Seal of Confession

Bob Cratchet

wonderfulname wrote: »

The collective people are not the rules they are governed by, the collective people are not the design of the heirarchy, canon law, or any other creation of Catholicism, the collective people were merely born into this, this which is referred to as the church, as an institution.

Again, just because you read "the church" as "collective of people", doesn't mean the rest of the world does, what the media etc are talking about is not 1.1 billion people, it's the rest of it. The media is not catholic, it is not going to use words in a catholic sense.

So which Cardinals and Bishops are guilty and which are not ?
So which rules are guilty ?

philologos

Perhaps this may be helpful. Criticise the heirarchy and the clergy who perpetuated it. In a tangible sense (correct me if I am wrong) the RCC isn't a democratic institution as other churches such as the CofI and the Presbyterian church amongst other churches are. As such it is fundamentally unreasonable to attach responsibility to lay people who by and large were shielded from what was going on in the Vatican and indeed between the Vatican and certain Irish bishops.

Bob Cratchet

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps this may be helpful. Criticise the heirarchy and the clergy who perpetuated it. In a tangible sense (correct me if I am wrong) the RCC isn't a democratic institution as other churches such as the CofI and the Presbyterian church amongst other churches are. As such it is fundamentally unreasonable to attach responsibility to lay people who by and large were shielded from what was going on in the Vatican and indeed between the Vatican and certain Irish bishops.

Same question ;
So which Cardinals and Bishops are guilty and which are not ?
So which rules are guilty ?

If the are all guilty, or even the majority are guilty, then it could be fair to say the Church is. Until then it's mere hyperbole.

wonderfulname

Its not even cardinals and bishops as individuals.
Its not even individual rules that just need a little tweek.

This is why you may have gotten the impression that everyone in the church was taking blame, the constructions within the church are old, and they are rotten to the core, you have to admit that there is a horrible, dark irony in these tragedies happening within a religion that preaches the parable of the lost sheep.

philologos

Bob Cratchet: You may be missing my point. I'm saying that one should separate criticism of the hierarchy of the church, the Vatican and the Pope from the congregations.

AhSureTisGrand

wonderfulname wrote: »

Will you tell us instead?

I'm afraid I couldn't do him justice. You'll have to look through his posts buddy

Manach

philologos wrote: »

You may be missing my point. I'm saying that one should separate criticism of the hierarchy of the church, the Vatican and the Pope from the congregations.

I'd disagree, as in the whole Catholic and apostolic church rather denotes an organic whole, from my reading of the propose Government statements on the proposed Criminal Justice act, it will effect confessions between laity and priest, not just priest/priest. From my experience reading acts, some are relatively clear whilst others are completely unenforceable due to the poor wording. Given the amount of Government verbage on this (in spite of various law lecturers mentioning that Alan Shatter's drafting were excellent), I suspect this will be the latter.

Bob Cratchet

wonderfulname wrote: »

Its not even cardinals and bishops as individuals.
Its not even individual rules that just need a little tweek.

This is why you may have gotten the impression that everyone in the church was taking blame, the constructions within the church are old, and they are rotten to the core, you have to admit that there is a horrible, dark irony in these tragedies happening within a religion that preaches the parable of the lost sheep.

The generalisation that the whole Church is rotten is false, such claims only serve the guilty and the vested interests.

dvpower

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

The generalisation that the whole Church is rotten is false, such claims only serve the guilty and the vested interests.

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding.

The institution can be rotten if its constitution, or its reporting structures, or its culture etc are rotten. That's a whole lot different from saying that every person within is rotten.

wonderfulname

I suspect you are right dvpower, it is a simple argument to point out that a billion people are normal, on the other hand the problems within the institution itself are quite hard to pinpoint, and it's an overwhelming and demoralising task to attempt to fix them.

wonderfulname

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

The generalisation that the whole Church is rotten is false, such claims only serve the guilty and the vested interests.

I didn't say that though, did I?

Manach

It would have been alot easier if "every person within is rotten" to dismiss the Church and move on. However, I've met and studied historically members of the clergy who were devout, honourable people and had served their communities. One of the problems, as DVpower would point out is the difficultly/impossiblity of changing a pre-existing power structure from the grass roots without a massive paradigmal shift to the system. This applies to just about all organisations.

Bob Cratchet

dvpower wrote: »

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding.

The institution can be rotten if its constitution, or its reporting structures, or its culture etc are rotten. That's a whole lot different from saying that every person within is rotten.

No I think you and many others are deliberately generalising, because its nice easy and simple and sounds good. The constitution is not rotten, the reporting structure is not rotten, but needs reform so it cannot be misused and abused in future, the culture is not rotten. You'd have to prove your examples to be 100% rotten before your generalisation would become factual.

E.g. I could easily say the Irish Republic is "rotten", it's lazy, meaningless, sound bite drivel.

wonderfulname

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

E.g. I could easily say the Irish Republic is "rotten", it's lazy, meaningless, sound bite drivel.

If the constitution were written in stone, and there was no true democratic process, people within it's boundaries were being lambasted for differences they cannot help and the system being viewed as of greater importance than those at the very bottom of it, with no evident "quick fix" in sight, no change what so ever in sight, people suffering over its madness (highly removed from the message of its founding) then yeah, you could claim "the Irish Republic" was rotten, but you still wouldn't be referring to the Irish people, and anyone with half a brain knows that, when people lament Iran do you think they mean the people or the politics?

You are the only person claiming not to get this, nobody is generalising, nobody is saying - and nobody means - all Catholics, they mean the construct surrounding Catholicism and its hierarchies, are you trolling or do you seriously not get it? Because it's getting old fast.

Bob Cratchet

wonderfulname wrote: »

If the constitution were written in stone, and there was no true democratic process, people within it's boundaries were being lambasted for differences they cannot help and the system being viewed as of greater importance than those at the very bottom of it, with no evident "quick fix" in sight, no change what so ever in sight, people suffering over its madness (highly removed from the message of its founding) then yeah, you could claim "the Irish Republic" was rotten, but you still wouldn't be referring to the Irish people, and anyone with half a brain knows that, when people lament Iran do you think they mean the people or the politics?

You are the only person claiming not to get this, nobody is generalising, nobody is saying - and nobody means - all Catholics, they mean the construct surrounding Catholicism and its hierarchies, are you trolling or do you seriously not get it? Because it's getting old fast.

Changing a structure will not prevent the abuse of it.
Many organisations have an authoritarian structure, and any structure can be abused.
Though I can see now many vested interests would like the structure to be altered to suit their different agenda.

raymon

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Changing a structure will not prevent the abuse of it.
Many organisations have an authoritarian structure, and any structure can be abused.
Though I can see now many vested interests would like the structure to be altered to suit their different agenda.

The church as an organisation has lost its way .

Jesus if he we to return would be horrified

wonderfulname

Ah now, stop about vested interests and agendas, again, you're the only one who sees them, cause they ain't there!

There are many aspects to what we now appear to be calling the structure (we'll keep with that so as not to confuse) that make it easier to abuse, and that make no sense in the cold hard light of the modern world. Why should the seal of confession (go with this one to stay some way on topic) be as rigid as it is?

People are able to confide in medical practitioners quite happily whilst knowing that if someone were to confide something that suggests they may harm, or have harmed, themselves or someone else the confidence would be broken, so it's not for the benefit of those confessing.

Reports have shown that the current carry on has resulted in some just appalling levels of repeat offending, so evidently the model of telling someone to go to the guards in confession doesn't work either.

Who does this rigidity benefit? Personally, I don't see how it benefits the "structure", I don't see how it benefits the priest or those above him, and I certainly don't see how it benefits lay people, but yet it remains, why? Canon law can be changed, it's not the "word of god", its a construct of man which in it's current form actually betrays the ideas of the bible. A good Christian is meant to help those in need, how can a priest do this adequately if his hands are tied?

The very fact that his hands are tied allows for abuse, release them and that will be one area less susceptible to abuse. Openness and accountability make a system less prone to abuse, so the structure should be changed to be more open and accountable, this isn't something that would suit any "vested interests", in fact it is something that would greatly aid Catholicism.

Suzie Sue

raymon wrote: »

The church as an organisation has lost its way .

Jesus if he we to return would be horrified

Don't think he'll be answering your query somehow;

Looks like Bob has been banned for some reason.



No doubt Jesus was horrified at Judas's betrayal as well, it doesn't stop it happening though and it never will, it also doesn't mean the other disciples are guilty of Judas's betrayal.

gigino

Suzie Sue wrote: »

it also doesn't mean the other disciples are guilty of Judas's betrayal.

They did not cover it up though.

Why does the RC church cover up child abuse, as shown by the Brendan Symth case for example.

I think Jeses would look at simpler more Christian churches than the RCC, which may not be as wealthy.

Suzie Sue

gigino wrote: »

They did not cover it up though.

Why does the RC church cover up child abuse, as shown by the Brendan Symth case for example.

I think Jeses would look at simpler more Christian churches than the RCC, which may not be as wealthy.

Why do SOME people in the RC church. Please try a little bit of honesty, it would be a refreshing change. We can see though you a mile away.

What's particulary wealthy about the RC church ? It has 1.1 billion members. The Priests, Bishops etc. own nothing, all Catholics do. Hundreds of thousands of charities are funded worldwide by the RCC, and the National Museum of the Vatican is open all equally to all faiths and none.

St. Peters etc. is no more elaborate than the temple of Jerusalem that Jesus called “my fathers house”, or Solomon's temple etc.

dvpower

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Though I can see now many vested interests would like the structure to be altered to suit their different agenda.

And what changes to the organisation structure of the RCC do you think are needed?

georgieporgy

Here is a nice story of the healing power of confession.

Some readers may recognise themselves in the story. However all the characters , though real, are historical and have now passed on.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2011/07/13/the-satanist-on-the-path-to-sainthood/

wonderfulname

georgieporgy wrote: »

Here is a nice story of the healing power of confession.

Some readers may recognise themselves in the story. However all the characters , though real, are historical and have now passed on.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2011/07/13/the-satanist-on-the-path-to-sainthood/

So he was a new age pagan satanist? You do realise those are three different things? At any rate what point does this story make?

Suzie Sue

dvpower wrote: »

And what changes to the organisation structure of the RCC do you think are needed?

I doubt he's going to tell you, he's been banned for some reason.

The manipulation of the structure caused the problem.
Any perfectly legitimate structure can be infiltrated and manipulated.
History is full of examples.

raymon

georgieporgy wrote: »

Here is a nice story of the healing power of confession.

Some readers may recognise themselves in the story. However all the characters , though real, are historical and have now passed on.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2011/07/13/the-satanist-on-the-path-to-sainthood/

This is witchcraft ,

Confession doesn't cure child rapists .

gigino

Suzie Sue wrote: »

What's particulary wealthy about the RC church ?

If you google it, you will get over 5,500,000 results to help you in your search. About 90 billion dollars seems to be a realistic average by many analysts. To quote one summary "The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars."

raymon wrote: »

Confession doesn't cure child rapists .

unless the rapist is reported to the authorities / faces justice and treatment.

Suzie Sue

gigino wrote: »

Suzie Sue wrote: »

What's particulary wealthy about the RC church ? /QUOTE]

If you google it, you will get over 5,500,000 results to help you in your search. About 90 billion dollars seems to be a realistic average by many analysts. To quote one summary "The Catholic church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state of the whole globe. The pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amassment of wealth, is consequently the richest individual of the twentieth century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth in terms of billions of dollars."

LOL - Well if you read it on the internet, but have no credible sources then it must be true !!!
The Pope owns nothing, not a thing, none of it is his. It belongs to all Catholics.
Where do you think 1.1 billion people are going to worship on a Sunday ?
Schools, colleges, graveyards, accommodation, halls etc. etc. etc.

Manach

Pardon my forgetfullness, but did we not already have this debate in another thread about the "wealth" of the Church and gigino was given a link to the latest Vatican accounts?

wonderfulname

Ah now, sure he owns nothing, but he isn't exactly in want is he? There's no point painting him as a pauper. Again we are making the mistake of reverting to the individual as opposed to talking about the organisation, a businesses wealth is not that of its CEO so the point is invalid. It is well known that the church has one heck of a lot of money, and that you won't find it all at parish level, and that there is a certain level of indulgence once you climb high enough, along with liquid assets which they really should crack open and give to victims at this stage...

But anyway, what is the harm of it? Why would you even argue against it? It's purely evidence of it's sheer size and long history.

gigino

Manach wrote: »

Pardon my forgetfullness, but did we not already have this debate in another thread about the "wealth" of the Church and gigino was given a link to the latest Vatican accounts?

I suggest you go back to that thread and see the worldwide assets of the RC church, its gold + shares, etc ...not just the trading bank account of vatican head office.
Now, back to this thread