a bit rich?

OP: If even a majority of Catholic clergy were child abusers, I might agree with you. What an absurd premise to begin what could have been a legitimate topic with.

gogglebok wrote: »

But it doesn't have to be a majority to seriously invalidate the Church's credibility in giving moral advice. To take something a little less serious than the beating, murder and rape of thouands of children, let's look at a lesser crime and an organisation comparable in size.

Of course it would. Otherwise you are tarring everyone with the same brush.

If the Catholic Church are giving people Biblically based advice on family values and on relationships, one would have to prove that the Biblical authors are wrong to de-legitimise their argument. I would hold the same view as the Cardinal in respect to concerns about families, however I am not opposed to the Civil Partnership Bill.

gogglebok wrote: »

Imigine if it was revealed that several hundred postmen had systematically stolen from the mail. That their colleagues had never once reported any of them to the police. That their bosses had suppressed any evidence which was brought to them. That the thieves were not only not punished, but actively facilitated in finding new opportunities to steal. And that even now, many of the postal authorities were blatantly obstructive of any investigation.

You would have to provide figures for how many clergy in Ireland had abused children themselves for this to be a realistic figure.

I'm not defending the relocation of priests, but they were not moved so that they would abuse more children, they were moved with the assumption that they would not continue what they did before. Again, flawed logic on the behalf of the Catholic Church, but to say they did it to encourage abuse is highly wrong.

gogglebok wrote: »

Would you listen to security advice from the Postmaster General? Would you not consider that the institutional theft and cover-up were so widespread that everyone in the institution was responsible? And wouldn't you quite reasonably conclude that a given individual's responsibility increased according to the level of his authority in the organisation?

I will listen to moral advice from everyone who can offer it to me. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but I certainly will listen. Cardinal Brady does bring up quite a few legitimate concerns and to ignore them just because he is a Catholic is absurd.

gogglebok wrote: »

Institutional child abuse on the scale that the Irish church committed taints everyone in the institution. More than anything, it taints their advice on sexual matters, and on what is good for society. We've seen their version of sexual morality, and we've seen their version of a well-run state. Does anything deny it was evil?

My point was that a minority were responsible, not a majority. There are plenty of good priests and good people involved in Catholicism, I can vouch for that myself. These priests went against the moral laws of Christianity. No doubt about it.

I don't think that Christian sexual morality is "evil". I do think that their corruption of Christianity was evil.

The amount of times the Ryan Report gets dragged into discussions where it isn't even relevant is just beyond me.

I'm not defending the relocation of priests, but they were not moved so that they would abuse more children, they were moved with the assumption that they would not continue what they did before.

First of all that assumption is just ridiculous and I seriously doubt that anybody would be stupid enough to make it. Sure if we catch people stealing in Carlow we should just move them to Kilkenny and they wont do it again.

Secondly anybody who would make such an assumption should be held fully responsible for the inevitable consequences. Sorry kids my logic was a bit flawed but there ya go!

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Catholic Church are giving people Biblically based advice on family values and on relationships, one would have to prove that the Biblical authors are wrong to de-legitimise their argument.

No, that's not right. To cast doubt on the legitimacy of someone's advice you can also question their intentions, their honesty, their moral standing, and the results of their previous advice.

Jakkass wrote: »

You would have to provide figures for how many clergy in Ireland had abused children themselves for this to be a realistic figure.

I've actually written to a leading member of the Church hierarchy requesting that figure, but he was unable to provide it.

In any case, the real question is whether the institution shares any of the guilt for the offences. The history of indulgence, cover-up, and obstruction suggests that it does.

This would be true even if only one abuser's crimes had been tolerated or covered up. In fact there are many, many more.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not defending the relocation of priests, but they were not moved so that they would abuse more children, they were moved with the assumption that they would not continue what they did before.

At best it was grotesquely negligent. At worst, it was a lot worse than that. Did it occur to no-one in the church to mount even a cursory study of paedophilia before assigning a self-confessed paedophile to a new school?

Jakkass wrote: »

I will listen to moral advice from everyone who can offer it to me. It doesn't mean I have to agree with it, but I certainly will listen. Cardinal Brady does bring up quite a few legitimate concerns and to ignore them just because he is a Catholic is absurd.

If he brings up legitimate concerns, fair enough. All I see is unsupported scare-mongering and an astoundingly distasteful emphasis on the prospect of the church being sued.

Being prejudice isn't something to be proud of. In fact, it's something we should actively combat and challenge.

Open minded people recognise prejudices for what they are: ignornace.

Maybe you could start combating prejudice on the threads where people are attacking bankers and developers.

You could also start by contacting the cardinal and letting him know that the following statement is a display of ignorance:

marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children

gogglebok wrote: »

If he brings up legitimate concerns, fair enough. All I see is unsupported scare-mongering and an astoundingly distasteful emphasis on the prospect of the church being sued.

I respect Cardinal Brady because of his views on many subjects, including the public role of faith.

Let's actually look at what the Cardinal did say:

In his homily this evening, Dr Brady said marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children. He said any government which undermines such an environment could hardly be said to be promoting the common good.

Fair enough. I'd personally agree with this. However, the Civil Partnership Bill is much more focused on relationships rather than the foundation of the family. That is very much in marriages domain even when the bill will be passed. I can understand why there would be some concern.

Cardinal Brady also said those who refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding would be guilty of offence and described this as 'an alarming attack on the fundamental principle of freedom of religion and conscience.'
He said the legislation leaves the door open for individuals and religious organisations to be sued in a variety of ways for 'upholding their belief that marriage is an institution exclusively for men and women'.

This has happened in the USA. No doubt it has happened elsewhere. This isn't fearmongering but an actual reality. Again, the Cardinal seems informed about the debate.

Mr Rose said the Cardinal is entitled to an opinion on the issue and is entitled to express it, but civil marriage and civil partnerships are to do with the State.

I also agree with this. In a free society all should be entitled to an opinion on the issue, but the Government has to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves. It has already done this.

Jakkass wrote: »

Let's actually look at what the Cardinal did say.

Good idea. I can't find his full statement, but we can start with the bits you quote from the RTE report.

"In his homily this evening, Dr Brady said marriage between a man and a woman will always remain the ideal environment in which to raise children."

I don't know if he offered any evidence for this. Even if he did, he should know that X being ideal doesn't make Y bad. We already allow children to be brought up in what he would evidently consider "non-ideal" circumstances. We don't force the widowed to remarry until their kids are eighteen, for example.

"He said any government which undermines such an environment could hardly be said to be promoting the common good."

The suggestion that legalising the non-ideal necessarily "undermines" the ideal has no basis in logic or morality.

"Cardinal Brady also said those who refuse to officiate at a same sex wedding would be guilty of offence."

Of course they would. And they should be. As an employee of the state, I don't get to choose which laws I administer. If I feel strongly enough about one of them, I can resign.

Government employees are not allowed to selectively neglect their duties. Where on earth does he get the idea that this is either new or bad?

"He said the legislation leaves the door open for individuals and religious organisations to be sued in a variety of ways for 'upholding their belief that marriage is an institution exclusively for men and women'."

No-one is going to be sued for acting within the law, whatever their beliefs. If I uphold my belief that marriage is exclusively heterosexual by exclusively, er, marrying a women, nobody will sue me. If I uphold the belief by breaking the law, however, I may be charged with breaking the law.

This is pretty uncontroversial stuff, and he shouldn't be swelling it into a boogeyman.

Again, I haven't read the full statement, but if it is at all fairly represented by these quotes, then it is blustering and empty at best.

At worst? Well, Cardinal Brady has presumably had quite a lot of training in logic and morality. Is this ridiculous performance really the best he can do? I doubt it.

I think it's an attempt to stir up fear, I think it is more about propaganda than truth, and I think he is probably seizing on the issue as a way of recapturing some of the social and political power the church has quite rightly lost in recent years.

Jakkass wrote: »

gogglebok: People have been sued in the USA for refusing to take photographs at a same sex marriage ceremony out of conscience. It is a reality. This objection is entirely reasonable. It is up to society to decide whether or not people should be punished for their beliefs though.

It's not a reasonable objection to same sex marriage, though it may be a reasonable objection to stupid law suits.

That being said, I don't know the details of the case, but it is not a no-brainer. I don't feel any automatic sympathy for a wedding photographer who refuses to fulfil his contract because he disapproves of the couple.