The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

Do you think the church needs to fail you personally before you deem it to have failed in its duty ?

What is the Church's duty? First and foremost, it's the proclamation of the Gospel and ministering to the needs of the faithful. The social aspects that are taken on by the different Orders (religious and lay) might be part of their mission but wouldn't be a central mission of the Church. The Church doesn't exist specifically to supply social services to Society.

Certain Orders and members fail in their duty but that doesn't diminish the whole Body... but only because of the regenerative power of the Head (Christ).

Absolam

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed but it would be nice to see some sense of disapproval without a load of whataboutery attached .

The fact that you would be pleased by others virtue signalling views aligned with yours is no real reason to expect that they will, though, is it? It's not likely there are going to be many Catholics pandering to non Catholic points of view in the Christianity forum, when all is said and done.

martingriff

lazybones32 wrote: »

What is the Church's duty? First and foremost, it's the proclamation of the Gospel and ministering to the needs of the faithful. The social aspects that are taken on by the different Orders (religious and lay) might be part of their mission but wouldn't be a central mission of the Church. The Church doesn't exist specifically to supply social services to Society.

Certain Orders and members fail in their duty but that doesn't diminish the whole Body... but only because of the regenerative power of the Head (Christ).

By that line alone the Church has failed ministering to the people also means protecting its people. It did not do that

martingriff

Absolam wrote: »

The fact that you would be pleased by others virtue signalling views aligned with yours is no real reason to expect that they will, though, is it? It's not likely there are going to be many Catholics pandering to non Catholic points of view in the Christianity forum, when all is said and done.

I think by that statement you give many in this forum and unjust bad name

marienbad

Absolam wrote: »

The fact that you would be pleased by others virtue signalling views aligned with yours is no real reason to expect that they will, though, is it? It's not likely there are going to be many Catholics pandering to non Catholic points of view in the Christianity forum, when all is said and done.

What is wrong is wrong no matter what the forum . It doesn't cost much even at this late date to say that , or does it ?

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

You think the Church has failed me: I don't.
.

I feel very sorry for you,

Just so you know that's called empathy, something the Catholic Church needed for decades in relation to unmarried mothers and their children. Only complete scum through body's into a septic tank at the end of the day.

Wait for the report all you want, if previous reports haven't changed your view nothing will.

Thinking the church hasn't failed you when a clergy can rape a child with a crucifix and the church cover up such abuses makes me wounder just what the church can do before you think they have failed.

As I said, I feel very very sorry for you.

BloodBath

marienbad wrote: »

Far be it from me to defend Morbert - but I have to say you have got it very very wrong here imho. He/she is one of the most considered people posting on this forum and I for one always take their contribution as worthy of serious thought .

And no I am not an apologist for the RCC.

Sorry I got a bit vitriolic earlier. Hard to judge people based off of a few posts but I see it all the time in this country. This unwavering support of the church because people are so brainwashed that they think a disconnect from the church is a disconnect from god.

These people do not represent god. It's not just a few bad apples. It's corruption and cover ups that go all the way to the pope.

I feel sorry for the genuinely good people who have worked for this institution over the years but they would be better off serving god in their own ways rather than through a corrupt business of abusers like the catholic church.

Morbert

BloodBath wrote: »

Another typical catholic church apologist.

Lololol

This was wide spread, most in the church knew about it, and it was covered up all the way to the top of the church and state. Yet you are trying to imply that the church was only fulfilling the will of the Irish people. Fudgsicles!!

The church indeed knew, as did most Irish people. The communist party of Ireland was calling for investigations into these institutions as early as 1935. Irish society as a whole turned a blind eye.
http://imgur.com/a/OxkyF

The rest of your post involves some pretty heavy projecting.

It's possible to acknowledge the evil carried out by the church, without also absolving Irish society of blame as they sent their women to the camps.

Absolam

BloodBath wrote: »

Another typical catholic church apologist. People like you and Absolam make me sick. How many atrocities need to be revealed for you to wake up?

I can't say that I apologised for anyone, or that I have any intention of doing so. If I make you sick just by not jumping on the bandwagon I think you're going to meet a lot of people in your life who make you nauseous.

martingriff wrote: »

I think by that statement you give many in this forum and unjust bad name

Actually, I think I'd be giving them a bad name if I expected them to publicly wring their hands just to conform to someone else's expectations. I'd say most of the Catholics posting on the forum have given a good deal of consideration to how they feel about the subject; those who aren't parading their outrage obviously don't feel they need to.

marienbad wrote: »

What is wrong is wrong no matter what the forum . It doesn't cost much even at this late date to say that , or does it ?

It doesn't require that there be a plethora of outraged Catholics in the forum either, does it? Cabaal may feel the Church failed them, but they (like Lazybones32) may very well not share that view, and therefore not feel they need to express that they are upset by it.

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

Figures,percentages and sources in response to a rhetorical question?
I possess an equal number of references to that observation as the number of references you possess that would refute it.Anecdotally I know a few atheists and the majority would oppose abortion.Polls in the US suggest that up to 19% of atheist/agnostics support life.

So given your original statement, that "there are large sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life", was with respect to Irish society and not the States and you have nothing to corroborate it, can we take it as being entirely unfounded or anecdotal at best?

smacl

Morbert wrote: »

It's possible to acknowledge the evil carried out by the church, without also absolving Irish society of blame as they sent their women to the camps.

I'm guessing you meant impossible there, correct me if I'm wrong. As per my previous post a few pages back, it is worth remembering that one of the primary reasons single mothers were castigated was due to a morality informed by the church that sex outside marriage was sinful. One feels that if the church was preaching an attitude of tolerance rather than reprobation the situation might never have arisen.

infogiver

smacl wrote: »

So given your original statement, that "there are large sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life", was with respect to Irish society and not the States and you have nothing to corroborate it, can we take it as being entirely unfounded or anecdotal at best?

You don't think it's possible to think that abortion is wrong for any other reason than because a religious leader said it is?
People look at news stories about parents bringing home babies who were less then 1lb weight when born at 21 weeks, they don't need a religious leader to tell them that it's wrong to stop that babies heart from beating before it's even given a chance to live.
Just because some people have worked hard at convincing themselves that a baby isn't a baby until the mother says it is doesn't make it a fact.
Plenty of people who share your witty Flying Spaghetti Monster views know that a baby is a baby is a baby.
Don't think they're all in the Repeal camp with you.

fran17

smacl wrote: »

So given your original statement, that "there are large sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life", was with respect to Irish society and not the States and you have nothing to corroborate it, can we take it as being entirely unfounded or anecdotal at best?

You can take it anyway you wish,the we you speak of are fully capable of coming to their own conclusions based on own experiences and common sense.
I completely understand that it's in the interest of the repeal the 8th campaign to continually attempt to divide society along the lines of either pro church or pro choice.It got great traction in the SSM referendum and it's,by in large,the same folks leading the charge again.What I'll never understand is why you continue to pursue the notion that somebody cannot be both non religious and also believe in the unborn child's right to life.What I'll never accept is the repeal the 8th campaign posturing and manipulating tragedies such as the Tuam babies for what they see as a means to favour possible voter opinion.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

I'm guessing you meant impossible there, correct me if I'm wrong. As per my previous post a few pages back, it is worth remembering that one of the primary reasons single mothers were castigated was due to a morality informed by the church that sex outside marriage was sinful. One feels that if the church was preaching an attitude of tolerance rather than reprobation the situation might never have arisen.

So.... if the prevailing morality of the public at the time were more like the prevailing morality of the public at another time, times probably would have been different? Per my own previous post a few pages back, Christian societies weren't and aren't the only societies to hold opprobrious views on single mothers. One feels that if more tolerant attaitides were prevalent in our society at the time, perhaps the Church might have felt obliged to preach a message equally palatable to their audiences tastes. But I suppose that's neither here nor there: the fact is people, and the Church, were the way they were and did what they did. Hopefully our society and our religious institutions are better than that now, but who knows what moral framework future generations will judge us by.

smacl

infogiver wrote: »

You don't think it's possible to think that abortion is wrong for any other reason than because a religious leader said it is?
People look at news stories about parents bringing home babies who were less then 1lb weight when born at 21 weeks, they don't need a religious leader to tell them that it's wrong to stop that babies heart from beating before it's even given a chance to live.
Just because some people have worked hard at convincing themselves that a baby isn't a baby until the mother says it is doesn't make it a fact.
Plenty of people who share your witty Flying Spaghetti Monster views know that a baby is a baby is a baby.
Don't think they're all in the Repeal camp with you.

What I think is possible is neither here nor there. Fran stated that "there are large sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life", which remains an unsupported supposition rather than fact until shown to be otherwise.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

One feels that if more tolerant attaitides were prevalent in our society at the time, perhaps the Church might have felt obliged to preach a message equally palatable to their audiences tastes.

With respect, the RCC aren't exactly famous for modifying their teachings in order to pander to the crowds, now are they?

the fact is people, and the Church, were the way they were and did what they did.

Ain't that the truth. I'm not denying that there wasn't significant complicity from the wider population, or that it wasn't an era of massive intolerance which has thankfully passed, just pointing out that the involvement and responsibility of the RCC went far beyond the staff of the institutions in question.

fran17

smacl wrote: »

What I think is possible is neither here nor there. Fran stated that "there are large sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life", which remains an unsupported supposition rather than fact until shown to be otherwise.

Fine,I'll humour you.I'll retract the word large from my observation,will you at least accept that there is sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life?

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

Fine,I'll humour you.I'll retract the word large from my observation,will you at least accept that there is sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life?

Some individuals for sure, but those pushing the agenda such as the Iona institute and Youth Defence would seem to come primarily from a strong religious background. These same groups were also the ones opposing gay marriage and tend to be on the side of the established church on most controversial social issues that run contrary to church dogma.

You could also flip your argument and ask if there are many devout Christians who are pro-choice, and if not, why not?

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Fine,I'll humour you.I'll retract the word large from my observation,will you at least accept that there is sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life?

I'm sure it's possible. And there seem to be a good few anonymous posters around who claim to fit that bill alright.

I can't think of a single well known Irish person who is both avowedly non religious and also a pro life activist though, can you? Nor do I know any personally. Which makes me suspect that a lot of the anonymous ones here are probably just role-playing online.

infogiver

fran17 wrote: »

Fine,I'll humour you.I'll retract the word large from my observation,will you at least accept that there is sections of Irish society that are both non religious and pro life?

It wouldn't suit the Repeal Campaign to admit this at all.
They have quite subtly pitched their argument to make it look as if the only reason we don't have abortion here is because the RCC doesn't allow it.
Everyone knows that nobody is ever damaged by abortion. Nobody has ever regretted an abortion. No baby's ever felt pain or even suffered at all during an abortion, its not a baby anyway,it's only the patriarchy of the RCC making dirt of women as usual that prevents every woman from exercising her autonomy over her own body etc.
If you take that away I don't know what's left really.

infogiver

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm sure it's possible. And there seem to be a good few anonymous posters around who claim to fit that bill alright.

I can't think of a single well known Irish person who is both avowedly non religious and also a pro life activist though, can you? Nor do I know any personally. Which makes me suspect that a lot of the anonymous ones here are probably just role-playing online.

Christopher Hitchens though not Irish was a famous pro life atheist. I think he found ridiculous things ridiculous.
Suggesting that a unborn baby was somehow not a baby was too ridiculous for Hitchens as were the convoluted obtuse explanations as to why it wasn't a baby until it was born.

volchitsa

infogiver wrote: »

It wouldn't suit the Repeal Campaign to admit this at all.
They have quite subtly pitched their argument to make it look as if the only reason we don't have abortion here is because the RCC doesn't allow it.

No need to be subtle about it. Religion is the reason the 8th amendment was passed, it's that simple.

Everyone knows that nobody is ever damaged by abortion. Nobody has ever regretted an abortion. No baby's ever felt pain or even suffered at all during an abortion, its not a baby anyway,it's only the patriarchy of the RCC making dirt of women as usual that prevents every woman from exercising her autonomy over her own body etc.
If you take that away I don't know what's left really.

The existence of divorce would suggest that a lot of people regret their marriages. Should we ban marriage to stop more people being harmed in the future?

smacl

infogiver wrote: »

It wouldn't suit the Repeal Campaign to admit this at all.
They have quite subtly pitched their argument to make it look as if the only reason we don't have abortion here is because the RCC doesn't allow it.
Everyone knows that nobody is ever damaged by abortion. Nobody has ever regretted an abortion. No baby's ever felt pain or even suffered at all during an abortion, its not a baby anyway,it's only the patriarchy of the RCC making dirt of women as usual that prevents every woman from exercising her autonomy over her own body etc.
If you take that away I don't know what's left really.

Ironic that this is all in the clerical abuse thread where the current focus is Tuam, and the desperate plight of single mothers at that time. On the one hand we have a dominant church that prohibits contraception and considers the morning after pill a form of abortion, that same church also prohibits sex outside marriage leading to castigation of single mothers, to the extent that it is able to use them as indentured labourers and abuse their children.

There's nothing subtle about it. It is brutal, plain and simple.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

With respect, the RCC aren't exactly famous for modifying their teachings in order to pander to the crowds, now are they?

No? There's a plethora of saints with somewhat pagan provenance, never mind a few oddly placed calendar landmarks that could indicate otherwise. Not to mention the Church happily expressing its support for political powers de jure on advantageous occasions. The Church may not pander to your crowd, but maybe that's just because it doesn't have a reason to.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

No? There's a plethora of saints with somewhat pagan provenance, never mind a few oddly placed calendar landmarks that could indicate otherwise. Not to mention the Church happily expressing its support for political powers de jure on advantageous occasions. The Church may not pander to your crowd, but maybe that's just because it doesn't have a reason to.

That the Catholic church employs syncretism is well known and documented, similarly getting pagans to bend the knee and see the light so to speak. Once it becomes established however it becomes very intolerant of external or even internal influences trying to effect change. Got talk to Hinault about Martin Luther if you're in any doubt about this last bit

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Which makes me suspect that a lot of the anonymous ones here are probably just role-playing online.

Given the nature of the medium, the same could be said of pro choice posters, I'm sure. In fact, if you consider how often the same flawed arguments are trotted out verbatim, you might even suspect many names assumed by a small number of individuals in order to give the impression of larger numbers. That kind of argumentation doesn't really go anywhere though; sure some people are more comfortable imagining that poeple who disagree with them don't really exist, but it doesn't really add much to the conversation.

volchitsa wrote: »

No need to be subtle about it. Religion is the reason the 8th amendment was passed, it's that simple.

Or morality. Maybe it's actually that simple.

Though, I have to say the whole abortion thing seems a bit off topic... are we dropping the Clerical Child Abuse thing and just going for raw religion bashing instead now?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

That the Catholic church employs syncretism is well known and documented, similarly getting pagans to bend the knee and see the light so to speak. Once it becomes established however it becomes very intolerant of external or even internal influences trying to effect change. Got talk to Hinault about Martin Luther if you're in any doubt about this last bit

I don't think Hinault is the Church, but there you go; the Church is so adept at pandering to the crowds that you even know the name for what it does when it does what you think it doesn't

fran17

smacl wrote: »

Some individuals for sure, but those pushing the agenda such as the Iona institute and Youth Defence would seem to come primarily from a strong religious background. These same groups were also the ones opposing gay marriage and tend to be on the side of the established church on most controversial social issues that run contrary to church dogma.

You could also flip your argument and ask if there are many devout Christians who are pro-choice, and if not, why not?

Yes there are a section of society that identify with my observation.The "agenda" of course being to preserve the child's right to live and experience all life has to offer.The church will always be prevalent in opposing something as heinous,my opinion,as abortion.You can go back to the 1st century and the Didache to find her reason's for such opposition.
Your question could be construed as an oxymoron but it's self answering.No I don't see how a devout Christian could support the taking on innocent human life as its in complete contradiction to the 6th commandment.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think Hinault is the Church, but there you go; the Church is so adept at pandering to the crowds that you even know the name for what it does when it does what you think it doesn't

Careful now Ted, talk like that could land you on the naughty list. I think there's a bit more to syncretism than pandering to the crowd mind you. Simplifying the process of assimilating the local yokels with their whacko beliefs into the fold would appear to be the main point. Once they're in, pandering pretty much ceases unless it looks like they might be getting out. Kind of surprised the RCC hasn't been doing a bit more pandering in recent years, as the flock seem to be wandering all over the place these days, including into the neighbour's field

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

No need to be subtle about it. Religion is the reason the 8th amendment was passed, it's that simple.




The existence of divorce would suggest that a lot of people regret their marriages. Should we ban marriage to stop more people being harmed in the future?

Abortion is one of the main causes of maternal mortality each year in the world.Should we ban abortion?