That idiot, the pope

Wacker

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Religion doesn't equal morality - I know the argument has been done to death, but a study revealed this week shows that Dogs actually abide by a code of ethics too. Course, the christians will immediately say that God has given rover these ethics, and without God, he's just sit there all day licking his testicles.

Man, I wish I were a dog in a god-free universe...

Wait, did I type that out loud?:eek:

Stercus Accidit

Well as they do say, all dogs go to heaven...

Irlandese

robindch wrote: »

We await, with some interest, an apology from the Vatican.

When do you think it will appear?

Actually, Cardinal Sean Brady did the press conference in Rome instead of Archbishop Martin after the meeting with the pope and in answer to the question about "what next?",
He replied in schoolboy Italian that the church would work closely now with the Irish Government and the faithful, to ensure that children would be safe with them" (or words to that effect.) There was no contrite apology and certainly no offer to have the church pay a reasonable level of compensation or it's own legal costs, despite being by far the wealthiest land, cash and property owner in the state.

vibe666

just heard on the radio that the pope has said that all priests should work to ensure they are as highly qualified as possible.

i know that if I was being abused by a cleric, one of my main concerns would be that it wasn't being done by some amateur but a highly qualified pedophile. :rolleyes:

the sooner this dinosaur of a religion is dead and gone (along with the rest of them) the sooner the world will be able to move on and the human race can reach it's full potential.

robindch

Irlandese wrote: »

There was no contrite apology and certainly no offer to have the church pay a reasonable level of compensation or it's own legal costs, despite being by far the wealthiest land, cash and property owner in the state.

I believe the church is the largest land-owner in the country after the state itself. Not so sure about it being the most cash-rich entity though. On the contrary, I suspect the cash/land ratio is much lower than would be average for other organizations and individuals.

Either way, the institutional church will never apologize, because by doing so, it will necessarily imply that it accepts liability, at which point, it can then be sued in the courts for complicity in what happened. There's also the interesting prospect of the Pope being arraigned by something like the International Criminal Court. The church will never open itself to either of these possibilities and the burden of proof is going to remain with the accusers to prove liability.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

the burden of proof is going to remain with the accusers to prove liability.

Surely there is enough graphic evidence to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the church is liable?

mewso

koth wrote: »

Even as the representative of a deity, it still isn't enough for him to have faith that he'll be safe from harm.

God gave man bullet proof glass. The Pope is just making use of it.

Isn't it great that the one poster in this thread who would kill pedophiles is a Catholic. Warms the heart. The anniversary of Saint Bill's death is only a few days away. I know what he would say.

Ickle Magoo

God gave man bullet proof glass??? I think you are in the wrong forum for making those kind of silly claims...

Ski Boz

"You have to try to see this through the eyes of faith. If you believe, then you will know that bishops are especially under attack by Satan and prone to making really bad decisions"


Haha! Holy****.com. Some of you religulous heads need to be commited.......to a mental hospital. Key thrown away......

mewso

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

God gave man bullet proof glass??? I think you are in the wrong forum for making those kind of silly claims...

Woah there boy. Turn the sarcasmometer back on. Not religious, I repeat not religious. Sheesh.

Ickle Magoo

boy

I don't get it even with "sarcasmometer" (Eh?) on...

mewso

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

boy

I don't get it even with "sarcasmometer" (Eh?) on...

Fair enough I'll get my coat. Last time I'll jokingly put forward the kind of silly explanation a religious person might give for something.

Ickle Magoo

mewso wrote: »

Fair enough I'll get my coat. Last time I'll jokingly put forward the kind of silly explanation a religious person might give for something.

No, no, I'm wreaked tired. It just wasn't as blindingly obviously sarcastic as I require today. Sorry.

mewso

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, no, I'm wreaked tired. It just wasn't as blindingly obviously sarcastic as I require today. Sorry.

I forgive you.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Surely there is enough graphic evidence to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the church is liable?

Yes and no.

Yes, because while it's not been proved in the courts that a cover-up took place, there's little doubt that the existence of a cover-up would be proved if it did go to court. I'm just not sure what law you could prosecute under, since I don't know precisely what legal status the church has, and whether it can be prosecuted as a single entity. I suspect not, hence...

No, because according to canon law, the bishops are pretty much independent of each other and while they're appointed by the Vatican, they owe doctrinal loyalty only to the Vatican, and not administrative -- basically, each one runs their own affairs. Hence the Murphy report just looking into a single administrative district and its ignoring the simple, and very basic religious reason for the church's need to protect its reputation.

I'd imagine there would be a greater chance of a successful prosecution for corporate neglect within a single bishopric, but against the institutional church -- almost no chance at all. These guys have been in business for almost 2,000 years and their flexible organizational structure, with inbuilt plausible deniability at their administrative boundaries, shows one of the ways in which they have managed to survive this long.

vibe666

looks like Germany is about to have their own pedo preists scandal.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/02/22/germany-next-site-of-catholic-shame/

so the question is, exactly how many innocent children need to suffer at the hands of these monsters before someone actually does something about it other than pray?

MrPudding

vibe666 wrote: »

looks like Germany is about to have their own pedo preists scandal.

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/02/22/germany-next-site-of-catholic-shame/

so the question is, exactly how many innocent children need to suffer at the hands of these monsters before someone actually does something about it other than pray?

Apparently the issue is there was not enough praying. Keep up.

MrP

Zillah

MrPudding wrote: »

Apparently the issue is there was not enough praying. Keep up.

MrP

It's like that family who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to take her to the doctor in favour of praying over her. Their response after her death: "We didn't pray enough".

Galvasean

No no, pray up stoopid!

eoin5

I've heard a defense of the popes letter to the bishops that makes out its been misunderstood. It goes that basically people are taking it up that the bishops have to report abuse to some council instead of going through the proper channels whereas in reality its not mutually exclusive. Its an addition to the procedure, not a replacement.

Can anyone comment on that?

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

It's like that family who let their daughter die from diabetes by refusing to take her to the doctor in favour of praying over her. Their response after her death: "We didn't pray enough".

The depth of retardedness is some people is amazing. I often wonder how they can breath and beat their hearts at the same time.

MrP

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

The depth of retardedness is some people is amazing. I often wonder how they can breath and beat their hearts at the same time.

MrP

The thing is that if you believe in an all loving god who knows what's best for all of us it makes sense. If god wants your child to get better he will regardless of whether you bring him to the hospital or not and if it's god's will for your child to die then there's nothing the doctors can do anyway. If it's god's will that your child will only get better if the doctors treat him then he's not actually doing anything and his existence is irrelevant

MrPudding

It is this belief that I find retarded. Not just the ignoring of the lack of evidence for holding this belief, it is the ignoring the evidence against it that gets me.

That said, at least they stick to their convictions and don't hedge their bets. Still retarded though.

MrP

axer

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that if you believe in an all loving god who knows what's best for all of us it makes sense. If god wants your child to get better he will regardless of whether you bring him to the hospital or not and if it's god's will for your child to die then there's nothing the doctors can do anyway. If it's god's will that your child will only get better if the doctors treat him then he's not actually doing anything and his existence is irrelevant

I assume then these people don't take any medication whatsoever?

cynder

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that if you believe in an all loving god who knows what's best for all of us it makes sense. If god wants your child to get better he will regardless of whether you bring him to the hospital or not and if it's god's will for your child to die then there's nothing the doctors can do anyway. If it's god's will that your child will only get better if the doctors treat him then he's not actually doing anything and his existence is irrelevant

Can't believe you wrote that. My daughters diabetic only insulin can help her. You can't be telling me that if I believe in god that I should of stayed at home. If I had of done she would be dead. Last year an all believing couple let their child die from diabetes because they prayed for god to save her. They never sought medical help. S**t happens and when it does we have to deal with it. Also another point Does it not say in the bible god helps those who helps themselves. I believe in a god but not catholic or church of England.

Galvasean

axer wrote:

I assume then these people don't take any medication whatsoever?

Or move for that matter. Why eat when God will look after me?
Reminds me of teh story about the man on the roof during a flood. He refuses to take assistance from a rescue helicopter because he is certain God will sav him. When he dies and goes to heaven he asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" God replies, "What do you think the helicopter was for?!"
Why these people can't replace 'man on roof' with 'sick daughter' and 'rescue helicopter' with 'doctors and medicine' we'll never know.

Dades

grindelwald wrote: »

Can't believe you wrote that.

Sam Vimes was being ironic or facetious or something. He is a disbeliever.

axer

Galvasean wrote: »

Or move for that matter. Why eat when God will look after me?
Reminds me of teh story about the man on the roof during a flood. He refuses to take assistance from a rescue helicopter because he is certain God will sav him. When he dies and goes to heaven he asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" God replies, "What do you think the helicopter was for?!"
Why these people can't replace 'man on roof' with 'sick daughter' and 'rescue helicopter' with 'doctors and medicine' we'll never know.

In fairness to be that much into a religion would prove the point that they are not rational people anyway thus I guess we cannot expect them to use logic in other parts of their lives either.

axer

Dades wrote: »

Sam Vimes was being ironic or facetious or something. He is a disbeliever.

I think the clue was in the non-capitalised "god" :pac:

vibe666

Galvasean wrote: »

Or move for that matter. Why eat when God will look after me?

that reminded me of this idiot: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/sussex_mother_found_guilty_of.html