Anti-Catholicism

StupidLikeAFox

Not sure if it should be here or in Christianity but anyway.

I just saw this on that hateboard site, and tbh its pretty much my viws on the subject. I see a lot of anti catholicism on this site here and there, and where it doesnt bother me and people are well entitled to their opinions, i think this is the other side of the coin.

some priest wrote:

Anti-Catholic in Ireland
Yes,I know,I know all the mistakes the church made,but I am a priest living in ireland and I resent the fact that i have to disgusie myself walking the streets.It's supposed t o be wonderful, pluralist ,multi-cultural,all embracing mult i-cultural Ireland,but open your mouth to say you're st ill Catholic and you'll hear the most ridiculous hate a nd venom.I am all for tolerance and I have no problem with a nyone not wanting to follow my path or being disillusioned b ut at least learn some respect and manners and have a more c onvincing argument than'the church is responsible for e verything that was wrong in this country.....'I was cal led a paedophile by morons last year and when I saw a squad car I went over to complain and the cop said'it's an occupational hazzard,get used to it'If I was from an y other ethnic group I would have been given tea and sympath y and brought to the station and read my rights.If I am accu sed as a Catholic Priest I am guilty until proven innocent,I cannot buy most newspapers because they insult my religion and most of Irish TV is the same.thanks for letting me get t his off my chest!

This is a (idiotic) response and the OPs response to it, which is pretty relevent too

some eejit wrote:

NO SYMPATHY
GET REAL FR TED. IF UR NOT HAPPY WHY DONT YOU ASK YOUR GOD T O FIX IT. THE ABUSE THAT YOUR ORGANISATION COMMITTED, HAS UN DONE ALL OF THE GOOD THAT YE EVER DID. DONT BE EXPOSING YOUR SELF IN HERE IT WILL ONLY G LEAD TO ME BEING A LOT MORE AGRE SSIVE THE NEXT TIME

.

some priest wrote:

10.01.06 22:55 Response to No Sympathy
Dear No Sympathy,your attitude is exactly the one I was writ ing about.I'm not asking you to believe in my God or my religion but i'm merely asking that you show respect a nd tolerence.You'd be surprised too how devestated I a m myself by the abuse saga,but i'm not giving up my fai th over it and binning my heritage because of a few bad appl es in the drum.I am merely doing what I believe I was asked to do and you'd also be surprised that i'm just an ordinary lad form an ordinary background and not some mythi cal clerical monster that you have fabricated.I think too th at as well as the church hanging it's head in shame we also need to ask the bigger questions.Why is Paedophilia suc h a problem in the English Speaking World?Why are we avoidin g the bigeer question of the sin of Paedophilia in all walks of life?It's avoiding the issue to make it a problem o f priests.P.S-I really enjoyed Father Ted,maybe you' dw ant to laugh a little more at yourself too......take care an d I wish you well and also a soothing of your anger.
No Sympathy,you said why don't I ask my God to fix it.. .............1.He's your God too. 2.He's not a qui ck fix God,he requires a little openness,time and patience a nd makng sure people like you don't continue to have th e negative experiences of his messengers.

From: http://hateboard.com/read/974357161

DadaKopf

Racism and prejudice is wrong.

Still, as for anti-Catholicism (instead of ignorant bullying or whatever), *if* I was a practising Christian and believed all that stuff, I'd be some kind of Protestant.

Sleepy

Maybe if someone had pointed out the arrogance of the comment by 'some priest' that "1.He's your God too.", he might understand why people resent the Church.

To be honest, I'd have little sympathy for any Catholic whining about persecution in this country. It was their own behaviour regarding the protection and cover up operations for the paedophiles in their organisation that has people so outraged about it. They systematic manner in which they covered up for the sexual and physical abuse members of their orders carried out in Irish schools, borstals, parishes and the infamous laundries has (understandably imho) caused a backlash.

Add that to the Church's inapropriate control over the education system in this country (which frankly make a mockery of the seperation of church and state); their fundamentalism throughout most of the 20th century in Ireland and the fact that they still lay claim to a ridiculous amount of the population as followers when this bears little or no resemblence to reality and it's easy understand the backlash.

As a fairly "devout" Agnostic, I'd still be on their books as a baptised and confirmed Catholic and I'm FAR from alone. I believe that in a country with an education system as good as ours (for all it's faults it's one of the best in the world), you will always see a move away from jingoistic religions towards science and logic. Many of our generation have had Catholicism forced upon them by their parents, teachers and extended family while having no interest or belief in it themselves. Try to force something on any intelligent person for long enough and they'll grow to resent you for it.

BuffyBot

To be honest, I'd have little sympathy for any Catholic whining about persecution in this country. It was their own behaviour regarding the protection and cover up operations for the paedophiles in their organisation that has people so outraged about it.

"their own" - so every Catholic is to blame for the actions of a few? Isn't that well, bigotry?

pork99

BuffyBot wrote:

"their own" - so every Catholic is to blame for the actions of a few? Isn't that well, bigotry?

Yes it's a shame that a couple of thousand child molesters have ruined things for the other 3 or 4 guys

hepcat

Have to say, I felt sympathy for the priest up until he said "he's your God too" - how presumptuous and arrogant. It undid all the good of his earlier words. Also, I think he's being a bit simplistic describing the situation in the Catholic as " a few rotten apples". What does he take us for - what people are really angry about is the systematic and widespread cover-up throughout the Church. After the Ferns report there was a call for the catholic church to withdraw all involvment in education and activities with young people (which I heartily endorse). This just shows how angry people are - it is not a case of a few rotten apples, people are not that stupid. The priest then goes on to say we should we discussing paedophilia in general, not the horrific abuse and cover-ups that took place in the Church by clergy that were esteemed and trusted by the population. Well sorry but they are two different discussions, and while I agree that we should all respect each others beliefs, I think that this priest is sneakily trying to defend the catholic church's behavoiur to a certain extent, and for that reason I would have no sympathy for him.

Dades

First up, the kind of abuse received by an individual in the street is well out of order. Issues with an establishment - and thats what they are - should be taken up with the hierarchy. The priest is right in that he shouldn't have to give up his vocation because people in his organisation acted against the tenets that he stands for.

The catholic church does good and bad work in this country, of course bad news sells more papers. But people are also mindful of catholic policies on contraception in Africa, or on gays which don't do them any favours amongst the "enlightened" newer generations.

ColHol wrote:

I see a lot of anti catholicism on this site here and there

There's anti-everything here is you look hard enough.

Freelancer

ColHol wrote:

Not sure if it should be here or in Christianity but anyway.

I just saw this on that hateboard site, and tbh its pretty much my viws on the subject.

The man published his views on a site actually called "hateboard" and was taken aback when he recieved a strongly worded response. :rolleyes:

I see a lot of anti catholicism on this site here and there, and where it doesnt bother me and people are well entitled to their opinions, i think this is the other side of the coin.

I think the inference of the above is that scratch anyone with a grievance with catholicism and you'll see the guy you quoted underneath. I'm no fan of the catholic church, but I can couch my language and name specific and legimate grievances, as can groups like One in Four.

BuffyBot

Yes it's a shame that a couple of thousand child molesters have ruined things for the other 3 or 4 guys

Nice figures, got anything to back it up or is it just another pointless statement?

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote:

It was their own behaviour regarding the protection and cover up operations for the paedophiles in their organisation that has people so outraged about it.

On the one hand, the vast majority of priests wouldn't have known about this stuff.
On the other hand, it appears that all the bishops did and they all helped to keep these paedophiles moving around from parish to parish. They took a conscious decision to risk (allow) more children to be abused so long as it was kept quiet.
Any organization thats rotten at the top is rotten all the way down.

rsynnott

Abuse on the street isn't really acceptable. Criticism of the church in the papers is healthy and a sign that we're moving on from our rather unpleasant past. The church has and continues to do, when it comes to it, many bad things. I can't imagine why he expects respect from newspapers; respect generally has to be earned.

Dades

Gurgle wrote:

Any organization thats rotten at the top is rotten all the way down.

That's not true (IMO).

If your boss was skimming from payroll or such like, are you culpable as he is?
Look at the Enron scandal in the US. The victims there were, amongst others, the employees whose pensions were wiped out.

Sleepy

BuffyBot wrote:

"their own" - so every Catholic is to blame for the actions of a few? Isn't that well, bigotry?

Every Catholic is a member of the organisation voluntarily (excluding children who don't know any better). As such, they shoulder a certain amount of responsibility towards the running of that organisation. If they don't like the way it's being run, they shouldn't be involved with the organisation unless they're making serious attempts to change it.

Though, let's be clear about this, there are very few Catholics left in Ireland. A large amount of Christians that mistakenly refer to themselves as Catholic for socio-cultural reasons, sure, but not a lot of genuine Catholics.

While I agree that no-one deserves to be abused on the street, I think the Catholic community are incredibly naieve if they expect their leaders to be automatically respected. For many of us that don't believe in supreme beings and virgin births, these people are just gullible fools who are wasting their lives, why would we respect that? Add the church's actions in Ireland over the past century to this and it's easy to see why they're held in such contempt. Personally, I'll hold them in contempt and avoid them, live and let live but I will not afford them any more courtesy when I am confronted by them than I would any other stranger on the street.

BuffyBot

Well no, to me it seems like "their behavior" implied their past behaviour - rather than current behaviour. I think you would find very few right now who would agree with how the Church handled things - however, how could do something in the past about activities they knew nothing about?

it was their own behaviour regarding the protection and cover up operations for the paedophiles in their organisation that has people so outraged about it.

Your own sentence seems to imply that your ordinary, average Catholic was involved in some kind of cover-up..

StupidLikeAFox

Sleepy wrote:

Every Catholic is a member of the organisation voluntarily (excluding children who don't know any better). As such, they shoulder a certain amount of responsibility towards the running of that organisation. If they don't like the way it's being run, they shouldn't be involved with the organisation unless they're making serious attempts to change it.

I dont agree with this, the idea that if there are a few bad apples in your organisation you should just bail out, and lets face it, it was a minor percentage in the grand scheme of things, but the few that were bad were downright evil. The majority of Catholics, i would *think*, would be of the opinion that either:
A) The past is out in the open, all the cards are on the table and they can work through it and look to a brighter future. Or else
They are tied to that organisation because of their beliefs, and they will stick with it for that reason.

You will find very few ordinary decent catholics defending the church, that doesnt mean they should abandon it altogether

Sleepy wrote:

For many of us that don't believe in supreme beings and virgin births, these people are just gullible fools who are wasting their lives, why would we respect that?

Well its only fair to respect other peoples beliefs right? Fair enough, you mightnt like the idea that this priest believes his God is your God, but at the same time its what he believes. I know ya may think its may be a v nice and convenient fantasy, but i think it should be respected all the same.

Freelancer

ColHol wrote:

A) The past is out in the open, all the cards are on the table and they can work through it and look to a brighter future.

But it's not, and this is the general reaction of church supports to anyone who crititises the church "the mistakes re child abuse are in the past, lets look to the future"

This defense ignores for example ratzinger's role in covering up abuse, John Paul role (a man you're changing the rules on how quickly you qualify for sainthood) in the same cover up. The church and our States weaseling out of the fiscal responsibility to pay the victims for this abuse, a bill that you and I will share, despite the enormous wealth of the abuse.

Anyone who tries to defend the church invariablly is unwilling to look at, or discuss, the depth of the cover up, the lengths the church went to hide paedophiles the timescale, and how simply put the church while it has apologised for the paedophiles, it has never bothered to apologise for the duration and length of the cover up.

The simple question is "should an organisation who's reaction to the heninous crimes commited by its members, was to hid and conceal these crimes, rather than expose them, really have any business lecturing people on morality?"

Or else
They are tied to that organisation because of their beliefs, and they will stick with it for that reason.

You will find very few ordinary decent catholics defending the church, that doesnt mean they should abandon it altogether

Why not? The church is a hierarchal organisation who believe that they are the spokespersons of god, if you cannot defend their actions, how can you stay with such a church?

Well its only fair to respect other peoples beliefs right? Fair enough, you mightnt like the idea that this priest believes his God is your God, but at the same time its what he believes. I know ya may think its may be a v nice and convenient fantasy, but i think it should be respected all the same.

Thats nice and all, but to force your beliefs onto another to grandly announce that whatever I believe is irrelevant because "your god" is my god is just down right patronising. Its the philosphical equivlent of finishing an argument with, "well you can believe what you want, in the end of the day I'm right". Its rude, its like giving forgiveness when it's not asked for, it is a form of ramming your believes down anothers throat.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

That's not true (IMO).

If your boss was skimming from payroll or such like, are you culpable as he is?
Look at the Enron scandal in the US. The victims there were, amongst others, the employees whose pensions were wiped out.

In Enron, they were employees.
Priests aren't employees of the church, they're members. I'm not saying they're responsible for what the bishops did, quite the opposite.

My point is that all priests know about it now, and they still remain priests. From following the cases in the news, nearly every bishop in the country knew about this abuse and molestation and at best did nothing, at worst made the decision to follow the Church's policy of cover-up.

How can you respect a priest who continues to serve under these people?

Respect has to be earned, and although I'm an athiest myself, I respect anyone with the integrity and the balls to stand up for what is right. We haven't seen that from the common priest. They could stand with the people of the country and call for the responsible bishops to be removed from office, but not one has done that. They just (figuratively) mutter 'I didn't know nothin' and its not my fault'.

Dades

Gurgle wrote:

How can you respect a priest who continues to serve under these people?

Your every-day priest works for God, not bishops, and they are part of a faith not an organisation, even the heirarchical structure is similar.

It's not a golf club. They can't just hand in their membership card and join another one. Priests who knew nothing about the abuse have a choice of speaking out and risk being excommunicated, or fulfilling their vocation and working to repair the image of their tarnished faith.

You or I may not care for the RC church but I would not hold it against any member of that church that still feels it had good to offer.

hepcat

I do feel very sorry for the ordinary person whose faith and religious convictions must have taken a battering in recent years. People must feel very let down by the Catholic church - but they don't have an alternative and its not that simple to just turn the beliefs and practices of a lifetime on their heads, and change overnight.
I still feel that the church itself though is getting away very lightly. The abuse and cover up is not "in the past" - the effects of both are still being felt by many thoiugthout the country. The church is an extremley wealthy organsiation, but when confronted with having to pay compensation to the victims of the abuse their reaction was not wholeheartedly admissive in any way. they did a deaql with the governemnt which means their liability is limited now to an agreed amount. the taxpayers picks up the remainder. This is wrong. I also think it is wrong that they continue to have a role in education and activities with young people.
Again, while no-one should be abused for their religious beliefs, it is hard to feel sorry for a priest whose attitude is that "it was all just a few rotten apples, and sure anyway we shoudl be discussing the problem of paedophilia in general". To top that he then says his God is your God too...making a total lie of the statement that hje does not want to impose his beliefs on anyone.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

Priests who knew nothing about the abuse have a choice of speaking out and risk being excommunicated,

They don't excommunicate the paedophiles, would they really excommunicate a priest who said it was wrong to help the paedophiles?

The Atheist wrote:

You or I may not care for the RC church but I would not hold it against any member of that church that still feels it had good to offer.

Fair enough, but if you're going to walk down the street in the uniform of the church, you can expect to be treated as a representative of the church. Most of us don't feel the need to give abuse to every priest we meet, but then most of us didn't have our childhoods destroyed by someone in the same uniform.

I know this comparison is a stretch, but the vast majority of WW2 German soldiers were no more evil than their English counterparts. I can't quite picture the veterans marching through Jerusalem in uniform though.

Sleepy

ColHol wrote:

Well its only fair to respect other peoples beliefs right? Fair enough, you mightnt like the idea that this priest believes his God is your God, but at the same time its what he believes. I know ya may think its may be a v nice and convenient fantasy, but i think it should be respected all the same.

I'm not sure that it is something we should do tbh. Would you respect the rights of a Satanist to practice their religion? The rights of a white-supremacist to espouse his vitriolic racism? The latter-day saint's rights to practice their religion in Waco?

When looked at logically these religions/belief systems are no different from Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. I don't think anyone has the right to expect their beliefs to be respected.

I will tolerate any belief system that doesn't cause harm for others (though I reserve the right to dismiss it as nonsense). I believe this can reasonably be expected of all of us. Asking me to respect beliefs I consider ridiculous, however, is a huge leap from asking me to put up with them. Particularly if the organisation representing that belief system has a history of acting in sickening fashions.

StupidLikeAFox

I guess i just separate the belief system from the evil people in the organisation. I also think that i should have said tolerate instead of respect.

In the case of the satanists, I would respect their beliefs, its just some of the practices which i wouldnt tolerate/consider to be evil. Along the same lines, i would respect the ordinary catholic, and wouldnt feel they shouldnt shoulder the weight of the evil members of their organisation, or let them get in the way of continuing doing the good work or practising their religion.

(OT Fair dues on givin up the fags! Ya have a bit more willpower than i do!)

Stabshauptmann

what I think is kind of funny is that you can get away with abusing catholics or ridiculing their beliefs, but not any another ethnic/social/religious

Same point was made about christianity in general and Jerry Springer the opera in britain last year.

Its kinda a double standard. I know we can point to our history as a catholic country and say we're poking fun at our selves, but we're not. And what somepriest described wasnt just an attack/ridicule of catholicism, it was a very abusive personal attack.

Sleepy

Aye Kaptain Redeye, been thinking about that one a bit lately. In the world in which we live, it's considered a horrific thing to be accused of anti-semitism because people who were against the Jewish religion in the past did unspeakable things. Personally, I'm anti-semitic just as much as i'm anti-catholic, anti-muslim, or anti-any-other-religion.

Being against a religious belief, however does not mean that I'm going to treat the follower(s) of that belief in a cruel fashion. I can scorn their beliefs while getting on well with them on all other fronts (hell, I think every girl I've dated has followed some form of christianity or other).

I can seperate the belief from the person (let's face it, I'd have a hard time in this country if I couldn't).

[thanks Colhol, going quite well this time but we'll see how it lasts! ]

pork99

BuffyBot wrote:

Nice figures, got anything to back it up or is it just another pointless statement?

No it was an attempt at humour.

From my memory of the priests at the school I went to, roughly 50% were a bit creepy and sinister, a bit too touchy-feely or just plain sadistic. These guys enjoyed their work, they were always very happy. The other half were usually quite decent men who I seem to remember were a bit depressed most of the time.

Dades

Gurgle wrote:

I know this comparison is a stretch, but the vast majority of WW2 German soldiers were no more evil than their English counterparts. I can't quite picture the veterans marching through Jerusalem in uniform though.

All that says is that not every level in an organisation is guilty, but there is always someone, somewhere that will hold you accountable regardless.

Sleepy wrote:

I will tolerate any belief system that doesn't cause harm for others (though I reserve the right to dismiss it as nonsense). I believe this can reasonably be expected of all of us. Asking me to respect beliefs I consider ridiculous, however, is a huge leap from asking me to put up with them. Particularly if the organisation representing that belief system has a history of acting in sickening fashions.

You do realise that the RC belief system has nothing to do with paedophelia? The travesties that occured were allowed to occur by certain people in an organisation that claims to uphold that belief system - but patently don't. They were in no way condoned by that system. That is why is unfair to suggest to those who are true to that belief system, that they should reject it. The guilty clerics should be on trial not the belief.

Compare this to the beliefs of a white-supremacist. Their belief system clearly condones racism and bigotry.

Sleepy

It could be equally argued from their core religious text that the RC belief system condones bigotry towards homosexuals, slavery, slaughter on the basis of religious beliefs etc. etc. etc.

I don't by any means argue that the Roman Catholic religion condones paedophelia (unless I was to twist the "Jesus said to love the little children" line in a rather grotesque way). The Roman Catholic Church, however, gave tacit permission to the abusers in the typically arrogant manner in which they dealt with their members' crimes.

Personally, I believe that any logical Catholic would have (and arguably morally should have) switched to one of the other Christian faiths. Given the few differences between the organisations and the 'pick and mix' nature of modern "Catholics", I'd imagine most of them would actually better suited to one of the "Protestant" faiths. Though, obviously, as someone who disagrees with religion in general I'd prefer that they just simply admit to themselves that their belief in a deity is unfounded and embrace sensible agnosticism.

BuffyBot

I believe that any logical Catholic would have (and arguably morally should have) switched to one of the other Christian faiths.

I'm sure some have, but as with any faith many would (or could not) bring themselves to do that. There is a reason why there is different Christian faiths, is the vast differences in doctrine. Faith for quite a few people isn't "pick and mix" and therefore they're hardly likely to go "ah sure, that Church will do be better" because they simply do not believe the same things.

Sleepy

Can you direct me to a single sane "Catholic" that believes in transubstantiation?

We already live in a world where divorce is normal, women are no longer second class citizens, gay people are free (or at least more free) to practice their sexualities, birth control isn't the devil's own plaything and we don't burn people at the stake for not believing in our particular take on faith. Most "Catholics", or at least those that live by the teachings of Christ believe that these are good things. Their religion, however still preaches these things.

If most Irish "Catholics" were to examine their faith with any degree of logic, they'd see that their beliefs matched the Protestant faith far closer than their "own" church. Unfortunately, since secularism in this state has most "Catholics" in Ireland convinced that Protestants are evil incarnate their ignorance prevents them from discovering this.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

You do realise that the RC belief system has nothing to do with paedophelia?

I'm pretty sure that Christianity, Catholicism and the bible are all totally unambiguous on paedophilia, i.e. its not allowed.

The problem is that the organization of the church, and the trusted position of a priest as a representative of the church was used for decades (if not centuries) by paedophiles to gain access to children and protection from consequences.

Within the hierarchy of the RC church, the church's reputation is more important than the laws of God.

lostexpectation

Sleepy wrote:

Can you direct me to a single sane "Catholic" that believes in transubstantiation?

If most Irish "Catholics" were to examine their faith with any degree of logic, they'd see that their beliefs matched the Protestant faith far closer than their "own" church. Unfortunately, since secularism in this state has most "Catholics" in Ireland convinced that Protestants are evil incarnate their ignorance prevents them from discovering this.

Wow I never heard that before, interesting.

I still wouldn't wish I was ex-Protestant

that site is really getting some traffic from Ireland these days, Who runs it?

It's not a bullying website anyway, it has love choice.

Crucifix

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I believe that any logical Catholic would have (and arguably morally should have) switched to one of the other Christian faiths.

I agree. I've thought about this before when people are going on about how the church should modernise. Really the church shouldn't change it's stances, but rather people should change churchs.

Dades

Gurgle wrote:

Within the hierarchy of the RC church, the church's reputation is more important than the laws of God.

But we're not talking about the hierarchy here, we're talking about the lower level faithful.

Sleepy, I think your feelings about RC beliefs in general are maybe skewing the debate.

Dades

lostexpectation wrote:

that site is really getting some traffic from Ireland these days, Who runs it?

It's not a bullying website anyway, it has love choice.

What are you smoking? :v:

CiaranC

Would you rather suffer the persecution that a priest does walking down the street today or the persecution that a poor single woman who fell pregnant when these papists where in power did? Or an orphan child who was forced into one of their institutions. Or a problem child who encountered them in school. Or just a generally poor illiterate who lived under their oppression.

Yeah, thought so. Debate over.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

But we're not talking about the hierarchy here, we're talking about the lower level faithful.

The lower level faithful are the local representatives of the church.
Thats their job.

How often do you see a bishop walking down the street?

CiaranC wrote:

Yeah, thought so. Debate over.

But we weren't debating whether the RC church is evil (we know it is), but whether the lowest minions of the evil empire deserve to be held accountable.

hepcat

Sleepy wrote:

Can you direct me to a single sane "Catholic" that believes in transubstantiation?

We already live in a world where divorce is normal, women are no longer second class citizens, gay people are free (or at least more free) to practice their sexualities, birth control isn't the devil's own plaything and we don't burn people at the stake for not believing in our particular take on faith. Most "Catholics", or at least those that live by the teachings of Christ believe that these are good things. Their religion, however still preaches these things.

If most Irish "Catholics" were to examine their faith with any degree of logic, they'd see that their beliefs matched the Protestant faith far closer than their "own" church. Unfortunately, since secularism in this state has most "Catholics" in Ireland convinced that Protestants are evil incarnate their ignorance prevents them from discovering this.

I don't think most catholics in modern Ireland think protestants are evil incarnate - that is way too simplictic. While I would agree that the dwindling congregations should now turn on their heels and march out of catholic churches all over ireland, I think that is easier said than done for a number of reasons mainly that it is hard to admit that the religious organisation you have followed for a lifetime is a complete shambles and rotten to the core. There may be a sense as well that bad and all as it is the organisation also belongs to the faithful, and perhaps can be changed from within, I don't know.

BuffyBot

If most Irish "Catholics" were to examine their faith with any degree of logic

You're applying your own standards there. Faith isn't logical. Faith is faith, and logic doesn't always come into it for people.

Dades

CiaranC wrote:

Yeah, thought so. Debate over.

For you hopefully, since it appears to be over your head.

Gurgle wrote:

The lower level faithful are the local representatives of the church.
Thats their job.

Representatives of their faith maybe. Nobody joins the priesthood today out of love of the "church", it would be out of an unerring faith in God, as characterised by RC doctrine. It's because of that faith that they must become members of a church, ran by men, that has a lot to answer for.

Gurgle wrote:

How often do you see a bishop walking down the street?

I don't know. What do bishops look like?
I doubt they wear the big hats and carry big sceptres the whole time.

Rev Hellfire

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has become a convenient target when doling out blame for the sin’s of the past. But it has always struck me as a guilt transferral.

The idea that church somehow forced single mothers into homes and/or the scandals which have surrounded the various institutions is somewhat misleading.
It was the society of the day which did this; the church was but a reflection of that society.

The blame for these actions is with the church but to my mind more with the broader base of Irish society which condoned and encouraged these actions. The abuses where well known but ignored by all.

Freelancer

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has become a convenient target when doling out blame for the sin’s of the past. But it has always struck me as a guilt transferral.

The idea that church somehow forced single mothers into homes and/or the scandals which have surrounded the various institutions is somewhat misleading.
It was the society of the day which did this; the church was but a reflection of that society.

That simply isn't true. For starts you'll still have church leaders denouncing fornication and sexual promsecutity from the puplit, society is chosing to now ignore it. You're forgottening how powerful the church was at shaping society in its prefered image. People were shuned priests were powerful figures who's sermon's often changed lives.

For example Sean and Sheila Cloney, (dramatised in a "a love divided") who were shunned in their village upon order of the parish priest.

The blame for these actions is with the church but to my mind more with the broader base of Irish society which condoned and encouraged these actions. The abuses where well known but ignored by all.

No sorry its the other way around, easily seen by how society has grown while the church is singing the same old song.

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

Sleepy, I think your feelings about RC beliefs in general are maybe skewing the debate.

How so? I've clearly stated that I don't think anyone should be abused on the street for their beliefs but I can understand why someone might want to hurl abuse at a member of the Catholic Church in this country. Surely you could condone someone who had suffered abuse at the institutions hands making the institutions current follower's question the organisation to which they have dedicated their life? In this circumstance, I belive the abuse would be perfectly just. For those of us who haven't suffered the horrors that these people were put through, it would be rude to hurl abuse at a priest but I still don't think it could be considered to be entirely without justification.

BuffyBot wrote:

You're applying your own standards there. Faith isn't logical. Faith is faith, and logic doesn't always come into it for people.

Shouldn't people be expected to base such major decisions (as in how to live their life) on some form of logical thought?

While I can see the argument that Faith isn't logical (clearly any theism defies logic) I can't see how this comes into play when determining the organisation within which one plans to practice their faith. Surely the institution which most closely resembles your own faith is the correct one for you to worship in? And given that the Catholic church are one of the more dogmatic religions, I would imagine that any person with a brain and own interpretations of the Bible (one of the very things the reformers broke away from the Catholic Church over) would find it hard to justify their position in that Church.

fly_agaric

Freelancer wrote:

That simply isn't true. For starts you'll still have church leaders denouncing fornication and sexual promsecutity from the puplit, society is chosing to now ignore it. You're forgottening how powerful the church was at shaping society in its prefered image. People were shuned priests were powerful figures who's sermon's often changed lives.

For example Sean and Sheila Cloney, (dramatised in a "a love divided") who were shunned in their village upon order of the parish priest.

Who did the shunning? They probably enjoyed it too! I bet it was a great buzz, made them feel all sanctimonious - a better class of person, not so unlike the "right-on" types who instruct us daily in correct thought.

These priests were like any other leader - they derived alot of their power from how many willing and eager flunkies they can get to go along with them - or even go beyond them in zealotry. I don't think Irish Society of the past can wriggle out of its share of the blame and say - "Those eevilll priests made us do all that bad stuff".

Rev Hellfire

I certainly agree with you on the influence of the church, but not on the blamelessness of the people.
And while we both agree that society has moved in terms of its thinking so that it is now out of step with the church I still hold to the belief that we now use the churches culpability (and it has much to anwser for) as a means of exonerating ourselves. Somehow it’s not our fault we looked the other way, we where powerless in the face of the almighty church. But that’s a plain nonsense shown by how society disempowered the church in this day in age.

But on this I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sleepy

fly_agaric wrote:

Who did the shunning? They probably enjoyed it too! I bet it was a great buzz, made them feel all sanctimonious - a better class of person, not so unlike the "right-on" types who instruct us daily in correct thought.

These priests were like any other leader - they derived alot of their power from how many willing and eager flunkies they can get to go along with them - or even go beyond them in zealotry. I don't think Irish Society of the past can wriggle out of its share of the blame and say - "Those eevilll priests made us do all that bad stuff".

Well, unlike any other leader they had the benefit of being able to weild the power of "eternal salvation/damnation". In an ignorant population, which let's face it, Ireland was at the time, and when you control the education system, it's fairly easy to mould people into believing you have that power.

It's akin to the Iraqi people today: the average Iraqi on the street didn't feel persecuted by Saddam Hussein because they'd been brainwashed into believing in his greatness, the only one's feeling persecuted were the political activists (who would have been akin to the non-beleivers in Catholic Ireland). This was a man who's reign lasted a little over 20 years, compared to the Church's stranglehold in Ireland which lasted centuries.

Hippo

That's a debatable point, Hellfire. Did the society form the church or did the church help form the society? A bit chicken and egg maybe, and certainly with its grip on the education system the church was a huge influence on society.
As regards the extent of the abuse being well-known, I disagree. Even when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s priests were regarded as being totally above any kind of suspicion, and while corporal punishment in schools run by the clergy was legendary, there was never any even informal discussion of sexual abuse.

Hippo

Furthermore, as you say society has disenfranchised the church today, but it would have been inconceivable for this to have happened 40 years ago when Ireland was a much more insular, poorer and inward-looking place.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

Representatives of their faith maybe. Nobody joins the priesthood today out of love of the "church", it would be out of an unerring faith in God, as characterised by RC doctrine.

I'll have to argue the toss on that one. Their reason for becoming a priest may be faith, but it is the church they sign up to.

The Atheist wrote:

I doubt they wear the big hats and carry big sceptres the whole time.

But priests wear their uniform all the time.
Wow, you'd almost think the bishops wanted the priests to take the flak.

Freelancer

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I certainly agree with you on the influence of the church, but not on the blamelessness of the people.
And while we both agree that society has moved in terms of its thinking so that it is now out of step with the church I still hold to the belief that we now use the churches culpability (and it has much to anwser for) as a means of exonerating ourselves. Somehow it’s not our fault we looked the other way, we where powerless in the face of the almighty church. But that’s a plain nonsense shown by how society disempowered the church in this day in age.

But on this I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hmm and I think you're ignoring the level of control the church had over Irish Society, Its only fifty years since a Taoiseach proudly boasted in the Dail,
"I'm a catholic first and an Irishman second".

gurgle wrote:

How often do you see a bishop walking down the street?

You don't, for their own protection they're driven everywhere. They were get cut down in their hundreds.

I'm telling you until someone invents a diagonal traffic lights that really works, no bishop in the land can cross the street.

pretty-in-pink

Oh look a thread about religion and the bigots that more or less run the boards come in with their catholic/Christian/general possession of faith beating sticks, purely to reassure themselves that they really are the kings of the world.

NEWSFLASH: The Internet isn't real life, my god you can't even touch the people here when you're typing. Shocking.

Boards is just that- a message board. Though maybe things are different at the alter of geekery.

For the members who reckon they know it all and believe that anyone with an actual religious faith is an idiot, you're not only vastly outnumbered and wrong- you're also the embodiment of everything that's wrong with society. Which you'd know if you actually had a life as opposed to a job for the daytime hours and a computer where you meet other like-minded bigots and idiots for the long cold lonely nights.

It’s perfectly ok for you to attack anyone who believes in anything different from you- especially if it’s of a Christian persuasion. Hey maybe if I was a non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs it'd be ok if I believed in God? Why don't you go worship at your altar of silicone and science and try to figure out a way to show us "poor misguided fools" -or whatever you want to call your fellow man -that God doesn't exist, that we really are alone, and that faith has no good points at all.

For people who are supposedly smart you guys can really be stupid.

rsynnott

naughty_girl wrote:

It’s perfectly ok for you to attack anyone who believes in anything different from you- especially if it’s of a Christian persuasion. Hey maybe if I was a non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs it'd be ok if I believed in God? Why don't you go worship at your altar of silicone and science and try to figure out a way to show us "poor misguided fools" -or whatever you want to call your fellow man -that God doesn't exist, that we really are alone, and that faith has no good points at all.

For people who are supposedly smart you guys can really be stupid.

I notice you fixed your spelling. Good show that person!

Now, on to your points. I, and I think most people here, have no problem with people believing in god(ess)(e)(s), devils, or invisible pink unicorns. I take issue only when those people try to impose those views on me. Do remember that largely due to the happy, lovely, cuddlable (which my spellcheck informs me is not a word; I will write to the OED immediately) Catholic church, things like condoms and homosexuals were only legalised here in 1993. Not the only legacy of our long and messy love affair with the Vatican, either. People can believe whatever nonsense they like; when it impinges on public policy, that annoys me.

You have failed to convince me that the Catholic church is worthy of respect. For shame! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do.

Oh, and altar of silicone? What have breast implants and shower sealant got to do with this important Christian-bashing thread?