Venomous culture in the media targets Catholicism

gimmebroadband

There is now a venomous culture in the Irish media directed at faith in general and Catholicism in particular.

For some years, anyone suggesting that coverage of clerical sex abuse scandals was concealing a deeper antipathy towards Catholicism has been silenced by journalists insisting they were only doing their jobs.

These shushings were invariably followed by tautological lists of the wrongs of the church, as though past findings prove all present and future charges.

Under cover of the legitimate requirement to expose wrongdoing by church figures resides a vicious demeanour of hostility and dismissiveness towards Catholicism, which it is impossible to challenge without being accused of defending the indefensible.

Before our eyes, under cover of the clerical abuse issue, Irish society is being remade and by osmosis a new reality is being fashioned, undemocratically, aggressively and with a total indifference to facts or truth.

Contempt for Catholicism, and the demonisation and censorship of those who draw attention to this syndrome, have enabled a process of creeping de-absolutisation, now gradually supplanting the core content of our culture.

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2011/10/venomous-culture-in-media-targets.html

Piriz

Catholic Church associated with 300,000 stolen babies...have you heard?

not to mention all the sexual abuse, torture and murder for heresy for centuries, bull****, lies etc ... the real venomous culture lies within the Catholic Church, how can you not see that?.. all that is going on now is that people have had enough as the truth unfolds and can not tolerate anymore.. plus the theory of evolution debunks creationism

charlemont

No smoke without fire..

PatricaMcKay2

Oh of course Irish journalists are lazy and always whistle with the wind, but I didnt see any of the RCC fanatics complaining when that worked in their favour, the problem with power seeking is that you cant rely on anyone.

andyjo

gimmebroadband wrote: »

There is now a venomous culture in ....

Its ironic that you should complain about the "venomous culture" of free speech when there was such a "venomous culture" in the Irish Catholic church for so long , as evidenced by the abuses that took place. It was also a venomous culture towards others in the matter of birth control, mixed marriages, unbiased education etc etc.



Talking about the media, I was reading about a former Dublin priest, the Rev Mark Hayden, now Rector in Gorey, Co Wexford, who describes his spiritual journey in his book, Changing Colours .
"I was a devout Mass-going Catholic, but I could not take the 'one shoe for all sizes' doctrinal hard-line from the Vatican, as the fate of many distinguished theologians from Jacques Dupuis to Charles Curran amply demonstrates," he says. "I also felt alienated and unwelcome in parish churches which were dominated by poorly read, loud-mouthed Catholic conservatives whose ignorance of theology was matched only by the emptiness of their unthinkingly conformist rhetoric."

Manach

In my opinion, as an observation: bad new sells print. The worst the headlines, the greater the print run. It is implicit that the charitable works of the Church will be drown out by the abuses. The latter have happen in the past, and given the nature of the organisation will unfortunately happen again without a vigilant laity – however as ISAW in another has pointed out similar issues by non-Church actors merit much less of a comment. It is the former work world wide that goes unnoticed, an invisible bonding of the community on earth.

Keaton

andyjo wrote: »

Its ironic that you should complain about the "venomous culture" of free speech when there was such a "venomous culture" in the Irish Catholic church for so long , as evidenced by the abuses that took place. It was also a venomous culture towards others in the matter of birth control, mixed marriages, unbiased education etc etc.

Talking about the media, I was reading about a former Dublin priest, the Rev Mark Hayden, now Rector in Gorey, Co Wexford, who describes his spiritual journey in his book, Changing Colours .
"I was a devout Mass-going Catholic, but I could not take the 'one shoe for all sizes' doctrinal hard-line from the Vatican, as the fate of many distinguished theologians from Jacques Dupuis to Charles Curran amply demonstrates," he says. "I also felt alienated and unwelcome in parish churches which were dominated by poorly read, loud-mouthed Catholic conservatives whose ignorance of theology was matched only by the emptiness of their unthinkingly conformist rhetoric."

Curran is an abortion supporter. Please don't mention his name around me. He is one of the vipers our Lord rebuked.

Curran tries throughout to downplay his theological radicalism. "I am a progressively moderate Catholic theologian," he insists. But his autobiography tells a different story. In 1967, Catholics at CUA and around the country took up the cause of an eccentric priest who defended the right of married Catholics to use condoms. But over the next 20 years, practicing American Catholics and Curran moved in roughly opposite directions.



In response to the Vatican condemnation, he insisted to reporters that "I neither denied nor disagreed with the core elements of the Catholic faith." Rather, he had "dissented from noninfallible church teachings on a few moral issues . . . far removed from the core beliefs of the Catholic faith."



So what, exactly, were all those peripheral issues that the Vatican was making such a fuss about? "I was asked to reconsider and retract my positions on contraception and sterilization, abortion and euthanasia, masturbation, premarital sexuality, and the indissolubility of marriage," he writes. In other words, by the mid-1980s, he had come to disagree with the Vatican on pretty much every moral issue in the catechism.

---> http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7498

Robert ninja

Keaton wrote: »

Curran is an abortion supporter. Please don't mention his name around me. He is one of the vipers our Lord rebuked.

Are you serious? Don't mention his name around you? What are you, our master... and this guy voldemort? Also, his name was mentioned in a thread on the internet, which you yourself clicked into. High horse or what...

Ps. Charles Curran

mcmoustache

Piriz wrote: »

plus the theory of evolution debunks creationism

While there are many sticks to beat the Roman Catholic Church with, this isn't one of them. They don't believe in the literal creation story. While I consider it to be a vile organisation, its approach to science has been surprisingly progressive.

mcmoustache

gimmebroadband wrote: »

There is now a venomous culture in the Irish media directed at faith in general and Catholicism in particular.

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2011/10/venomous-culture-in-media-targets.html

Sounds like paranoia, hypocracy and self-pity to me.

Most decent-minded people have a natural disposition to dislike things such as paedophilia, baby-stealing, lies, murder, cover-ups, imperial archaic heirarchies and all those other unChristian activities that the church and it's members have been involved in. It makes them uncomfortable with the creepiness of it all. It's just a natural reaction to be honest.

To compound matters, they keep hearing from RCC apologists about how the problems were societal or that it was the fault of rogue members or how other people were at it too. It's like hearing from Fianna Fáil apologists and they get just as much bashing in the media here if not more. There is a refusal to admit that anything is wrong and there is so much ducking and diving and hiding behind lawyers that people are seeing that the Roman Church is just another rotten, corrupt, global organisation which isn't worthy of the deference that it once enjoyed as a result of it's powerful grip on society.

There's also the personal memories that people have from their youth in an Ireland which was run by that Roman organisation. People remember Christian Brothers schools, the shunning of women who had children out of wedlock, the fear of saying anything bad about the priest, the lack of contraception. Ireland was a worse place when it was run by that Roman crowd and it's not very long ago.

As a result, there is a lot of bad feeling towards the church and it's completely justified, in my opinion. It has shown itself to be unable to get its house in order and proven that the most important thing to it is itself.

This justifiable bad feeling is now manifested everywhere but it's just desserts. Whereas your crowd were moving paedophiles from parish to parish and destroying lives, now you need to put up with some negative opinions in national newspapers. It's nothing compared to the pain that those leftovers from the Roman Empire have caused. I have no sympathy and I think that the organisation should consider itself lucky.

JimiTime

There is no denying that there are people waiting for every opportunity to diss the RCC, however, you must realise the scale of what has gone on. The RCC, especially in this country, was so powerful. It was the self and state appointed moral guardian, to which it didn't shy away from. However, under this moral exterior, there were so many things happening in the shadows. YOU CANNOT PLAY DOWN HOW VILE THESE THINGS WERE. You can complain about the media, but the fact is, due to the absolutely vile things that have gone on, it heaped the coals upon its own head. Catholics do themselves or their organisations no favours by complaining the way they do about it IMO. You have to realise, that no-one trusts your organisation any more, so IMO you should be a lot more humble in the taking of criticism.

Christianity as a whole is suffering in terms of PR in these times. People expect your Christianity should be kept to yourself etc, and its seen as a social faux pas to wear it on your sleeve. YES, people look for the bad in Christianity, and in the RCC. We have to accept though, that many Christians have failed to be the beacon for the light of Christ, but have also put themselves on moral pedestals etc. It is to be expected that such hypocrisy will lead to the tearing down of the person, AND that with which they stand for will be brought into disrepute. So many professing Christians have failed to live up to the responsibility that Christ appointed us, so Christians as a whole should empathise with the backlash. We are letting mankind down, as well as Christ. Of course, there are many good Christians too. Now think about an organisation that says its Gods representative on earth. The moral authority etc. How much greater the backlash AND due to it being a specific organisation, it can be specifically targetted. IMO, Catholics need to be humble in the face of this. You certainly have no right to feel persecuted etc.

Baggio1

Oddly enough i largly agree with Jimi Time,

Theres no getting away from what some members of the church did, wether they be cowardly bishops unable to make a decision, or just blatant homosexuals who joined the priesthood to gain access to young lads, or just blatant out of control power hungry clergy who frankly enjoyed the power they had and the way they were looked upto on a pedastal, all of these things were wrong,wrong and wrong again, there was no humility in all of this and no common good justice.
Forgive me for saying this but the amount of basic bad grammar and lack of theological knowledge in many irish clergy Ive come across down the years has been frankly staggering, no wonder so many were involved in "community" - running hurling teams etc.... their veryy formation was a joke and was all about authorty and very little about deep holiness and saving of souls,, which was/is their REAL job. so for me many irish clergy really should not have even been in the priesthod, many had NO vocation - it was a job! many had their own house and fancy car - in UK they live 3 or 4 to a house, very little in finances and are better clergy, they tend to speak well and deal with things in an informed/intelligent way, instead of the ol' bullying style there was here for years.
Having said all that i DO believe many clergy were not truly called and a lot of this goes back to the famine, the basic hatred by the mass's agains all things NOT catholic, - england,protestantism etc.,.. all linked to "they have it all and we have nothing", it sporned a militant anti anything NON catholic and left a culture of "not in my backyard" mentallity and this lead to terrible extremisn in ordinary people and in clergy, and I believe this was NOT ROMAN CATHOLICISM it was fanatical IRISH CATHOLICISM and its been its own downfall.

anyway thats my take on it, frankly, i look forward to when our church IS poor, IS on the run again and IS persecuted by blood and it WILL happen - wait and see,, because then and ONLY then will we see how many truly believe in what they SAY they believe today or not.

smokingman

Baggio1 wrote: »

Forgive me for saying this but the amount of basic bad grammar and lack of theological knowledge in many irish clergy Ive come across down the years has been frankly staggering, no wonder so many were involved in "community" - running hurling teams etc.... their veryy formation was a joke and was all about authorty and very little about deep holiness and saving of souls,, which was/is their REAL job. so for me many irish clergy really should not have even been in the priesthod, many had NO vocation ...... the basic hatred by the mass's agains all things NOT catholic, - england,protestantism etc.,.. all linked to "they have it all and we have nothing", it sporned a militant anti anything NON catholic and left a culture of "not in my backyard" mentallity and this lead to terrible extremisn in ordinary people and in clergy, and I believe this was NOT ROMAN CATHOLICISM it was fanatical IRISH CATHOLICISM and its been its own downfall.

anyway thats my take on it, frankly.....

I know what you mean. I hate bad grammar too.

Baggio1

ahahha smocking you just had to didnt you! hahahah was in a hurry typing some of us work too ya know!

smokingman

Couldn't help myself

I'm not usually a grammar nazi though but that was too easy.

gimmebroadband

I agree with most of what you said Baggio. Much of the clergy should have been more spiritual and less worldly. Yet Christ said let the weeds grow together with the wheat until harvest time, then He will seperate the wheat from the chaff. The Church needs to do a bit of house-clearing now, just like Jesus did with the money-changers in the Temple! Jesus also said he will never abandon His Church, ever!

Baggio1

thats true giveme but make no mistake the final persecution of the chrch will be the bloodiest in history and anyone thinking there gonna have a softly softly ride to the second coming is sorely mistaken...

gimmebroadband

"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

(Luke 12:51-53)

DeVore

More than anyone, I would expect Christians to understand the idea that you cant gain forgiveness without honest confession and acceptance of guilt.



Just sayin!

DeV.

Baggio1

DeVore i agree 100% with you bud

ISAW

charlemont wrote: »

No smoke without fire..

Really?
What about incense?
I must laugh at the "J' accuse!" lobby of "no smoke without fire" who put Dreyfuss Annie Mc Guire and the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four in prison.

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

Its ironic that you should complain about the "venomous culture" of free speech when there was such a "venomous culture" in the Irish Catholic church for so long ,

This is from your "two wrongs make it right" book of strategies is it?

Talking about the media, I was reading about a former Dublin priest, ..."

Yeah I was reading about a former Parish Priest Fr Reynolds who had to step aside when he was defamed
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1012/reynoldsk.html

I was also reading about a book by an ex Catholic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism:_The_Last_Acceptable_Prejudice

A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no denying that there are people waiting for every opportunity to diss the RCC, however, you must realise the scale of what has gone on.

Yes in terms of scale less than one percent of pedophiles are RC priests.

However, under this moral exterior, there were so many things happening in the shadows.

I agree. and outside the church ther was a hundred times more things happening in the shadows.

Now think about an organisation that says its Gods representative on earth. The moral authority etc. How much greater the backlash AND due to it being a specific organisation, it can be specifically targetted. IMO, Catholics need to be humble in the face of this. You certainly have no right to feel persecuted etc.

I disagree. Catholic clergy in particular are singled out when they dont represent any large percentage of abusers. Even compared to other clergy. and in Ireland RC clergy outnumber others clergy by at least ten to one.

efb

Baggio1 wrote: »

just blatant homosexuals who joined the priesthood to gain access to young lads,

Jesus wept

Monty Burnz

Keaton wrote: »

Curran is an abortion supporter. Please don't mention his name around me. He is one of the vipers our Lord rebuked.

I have to say, it does bring a lot of prestige to our Christianity forum that we have someone with a direct line to the Lord posting here.

ISAW

DeVore wrote: »

More than anyone, I would expect Christians to understand the idea that you cant gain forgiveness without honest confession and acceptance of guilt.

DeV.

I agree. and if and when the anti-christians admit to it accept guilt and do penance and give up their auld sins I'm sure Christians will forgive them.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I have to say, it does bring a lot of prestige to our Christianity forum that we have someone with a direct line to the Lord posting here.

Christianity isnt elitist . apparently everyone has a direct line. It is called prayer.

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

I agree. and if and when the anti-christians admit to it accept guilt and do penance and give up their auld sins I'm sure Christians will forgive them.

If you actually are a Christian, you are obliged to forgive them and love them anyway. Some of the hate-filled Christians knocking around make me wonder about this though.

ISAW wrote: »

Christianity isnt elitist . apparently everyone has a direct line. It is called prayer.

And in which direction does this prayer work? Because it seems that some posters know exactly who God hates.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you actually are a Christian,

Please don't bring in what I am or am not.

you are obliged to forgive them and love them anyway. Some of the hate-filled Christians knocking around make me wonder about this though.

You can only forgive those who are sorry. Haw can some who is not sorry ask for forgiveness? It isn't a passive act. It requires contrition.

And in which direction does this prayer work? Because it seems that some posters know exactly who God hates.

I don't understand your question. But I accept you point that some people twist the message of love into one of God hating people. Let me put iot this way . You can love someone who is imperfect but you can't forgive them until they are sorry.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

Yes in terms of scale less than one percent of pedophiles are RC priests.

Firstly, let me say that I understand that many people who you would talk with about this topic will probably be very emotive, not worried about facts etc, and just shoot their mouths off about 'yis r all pedo's ' etc. Just so we know, I'm not one of them.

So with that established, may I say, it doesn't matter what percentage of paedophiles are RC priests. I think introducing such a fact is a bit of a red herring unless the debate is that most paedophiles are RC priests or something similar.

I agree. and outside the church ther was a hundred times more things happening in the shadows.

Does this matter? The issue is that the RCC is the self appointed Gods representative on earth. It takes the moral high ground, and invoked a trust, in many cases a blind trust. It was in a position of great, great power. To make an accusation against a priest would make you a social outcast (Or so was believed by many). Clergy were like royalty. Their position was abused, and abused in the worst of ways. Even then, they could have been forgiven as it could be put down to some rogues. However, the hierarchy (And remember, bishops are according to the RCC, apostolic successors) did not look to alert the authorities. Even then, there may still be room for forgiveness, or an excuse of bad judgement etc. However, they moved these horrid creatures around and provided them with more victims. That is the greatest travesty. It was not a couple of isolated cases neither. So it matters not a jot what was happening outside. Remember, Christ ate with all kinds of sinners, and Paul tells us not to expect those not in Christ to live like those in Christ. However, those in Christ had a great responsibility. Paul telling us to 'put them out from among you'.

I disagree. Catholic clergy in particular are singled out when they dont represent any large percentage of abusers. Even compared to other clergy. and in Ireland RC clergy outnumber others clergy by at least ten to one.

Again, I think you should be so moved by shame that you wouldn't care who or how many others were doing these vile things. You should not be so concerned about your organisation and media injustice, and be wholly concerned about how much damage has been done to Christs name, and the amount of people stumbled from him because of these vile things. Whether you like it or not, God will expect more from his servants, and more still from his teachers, than anyone on the outside. IMO, the RCC should have its head bowed in this matter. Its behaviour has brought reproach on Christ, stumbled many and ruined countless lives. You should accept that the wolves are tearing at you now, and be humble in the face of it. Stop scrambling to say, 'these are worse' or 'It was 100 victims, not 1000' or such arguements. If this type of moving child rapists around happened only once, then the argument should be no different. It should be with shame and humility that it is approached.

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

Please don't bring in what I am or am not.

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but if the cap fits...

ISAW wrote: »

You can only forgive those who are sorry. Haw can some who is not sorry ask for forgiveness? It isn't a passive act. It requires contrition.

That's not my understanding of Christ's message.

Colossians 3:13 to “make allowance for each other’s faults, and forgive anyone who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others.”

Doesn't say anything about contrition there.

Mark 11:25
And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.

Nothing about contrition there.

Matthew 6:14-16
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Contrition? Nope.

ISAW wrote: »

I don't understand your question. But I accept you point that some people twist the message of love into one of God hating people. Let me put iot this way . You can love someone who is imperfect but you can't forgive them until they are sorry.

I'm just not sure that the words of Christ support that position.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

Firstly, let me say that I understand that many people who you would talk with about this topic will probably be very emotive, not worried about facts etc, and just shoot their mouths off about 'yis r all pedo's ' etc. Just so we know, I'm not one of them.

So with that established,

It is only claimed by you as your personal position. I would be established when you address the issue without emotive words and deal with established facts.

may I say, it doesn't matter what percentage of paedophiles are RC priests. I think introducing such a fact is a bit of a red herring unless the debate is that most paedophiles are RC priests or something similar.

Eh. No. It does matter because issues about the church are being presented in the media as a threat to society. The level of abuse by Priests and the alleged cover up by the Vatican being cases in point. So therefore you have to compare them to something in society. Just as one might when levels of crime of Jews blacks or whatever other group people target.

Does this matter? The issue is that the RCC is the self appointed Gods representative on earth.

That would be a separate issue but also related. But even non Catholics believe Jesus set up a Church. That Church would then be Gods representitave on earth. whether or not you believe that role subsides in the Roman Church does not change that.

It takes the moral high ground, and invoked a trust, in many cases a blind trust.

Yes. As did other non RCC Christians. It isn't a special case in this regard.

It was in a position of great, great power.

As was/is the Anglican and Orthodox. Again not a special case.

To make an accusation against a priest would make you a social outcast (Or so was believed by many). Clergy were like royalty. Their position was abused, and abused in the worst of ways. Even then, they could have been forgiven as it could be put down to some rogues. However, the hierarchy (And remember, bishops are according to the RCC, apostolic successors) did not look to alert the authorities.

Are you talking about the Reformation now or about child abuse in Ireland? Some of the hierarchy did not alert the State authorities, some did. The ones that didn't number in the "less than ten" numbers out of a total of several hundred bishops or equivalent since 1920 say, and not one one of them did consult or conspire with any other bishop in relation to child abuse or the wrong decisions made.

Even then, there may still be room for forgiveness, or an excuse of bad judgement etc.

Particularly for the five or so still living who admitted they made an error of judgement. In none of their cases did they condone or facilitate child abuse however. They just thought it could be dealt with by counseling, prayer and isolating the priest involved.

However, they moved these horrid creatures around and provided them with more victims.

Only in a very few cases. and in all those cases they admitted it. But they didn't tell other bishops about the particular cases or consult with them on particular priests. Nor did they involve the Vatican and the Vatican tell them to hide anything.

That is the greatest travesty. It was not a couple of isolated cases neither.

How many do you assert bishops covered upi? Five? ten? More? Even in the institutions the worst cases of abuse had a total of 24 clerics involved over 70 years. Now their "bishop" would be the Abbot or Superiour of their order but I dont know how many of them actually knew about the abusers. I know the Norbertines knew about Smyth however. So that is one but how many others? In about four cases bishops have resigned. Two had their resignation rejected by the Vatican.

So it matters not a jot what was happening outside. Remember, Christ ate with all kinds of sinners, and Paul tells us not to expect those not in Christ to live like those in Christ. However, those in Christ had a great responsibility. Paul telling us to 'put them out from among you'.

Indeed and anyone today facilitating tolerating or hiding abuse by a priest should be kicked out of their job and probably jailed. Of course the law took some time to catch up/

Again, I think you should be so moved by shame that you wouldn't care who or how many others were doing these vile things.

Wher di I say I didn't care? the only people who said they didnt care were those wh said they only cared about RC priests who did it and not about the other 99 plus % of abusers.

You should not be so concerned about your organisation and media injustice,

Where did I say it way MY organisation. My personal belief or lack of it has nothing to do with the issue!
I pointed to Jenkins who is not in the RCC and is concerned about anti-catholic media attacks.

and be wholly concerned about how much damage has been done to Christs name, and the amount of people stumbled from him because of these vile things.

Yes and also I would be concerend about the several thousand people that died over five centuries at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition. But i am also concerned that this be compared to the Atheistic regimes who slaughtered hundreds of millions of people.

Whether you like it or not, God will expect more from his servants, and more still from his teachers, than anyone on the outside.

Please don't preach at me or bring my beliefs or lack of them into the issue.

IMO, the RCC should have its head bowed in this matter. Its behaviour has brought reproach on Christ, stumbled many and ruined countless lives.

And some have erred and where they have they apologised and tried to help the victims.

You should accept that the wolves are tearing at you now, and be humble in the face of it.

Please dont preach at me. I didnt claim to be anything and my personal beliefs or lack of them are not at issue here. Objective fair and balanced media reports are.

Stop scrambling to say, 'these are worse' or 'It was 100 victims, not 1000' or such arguements.

Note above you stated: "many people who you would talk with about this topic will probably be very emotive, not worried about facts etc, and just shoot their mouths off about 'yis r all pedo's ' etc. Just so we know, I'm not one of them.

You could have fooled me! What with all this talk of "hang your head in shame" and "wolves tearing at you"

If this type of moving child rapists around happened only once, then the argument should be no different. It should be with shame and humility that it is approached.

I won't bother quoting what the Church stated if you don't bother to accuse me of being authoritarian or calling for that type of society.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but if the cap fits...

i.e. you are referring to me?

I'm just not sure that the words of Christ support that position.

But unless you repent, you too will perish. (Gospel of Luke 13:5)
it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Psalm 51 (1-12)

Luke 8

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

Luke 13: 5

I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrition
This interior repentance has been called by theologians "contrition". It is defined explicitly by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione): "a sorrow of soul and a hatred of sin committed, with a firm purpose of not sinning in the future"

Before the Reformation no theologian ever thought of denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin. But with the coming of Martin Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith alone the necessity of contrition was excluded as by a natural consequence.

The Baptist sounded the note of preparation for the coming of the Messiah: "Make straight his paths"; and, as a consequence "they went out to him and were baptized confessing their sins". The first preaching of Jesus is described in the words: "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand"; and the Apostles, in their first sermons to the people, warn them to "do penance and be baptized for the remission of their sins" (Acts 2:38). The Fathers followed up with like exhortation (Clement in P.G., I, 341; Hermas iii P.G., II, 894; Tertullian in P.L., II).

Anyway take this to the Protestant vs Catholic Thread if you want to continue on the contrition line in that way.

PatricaMcKay2

ISAW wrote: »

But unless you repent, you too will perish. (Gospel of Luke 13:5)
it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Psalm 51 (1-12).

Sussed; its Psalm 50 in the Douay Rheims; you are some Protestant trying to make RCs look bad!!!

Trolling on such a serious topic as child abuse is sick.

ISAW

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Sussed; its Psalm 50 in the Douay Rheims; you are some Protestant trying to make RCs look bad!!!

Trolling on such a serious topic as child abuse is sick.

This is oner of the reasons I ask not to bring my beliefs or lack of them into a discussion.
If you have an issue as regards the contrition issue take it to the ProtestantvsCatholic thread.

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

But unless you repent, you too will perish. (Gospel of Luke 13:5)
it always implies a recognition of wrong done to God, a detestation of the evil wrought, and a desire to turn from evil and do good. This is clearly expressed in Psalm 51 (1-12)

You seem to be misunderstanding the scripture: this talks to the sinner, asking that they repent. It's no concern of yours whether the person you must forgive has repented or not - it's between them and God. For your own part, you must forgive them to save your soul. For their part, they must repent to save their souls.

Your requirement to forgive is not contingent on their repentance.

old hippy

I know a certain presenter who interviewed a certain gay presidential candidate. Afterwards said presenter received a rather unpleasant call from a religious pressure group accusing them of promoting gay marriage. Neither the presenter or interviewee mentioned gay marriage or alluded to it.

Oh, there's venom out there alright. But it ain't no one way street.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

It is only claimed by you as your personal position. I would be established when you address the issue without emotive words and deal with established facts.

It would be a great shame to remove all emotion from such a topic. I gave you an example of the type of emotion I described. An emotion that does not worry about the facts etc. There would be something quite wrong if one had no emotional respose at all when discussing such acts though. Some people seem to think that being cold is being rational. Emotions are part of us, we just don't let them run away from us. Balance is the issue. I hope you appreciate that.

Eh. No. It does matter because issues about the church are being presented in the media as a threat to society. The level of abuse by Priests and the alleged cover up by the Vatican being cases in point. So therefore you have to compare them to something in society. Just as one might when levels of crime of Jews blacks or whatever other group people target.

The RCC is not an ethnic group, so its incomparable. It is an organisation, with rules, laws, hierarchy etc. So it is quite easy to target. Again, as far as it being a threat to society, it should humbly respond. It must realise its betrayal, and accept that it allowed the wolves (Anyone with an axe to grind against them) in. It has brought itself into disrepute, and regardless of the wrongs of others, it will be scrutinised. Some of it the outcome will be justified, some not justified, but all of it brought on itself.

That would be a separate issue but also related.

It is by no means a seperate issue. Not only does such a title have responsibilities to its adherants, but also to God. It not only brought its own name into disrepute, but also Christs. It stumbled many, and must recognise that it must put Christ before itself. If it is bears itself responsible for spreading the Good News of the Kingdom, then it has a duty to the people of the world and also to God.

Yes. As did other non RCC Christians. It isn't a special case in this regard.

Again, this line of argument seems to wish to point out, 'yeah, it was bad, but look at these guys', something I have no wish to argue. The RCC should not care, even if some other group were 1 billion times worse. Certainly, it has every right to rebuff misinformation, but it should not be rebuffed with the attitude of victimhood.

As was/is the Anglican and Orthodox. Again not a special case.

And to ANY organisation that has done such things, it should do the same. As this is Ireland, with its history of RCC power etc we are dealing with a problem that is close to us, and the response towards the RCC is going to be stronger than any other group. The question is, are they going to cry 'Its not fair, as we weren't the only ones, or worst ones' etc? That seems to be the logic you are applying.

Some of the hierarchy did not alert the State authorities, some did.

And the 'Some did not' is the issue. On a side note, could you provide information with regards to clergy who alerted authorities? i would be interested to see just how much the state failed the children.

The ones that didn't number in the "less than ten" numbers out of a total of several hundred bishops or equivalent since 1920 say

There were enough people in the organisation that knew, and that is all that matters. How long were the apologies in coming from the RCC? If there were so many that knew about abuse and reported to the authotrities etc, then surely it was a simple matter of an unreserved apology for the actions of their representatives, and more importantly, they alledgedly represnted Christ too? Also, 'out of a total of several hundread bishops' throws out a bit of a curve ball doesn't it? The only ones that matter are those that knew. Are you saying that several hundread knew and reported it to the authorities etc? I don't think you are. I think you are saying that out of all those bishops, only a handfuls names have been dragged into this unholy mess. Again, completely irrelevant, unless we are discussing if the majority of clergy were 'in on it' or something. I'm certainly not saying that.

Particularly for the five or so still living who admitted they made an error of judgement. In none of their cases did they condone or facilitate child abuse however. They just thought it could be dealt with by counseling, prayer and isolating the priest involved.

Can you detail these events? As in, priests were found to be abusing, and hierarchy found out, and kept them isolated away from children. Where can I find these details? And have these priests been handed to authorities since?

How many do you assert bishops covered upi? Five? ten? More? Even in the institutions the worst cases of abuse had a total of 24 clerics involved over 70 years. Now their "bishop" would be the Abbot or Superiour of their order but I dont know how many of them actually knew about the abusers. I know the Norbertines knew about Smyth however. So that is one but how many others? In about four cases bishops have resigned. Two had their resignation rejected by the Vatican.

And that is not good enough for Gods representatives on earth. Does it matter if it was 10 or 1000? What was done was enough to bring themselves, and what they claim to represent into disrepute. How many cases do you think it would require before you would see the current reaction as appropriate or worthy of empathy?

Indeed and anyone today facilitating tolerating or hiding abuse by a priest should be kicked out of their job and probably jailed.
Of course the law took some time to catch up/

TBH, I don't think the law has caught up at all. Its still quite flimsy it seems in terms of sentences for child abusers.

Wher di I say I didn't care?

Read what I said again. I never said you didn't care. I said you shouldn't care that someone else was doing it, or doing it worse. The fact is, that it was happening inside an institution that placed itself on the highest pedestal possible, that of Gods representatives. So that makes the crime much, much more severe. Especially in terms of God.

the only people who said they didnt care were those wh said they only cared about RC priests who did it and not about the other 99 plus % of abusers.

Firstly, I think you would be hard pressed to find any sane person who 'did not care about 99% of abusers'. I would imagine you are misrepresenting them somewhat.

Secondly, while I care about people being abused etc, in a lot of cases abuse is in the home, close relative etc. So how should our disgust be expressed in terms of that? Should we say, 'down with all fathers'? 'Down with all unles'? etc based on percentages? Of course not. this percentage thing is just another red herring. I mean, are we honestly arguing that, 'yeah it was bad, but in the context of the overall numbers....'?

There were cover ups in the Jehovahs Witnesses also you know (Another self appointed representative og God on earth), and probably many others. It would be equally absurd for them to claim, 'It was only 0.2% of overall abuse' as if that somehow matters.

Where did I say it way MY organisation. My personal belief or lack of it has nothing to do with the issue!

Honestly, i don't give a sh1te what your beliefs are or aren't. That I assumed you catholic is a simple mistake based on your input. My input doesn't actually require you to be one or the other.

I pointed to Jenkins who is not in the RCC and is concerned about anti-catholic media attacks.

And its not just anti-catholic. Christianity as a whole is the butt of the joke in many circles. When you stand against the things which society wants, you'll be in the firing line. Again, my issue is with the whining about it. As Christians, we have failed our fellow man, and Christ in so many ways. I often reason that if Christians had actually been Christian throughout the ages, Atheism would be the butt of the joke. Catholicism gets it specifically in this country due to the power it wielded here, and its subsaquent fall from grace. It made a major contribution to this fall, so in the face of this, it should approach this topic humbly.

Yes and also I would be concerend about the several thousand people that died over five centuries at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition. But i am also concerned that this be compared to the Atheistic regimes who slaughtered hundreds of millions of people.

Again, I wonder about your reasoning. As a Christian, if I was part of an institution representing Christ, it would not matter in the slightest to me that such and such done this that or the other. What would matter is the reproach that had been brought on Christs good name, and the amount of people that had been stumbled away. i would not be looking to get perspective in terms of, 'Well its not as bad as this that or the other'. A guy who murders two people is a murderer. We don't take someone who murdered 10 people and say, 'yeah but look at this guy'.

Please don't preach at me or bring my beliefs or lack of them into the issue.

I didn't. At ALL. I told you what was expected of Gods servants, teachers etc. Whether you believe or don't, matters not one iota to that.

And some have erred and where they have they apologised and tried to help the victims.

But the damage is done, so its up to the victims etc to decide if its enough. Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted etc.

Have you ever done something to someone, then feel sorry and apologised, only to be met with no grace in light of your apology? Now, a real remorse will accept this lack of grace, and empathise with the attitude. Alwas remaining humble, realising that forgiveness is not an entitlement and hoping that time will heal.

Then think of in the face of lack of grace, you say, 'Well I did my best, take it or leave it. What else can I do.'

Well, The RCC and its adherents should still be in a state of humility. Realising what has gone on, and empathising with the attitude. Meeting it with meekness and constant remorse. Praying for the victims, that they have not been stumbled away from the greatest gift that can be offered to mankind.

Please dont preach at me. I didnt claim to be anything and my personal beliefs or lack of them are not at issue here. Objective fair and balanced media reports are.

just substitute 'you' for 'they' so. No biggie.

Note above you stated: "many people who you would talk with about this topic will probably be very emotive, not worried about facts etc, and just shoot their mouths off about 'yis r all pedo's ' etc. Just so we know, I'm not one of them.

You could have fooled me! What with all this talk of "hang your head in shame" and "wolves tearing at you"

Eh, the 'wolves' I refer to are the folk that are looking for opportunity to tear down the RCC. The events in discussion have allowed them in. How you equate that with reasoning like 'yis r all pedo's' is beyond me As for 'hang your head in shame', I didn't say that. I said that the horrible events should provoke shame and humility. You make it sound like it was some off the cuff remark. I'm surprised that you took such a cheap shot tbh, I in no way contradicted my opening statement.

I won't bother quoting what the Church stated if you don't bother to accuse me of being authoritarian or calling for that type of society.

Yoou've lost me

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

You seem to be misunderstanding the scripture: this talks to the sinner, asking that they repent. It's no concern of yours whether the person you must forgive has repented or not - it's between them and God. For your own part, you must forgive them to save your soul. For their part, they must repent to save their souls.

Your requirement to forgive is not contingent on their repentance.

Are you claiming that God does not forgive sins and only people can do that?
Or are you saying that people are given the authority to forgive sins by taking the place of god in the sense of "whomsoever sins you forgive they are forgiven"? If people forgive since by acting for god then they still wold have to do what God does and God would not forgive the person who was not sorry and did not repent would he?

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

Are you claiming that God does not forgive sins and only people can do that?

Nope

ISAW wrote: »

Or are you saying that people are given the authority to forgive sins by taking the place of god in the sense of "whomsoever sins you forgive they are forgiven"?

Nope

ISAW wrote: »

If people forgive since by acting for god then they still wold have to do what God does and God would not forgive the person who was not sorry and did not repent would he?

What?

Did you read and understand my post?

ISAW

JimiTime wrote: »

It would be a great shame to remove all emotion from such a topic. I gave you an example of the type of emotion I described. An emotion that does not worry about the facts etc.

So the fact that less then one percent of pedophiles are RC priests is of interest to the discussion?

. Balance is the issue. I hope you appreciate that.

As in balance of not reporting mostly in the media about the less than one per cent of abusers.

The RCC is not an ethnic group, so its incomparable. It is an organisation, with rules, laws, hierarchy etc.

and equality legislation does usually refer to religion in the same sentence as sexual orientation gender race when it comes to defining discrimination. Teh Protestant Church Islamic religion or Jewish one have similar structures but are not reported on as much.

So it is quite easy to target. Again, as far as it being a threat to society, it should humbly respond. It must realise its betrayal, and accept that it allowed the wolves (Anyone with an axe to grind against them) in.

sometimes "wolves" take advantage of the weakness an accusation can exploit and it isnt anything to do with the shepherd.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2788-the-federal-scheme-to-destroy-fatherchild-relationships.html

It has brought itself into disrepute, and regardless of the wrongs of others, it will be scrutinised. Some of it the outcome will be justified, some not justified, but all of it brought on itself.

I dispute the "all it's own fault" suggestion. see the last comment.

It is by no means a seperate issue. Not only does such a title have responsibilities to its adherants, but also to God. It not only brought its own name into disrepute, but also Christs. It stumbled many, and must recognise that it must put Christ before itself. If it is bears itself responsible for spreading the Good News of the Kingdom, then it has a duty to the people of the world and also to God.

The Universal church of Christ is Christ's universal Church. It is named in Christ's name. It is only there because of Christ. It isnt a case of it being different to that.

Again, this line of argument seems to wish to point out, 'yeah, it was bad, but look at these guys', something I have no wish to argue. The RCC should not care, even if some other group were 1 billion times worse.

Not the point! I have stated a single case of child abuse or murder is wrong. But why are the detractors pointing out splinters in the eye of the church when there are planks clearly on view not from the Church?

Certainly, it has every right to rebuff misinformation, but it should not be rebuffed with the attitude of victimhood.

So you dont thin Fr Reynolds in Ahascragh was victimised?
http://www.galwaynews.ie/22010-defamed-ahascragh-priest-welcomed-back-parish

The question is, are they going to cry 'Its not fair, as we weren't the only ones, or worst ones' etc? That seems to be the logic you are applying.

It may seem that way to you but it is NOT what I am claiming.

And the 'Some did not' is the issue. On a side note, could you provide information with regards to clergy who alerted authorities? i would be interested to see just how much the state failed the children.

In looking up the Fr Reynolds case I came across another Fr Reynolds who was reported for abuse . Authorities were alerted by another Priest.
As for the state failing children last week a HSE report came out wher over 200 children in state care over the last decade died!

There were enough people in the organisation that knew, and that is all that matters.

Not if you are claiming a "cover up"!
Furthermore in Authoritarian Ireland some people ( one is now the Primate) took statements and sent them to their bishop and trusted the Authorities to deal with it. They took statements and it was not their place to judge. Just as gardai also took statements. You cant blame the Garda involved and say because he knew then it is his fault. it was a systematic error.

How long were the apologies in coming from the RCC?

In individual cases? In some cases since the families asked for nothing to be made public as there were no strict laws and difficult legal circumstances and the Church/local Bishop agreed to this and apologised for the victims difficulties.

If there were so many that knew about abuse and reported to the authotrities etc, then surely it was a simple matter of an unreserved apology for the actions of their representatives,

Not quie so simple. As I pointed out
No law for rape of a male
No extradition treaty with Northern Ireland
No class actions allowed ~ difficulties in bringing individual abusers to trial for numerous victims.

and more importantly, they alledgedly represnted Christ too? Also, 'out of a total of several hundread bishops' throws out a bit of a curve ball doesn't it? The only ones that matter are those that knew. Are you saying that several hundread knew and reported it to the authorities etc? I don't think you are. I think you are saying that out of all those bishops, only a handfuls names have been dragged into this unholy mess.

I am sayiong out of several tens of thousands of bishops less than hundred over a century maybe less than fifty came across such cases and when they did so they did in iosolation form the other bishops. The vartican for example I believe I have supplied their figures had a total of 300 pedo priests on record but 250 of these are from the USA in the 2003-04. that leaves 50 offenders in the reat of the world over 50 years. I dont know if all 300 were convicted or just file sof "likley offenders" passed on and I don't know how many didn't actually abuse children themselves but might for example have had possession of child porn.

Can you detail these events? As in, priests were found to be abusing, and hierarchy found out, and kept them isolated away from children. Where can I find these details? And have these priests been handed to authorities since?

smyth was one for example. He was eventually isolated by his Norbertine superiour. But if the Church has no influence on civil authority there is nothing today to stop such an offender just walking out of the monastery.

http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_32.shtml

And that is not good enough for Gods representatives on earth. Does it matter if it was 10 or 1000?

Scale does not matter to the principle unless hte issue is being raised by non church antio Catholics and they ignore their planks and focus on the splinters in other people's eyes.

What was done was enough to bring themselves, and what they claim to represent into disrepute.

As I pointed out not necessarily. If there were no cases at all thar would not stop the anti catholics. sure look what they did tho Jesus and he did nothing wrong at all!

How many cases do you think it would require before you would see the current reaction as appropriate or worthy of empathy?

The Church reaction was as I pointed out quicker than the State and proactive. I admit more sooner and quicker could have been done.

TBH, I don't think the law has caught up at all. Its still quite flimsy it seems in terms of sentences for child abusers.

Ill agree. Actually the international case for child porn is a case in point.

Read what I said again. I never said you didn't care. I said you shouldn't care that someone else was doing it, or doing it worse.

If the motive of the other poster isn't the welfare of victims but just attacking the Church then it is necessary to expose that.

The fact is, that it was happening inside an institution that placed itself on the highest pedestal possible, that of Gods representatives. So that makes the crime much, much more severe. Especially in terms of God.

Yes but not at hte highest level. The Pope was not involved in covering up anything or the vatican or the bishops. some individual biishops were . Maybe ten at any one time of a population of 100,000 bishops over the last century. Yes it was wrong but it is over hyped. If people really want to act on child abuse yes the church shoulld but the other 99 per cent have to be dealt with too.

Firstly, I think you would be hard pressed to find any sane person who 'did not care about 99% of abusers'. I would imagine you are misrepresenting them somewhat.

I think that some posters here clearly don't want to discuss non clerical abuse and the victims of that but only clerical abusers. What does that suggest to you?

Secondly, while I care about people being abused etc, in a lot of cases abuse is in the home, close relative etc. So how should our disgust be expressed in terms of that? Should we say, 'down with all fathers'? 'Down with all unles'? etc based on percentages? Of course not. this percentage thing is just another red herring. I mean, are we honestly arguing that, 'yeah it was bad, but in the context of the overall numbers....'?

If we find most families have abusers still active in them we are wasting time focusing on priests. We probably should follow the Church example and institute child protection in all state agfencies and non Satte ones. I mean One in Four brought in full disclosure when??? Last year I think!

There were cover ups in the Jehovahs Witnesses also you know (Another self appointed representative og God on earth), and probably many others. It would be equally absurd for them to claim, 'It was only 0.2% of overall abuse' as if that somehow matters.

If it was only 0.2 % then an inordinate amount of timne sould not be devoted to it.

And its not just anti-catholic. Christianity as a whole is the butt of the joke in many circles.

I beg to differ Jenking research indicated otherwise. and he is not a catholic.

When you stand against the things which society wants, you'll be in the firing line. Again, my issue is with the whining about it.

I happy to stanfd in the line of fire. someone had to! Whether against Church Authorities or antio Catholic bigots. But I want solutions and not just actions.

As Christians, we have failed our fellow man,

Maybe you should be a catholic? YTou certainly have the guilt trait:)

i would not be looking to get perspective in terms of, 'Well its not as bad as this that or the other'. A guy who murders two people is a murderer. We don't take someone who murdered 10 people and say, 'yeah but look at this guy'.

I agree. and if someone has the killer of one person and is dealing with it you dont spend all yout time drawing attention to the killer and saying "look at this guy" if there is another bunch of killers out on a killing spree and have killed 99 other people. do you?

Then think of in the face of lack of grace, you say, 'Well I did my best, take it or leave it. What else can I do.'

But that does not apply to the church?

Well, The RCC and its adherents should still be in a state of humility. Realising what has gone on, and empathising with the attitude. Meeting it with meekness and constant remorse. Praying for the victims, that they have not been stumbled away from the greatest gift that can be offered to mankind.

I dont disagree with that . But when the pooe said "be humble and pray" about child abuse he was lambasted by anti Catholics.

Eh, the 'wolves' I refer to are the folk that are looking for opportunity to tear down the RCC. The events in discussion have allowed them in.

As i poited out they would still be attacking in the absenbce of clerical abuse.

How you equate that with reasoning like 'yis r all pedo's' is beyond me As for 'hang your head in shame', I didn't say that. I said that the horrible events should provoke shame and humility. You make it sound like it was some off the cuff remark. I'm surprised that you took such a cheap shot tbh, I in no way contradicted my opening statement.

If you took personal offence Im sorry but non was intended. I saw what I identified as a contradiction. If you think I am a cheap shot type of person it is quite hurtful but I can't really do anything about that can I?

andyjo

JimiTime wrote: »

As this is Ireland, with its history of RCC power etc we are dealing with a problem that is close to us, and the response towards the RCC is going to be stronger than any other group. The question is, are they going to cry 'Its not fair, as we weren't the only ones, or worst ones' etc?

Unfortunately most peoples experience is clearly that the catholic church in this country did abuse, and the SAVI report , and the MURPHY report and other reports, all point to child abuse in the Irish RCC as being " endemic", to quote the Irish governments own word to describe the child abuse problem in the Catholic church. Per head of population, no worse offending group can be found. Its onlt fair to say that not all Priests are offenders, and there are many decent priests. There are also many who were silent while knowing of their colleagues abuses.

PatricaMcKay2

andyjo wrote: »

Unfortunately most peoples experience is clearly that the catholic church in this country did abuse, and the SAVI report , and the MURPHY report and other reports, all point to child abuse in the Irish RCC as being " endemic", to quote the Irish governments own word to describe the child abuse problem in the Catholic church. Per head of population, no worse offending group can be found. Its onlt fair to say that not all Priests are offenders, and there are many decent priests. There are also many who were silent while knowing of their colleagues abuses.

Decent priests whether theologically conservative or liberal where generally sent on the "Missions", i.e. far away from Ireland.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nope

Nope

What?

Did you read and understand my post?

yep.
What did you mean by

Your requirement to forgive is not contingent on their repentance.

Are you saying a person can forgive? Or are you saying only God can forgive?

You see the whole discussion is about repenting and being forgiven.
I'm just questioning whether you believe anyone can forgive someone who isn't actually sorry and has not repented. do you think someone who has not repented can be forgiven?

ISAW

andyjo wrote: »

Unfortunately most peoples experience is clearly that the catholic church in this country did abuse, and the SAVI report , and the MURPHY report and other reports, all point to child abuse in the Irish RCC as being " endemic",

Here we go again with the "endemic" argument!

That was already sorted out but you have to repost it again.
Anyway SAVI ( which I have argued is over estimation) points to I believe a 1.7% of Clerical abuse and that isnt only restricted to the Roman Catholic clergy.

to quote the Irish governments own word to describe the child abuse problem in the Catholic church.

The head of the Irish government Kenny claimed a Vatican coverup and then later was left with egg on his face. Gil;more and Rabbitte ditto. also already dealt with in another thread.

Per head of population, no worse offending group can be found.

Per head of population almost any other group is way higher. Take SAVI - Relatives babysitters teachers all come out above Clergy and that is including non roman Catholic clergy. When it comes to just roman clergy they figure at less than 1% of abusers. That means for any other group of non clergy to all be less than one per cent that ther has to be at least 100 other groups all less than 1%! Ludicrous! Not alone that but the 1% is of abusers. when it comes to the whole population the percentage of Roman Catholic clerical sexual abusers is vanishingly small. Of the order of dozens in ten million people!

Its onlt fair to say that not all Priests are offenders, and there are many decent priests. There are also many who were silent while knowing of their colleagues abuses.

this is the type of comment to which I am referring for "not all" read "about one in a million of the population" and for "many who were silent" read "maybe five bishops all in isolation from other bishops and acting alone over a century"

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

yep.
What did you mean by


Are you saying a person can forgive? Or are you saying only God can forgive?

What I'm saying is pretty simple, and I thought I expressed it clearly; even if the other person does not repent, you are still expected to forgive them.

ISAW wrote: »

You see the whole discussion is about repenting and being forgiven.
I'm just questioning whether you believe anyone can forgive someone who isn't actually sorry and has not repented. do you think someone who has not repented can be forgiven?

Yes - and a Christian is expected to do so. The other person's repentance is an issue between them and their God.

andyjo

ISAW wrote: »

Per head of population almost any other group is way higher. Take SAVI

Rubbish. The SAVI figure shows that religous ( including Priests, Brothers, clergy, religous teachers ) account for ( in round figures ) 6% of boys abused. That survey was in the Republic of Ireland. That is there in the SAVI report . 6% of boys abused by Priests, Brothers, clergy, religous teachers is a shicking figure considering the relatively small number of such people in the country - measured in the thousands, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What I'm saying is pretty simple, and I thought I expressed it clearly; even if the other person does not repent, you are still expected to forgive them.

So you are saying people can forgive and that not God alone can forgive?
Now when God does forgive does he forgive people who are not sorry?
Or does God forgive only those who are already sorry?

Yes - and a Christian is expected to do so. The other person's repentance is an issue between them and their God.

So you are saying a christian is expected to forgive sins and not God?
And you are saying that god forgives those who do not repent.
How ? How does God forgive the unrepentant sinner?

Monty Burnz

ISAW wrote: »

So you are saying people can forgive and that not God alone can forgive?

Are you saying that you can't forgive? :eek:

ISAW wrote: »

Now when God does forgive does he forgive people who are not sorry?
Or does God forgive only those who are already sorry?

Irrelevant to whether you have to forgive or not as a Christian.

ISAW wrote: »

So you are saying a christian is expected to forgive sins and not God?

Did you not read the scripture that I posted?

ISAW wrote: »

And you are saying that god forgives those who do not repent.
How ? How does God forgive the unrepentant sinner?

Irrelevant to whether or not you have to forgive as a Christian.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to throw up a load of obfuscating nonsense to distract from the basic principle: Christ demanded that we forgive those who trespass against us, irrespective of whether they have repented or not.

Can anyone help me out here in explaining this to our friend? I've explained it several different ways an he still seems confused.

DeVore

I'm not willing to forgive the Catholic Church because they consistently have shown (by their actions, not their weasel words) that they are not contrite.

In this regard I am not explicitly talking about abuse (where an argument can be made that the abuser is sick or defective and it compelled to his/her acts) but rather the continuing attitude of putting the Churchs public relations ahead of all else.

Until that happens, I'm sorry, I simply can never forgive.


I will never return to the catholic faith at this stage personally.


DeV.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you saying that you can't forgive? :eek:

Sorry it was a question. What I believe or not is beside the point. I asked you do you believe individual people can forgive or do you believe God alone can forgive. It is important because it is central to the point about contrition nad the concept we have of the word "forgive" . I am asking what your use of the word really means.

Irrelevant to whether you have to forgive or not as a Christian.

So are you saying whether or not god forgives since that people can forgive sins of others.
You used the words "you" forgive. so you claim people can forgive then.

Irrelevant to whether or not you have to forgive as a Christian.

so it is in my power to forgive people?

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to throw up a load of obfuscating nonsense to distract from the basic principle: Christ demanded that we forgive those who trespass against us, irrespective of whether they have repented or not.

so are you saying that Christ allowed people to forgive the sins of others and it was not reserved only to God? If the apostles forgave sins then that was alright as far as Christ was concerned?

Can anyone help me out here in explaining this to our friend? I've explained it several different ways an he still seems confused.

Yep how can anyone including God forgive people who are not repentant?
I mean if nobody has to be sorry for anything they do and god will forgive them all anyway why bother being sorry?

ISAW

DeVore wrote: »

I'm not willing to forgive the Catholic Church because they consistently have shown (by their actions, not their weasel words) that they are not contrite.

Really? have you several examples of this? Say three?

In this regard I am not explicitly talking about abuse (where an argument can be made that the abuser is sick or defective and it compelled to his/her acts) but rather the continuing attitude of putting the Churchs public relations ahead of all else.

And the church did this in what three examples and subsequently never admitted it was an error?

Until that happens, I'm sorry, I simply can never forgive.

So you don't believe they are sorry? For what?

I will never return to the catholic faith at this stage personally.

Because you don't believe the Church is demonstrating they are sorry and you believe they never will say sorry. For what?

Dudess

For the heinous abuses to which it turned a blind eye/enabled.

I don't see anti catholic sentiment rife in the media, as in: anti clergy, anti practising catholic for merely being same. I would find the latter abhorrent. And I know there are people who tar all catholic clergy with the same brush, and who attack people for being catholic, which is uncalled for. Maybe there's an argument that those who are practising catholics are endorsing the hierarchy, but I don't think it's as simple as that.

However, attacking the institution itself: fire away. That is not anti catholic individual/anti all catholic clergy. It's cheap, very cheap, to resort to claiming that. It reminds me of the way some folks blurt out "anti semitism" in relation to criticisms of the Israeli state/military.