Catholic church bashing

Talliesin

Arabel wrote:

If you are talking about pedo priests than all I have to say is a great big *sigh*.

It's probably inevitable that there will be some paedophile priests, as with paedophile brick-layers and paedophile shopkeepers. However when the latter happens there isn't a brick-laying or shop-keeping organisation with well-placed members who will harbour them, conspire to pervert to course of justice and attack the reputation of their victims so that they are not brought to book. Nor do brick-layers and shopkeepers often find themselves placed in positions of trust in relation to children other than their own without having done anything to earn that trust.

Saying this isn't church-bashing. Canon law recognised the risks of paedophile priests and the necessity of turning them over to the secular authorities and assisting the secular authorities in prosecuting them centuries ago. The Church's rules on the matter were a shining example of an organisation putting justice and consideration for the rights of victims ahead of its own selfish interests and reputation. In complaining that those rules were not followed I'm corrupt-moral-coward-bashing, not Church-bashing. After all, I'm not the one who is consciously and with foresight-of-knowledge breaking and re-writing the Church's rules on this matter, it's the bishops and cardinals that are doing that.

For that matter Church-bashing really doesn't help lead to justice in this matter anyway. It's no coincidence that Colm O'Gorman, a devout Roman Catholic, is a far more effective activist in this regard than many with strong anti-Church sentiment.

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote:

What the Stormfront people think of mrhankey

Roffle.

Wicknight wrote:

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Of course the problem with this definition is that it rules out most people who claim to be liberals. The most bigoted people I’ve ever met think they’re liberals.

solas

where have you been for the last 2000 years?

I've only been alive for the last 30....

You must be about 12 years old and from Dublin if you have no experience of the church imposing their views on Ireland.

I don't understand that statement, the church has had absolutely no negative influence on my life....would you like me to repeat that?
I have no experience of the church imposing their views on my life.

Read a history book, any history book about Irish society in the last 100 years it 90% of it will contain references to the church organising and controlling public and private lives in Ireland

actualy most story books and history books will discuss the events of the last 100 years in Ireland in a political/military sense, well there was the whole civil war thing and us fighting for our independance from british rule..who were coincidently enough "oppressing" the Irish people.
But then again..I don't live in the past.

ferdi

When the Catholic church actually did oppress people in ireland and had a hand in what the state did, people who oppossed the church could have been seen as rebels/radicals etc.

However, now that things have gone the complete opposite way and The Church of Consumerism rules, with the "Because I'm Worth it" doctrine fully embrassed, are people who support the Catholic church the new rebels/radicals etc?

I'm a lefty liberal but i am fit to vomit at all the bial and hate spewed at the church by modern society, we really havnt grown up at all.

Zillah

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course the problem with this definition is that it rules out most people who claim to be liberals. The most bigoted people I’ve ever met think they’re liberals.

Explain please

BuffyBot

What the Stormfront people think of mrhankey

Good to see he's won the respect of his peers anyway

Moss

Arabel wrote:

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that the Church "doesnt mind" peadophilia. Have you?

The Irish times reported this cardinal had a one in 20 chance of becoming pope after John Paul II. This is taken from the Dallas morning news:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1157311/posts

Cardinal offered sanctuary to admitted molester

Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez could be the next pope. He also recently sheltered an admitted child molester.


09:20 AM CDT on Monday, June 21, 2004

By BRENDAN M. CASE and BROOKS EGERTON / The Dallas Morning News


TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – A prominent candidate to succeed Pope John Paul II recently sheltered a priest who is an admitted child molester and now an international fugitive, The Dallas Morning News has learned.


Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez, who heads the Archdiocese of Tegucigalpa, put the Rev. Enrique Vásquez to work in two remote parishes from last year until March. The priest had fled criminal accusations in his native Costa Rica in 1998, then served in at least two U.S. dioceses before running again and spending time at a clergy treatment center in Mexico.

Father Vásquez helped found a training center for Catholic lay people in the Honduran town of El Paraíso and served as the resident priest in the village of Guinope. He vanished from Guinope days ahead of police after child-protection activists in Costa Rica pressured their government to revive a languishing criminal case.

The Irish times also quoted Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez as saying that 'he would rather go to jail than tell on a fellow priest for child abuse'.
The fact this guy could even be considered for pope is sickening.

You might want to look into the abuse scandal in boston. Despite the fact that cardinal law resigned after being shown to have repeatedly sheltered known pedophiles, he was allowed celebrate Mass at the Pope's funeral. What kind of message does this send?

Don't forget what happened in this country, e.g. in the industrial schools. Fintan O'Toole ( a highly respected journalist) compared them to Bosnian rape camps. He said he couldn't find another suitable analogy.

Personally I think the Church is the last bastion of pre-enlightenment thinking and backwardness in western Europe. The mentality of the Church is that you don't question. That is why it is pre-enlightenment and thats the real root of its problems.

ferdi

fintan o toole is a gob****e

Bri

ferdi wrote:

fintan o toole is a gob****e

Thanks for that constructive input.

The Corinthian

Zillah wrote:

Explain please

There are quite a few people out there who profess to liberalism, yet are completely intolerant of all other views. Disagree with such liberals and you are immediately branded and dismissed as a homophobe, misogynist, racist or otherwise. Question the logic behind any of the politically correct agenda and you’ll get jumped upon as fiercely as a black guy would at a BNP barbeque.

Such black and white conviction, inflexible and intolerant of dissention - and seemingly unable to question itself - is the very antithesis of liberalism. However, unlike the more traditional forms of bigotry, it’s far more fashionable and socially acceptable today; so you’ll see a lot more people ascribing to it.

But they’re certainly not liberals.

Moss wrote:

Fintan O'Toole ( a highly respected journalist) compared them to Bosnian rape camps.

I’m certain he’s highly respected in some quarters of the Montrose set, but he probably could not be called any more highly respected than archbishop Lefevre could - and probably for the same ideologically charged reasons.

Moss

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m certain he’s highly respected in some quarters of the Montrose set, but he probably could not be called any more highly respected than archbishop Lefevre could - and probably for the same ideologically charged reasons.

There is a certain amount of bias in any source but the conditions that Fintan O'Toole wrote about are well documented. In one industrial school he found that Christian brothers had a competition to see who could rape one particular child more than one hundred times. That's why he referred to them as Bosnian rape camps.
Why anyone would seek spiritual guidance from an institution complicit in these crimes is beyond me.

ferdi

Bri wrote:

Thanks for that constructive input.

your welcome

pretty*monster

Anyone else find it wonderfully ironic that someone using mrhanky as an avatar is lecturing us about the virtues of Christianity.

Nice to see another banning for that notorious internet weirdo.

neuro-praxis

My God.

I think the apocalypse is coming, because I agree with everything The Corinthian has said in this thread.

ferdi

neuro-praxis wrote:

My God.

I think the apocalypse is coming, because I agree with everything The Corinthian has said in this thread.

i know, me too, lol.

The Corinthian

Moss wrote:

There is a certain amount of bias in any source but the conditions that Fintan O'Toole wrote about are well documented.

Oddly enough, that’s what they did to justify the invasion of Iraq - delivered a well documented but biased case.

Why anyone would seek spiritual guidance from an institution complicit in these crimes is beyond me.

I’m sure it is beyond you.

Zillah

Im confused, I don't feel liek arguing...

Memnoch

Context is a wonderful thing, even more so when people chose to ignore it entirely.

The Corinthian wrote:

Oddly enough, that’s what they did to justify the invasion of Iraq - delivered a well documented but biased case.

actually it was falsified documentation, not just "biased" documentation. As well as obvious out right lies.

I’m sure it is beyond you.

As it would be, beyond most reasonable and honest people. At least those with courage enough to be honest to themselves.

The Corinthian

Memnoch wrote:

Context is a wonderful thing, even more so when people chose to ignore it entirely.

As you are. The strength of the arguments for the war in Iraq was principally based upon a biased presentation of evidence rather than presentation of falsified evidence.

actually it was falsified documentation, not just "biased" documentation. As well as obvious out right lies.

Some of it was, but in so far as the evidence presented tended to omit any reservations against it. That’s called a bias.

As it would be, beyond most reasonable and honest people. At least those with courage enough to be honest to themselves.

And if not, no doubt you must be a homophobe, misogynist, racist or otherwise. TBH, I see little difference between your faith in your position and the faith of a zealot has for his religion. And I doubt either one of you will waver.

Memnoch

The Corinthian wrote:

And if not, no doubt you must be a homophobe, misogynist, racist or otherwise. TBH, I see little difference between your faith in your position and the faith of a zealot has for his religion. And I doubt either one of you will waver.

I'm not gonna argue the iraq war thing again, did that too many times already so i'll leave the last word on that issue to you.

what exactly is my position? Since you seem to be so clear on it perhaps you could enlighten me on that

The Corinthian

Memnoch wrote:

I'm not gonna argue the iraq war thing again, did that too many times already so i'll leave the last word on that issue to you.

That’s very kind of you - not very convincing, but very kind.

what exactly is my position? Since you seem to be so clear on it perhaps you could enlighten me on that

You’ve concurred with Moss’s assertion that the Roman Catholic Church should not be seen as a source for spiritual guidance. You’ve gone further when you did so and stated that this is a natural conclusion for anyone who is reasonable, courageous and honest.

Logically then someone who would disagree with this could not be reasonable, courageous and honest, thereby both dismissing and branding them essentially as heretics to the view originally exposed by Moss.

Of course, Moss could well be right about the Roman Catholic Church, and by extension could you. Or most likely he is, partially right. But that’s ultimately still debatable rather than a truth to be followed by those you consider to be reasonable, courageous and honest.

Suitably enlightened I hope

Redleslie2

The people of Ireland voted to turn the place into a kind of catholic Iran so they should share some responsibility for the church's shenanigans. Quite straightforward really.

Memnoch

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s very kind of you - not very convincing, but very kind.

Well you can claim it's not convincing when i start debating the iraq war in this thread with you Until then my actions speak for themselves.

You’ve concurred with Moss’s assertion that the Roman Catholic Church should not be seen as a source for spiritual guidance. You’ve gone further when you did so and stated that this is a natural conclusion for anyone who is reasonable, courageous and honest.

I agree with Moss's assertion that it doesn't make sense to seek spiritual guidance from an organisation that choses to actively spread division and hatred in society. To actively campaign against necessary and basic things such as contraception, through their gross negligance cause the spread of disease epidemics. An organisation with the power to end all suffering, yet chosing only to prolong it, that it may retain it's grip by keeping people in poverty and ignorance.

Off course it requires one to be reasonable and honest to be able to realise how corrupt and "evil" the catholic chruch is, and that it is far more a political organisation than a spiritual one. I would say reason, courage and honesty are all required to be able to realise this. And I would say that those who can't see through this organisation's actions (and their history) are at the very least not honest with themselves about it.

As for heretical, no I don't agree with that, there isn't any dogma in my view, simply logic. If people chose not to accept it, that is their decision.


It's not a truth to be followed by those I consider to be reasonable, courageous and honest. Rather I would submit that the truth already exists, and is something i'd be willing to debate with anyone who claims contrary. For the indisputable facts are at the very least..

1) The church has continually and throghout history promoted dogma and antequated ideals to be forced upon society in general and everyone in particular that it is within their power to be forced upon. Eg. The concept of the sun being the center of the universe, to their actions during the potato famine in ireland, towards their recent attitudes towards homosexual.

2) The church has behaved in a highly irresponsable manner in their attitude with regard to contraception use to the point of spreading information that actively discourages people from using them, in pursuit of some failed ideal of monogamy that never has and never will exist in the world at large. (their own members being a shining example)

3) The church tried to cover up and protect paedophile priests that committed grave harm upon those that were entrusted into it's care, and on those who gave their trust to it. Now one of the people who tried to dismiss the scandal as a media conspiracy is the leader of this organisation?

4) The church has the financial ability to end to a great extent the suffering in Africa and the third world, or at least to ease it substantially. I'm not saying other organisations don't have this ability. But other organisations don't claim to be the agents of god on earth and benevolent towards all humanity.

I fail to see how any reasonable, honest and courageous person could seek spiritual guidance from such an organisation.

bus77

Redleslie2 wrote:

The people of Ireland voted to turn the place into a kind of catholic Iran so they should share some responsibility for the church's shenanigans. Quite straightforward really.

Could'nt agree more. The church was state sanctioned since day one.

Who was responsible for that?

The Corinthian

Memnoch wrote:

Well you can claim it's not convincing when i start debating the iraq war in this thread with you Until then my actions speak for themselves.

What actions? I said something, you disagreed, I rebutted your argument and now you’re saying “well I don’t need to defend what I’m saying because it’s already been proved” (under the pretext that you were giving me the last word ).

No doubt you’ve debated this in the past ad nausium, but I’m hardly going to take your word that you proved anything or that your actions amounted to much at all. So no, not very convincing.

I agree with Moss's assertion that it doesn't make sense to seek spiritual guidance from an organisation that choses to actively spread division and hatred in society. To actively campaign against necessary and basic things such as contraception, through their gross negligance cause the spread of disease epidemics. An organisation with the power to end all suffering, yet chosing only to prolong it, that it may retain it's grip by keeping people in poverty and ignorance.

That’s your opinion. Many would agree with it. Many would not.

And I would say that those who can't see through this organisation's actions (and their history) are at the very least not honest with themselves about it.

As for heretical, no I don't agree with that, there isn't any dogma in my view, simply logic. If people chose not to accept it, that is their decision.

Actually you didn’t say that at all. There was a very blunt and logical implication that anyone who did not accept it was not reasonable, courageous and honest and should be dismissed as such. This is of course logic that you’re now downplaying.

This reminds me of an old religion teacher who discussed with us one afternoon how everyone “hears God’s calling” - to which I innocently asked “but if you don’t believe in God, how can you hear anything?” His reply was to fly off the handle and ask me what I was doing in a Catholic country if I didn’t believe in God - i.e. “If you don’t agree there must be something wrong with you”.

Of course the point of this story is not that there are religious nuts out there, but that you are using the same logic as he did. Ironic, innit?

popinfresh

The thing that I hate most about the church. Regardless of opression etc is....


THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!


Catholism morphed into a semi-christian, semi-pagan religion well over 1000 years ago.
i.e Ever see the circle behind a cross that does be on tomb-stones.
This was christianity conforming so that the celts could worship the cross (and the sun).


Why don't I go to church? Because chances are, if there is a hell, that fella at the alter is more likely to go there than me.

The bible is a big book, one could take specific scriptures over-emphasise things, under-emphasie other things and voila, you have yourself religios beleifs (Catholic beleifs)

The world is finally copping on

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course the problem with this definition is that it rules out most people who claim to be liberals. The most bigoted people I’ve ever met think they’re liberals.

Well firstly, that is your opinion. Many would agree with it. Many would not.

I don't know "most people", I would assume from our "converstations" that in your experience it is more that most people who claim to be liberal disagree with you and as such must be wrong

Secondly, what someone is and what someone claims to be are to totally different things.

The definition of a chicken is pretty straight forward. This definition is not muddled by the fact that Harry down the road who sleeps in a box claims to be a chicken.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well firstly, that is your opinion. Many would agree with it. Many would not.

Fair enough.

I don't know "most people", I would assume from our "converstations" that in your experience it is more that most people who claim to be liberal disagree with you and as such must be wrong

No, not really

Secondly, what someone is and what someone claims to be are to totally different things.

That was my point. Are you agreeing with me?

solas

I'm thinking of taking up Islam next.

Memnoch

The Corinthian wrote:

What actions? I said something, you disagreed, I rebutted your argument and now you’re saying “well I don’t need to defend what I’m saying because it’s already been proved” (under the pretext that you were giving me the last word ).

no i'm not saying that at all. I accept your rebuttal and leave it at that, leaving you with the last word in the arguement. And yes I've debated the iraq issue ad nausium and despite myself ended up making a post about it in another thread on the politics forum, but i've no intention of doing so in this thread.

“If you don’t agree there must be something wrong with you”.

Of course the point of this story is not that there are religious nuts out there, but that you are using the same logic as he did. Ironic, innit?

Well since you pretty much ignored the 4 points I made regarding why I think that a person who was being reasonable and honest would not seek spiritual guidance from the catholic church, I see no point in repeating myself on that. To say that my arguement amounts to the above quote is intellectualy dishonesty at best.

But I do take your point, it's not easy to not become what you despise.

Memnoch

To actively campaign against necessary and basic things such as contraception, through their gross negligance cause the spread of disease epidemics. An organisation with the power to end all suffering, yet chosing only to prolong it,

That’s your opinion. Many would agree with it. Many would not.

That's not my opinion. It's a fact that the catholic church have campaigned against contraception, and that their actions have resulted in the increased rate of spread of STD's in Africa and the third world.

It is also a fact that the catholic church has the power to vastly reduce the suffering of third world countries due to their massive resources that they choose not to utilise.

My interpretation of the reason behind those actions is opinion, the actions themselves are not.

The Corinthian

Memnoch wrote:

To say that my arguement amounts to the above quote is intellectualy dishonesty at best.

I wasn’t going to refer to the points you listed because I wasn’t trying to defend the Roman Catholic Church; I was highlighting your opinion of those who disagree with you. As such, I was sticking to the point I’d raised, so I wasn’t being intellectually dishonest.

But I do take your point, it's not easy to not become what you despise.

Fair enough. We all do it I suppose, however Political Correctness has made it easier, IMHO.

That's not my opinion. It's a fact that the catholic church have campaigned against contraception, and that their actions have resulted in the increased rate of spread of STD's in Africa and the third world.

I don’t know if that follows. Bare in mind, the Roman Catholic Church also promotes chastity and monogamy - so you are looking at one influence and ignoring the other.

Secondly, you would have to show that those countries that have a large catholic percentage of the population are also those with the highest HIV rates and that Roman Catholics are affected in greater numbers than those of other faiths.

And at the end of all this you still would only have statistics and not facts.

It is also a fact that the catholic church has the power to vastly reduce the suffering of third world countries due to their massive resources that they choose not to utilise.

I think there’s something in the Bible about it about there always being poor. Or maybe it was Jesus Christ Superstar, I’m not certain...

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

That was my point. Are you agreeing with me?

Unlikely

The point I am making is that, as it is bad for someone to claim to be liberial when they are clearly not, it is equally bad to attack "liberials" when you in fact are attacking the people who aren't liberial at all. Do you follow.

Just as someone claiming to be a liberal does not mean they are, someone attacking "liberals" when they actually mean the fake-liberals you talk about, is equally misleading.

I am not sure if I explained that right.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

The point I am making is that, as it is bad for someone to claim to be liberial when they are clearly not, it is equally bad to attack "liberials" when you in fact are attacking the people who aren't liberial at all. Do you follow.

Not exactly as the point of what I’ve consistently being saying here is that such individuals are not liberals, but erroneously believe themselves to be so.

Of course, pseudo-liberals aside, none of this means that I am bound to agree with a true liberal in debate in the first place. After all, I never said I was one.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

Not exactly as the point of what I’ve consistently being saying here is that such individuals are not liberals, but erroneously believe themselves to be so.

Like I said, because Bill believes he is a chicken doesn't mean he is one, and when one attacks what Bill says one should not claim, or believe, that one is attacking chickens ... as it were

If someone says "I'm a liberal and I believe that no one should be allowed vote until they have served in the army for 6 years" the response shouldn't be "those damn liberals!, claim they are for liberal freedoms and them come out for such a facist idea" because the guy obviously isn't a liberal in the first place.

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course, pseudo-liberals aside, none of this means that I am bound to agree with a true liberal in debate in the first place. After all, I never said I was one.

I wouldn't expect you to

CerebralCortex

mrhankey88 wrote:

Losing side? not really mate.. this counrty knows whats going on, and it will never allow liberals to destroy it. you can spout you anti-irish hate all you want but it makes no difference, you and your fellow traitors are a small minority

C'mon seriously are you taking the piss or are you really George Bush(who now it seems is Irish).

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Like I said, because Bill believes he is a chicken doesn't mean he is one, and when one attacks what Bill says one should not claim, or believe, that one is attacking chickens ... as it were

If someone says "I'm a liberal and I believe that no one should be allowed vote until they have served in the army for 6 years" the response shouldn't be "those damn liberals!, claim they are for liberal freedoms and them come out for such a facist idea" because the guy obviously isn't a liberal in the first place.

I see your point. Fair enough.

Bucephalus

Deleted User wrote:

from someone who just posted an anti-jewish joke you have no right to be talking in any tone about supporting religions. you are a racist pig, simple as that.

He's an attention-seeking idiot. Ignore him.

Pink Bunny

mrhankey88 wrote:

. Most likely you hate the catholic church because it represents everything 'old ireland' and you want that destroyed. .

I'm not Irish but I find this a very interesting discussion and I was wondering what exactly "old Ireland" means? Besides the Catholic church part of it?

rsynnott

mrhankey88 wrote:

You liberals on here make me sick. The good thing though is you lot are a small minority of 'people'. Most likely you hate the catholic church because it represents everything 'old ireland' and you want that destroyed. And people who want that are the enemy of this country and should be exhiled or shot.

I dislike the catholic church because it enourages the death of thousands in Africa by telling people that condoms are completely ineffective against AIDS, because it babbles about gay people (of which I am one) being evil, or "doing violence" to various things, and opposes human rights progress. I dislike it because it kept this country in the dark ages for decades, persistantly interfering in politics in defiance of its own rules; we only legalised condoms for general use in '92, for goodness sakes. I dislike the way it ws forced on me at school as a kid (I privately decided that the whole God thing was a polite fiction around first class, but then I was a sceptical little bastard ). I dislike its arrogance, and I dislike the way that again and again it shows that it cares nothing for people, and everything for holding its power base. I dislike the way that people are still convinced that its the official religion of our secular state (hence the OP's thing).

I don't hate it. I think that most of the normal people in it are basically good people. With work, it could be on the same standard as most other organised religions.

Old Ireland was an abomination, where everyone was equal as long as they were a white catholic heterosexual legitimate male. I think more than a "small minority" prefer to be moving away from that "ideal".

Zillah

Pink Bunny wrote:

I'm not Irish but I find this a very interesting discussion and I was wondering what exactly "old Ireland" means? Besides the Catholic church part of it?

Evil, my dear, old Ireland can be summarised as evil. Plain and simple. Authoritatrian, antiquantied, unfair, bilical, close minded just plain old stupid beliefs...


Down with christianity tbh...

Manach

Old Ireland was in tune with the natural flow of the seasons, where rural life proceeded at its own pace and people lived in a self-supporting community based on a common heritage.

Yes, that is a tad self-delusionary - but no more so than the previous poster.