Wrong to be Catholic ?

Artful_Badger

Is it morally wrong to be a member of an organisation with such a horrendous record as the Catholic church ? Down through the years they have been nothing but a bane to the growth of civilisation and presided over the subjugation and suffering of millions of people. Most recently allowed children to systematically be raped and abused by covering up instances of abuse and relocating paedophiles to other parishes.

Surely any person as it stands now cannot be associated with this organisation and still call themselves a good person can they ? The people in this organisation will chop and change but ever present in its existence is a wrong doing in some capacity to the people in the parishes that they operate. Whether its the brutal fashion in which violent and ignorant priests forced people to their knees in the 50/60s or the mild mannered priest of nowadays who still perpetuate mistruths and ignorance.

So is ignorance really an excuse for standing by such an organisation ?

Aenaes

"Just following orders."

Prodigious

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

Is it morally wrong to be a member of an organisation with such a horrendous record as the Catholic church ?

... allowed children to systematically be raped and abused by covering up instances of abuse and relocating paedophiles to other parishes.

Surely any person as it stands now cannot be associated with this organisation and still call themselves a good person can they ?

...

So is ignorance really an excuse for standing by such an organisation ?

Ridiculous claims there. Total slander of followers of the Catholic Church. Stop imposing your opinions on others.

Zen65

Methememb wrote: »

Would you atheists ever grow the fúck up and stop imposing your ideas on everyone else.

I'm guessing atheists would agree to this if the various churches would equally refrain from imposing their views on others?

As for the OP, I would comment that the behaviour of the few, even if they have been among the senior ranks of the organisation, does not determine the morality of the organisation. One would not expect Americans to denounce their citizenship because of the warring actions of George W, or that of previous presidents.

Members of the RC church should judge the merit of their membership on the basis of the underlying beliefs rather than on the actions of some of their leaders. It seems to me that any church will only be modernised by the actions of its members rather than the actions of non-members. If there were more members like Fr Tony Flannery then perhaps the RC church would be guided to a more sensible and loving position on morality.

Passive actions by members (such as simply leaving) do not seem to have much effect on the church, as they simply move to developing nations to garner new members.

Z

Prodigious

Zen65 wrote: »

I'm guessing atheists would agree to this if the various churches would equally refrain from imposing their views on others?

Any eye for an eye is it?

Im out of here. OP, have a chat with yourself.

Artful_Badger

Zen65 wrote: »

I'm guessing atheists would agree to this if the various churches would equally refrain from imposing their views on others?

As for the OP, I would comment that the behaviour of the few, even if they have been among the senior ranks of the organisation, does not determine the morality of the organisation. One would not expect Americans to denounce their citizenship because of the warring actions of George W, or that of previous presidents.

Members of the RC church should judge the merit of their membership on the basis of the underlying beliefs rather than on the actions of some of their leaders. It seems to me that any church will only be modernised by the actions of its members rather than the actions of non-members. If there were more members like Fr Tony Flannery then perhaps the RC church would be guided to a more sensible and loving position on morality.

Passive actions by members (such as simply leaving) do not seem to have much effect on the church, as they simply move to developing nations to garner new members.

Z

Citizenship is a different thing and is not comparable to being a member of an organised religion in this context. Their beliefs although coming from the church are not solely tied to that church. Most people these days dont take the bible seriously in all aspects. They believe god exists and they believe in an afterlife but are not convinced of the padding. So they do not fully subscribe to the teaching of Roman Catholicism and I would say most people would be merely spiritual rather than wholly religious.

And although the underlying beliefs are not the same as the actions of some of its leaders, the church itself as an organisation operating in line with those beliefs as they expect its members to do is responsible for those actions. And being honest, it isnt isolated incidents. The control the church has had has wrought huge suffering on the world, thats not due to a few bad eggs. Thats due to the existence of the Roman Catholic Church. And its an ever present problem, which is facilitated by people who prop up an organised religion with full knowledge of how that church operating under those beliefs has used the power they had.

gctest50

Its like a good few organisations like that :

Starts out fine for a little while
Then the atention seeking loopers latch on to it
Then it attracts those who like to take advantage of the above


*************************************

Methememb wrote: »

Would you atheists ever grow the fúck up and stop imposing your ideas on everyone else. Wow, you're an atheist. Congratufúckinglations. Nobody asked for your opinion of Catholicism or any religion.

Dear admin@boards : creche.boards.ie could be a sucess

Prodigious

gctest50 wrote: »

Its like a good few organisations like that :

Starts out fine for a little while
Then the atention seeking loopers latch on to it
Then it attracts those who like to take advantage of the above


*************************************



Dear admin@boards : creche.boards.ie could be a sucess

Dear Admins,

literacy.boards.ie could be a success.

You should have paid more attention in English class.

Your post made no sense.

Doctor DooM

Methememb wrote: »

Would you atheists ever grow the fúck up and stop imposing your ideas on everyone else. Wow, you're an atheist. Congratufúckinglations. Nobody asked for your opinion of Catholicism or any religion.

The OP asked for people's opinion, actually? That's how a forum works.

I would be extremely interested how an atheist has imposed atheist ideals on your life. The only atheist position is that there's no proof for a god claim, really. There are perhaps other things which spring from this, but that's the only thing all atheists share. However, the opposite is not true.

I, for example, am going to have to consider getting my child baptised as a Catholic or he/she might not be able to get into a school in a few years. That's a pretty big imposition, imo.

Why am I writing this when you've said you won't be back? Because (1) I've read that before, and it's rarely true, you're at least reading this- hi- and (2) Other people who think this might be interested in thinking about it for a bit.

Zen65

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

Citizenship is a different thing and is not comparable to being a member of an organised religion in this context.

Let's agree this is correct (though I don't entirely agree since both are a form of optional membership) - perhaps the example I should have offered is that members of the NRA (in the USA) who agree with gun control measures would not resign their membership because of the actions of their leaders. Likewise employees of BP may disagree with the environmentally immoral action of the company in other countries, but they don't necessarily consider their employment to be immoral.

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

....the church itself as an organisation operating in line with those beliefs as they expect its members to do is responsible for those actions. ....

I believe that most members of the RC church consider that their leaders did not (and most likely do not) act in accordance with the church's stated beliefs. Certainly anyone with even half a brain can see their actions were totally at odds with the scriptural teachings of their God. That's exactly why these actions are so repulsive to their members.

I am not trying to defend any of the churches. I have no time for organised religions in general, and I consider any theist belief to be poorly thought out. My response to the OP is that deeming membership to be immoral is probably a flawed piece of logic.

Z

Zen65

Methememb wrote: »

Any eye for an eye is it?

No eyes have been lost by these postings. Perhaps you should consider the meaning of that phrase before you use it? Without debate there is no advance in thinking.

Z

Extinction

Methememb wrote: »

Would you atheists ever grow the fúck up and stop imposing your ideas on everyone else. Wow, you're an atheist. Congratufúckinglations. Nobody asked for your opinion of Catholicism or any religion.

Nobody needs permission to discuss or have an opinion about an organisation that facilitated the abuse of children by their actions. Maybe it's the catholics that need to mature and realize that they can no longer force their will and that they will be discussed by people who have no intention of shuttingthe****up.

Artful_Badger

gctest50 wrote: »

Its like a good few organisations like that :

Starts out fine for a little while
Then the atention seeking loopers latch on to it
Then it attracts those who like to take advantage of the above


*************************************



Dear admin@boards : creche.boards.ie could be a sucess

I dont think its loopers attaching to it thats created the problems. I think its the fact that its laid out in such a way as to control and little else. It was never going to do anything but take advantage of the masses to benefit the organisation and those at the helm of it.

Tim Robbins

Methememb wrote: »

Im out of here. OP, have a chat with yourself.

An apostrophe missing between I and m, surely?

Artful_Badger

Zen65 wrote: »

Let's agree this is correct (though I don't entirely agree since both are a form of optional membership) - perhaps the example I should have offered is that members of the NRA (in the USA) who agree with gun control measures would not resign their membership because of the actions of their leaders. Likewise employees of BP may disagree with the environmentally immoral action of the company in other countries, but they don't necessarily consider their employment to be immoral.

They might not see it as immoral but that does not mean it isnt. Members of the NRA might only be interested in protecting their right to do something they like, despite the fact its lading to suffering for others. Thats immoral.

I believe that most members of the RC church consider that their leaders did not (and most likely do not) act in accordance with the church's stated beliefs. Certainly anyone with even half a brain can see their actions were totally at odds with the scriptural teachings of their God. That's exactly why these actions are so repulsive to their members.

But were they at odds ? They were in a position of power and control that the church has created by selling those beliefs along with beliefs that god is all powerful, its eternal damnation for those who dont comply and the clergy were gods messengers on earth. Those priests got away with what they did because people feared them and the church precisely because of the beliefs and teaching of the church.

I am not trying to defend any of the churches. I have no time for organised religions in general, and I consider any theist belief to be poorly thought out. My response to the OP is that deeming membership to be immoral is probably a flawed piece of logic.

I dont think your defending the church but I'd disagree about it being flawed. I think supporting an organisation unnecessarily while ignoring its transgressions would be in line with the NRA example. Ignoring the plight of others to live your own life in a state of contented ignorance.

Zen65

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

They might not see it as immoral but that does not mean it isnt. Members of the NRA might only be interested in protecting their right to do something they like, despite the fact its lading to suffering for others. Thats immoral.

The stated aim of the NRA is not to promote the use of guns in random attacks on the public

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

One might reasonably deduce that the NRA's promotion of gun ownership goes far beyond their original remit, no doubt influenced by the weapons industry sponsorship. Likewise the actions of the RC church in protecting paedophiles among their ranks is not following the teachings of their God, but rather it was protecting their "status" (which directly affects their earnings).

I think your logic in determining that membership of the NRA is inherently immoral is flawed. Is membership of the EU immoral? After all, that membership creates a barrier to third-world countries growing their economy.

Z

Artful_Badger

Zen65 wrote: »

The stated aim of the NRA is not to promote the use of guns in random attacks on the public

I didnt say it was. The NRA is active in fighting gun control of all kinds regardless of how many random attacks on the public. Being a member of such an organisation to protect your interests regardless of how it affects others is immoral.

One might reasonably deduce that the NRA's promotion of gun ownership goes far beyond their original remit, no doubt influenced by the weapons industry sponsorship. Likewise the actions of the RC church in protecting paedophiles among their ranks is not following the teachings of their God, but rather it was protecting their "status" (which directly affects their earnings).

Therein lies the problem. The RC church was protecting itself at the expense of society. Something it has always and will always do. To think any different would be to disengage with reality. The RCC isnt going to dissolve while people support it. And it isnt going to change into anything without a negative impact on society without a complete overhaul. So its not going to change. The more power taken away form it though by the state (which is recent enough in its doing) will reduce its impact on society.

I think your logic in determining that membership of the NRA is inherently immoral is flawed. Is membership of the EU immoral? After all, that membership creates a barrier to third-world countries growing their economy.

Membership of the EU is compulsory for all EU citizens. Again you're confusing being a citizen of a state and being a member of an organisation. Citizenship is not chosen and you only change it (as far as I'm aware) and not denounce it. But being a member of the church or NRA is completely voluntary in the case of the NRA and in the case of the church it may be inherited through a family but its certainly not binding by any means.

And membership of the NRA isnt inherently immoral, its immoral to support the NRA if its having a negative impact on society.

robindch

Methememb wrote: »

Any eye for an eye is it? Im out of here. OP, have a chat with yourself.

Methememb wrote: »

literacy.boards.ie could be a success.

"Any eye" or "An eye"? And as Tim points out, you're missing an apostrophe after the 'I'.

Anyhow, dude, chillax a bit. It's Sunday evening and all that. No need to go biblical on everybody.

Methememb

Methememb wrote: »

Would you atheists ever grow the fúck up and stop imposing your ideas on everyone else. Wow, you're an atheist. Congratufúckinglations. Nobody asked for your opinion of Catholicism or any religion.

You're right - anyone who isn't catholic must be atheist
:eek:

MagicMarker

Methememb wrote: »

Would you atheists ever grow the fúck up and stop imposing your ideas on everyone else. Wow, you're an atheist. Congratufúckinglations. Nobody asked for your opinion of Catholicism or any religion.

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

Prodigious

I got an infraction if it makes you feel better. Just want to point out that this man is labelling the Catholic Church and its members "wrong" because of the wrongdoings of some members. Ridiculous.

Prodigious

Fixed my post, made it more PC.

MagicMarker

Methememb wrote: »

I got an infraction if it makes you feel better. Just want to point out that this man is labelling the Catholic Church and its members "wrong" because of the wrongdoings of some members. Ridiculous.

No he's not, he's asking a question. Are you unfamiliar with question marks?

Oh, and the Catholic Church is wrong. Especially when the man at the top and everyone around him protected the child rapists.

Dades

Methememb wrote: »

I got an infraction if it makes you feel better. Just want to point out that this man is labelling the Catholic Church and its members "wrong" because of the wrongdoings of some members. Ridiculous.

I disagree with the OP too, which should highlight how OTT your first post was.

The way I look at it is in order to be a catholic you already have to ignore the utter nonsense it's based on, so it's not that much of a stretch to keep your fingers in your ears about all the stuff the organisation facilitates.

Kidchameleon

Should we all stop watching BBC aswell? One of their members raped and abused and they covered it up?

Artful_Badger

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Should we all stop watching BBC aswell? One of their members raped and abused and they covered it up?

What are you asking me for ? Are you incapable of reasoned thought ?

Artful_Badger

BTW there was no cover up at the BBC. There was a bit of confusion over a tv show which wasnt aired. So not really comparable to the good old church moving paedophiles around the country to avoid being caught raping children.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Should we all stop watching BBC aswell? One of their members raped and abused and they covered it up?

Your metaphor is wildly kak-handed. I don't believe the BBC is claiming to be the world's moral authority (unlike Herr Ratzinger and his organization) and neither do I believe there's any evidence that the BBC was generally aware of Saville's abuse or had any systematic policy to hide it (unlike Herr Ratzinger and his organization).

If you are aware of such evidence, I suggest you get in touch with the UK police as soon as you can.

Kidchameleon

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

What are you asking me for ? Are you incapable of reasoned thought ?

Why did you make the OP? Are you incapable of reasoned thought??

Oh and yes, if you have watched any of the interviews with any of Savills victims, you will know that he was reported and it was brushed under the carpet

Artful_Badger

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Why did you make the OP? Are you incapable of reasoned thought??

Oh and yes, if you have watched any of the interviews with any of Savills victims, you will know that he was reported and it was brushed under the carpet

To discuss it, not to listen to childish questions from people trying to dismiss it rather than discuss.

Brushed under the carpet by the bbc ? He was reported and investigated twice by the UK police. There is no evidence that the BBC were aware of and hid information about his actions. I'm sure a few rats will be rooted out but it certainly wast covered up by the BBC. While there was a cover up by the RCC going all the way up to the top. Who did hide evidence and paedo's from the police. And allowed many many children to be raped. The RCC is a disgusting organisation populated by sick, twisted and deluded individuals.

Also as Robindch says the RCC are putting themselves forward as a moral authority.

krudler

Methememb wrote: »

Ridiculous claims there. Total slander of followers of the Catholic Church. Stop imposing your opinions on others.

Yeah stop stealing the RCC's thunder.

Prodigious

If I choose the Catholic set of beliefs, what make me an immoral person, as you claim me to be?

Prodigious

bluewolf wrote: »

You're right - anyone who isn't catholic must be atheist
:eek:

Seeing as its in the Atheism & Agnosticism Forum...

fisgon

Methememb wrote: »

Ridiculous claims there. Total slander of followers of the Catholic Church. Stop imposing your opinions on others.

How is expressing his opinion "imposing his opinions on others"? It's a forum, you are free to agree or disagree as you wish.

Artful_Badger

Methememb wrote: »

If I choose the Catholic set of beliefs, what make me an immoral person, as you claim me to be?

If you are an active donating member of an organisation such as the Catholic church then you are funding an organisation that has had nothing but a negative impact on society through spreading misinformation and nonsense as fact. You are also supporting the moral authority of an organisation who stood by and protected paedophiles and ignored the plight of children who were being subjected to horrific abuse. This wasnt a few bad eggs, this was the organisation. Gods people on earth did this. You cant ignore it and say "well the next lot will be ok" Each century has shed a new light on the goings on of this organisation. And if at this stage you still think its good in any way shape or form and are willing to support it then you are doing society a disservice and if that is for your own contented ignorance and I'd call that immoral.

oldrnwisr

Methememb wrote: »

If I choose the Catholic set of beliefs, what make me an immoral person, as you claim me to be?

First of all, the OP didn't claim anything of the sort. He simply asked a question of the forum.

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

Is it morally wrong to be a member of an organisation with such a horrendous record as the Catholic church ?

This is after all, what a discussion forum is all about.

Secondly, to answer your question, it all depends on what you define as moral. For me, anything which is immoral is that which causes pain and suffering to others and generally has a negative impact on the rights of others and society in general.

So in context of catholic beliefs, the opposition to gay rights, the opposition to contraception and the effect such opposition has had on the spread of AIDS in Africa, the cover up of countless cases of child rape and the surreptitious movement of paedophile priests to new locations where they could continue to offend, the negative portrayal and perception of women are all immoral attitudes in my opinion and that's just what the church is at right now. That doesn't even come close to the things its preached in the past like anti-semitism and the execution of heretics, blasphemers or even people whose only crime was to own a bible in English.

Now, granted, you may not agree with certain positions of the Catholic church but then that just begs the question of why you consider yourself a catholic at all. After all one of the precepts of the Catholic Church is obedience to all teachings of the church.

Gbear

I agree with the OP to a point.

There's no reason why "good" catholics can't go found their own church away from Child Rapists Incorporated.

Who the **** is the Pope? Is papal infallibly relevant when he's been proven to be wrong? Why should any Catholics feel they should have to stay with the church just because? They've clearly shown themselves to be completely inappropriate as any sort of moral guardians.

Obviously a mixture of denial and apathy are what keep most people nominally catholic as opposed to being horrible people but there was a full blown schism a few hundred years ago and I'm not sure that the reasons for that were more legitimate than a paedophilia scandal of such frightening proportions.

It is immoral to be part of the church and either not be lobbying for significant changes or actively seeking to start another free of the Catholic hierarchy. Every time someone pencils in "Catholic" on the census they're giving their support to an utterly and totally poisonous institution.

Prodigious

fisgon wrote: »

How is expressing his opinion "imposing his opinions on others"? It's a forum, you are free to agree or disagree as you wish.

If you read the OP, he is not asking a question, he is stating his opinion.

Artful_Badger

Methememb wrote: »

If you read the OP, he is not asking a question, he is stating his opinion.

I'm posing a question while stating my reasons for posing it actually.

fisgon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Should we all stop watching BBC aswell? One of their members raped and abused and they covered it up?

First of all the BBC and the Catholic Church are not comparable. One is a broadcasting institution, that does not claim any kind of moral authority, ultimate truth or connection to the creator of the universe, and has not been lecturing people for centuries on their sex lives and their behaviour.

Secondly, Saville was one guy. There may have been others, but it doesn't compare to the hundreds of priests worldwide who have been convicted of abuse, and the hundreds of bishops who facilitated this, as well as the brothers involved in industrial schools and the nuns in the laundries.

The abuse within the church revealed innate and undeniable aspects of catholicism that cannot be changed without changing the whole religion; the obsession with power, the twisted attitude to sexuality, the inability of the members to criticise their own church, the cowardice of the ordinary catholics who allowed themselves to be cowed and intimidated by the crozier and the collar.

Prodigious

The_Artful_Badger wrote: »

Surely any person as it stands now cannot be associated with this organisation and still call themselves a good person can they ?

Sir, this is not an unbiased basis of a discussion.

fisgon

Methememb wrote: »

If you read the OP, he is not asking a question, he is stating his opinion.

Are you serious? Are you really pursuing this line of defence?

Yes, that is what I said, he expressed/stated his opinion. We agree on that. Yet, I repeat, this is a discussion forum, the OP "stated" his opinion, how on earth is this "imposing" his opinion on anyone else? Name one way in which anyone is forced to share his opinion, simply by the fact that he expressed it on an internet forum.

The fact that you don't like his opinion does not mean that he is imposing anything. You need some better arguments.

Prodigious

fisgon wrote: »

Are you serious? Are you really pursuing this line of defence?

Yes, that is what I said, he expressed/stated his opinion. We agree on that. Yet, I repeat, this is a discussion forum, the OP "stated" his opinion, how on earth is this "imposing" his opinion on anyone else? Name one way in which anyone is forced to share his opinion, simply by the fact that he expressed it on an internet forum.

The fact that you don't like his opinion does not mean that he is imposing anything. You need some better arguments.

Line of defence? What do I need defence for?

My beliefs are my own. This "discussion" is just an anti-catholic agenda. How about "Wrong to defend priests accused of pedophilia?"

Being a catholic does not mean I agree with or support the organisation that is the church, it means the basis of my faith is catholicism.

Artful_Badger

Methememb wrote: »

Sir, this is not an unbiased basis of a discussion.

It is the topic of discussion. Its the view that it might be immoral that I want to discuss. Not whether or not its nice to be a catholic.

robindch

Methememb wrote: »

Being a catholic does not mean I agree with or support the organisation that is the church [...]

The Vatican disagrees.

The Mad Hatter

Methememb wrote: »

Being a catholic does not mean I agree with or support the organisation that is the church, it means the basis of my faith is catholicism.

What does it mean, then?

krudler

Methememb wrote: »

Line of defence? What do I need defence for?

My beliefs are my own. This "discussion" is just an anti-catholic agenda. How about "Wrong to defend priests accused of pedophilia?"

Being a catholic does not mean I agree with or support the organisation that is the church, it means the basis of my faith is catholicism.

Ok this is a new one, even for a la carte Catholics.

Sarky

How is it that so many Catholics don't know the first thing about Catholicism? It's not exactly new, there's been plenty of time to learn the rules...

krudler

Sarky wrote: »

How is it that so many Catholics don't know the first thing about Catholicism? It's not exactly new, there's been plenty of time to learn the rules...

This, this a million ****ing times. "don't agree with the church or its teachings, sure Mary probably wasn't even a virgin, those wafers aren't REALLY made of Jesus. ah sure, still a Catholic"

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

How is it that so many Catholics don't know the first thing about Catholicism?

It's a selection effect -- if people understood catholicism proprely, they wouldn't call themselves "catholics".

Bannasidhe

Personally, I can't get my head around the fact that people I know to be kind, ethical, compassionate and unjudgemental (not to mention in many cases also homosexual) retain strong ties to the RCC.

Why????