Ongoing religious scandals

robindch

jimd2 wrote: »

We are only interested around here in rapes and abuse when it's a priest or religuous that commit the crime. These offenders are ordinary people not priests so these things happen, not worth commenting on.

The clue's in the thread title - "Ongoing religious scandals".

If you take the time to read back through the thread, you'll see mention of scandals involving money, politics, seedy and illegal activities of all kinds by religious leaders and religious workers of all hues and creeds, in addition to what appears to be your area of special interest - sex crimes.

The intention is (a) that the forum has a single place to store stories of antisocial behaviour by religious workers so that the continuous stream of reports don't clutter up discussions in the rest of the forum and (b) that the claims to moral superiority of the religions which appear in this thread can be clearly seen, in a single place, for what they are - pious, endless hypocrisy.

looksee

jimd2 wrote: »

Guys and gals, this is an absolutely ridiculous thread. Either discuss this stuff when it involves all people not just singling out one part of the population. I dont see a thread over in the Christianity section of scandals involving atheists and if there was I would rant at them also.

You could always go and start one!

Hotblack Desiato

jimd2 wrote: »

Guys and gals, this is an absolutely ridiculous thread.

Jimd2 you certainly have some form in this regard:

jimd2 wrote: »

In all honesty.....who cares?

jimd2 wrote: »

Thinly disguised "look at me drinking on Good Friday, how cool is that?"

No one here cares what the OP is drinking today, yesterday or any day. Not sure why I am even wasting my time posting this.

jimd2 wrote: »

I couldn't care less who drinks what, it just seemed to be a stupid thread.

jimd2 wrote: »

As I said don't be getting your knickers in a twist over this issue. Not an issue worthy of a thread on this site and is only brought up by people that seem to have very little to worry about.

jimd2 wrote: »

But to start an internet thread because of a reference to prayer made by the vet is showing just as much bigotry imo as many Christians do and are rightfully criticised here.

jimd2 wrote: »

If you dont want to practice religion then it s up to you. You wont find Catholics starting discussion threads slagging you off. Find something else to moan about.

jimd2 wrote: »

Disgraceful thread opening post that has no place on this or an other forum on Boards.

jimd2 wrote: »

Maybe I was a little harsh , however it is a tad sarcastic in its tone and I am not sure why it is being discussed at all on an atheist forum.

jimd2 wrote: »

I cant decide if it is funny or pathetic but it is a little sad that some people have so little to do during the day that they have to resort to some of the stuff on this thread.

A lot of people including myself would concur with many things on this forum overall but in my opinion a thread like this lets the forum down.

jimd2 wrote: »

Is that meant to be funny.....poor form from the forum moderator.

jimd2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Jimd2 you certainly have some form in this regard:

Good man hot black you certainly have a lot to be doing on a Friday afternoon if you have time to search through my posts and and quote me to show I have 'form'.

Are you saying that I am not allowed comment on this?

I think I made my point quite clearly and I don't need to repeat myself and, no, I have more to be doing than to be starting a counter thread of scandals involving non religious or the overall population.

I just don't think it is right to have a religious bashing thread like this in which people just focus on scandals from one part of the population with no context. I mean someone was even quoting US sex abuse cases. No context or reference to overall sexual crime levels in the US, I have no idea whether religious are more or less prevalent than other parts of the population over there.

I just think that it's a pathetic thread designed to ramp up hatred for religious people. Then again maybe that's what some people on here want to see happen.

looksee

You are quite entitled to think it is a pathetic thread, that's what Boards is about, opinions. I wonder why it is causing you so much concern though? Nothing has been posted that is not factual, or at any rate has appeared in newspapers and other media. You appear to prefer us to ignore it, why would we?

I have come across lots of people with your approach to religious scandals, don't talk about them and they didn't happen. Bit like there being no sex before the Late Late Show. We prefer to point out the hypocrisy; if you are a committed Christian you should approve of this cleansing of a badly damaged organisation. You know the quote about 'whitened sepulchre' - gleaming on the outside and corrupt within?

This forum responds to the nonsense and makey-uppy stuff that is religion. We generally discuss the aspects of religion that do impinge on our lives, whether we like them or not. When, say, the RC church stops meddling in state business and gets on with addressing the deity and telling its actual followers what to think, then we will have less to talk about. In the meantime all we have to fight back with is derision. If you do not want to read it, just don't come into the forum. Its a bit like picking a scab though, isn't it? Kind of irresistible!

Nodin

jimd2 wrote: »

I just think that it's a pathetic thread designed to ramp up hatred for religious people. Then again maybe that's what some people on here want to see happen.

Ye have me sussed. I confess to that, as well as signing the Liberal Agenda.

Hotblack Desiato

jimd2 wrote: »

Good man hot black you certainly have a lot to be doing on a Friday afternoon

I can do whatever I like on a day off :cool:

Are you saying that I am not allowed comment on this?

No. Saying people can't comment on something one doesn't like appears to be your speciality

I think I made my point quite clearly and I don't need to repeat myself

...but you will...

I just don't think it is right to have a religious bashing thread like this... etc

Yeah yeah yeah we get it (again)

I just think that it's a pathetic thread designed to ramp up hatred for religious people. Then again maybe that's what some people on here want to see happen.

No. It exposes religious leaders for what they are, hypocrites and liars and criminals who cover up abuses rather than have the reputation of their organisation sullied by the truth getting out.

Bear in mind it's primarily the followers of religions and their children who suffer from these abuses, exposing and discussing them is actually doing religious people a favour, whether they choose to remain a member of their religion or not.

robindch

jimd2 wrote: »

I just think that it's a pathetic thread designed to ramp up hatred for religious people.

So why are you contributing to it?

Delirium

jimd2 wrote: »

Good man hot black you certainly have a lot to be doing on a Friday afternoon if you have time to search through my posts and and quote me to show I have 'form'.

Are you saying that I am not allowed comment on this?

I think I made my point quite clearly and I don't need to repeat myself and, no, I have more to be doing than to be starting a counter thread of scandals involving non religious or the overall population.

I just don't think it is right to have a religious bashing thread like this in which people just focus on scandals from one part of the population with no context. I mean someone was even quoting US sex abuse cases. No context or reference to overall sexual crime levels in the US, I have no idea whether religious are more or less prevalent than other parts of the population over there.

I just think that it's a pathetic thread designed to ramp up hatred for religious people. Then again maybe that's what some people on here want to see happen.

Discussing scandals pertaining to religious groups isn't religious bashing. Most, if not all the groups, have a special place within society. Some members of the hierachy use their position of power to abuse children. It's hardly surprising that a discussion would appear in a forum where a section of posters don't think religious groups should be treated any different from any other organisation in society.

Do you go into threads about corruption in FIFA telling people that it's ramping up hatred against soccer fans/players?

If you don't like the topic, don't read the thread. But it's far better to discuss the various cases mentioned in the thread rather than ignore them.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

So why are you contributing to it?

Its standard policy for many religious people to try and whitewash the issue and stop people discussing and thinking about abuse. :P

Remember, repeat after me "The abuse in the catholic church is not systemic", you have to remember to share the Vaticans viewpont.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

Remember, repeat after me "The abuse in the catholic church is not systemic", you have to remember to share the Vaticans viewpont.

Different times, different standards - another one of the church's more flexible moral absolutes.

I see it now.

jimd2

looksee wrote: »

You are quite entitled to think it is a pathetic thread, that's what Boards is about, opinions. I wonder why it is causing you so much concern though? Nothing has been posted that is not factual, or at any rate has appeared in newspapers and other media. You appear to prefer us to ignore it, why would we?

I have come across lots of people with your approach to religious scandals, don't talk about them and they didn't happen. Bit like there being no sex before the Late Late Show. We prefer to point out the hypocrisy; if you are a committed Christian you should approve of this cleansing of a badly damaged organisation. You know the quote about 'whitened sepulchre' - gleaming on the outside and corrupt within?

This forum responds to the nonsense and makey-uppy stuff that is religion. We generally discuss the aspects of religion that do impinge on our lives, whether we like them or not. When, say, the RC church stops meddling in state business and gets on with addressing the deity and telling its actual followers what to think, then we will have less to talk about. In the meantime all we have to fight back with is derision. If you do not want to read it, just don't come into the forum. Its a bit like picking a scab though, isn't it? Kind of irresistible!

I am not saying that this should not be discussed, it's the focus on one part of the community that is pathetic.

jimd2

Delirium wrote: »

Discussing scandals pertaining to religious groups isn't religious bashing. Most, if not all the groups, have a special place within society. Some members of the hierachy use their position of power to abuse children. It's hardly surprising that a discussion would appear in a forum where a section of posters don't think religious groups should be treated any different from any other organisation in society.

Do you go into threads about corruption in FIFA telling people that it's ramping up hatred against soccer fans/players?

If you don't like the topic, don't read the thread. But it's far better to discuss the various cases mentioned in the thread rather than ignore them.

I didnt say that it was drumming up hatred against ordinary catholics because I dont think that it does. I do think that it promotes hatred against priests the vast majority of whom are good people.

jimd2

Cabaal wrote: »

Its standard policy for many religious people to try and whitewash the issue and stop people discussing and thinking about abuse. :P

Remember, repeat after me "The abuse in the catholic church is not systemic", you have to remember to share the Vaticans viewpont.

I wouldn't count myself as being a particularly religious person but I really hate some of the blinkered attitudes on here, or specifically this thread in which there is almost a delight and gloating over any issues of religious impropriety and no mention of similar stuff happening in the wider community.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Seth Brundle

Vatican ‘corrupt’ says child protection commission member
UK child sex abuse lobbyist Peter Saunders, who was given a “leave of absence” from his role in the Holy See’s Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors last weekend, has said that the “Vatican system” seems “essentially corrupt and unwilling to do the right thing”.

looksee

jimd2 wrote: »

I wouldn't count myself as being a particularly religious person but I really hate some of the blinkered attitudes on here, or specifically this thread in which there is almost a delight and gloating over any issues of religious impropriety and no mention of similar stuff happening in the wider community.

Why do you say attitudes are 'blinkered'? Because we don't discuss these issues when they happen in the wider community? That is not blinkered, it has to do with relevance.

This forum mainly exists because we happen to live in a country where the RC church has an unreasonable hold on our lives. It tells us (all of us, including people who have no allegiance to the church or its teachings) how we can live and what we may do, but then doesn't have the decency to uphold its own rules and principles. It isn't delight and gloating of issues of religious impropriety it is disgust and dismay.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

Why do you say attitudes are 'blinkered'?

Translation: "People are saying things I disagree with"

jimd2

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First of all, I wont be reading the thread contents besides answering points directly made to me.

And secondly, I am not here spouting the virtues of Catholicism.

Nodin

jimd2 wrote: »

First of all, I wont be reading the thread contents besides answering points directly made to me.
...............

Why not jim?

Timberrrrrrrr

Just watched that movie spotlight, anyone defending the RCC should watch it and then come back and explain why the hierarchy did what they did. Disgraceful behaviour from so called holy men.

Nodin

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just watched that movie spotlight, anyone defending the RCC should watch it and then come back and explain why the hierarchy did what they did. Disgraceful behaviour from so called holy men.

I think it was the Ryan commission report here that was the last thing I read, or tried to read in detail, on the whole clerical abuse thing. I managed to finish the executive summary but actually lost the stomach for any more. I remember being shocked at just how young so many of them were in those places. Soft in old age, I suppose.

eire4

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just watched that movie spotlight, anyone defending the RCC should watch it and then come back and explain why the hierarchy did what they did. Disgraceful behaviour from so called holy men.

Would agree with you. It is an excellent film. Very well done and very clearly shows the church hierarchy for what they are.

Kivaro

Ex-priest arrested 56 years after beauty queen found raped, murdered:
http://q13fox.com/2016/02/10/ex-priest-arrested-56-years-after-beauty-queen-found-raped-murdered/

24 days before the killing, the priest had been arrested for attacking another young woman at a church in a town about 10 miles from McAllen.

Shortly after the killing, the church transferred him far away to a monastery.

The way the church protected this man sounds familiar.

Lithium93_

Stumbled upon this earlier today, un-freaking-believable is an understatement.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/catholic-bishops-not-obliged-report-clerical-child-abuse-vatican-says

The Catholic church is telling newly appointed bishops that it is “not necessarily” their duty to report accusations of clerical child abuse and that only victims or their families should make the decision to report abuse to police.

According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds

whatismyname

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Stumbled upon this earlier today, un-freaking-believable is an understatement.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/10/catholic-bishops-not-obliged-report-clerical-child-abuse-vatican-says

Agreed.

Presume you've also seen http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057559645?

Lithium93_

whatismyname wrote: »

Agreed.

Presume you've also seen http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057559645?

If this happened in any other line of work, there'd be outrage, but Catholic Church ''Sure we'll do what we please, just because we can''

Hotblack Desiato

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Stumbled upon this earlier today, un-freaking-believable is an understatement.

Not unbelievable at all, entirely predictable and expected

Lithium93_

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not unbelievable at all, entirely predictable and expected

The sooner the Catholic Church loses it's toxic hold on Ireland, the better..

Cabaal

Not shocked

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/abuse-survivor-marie-collins-attacks-curia-failure-to-help-1.2534771

The only abuse survivor on the Vatican’s Commission for the Protection of Minors has strongly criticised the Roman Curia for frustrating the commission’s decisions and those of Pope Francis.

Irish campaigner Marie Collins told The Irish Times: “I’m personally frustrated with the lack of co-operation from the Curia and the fact it can be so detrimental to the work of the commission and the protection of children in the future.”

Ms Collins said she had made her concerns “known to the Pope” and was “waiting to see what comes of it”.

She added that she “wouldn’t be surprised if other members felt the same, but I cannot speak for them.

“It really has become apparent that there are those in the curia [the Vatican’s administrative body] who feel that the commission becoming involved is almost an interference with the work as it has always been done.”

She said she was “happy with the work the commission is doing. And I think some of the things that are being worked on are very valuable, and if they can be brought in they will bring change and they will make children safer in the future”.

But “all this work will be for nought if it’s not implemented and I believe there are some areas of the curia – there’s obviously goodwill in many areas – that don’t see the need for change and don’t appreciate what the commission is doing and are not inclined to co-operate or to implement things that have been approved for implementation.”

She instanced the tribunal, approved last year by Pope Francis, which was due to hold bishops to account for their handling of abuse cases.
Brick wall

“It went to be implemented and that’s where the brick wall is. The implementation is the problem,” she said.

She also cited the commission’s 2014 proposal of a training module on child protection for new bishops. It “was approved by the holy father and he actually suggested it be expanded to [include] the curia as well as the new bishops” but “there was great resistance to it” and it has not materialised.

She said she was “ absolutely horrified” to discover last week that under current Vatican programmes new bishops were being told it was not necessary to report abuse allegations to civil authorities.