism in years, i'm not into it myself but i can see with ease the fact that this country is so very far from the old fashioned backwater we were when we let priests make our decisions for us, i can also see that most priests are not like that either, two of my cousins are priests, if they tell me what to do i tell them to f off they say right so and we go have a pint, simple as that, i definitely don't think we still live in a church controlled conservative country, look at the hundreds of drunk people thronging around dublin on a saturday night, the divorce rate, the amount of people "living in sin", we're not letting anyone tell us what to do,
if the church issue a decree on their faith, thats fine, don't get in a fit about it becuase it's none of your business unless you're practising.
i'd like to know how many people who come out and lambast and bash the church at every oppertunity would like to open their mouths in the pressence of the newer religions in ireland, nobodys rushing out to condemn the conservative jewish or islamic faiths.
i'm gonna leave it with this, i'm not into the church at all, it doesn't hold anything for me anymore, but don't be taking pot shots at it for the sake of it, if you really are open minded you'll know they have no say in matters nowadays, even are supposed cosy taoiseach/church relationship doesn't swing things, if they had real power do you think they'd condone bertie being seperated, they know he'll rightly tell them to jump if they interfere.

and please drop the child abuse arguments they were an issue in the 90's now, it's up to the people involved and the tribunals, let them get their justice and move on.

and freelancer, "thousands of priests involved in the conspiracy of silence" there were hardly thousands, it was dozens, way to many but your making it sound like all priests are paedophiles or else support them as there are only a few thousand priests in ireland.
if you let a bunch of old gossiping busybody bible bashers colour your view of the church (and lets face it, 90% of all disgruntlement with the church comes from the attitudes of those practising towards others) then you need the reality check yourself.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 23-11-2005 8:58pm

Vangelis wrote:

This is a matter of faith. The Biblical texts were written by men(and one woman) under spiritual inspiration. God put his thoughts inside these people and they wrote them down.

right, but then you have to trust that the people who wrote it could differentiate from gods voice and the other voices in their heads.

These priests haven't written any texts that they want to teach all Mankind as far as I know. It's all in the Bible.

yah, but it was priests that decided what books went into the bible and what didn't. It was priests that decided which words that god spoke were more important. Surely the faithful could put up with a multi-volume holy book, why leave bits out? What did they leave out anyway?

This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this novel are either fictitious or are used fictitiously.

I'd put money on that page surfacing some time in the next century.

Vangelis · 24-11-2005 6:50pm

Freelancer, you keep regarding me as an enemy. You accuse me of trying to spoil the discussion:

Thats nice and you keep trying to restrict the debate to the priests who commited the abuse rather than the conspiracy of silence by thousands of priests and the catholic hierarchy.

I am not trying to restrict the debate. I take one point at a time. So let's see...

Freelancer wrote:

Please answer that question do you feel that group of priests asked for advice before engaging and during a decades long conspiracy of silence and suberfuge?

It's subterfuge. I cannot feel if they did this. Maybe they did ask for advice but was not granted any answer. Maybe they took the matter into their own hands. The latter seems most likely. Subterfuge seems to me like a misused word in this context. I don't think that a group of priests have assembled and agreed in secrecy to sexually abuse young children throughout ages. They may be hiding it, but I believe that is because of shame.

The Catholic Church has been good at hiding all kinds of wrong-doers, including German Nazis who promised that they would convert from Jew-haters to wonderful people but never did. The Church kept showing them mercy and helped them to hide from police, because they believed these criminals needed patience, compassion and tolerance. Maybe they feel the same way about the paedophiles.

But how would I know if they are responsible for a conspiracy?
I'm not an undercover-agent !!

Again obfuscating the matter are we talking about christianity or catholicism? Because catholicism is hierarchal religion, and we're talking about (the clue is in the thread title)

Catholicism is part of Christianity. OK, Catholicism then. But you take me for intentionally obfuscating it. No, it was a misuse of word that made you misunderstand. There is no need to be so paranoid.

This is very tedious your unwilliness to take the debate to a further level you want to restrict the debate to the individuals behaviour and not to contemplate the behaviour of the church as an organisation.

Again, you are misinterpreting me and attacking me for intentionally corrupting the debate. It's getting tiring. If your discontent, have the discussion with someone else.

Yes and I find the hyprocrisy galling and they are stripped of the right to dare to preach to me how I should behave.

You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.

Vangelis · 24-11-2005 6:53pm

Mordeth wrote:

right, but then you have to trust that the people who wrote it could differentiate from gods voice and the other voices in their heads.

Yes, and I do.

yah, but it was priests that decided what books went into the bible and what didn't. It was priests that decided which words that god spoke were more important. Surely the faithful could put up with a multi-volume holy book, why leave bits out? What did they leave out anyway?

Do you know anything about the texts that were excluded? If you have no reason to distrust the selection of texts in the present Bible based on other excluded texts, you shouldn't use these excluded texts to try and sow doubt in me or the verity of the Bible.

MrPudding · 24-11-2005 8:18pm

Vangelis wrote:

You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.

Fortunately for the victims of clerical abuse God does not sit in our courts and decide the penalties for crimes. God may not see any diffenece in sins but the law of the land and society does.

Thankfully the crimes of telling lies and raping a child carry different penalties in our society. Perhaps god seeing all sin as equal helps some child rapists sleep at night but it cuts no ice with me nor with most right thinking people.

I am a sinner. I have committed many sins. None of them particulary bad. I still would not have the neck to stand in front of a congregation week after week representing an organisation as morally bankrupt as the Catholic church and tell people, many of whom are probably a better person than I will ever, be how they should live their lives.

MrP

MrPudding · 24-11-2005 8:30pm

Vangelis wrote:

Yes, and I do.

Do you know anything about the texts that were excluded? If you have no reason to distrust the selection of texts in the present Bible based on other excluded texts, you shouldn't use these excluded texts to try and sow doubt in me or the verity of the Bible.

Do you know anything about the texts left out? How do you know they would not substantively change the entire meaning of the bible?

It is supposedly the word of God. Why in the hell would you leave any of it out? I mean seriously, we keep minutes of sh1tty meetings. Why the hell would you leave out or change the word of God?

For me that either shows a remarkable lack of respect for your God or a seriously over-inflated sense of you own importance, a "God Complex" if you will.

Either that or the Word of God did not suit your purposes so you change it so it does.

MrP

GuanYin · 24-11-2005 9:04pm

Vangelis wrote:

You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.

May I ask where in the bible this is suggested?

From my own memories the bible CLEARLY sets some sins as greater than others or lists that there will be varying rewards and punishments accordingto some sins.

1 Corinthians 6:18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Matthew 10:15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Matthew 16:27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:12Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.

These are the ones I could remember offhand, I know there are more.

Can you explain these away if God views all sins as equal (and of course show us where he views all as equal).

Vangelis · 24-11-2005 9:29pm

MrPudding wrote:

Do you know anything about the texts left out? How do you know they would not substantively change the entire meaning of the bible?

I have little knowledge of the excluded texts. But before you criticise me for that, obtain some knowledge of them yourself so you can enlighten me.

It is supposedly the word of God. Why in the hell would you leave any of it out? I mean seriously, we keep minutes of sh1tty meetings. Why the hell would you leave out or change the word of God?

Have I left any of it out? Priests left it/them out. As far as I know, the excluded texts would not add any new knowledge about God's nature, his intentions, his will.

For me that either shows a remarkable lack of respect for your God or a seriously over-inflated sense of you own importance, a "God Complex" if you will.

Either that or the Word of God did not suit your purposes so you change it so it does.

My purposes? I have not selected anything away to suit my purposes.
I don't understand what you are accusing me of.

Freelancer · 24-11-2005 11:38pm

Vangelis wrote:

Freelancer, you keep regarding me as an enemy. You accuse me of trying to spoil the discussion:

I am not trying to restrict the debate. I take one point at a time. So let's see...

No I've directed that my issue is specifally related to the church's suberfuge.

It's subterfuge. I cannot feel if they did this. Maybe they did ask for advice but was not granted any answer. Maybe they took the matter into their own hands. The latter seems most likely.

Based on?

Subterfuge seems to me like a misused word in this context. I don't think that a group of priests have assembled and agreed in secrecy to sexually abuse young children throughout ages. They may be hiding it, but I believe that is because of shame.

And again and I swear I'm tearing hair out here.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY TO A MAN FAILED TO ASK GOD WHEN MAKING THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO HID AND PROTECT PADEOPHILE PRIESTS. DO YOU BELIEVE THEY DID NOT ASK GODS GUIDANCE WHEN HUNDREDS OF PRIESTS, BISHOPS, CARDINALS AND POPES DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN A COMPLEX PROVEN CONSPIRACY TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA BY THOUSANDS OF PRIESTS OVER DECADES?

DO YOU THINK THAT THEY, MEN OF GOD, MINISTERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE FAITH, FAILED IN THIS ONE ACT TO NOT TO BOTHER TO ASK FOR GOD'S GUIDANCE OR DID THEY ASK GOD AND GET SHODDY ADVICE?

WHICH IS IT?

The Catholic Church has been good at hiding all kinds of wrong-doers, including German Nazis who promised that they would convert from Jew-haters to wonderful people but never did. The Church kept showing them mercy and helped them to hide from police, because they believed these criminals needed patience, compassion and tolerance. Maybe they feel the same way about the paedophiles.

But how would I know if they are responsible for a conspiracy?
I'm not an undercover-agent !!

I've shown and you've choosen to ignore the evidence of a conspiracy. Have you looked at the evidence?

You haven't said whether these people asked for god's advice or whether the situation makes you challenge your faith, You've stated that anyone who

I said that you have to pray to God for guidance, ask if something is right or wrong, or perhaps reading the Bible is enough to find an answer.

That either ever who made a decision to defend nazis or protect paedophiles either never asked god for guidance or did ask god for guidance and got piss poor advice. Seriously this is pretty basic do you think that either men of god didn't bother checking with him when making massive decisions or did make decisions and god gave crappy advice. Which is. ONE OR THE OTHER.

Catholicism is part of Christianity. OK, Catholicism then. But you take me for intentionally obfuscating it. No, it was a misuse of word that made you misunderstand. There is no need to be so paranoid.

No its a not, you seem to be an enlightened soul. I know christians fro several diferent sects, and frankly I felt troubled in discussion with the first time I debated with baptists or methodists, they're radically different and more mellow interpretations of christian texts.

Again, you are misinterpreting me and attacking me for intentionally corrupting the debate. It's getting tiring. If your discontent, have the discussion with someone else.

yeah patzer swore blindly he'd be back in the dabate. At least he'll attempt to meet your point head on you're refuting my points even exist

You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.[/QUOTE]

Vangelis · 25-11-2005 12:43am

Freelancer wrote:

Based on?

It's rather my opinion.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY TO A MAN FAILED TO ASK GOD WHEN MAKING THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO HID AND PROTECT PADEOPHILE PRIESTS. DO YOU BELIEVE THEY DID NOT ASK GODS GUIDANCE WHEN HUNDREDS OF PRIESTS, BISHOPS, CARDINALS AND POPES DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN A COMPLEX PROVEN CONSPIRACY TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA BY THOUSANDS OF PRIESTS OVER DECADES?

It's not relevant what I believe. The truth is most important, screw my opinions. I don't know if the church authorities have taken part in a conspiracy or if they have asked for God's guidanc. My opinion on whether that is true or not is irrelevant and whether I say yes or no, what difference does it make to the discussion?

DO YOU THINK THAT THEY, MEN OF GOD, MINISTERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE FAITH, FAILED IN THIS ONE ACT TO NOT TO BOTHER TO ASK FOR GOD'S GUIDANCE OR DID THEY ASK GOD AND GET SHODDY ADVICE?

I say that, if there has been a conspiracy, they have failed to ask for God's guidance. And if they did not ask for God's guidance, they took the matter in their own hands.

I've shown and you've choosen to ignore the evidence of a conspiracy. Have you looked at the evidence?

I haven't seen it. Show me the evidence. Because I can't see anything else than you repeating the statement that there has been a conspiracy.

You haven't said whether these people asked for god's advice or whether the situation makes you challenge your faith, You've stated that anyone who

I'll refine my sayings: All prayers aren't answered immediately. Some aren't answered in many years. I cannot know if their prayers were answered, if they ignored the answers. But God would never encourage them to rape young children and hide it from the public.

That either ever who made a decision to defend nazis or protect paedophiles either never asked god for guidance or did ask god for guidance and got piss poor advice. Seriously this is pretty basic do you think that either men of god didn't bother checking with him when making massive decisions or did make decisions and god gave crappy advice. Which is. ONE OR THE OTHER.

I don't really think the Catholic authorities "bother" to check anything. They have their own in-grown laws written centuries ago and they heed these ancient scripts... highly. If I think that they don't or do bother to ask God if what they are doing is right or wrong, if they can have help to solve any problem, does it matter to you?

yeah patzer swore blindly he'd be back in the dabate. At least he'll attempt to meet your point head on you're refuting my points even exist

I have a good reason to question your conspiracy theories because you haven't provided any links to articles or anything else where I can read about revelations of a conspiracy actually having occured.

patzer117 · 25-11-2005 12:55am

I'm Back

And not much to say really.

As for the question Freelancer keeps asking with only two solutions: Did they not ask God's advice? Or did they ask and God give them shoddy advice?

Well my answer to that is funnily enough the third option: That they Did ask for advice, but that God didn't give them any, because God never gives anyone advice, and never intervenes in the world. That would interrupt our free will. The priests may have asked for advice, but you can be damn sure God didn't reply: "Cover it up boys", because that would be a very un-Godlike thing to do

I know I'm going to get a hell of a lot of flack over this point, but I genuinely believe God has not intervened in the world since Jesus rose from the dead.

This also helps to answer the question about the Bible - yes Humans wrote them. Yes Humans are fallible. Yes therefore the bible is fallible and may have gotten things incorrect or completely wrong. However the church has chosen the books in the bible very carefully out of all the ones written, and believes these are the authoratitave version of what happened and as such declares these as the 'official history' if you like. Anyone that goes against the official history is going against the Church. You are not necessarily going against God, or Christianity, just the established churches.

Hope that helps clear a few things up - and none of your just two answer questions freelancer

.

patzer

EDIT: Also just to get a hold on the charge that Ratzinger was involved in the coverup - that document you quoted freelancer. What that document says is that the Church reserves the right to hold investigations in private. That's pretty much what you described it as anyway. Well I don't have any problem with that. I think the Church should have the right hold investigations in private and THEN go to the Gardaí with any results. Take a lone incident of sexual harrasment made against a priest by an untrustworthy member of society (let's call them another priest for the sake of arguement). Well surely in the interest of both parties the matter should first be investigated privately to see is there anything behind the claim, and also to see if the accused admits anything, and also to see if the accuser is serious. If they have any suspicion after that then I believe they must go to the Gardaí, but in principle I have no problem with this idea in theory. In practise it may work out differently.

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 1:05am

Vangelis wrote:

It's rather my opinion.

[quote

It's not relevant what I believe. The truth is most important, screw my opinions. I don't know if the church authorities have taken part in a conspiracy

I've offered a variety of evidence that they were. You've ignored it.

or if they have asked for God's guidanc. My opinion on whether that is true or not is irrelevant and whether I say yes or no, what difference does it make to the discussion?

It does you're suggesting that either a group of god's servants didn't bother checking with god. I mean theres are people who refer god in all matters do you not think they'd check with god?

I say that, if there has been a conspiracy, they have failed to ask for God's guidance. And if they did not ask for God's guidance, they took the matter in their own hands.

Whats your proof for the first assertion? What evdience is there?

I haven't seen it. Show me the evidence. Because I can't see anything else than you repeating the statement that there has been a conspiracy.

I've offered four links on this thread. Care to answer them? they refer to damning evidence by the current pope the previous pope senior priests in ireland and america and the vatican. I think it's absurd that the evidence has been demostrated on this thread and then you demand I show it again?

I'll refine my sayings: All prayers aren't answered immediately. Some aren't answered in many years. I cannot know if their prayers were answered, if they ignored the answers. But God would never encourage them to rape young children and hide it from the public.

So bascially the entire catholic hierarchy for decades has been on "please hold your pray is important to god and is in a Q?"

I don't really think the Catholic authorities "bother" to check anything. They have their own in-grown laws written centuries ago and they heed these ancient scripts... highly. If I think that they don't or do bother to ask God if what they are doing is right or wrong, if they can have help to solve any problem, does it matter to you?

Seeing as there supposed to our source of spiritual guidance and catheticism your bland inference that they're indifference to checking theological or moral rights, is another sign why I made the right choice.

I have a good reason to question your conspiracy theories because you haven't provided any links to articles or anything else where I can read about revelations of a conspiracy actually having occured.

I've provided four on this thread.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...469055,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...020400,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...660927,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...849525,00.html

Thats for examples of a clear example of four specific examples of church conspiracy to hide. All of which I have mentioned on this thread all of which you've ignored. Spare me the "i've not seen any links" bullcrap.

MrPudding · 25-11-2005 1:05am

Vangelis wrote:

I have little knowledge of the excluded texts. But before you criticise me for that, obtain some knowledge of them yourself so you can enlighten me.

I don't need to obtain the knowledge. Why would I. I am not blindly following an organisation that bases it's teachings on something that may or may not be true/accurate. However, if I was I would be more than a little interested in finding out.

Vangelis wrote:

Have I left any of it out? Priests left it/them out. As far as I know, the excluded texts would not add any new knowledge about God's nature, his intentions, his will.

I was not talking about you personally and you know that very well.

You have already said you know nothing of the excluded texts. Now you say as far as you know they would not add any knowledge. Which is it?

Vangelis wrote:

My purposes? I have not selected anything away to suit my purposes.
I don't understand what you are accusing me of.

I did not mean you. Why would I accuse you of doing it. I am quite a rational person, why would I accuse you of doing something 2000 years ago? I was referring to the persons that may have decided to leave text out.

MrP

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 1:17am

patzer117 wrote:

EDIT: Also just to get a hold on the charge that Ratzinger was involved in the coverup - that document you quoted freelancer. What that document says is that the Church reserves the right to hold investigations in private. That's pretty much what you described it as anyway. Well I don't have any problem with that. I think the Church should have the right hold investigations in private and THEN go to the Gardaí with any results. Take a lone incident of sexual harrasment made against a priest by an untrustworthy member of society (let's call them another priest for the sake of arguement). Well surely in the interest of both parties the matter should first be investigated privately to see is there anything behind the claim, and also to see if the accused admits anything, and also to see if the accuser is serious. If they have any suspicion after that then I believe they must go to the Gardaí, but in principle I have no problem with this idea in theory. In practise it may work out differently.

And thats nice and lets look at your first post on this thread

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.

Now it's a packpeddled "well of course you'd want a secret investiagtion.

I notice you don't even dare approach the John Paul investigation.

Hilariously you start this thread by suggesting that its absurd that theres any suggestion that theres any attempt of a concievable coverup now when this assertion is contradicted suddenly it's "well off course your investigation is in private and the results should be kept in private for over a decade thats the natural thing".

You've dropped your defence of chomiskey because it's indefensible, you cannot defend papil police for forty years instead you're getting into sematics of Ratzingers decision to surpress the charges from

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police.

You can claim these are for the protect of the victims but you can only give the priests the benefit of the doubt so long.

those are two examples of a clear surpression of paedophilia that you claim NEVER happened.

patzer117 · 25-11-2005 1:34am

Freelancer wrote:

And thats nice and lets look at your first post on this thread

Let's take a look at the start of my last post shall we? Forgot about that bit eh? Or just angered that your last few posts have gone out the window?

And getting back to the supposedly important part of this thread. The only one of those quotes working was the one of Brendan Comiskey. I'm not defending the man, he is indefensible, but there is no evidence (the article says he took out insurance and after that did nothing) to say he just did nothing after taking out the insurance. AND EVEN IF THERE WAS that doesn't amount to a specific Church policy to hide Paedophiles.

{Devil's Advocate here: I don't believe this but want to see the answer)
Now here's where I'm curious. When the abusese of that priest, presumably they knew he was a paedophile. Who did they tell, and what did they do? Did they go the the Gardaí? If so, what did they do? I'd like those at that confirmation walked out because if they only went to the church and not to the gardaí then perhaps some people in the Church presumed that they didn't want the situation to go to the gardaí? could this have been interpreted as a sign that the church SHOULD hold a private investigation?}

Ok back to me... I'm not denying there was a coverup - the Ferns report shows damn well there was negligence on the part of the Church in that diocese, but it doesn't show that the Church had a policy to hide Paedophiles. Yes individuals did this, No the church did not reccomend it.

And finally to dismiss the idea that because they were advised to take out insurance by Bishop Comiskey that they had a policy to hide Paedophiles. No, this proves that in one diocese they knew paedophelia was a problem and one person presumed that this probably didn't happen in isolation. When they were advised to take out insurance I would stake my life that many of the bishops investigated whether there were Paedophiles in the Parish. What they did is a different matter, but just because they took out insurance did not mean they therefore wanted to hide the Paedophiles.

And take a look at the first half of my post there freelancer, before the EDIT bit, i think you may like some of it.

patzer

Vangelis · 25-11-2005 1:38am

Freelancer wrote:

I've offered four links on this thread. Care to answer them? they refer to damning evidence by the current pope the previous pope senior priests in ireland and america and the vatican. I think it's absurd that the evidence has been demostrated on this thread and then you demand I show it again?

Only one the links work. By the Guardian. There seems to me rather this this is speculation over the possibility of conspiracy, not something direct and striking.

So bascially the entire catholic hierarchy for decades has been on "please hold your pray is important to god and is in a Q?"

Write in English, please. Punctuation and comma. What's a Q?

Seeing as there supposed to our source of spiritual guidance and catheticism your bland inference that they're indifference to checking theological or moral rights, is another sign why I made the right choice.

Good for you.

Thats for examples of a clear example of four specific examples of church conspiracy to hide. All of which I have mentioned on this thread all of which you've ignored. Spare me the "i've not seen any links" bullcrap.

I've read the articles(only one because the others are not available) and like I said, there is no evidence. Just speculation.

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 7:35am

patzer117 wrote:

Let's take a look at the start of my last post shall we? Forgot about that bit eh? Or just angered that your last few posts have gone out the window?

Lets

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
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.

I point out that if you're aware theres a problem and your only reaction is to take out insurance then you are negligent. A fact you ignore.

And getting back to the supposedly important part of this thread. The only one of those quotes working was the one of Brendan Comiskey.

All the links work. Quit trying to weasel your way out this.

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

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.

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.

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

'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

Claiming the links don't work is bascially a "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU" defence.

I'm not defending the man, he is indefensible, but there is no evidence (the article says he took out insurance and after that did nothing) to say he just did nothing after taking out the insurance. AND EVEN IF THERE WAS that doesn't amount to a specific Church policy to hide Paedophiles.

And the other articles? And what evidence do you proport that he did anything? The articles assertion that is was the Bishop's only reaction to the issue. Considering the dramatic scale of abuse scandals that follows and the lack of church action the article's assertion seems fair, what evidence do you present to support your response? The rest of the articles demostrates that this cover up was widespread but apparently you're in "If I don't see it it's not a crime mode"

{Devil's Advocate here: I don't believe this but want to see the answer)
Now here's where I'm curious. When the abusese of that priest, presumably they knew he was a paedophile. Who did they tell, and what did they do? Did they go the the Gardaí? If so, what did they do? I'd like those at that confirmation walked out because if they only went to the church and not to the gardaí then perhaps some people in the Church presumed that they didn't want the situation to go to the gardaí? could this have been interpreted as a sign that the church SHOULD hold a private investigation?}

Thats frankly horsesh*t. It's a crime. The church has no authority on criminal matters. Trying to deal with a criminal charge informally without going to the police is obstruction of justice. Period end of discussion.

Ok back to me... I'm not denying there was a coverup - the Ferns report shows damn well there was negligence on the part of the Church in that diocese, but it doesn't show that the Church had a policy to hide Paedophiles. Yes individuals did this, No the church did not reccomend it.

And again.

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.

How do you reconcile the above?

And finally to dismiss the idea that because they were advised to take out insurance by Bishop Comiskey that they had a policy to hide Paedophiles. No, this proves that in one diocese they knew paedophelia was a problem and one person presumed that this probably didn't happen in isolation.

Do you read? I mean english?

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

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1849525,00.html

When they were advised to take out insurance I would stake my life that many of the bishops investigated whether there were Paedophiles in the Parish. What they did is a different matter, but just because they took out insurance did not mean they therefore wanted to hide the Paedophiles.

Yes but if the only reaction is to take out insurance? Furthermore before you forfeit your life perhaps you'd kindly furnish us with some evidence that there was a rigiorous investigation by bishops to find paedophiles and hand them into the proper authorities. You've utterly failed to demostrate what other remedies the church made, the article makes an assertion, you refute it, the onus is on you to support your claim.

And take a look at the first half of my post there freelancer, before the EDIT bit, i think you may like some of it.

patzer

Thats all nice and all but I'm discussing that matter with Vangelis and I'll answer your point when you deal with the rest of my point.

EDIT and in addendum to your original point

patzer wrote:

What that document says is that the Church reserves the right to hold investigations in private. That's pretty much what you described it as anyway. Well I don't have any problem with that. I think the Church should have the right hold investigations in private and THEN go to the Gardaí with any results.

Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

Are you reading the same article? The above suggests that the church is claiming it has the moral authority and jurisdiction over a criminal act. Nowhere does it state that the church would punish the perperator and then hand them over to the authorities.

What it does say is;

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

And then

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

And finally

The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

So what you have here is a document which not only suggests that the investigation which is private which the church claims has legal authority and does not need to go further, furthermore this investigation occurs in private.

Finally what gives the right to the church to hold it's own private investigation? If you or I suspect a crime, we are legally and morally obliged to immediately go to the police and report it. What right does the church have to carry out it's own secret investigation into a criminal act before approaching the police?

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 7:43am

Vangelis wrote:

Only one the links work. By the Guardian. There seems to me rather this this is speculation over the possibility of conspiracy, not something direct and striking.

I've posted all the links in the above response, They all work please quit prevaircating

Write in English, please. Punctuation and comma. What's a Q?

Que.

Now same question.

You wrote:

I'll refine my sayings: All prayers aren't answered immediately. Some aren't answered in many years. I cannot know if their prayers were answered, if they ignored the answers. But God would never encourage them to rape young children and hide it from the public.

my response wrote:

So bascially the entire catholic hierarchy for decades has been on "please hold your pray is important to god and is in a Que?"

Good for you.

Thats not a rebuttal its interesting how terse and "less polite" your reponses get when we get closer to the bones of the debate.

I've read the articles(only one because the others are not available) and like I said, there is no evidence. Just speculation.

No theres not theres clear evidence, like I said to patzer Ive reposted the links, answer the specific charges instead of saying "thats pure speculation" thats not a reponse but a poor generic rebuttal. Answer the specific charges with specific answers instead of some generic wishy washy attempt at a response. Theres solid evidence it deserves a solid answer; one I'm (or more importantly it's victims) is unlikely to get from you or any of the church's apologists.

So will you now attempt to address the ramifications of the above, either the entire catholic hierarchy to a man didn't bother to ask god for advice before engaging a forty year cover up, or they did ask god and god told them to do it? Which?

SparkyLarks · 25-11-2005 9:08am

This "debate" is really starting to get stale and both sides are getting more and more entrenched, I do hope that it is not indicitive ofa larger portion of society, where the religious and the secular become further and further apart.

Yes peadofile priests were covered up, and much more worringly moved into postions where they had access to children.

I was discussing this with my parents and grandparents and aparently most of the priests who did abuse children( or in some cases adults) came not from maynooth but the other seminary. I can;t remember the details or names, but basicially a very very sick individual was head of the other seminary and basicially abused most of the young priests there. a few priests who tried to speak out about it were ruined.

However it must be remembered that globally the percentage of priests who abuse children are in line with the rest of the population. The vast majority of abuse happens in the home. As a society we are not dealing with that issue.

That abuse is also being covered up. It is an abuse that we know about but do nothing.

However it must also be remembered that the church is a huge orginisation. Ther are good priests and bad priests. To say, I'm not listning to any priest because of the peadofiles or becasue of the cover up that took place , is a form of discrimination. I know quite a few priests some are great people and do great work and I'd listen to what they have to say on a lot of things. Others are idiots who I probably won't listen to.

as for people saying that priests have never been maried and so can;t be good marrige counselers. Does every drug counsoller have to have been an addict. IN fairness to the church the enforced marrige courses is a great idea. If someone is going to get married then it;s a very good idea that they are sure about what they are getting themselves in for.

However the thing which is most forgotten is that the people are the church. Yes ther are many many things wrong in the church. The stance on condom's the cover up of peodifiles ect. However it is up to us to change it.

WE might make a difference, but one man nailed up on a door what he thought was wrong with the church, which lead to the counter reformation where a large number of things were put right

Freelancer · 25-11-2005 9:17am

SparkyLarks wrote:

This "debate" is really starting to get stale and both sides are getting more and more entrenched, I do hope that it is not indicitive ofa larger portion of society, where the religious and the secular become further and further apart.

No one side of the debate is refusing to even acknowledge evidence or offer evidence of to support their claim that the church hid paedophiles.

However it must be remembered that globally the percentage of priests who abuse children are in line with the rest of the population. The vast majority of abuse happens in the home. As a society we are not dealing with that issue.

Can you offer a link to prove that assertion?

Catholicism in modern Ireland

Comments