Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Latchy · 20-07-2011 06:56PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Priests bishops and the rest need to go to jail for this its not good enough and went on too long.

I've said it before but lots of those 'Christian ' brothers who to were anything but Christian .They should not be let off the hook either .

The church and state need to be seperate at this stage

Which is were a lot of Cronyism has it's roots to .

Show Time · 20-07-2011 06:59PM

tayto lover wrote: »

While i agree that Enda Kenny was right to chastise the Vatican over their lies which caused the suffering of children BUT what about his own organisation's lies that will cause the suffering of many in Roscommon ?

The Vatican retained power by hiding their guilt and lying just as Ebda gained power by lying and making false promises.

They are all hypocrites in my opinion. They all protect the so-called high and mighty.

The brown paper envelope has been a staple in Irish politics the last fifty odd years so it's no shock for politicians to lie through their back teeth. As for the Vatican all they are interested in is getting more money in from the faithful and to protect the kiddie fiddlers.

Knight who says Meh · 20-07-2011 07:10PM

Min!!!!!
I finally get it.. thanks.
That post you've been re-arranging and re posting for the last several days has finally gotten through. The RCCs vile influence on the country is even responsible for our sh1te Govt and poor legal reaction to clerical abuse.
Enda is the light at the end of the tunnel.
Praise Jesus.

Pace2008 · 20-07-2011 07:13PM

Missed this, pages back:

Min wrote: »

The Irish constitution starts with:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

So the state refers to a higher power. The most holy trinity and the divine Jesus Christ.

So, acknowledging a higher power is the same as:

provid(ing) its citizens with a prescribed worldview, claim(ing) to be the one institution to truly represent on earth the creator of all existence, and indeed hold(ing) the key to the preservation of one's everlasting soul?

?

What a blatant question dodge. Disingenuous even by Catholic apoligists' standards.

Monty Burnz · 20-07-2011 07:16PM

Min wrote: »

Why don't you start it, rather than telling me what to do, Enda the two faced Taoiseach (proven by Roscommon hospital) and his two faced partners in government have been deadly silent when it comes to the state's role in allowing abuse.

Let me get this straight: it's really Enda's fault because in the past 100 years (or whenever Irish priests started raping Irish boys and girls), the state hasn't prevented:

a) Priests putting their penises into Irish children
and
b) The Catholic Church using their traditional influence to hide the fact that priests were putting their penises into Irish children.

Yeah, strong case there. If anything, Enda is the real villain here.

Paparazzo · 20-07-2011 11:09PM

I think the Vatican might be telling fibs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/vatican-denies-abuse-coverup-claim-2826491.html

mloc · 21-07-2011 01:46PM

What does a hospital in Roscommon have to do with anything?

It was closed because it was not cost-effective, had a poor safety record and it's existence was a result of the years of local politics having a greater influence in the Dail than the good of the country has a whole.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the corruption and abuse by religious orgs. It is an entirely different matter.

Min · 21-07-2011 02:57PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

About the catholic church being based on the teachings of Jesus and about many of the rules being his teachings even though they're not.

The teachings of Jesus and the bible, I think you will find one can find the reasoning in the bible.

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Don't be so fecking patronising.

Coming on here and sticking up for a church that is rotten to its core takes some doing. Are you not utterly ashamed and embarrassed to belong to such an organisation?

I am not embarrassed to be a Catholic, the people who did the abuse, did not handle the abuse cases correctly and who failed the victims are the abuse are the ones who should be ashamed and embarrassed. I did nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about.
I am disgusted with how it was handled.

Pace2008 wrote: »

Missed this, pages back:

So, acknowledging a higher power is the same as:

?

What a blatant question dodge. Disingenuous even by Catholic apoligists' standards.

I didn't dodge any question.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Let me get this straight: it's really Enda's fault because in the past 100 years (or whenever Irish priests started raping Irish boys and girls), the state hasn't prevented:

a) Priests putting their penises into Irish children
and
b) The Catholic Church using their traditional influence to hide the fact that priests were putting their penises into Irish children.

Yeah, strong case there. If anything, Enda is the real villain here.

I did not say it was Enda's fault.
However today looking back, Enda has been longer in the Dáil than a lot of people here have been alive, one wonders what he was doing during this period to protect children, where was the government back in 1990's when the abuse came to light?
We had FF, FG, Labour, the PD's and the Democratic leftovers in government in the 1990's.
We all knew then abuse happened in the church back then with Brendan Smith being the face of evil, look how long it has taken the state to get to where they are today and in that time abuse continued to happen as we see in the Cloyne report.
On the church side, Cardinal Royos in the Vatican who was the head of the congregation of the clergy which handled the abuse cases upto 2001 was a simple failure and a disgrace, Cardinal Ratzinger fought to get the abuse cases off him so he could deal with them and he wanted all cases reported to the Vatican as well as to civil authorities, in Cloyne we see that Bishop McGee and his team of Monsignor Callaghan not only deceived the state but they did not report to the Vatican either, Cloyne shows the utter failing of church and state.
People in the church not following agreed procedures from 2005 which the Cloyne report said were better than the State's child protection measures if implemented and this is where the problem is, they were not implemented.
Enda was all talk yesterday but it is not like the state became aware of the abuse for the first time after the Cloyne report, they knew before any Ferns report, they knew when Enda was in government back in the mid 1990's.
I will watch with interest to see what is done by both church and state.

mloc wrote: »

What does a hospital in Roscommon have to do with anything?

It was closed because it was not cost-effective, had a poor safety record and it's existence was a result of the years of local politics having a greater influence in the Dail than the good of the country has a whole.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the corruption and abuse by religious orgs. It is an entirely different matter.

We can hope that Enda isn't simply all talk like he was with the Roscommon hospital and then when it came to it, he didn't keep his work.
If Enda really wants to help the victims of abuse and children, if the government wants mandatory reporting which is what in the church own guidelines, then the state needs to spend the money on the social workers and other services so it will not be like the promises made to Roscommon hospital which turned out to be all talk.

Ghost Buster · 21-07-2011 03:05PM

Paparazzo wrote: »

I think the Vatican might be telling fibs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/vatican-denies-abuse-coverup-claim-2826491.html

Min wrote: »

We can hope that Enda isn't simply all talk like he was with the Roscommon hospital and then when it came to it, he didn't keep his work.
If Enda really wants to help the victims of abuse and children, if the government wants mandatory reporting which is what in the church own guidelines, then the state needs to spend the money on the social workers and other services so it will not be like the promises made to Roscommon hospital which turned out to be all talk.

Min. Lets see if you can jimmy Roscommon Hospital into a defense of The Rcc's handling of abuse cases in Texas as high lighted in the post above:)

ilovesleep · 21-07-2011 03:30PM

This country and many people suffered decades of abuse at the hands if the catholic church. Unfortunately many people were too intimated by the church to stand up, be heard and make a difference.

Surely its time for us to say enough is enough and seek out and demand changes and seek closure into the disgusting going ons within the organisation.

Let me know if there is any protests planned.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-07-2011 04:01PM

It is indeed some shocking reading, I have been pouring over the PDF of the Cloyne report myself and reading it line by excruitiatingly painful line and finding therin descriptions of the very depths of depravity and dishonesty our species is capable of.

Michael Nugent, Chairman of Atheist Ireland asks: "How can we believe, without corroboration, anything that members of the Irish Catholic Hierarchy say in cases where it is in their interest to mislead us?" and this surely is the question that comes from even a cursory reading of the report especially when seen alongside the previous revelation that Archbishop Desmond Connell of Dublin was happy to deliberately mislead people by a process that he described as ‘mental reservation’.

Putting aside the content of the sexual abuse allegations, which are of course shockingly serious, the Cloyne Report reveals that various permutations of the Cloyne Diocese, Bishop John Magee and Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan “positively lied” [21.79], “positively misled” [21.79], “deliberately misled” [21.91], deliberately created two different accounts of the same meeting, a true one for the Vatican and a false one for the local diocesan files [1.48], gave false assurances to the Government Minister for Children and the Health Service Executive [1.77], “tried to bury the matter” of the requirement to report “evidence of a vicious sexual assault” [16.19], advised that statements to the gardai should be “minimal” [9.84-85], failed to give its own advisory committees full information [1.36], “put out an erroneous view” about a report [1.40], produced crucial documents that were wrongly dated [12.29], held three different versions of one meeting in diocesan files [21.27], and misled people in at least 35 ways which are detailed here.

Liam Byrne · 21-07-2011 05:20PM

Min wrote: »

The teachings of Jesus and the bible, I think you will find one can find the reasoning in the bible.

You're not ducking out of your earlier false claims that easily! Half of the bible was before Jesus's time! Half of it even contradicts itself (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek).....so either quote Jesus's teaching to support your claim that the catholic church is based on his rules, or else admit that you're 100% wrong.

Jesus appointed a married guy as the first pope
The catholic churched changed their minds re suicide and limbo with no input from Jesus

Most of the rubbish church rules that you tried to back up earlier weren't related to Jesus.

And you still haven't acknowledged that Jesus's teaching re those who abused kids was to drown them.

So would you care to comment on each of the above or are you happy to try to dodge them with a one-liner ?

Show Time · 21-07-2011 05:46PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're not ducking out of your earlier false claims that easily! Half of the bible was before Jesus's time! Half of it even contradicts itself (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek).....so either quote Jesus's teaching to support your claim that the catholic church is based on his rules, or else admit that you're 100% wrong.

Jesus appointed a married guy as the first pope
The catholic churched changed their minds re suicide and limbo with no input from Jesus

Most of the rubbish church rules that you tried to back up earlier weren't related to Jesus.

And you still haven't acknowledged that Jesus's teaching re those who abused kids was to drown them.

So would you care to comment on each of the above or are you happy to try to dodge them with a one-liner ?

The followers of Christ had a real hard time of it for the first 300 years or so what with being outlawed by the Romans and getting feed to the lions in the afternoon show. It was a strange twist which got them into power and once they got power and influence they rewrote the rules to suit themselves.

Freddie59 · 21-07-2011 05:46PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Let me get this straight: it's really Enda's fault because in the past 100 years (or whenever Irish priests started raping Irish boys and girls), the state hasn't prevented:

a) Priests putting their penises into Irish children
and
b) The Catholic Church using their traditional influence to hide the fact that priests were putting their penises into Irish children.

Yeah, strong case there. If anything, Enda is the real villain here.

I think the point that's being made (as I have said already) is that political parties were complicit - during their various terms in office - in the offence and subsequent cover-up, along with other agents of the state.

Enda's the leader of one of these parties - and has a member for years - so is fair game.

Min · 21-07-2011 06:23PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're not ducking out of your earlier false claims that easily! Half of the bible was before Jesus's time! Half of it even contradicts itself (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek).....so either quote Jesus's teaching to support your claim that the catholic church is based on his rules, or else admit that you're 100% wrong.

Jesus appointed a married guy as the first pope
The catholic churched changed their minds re suicide and limbo with no input from Jesus

Most of the rubbish church rules that you tried to back up earlier weren't related to Jesus.

And you still haven't acknowledged that Jesus's teaching re those who abused kids was to drown them.

So would you care to comment on each of the above or are you happy to try to dodge them with a one-liner ?

Matthew 16 17-20
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691b"]b[/URL and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of HadesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691c"]c[/URL will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692d"]d[/URL bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692e"]e[/URL loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah

The first leader/ pope of the church is Peter. All the other Pope's are successor's of Peter.
As successor of Peter, the Pope of the day can make the rules once they don't contradict the bible.

If the church was to have drowned Brendan Smith then someone would be in jail for murder, though with the Irish state you wouldn't be so sure.
Though the church argues in cases of the death penalty that it was needed in the past when dangerous people could escape from prison, that nowadays prisons have the security to keep people locked up.

Monty Burnz · 21-07-2011 06:29PM

Min wrote: »

The first leader/ pope of the church is Peter. All the other Pope's are successor's of Peter.

All of the Popes? The Orthodox ones too? And the Armenian ones? Or just the one from the church that you happened to be 'born' into? It's odd, isn't it, how people are always born into the correct religion, or the best race? Must be God/s working in their characteristic mysterious ways...

philologos · 21-07-2011 06:43PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're not ducking out of your earlier false claims that easily! Half of the bible was before Jesus's time! Half of it even contradicts itself (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek).....so either quote Jesus's teaching to support your claim that the catholic church is based on his rules, or else admit that you're 100% wrong.

One has to do with justice that was imposed to criminals by the Torah State of Israel. The other has to do with personal ethics in a society which isn't ruled by Torah law.

The Bible needs to be read according to context. God revealed His message to mankind gradually coming into fulfilment in Christ according to Christians. The Torah law or the Old Covenant was an agreement between God and the Hebrews, Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant which is an agreement between God and all mankind. If one doesn't read the Bible through, it is very easily to distort the narrative that is presented.

You're right to say that the Old Testament was before Jesus' time, but from the very beginning it was proclaiming Jesus' arrival (the coming of the Messiah). It is one story from beginning to end that describes God's unfailing love for mankind even if we have been nothing more than ambivalent at best towards him at times. The Old Testament is as significant to Christianity as any other piece of Scripture. Jesus Himself even affirmed that:

John 5:45-47 wrote:

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And you still haven't acknowledged that Jesus's teaching re those who abused kids was to drown them.

Not quite:

Mark 9:42 wrote:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

He says that it would be better for them if that happened. He never claimed that we should take people and throw them into the sea. I presume He's talking about eternal condemnation at the end of time which was a major part of His teaching.

Ghost Buster · 21-07-2011 06:57PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

I think the point that's being made (as I have said already) is that political parties were complicit - during their various terms in office - in the offence and subsequent cover-up, along with other agents of the state.

Enda's the leader of one of these parties - and has a member for years - so is fair game.

I think there are 2 separate instances of cover up here being confused.
Yes the church and state have historically been hand in hand in regard to the laundries and industrial schools such was the churches insidious reach and influence into every corner of Irish society, This is why we need complete separation of church and state and an end to this so called 'special relationship". No body denies this. There have been redress boards set up and meetings with the dept of justice on these matters.
However the state is finally putting its house in order so Catholic Apologists shouting "Booo youre a politician and politicians were to blame as well" is unhelpful and disingenuous.
However I dont think any of our politicians instructed or advised the Pope, Monseniors or Bishops to internalise reporting of abuse or to conceal it from civil authorities.
When will the church even begin to put its house in order. With the exception of Diarmuid Martin I see no senior church figure stepping up to the mark in the way that Kenny, Quinn or Gilmore have.

housetypeb · 21-07-2011 07:08PM

Originally Posted by Mark 9:42
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN ME —to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

I guess that he had no problem with anyone who caused the ones who didn't believe in him to stumble.

philologos · 21-07-2011 07:12PM

That's another good reason why you should read the passage before quoting it. Here's the full chapter. It clearly is in relation to people causing others to stumble in their faith.

housetypeb · 21-07-2011 07:15PM

philologos wrote: »

That's another good reason why you should read the passage before quoting it. Here's the full chapter. It clearly is in relation to people causing others to stumble in their faith.

2 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[d]

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Pure comedy gold-keep 'em coming.

Ghost Buster · 21-07-2011 07:18PM

housetypeb wrote: »

2 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[d]

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Pure comedy gold-keep 'em coming.

For a supreme being his word to us is really really interpretable and picking illiterate goat herders and fisher men to draft it up was poor management. A series of re writes , sorry, another series of re writes might be in order .

philologos · 21-07-2011 07:19PM

Find it as funny as you desire, my point is that if one is going to use / criticise the Biblical text it should be done so in good consideration of the context of what is actually being said. Fair enough right?

I guess what I find most bemusing about many Biblical critics on boards.ie is that in many cases they criticise the Bible without having had any meaningful contact with it. What book critic would get away with criticising a book before they've read it?

housetypeb · 21-07-2011 07:22PM

philologos wrote: »

Find it as funny as you desire, my point is that if one is going to use / criticise the Biblical text it should be done so in good consideration of the context of what is actually being said. Fair enough right?

I guess what I find most bemusing about many Biblical critics on boards.ie is that in many cases they criticise the Bible without having had any meaningful contact with it. What book critic would get away with criticising a book before they've read it?

I have read it-which is more than i can say about a lot of my catholic friends.

philologos · 21-07-2011 07:26PM

housetypeb wrote: »

I have read it-which is more than i can say about a lot of my catholic friends.

It doesn't matter how well anyone else has read it. If one is to take up the aim of criticising the Bible, one should have read it through and be familiar with its concepts first. That's my point.

This thread should really stick firmly to what this is about though, that is institutional corruption by a subsection of a particular church.

getz · 21-07-2011 07:46PM

Min wrote: »

Matthew 16 17-20
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691b"]b[/URL and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of HadesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691c"]c[/URL will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692d"]d[/URL bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692e"]e[/URL loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah

The first leader/ pope of the church is Peter. All the other Pope's are successor's of Peter.
As successor of Peter, the Pope of the day can make the rules once they don't contradict the bible.

If the church was to have drowned Brendan Smith then someone would be in jail for murder, though with the Irish state you wouldn't be so sure.
Though the church argues in cases of the death penalty that it was needed in the past when dangerous people could escape from prison, that nowadays prisons have the security to keep people locked up.

peter was never in rome ,not once in the bible is it mentioned thet he was,and he had no reason to be,because he was the apostle to the circumcised,[the jews] he never wanted to have anything to do with gentiles,he even refused to eat with gentiles,paul was apostle to the gentiles,paul was the one in rome,in one of his letters he says,[in 65 AD] paul says only luke is with me,

Liam Byrne · 21-07-2011 08:13PM

Min wrote: »

Matthew 16 17-20
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691b"]b[/URL and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of HadesURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23691c"]c[/URL will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692d"]d[/URL bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16&version=NIV;KJV#fen-NIV-23692e"]e[/URL loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah

Nice story, but yet again completely irrelevant to your claims. We know that he chose Peter; but the above says nothing about Peter being married, and Jesus choosing him "despite that fact".

Min wrote: »

The first leader/ pope of the church is Peter. All the other Pope's are successor's of Peter.
As successor of Peter, the Pope of the day can make the rules once they don't contradict the bible.

No. You said that the catholic church was based on Jesus's rules. Not on additional rules made up on a whim by a deluded individual. We have no reason to believe that the current pope is in any way a successor of Peter, (who may indeed have had his own "literal" successors as he was married).

Will you please admit that you were wrong and get it over with ?

Min wrote: »

If the church was to have drowned Brendan Smith then someone would be in jail for murder, though with the Irish state you wouldn't be so sure.

Isn't the whole point of the thread the fact that the catholic church thinks that it's above the law, and applies its own "canon" law ? So if the law was to drown Brendan Smith and his type, then surely canon law should take the same precedence and to hell with the "jail for murder" ?

You can't have it both ways.

Liam Byrne · 21-07-2011 08:17PM

philologos wrote: »

That's another good reason why you should read the passage before quoting it. Here's the full chapter. It clearly is in relation to people causing others to stumble in their faith.

How do you make that out ?

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off.

And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off.

And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out.

Seems pretty clear to me that it is talking about your own actions and what you should do; nothing about the effect it has on "others' faith".

So I'll add the following - which based on the above is a logical natural progression :

If your dick ends up inside a child, cut it off

philologos · 21-07-2011 08:35PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How do you make that out ?

You're clipping out a lot from that passage:

If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where “‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’
Everyone will be salted with fire.
“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

OK. The passage explicitly mentions at the start that he is referring to "those little ones who believe in me". Christians according to their own Scriptures are regarded as children of God. The next chapter Mark 10 discusses this in a little more depth. So essentially Jesus is saying anyone who causes a believe in Christ to stumble.

If your hand causes you to stumble (I.E fall into sin) Jesus argues that it would be better to lose it than to go to hell. Why would one go to hell as a result of simply stumbling in a general sense? The same is true for all the other examples that he uses in that section.

Carrying on he uses the salt example. Saying to have salt among one another and to be at peace with one another. The salt theme is used in Scripture at different points to describe the faith by which a Christian is distinct from others. See the below section of Matthew where it discusses the uniqueness of Christians for their faith in Christ.

Matthew 5:13-15 wrote:

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

The saltiness refers to the faith that makes one distinct in Christ. Likewise the light, people share the light, they don't hide the light. Likewise Christians should evangelise, because it would be patently immoral to keep such a truth to themselves.

When reading Scripture one has to be aware of what the example actually pertains to.

There is another example of how Jesus refers to salt in terms of faith in Luke 14.

Don't get me wrong I'm sure Jesus would have been unequivocally against the abuse of any child, I'm just saying that these passages refer to something broader than that in this case. Indeed, He taught against sexual immorality as a clear component of his teaching amongst other things.

Liam Byrne · 21-07-2011 08:42PM

philologos wrote: »

You're clipping out a lot from that passage:

I clipped out the "it is better to", which does not change the meaning.

So essentially Jesus is saying anyone who causes a believe in Christ to stumble.

Nope. I would read it as "stumbling" in terms of committing a sin. You actually alluded to this yourself in your next sentence :

philologos wrote: »

If your hand causes you to stumble (I.E fall into sin) Jesus argues that it would be better to lose it than to go to hell.

So basically, if you "sin with your hand" - let's say steal - then you'd be better off cutting off that hand.

So if a priest sins with his dick, Jesus' stance is that they should lose that or else they won't get into heaven*.

That's precisely what I alluded to in my post, so there's no need for a long-winded post about it.

* Personally I think that at that stage it's irrelevant whether they lose it or not - forgiveness should only go so far, but I put that bit down here because that's not Jesus's thinking, it's mine

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Comments