Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Catholicism in modern Ireland

2

Comments

  • #52
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Freelancer wrote:
    But hey any excuse to take something someone else said, take a literally meaning of it, and get a chance to quote scripture, eh?

    Nope. I gave an explanation. You answered, and WDK had not replied, so I thought I'd quote the Bible. There is no use claiming that this and that is so if one cannot refer to anything in the Bible. So I did it. :)
    Gosh and being all powerful and mighty god hasn't he been lax with the smitting?

    Or giving his priests the wisdom to investigate and expose these evil doers in their ranks, rather than to shield and protect them, and placing thousands more children in harms way.

    God grieves for all our ill-doings. But he does not give guidance and forgiveness unless one asks for it. "Pray and it will be given to you." That's another quote. :) (Cannot remember where it says, but I'll gladly look it up if you like.)

    Edit: Right, so the church hid these atrocities. Well, I agree that they should apologise for that. In concealing it, they aided the continuation of the sexual abuse of children. Which is really condemnable. I have nothing more to say about that.


  • #53
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Vangelis wrote:
    Nope. I gave an explanation. You answered, and WDK had not replied, so I thought I'd quote the Bible. There is no use claiming that this and that is so if one cannot refer to anything in the Bible. So I did it. :)

    what? seriously? Theres no claiming that what what is what?
    God grieves for all our ill-doings. But he does not give guidance and forgiveness unless one asks for it. "Pray and it will be given to you." That's another quote. :) (Cannot remember where it says, but I'll gladly look it up if you like.)

    So you're telling me that every priest thought to themselves, "should I check with god before I go and take out insurance covering clerical abuse?, Nah".

    Edit: Right, so the church hid these atrocities. Well, I agree that they should apologise for that. In concealing it, they aided the continuation of the sexual abuse of children. Which is really condemnable. I have nothing more to say about that.

    But doesn't that trouble you on a philosophical level that the church could go so wrong so consistently for decades, and you still look to it for spiritual and moral guidance?


  • #54
    patzer117
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭patzer117


    Freelancer wrote:
    And Gods representives on earth have done plenty of sinning, and now ask a tremendous amount of forgiveness from us.

    That they do. And I for one am willing to give it to some of them.

    Great Observer Qoute. I believe Fr Vince. He says this therefore its true :rolleyes:
    And of course the Archbishop took out insurance. Who wouldn't and why wouldn't they? to lose money? The conclusion drawn is incorrect. Just because he took out insurance does not mean he wasn't trying to tackle the problem. The idea that because someone takes out house insurance, he doesn't care that his house is going to be burned down and will do nothing to prevent it is about as ludicrous as this arguement so my point still stands.
    Freelancer wrote:
    Now that'd be senior clerics writing and setting out policy to hid evidence of abuse, its not funny and you refuse to see it.

    That article does not draw that conclusion logically and it takes only a cursoury glance to notice that. One protects oneself, therefore one does not care if something bad happens is not logical. This does not state, or atttempt to state that the church set out a policy to hide abuse. It says they knew a problem could exist.

    Even if one bishop did something wrong (and i strongly believe the bishop did), it was not a policy decision taken by the Church as an organisation, and you can't make it one by quoting the observer or whatever the other article was above.


    And Galileo was neither excommunicated nor forced to recant his beliefs. And you conveniently didn't notice I used the word RARELY.

    And my apologies, i did actually leave out the word essentially saying you excommunicated yourself, because essentially this is what you have done. And I don't believe you're going to hell because of it, and I don't believe you're a bad person because of it. Deal with the arguements and not with the people involved. I'd appreciate it if you did this with WDK also because he is intimidated by you attacking him rather than his arguements and while I don't care what you think of me, I do care about your arguements, but WDK cares and seems to take it personally so try to refrain from doing it in the future. It's in the charter too.

    The Pope is infallible in matters of faith, but this is clearly ridiculous and is just another political device used by the Church which i disagree with. However as far as I know it hasn't been used in a goodwhile so is irrelevant to today's arguement.

    As for the idea that the Church shouldn't interfere hmm...
    The farmers believe that the CAP benefits them. The farmers believe that the CAP benefits society. Others don't. Why should the farmers lobby to retain the CAP? It doesn't affect everyone so why should we be forced to do something just because the farmers want it?
    The Greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit them. The greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit society. Other's don't. Why should the greens lobby to increase the tax on bin disposal just because the Greens want it?
    Goal believe that money donations from the government to help with their operation would help them. They believe this would help society. Other's don't think the government should donate money. Why should Goad lobby to get money for charity if everyone who wants to give can give? Why should I be forced to give money to something i don't want to? Why do Goal's views matter so much? They should stick with personal donations and leave the government alone.

    hairyheretic wrote:
    The church can advise or order its own adherents all it wants. It has no authority over those who choose not to follow its teachings, and should not try forcing that authority on them.

    No wait, we accept these people lobbying. But when the Church does it... Oh No, That's VERY bad :rolleyes:. The church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit them. The Church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit society. Other's don't. However many people feel the church shouldn't be allowed to lobby the government. Whether what they say is right or wrong it is completely ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to suggest things to the government. That's simply prejudice against the church and completely and utterly illegal


  • #55
    hairyheretic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,257 ✭✭✭hairyheretic


    patzer117 wrote:
    The farmers believe that the CAP benefits them. The farmers believe that the CAP benefits society. Others don't. Why should the farmers lobby to retain the CAP? It doesn't affect everyone so why should we be forced to do something just because the farmers want it?

    I'm not familiar with the CAP, so I don't know how to respond to this. How exactly are you affected by the CAP existing or not existing?
    patzer117 wrote:
    The Greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit them. The greens believe that an increased tax on bin disposal would benefit society. Other's don't. Why should the greens lobby to increase the tax on bin disposal just because the Greens want it?

    There are already bin charges in place. That just seems to be the government trying new and interesting ways to exort money from people.
    patzer117 wrote:
    Goal believe that money donations from the government to help with their operation would help them. They believe this would help society. Other's don't think the government should donate money. Why should Goad lobby to get money for charity if everyone who wants to give can give? Why should I be forced to give money to something i don't want to? Why do Goal's views matter so much? They should stick with personal donations and leave the government alone.

    How much do charities receive from the government?
    patzer117 wrote:
    No wait, we accept these people lobbying. But when the Church does it... Oh No, That's VERY bad :rolleyes:. The church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit them. The Church believes a limited availability of condoms will benefit society. Other's don't.

    The church is against any types of contraception, and decided to enforce that on the population. Perhaps because it believed that people would use it anyway, church orders or not?
    patzer117 wrote:
    However many people feel the church shouldn't be allowed to lobby the government. Whether what they say is right or wrong it is completely ridiculous to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to suggest things to the government. That's simply prejudice against the church and completely and utterly illegal

    Illegal? Really? Since when has it been illegal to feel it wrong for a religion that has absolutely no meaning to you to pass religiously based laws that affect you?

    Do you obey jewish dietary restrictions?

    Do you pray to Mecca 5 times a day?

    Do you follow the religious laws based around any other religion?

    No? Then why do you feel it acceptable to force others to obey the laws of your religion?

    If the catholic church wants to tell its followers to dress as pirates on a tuesday, thats fine. It can make whatever proclamations it wants, and its up to its followers to accept or reject those. It has NO authority over those who do not subscribe to its beliefs, and therefore NO right to force those beliefs onto them.


  • #56
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    patzer117 wrote:
    That they do. And I for one am willing to give it to some of them.
    Great Observer Qoute. I believe Fr Vince. He says this therefore its true :rolleyes:

    So let me get this straight you take the churches word in general put don't take the word of a priest in another? Why isn't the word of one of god reprentive good enough, is it just that Benedict is closer to god and gets better reception?
    And of course the Archbishop took out insurance. Who wouldn't and why wouldn't they? to lose money? The conclusion drawn is incorrect. Just because he took out insurance does not mean he wasn't trying to tackle the problem.

    And what evidence do you present to support your claim that he was trying to tackle the problem? What the article does do is point out that this was his only reaction to the claim and you offer no evidence to support your assertion that he was trying to deal with the problem. What can you show to suggest he did? I mean thats the central thrust of the piece. There was abuse, the Bishop's only reaction was to take out insurance, care to offer evidence that any real steps were taken to tackle the problem?
    The idea that because someone takes out house insurance, he doesn't care that his house is going to be burned down and will do nothing to prevent it is about as ludicrous as this arguement so my point still stands.

    Patzer baby I'm just getting warmed up.

    You're suggesting its like house insurance? Like it's a possible accident that an organisation would have such insurance. But in the action Of Comiskey you've utterly failed to demonstrate any attempt to dig out the paedophilia's, by the church, instead over a period of years the church's only action was to take out insurance, not start investigation. I've demonstrated on (after 20 seconds on goggle) two examples of priests claiming or an example of systematic repression of accusations rather than investigation yet I'm making spurious claims?

    To use an analogy if you knew your house's roof had a leak, and your reaction was to buy insurance, and not fix the leak, you'd be negligent if you were the landlord. Unless you can demostrate some other actions by Comiskey and the other dioceses you've now ignoring evidence that you claim doesn't exist.

    That article does not draw that conclusion logically and it takes only a cursoury glance to notice that. One protects oneself, therefore one does not care if something bad happens is not logical. This does not state, or atttempt to state that the church set out a policy to hide abuse. It says they knew a problem could exist.

    And later in the article......(read much?)
    In 1988 Bishop Comiskey presided over a Confirmation ceremony in Monageer church in which he was assisted by a priest who had sexually abused some of the Confirmation girls just days before. Having specifically requested that James Grennan be absent from the ceremony, the girls’ families walked out in disgust. When first asked about it Bishop Comiskey flatly denied the walkout had happened.

    Thats a pretty clear example of a priest aware of the problem (from previous quotes) but willfully ignoring it.
    Even if one bishop did something wrong (and i strongly believe the bishop did), it was not a policy decision taken by the Church as an organisation, and you can't make it one by quoting the observer or whatever the other article was above.

    Ah but I'm a little unclear exactly what point you feel the buck stops senior clerics from cardinals and....

    Oh wait, lets look at what you said.
    but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophile

    Now our current pope is accused of......
    It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

    Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

    That'd be a clear rebuttal of your assertion that the church NEVER had policy to hide abuse. The article comes from;

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html

    And hey lets go nuts. Lets be specific. Lets talk about church policy;
    The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

    The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

    The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

    Now you still support your claim?

    Anyway, hey you fail to grasp the concept of excommunication.
    They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

    The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
    And Galileo was neither excommunicated nor forced to recant his beliefs.

    Er yes he was.
    And you conveniently didn't notice I used the word RARELY.
    And you conveniently ignore my point that you cannot support your claim.

    You claim one can excommunicate themselves from the church, I offered proof to refute this, the onus is on you to support your claim. So offer some evidence or shut the hell up.
    He was then detained for eighteen days in a room in the offices of the Inquisition (not in a dungeon cell). During this time the Commissary General of the Inquisition, Vincenzo (later Cardinal) Maculano, visited him for what amounted to plea bargaining, persuading Galileo to confess to having gone too far in writing the book. In a second hearing on April 30, Galileo confessed to having erred in the writing of the book, through vain ambition, ignorance, and inadvertence. He was then allowed to return to the home of the Tuscan ambassador. On May 10, he submitted his written defense, in which he defended himself against the charge of disobeying the Church's order, confessed to having erred through pride in writing the book, and asked for mercy in light of his age and ill health.

    A month later (June 21), by order of the Pope, he was given an examination of intention, a formal process that involved showing the accused the instruments of torture. At this proceeding, he said, "I am here to obey, and have not held this [Copernican] opinion after the determination made, as I said."

    On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition held the final hearing on Galileo, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Galileo was forced at this time to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following (insofar as there is any evidence) the plea bargain of two months earlier; nonetheless, he was convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy" and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
    And my apologies, i did actually leave out the word essentially saying you excommunicated yourself, because essentially this is what you have done.

    thats nice but ignores the fact that your church continues to beleive that I am a member of your church unless I go through several hoops to ensure it. Theres a world of difference between rejecting catholicism and having catholicism recognise that rejection that is frustration for someone trying to distance themselves from such a loathsome church.
    And I don't believe you're going to hell because of it, and I don't believe you're a bad person because of it. Deal with the arguements and not with the people involved. I'd appreciate it if you did this with WDK also because he is intimidated by you attacking him rather than his arguements

    I'm sorry this is the same WDK who offered Ad Homien attacks, threatened personal abuse, and insinuations, yet when offered a measured response to his criticism I'm told by you I'm attacking him? And what arguments? He's admited himself he's ill equiped to defend his shoddy position. Yet you dare suggest I'm the one in the weak position restoring to attacks? He started it, Ive been generous in my reponse.

    The Pope is infallible in matters of faith, but this is clearly ridiculous and is just another political device used by the Church which i disagree with.

    No it goes to my heart to the weakness of the church, the lack of faith the eagerness to re write history the sandbank of catholicism is no better illustrated than the changing position of the pope's infability.


  • #57
    Chong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,677 ✭✭✭Chong


    To be honest this debate has morphed into a one sided argument, no matter what any pro catholic's say in this thread they are going to be shot down by Freelancer. This is prime reason why I gave up even trying to argue coupled with the fact he is right in alot of what he says , and actually stuff he said cant be argued in a way. But I go to church week in week out, I pray and I listen to our priest preaching the word of God and believe or not but I actually like being there. I am happy to say I am Catholic and in my mind it is not regarded to be a dirty word. I am happy with my faith I could be a bit better sometimes but what the hey so can most Catholic's. I am certainly not going to give up my faith based on the misgivings of priests nor am I going to sit in mass every week let what has gone wrong with the church effect my faith. As I said I go to church to pray , listen to the word of god and celebrate the sacrament of communion, thats it.

    Willem D


  • #58
    turbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭turbot


    Hi everyone,

    One of the issues I've not seen even mentioned in this discussion is the idea of spirituality.

    I don't think that the catholic church has got very much to do with a wholesome sense of spirituality. Nor do I think that getting people to attempt live in various degrees of denial is healthy or good for society.

    I think there are many worthwhile people who due to life circumstance and childhood influences, grew up to regard themselves as catholics. My take on this is they are simply good people expressing their goodness through the metaphors of the catholic church. When you question these people, they often talk about the "essence of the catholic church" which is obviously their own understanding they've come to individually, though not neccessarily one explicity taught by the church.

    Now, just because they are some nice people within the church however, does not mean that the organisation itself is either spiritual or wholesome at all.

    For example, did you know that in 1935 the Pope of the time made a deal with the Nazi's:

    http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/432/432p28.htm

    Catholics and non catholics, what do you think about this?

    Also, many of the original biblical texts were written in ancient languages such as assyrian and arameic. Many of these were then translated into Latin, and then into English.

    When I transate from one language to another, say, english to french, I'm very aware that the linguistic structures lead to imperfect translations. You can convey the gist of something, but not the whole meaning with all the nuances, subtleties, assonance, poetic meaning...

    It is my understanding that if you translate from one language to another to another, you have a major case of chinese whispers going on.

    Do you honestly think that the bibles of today are accurate translations of early texts? What do you think about this?

    And based upon everything you know, do you honestly trust the catholic church to do these translations with your best intentions at heart?

    - Thomas


  • #59
    Asiaprod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Asiaprod


    This news is just breaking on CNN

    PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- The former vicar general of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix was arrested Monday on charges he fondled boys and young men and asked them prying questions about their sex lives that he pretended were part of confession.

    Monsignor Dale Fushek, 53, becomes one of the highest-ranking priests to be charged in the sex scandal that has engulfed the church. The vicar general is the highest-ranking administrator of a diocese next to the bishop.

    Fushek was charged with three counts of assault, five of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and two of indecent exposure. All are misdemeanors, punishable by no more than three years and nine months in all.

    Fushek "used a relationship of trust to perform criminal acts, including but not limited to sexual activities, improper sexual discussions and physical contact, upon vulnerable minor and adult victims," prosecutors said in court papers.

    Prosecutors said Fushek committed the acts between 1984 and 1994 at St. Timothy's Catholic Church in Mesa or on property belonging to the church. The alleged victims were seven young men and boys.

    Fushek resigned as pastor of St. Timothy's in April after someone claimed to have recovered a repressed memory involving sexual improprieties by Fushek in 1985. He has denied the allegations and remains on administrative leave.

    His attorney, Michael Manning, was out of the country and couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

    Michael Haran, an attorney for the diocese, said the church knew of one of the alleged victims because it had settled with him previously, but the other six names were new to diocese officials.

    Maricopa Attorney Andrew Thomas said the priest conducted "sham confessions" in which he extracted details about people's sex lives for his own gratification.

    Thomas said the diocese has been cooperative. "I've been impressed by the overall atmosphere that has been projected by this new bishop," he said.

    Prosecutors had clashed with the diocese over sex abuse allegations when it was headed by Bishop Thomas O'Brien. O'Brien resigned in 2003 after being arrested in a deadly hit-and-run. Fushek was O'Brien's top aide at the time. The diocese is now headed by Bishop Thomas Olmsted.


  • #60
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Oi WDK. Third try. What exactly did you mean by
    WDK wrote:
    Well I suppose from your comments you would expect nothing less from a lapsed Catholic.

    this?

    This kind of santimonious arrogance that because I renounced my faith is sickening.
    WDK wrote:
    To be honest this debate has morphed into a one sided argument, no matter what any pro catholic's say in this thread they are going to be shot down by Freelancer.

    So basically you're admitting I'm right you're wrong, you can't defend your position you're going to carry on believing it anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Chong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,677 ✭✭✭Chong


    Look in my books you have right end of story.


  • #62
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    WDK wrote:
    Look in my books you have right end of story.

    But you haven't said if I've changed your mind, was your church right? Does this make you question this religion.

    And disgustingly you still have apologised for that snide accusation, or lowered yourself to explaining what you meant.

    Weasel yourself away from the debate, what little you brought to thee table has been spent and you're only embarssing yourself further with these shambolic half excuses and explanations.


  • #63
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Freelancer wrote:
    what? seriously? Theres no claiming that what what is what?

    Re-read what I wrote. Or never mind.
    So you're telling me that every priest thought to themselves, "should I check with god before I go and take out insurance covering clerical abuse?, Nah".

    That's not what I said. I said that you have to pray to God for guidance, ask if something is right or wrong, or perhaps reading the Bible is enough to find an answer.
    But doesn't that trouble you on a philosophical level that the church could go so wrong so consistently for decades, and you still look to it for spiritual and moral guidance?

    The church is not the best place for spiritual and moral guidance if the church conceals its ill-doings, especially sexual abuse.

    One should first search for spiritual and moral guidance in the Bible or by prayer. In this world, you cannot always be sure of who to trust.

    But a person who sins can give correct spiritual/moral guidance in a matter that doesn't concern the thing they've done wrong.

    You can say that someone who sins has no right to preach God's word, but we all sin. We all do something wrong(wrong-doing being a violation God's will/law), also when we know that we're doing something wrong.


  • #64
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    One should first search for spiritual and moral guidance in the Bible or by prayer. In this world, you cannot always be sure of who to trust.

    But the bible was written by men, how do you know you can trust them? It was put together by the church too, which apparently we can't trust now. Could we trust them then? They really did have an awful lot to gain from this book of propaganda.

    uh.. just checked dictionary.com to check my spelling there and..I saw this, it made me chuckle
    Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

    *chuckle*


  • #65
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Mordeth wrote:
    But the bible was written by men, how do you know you can trust them? It was put together by the church too, which apparently we can't trust now. Could we trust them then? They really did have an awful lot to gain from this book of propaganda.

    This is a matter of faith. The Biblical texts were written by men(and one woman) under spiritual inspiration. God put his thoughts inside these people and they wrote them down.

    These priests haven't written any texts that they want to teach all Mankind as far as I know. It's all in the Bible.

    Book of propaganda? I don't know what you're trying to achieve by calling it that.


  • #66
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Vangelis wrote:
    Re-read what I wrote. Or never mind.

    So it was suprious quoting. Grand so.
    That's not what I said. I said that you have to pray to God for guidance, ask if something is right or wrong, or perhaps reading the Bible is enough to find an answer.
    I merely extrapoliated what you said. You said that god gives guidance to those who ask for it. I then just pointed out that by your logic either

    A) No priest asked for guidance when asking whether they should cover up abuse.

    B) Or they did ask for guidance and god offered poor advice.

    So which is, no priest asked for guidance or they got crappy advice?
    The church is not the best place for spiritual and moral guidance if the church conceals its ill-doings, especially sexual abuse.

    One should first search for spiritual and moral guidance in the Bible or by prayer. In this world, you cannot always be sure of who to trust.

    So to use another posters description God's Representive's on earth aren't the best people to ask. I'm staggered that someone can have belief in a hierarchal religion yet reject the hierarchy.


    But a person who sins can give correct spiritual/moral guidance in a matter that doesn't concern the thing they've done wrong. How can someone who takes a vow of chasity feel morally capable of preaching on other topics while they breach a fundamental rule of the position they've undertaken?


    In much the same way that a judge who commits fraud, or assault is in no position to offer his legal position, or a politican who preaches crime prevention but takes drugs in secret.

    I'm not surprised hyprcrisy is a typical catholic stance.



    You can say that someone who sins has no right to preach God's word, but we all sin. We all do something wrong(wrong-doing being a violation God's will/law), also when we know that we're doing something wrong.

    Theres a world of difference between commiting massive abuse lies, sexual assault, and preaching that sex, lies, and immorality are wrong. Do you not seen how the pathetic that is? Theres a laughable irony between priests demanding people adhere to rules that they not only transgress, but do so while commiting one of the most adhorant and sickening acts imaginable. That a priest can condemn (to pick an example) consentual sex between homosexual couples while commiting rape aganist the most vunerable in society. Thats a joke.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    WDK wrote:

    The majority of this country now is made up of nothing but hypocrites. It sickens me when you hear some one you know has had a baby for instance and they get their son or daughter baptised. For what especially if the parents dont attend church regularily. Worst of all is the sacrament of communion, it is the single most sickening thing seeing children taking holy communion when they never attend church coupled with the fact of the lengths ppl go to outdue each other money wise. The church in my opinion should not baptise or bestow the sacrament of holy communion on people who dont attend church because simply they have no right to receive these sacraments.

    Punish the innocent child for the actions or inactions of the parents. How very Christian of you.

    Why don't the priests tell the parents the sacraments must be taken in School Uniform? It will not stop some parents spending 20k on the after bash but it will cut the need expense for dresses.

    Newstalk 106 had a nun from from a organisation that helped prostitutes. She said the biggest driver for women to turn to prostitution was first holy communion. Those expensive dresses will not buy themselves. She said that, in Ireland, hundreds of women turn to prostitution in order to get extra money to help them pay for dresses. What is the point?

    WDK wrote:
    Worst of all and the most sickening part of lapsed catholics is the way they continually back mouth the church when they clearly have no right to do so. Could you imagine if the church closed its doors in the morning and no longer practised any of the sacraments, no more would we have the nouveau riish trying to out due each other at baptisms or communion or weddings. Plus with funerals all you would have is the funeral home and then buried, no prayers or blessings for the dead in question, with the body going nowhere no heaven or hell, no god, no satan, just rotting in a 6 foot hole in the ground.

    Why do they have no right? Why does leaving an organisation remove your right to voice your opinion on that organisation? I don't remember signing an NDA at any point in relation to the Church so as far as I am concerned I have every right to voice my opinion.

    Personally I have no respect for the Church at all. Call me old fashioned but, as has been mentioned by other posters, I cannot stomach taking moral direction from an organisation that allowed it members to repeatedly rape young children.

    If I want to get married why should I have to get advise from a man who does not have sex, except maybe with small boys, and has not engaged in any kind of a romantic relationship with another person?

    I don't want to listen to an organisation that blocks drug trials which could save lives cos the doctors would have to mention contraception.

    Why should I be told what is moral or not from an organisation that refuses to endorse the use of comdom in countries where AIDS is rife and taking thousands of lives.

    I could go on but I am sure you are getting the point. I have my morals and I know right from wrong. I don't need pointers from a morally backrupt old boys club.

    MrP


  • #68
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Freelancer wrote:
    So it was suprious quoting. Grand so.

    :)
    I merely extrapoliated what you said. You said that god gives guidance to those who ask for it. I then just pointed out that by your logic either

    A) No priest asked for guidance when asking whether they should cover up abuse.

    B) Or they did ask for guidance and god offered poor advice.

    So which is, no priest asked for guidance or they got crappy advice?

    I don't know if you intend to be funny here, but you certainly make me laugh. :) "Crappy advice" was fun. :) Because I don't know the condition of these priests, their mental condition, their childhood, their emotions... and most importantly if they asked for guidance before or after abusing, or asked at all, I cannot really give any answer.

    I saw a documentary about a paedophile who had abused an 8 year old boy. He was sentenced and interviewed by the people who made this documentary. The programme host explained that up to 80% of all those who sexually molest children have themselves been abused as children/youths.

    Maybe paeodphiles become priests because they know that the church will hide them and have compassion with them? I cannot say, but that's one idea. And if that is true, and many of the priests are themselves childhood victims of sexual abuse, it'd be devastating news. And I would feel for them more than I do now(it makes me angry).

    Either way it is clear that they have sinned.
    Allthough, I suppose they are allready aware of this and feel ashamed.
    So to use another posters description God's Representive's on earth aren't the best people to ask. I'm staggered that someone can have belief in a hierarchal religion yet reject the hierarchy.

    Why do you call Christianity a hierarchical religion?
    But a person who sins can give correct spiritual/moral guidance in a matter that doesn't concern the thing they've done wrong. How can someone who takes a vow of chasity feel morally capable of preaching on other topics while they breach a fundamental rule of the position they've undertaken?

    It's a profound self-contradiction as far as I can see. An unwillingness in the priests to realise that they are themselves sinners.

    There is a certain criteria in the Bible for church leaders in general. And the priests have vowed to live the way the Bible tells them to. They have an important role and should live as correctly as possible, but that does not mean that they are not humans who make mistakes. They are weak too and fall into temptation.

    If they ask for forgiveness and for God to guide them the RIGHT way,
    he will forgive them. I suppose that is their only hope.
    In much the same way that a judge who commits fraud, or assault is in no position to offer his legal position, or a politican who preaches crime prevention but takes drugs in secret.

    Yes, that's the same thing. It is human error, I'm afraid.


  • #69
    annR
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭annR


    I thought this discussion started off in a very interesting way however has turned into a very angry argument which I haven't fully followed.

    I'm a lapsed Catholic who doesn't really have any respect for the church and I'm sure I don't need to list out why.

    I do however respect other people's own faith and religion. I wouldn't dream of getting married in a church, out of respect for people who believe in the ceremony.

    Otherwise I am quite happy to see the country becoming more secular. I agree that the church has a right to say what it thinks etc but I don't believe it should be involved in making laws and dare I say it, teaching children. I will certainly not be taking moral direction from it either.

    Because of this I am interested in the OPs question about what does a secular society look like? Does it get worse or better? What does happen to morality? I don't think we should interpret that question as a Catholic saying that our morals will go down the drain if we don't all go to mass. It's an interesting question.


  • #70
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    annR wrote:
    I thought this discussion started off in a very interesting way however has turned into a very angry argument which I haven't fully followed.

    Oh! Freelancer and I are having quite an interesting chat here at the moment. No hostility or anger as far as my senses can tell. :)
    Because of this I am interested in the OPs question about what does a secular society look like? Does it get worse or better? What does happen to morality? I don't think we should interpret that question as a Catholic saying that our morals will go down the drain if we don't all go to mass. It's an interesting question.

    Well, thank you for the question. :)

    In a secular society, all religion is substituted by a secular humanistic world-view. One can argue that this is an imposition of faith and laws on a society, as religion is regarded to be. One the other hand, it allows for a neutrality to exist, the neutrality of today. That requires that seculars respect those with faith, or else secularism/humanism will feel like an imposition on religious individuals. The same old song.

    I cannot see that secularism will harm society, after some reconsideration of my previous view-points. But I have met some seculars who have a hostile attitude to religion, want to illegalise religious symbols which happened in France.

    My fear is, however unwarranted, that seculars will regard religion as a threat to rational thought. Of course, in the UN declaration of human rights states that religion should be respected, that everyone has freedom of speech and opinion.

    From your point of view, Ann, do you think my fears are unreasonable?

    I fear that since secularism in fair sense is about the individual's right to live as he wishes, that people will lose their sense of responsibility as members of a society because everything is me, me, me.

    ?


  • #71
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Vangelis wrote:
    :)



    I don't know if you intend to be funny here, but you certainly make me laugh. :) "Crappy advice" was fun. :) Because I don't know the condition of these priests, their mental condition, their childhood, their emotions... and most importantly if they asked for guidance before or after abusing, or asked at all, I cannot really give any answer.

    And again focus the debate on the kidder filders and ignore the number of priest who actively went out of their way to hide the paedophiles.

    Please answer that question do you feel that group of priests asked for advice before engaging and during a decades long conspiracy of silence and suberfuge. ?
    I saw a documentary about a paedophile who had abused an 8 year old boy. He was sentenced and interviewed by the people who made this documentary. The programme host explained that up to 80% of all those who sexually molest children have themselves been abused as children/youths.

    Thats nice and you keep trying to restrict the debate to the priests who commited the abuse rather than the conspiracy of silence by thousands of priests and the catholic hierarchy.
    Why do you call Christianity a hierarchical religion?

    Again obfuscating the matter are we talking about christianity or catholicism? Because catholicism is hierarchal religion, and we're talking about (the clue is in the thread title)
    There is a certain criteria in the Bible for church leaders in general. And the priests have vowed to live the way the Bible tells them to. They have an important role and should live as correctly as possible, but that does not mean that they are not humans who make mistakes. They are weak too and fall into temptation.



    If they ask for forgiveness and for God to guide them the RIGHT way,
    he will forgive them. I suppose that is their only hope.

    This is very tedious your unwilliness to take the debate to a further level you want to restrict the debate to the individuals behaviour and not to contemplate the behaviour of the church as an organisation.
    Yes, that's the same thing. It is human error, I'm afraid.

    Yes and I find the hyprocrisy galling and they are stripped of the right to dare to preach to me how I should behave.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    J.R.HARTLEY
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭J.R.HARTLEY


    i'll tell you what makes me laugh, the people who talk about how the church is holding is back, but they haven't been at a mass in sunday or practiced catholicism in years, i'm not into it myself but i can see with ease the fact that this country is so very far from the old fashioned backwater we were when we let priests make our decisions for us, i can also see that most priests are not like that either, two of my cousins are priests, if they tell me what to do i tell them to f off they say right so and we go have a pint, simple as that, i definitely don't think we still live in a church controlled conservative country, look at the hundreds of drunk people thronging around dublin on a saturday night, the divorce rate, the amount of people "living in sin", we're not letting anyone tell us what to do,
    if the church issue a decree on their faith, thats fine, don't get in a fit about it becuase it's none of your business unless you're practising.
    i'd like to know how many people who come out and lambast and bash the church at every oppertunity would like to open their mouths in the pressence of the newer religions in ireland, nobodys rushing out to condemn the conservative jewish or islamic faiths.
    i'm gonna leave it with this, i'm not into the church at all, it doesn't hold anything for me anymore, but don't be taking pot shots at it for the sake of it, if you really are open minded you'll know they have no say in matters nowadays, even are supposed cosy taoiseach/church relationship doesn't swing things, if they had real power do you think they'd condone bertie being seperated, they know he'll rightly tell them to jump if they interfere.

    and please drop the child abuse arguments they were an issue in the 90's now, it's up to the people involved and the tribunals, let them get their justice and move on.

    and freelancer, "thousands of priests involved in the conspiracy of silence" there were hardly thousands, it was dozens, way to many but your making it sound like all priests are paedophiles or else support them as there are only a few thousand priests in ireland.
    if you let a bunch of old gossiping busybody bible bashers colour your view of the church (and lets face it, 90% of all disgruntlement with the church comes from the attitudes of those practising towards others) then you need the reality check yourself.


  • #73
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Vangelis wrote:
    This is a matter of faith. The Biblical texts were written by men(and one woman) under spiritual inspiration. God put his thoughts inside these people and they wrote them down.



    right, but then you have to trust that the people who wrote it could differentiate from gods voice and the other voices in their heads.
    These priests haven't written any texts that they want to teach all Mankind as far as I know. It's all in the Bible.

    yah, but it was priests that decided what books went into the bible and what didn't. It was priests that decided which words that god spoke were more important. Surely the faithful could put up with a multi-volume holy book, why leave bits out? What did they leave out anyway?
    This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this novel are either fictitious or are used fictitiously.

    I'd put money on that page surfacing some time in the next century.


  • #74
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Freelancer, you keep regarding me as an enemy. You accuse me of trying to spoil the discussion:
    Thats nice and you keep trying to restrict the debate to the priests who commited the abuse rather than the conspiracy of silence by thousands of priests and the catholic hierarchy.

    I am not trying to restrict the debate. I take one point at a time. So let's see...
    Freelancer wrote:
    Please answer that question do you feel that group of priests asked for advice before engaging and during a decades long conspiracy of silence and suberfuge?

    It's subterfuge. I cannot feel if they did this. Maybe they did ask for advice but was not granted any answer. Maybe they took the matter into their own hands. The latter seems most likely. Subterfuge seems to me like a misused word in this context. I don't think that a group of priests have assembled and agreed in secrecy to sexually abuse young children throughout ages. They may be hiding it, but I believe that is because of shame.

    The Catholic Church has been good at hiding all kinds of wrong-doers, including German Nazis who promised that they would convert from Jew-haters to wonderful people but never did. The Church kept showing them mercy and helped them to hide from police, because they believed these criminals needed patience, compassion and tolerance. Maybe they feel the same way about the paedophiles.

    But how would I know if they are responsible for a conspiracy?
    I'm not an undercover-agent !!
    Again obfuscating the matter are we talking about christianity or catholicism? Because catholicism is hierarchal religion, and we're talking about (the clue is in the thread title)

    Catholicism is part of Christianity. OK, Catholicism then. But you take me for intentionally obfuscating it. No, it was a misuse of word that made you misunderstand. There is no need to be so paranoid. :)
    This is very tedious your unwilliness to take the debate to a further level you want to restrict the debate to the individuals behaviour and not to contemplate the behaviour of the church as an organisation.

    Again, you are misinterpreting me and attacking me for intentionally corrupting the debate. It's getting tiring. If your discontent, have the discussion with someone else.
    Yes and I find the hyprocrisy galling and they are stripped of the right to dare to preach to me how I should behave.

    You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.


  • #75
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Mordeth wrote:
    right, but then you have to trust that the people who wrote it could differentiate from gods voice and the other voices in their heads.

    Yes, and I do.
    yah, but it was priests that decided what books went into the bible and what didn't. It was priests that decided which words that god spoke were more important. Surely the faithful could put up with a multi-volume holy book, why leave bits out? What did they leave out anyway?

    Do you know anything about the texts that were excluded? If you have no reason to distrust the selection of texts in the present Bible based on other excluded texts, you shouldn't use these excluded texts to try and sow doubt in me or the verity of the Bible.


  • #76
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Vangelis wrote:


    You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.

    Fortunately for the victims of clerical abuse God does not sit in our courts and decide the penalties for crimes. God may not see any diffenece in sins but the law of the land and society does.

    Thankfully the crimes of telling lies and raping a child carry different penalties in our society. Perhaps god seeing all sin as equal helps some child rapists sleep at night but it cuts no ice with me nor with most right thinking people.

    I am a sinner. I have committed many sins. None of them particulary bad. I still would not have the neck to stand in front of a congregation week after week representing an organisation as morally bankrupt as the Catholic church and tell people, many of whom are probably a better person than I will ever, be how they should live their lives.

    MrP


  • #77
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Vangelis wrote:
    Yes, and I do.



    Do you know anything about the texts that were excluded? If you have no reason to distrust the selection of texts in the present Bible based on other excluded texts, you shouldn't use these excluded texts to try and sow doubt in me or the verity of the Bible.

    Do you know anything about the texts left out? How do you know they would not substantively change the entire meaning of the bible?

    It is supposedly the word of God. Why in the hell would you leave any of it out? I mean seriously, we keep minutes of sh1tty meetings. Why the hell would you leave out or change the word of God?

    For me that either shows a remarkable lack of respect for your God or a seriously over-inflated sense of you own importance, a "God Complex" if you will.

    Either that or the Word of God did not suit your purposes so you change it so it does.

    MrP


  • #78
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Vangelis wrote:
    You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.

    May I ask where in the bible this is suggested?

    From my own memories the bible CLEARLY sets some sins as greater than others or lists that there will be varying rewards and punishments accordingto some sins.

    1 Corinthians 6:18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

    Matthew 10:15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

    Matthew 16:27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

    Revelation 22:12Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.


    These are the ones I could remember offhand, I know there are more.

    Can you explain these away if God views all sins as equal (and of course show us where he views all as equal).


  • #79
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    MrPudding wrote:
    Do you know anything about the texts left out? How do you know they would not substantively change the entire meaning of the bible?

    I have little knowledge of the excluded texts. But before you criticise me for that, obtain some knowledge of them yourself so you can enlighten me.
    It is supposedly the word of God. Why in the hell would you leave any of it out? I mean seriously, we keep minutes of sh1tty meetings. Why the hell would you leave out or change the word of God?

    Have I left any of it out? Priests left it/them out. As far as I know, the excluded texts would not add any new knowledge about God's nature, his intentions, his will.
    For me that either shows a remarkable lack of respect for your God or a seriously over-inflated sense of you own importance, a "God Complex" if you will.

    Either that or the Word of God did not suit your purposes so you change it so it does.

    My purposes? I have not selected anything away to suit my purposes.
    I don't understand what you are accusing me of.


  • #80
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Vangelis wrote:
    Freelancer, you keep regarding me as an enemy. You accuse me of trying to spoil the discussion:



    I am not trying to restrict the debate. I take one point at a time. So let's see...

    No I've directed that my issue is specifally related to the church's suberfuge.
    It's subterfuge. I cannot feel if they did this. Maybe they did ask for advice but was not granted any answer. Maybe they took the matter into their own hands. The latter seems most likely.

    Based on?

    Subterfuge seems to me like a misused word in this context. I don't think that a group of priests have assembled and agreed in secrecy to sexually abuse young children throughout ages. They may be hiding it, but I believe that is because of shame.

    And again and I swear I'm tearing hair out here.

    DO YOU BELIEVE THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY TO A MAN FAILED TO ASK GOD WHEN MAKING THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO HID AND PROTECT PADEOPHILE PRIESTS. DO YOU BELIEVE THEY DID NOT ASK GODS GUIDANCE WHEN HUNDREDS OF PRIESTS, BISHOPS, CARDINALS AND POPES DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN A COMPLEX PROVEN CONSPIRACY TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA BY THOUSANDS OF PRIESTS OVER DECADES?

    DO YOU THINK THAT THEY, MEN OF GOD, MINISTERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE FAITH, FAILED IN THIS ONE ACT TO NOT TO BOTHER TO ASK FOR GOD'S GUIDANCE OR DID THEY ASK GOD AND GET SHODDY ADVICE?

    WHICH IS IT?
    The Catholic Church has been good at hiding all kinds of wrong-doers, including German Nazis who promised that they would convert from Jew-haters to wonderful people but never did. The Church kept showing them mercy and helped them to hide from police, because they believed these criminals needed patience, compassion and tolerance. Maybe they feel the same way about the paedophiles.


    But how would I know if they are responsible for a conspiracy?
    I'm not an undercover-agent !!

    I've shown and you've choosen to ignore the evidence of a conspiracy. Have you looked at the evidence?

    You haven't said whether these people asked for god's advice or whether the situation makes you challenge your faith, You've stated that anyone who
    I said that you have to pray to God for guidance, ask if something is right or wrong, or perhaps reading the Bible is enough to find an answer.

    That either ever who made a decision to defend nazis or protect paedophiles either never asked god for guidance or did ask god for guidance and got piss poor advice. Seriously this is pretty basic do you think that either men of god didn't bother checking with him when making massive decisions or did make decisions and god gave crappy advice. Which is. ONE OR THE OTHER.
    Catholicism is part of Christianity. OK, Catholicism then. But you take me for intentionally obfuscating it. No, it was a misuse of word that made you misunderstand. There is no need to be so paranoid. :)

    No its a not, you seem to be an enlightened soul. I know christians fro several diferent sects, and frankly I felt troubled in discussion with the first time I debated with baptists or methodists, they're radically different and more mellow interpretations of christian texts.
    Again, you are misinterpreting me and attacking me for intentionally corrupting the debate. It's getting tiring. If your discontent, have the discussion with someone else.

    yeah patzer swore blindly he'd be back in the dabate. At least he'll attempt to meet your point head on you're refuting my points even exist

    You are a sinner yourself. That makes you as pitiable as the priests. For to God, no sin is greater than the other. If you are unchaste in any way, commit adultery, fornication, rape someone, if you kill, lie, hate and so on, that makes you as much a sinner as a priest who rapes a child.[/QUOTE]


  • #81
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Freelancer wrote:
    Based on?

    It's rather my opinion.
    DO YOU BELIEVE THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY TO A MAN FAILED TO ASK GOD WHEN MAKING THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO HID AND PROTECT PADEOPHILE PRIESTS. DO YOU BELIEVE THEY DID NOT ASK GODS GUIDANCE WHEN HUNDREDS OF PRIESTS, BISHOPS, CARDINALS AND POPES DECIDED TO ENGAGE IN A COMPLEX PROVEN CONSPIRACY TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA BY THOUSANDS OF PRIESTS OVER DECADES?

    It's not relevant what I believe. The truth is most important, screw my opinions. I don't know if the church authorities have taken part in a conspiracy or if they have asked for God's guidanc. My opinion on whether that is true or not is irrelevant and whether I say yes or no, what difference does it make to the discussion?
    DO YOU THINK THAT THEY, MEN OF GOD, MINISTERS, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE FAITH, FAILED IN THIS ONE ACT TO NOT TO BOTHER TO ASK FOR GOD'S GUIDANCE OR DID THEY ASK GOD AND GET SHODDY ADVICE?

    I say that, if there has been a conspiracy, they have failed to ask for God's guidance. And if they did not ask for God's guidance, they took the matter in their own hands.
    I've shown and you've choosen to ignore the evidence of a conspiracy. Have you looked at the evidence?

    I haven't seen it. Show me the evidence. Because I can't see anything else than you repeating the statement that there has been a conspiracy.
    You haven't said whether these people asked for god's advice or whether the situation makes you challenge your faith, You've stated that anyone who

    I'll refine my sayings: All prayers aren't answered immediately. Some aren't answered in many years. I cannot know if their prayers were answered, if they ignored the answers. But God would never encourage them to rape young children and hide it from the public.
    That either ever who made a decision to defend nazis or protect paedophiles either never asked god for guidance or did ask god for guidance and got piss poor advice. Seriously this is pretty basic do you think that either men of god didn't bother checking with him when making massive decisions or did make decisions and god gave crappy advice. Which is. ONE OR THE OTHER.

    I don't really think the Catholic authorities "bother" to check anything. They have their own in-grown laws written centuries ago and they heed these ancient scripts... highly. If I think that they don't or do bother to ask God if what they are doing is right or wrong, if they can have help to solve any problem, does it matter to you?
    yeah patzer swore blindly he'd be back in the dabate. At least he'll attempt to meet your point head on you're refuting my points even exist

    I have a good reason to question your conspiracy theories because you haven't provided any links to articles or anything else where I can read about revelations of a conspiracy actually having occured.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    patzer117
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭patzer117


    I'm Back :D

    And not much to say really.

    As for the question Freelancer keeps asking with only two solutions: Did they not ask God's advice? Or did they ask and God give them shoddy advice?

    Well my answer to that is funnily enough the third option: That they Did ask for advice, but that God didn't give them any, because God never gives anyone advice, and never intervenes in the world. That would interrupt our free will. The priests may have asked for advice, but you can be damn sure God didn't reply: "Cover it up boys", because that would be a very un-Godlike thing to do :)

    I know I'm going to get a hell of a lot of flack over this point, but I genuinely believe God has not intervened in the world since Jesus rose from the dead.

    This also helps to answer the question about the Bible - yes Humans wrote them. Yes Humans are fallible. Yes therefore the bible is fallible and may have gotten things incorrect or completely wrong. However the church has chosen the books in the bible very carefully out of all the ones written, and believes these are the authoratitave version of what happened and as such declares these as the 'official history' if you like. Anyone that goes against the official history is going against the Church. You are not necessarily going against God, or Christianity, just the established churches.


    Hope that helps clear a few things up - and none of your just two answer questions freelancer ;).

    patzer

    EDIT: Also just to get a hold on the charge that Ratzinger was involved in the coverup - that document you quoted freelancer. What that document says is that the Church reserves the right to hold investigations in private. That's pretty much what you described it as anyway. Well I don't have any problem with that. I think the Church should have the right hold investigations in private and THEN go to the Gardaí with any results. Take a lone incident of sexual harrasment made against a priest by an untrustworthy member of society (let's call them another priest for the sake of arguement). Well surely in the interest of both parties the matter should first be investigated privately to see is there anything behind the claim, and also to see if the accused admits anything, and also to see if the accuser is serious. If they have any suspicion after that then I believe they must go to the Gardaí, but in principle I have no problem with this idea in theory. In practise it may work out differently.


  • #83
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Vangelis wrote:
    It's rather my opinion.

    [quote

    It's not relevant what I believe. The truth is most important, screw my opinions. I don't know if the church authorities have taken part in a conspiracy

    I've offered a variety of evidence that they were. You've ignored it.
    or if they have asked for God's guidanc. My opinion on whether that is true or not is irrelevant and whether I say yes or no, what difference does it make to the discussion?

    It does you're suggesting that either a group of god's servants didn't bother checking with god. I mean theres are people who refer god in all matters do you not think they'd check with god?
    I say that, if there has been a conspiracy, they have failed to ask for God's guidance. And if they did not ask for God's guidance, they took the matter in their own hands.

    Whats your proof for the first assertion? What evdience is there?

    I haven't seen it. Show me the evidence. Because I can't see anything else than you repeating the statement that there has been a conspiracy.

    I've offered four links on this thread. Care to answer them? they refer to damning evidence by the current pope the previous pope senior priests in ireland and america and the vatican. I think it's absurd that the evidence has been demostrated on this thread and then you demand I show it again?
    I'll refine my sayings: All prayers aren't answered immediately. Some aren't answered in many years. I cannot know if their prayers were answered, if they ignored the answers. But God would never encourage them to rape young children and hide it from the public.

    So bascially the entire catholic hierarchy for decades has been on "please hold your pray is important to god and is in a Q?"
    I don't really think the Catholic authorities "bother" to check anything. They have their own in-grown laws written centuries ago and they heed these ancient scripts... highly. If I think that they don't or do bother to ask God if what they are doing is right or wrong, if they can have help to solve any problem, does it matter to you?

    Seeing as there supposed to our source of spiritual guidance and catheticism your bland inference that they're indifference to checking theological or moral rights, is another sign why I made the right choice.
    I have a good reason to question your conspiracy theories because you haven't provided any links to articles or anything else where I can read about revelations of a conspiracy actually having occured.

    I've provided four on this thread.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...469055,00.html


    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...020400,00.html

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...660927,00.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...849525,00.html

    Thats for examples of a clear example of four specific examples of church conspiracy to hide. All of which I have mentioned on this thread all of which you've ignored. Spare me the "i've not seen any links" bullcrap.


  • #84
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Vangelis wrote:
    I have little knowledge of the excluded texts. But before you criticise me for that, obtain some knowledge of them yourself so you can enlighten me.

    I don't need to obtain the knowledge. Why would I. I am not blindly following an organisation that bases it's teachings on something that may or may not be true/accurate. However, if I was I would be more than a little interested in finding out.
    Vangelis wrote:
    Have I left any of it out? Priests left it/them out. As far as I know, the excluded texts would not add any new knowledge about God's nature, his intentions, his will.

    I was not talking about you personally and you know that very well.

    You have already said you know nothing of the excluded texts. Now you say as far as you know they would not add any knowledge. Which is it?

    Vangelis wrote:
    My purposes? I have not selected anything away to suit my purposes.
    I don't understand what you are accusing me of.

    I did not mean you. Why would I accuse you of doing it. I am quite a rational person, why would I accuse you of doing something 2000 years ago? I was referring to the persons that may have decided to leave text out.

    MrP


  • #85
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    patzer117 wrote:

    EDIT: Also just to get a hold on the charge that Ratzinger was involved in the coverup - that document you quoted freelancer. What that document says is that the Church reserves the right to hold investigations in private. That's pretty much what you described it as anyway. Well I don't have any problem with that. I think the Church should have the right hold investigations in private and THEN go to the Gardaí with any results. Take a lone incident of sexual harrasment made against a priest by an untrustworthy member of society (let's call them another priest for the sake of arguement). Well surely in the interest of both parties the matter should first be investigated privately to see is there anything behind the claim, and also to see if the accused admits anything, and also to see if the accuser is serious. If they have any suspicion after that then I believe they must go to the Gardaí, but in principle I have no problem with this idea in theory. In practise it may work out differently.


    And thats nice and lets look at your first post on this thread
    but NEVER did the church create a policy saying 'We want to hide Paedophiles.'

    The funny thing is you know that's true, but can't accept it.

    Now it's a packpeddled "well of course you'd want a secret investiagtion.

    I notice you don't even dare approach the John Paul investigation.

    Hilariously you start this thread by suggesting that its absurd that theres any suggestion that theres any attempt of a concievable coverup now when this assertion is contradicted suddenly it's "well off course your investigation is in private and the results should be kept in private for over a decade thats the natural thing".

    You've dropped your defence of chomiskey because it's indefensible, you cannot defend papil police for forty years instead you're getting into sematics of Ratzingers decision to surpress the charges from
    Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police.

    You can claim these are for the protect of the victims but you can only give the priests the benefit of the doubt so long.

    those are two examples of a clear surpression of paedophilia that you claim NEVER happened.


  • #86
    patzer117
    Closed Accounts Posts: 288 ✭✭patzer117


    Freelancer wrote:
    And thats nice and lets look at your first post on this thread

    Let's take a look at the start of my last post shall we? Forgot about that bit eh? Or just angered that your last few posts have gone out the window?


    And getting back to the supposedly important part of this thread. The only one of those quotes working was the one of Brendan Comiskey. I'm not defending the man, he is indefensible, but there is no evidence (the article says he took out insurance and after that did nothing) to say he just did nothing after taking out the insurance. AND EVEN IF THERE WAS that doesn't amount to a specific Church policy to hide Paedophiles.


    {Devil's Advocate here: I don't believe this but want to see the answer)
    Now here's where I'm curious. When the abusese of that priest, presumably they knew he was a paedophile. Who did they tell, and what did they do? Did they go the the Gardaí? If so, what did they do? I'd like those at that confirmation walked out because if they only went to the church and not to the gardaí then perhaps some people in the Church presumed that they didn't want the situation to go to the gardaí? could this have been interpreted as a sign that the church SHOULD hold a private investigation?}

    Ok back to me... I'm not denying there was a coverup - the Ferns report shows damn well there was negligence on the part of the Church in that diocese, but it doesn't show that the Church had a policy to hide Paedophiles. Yes individuals did this, No the church did not reccomend it.

    And finally to dismiss the idea that because they were advised to take out insurance by Bishop Comiskey that they had a policy to hide Paedophiles. No, this proves that in one diocese they knew paedophelia was a problem and one person presumed that this probably didn't happen in isolation. When they were advised to take out insurance I would stake my life that many of the bishops investigated whether there were Paedophiles in the Parish. What they did is a different matter, but just because they took out insurance did not mean they therefore wanted to hide the Paedophiles.

    And take a look at the first half of my post there freelancer, before the EDIT bit, i think you may like some of it.

    patzer


  • #87
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Freelancer wrote:
    I've offered four links on this thread. Care to answer them? they refer to damning evidence by the current pope the previous pope senior priests in ireland and america and the vatican. I think it's absurd that the evidence has been demostrated on this thread and then you demand I show it again?

    Only one the links work. By the Guardian. There seems to me rather this this is speculation over the possibility of conspiracy, not something direct and striking.
    So bascially the entire catholic hierarchy for decades has been on "please hold your pray is important to god and is in a Q?"

    Write in English, please. Punctuation and comma. What's a Q?
    Seeing as there supposed to our source of spiritual guidance and catheticism your bland inference that they're indifference to checking theological or moral rights, is another sign why I made the right choice.

    Good for you.
    Thats for examples of a clear example of four specific examples of church conspiracy to hide. All of which I have mentioned on this thread all of which you've ignored. Spare me the "i've not seen any links" bullcrap.

    I've read the articles(only one because the others are not available) and like I said, there is no evidence. Just speculation.


  • #88
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    patzer117 wrote:
    Let's take a look at the start of my last post shall we? Forgot about that bit eh? Or just angered that your last few posts have gone out the window?
    Lets
    That they do. And I for one am willing to give it to some of them.

    Great Observer Qoute. I believe Fr Vince. He says this therefore its true
    And of course the Archbishop took out insurance. Who wouldn't and why wouldn't they? to lose money? The conclusion drawn is incorrect. Just because he took out insurance does not mean he wasn't trying to tackle the problem. The idea that because someone takes out house insurance, he doesn't care that his house is going to be burned down and will do nothing to prevent it is about as ludicrous as this arguement so my point still stands.

    I point out that if you're aware theres a problem and your only reaction is to take out insurance then you are negligent. A fact you ignore.

    And getting back to the supposedly important part of this thread. The only one of those quotes working was the one of Brendan Comiskey.

    All the links work. Quit trying to weasel your way out this.

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html
    asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
    The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

    The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html
    'It was kept quiet - that's the way they felt it should be handled,' one priest, Father Vince Maffei, says now. 'That was the decision of the people in charge, and it has backfired something fierce.'

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,660927,00.html

    Claiming the links don't work is bascially a "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOU" defence.
    I'm not defending the man, he is indefensible, but there is no evidence (the article says he took out insurance and after that did nothing) to say he just did nothing after taking out the insurance. AND EVEN IF THERE WAS that doesn't amount to a specific Church policy to hide Paedophiles.

    And the other articles? And what evidence do you proport that he did anything? The articles assertion that is was the Bishop's only reaction to the issue. Considering the dramatic scale of abuse scandals that follows and the lack of church action the article's assertion seems fair, what evidence do you present to support your response? The rest of the articles demostrates that this cover up was widespread but apparently you're in "If I don't see it it's not a crime mode"
    {Devil's Advocate here: I don't believe this but want to see the answer)
    Now here's where I'm curious. When the abusese of that priest, presumably they knew he was a paedophile. Who did they tell, and what did they do? Did they go the the Gardaí? If so, what did they do? I'd like those at that confirmation walked out because if they only went to the church and not to the gardaí then perhaps some people in the Church presumed that they didn't want the situation to go to the gardaí? could this have been interpreted as a sign that the church SHOULD hold a private investigation?}

    Thats frankly horsesh*t. It's a crime. The church has no authority on criminal matters. Trying to deal with a criminal charge informally without going to the police is obstruction of justice. Period end of discussion.
    Ok back to me... I'm not denying there was a coverup - the Ferns report shows damn well there was negligence on the part of the Church in that diocese, but it doesn't show that the Church had a policy to hide Paedophiles. Yes individuals did this, No the church did not reccomend it.

    And again.
    The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

    The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

    How do you reconcile the above?
    And finally to dismiss the idea that because they were advised to take out insurance by Bishop Comiskey that they had a policy to hide Paedophiles. No, this proves that in one diocese they knew paedophelia was a problem and one person presumed that this probably didn't happen in isolation.

    Do you read? I mean english?
    His sole response was to take out insurance cover against any resulting financial loss, and to advise every other bishop in the country to do the same. By 1990, most dioceses had this insurance in place. So they all knew this crime was prevalent enough to be a real concern

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1849525,00.html
    When they were advised to take out insurance I would stake my life that many of the bishops investigated whether there were Paedophiles in the Parish. What they did is a different matter, but just because they took out insurance did not mean they therefore wanted to hide the Paedophiles.

    Yes but if the only reaction is to take out insurance? Furthermore before you forfeit your life perhaps you'd kindly furnish us with some evidence that there was a rigiorous investigation by bishops to find paedophiles and hand them into the proper authorities. You've utterly failed to demostrate what other remedies the church made, the article makes an assertion, you refute it, the onus is on you to support your claim.
    And take a look at the first half of my post there freelancer, before the EDIT bit, i think you may like some of it.

    patzer

    Thats all nice and all but I'm discussing that matter with Vangelis and I'll answer your point when you deal with the rest of my point.
    EDIT and in addendum to your original point
    patzer wrote:
    What that document says is that the Church reserves the right to hold investigations in private. That's pretty much what you described it as anyway. Well I don't have any problem with that. I think the Church should have the right hold investigations in private and THEN go to the Gardaí with any results.
    Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

    Are you reading the same article? The above suggests that the church is claiming it has the moral authority and jurisdiction over a criminal act. Nowhere does it state that the church would punish the perperator and then hand them over to the authorities.

    What it does say is;
    It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

    And then
    Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

    And finally
    The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

    'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

    So what you have here is a document which not only suggests that the investigation which is private which the church claims has legal authority and does not need to go further, furthermore this investigation occurs in private.

    Finally what gives the right to the church to hold it's own private investigation? If you or I suspect a crime, we are legally and morally obliged to immediately go to the police and report it. What right does the church have to carry out it's own secret investigation into a criminal act before approaching the police?


  • #89
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    Vangelis wrote:
    Only one the links work. By the Guardian. There seems to me rather this this is speculation over the possibility of conspiracy, not something direct and striking.

    I've posted all the links in the above response, They all work please quit prevaircating
    Write in English, please. Punctuation and comma. What's a Q?
    Que.

    Now same question.
    You wrote:
    I'll refine my sayings: All prayers aren't answered immediately. Some aren't answered in many years. I cannot know if their prayers were answered, if they ignored the answers. But God would never encourage them to rape young children and hide it from the public.
    my response wrote:
    So bascially the entire catholic hierarchy for decades has been on "please hold your pray is important to god and is in a Que?"
    Good for you.

    Thats not a rebuttal its interesting how terse and "less polite" your reponses get when we get closer to the bones of the debate.
    I've read the articles(only one because the others are not available) and like I said, there is no evidence. Just speculation.

    No theres not theres clear evidence, like I said to patzer Ive reposted the links, answer the specific charges instead of saying "thats pure speculation" thats not a reponse but a poor generic rebuttal. Answer the specific charges with specific answers instead of some generic wishy washy attempt at a response. Theres solid evidence it deserves a solid answer; one I'm (or more importantly it's victims) is unlikely to get from you or any of the church's apologists.

    So will you now attempt to address the ramifications of the above, either the entire catholic hierarchy to a man didn't bother to ask god for advice before engaging a forty year cover up, or they did ask god and god told them to do it? Which?


  • #90
    SparkyLarks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 363 ✭✭SparkyLarks


    This "debate" is really starting to get stale and both sides are getting more and more entrenched, I do hope that it is not indicitive ofa larger portion of society, where the religious and the secular become further and further apart.

    Yes peadofile priests were covered up, and much more worringly moved into postions where they had access to children.

    I was discussing this with my parents and grandparents and aparently most of the priests who did abuse children( or in some cases adults) came not from maynooth but the other seminary. I can;t remember the details or names, but basicially a very very sick individual was head of the other seminary and basicially abused most of the young priests there. a few priests who tried to speak out about it were ruined.

    However it must be remembered that globally the percentage of priests who abuse children are in line with the rest of the population. The vast majority of abuse happens in the home. As a society we are not dealing with that issue.

    That abuse is also being covered up. It is an abuse that we know about but do nothing.

    However it must also be remembered that the church is a huge orginisation. Ther are good priests and bad priests. To say, I'm not listning to any priest because of the peadofiles or becasue of the cover up that took place , is a form of discrimination. I know quite a few priests some are great people and do great work and I'd listen to what they have to say on a lot of things. Others are idiots who I probably won't listen to.

    as for people saying that priests have never been maried and so can;t be good marrige counselers. Does every drug counsoller have to have been an addict. IN fairness to the church the enforced marrige courses is a great idea. If someone is going to get married then it;s a very good idea that they are sure about what they are getting themselves in for.

    However the thing which is most forgotten is that the people are the church. Yes ther are many many things wrong in the church. The stance on condom's the cover up of peodifiles ect. However it is up to us to change it.

    WE might make a difference, but one man nailed up on a door what he thought was wrong with the church, which lead to the counter reformation where a large number of things were put right


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Freelancer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Freelancer


    SparkyLarks wrote:
    This "debate" is really starting to get stale and both sides are getting more and more entrenched, I do hope that it is not indicitive ofa larger portion of society, where the religious and the secular become further and further apart.

    No one side of the debate is refusing to even acknowledge evidence or offer evidence of to support their claim that the church hid paedophiles.


    However it must be remembered that globally the percentage of priests who abuse children are in line with the rest of the population. The vast majority of abuse happens in the home. As a society we are not dealing with that issue.

    Can you offer a link to prove that assertion?


  • #92
    turbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭turbot


    Vangelis,

    I find it interesting that you classify so many people as sinners.

    Please explain the following:
    - Why did the Roman Catholic Church start the "Roman Calendar" from the birth of Jesus, so that the World would organise it's sense of time around the idea of one historical figure?

    ( There are traces of indian civilisation that have carbon dated to be 30 - 35,000 years old. If Jesus showed up in the year 33,000, does that seem a bit late? ) ... If the church are capable of such trickery, what else are they capable of?

    - Have you ever read Chaucer? Don't you realise that even in the 13th century, corruption was rife throughout the church?

    According to chaucer, corruption was the rule, not the exception.

    - How do you explain "Noah's ark in the bible" taking in two of each animal, and killing all the others? What are the implications of this in terms of genetic mutation / inbreeding...?

    - Do you like the idea of being classified as a sinner? Does it make you feel good and enable you to enjoy life, or not?

    - How do you explain that many leading authorities on ancient biblical texts, such as Zaccharia Sitchin, come to dramatically different interpretations of the ancient texts, than is promoted in version of the bible distributed by the catholic church?

    - Does it seem to you that catholicism is structured in a similar way to a multi-level marketing company...? I.e. in order to be saved (from being a sinner) you have to convince more people they are sinners and need to be saved? Is this why catholicism spread across the World so quickly? Was it under God's guidance that the catholic hierachy decided to teach their followers to behave live they belong to a multi-level marketing organisation and spread the good word?

    - Is it possible that you, perhaps niavely, accepted what you were taught in church at face value and just believed it? If everything you think is *true*, then why would you have any problem in immersing yourself in totally different systems of thought, such as wicca, for example. (BTW, I'm not a witch) Surely what is true should prove itself to be... self evident, so honestly exploring other options should actually reinforce what you already know to be true.

    Personally, I think that the idea that:
    - People are sinners just by being alive, and as a result, might go to hell and be tortured for all eternity
    - The only way out of this horrible predicament is to follow a set of archaic rules on behaviour

    .. is a great (and sadistic) way to control people, if they accept the premise they are sinners.

    Don't you realise that you are only a sinner if you accept the catholic church's classification? If you reject their whole system of thinking, you don't have to be a sinner at all.

    Do you think it's possible, as a human, to completely suppress all of your sexual urges because they are impure? If so, do you accept that large numbers of priests were unsuccessful in this action?

    Do you think a great being capable of designing the universe would design creatures within it, featuring such a major design flaw as making the reproductive process a really impure process?

    Isn't this just a major way of confusing you, making you fight against yourself while telling you what to do, such that you are easier to control?

    What would happen if you gave up catholicism for lent? If you had sex outside of marriage during this time, would it be a sin?


  • #93
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    turbot wrote:
    - Does it seem to you that catholicism is structured in a similar way to a multi-level marketing company...? I.e. in order to be saved (from being a sinner) you have to convince more people they are sinners and need to be saved? Is this why catholicism spread across the World so quickly? Was it under God's guidance that the catholic hierachy decided to teach their followers to behave live they belong to a multi-level marketing organisation and spread the good word?

    Hahahahaha!
    alá Simpsons

    "Forget about Old style pyramid schemes. Our model is the Cross"


  • #94
    lazydaisy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Vangelis- and other devoted catholics -

    As Christians your priority should be the protection of children, not the protection of the Vatican. They are powerfulmen who can fight their own battles. All I can say to you is that you are a prime example of BELIEVING is SEEING and not the other way around. Why ar eyou defending the indefenisble? The next time you see a child, imagine a priest seducing it, bribing it, blackmailing it, removing its clothes, and raping it. Then imagine the priest telling the child not to tell anyone and the child going home with blood all over its clothes from being anally or vaginally raped by a cleric, a man s/he sees his family trusting. And this happening to the child repeatedly.You do not get over this. It is life ruining. The vatican has facilitated and enabled these crimes. There should be a human rights tribunal like the nuremeburg trials where the hierarchy is tried and imprisoned or executed. [I am anti-death penalty except when it comes to child rapists].

    Please try to separate your faith and theology from the criminality that is at hand.

    The problem is that people do not take this seriously enough. What these men did was a crime. And those who covered it up are accessories to that crime. The Irish state are also accessories. The guards were called when the women in the magdalene laundries tried to escape and made them go back. So what is/was the point of going to the guards if the guards were the instruments of the state/church? The department of education too is responsible for the crimes against the children of Ireland because they sent inspectors around to the schools. Ignorance is not an excuse. It is their job to know what is going on.

    Im starting to understand why they have kept women out - women will want to protect children and that is the last thing they need.


  • #95
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    turbot wrote:
    I find it interesting that you classify so many people as sinners.

    I am a sinner. But the main point is that there is hope for me. For everyone.
    - Why did the Roman Catholic Church start the "Roman Calendar" from the birth of Jesus, so that the World would organise it's sense of time around the idea of one historical figure?

    I don't know that. I'm sure you can find the answer in a history book.
    It'd be wrong to say that time began when Christ was born anyway.
    ( There are traces of indian civilisation that have carbon dated to be 30 - 35,000 years old. If Jesus showed up in the year 33,000, does that seem a bit late? ) ... If the church are capable of such trickery, what else are they capable of?

    Anyone is capable of anything.
    - Have you ever read Chaucer? Don't you realise that even in the 13th century, corruption was rife throughout the church?

    Haven't read Chaucer. I realised that, yes. Wasn't Chaucer a dramatist/writer?
    - How do you explain "Noah's ark in the bible" taking in two of each animal, and killing all the others? What are the implications of this in terms of genetic mutation / inbreeding...?

    From what I know, Noah took one pair from each species into his boat. It doesn't say anything about animals being killed, and I'm assuming you are referring to fossils and long-extinct animals? I cannot explain why this is so.
    - Do you like the idea of being classified as a sinner? Does it make you feel good and enable you to enjoy life, or not?

    No, being a sinner is not a classification. Sinning is a weakness that we as humans are prone to. But God forgives all sins(if you regret and ask to be forgiven) because he has an endless mercy. Knowing this makes me feel wonderful. One cannot have enough of mercy and blessing(but one can of course not keep sinning in good faith that "God will forgive me anyways so I can just..." No, no...).
    - How do you explain that many leading authorities on ancient biblical texts, such as Zaccharia Sitchin, come to dramatically different interpretations of the ancient texts, than is promoted in version of the bible distributed by the catholic church?

    I'm not familiar with Sitchin's interpretations. What does he say?
    - Does it seem to you that catholicism is structured in a similar way to a multi-level marketing company...? I.e. in order to be saved (from being a sinner) you have to convince more people they are sinners and need to be saved? Is this why catholicism spread across the World so quickly? Was it under God's guidance that the catholic hierachy decided to teach their followers to behave live they belong to a multi-level marketing organisation and spread the good word?

    First question: No. Second question: No. Third question: It is my opinion that Catholicism spread because the Church intimidated people to believe. They'd be punished, killed, isolated etc if they did not convert. But if these men who crusaded through Europe with their teachings had known God's will for how they should have acted and treated people - with love and kindness, not imposterousness - that time might have been different.
    - Is it possible that you, perhaps niavely, accepted what you were taught in church at face value and just believed it? If everything you think is *true*, then why would you have any problem in immersing yourself in totally different systems of thought, such as wicca, for example. (BTW, I'm not a witch) Surely what is true should prove itself to be... self evident, so honestly exploring other options should actually reinforce what you already know to be true.

    I don't go to Church, and I am not a Catholic. I have immersed myself in Buddhism, Satanism, Occultism beside my own faith. My next project is Islam. I have no problem exploring other religions and beliefs.

    - People are sinners just by being alive, and as a result, might go to hell and be tortured for all eternity

    Hell is eternal death, not an eternal life in torture.
    And I cannot say that people are sinners just by being alive.
    I could put it differently: we are all tendential sinners, due to our weak nature. But of course, we can change this nature by living as God intends us to.
    - The only way out of this horrible predicament is to follow a set of archaic rules on behaviour.. is a great (and sadistic) way to control people, if they accept the premise they are sinners.

    When one comes to faith, one wishes to do God's will. To someone else, God seems too strict. But His law is out of love for His Creation. The Catholic Church may terrorise people with doomsday predictions, and if they do so they err gravely. Love is the only answer.
    Don't you realise that you are only a sinner if you accept the catholic church's classification? If you reject their whole system of thinking, you don't have to be a sinner at all.

    I guess that this is what the Catholic church has taught you. This is not the teachings of God.
    Do you think it's possible, as a human, to completely suppress all of your sexual urges because they are impure? If so, do you accept that large numbers of priests were unsuccessful in this action?

    The idea that sexual urges are impure is another distortion that the Catholic church is responsible for. Sexuality is a gift, but should not be misused or become dominant in one's life. Because it is a worldly thing. God tells us that sexual intimacy should be confined to marriage between a husband and a wife.
    Do you think a great being capable of designing the universe would design creatures within it, featuring such a major design flaw as making the reproductive process a really impure process?

    Reproduction is one of God's secrets. He created our Nature, and he created Eve so that Adam would not be alone. Together a man and a woman are one, and sexuality is God's gift to their togetherness. That sexuality is impure is a grave distortion. It is beautiful and valuable, but should not be misused.
    Isn't this just a major way of confusing you, making you fight against yourself while telling you what to do, such that you are easier to control?

    :) I am not confused because I know that these teachings you present are untrue.


  • #96
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    lazydaisy wrote:
    Vangelis- and other devoted catholics -

    I am not a Catholic. :) You may call me Orthodox.
    As Christians your priority should be the protection of children, not the protection of the Vatican. They are powerfulmen who can fight their own battles. All I can say to you is that you are a prime example of BELIEVING is SEEING and not the other way around. Why ar eyou defending the indefenisble? The next time you see a child, imagine a priest seducing it, bribing it, blackmailing it, removing its clothes, and raping it. Then imagine the priest telling the child not to tell anyone and the child going home with blood all over its clothes from being anally or vaginally raped by a cleric, a man s/he sees his family trusting. And this happening to the child repeatedly.You do not get over this. It is life ruining. The vatican has facilitated and enabled these crimes. There should be a human rights tribunal like the nuremeburg trials where the hierarchy is tried and imprisoned or executed. [I am anti-death penalty except when it comes to child rapists].

    That is so right! A good message to Catholics.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    turbot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭turbot


    Vangelis,

    Many people find that theoretical physics is beyond their comprehension.

    If this is so, surely you also realise God is beyond your comprehension.

    Therefore, you do not *know* what Gods will is. At best, you have a personal, deeply held opinion / interpretation of what you think God's will is as you have interpreted from the Bible or whatever other soures you beleive in.

    But you cannot say the teachings I present are untrue, yet you are entitled to classify them as untrue for you.

    You also haven't expressed that you understand that people are sinners *only* if you accept the classifications of the bible.

    Regarding Noah's Ark - genetic strength is based on genetic diversity. If you only have two animals, you wipe out all the genetic quality of a population. This story doesn't make sense if you understand Genetics, unless "God" favour wanted to create an inbred efffect. How do you explain this?

    How do you think you know what God's will is?

    Also, people are not sinners. Sinner is a word. If you don't accept the teachings of the bible, then you don't have to accept people as sinners.
    In your personal reality, you may think everyone is sinners. In my reality, I don't think of people using this particular classification. Do you understand what I mean by this?

    The bible teaches us that people are sinners. But if you don't accept the teachings, then you don't have to classify people as sinners.


  • #98
    Redleslie2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭Redleslie2


    Vangelis wrote:
    I know nothing about this myself so, I'm curious to know Irish people's experience of how Catholicism has influenced modern Ireland.
    Sexual repression and a conservative deferential attitude to authority are the results of catholicism's influence on the Irish people imo.


  • #99
    SparkyLarks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 363 ✭✭SparkyLarks


    Noah Ark is a story in the bible.
    the church doesn;t actually present it as true.
    it's a fable.

    As far as I understand, Abraham is the first character in the bible that the church believe actually existed.

    According the the Early stories in the bible Adam and Eve were created and had two sons, that does pose a question as to where everyone come from. and accorind to genitics would make us seriously inbred.

    Especially considering that Eve is essentially a clone of Adam, with some DNA modification to make her female.

    Every religion is full of fables and stories, do people really believe that Ram Bahadur is a reincarnation of budda and has been meditation without eating or drinking for 6 months?

    Freelancer, I don;t have a link about the percentages, I have heard it from a number of different sources, papers radio ect, it could be an example of misinformatio but the number of times I've come across it and the people who quote it are generaly working in social services.

    Lazydaisy, at the time in Ireland most people would have also brought a young escapee back to a laundry. Irish society, which was influenced heavily by the church, believed that these girls were sinners and the laundries were the best place for them.

    By the way sexual abuse doesn;t mearly exist with catholic clerics.
    take Sai Baba "His followers say Sai Baba is a God on Earth" but ther are a growing number of reports of him molesting young men
    http://www.rickross.com/reference/saibaba/saibaba6.html


  • #100
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    Redleslie2 wrote:
    Sexual repression and a conservative deferential attitude to authority are the results of catholicism's influence on the Irish people imo.

    Yes, I think so too. I've experienced that many Irish people won't realise this, yet they have extremely repressive opinions on sex themselves.


  • #101
    Vangelis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 719 ✭✭✭Vangelis


    turbot wrote:
    Many people find that theoretical physics is beyond their comprehension.

    If this is so, surely you also realise God is beyond your comprehension.

    I don't know to full God's will in all matters. Some of it can be revealed in the Scriptures. I don't think you can compare theoretical physics to God.
    But you cannot say the teachings I present are untrue, yet you are entitled to classify them as untrue for you.

    What are your teachings? Or is this hypothetical?
    You also haven't expressed that you understand that people are sinners *only* if you accept the classifications of the bible.

    Are people sinners only if they accept what a sinner is in the Bible?
    Is this another piece of Catholic crap?
    Regarding Noah's Ark - genetic strength is based on genetic diversity. If you only have two animals, you wipe out all the genetic quality of a population. This story doesn't make sense if you understand Genetics, unless "God" favour wanted to create an inbred efffect. How do you explain this?

    I cannot explain this as I don't try to explain science with the Bible.
    How do you think you know what God's will is?

    As I said, I don't know God's will completely. In fact, I know as little as is possible. All I know can be found in the Bible.
    Also, people are not sinners. Sinner is a word. If you don't accept the teachings of the bible, then you don't have to accept people as sinners.
    In your personal reality, you may think everyone is sinners. In my reality, I don't think of people using this particular classification. Do you understand what I mean by this?

    Of course you don't have to accept that people are sinners if you don't believe in the Bible. I understand what you mean.
    The bible teaches us that people are sinners. But if you don't accept the teachings, then you don't have to classify people as sinners.

    There's no need to repeat yourself. I get the point. :)


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement