"no, I'm actually an athiest"

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

Audrey - please go back and read the sequence of posts and note who first posted the rubbish about a priest and his niece

I know who posted it. What difference does it make?

prinz

robindch wrote: »

I rather suspect you may not understand the rates of abuse.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

Or try Philip Jenkin's work

Edit: Add..

http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp

Plenty of others.

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

I was not referring to that post. I hadn't even seen it until after I wrote mine. Please stop jumping down people's necks with 'not all priests are paedos'. Nobody suggested they were.

Fine I took it up wrong I'm sorry.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not the entire Church as I've said but a certain group of individuals. You can't put the blame on every single member of the Church.

The entire leadership of the church is condemned because:

a) Either they didn't know about it, in which case they are hopelessly incompetent, or,

b) they did know about it, and did nothing.

Given the sheer scale of the abuse, I think it really does defy belief to claim or imply that only just the leaders knew about it. And I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a high percentage of the rank and file knew about it too.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html Or try Philip Jenkin's work

I'm quoting from the Irish Catholic because we're discussing Ireland and rates of abuse here in this country.

The 40-times-more-likely-to-abuse figure is correct according to the "Irish Catholic" and I think we can safely assume that it's a publication which will not overstate the problem.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

The entire leadership of the church is condemned because:

a) Either they didn't know about it, in which case they are hopelessly incompetent, or,

b) they did know about it, and did nothing.

Given the sheer scale of the abuse, I think it really does defy belief to claim or imply that only just the leaders knew about it. And I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that a high percentage of the rank and file knew about it too.

I know that. But you can't blame the ordinary joe soap church goer for the priests and bishops and Vatican did. We have no control over them, don't elect them. The vast majority had no idea what was happening.

If anyone knew what was going they were sworn to secrecy and too scared to come forward. Most would have thought they were the only ones it happened to or whose children it happened to. They wouldn't have covered up because they condoned it.

smash

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I don't pride myself on "the scientific method", or believe in evolution for that matter.

Yea you're totally right, a big giant in the sky created 1 man and 1 woman who shagged until they had a few hundred children, then they all did the same and that's how the population of the world started. Yet the giant in the sky says that incest is a sin...

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Are you a smug little athiest?

Well if you consider me that because I don't believe in fairy tales or have a different view and opinion than you then yea I suppose I am.

Are you a smug little catholic?

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

I'm quoting from the Irish Catholic because we're discussing Ireland and rates of abuse here in this country.

The 40-times-more-likely-to-abuse figure is correct according to the "Irish Catholic" and I think we can safely assume that it's a publication which will not overstate the problem.

I'd actually have hoped you have picked a different publication as the IC doesn't seem to know anything about statistics or comparisons, tbh.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know that. But you can't blame the ordinary joe soap church goer for the priests and bishops and Vatican did. We have no control over them, don't elect them. The vast majority had no idea what was happening.

If anyone knew what was going they were sworn to secrecy and too scared to come forward. Most would have thought they were the only ones it happened to or whose children it happened to. They wouldn't have covered up because they condoned it.

But I can wonder how people can remain a part of this organisation. And I do.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know that. But you can't blame the ordinary joe soap church goer for the priests and bishops and Vatican did. We have no control over them, don't elect them. The vast majority had no idea what was happening.

If anyone knew what was going they were sworn to secrecy and too scared to come forward. Most would have thought they were the only ones it happened to or whose children it happened to. They wouldn't have covered up because they condoned it.

But you support and defend them and continue to do so in face of tonnes of evidence of their wrong doings.

You know about all the wrong doings, so why do you continue to support the church?

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

But I can wonder how people can remain a part of this organisation. And I do.

That's fair enough. I suppose for me I just don't see why I should let a few sick-minded individuals push me out.

The way I look at it is I wouldn't leave my job if my boss was outed as a paedophile and the vice-manger was outed as having covered for him so why would I leave my church.

AudreyHepburn

MrStuffins wrote: »

But you support and defend them and continue to do so in face of tonnes of evidence of their wrong doings.

You know about all the wrong doings, so why do you continue to support the church?

I do not and have never supported or defended paedophiles or child molesters or those who cover for them. How dare you accuse me of such a thing.

I support those genuine men and women who work only to help their communities and follow their vocations serving God, doing charitible work for the poor and the sick etc.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That's fair enough. I suppose for me I just don't see why I should let a few sick-minded individuals push me out.

The way I look at it is I wouldn't leave my job if my boss was outed as a paedophile and the vice-manger was outed as having covered for him so why would I leave my church.

But would your boss preach to you and see themselves as your moral guide?

smash

@AudreyHepburn: Do you contribute to the church collections?

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

But would your boss preach to you and see themselves as your moral guide?

Well no but Bosses do tend to give orders on they expect things done, much like the Church's leaders do.

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

@AudreyHepburn: Do you contribute to the church collections?

Yes why? Ours goes towards our Parish Church and Hall.

optogirl

steve06 wrote: »

Yea you're totally right, a big giant in the sky created 1 man and 1 woman who shagged until they had a few hundred children, then they all did the same and that's how the population of the world started. Yet the giant in the sky says that incest is a sin...


Well if you consider me that because I don't believe in fairy tales or have a different view and opinion than you then yea I suppose I am.

Are you a smug little catholic?

Did Mr Watson post after his opening study in condescension and misspelling?

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes why? Ours goes towards our Parish Church and Hall.

Well it also helps fund the church as a whole, which helps pay for the cover ups.

optogirl wrote: »

Did Mr Watson post after his opening study in condescension and misspelling?

Don't know, don't care.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes why? Ours goes towards our Parish Church and Hall.

One of them does - the other always goes to the main fund

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

Well it also helps fund the church as a whole, which helps pay for the cover ups.

Well that certainly isn't why I give my money.

optogirl

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well that certainly isn't why I give my money.

I'm sure it isn't but that's where it's going

AudreyHepburn

optogirl wrote: »

I'm sure it isn't but that's where it's going

I know, it's annoying:mad:

smash

Then stop contributing.

AudreyHepburn

steve06 wrote: »

Then stop contributing.

Well no since some of it does go to the local parish. I won't stop supporting that.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I do not and have never supported or defended paedophiles or child molesters or those who cover for them. How dare you accuse me of such a thing.

I support those genuine men and women who work only to help their communities and follow their vocations serving God, doing charitible work for the poor and the sick etc.

steve06 wrote: »

@AudreyHepburn: Do you contribute to the church collections?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes.........

Here's your problem right here.

You are supporting an organisation which facilitates, defends and harbours child rapists.

Osgoodisgood

mossyc123 wrote: »

So every point made about the Church has to come back to the Child Abuse and subsequent cover-up's?

Everything they do has to be seen in light of ALL of their activities. Including but not limited to child rape and the cover-up thereof.

Despite perceptions to the contrary, the likelihood of engaging in Paedophaelia is no more or less whether your a Clergyman or Lay person.
The level of tendency towards paedophilia remains constant across society's and throughout time.

Cobblers. Where did you dig that bilge from?

There's been an attempt to deal with it now, not enough in my opinion, but something. Child abuse has been ignored and covered up countless times throughout history.

So we should not get so uppity now about this one? Is that your opinion?

It's NEVER going to happen again in the RCC so shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the Church.

Forgive me for not sharing your confidence.

smash

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well no since some of it does go to the local parish. I won't stop supporting that.

Well instead of contributing, why don't you form a local society and everyone contribute to that instead of the church collection box. Then build a hall and lease it back to the church. Let them contribute to your community rather than your community contribute to them.

MrStuffins

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well no since some of it does go to the local parish. I won't stop supporting that.

So you think it's ok to support child rape facilitators as long as some of it goes to your local parish?

prinz

robindch wrote: »

The 40-times-more-likely-to-abuse figure is correct according to the "Irish Catholic" and I think we can safely assume that it's a publication which will not overstate the problem.

Let's have a look at this SAVI Report shall we...

....clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers
constituting 3.2% of abusers.

That covers all religious denominations by the way...it goes on to say...

...babystitters (4.4%)...

You may also note the finding that in a quarter of child sex abuse cases in the study 25% were committed by other children or adolescents.

optogirl

It is unfortunate that atheist discussions come back to the whole RCC/Paedophile chat because really what my atheism stems from is a lack of belief in god/gods. However - when religious people bring the RCC brand into it, it is hard to ignore the humiliating trauma they have put this country through.