[Closed] Catholic church and child abuse.

I can't believe you chaps have managed 6 pages of argument over "my gang is better than your gang" Very well done, [b]now kiss and make up[/b]. (and i don't mean have a snog and cross-dress) 🙂

Barnsley how the F do you believe my posts are defamatory?

tankslapper - when did I say that?

Actually Woppit, your sentence, and the context of your repeated questions to barnsleymitch, quite clearly implies that you are presenting it as [i]the[/i] reason. If that's not what you intended to say, that's fine and I accept that you recognise it's not the case.

In any event, you've indicated that a very negative experience of Catholicism in your own childhood

I never said I had any experience of catholicism in my childhood. In that regard however, I'm rather fond of Jimmy Carr's joke - "When I was a child, I had an imaginary friend who went everywhere with me. Then, when I grew up, I stopped going to church".

refusing to acknowledge those parts of our history which inspire us with acts of love and compassion towards our fellow human beings.

Oh, I am always an admirer of those who risk persecution by an open expression of their views, or worse by putting themselves at risk. I have argued, in another thread, that not all Germans were supine during the Nazi rule - I think I referenced the "White Rose Transmission" students. I just didn't pursue that particular "nuance" in that particular paragraph as my focus was mainly on the evils committed by the catholic church heirarchy.

is going to bring about some epiphany

D'you mean like the fit of temporal lobe epilepsy that Paul had on the road to Damascus?

To suggest that the wrongs of the church are the sum and substance of it is untenable in my view

Of course not - they are the result of belief in fairies and a big sky fairy to whom responsibility for one's actions can be referred.

But I'm sure you think you're right.

and i don't mean have a snog and cross-dress

Oh, poo. Now I AM upset. I was looking forward to the long dress and silly pointed hat... 😈

ernie_lynch - Member

So that's why you made me feel like a worthless piece of s**t most of the day?

No, I don't reckon that's the reason.

In my experience, people who go completely over the top denouncing other people, are insecure about themselves. People who go out of their way to constantly criticise others, feel bad about themselves. To point an accusing finger and labour a point over, and over again, until the person feels like shit, makes them feel better about themselves.

But hey, that's not my area of expertise - you should know more about that sort of thing than me.....

Ooh.

Actually Woppit, your sentence, and the context of your repeated questions to barnsleymitch, quite clearly implies that you are presenting it as the reason

Actually, ditchy, that's just the way you read it.

Hope you feel better in the morning, barnsleymitch.

'night all.

.. and on a related point, that you are unable to distinguish between the Church, Roman Catholicism and the Confessing church, and seem to refer to the three people I mentioned as following a "cherry picked version of catholicism" illustrates my point about a lack of understanding of the things you're arguing against more profoundly than ever could.

What is there not to understand in

"Oi! The ironic thing is, I dont even think of myself as being that religious - I do lots of stuff that Ratzinger would dissaprove of, as do many supposedly religious people. I just wanted to point out that not all catholics blindly accept what the vatican tells them to, and then it all went a bit fundamentalist - It doesnt take much on here, does it?"

Pretty much the same as me then.

So "I like the insurance of faith in case there is an afterlife so will call myself a Catholic but all the stuff that I might have to put myself out for I can't be arsed with."

Maybe not 'Cherry picked' I think nominally Catholic or token Catholic is a better description.

Perhaps more importantly, it also serves to illustrate part of the reason why people like yourself are unlikely to be taken as seriously as you might wish, because you remind us of the failings of which we are painfully aware, while refusing to acknowledge those parts of our history which inspire us with acts of love and compassion towards our fellow human beings.

A common theme on this thread has been the lambasting of people for 'not understanding' so care to expand the above?

So let me get this right lifer - you initially criticise me for being a catholic, and now you're criticising me for not being a devout catholic. Which one is it, or are you just arguing (or is that debating) for the sake of it?

[img] [/img]

barnsleymitch - Member
So let me get this right lifer - you initially criticise me for being a catholic, and now you're criticising me for not being a devout catholic. Which one is it, or are you just arguing (or is that debating) for the sake of it?

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you not have to receive the sacraments in order to have a chance of 'salvation'?

Or is arguing on a forum that 'Even though I don't go to church it's unfair of you to tell me that I can and should do something about these scandals by registering my disgust with my congregation/priest/bishop/cardinal' enough to get you to paradise these days?

it's 2 different things - people believe in god and Jesus - the church is just the worldly administration of the sect, and its corruption doesn't really impinge on belief any more than corruption in our government makes us less British.

As for people saying that hardly any Catholics are speaking out against child abuse and are therefore somehow condoning it, I think thats boolocks really.

I'm not a Catholic but do go to mass every few weeks with my wife who is. Usually there is a playgroup/sunday school that some of the kids can go to during the mass if they want to; however this time the priest instructed all the children to go there as he would be talking about things that little ears did not need to hear. His sermon then reflected on the Popes recent letter where he analysed every line and gave his take on it. For the next 30 minutes or so he expressed his extreme anger over the behaviour of some Catholic priests and how they should be removed from the Catholic church and be dealt with harshly.

His basic message was that it is up to all Catholics to stand up for what they belive in and stand against the 'monsters' that have infiltrated the church.

I'm sure this was not an isolated sermon in one Catholic church.

Catholic church and child abuse

Not mutually exclusive?

For the next 30 minutes or so he expressed his extreme anger over the behaviour of some Catholic priests and how they should be removed from the Catholic church and be dealt with harshly.

But did he mention his anger about the supposedly infallible Pope, who has been shown to be complicit in covering up child abuse? That's the but I imagine some people will really struggle with.

It's all very well blaming a few 'rogue' priests and Bishops who helped cover it up, but the problem clearly goes right to the very heart of the institution - which from the very highest level put it's own reputation above the safety and well being of children.

His basic message was that it is up to all Catholics to stand up for what they belive in and stand against the 'monsters' that have infiltrated the church.

And that's exactly what I said on page 1!

His basic message was that it is up to all Catholics to stand up for what they belive in and stand against the 'monsters' that have infiltrated the church.

Including the Pope?

But did he mention his anger about the supposedly infallible Pope, who has been shown to be complicit in covering up child abuse?

Nope, but at that time I don't think the allegations about the Popes knowledge and involvment had come out. Be interesting to see what he says this sunday; it's difficult to tell, and I'm sure it is for him at the moment, but I do not think he would try to defend or gloss over any abuse of power.

Calm down? **** off woppit.

uh, I don't want to labour the point, but Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" - which I do despite my disdain for religion.

He's not devout though.

"uh, I don't want to labour the point, but Jesus says "Turn the other cheek" - which I do despite my disdain for religion."
Sometimes, simon, were all infallible. It had been a long day, I shouldnt have bitten, etc, etc. Do I have to beg your forgiveness now?

Lifer - Member

barnsleymitch - Member
So let me get this right lifer - you initially criticise me for being a catholic, and now you're criticising me for not being a devout catholic. Which one is it, or are you just arguing (or is that debating) for the sake of it?

I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you not have to receive the sacraments in order to have a chance of 'salvation'?

Or is arguing on a forum that 'Even though I don't go to church it's unfair of you to tell me that I can and should do something about these scandals by registering my disgust with my congregation/priest/bishop/cardinal' enough to get you to paradise these days?

Is my point that every Catholic responsible okay now that a priest has said the same?

Do I have to beg your forgiveness now?

Careful bm, sfb will get quite excited by your using words like that. 🙂

FWIW, I commend you on your unceasing patience yesterday...I can't believe it took you that long to bite.

Sometimes, simon, were all infallible

Not the pope though remember.

"I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. Do you not have to receive the sacraments in order to have a chance of 'salvation'? Or is arguing on a forum that 'Even though I don't go to church it's unfair of you to tell me that I can and should do something about these scandals by registering my disgust with my congregation/priest/bishop/cardinal' enough to get you to paradise these days?"
I didnt say that I dont attend church, I said that I dont go as often as I should. This is due more to the fact that I often work on sundays, I dont follow a regular shift pattern and I often have to look after the kids while my wife's at work - it's what's called real life. I personally dont expect to 'get to paradise' merely by attending church on set days each week, so please stop talking to me as if I'm some sort of gullible idiot. I'm not even sure why I'm carrying on rising to your bait, to be honest, as I feel you're now just trying to score points, or have I got that one wrong as well?

But did he mention his anger about the supposedly infallible Pope, who has been shown to be complicit in covering up child abuse?

as little as I'm inclined to defend heirophants, the central tenet of the church is to save people's immortal souls, so one might expect its adherents to be slightly unworldly and inclined to forgiveness - following Jesus's exhortation

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope."
On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous"

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth." Quoted in the New York Catechism.

These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical."

So when the Pope helps cover up child abuse, he is acting in the place of Jesus Christ on earth? Seriously doesn't this call into question the entire Catholic religion? Either you believe that the Pope isn't really God's representative on earth, or that he is but God doesn't mind child abuse?

so one might expect its adherents to be slightly unworldly and inclined to forgiveness

Except for homosexuals and people who use condoms or have abortions?

or have I got that one wrong as well?

Yes, you do realise you don't have to attend mass on sundays?

And 'attending church' is not one of the sacraments.

I've been told on this thread that I don't understand, I'm 'hideous in my vitriol' when the worst I have said is that every religious person is misguided.

I don't think I've been baiting, I think I've been asking pertinent questions. Like -

Is my point that every Catholic responsible okay now that a priest has said the same?

Couple of questions for barnsleymitch, not having a go, just interested...

Can you seperate your faith from the Catholic Church as an organisation?

In other words, would there come a point at which you could walk away from the church as an organisation, but still satisfy your ...um.. spiritual needs?

..and leading on, is catholicism as a religion totally dependent on the whole Vatican/Pope business?

I should really know more about it, but is this sort of thinking something to do with Martin Luther?

Do I have to beg your forgiveness now?

I wasn't berating you, it was more of a rueful observation. I think we're able to forgive ourselves.

<vicreeves>You wouldn't let it lie!</vicreeves>

"Is my point that every Catholic responsible okay now that a priest has said the same?"
No, because I dont need a priest to tell me whats right and wrong. As I pointed out yesterday, I work with both perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse, and during counselling work, etc, will always point out the fact that we all have and make our own choices, and have to take responsibility for what we've done, in spite of our circumstances or experiences. I will not be held responsible for another's actions, and will not accept that I am complicit in covering up these acts.

crikey - Member

Couple of questions for barnsleymitch, not having a go, just interested...

Can you seperate your faith from the Catholic Church as an organisation?

In other words, would there come a point at which you could walk away from the church as an organisation, but still satisfy your ...um.. spiritual needs?

Here's a famous voice on that subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html?hpid=topnews

Again from page 1 -

"You can sit there wringing your hands saying how terrible it is and needs addressing now, but you should be lobbying your priests, bishops, cardinals, pressing for action to be taken.

Without the followers the leaders are nothing. Every catholic gives the church it's power and so every catholic is responsible."

Has Sinead O'Connor got a time machine?

If you want to keep up with the debate in the larger world outside the forum, here's a useful resource:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/

I note the latest tactic by "House Ratzinger" is to blame the media. Presumably he is hoping that shooting the messenger will work for him because, unlike his predecessor, the media doesn't have a magic female ghost protecting it... 😉

Although I've been willing to extend Ratziger the benefit of the doubt, nearly everything I've ever read about him reveals an unpleasant individual - and if such can become pope then hopefully the entire dysfunctional edifice will collapse in upon itself, leaving the grass roots Catholics to rebuild something more closer to the principles offered by Jesus.

principles offered by Jesus

Would that be "Believe in me or you're ****ed"?

Stay calm...

Does Christ actually give any 'rules' as such in the Bible?

I think SimonofBarnes is more correct to call them principles.

The rules came later when mortal man stuck his oar in.

Would that be "Believe in me or you're ****ed"?

well, I was thinking more along the lines of "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" 🙂

Stay calm...

hey, I have no investment in this at all - I'm willing to believe in any number of gods, but until they get in touch I shall return their ignoral, and even then worship is out and compliance moot.

Just being nice to each other would be a good start, if they had stuck with that without all the other damnation shite things could have been a whole load better.

But then it wouldn't be a useful political tool (yeah I freaking went there)

"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself"

And "Take no thought for tomorrow". And so on...

Why anyone thinks these trinkets are in any way valuable remains a mystery.

And, as I said, "The only way to the father ([i]sic[/i]) is through me".

Ravings of a lunatic.

Edit: Before I forget - just my opinion, don't take it personally, I'm not shouting or anything. O.K.? ("Those with ears" etc).

Why anyone thinks these trinkets are in any way valuable remains a mystery.

well, if nothing else they act as a useful test of devoutness for those claiming Christianity as a justification for their actions