Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

1…1617192122…48

Comments

  • #542
    goodomens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭goodomens


    seamus wrote: »
    The confessional has always been a tool of control and intimidation on the part of the church.

    Despite their God being all-knowing and all-forgiving, the only way to get absolution through that God is to confess to a priest, rather than, you know, to God. For some reason it only becomes "real" when it's said to priest. Otherwise you might only be pretending to confess and tricking an omnipotent being into forgiving you.

    The intention of confession is that the clergy are privy to all goings-on within the community and know everyone's dirty little secrets. This makes the priest the kind of guy you don't fnck with.

    There is no good reason to afford the confessional any special protection under law. You may as well make it OK for anyone to withhold information on crimes so long as they were told the information in confidence.

    It's called the sacrament of reconciliation for a reason.

    1. Reconciliation with God
    2. Reconciliation with his church.

    When a person confesses, they are asking God for forgiveness, and also asking to be reconciled with his church. Which can only be done throuh a priest.

    Peoples downfall in these discussions is their lack of understanding of the church, it's function, and the mechanisms of which it goes by.


  • #543
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    goodomens wrote: »
    It's called the sacrament of reconciliation for a reason.

    1. Reconciliation with God
    2. Reconciliation with his church.

    When a person confesses, they are asking God for forgiveness, and also asking to be reconciled with his church. Which can only be done throuh a priest.

    Peoples downfall in these discussions is their lack of understanding of the church, it's function, and the mechanisms of which it goes by.

    I was brought up by catholic parents, went to a catholic schools including one run by the antichristian brothers and I was never taught that about confession. That's probably my fault. :rolleyes:

    But then the catholic church has some really odd ideas about what the troops should be told :pac:


  • #544
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    goodomens wrote: »
    It's called the sacrament of reconciliation for a reason.

    1. Reconciliation with God
    2. Reconciliation with his church.

    When a person confesses, they are asking God for forgiveness, and also asking to be reconciled with his church. Which can only be done throuh a priest.

    Peoples downfall in these discussions is their lack of understanding of the church, it's function, and the mechanisms of which it goes by.

    so the church IS above the law in your opinion?

    why should the church be able to break laws?


  • #545
    mackg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    philologos wrote: »
    mackg: That's my post. I'm not objecting to the motivation behind the law which is inherently good. What I don't believe is that the law is going to be workable in practice.

    As I said I picked you up wrong.


  • #546
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Bambi wrote: »
    Nah, you haven't, lets strip this boss analogy out for a minute, because you're either willfully ignoring the flaw that's been pointed out to you in that analogy or you just don't get it.

    The hierarchy of the catholic church (and they ARE the catholic church) have tolerated and protected paedophiles in their organisation. Do you deny this?

    You still support them, while claiming to abhor child abuse and the people who enable it.

    This is pure cognitive dissonance, You cannot hold both positions. So which one is it?

    The era of fuzzy logic and double standards is over, time to pick.

    Not that simple. Let's put it in family terms. Let's say the head of a family covers up child abuse perpetrated by a family member. Does this make ALL the family guilty - even those who did not carry out abuse?

    I would wholeheartedly support the Catholic Church in its endeavours - but not the paedophiles and their minders who have infiltrated it. I am a father of three adult children and have encountered the Church in all its manifestations.

    Those who have perpetrated these evil crimes must be punished, no two ways about it. Equally, those in the Catholic Church who wish to take these sc um on head-on must be allowed do so.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Min wrote: »
    The priests are not the church but a part of the church. The Catholic faith is not based on priests, it is based on Jesus.
    Min wrote: »
    In Leviticus the book of the priests

    In Genesis it says multiply and fill the Earth, it did not say to prevent life and to murder unborn life.

    Leviticus and Genesis predate Jesus by, what, 300 years? (or 1,000s of years, depending on your view). So this would be a viewpoint not exactly based on Jesus' teachings exactly, but more based on teachings formulated by priests that were alive before Jesus.
    The church never said homosexual are evil but homosexual acts are wrong. This is stated both in Leviticus and by St Peter to the Romans.

    So, not by Jesus. I don't think Jesus mentions homosexuality at all, does he?
    Alreeady dealt with married priests, the male clergy is based on the 12 apostles.

    Which was a rule brought in when exactly? And by whom?
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    In response to this and other posts re my work/church analogy;

    If my boss/local priest was outed as a paedophile who repeatedly tried to force his views on me I would not walk out of a job I love just because he is a sick monster. Why should I pay for his sins? I would fully expect him to the one forced to leave.

    The Church acts differently to businesses. Having said that, if a business acted in a morally repugnant way, and one that was sanctioned by the leaders of that business, by staying where you are, you are giving your consent to their actions. For example, if I was working for a company that was actively involved in supplying arms to states that were using them on their own people, then I would leave (or stay, and accept that by staying I'm lending my support to that business). Your boss may leave (as John Paul II did) but what's going to stop his successor continuing in the same manner (see: Benedict).


  • #548
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Min wrote: »
    That does not mean it shouldn't be reported to the authorities, it is dealing with church trials, the article says the churches right to hold its inquiries. It is about internal trials, one can put two and two together and get 4 or maybe it is 6, the evidence is of the church trial, does it mention about not reporting abuse to the state as what you posted was about internal trials and the evidence used in that trial.

    You clearly didn't even read the post:mad:
    (Hint: 10yr delay...)


  • #549
    goodomens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭goodomens


    Helix wrote: »
    so the church IS above the law in your opinion?

    why should the church be able to break laws?

    I don't think the church is above the law, and shouldn't be. I just gave people a better understanding of confessions.


  • #550
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    goodomens wrote: »
    I don't think the church is above the law, and shouldn't be. I just gave people a better understanding of confessions.

    i think plenty of people on here understand how confessions are supposed to work, but that doesnt excuse priests from the law

    who cares that the church says something should or shouldnt be allowed. they cant dictate whats legal and whats not


  • #551
    goodomens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25 ✭goodomens


    Helix wrote: »
    i think plenty of people on here understand how confessions are supposed to work, but that doesnt excuse priests from the law

    who cares that the church says something should or shouldnt be allowed. they cant dictate whats legal and whats not

    I agree with you. I was responding to a post where someone clearly misunderstood the sacrament. I corrected them, as to what the exact teaching is.

    Changing confessions won't make a difference, abusers simply won't confess because they know they'll go to prison.


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Helix wrote: »
    who cares that the church says something should or shouldnt be allowed. they cant dictate whats legal and whats not

    Absolutely not, but the law has yet to be drafted. If that is the case the proposal needs to be discussed in society at large, and people need to determine how functional, rational and workable such legislation is.

    When laws are enacted the matter is different. One can argue to repeal a law, but ultimately if one violates a law they must be subject to the full weight of it.


  • #553
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    goodomens wrote: »
    Changing confessions won't make a difference, abusers simply won't confess because they know they'll go to prison.
    A strong indication that they're not really penitent.


  • #554
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Not that simple. Let's put it in family terms. Let's say the head of a family covers up child abuse perpetrated by a family member. Does this make ALL the family guilty - even those who did not carry out abuse?

    I would wholeheartedly support the Catholic Church in its endeavours - but not the paedophiles and their minders who have infiltrated it. I am a father of three adult children and have encountered the Church in all its manifestations.

    Those who have perpetrated these evil crimes must be punished, no two ways about it. Equally, those in the Catholic Church who wish to take these sc um on head-on must be allowed do so.

    Oh goodie another analogy. Why not ask on the legal discussion forum if your scenario would consist of a criminal offence? Let us know the response.

    The catholic church is not a family, it is an autocracy. The only comparative modern organisations to its power structure would be military dictatorships.

    The few bad apples illusion that people are clinging to is nonsense. If Ratzinger issued that letter then he and his cohorts arethe rotten apples.


  • #555
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    goodomens wrote: »
    I don't think the church is above the law, and shouldn't be. I just gave people a better understanding of confessions.

    I understand Confession. I also understand the leprecauns have the right to defend their pot O gold at the end of the rainbow. ITS PRETEND!!!!!!!


  • #556
    crucamim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    mackg wrote: »
    and you keep going to mass and dropping money in the plate you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

    Get off that soap box.


  • #557
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    crucamim wrote: »
    Get off that soap box.

    Why? Has things changed?


  • #558
    crucamim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    Show Time wrote: »
    How any right thinking modern person can be taken in by all this religious claptrap is beyond me.

    If everyone were as clever and wise as you obviously are, it would be a dull world.


  • #559
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Not that simple. Let's put it in family terms. Let's say the head of a family covers up child abuse perpetrated by a family member. Does this make ALL the family guilty - even those who did not carry out abuse?
    If the rest of the family members continue to give their allegiance to the head, it says something about them, no? They're not guilty, but at least a bit dysfunctional?
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Equally, those in the Catholic Church who wish to take these sc um on head-on must be allowed do so.
    Hard to see how they can with their leader implicated.


  • #560
    crucamim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 897 ✭✭✭crucamim


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Why? Has things changed?

    I have reason to believe that this poster is an anti-Catholic bigot.


  • #561
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    dvpower wrote: »
    You clearly didn't even read the post:mad:
    (Hint: 10yr delay...)

    I did, that is about internal church investigations which is entirely different to state investigations and that post clearly referred to internal investigations.
    Where did it suddenly change in that poat from internal to external?


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    crucamim wrote: »
    I have reason to believe that this poster is an anti-Catholic bigot.

    I watch the news and read the papers. I have reason to believe the poster has every reason to be.


  • #563
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Min wrote: »
    In Leviticus the book of the priests it says "They shall not marry a prostitute or a woman who has been defiled, neither shall they marry a woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to his God."

    OK - nice story. But can we go back to the actual question, because I didn't ask you what Leviticus taught, I asked you what Jesus taught.
    Min wrote: »
    In Genesis it says multiply and fill the Earth, it did not say to prevent life and to murder unborn life.

    Again, what does this have to do with Jesus ?
    Min wrote: »
    Jesus made Peter the rock on which he built his church, since then every successor of the church goes back to Peter whom Jesus chose to lead his church.

    And yet scripture says that Peter was married. Go figure.

    Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5 said that Peter had a right to travel with his wife.

    So Jesus chose someone that - you claim - Leviticus would have excluded. Why did he do that, tell me ?

    Mind you, your claim about Leviticus was even wrong, because all he said was to marry a virgin. But feel free to twist facts.
    Min wrote: »
    I think one would find that the Pope didn't tell people to STFU about abuse, but abuse case trials within the church should be kept secret for a fair trial so the abuser and the abused get a fair church hearing.

    Church hearings are irrelevant. You don't get the local drug-dealer's family to "have a hearing" to listen to their sibling's crimes.
    Min wrote: »
    There is no excuse for the non reporting to state authorities.

    At least we agree on something. And yet the above is exactly what your pope did, and yet you don't think he is evil.
    Min wrote: »
    The church never said homosexual are evil but homosexual acts are wrong. This is stated both in Leviticus and by St Peter to the Romans.

    Yet again, lose all these third-party references and tell me what Jesus said.
    Min wrote: »
    Alreeady dealt with married priests, the male clergy is based on the 12 apostles.

    And as I pointed out, Peter was married.

    Oh - one final point re Jesus' teachings, and one re the catholic church.

    In 2007 they did away with limbo.....just obliterated it. Up to then it was there, then it wasn't. Which of Jesus' teachings was contradicted ? Its existence or its non-existence ? Or did he arrive in 2007 and tell them it was a joke ?

    They also claimed for years that suicide was a mortal sin, but changed that stance too. Did Jesus pop by and correct them on that ?

    But I'll leave the man himself with the final word :
    Jesus Christ wrote:
    It's better for someone to have a heavy stone tied around his neck and thrown into the sea than for that person to offend one of these little children.

    The catholic church must have had these secret inquiries in order to figure out whether to drown those involved, right ?

    Wrong. They moved them to other parishes to rape other kids.

    The catholic church DOES NOT follow the teachings of Jesus.


  • #564
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    I understand Confession. I also understand the leprecauns have the right to defend their pot O gold at the end of the rainbow. ITS PRETEND!!!!!!!

    You sound like a 10 year old telling his friends about Santa.

    People have a right to believe whatever they want.


  • #565
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Min wrote: »
    I did, that is about internal church investigations which is entirely different to state investigations and that post clearly referred to internal investigations.
    Where did it suddenly change in that poat from internal to external?

    Here's were you refer in that post to external investigations (do you not even read your own post?)
    Min wrote: »
    There is no excuse for the non reporting to state authorities.

    So if there is no excuse, as you say, for not reporting, where does that leave Pope Benedict who was involved in a cover up that "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." ?


  • #566
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Seanbeag1 wrote: »
    You sound like a 10 year old telling his friends about Santa.

    People have a right to believe whatever they want.

    For the one hundred millionth time YES THEY DO HAVE THAT RIGHT. But they cannot expect that right to be above the law.
    If I beat the sh1t out of someone because I am a Leo and the sun was rising in Uranus on the day of the assault making me cranky can my belief in astrology be used as a defense?


    (Hint...."NO" because its supernatural nonsense with no basis in the real world. Like the magic box with the magic man who gives you a link to god so that you can get your naughty deeds taken away)


  • #567
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    I understand Confession. I also understand the leprecauns have the right to defend their pot O gold at the end of the rainbow. ITS PRETEND!!!!!!!

    Can you prove its pretend? No is the answer of course.


  • #568
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Scarlette Gorgeous Ware wrote: »
    Can you prove its pretend? No is the answer of course.

    I have an invisible cosmic duck in my pocket who tells me its pretend. can you prove i dont.?
    Can you prove Elves dont exist?
    "No" so they must be enshrined in law.... Yes?


  • #569
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scarlette Gorgeous Ware wrote: »
    Can you prove its pretend? No is the answer of course.

    God may or may not be pretend. That's not actually part of the discussion.

    The discussion is about how the catholic church believes that is above the law.......both the law of the land and the law of Jesus himself.


  • #570
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    If I beat the sh1t out of someone because I am a Leo and the sun was rising in Uranus on the day of the assault making me cranky can my belief in astrology be used as a defense?

    Also, Santa's not involved in covering up abuse of countless children wordwide.

    Unless that's what he's up to with all the presents and the sneaking down chimneys.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    mackg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    crucamim wrote: »
    Get off that soap box.
    In the witness box helping to put paedophiles behind bars. If they refuse this and you keep going to mass and dropping money in the plate you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

    There is the full sentence, reads a bit different doesn't it?

    I fully believe that if the hierarchy of the church acts to obstruct the prosecution of it's members for their crimes then the people of the church, the people who are the church as Min said, need to make their anger over it known and to act through boycott or something else to replace the present hierarchy with one which represents their view and every catholic in this thread has said they want all sex offenders within the church prosecuted for their crimes.


Advertisement