# Not the best of time for the |Catholic Church



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505183,00.html

You know at a time when the Church is engulfed in scandals about pedophile priests in Italy and Ireland and showing little concern for the victims it also now shows callous disregard for one of its flock in an ugly situation who probably needs the comfort of her religion.

Yeah there is an official stance against abortion, there is also understanding and compassion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

I am Catholic. I agree that it is not the best of times for the Church. However, the story you linked to is apparently from 2009. What is your purpose in posting it now?


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am Catholic. I agree that it is not the best of times for the Church. However, the story you linked to is apparently from 2009. What is your purpose in posting it now?


 
My mistake,  thought it was from March 2010.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

Actually like most large institutions the Catholic Church is an enigma,  I have great admiration for its work in Africa,  but can't understand its stand against condoms.

I might ask for this thread to be removed,  discussing the pedophile situation is like piling on at this point.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Actually like most large institutions the Catholic Church is an enigma,  I have great admiration for its work in Africa,  but can't understand its stand against condoms.
> 
> I might ask for this thread to be removed,  discussing the pedophile situation is like piling on at this point.



Its your call, but I don't mind discussing the ills of the Church. Like many Catholics, I too am hurt, shocked, and offended by what has been going on with reference to pedophile priests. There's even a tie-in to MA if we want to discuss pedophile sensei.

With regard to condoms, it's simply Church doctrine. Like many such things, it doesn't make sense to the outside world, but it wasn't promulgated go make the outside world (or the laity) happy.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Its your call, but I don't mind discussing the ills of the Church. Like many Catholics, I too am hurt, shocked, and offended by what has been going on with reference to pedophile priests. There's even a tie-in to MA if we want to discuss pedophile sensei.
> 
> With regard to condoms, it's simply Church doctrine. Like many such things, it doesn't make sense to the outside world, but it wasn't promulgated go make the outside world (or the laity) happy.


 

 okay Bill, let's have a go,  what is your take,  was Benedict complicit in protecting the priests, and if he was what then?

  I think popes can resign, so should he?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> okay Bill, let's have a go,  what is your take,  was Benedict complicit in protecting the priests, and if he was what then?



I absolutely have no idea.  Like many of those in power, I suspect that no effort would be spared to shield him from the appearance of impropriety, whether or not he did anything improper when he was a priest and later Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.  I have no doubt many would seek to protect him even if he had done nothing wrong, so we may well never know.



> I think popes can resign, so should he?



Popes can indeed resign, but whether or not he should is not my call and I have no opinion on the matter.  Unlike an elected official, even though Popes are elected, they are potentates and monarchs of the Church, serving for life if they so choose (which of course most do).

Like many Catholics, I am very conflicted on these issues.

On the one hand, I do not believe that the Laity has any business dictating to the Church what policy should be; the Church is not a democracy or a republic.  We do not vote.

On the other hand, it is a horrible thing to read about these horrible events in the USA and elsewhere, stories of pedophile priests abusing children; it's sickening.  Seeing the Church staggering around attempting to repair the damage by ducking responsibility, avoiding addressing the issues, and even shielding pedophile priests is horrifying.  There is no way a decent human being can excuse or ignore such offenses to both man's law and the law of God.

I also note, in no particular order, that most of the offenses we are hearing about now took place in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's.  They are still horrible things, I would never seek to minimize them; but I would note that we cannot go back and prevent them from having happened now; more stories are likely to come out as time goes on, this is a crop whose seeds were sown decades ago, so I suspect it will get worse before it gets better.

Likewise, I know that the Church has enemies.  Those from within and those from without.  From militant atheists who despise all things religious to rival churches of various sorts, from breakaway Catholic orders to inner factions.  These will seize upon any issues that the Catholic Church has and seek to maximize them.  Perhaps it is true that they need to be publicized in order to force change; this I cannot deny.  However, when the intention is to simply destroy the Church, obviously I have a problem with that.

I am concerned that if we begin the blame game of associating any priest, bishop, arch-bishop, or cardinal with blame regarding any particular situation involving a pedophile priest, there may simply be no end to it.  We sometimes hear stories about a criminal who commits a heinous crime and it comes out that years before, he was let go by a lenient judge or not prosecuted for a lesser crime by a DA for unknown reasons, and public sentiment is outraged; but we don't generally go for the throat and seek the removal of that judge or DA unless they had a pattern of doing such things.  If a person who later becomes a pope makes a mistake, or is in a position of authority when a case comes through their office that is not prosecuted heavily enough in hindsight, what is the correct way to deal with it?

I am not overly fond of our current Pope.  I wish I didn't feel that way, but I do.  Hey, I'm allowed to not like him.  He's my pope, but that doesn't mean I have to think he's nifty keen.  The Church in many ways is not going the direction I would wish it to go, or to address issues such as this in ways I think it ought to.  None of those things are in my control, and I don't feel it proper for me to seek the ouster of the pope.

I also worry about the precedent it sets for the Church if the Pope were to resign.  In my opinion, every succeeding pope would have a bullseye on his chest and from the moment he became Pope, whomever disliked him would be digging, digging, digging, to find dirt, rumor, innuendo, or whatever else could be done to discredit him.  In the end, it would be damaging to the Church, and of course I'm against damaging the Church.


----------



## dbell (Mar 27, 2010)

As a relatively new Catholic, I very much echo Bill's comments.  And I would like to add, that you have as many, if not more, lawyers, doctors, police, EMTs, etc., doing the same or worse, and they are getting caught, but not receiving the lime light as the Catholic Church.  I guess the people that publicize these events are going for the money and the effect more than the desire to fix things. 

While I do not condone the actions of the priest that committed these crimes of humanity and law, nor do I condone the "cover up" by the Church, I can, to an extent understand it.  In those cases where it was brought to the attention of the Church while the priest was still in the position of committing the crime, he was removed and placed in a position where he could not do it again, and the Church moved on.  IF, and few were initially, it was taken to the police, the Church assisted in the investigation.

Like any such organization, if it went to civil court, the Church "paid out" to keep it from going on and on.  That wasn't a "cover up" per say, but what any organization would do to keep it from costing even more and lasting even longer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

dbell said:


> As a relatively new Catholic, I very much echo Bill's comments.  And I would like to add, that you have as many, if not more, lawyers, doctors, police, EMTs, etc., doing the same or worse, and they are getting caught, but not receiving the lime light as the Catholic Church.  I guess the people that publicize these events are going for the money and the effect more than the desire to fix things.
> 
> While I do not condone the actions of the priest that committed these crimes of humanity and law, nor do I condone the "cover up" by the Church, I can, to an extent understand it.  In those cases where it was brought to the attention of the Church while the priest was still in the position of committing the crime, he was removed and placed in a position where he could not do it again, and the Church moved on.  IF, and few were initially, it was taken to the police, the Church assisted in the investigation.
> 
> Like any such organization, if it went to civil court, the Church "paid out" to keep it from going on and on.  That wasn't a "cover up" per say, but what any organization would do to keep it from costing even more and lasting even longer.



I actually think there were and have been cover-ups, and they're ugly, sinful things.  The Church is not without blame, both for the actual events themselves and for the attempts made by others to cover them up, hush up victims, or deny culpability.  I think (my opinion) that any priest involved in any illegal activity, including sexual molestation, should immediately be reported to civil authorities, not just removed from positions where he could re-offend.

However, many of these incidents coming to light now actually occurred many decades ago.  Things were different then, and whilst cover-ups are abhorrent seen in the light of our eyes now, they were neither unusual nor unacceptable at that time.  That doesn't change how wrong they were; it only gives us perspective on how things were done back then.

We live in a more open and transparent society now, which can be both good and bad.  It is good in the sense that we can all agree that such cover-ups should never happen, ever.  It's bad in the sense that no one who was an adult in the 1940's through the current time is immune from having their reputations today stained by what was once acceptable then.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

dbell said:


> As a relatively new Catholic, I very much echo Bill's comments. And I would like to add, that you have as many, if not more, lawyers, doctors, police, EMTs, etc., doing the same or worse, and they are getting caught, but not receiving the lime light as the Catholic Church.
> 
> .


 

surely we don't hold the church to the same level of conduct and morality that we do secular institutions and laity. It is that much worse with a priest because theyir vocation is guiding the souls of the faithfull, they have much more trust than a policmen, doctor etc.


----------



## dbell (Mar 27, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> surely we don't hold the church to the same level of conduct and morality that we do secular institutions and laity. It is that much worse with a priest because theyir vocation is guiding the souls of the faithfull, they have much more trust than a policmen, doctor etc.



Very true, as a "leader" of morals and faith they should be held to a very high standard, but I do feel that police, doctors, or others of authority or special position should be held to the same standards, very high.

Yes, Bill, there may have been cover up, and probably was, in the early years, and I agree, that is not acceptable.  And yes, the priest should have been immediately turned over to the authorities, but as you said, in that day and time, that was not the norm.  Yes, the Church should have done so anyway, to stay within it's moral and ethical teachings.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

dbell said:


> Very true, as a "leader" of morals and faith they should be held to a very high standard, but I do feel that police, doctors, or others of authority or special position should be held to the same standards, very high.
> 
> Yes, Bill, there may have been cover up, and probably was, in the early years, and I agree, that is not acceptable.  And yes, the priest should have been immediately turned over to the authorities, but as you said, in that day and time, that was not the norm.  Yes, the Church should have done so anyway, to stay within it's moral and ethical teachings.



The Church has a special obligation, not just to Man, but to God.  Men err, but God does not.  The problem with any institution created by man is that it is flawed by nature.  The Church seeks to protect not just God (who does not need or want the protection of the Church) but also itself as an institution.  This leads to situations where what is morally right is balanced against what is best for the Church; and that is always going to lead to problems.

The Church is unique in that it is not truly a government, with sovereign temporal authority, nor is it a business, seeking to protect its interests and maximize profits for shareholders.  But it is an institution that seeks to continue, and for that reason, people in places of authority within it are liable to do things they should not in order to protect it as an institution.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Church has a special obligation, not just to Man, but to God. Men err, but God does not. The problem with any institution created by man is that it is flawed by nature. The Church seeks to protect not just God (who does not need or want the protection of the Church) but also itself as an institution. This leads to situations where what is morally right is balanced against what is best for the Church; and that is always going to lead to problems.
> 
> The Church is unique in that it is not truly a government, with sovereign temporal authority, nor is it a business, seeking to protect its interests and maximize profits for shareholders. But it is an institution that seeks to continue, and for that reason, people in places of authority within it are liable to do things they should not in order to protect it as an institution.


 

Good points,  the church is a massive institution with a broad and not very defined mandate,  you can find lots of admirable noble things it does and lots things that are not so.

 Unfortunately these incidents over shadow a lot of the good things the church does,  and maybe it should so the mistakes are not repeated in the future.


----------



## JDenver (Mar 27, 2010)

One of the most damaging things the Roman Catholic church has done, and continues to do, is to stick its head in the sand, ignore any sense of responsibility, and apologize about 1,000 years later.

The apology from the Pope gave me some teeny sense of hope for the future, and the subsequent barracading and deflecting from the Vatican is sad and familiar.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Church has a special obligation, not just to Man, but to God.  Men err, but God does not.  The problem with any institution created by man is that it is flawed by nature.  The Church seeks to protect not just God (who does not need or want the protection of the Church) but also itself as an institution.  This leads to situations where what is morally right is balanced against what is best for the Church; and that is always going to lead to problems.
> .



I am a Catholic. Have been for 30 years. Although in all honesty, you can classify me more accurately as a breakaway Catholic. I grew up in an area that was ruled by Catholic clergy in all but name. I could list endless examples of abuse of power. Not just sexual and physical, but it seems that the clergy is a welcoming place for sociopaths, sadists, and other likeminded individuals. And the nuns and sisters were not any better. Although admittedly, things were not as sick as in Ireland.

These are the people supposed to follow and teach the laws of God, yet that seems to take second place to acting out their power trip. Just last month, a Catholic priest of my neighboring village was arrested for child molestation.

There there is also the matter of Catholic dogma. That has been based supposedly on the gospels. Yet in the recent decades, we have learned that there have been many alternative gospels. The gospel of Thomas, Mary and Judas to name but a few. They paint a different picture of Jesus and his teachings. In truth, the new testament and the foundation of Catholicism have come to be by censoring all opposing views and opinions that the handful of people in power did not agree with. So knowing that, how can we even think that the teachings of the Catholic church are correct?

If I look at the Catholic church from the early beginnings up to now, I see immense ammounts of betrayal, abuse, and a hunger for power. Today it is still no different. If the Catholic God does exist, I highly doubt that he has anything to do with the Catholic church at all. But like all age old institution, it will probably (sadly) keep on existing by the sheer momentum of its age, in all its rotten glory.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> There there is also the matter of Catholic dogma. That has been based supposedly on the gospels. Yet in the recent decades, we have learned that there have been many alternative gospels. The gospel of Thomas, Mary and Judas to name but a few. They paint a different picture of Jesus and his teachings. In truth, the new testament and the foundation of Catholicism have come to be by censoring all opposing views and opinions that the handful of people in power did not agree with. So knowing that, how can we even think that the teachings of the Catholic church are correct?



In my opinion, there is no way to know.  The books selected for inclusion in the New Testament left an Apocrypha, and as you mentioned, other documents have surfaced in the years from the 1800's to the 1970's (primarily Coptic and Gnostic documents).  We laity have no way of knowing which were true writings and which were not.  It is understood by most biblical scholars that none of the Gospels were written during the time of Christ.

In addition, we know that it was Paul of Tarsus that truly introduced the seeds of what has become known as Christianity; not Jesus and not His Disciples.  Without Paul, there would be no New Testament, no Christianity, and Paul's notion of what Jesus meant and what Jesus taught is what we know know as Jesus' teachings, whether they were or not.



> If I look at the Catholic church from the early beginnings up to now, I see immense ammounts of betrayal, abuse, and a hunger for power. Today it is still no different. If the Catholic God does exist, I highly doubt that he has anything to do with the Catholic church at all. But like all age old institution, it will probably (sadly) keep on existing by the sheer momentum of its age, in all its rotten glory.



I can't disagree with your statements, but I remain Catholic.  It's as likely to be right (or wrong) as anything else.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 27, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I can't disagree with your statements, but I remain Catholic.  It's as likely to be right (or wrong) as anything else.



+1.

And I don't think any less of you for it. After all, I still call myself a Catholic despite having the aforementioned opinion about the Catholic church. I realize it is illogical, but there you are...


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 27, 2010)

JDenver said:


> One of the most damaging things the Roman Catholic church has done, and continues to do, is to stick its head in the sand, ignore any sense of responsibility, and apologize about 1,000 years later.
> 
> The apology from the Pope gave me some teeny sense of hope for the future, and the subsequent barracading and deflecting from the Vatican is sad and familiar.


 
It's likely that the Catholic Church tries to cover up these incidents in order to avoid giving ammo to those who would seek to discredit them.  That's a human response, if not an honorable one.  Threads like these serve to prove their suspicions.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 27, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It's likely that the Catholic Church tries to cover up these incidents in order to avoid giving ammo to those who would seek to discredit them. That's a human response, if not an honorable one. Threads like these serve to prove their suspicions.


 
The cover up though ends up being almost as bad as the original crime , now they have the stigma of looking like they were protecting pedophiles and allowing further abuse by just transferring them to other parishes when they should have defrocked the priests, preferably with a few severe beatings on the way out.

The Church ends up looking like it is more concerned with the Church than the abused children.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 27, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> +1.
> 
> And I don't think any less of you for it. After all, I still call myself a Catholic despite having the aforementioned opinion about the Catholic church. I realize it is illogical, but there you are...


Actually, it's not.  I refer you to Fr. Andrew Greeley's book *The Catholic Myth*, where he examined just that question: Why do people who are at odds with the Church still remain Catholic?  In very brief -- it's because the Catholic teachings reflect they're world view... and that's much harder to change than the name you call yourself.  For the record -- I am Catholic.  I have served as a catechist and helped with youth ministry, though my current schedule doesn't permit this.

The issues involved here are complicated, and some are rooted in the Catholic belief of redemption and self-perfection.  I am sadly confident that some priests were moved and victims or their families bought off solely to hide the offensive action -- whether that was with an adult or a child.  But in other cases, the priest in question probably made his Confession (perhaps even unprompted!), and accepted and performed his Penance -- and the Catholic belief is that we can overcome our failings, and "go and sin no more."  We know now that for many of these offenses, it is unlikely that a person will change their attraction -- but Catholic belief is that we can overcome our urges.  It's also worth noting that, as far as I know, very few of these cases were true pedophilia; many if not most involved teens.  This is not to minimize the abuses -- but is important to recognize the difference.

With that said -- my personal opinion is that, while it may not have been necessary to defrock a priest, especially if his remorse was true and self-motivated, he should have never been placed in such a position of temptation again.  Allow him to serve his ministry within the walls of an abbey, or in some other location where he will not have an opportunity to repeat the abuse.  And the pastors, abbots, and other appropriate personnel should have been aware of the issue -- and been able to take steps to act on it.  It is mind blowing that a priest who abused a child or teen in one parish could be moved, and permitted to become the priest involved in youth ministry in his next parish assignment.

It's also important to recognize the distinction between *The Church* and the members who make it up.  The Church is made up of very fallible human beings, who are hopefully always striving to become closer to the ideal of Christ.  We all stumble along the way, and we hope through the graces received through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession of sins, forgiveness, and penance) to find the strength to avoid those temptations in the future.  The Church's infallibility isn't extended to the personal acts of it's members -- only it's teachings on faith and morality.  And Papal infallibility is limited to very specific circumstances, not his personal actions and decisions. 

Let me make it absolutely clear:  I am not defending the abuse of children by priests, nor am I defending actions taken with the intent to hide these abuses and scare people out of reporting them.  But _some _of the actions of the Church's leaders weren't driven by a desire to hide offenses or protect the offenders -- but in the Church's belief and teachings on individual redemption.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 27, 2010)

Jim, to be honest, I really don't care about the Catholic churches belief and teachings or how that motivated it's actions in these cases.  

It's been known for decades over here (and in the States too I am sure) that Catholic priests were engaging in such 'activities' and the organisation of the Church protected them from prosecution.

It is incomprehensible to me how people can prevaricate and evade that core issue.

I shall not comment further on this as I am far too tired and far too likely to explode if I don't shush myself.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 27, 2010)

The priest that married me came up here from the States, and lasted all of about six months before he was investigated for abusing little boys. The church sent him off to Rome to work there. After asking questions, everyone realized that this was his fifth parish is less then five years. hmmmm.... 

They should all be charged. Anything less is a coverup, anyone who covers it up should be charged.

You get religious groups refusing medical treatment for children, groups that refuse to endorse condoms in areas where AIDS has killed millions, you get religous groups that treat women like cattle, that kill people, that can't wait for the "rapture", that treat bronze age stories as scientific truth.

Religion is a plague, and I for one can't wait till its all gone from the face of the earth.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Religion is a plague, and I for one can't wait till its all gone from the face of the earth.



I sincerely doubt that day will ever come while humans still exist.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 27, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Wsm5LBe0w&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

Like you Ken, I dislike the religions, like the catholic church, but not because it has pedophiles. (all places have pedophiles but can't judge the whole thing because of some bad people)

If I got into a discussion about religions, and why I dislike them, I would never shut up because I'd have a lot to say =]


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

Why isn't the name Tom Riley just as hated as Bernard Cardinal Law?  How come you had to have been a person that lived in Mass. in the early 2000s to even know this name?

I have not been in good standing with the Church in quite awhile but I was confirmed within the Archdiocese of Boston.  I think the abuse and coverups are absolutely reprehensible.  However, the Vatican was not able to prosecute crimes in Boston, Chicago, or anywhere else the reports were made....if the Vatican has any prosecuting authority it would be for crimes that happened within the Holy See.  The crimes in the U.S., Europe, elsewhere...all of these happened where there were a body of laws in place that condemned these sort of actions.  Am I excusing the Vatican for what happened?   No, absolutely not...however there is an important piece missing.

Where were the prosecutors that WERE responsible?  Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Riley gave Bernard Cardinal Law a bye.  He washed his hands of him and chose not to prosecute.  

I can see why many people don't like the church, or religion in general...but ignoring that the people that could have prosecuted these crimes where they happened did not step forward and do it.  In the rush to demonize the Church, I think the critics are giving the prosecutors a bye the same way Riley let Law go off scot-free.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 28, 2010)

Now I've had a sleep and can respond in a more polite and reasoned fashion to this highly emotive topic, really all I can still say of any substance is to reiterate what I said in the early hours i.e. that it astonishes me that the core issue of paedophilia by the priesthood is not being faced.  

It has been going on for, roughly, 2000 years, give or take and is an inevitable consequence of denying men, in positions of social authority, the normal expression of their sexual needs.

I understand completely how people seek to protect their beliefs from being tarnished, that is a natural thing to want to do; but to attempt to defend the indefensible or deflect 'blame' from where it lies is not being morally honest.  Even worse, it is not being honest with yourselves.  

If such things were endemic in a temporal organisation and had been implicitly sanctioned and explicitly covered up (up to and including the manipulation of officials of the legal system), then to not hold the leadership of that organisation accountable would be unthinkable.  For those Catholics here, just imagine how you would be reacting if it was another faith in the headlines.

Just because it's the Catholic (or any other) Church doesn't make a ha'poth of difference and indeed makes it much worse because they have trumpeted themselves as the arbiters of all that is good and moral.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> It has been going on for, roughly, 2000 years, give or take and is an inevitable consequence of denying men, in positions of social authority, the normal expression of their sexual needs.



I do not believe that celibacy is the root cause of child molestation.  As history has shown us, Catholic priests have broken their oaths of celibacy in a variety of ways, including taking lovers (male or female, depending upon their sexual orientation), fathering children, even marrying.  Many are the priests who have found the rules of celibacy unbearable who have simply left the priesthood.  Celibacy, common sense might suggest, would tend to cause a man with normal sexual desires to desire that expression, rather than turning it into an unhealthy and illegal desire for children.

Given also that child molestation seems to be an epidemic in every organization, religious or secular, in which adults are put into positions of trust over young children, I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest that people with such twisted proclivities tend to seek out such positions.  Rather than the institution, it is the individuals themselves who seek to put themselves in situations where they will become a trusted authority figure over children.

While I scan the headline news every day for anything interesting about the martial arts and post some of those things here, I do not post all the news links I find to cases of martial arts instructors being arrested and accused of molesting their students.  However, I can assure you that it is a near-daily occurrence.   What do we make of this?  Shall we put the blame on a martial arts system that tends to place authority in the hands of a sensei, sifu, or other instructor, who then becomes an authority figure not just due to their position as instructor, but due also to their demonstrated male dominance?

http://www.kitv.com/news/22960436/detail.html

I would argue that martial arts is not to blame, nor are youth sports, public and private school teachers, athletic coaching, military officers and non-commissioned officers, and all the other situations in which adults who hold positions of authority over young people sometimes abuse those positions to prey upon children or the very young.  It is the abusers themselves that are to blame, and they evidently will seek out such positions regardless of where they may be found.

It is not priestly celibacy which is to blame, but the abusers themselves.

However, the Catholic Church is an institution which has managed to isolate itself from scrutiny from the secular world; and it is monolithic.  Whereas no karate association or teachers union would shield a molesting teacher or sensei, the Catholic Church has not only had the ability to do so, but has indeed done so on numerous occasions.  This is both reprehensible and illegal, and should be both investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

As a Catholic, I would not be angered or upset if the FBI were to launch a RICO investigation into the cover-ups, and prosecuted those responsible for such behavior.

Sadly, I do not think this will happen.  Whether we like it or not, Catholics wield much political power, and the public outcry would be huge.  Worse than the HCR fights.



> For those Catholics here, just imagine how you would be reacting if it was another faith in the headlines.



It has been, and I am just as horrified.  There are a number of reasons why we hear more about abuses in the Catholic Church.  One can argue media bias against Catholics, but whether true or not, the Catholic Church is much larger than any other single religious organization and it is hierarchical.  One hears of a Baptist minister being arrested, or an Anglican, and one does not know which group in particular they are associated with.  When one hears 'Catholic', with very few exceptions, the buck stops with the Pope in Rome. 



> Just because it's the Catholic (or any other) Church doesn't make a ha'poth of difference and indeed makes it much worse because they have trumpeted themselves as the arbiters of all that is good and moral.



Yes, that is entirely true.  It does make it worse.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 28, 2010)

I agree with Bill; child abuse and pedophilia is not something unique to the Church.  It's a twisted truth of humanity that some people are wired that way -- and give into their urges.

And when I note that the Church's response is IN PART due to theology, I'm not excusing covering up the behavior, nor am I suggesting that any and all civil or criminal remedies shouldn't be employed.  The religious response and the lay (in this case, the local government) do not need to be, nor should they be, the same.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I agree with Bill; child abuse and pedophilia is not something unique to the Church.  It's a twisted truth of humanity that some people are wired that way -- and give into their urges.
> 
> And when I note that the Church's response is IN PART due to theology, I'm not excusing covering up the behavior, nor am I suggesting that any and all civil or criminal remedies shouldn't be employed.  The religious response and the lay (in this case, the local government) do not need to be, nor should they be, the same.



I agree.  For a molesting priest to repent and seek forgiveness within the Church is one thing; the Church may accept or deny such a request as their internal rules dictate, as they would any repentance of sin.  

However, that does not change criminal culpability in any way.  Many are the people serving time in prison who are forgiven in God's eyes; that is not cause for them to be released from responsibility to the law of man.

Confessions under the seal of the confessional are perhaps a trickier thing, and I don't have any idea how that should be addressed, but I believe most of these charges that the Church knew about and covered up (by relocating) the offender were not under any such seal.  One would hope that Church officials who chose to accept repentance of such sins by priests would also dial 911.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree.  For a molesting priest to repent and seek forgiveness within the Church is one thing; the Church may accept or deny such a request as their internal rules dictate, as they would any repentance of sin.
> 
> However, that does not change criminal culpability in any way.  Many are the people serving time in prison who are forgiven in God's eyes; that is not cause for them to be released from responsibility to the law of man.
> 
> Confessions under the seal of the confessional are perhaps a trickier thing, and I don't have any idea how that should be addressed, but I believe most of these charges that the Church knew about and covered up (by relocating) the offender were not under any such seal.  One would hope that Church officials who chose to accept repentance of such sins by priests would also dial 911.


I had a discussion once with a priest about the sacrament of Confession and a criminal confession.  In brief, the sacrament is not complete until penance is done, and in a case like that, the priest may well make confession of the crime a part of the penance.  I am not personally aware of any case where a priest violated the seal of the confessional directly -- but this is one way that they have to deal with that sort of issue.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Religion is a plague, and I for one can't wait till its all gone from the face of the earth.


 

I am an atheist as well Ken and used to think like you, now I have come around to realizing that some people can't function without a religion and I who am I to take that little comfort from them in a world that is too often just way too harsh

  Now I save my outrage for for when religionists try to censure the teaching of evolution, Big Bang cosmology, trying to legislate pi equal to 3.....


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> I am an atheist as well Ken and used to think like you, now I have come around to realizing that some people can't function without a religion and I who am I to take that little comfort from them in a world that is too often just way too harsh
> 
> Now I save my outrage for for when religionists try to censure the teaching of evolution, Big Bang cosmology, trying to legislate pi equal to 3.....


 
I understand what youre saying Ramirez, but I respectively disagree. People can function very well without religion, its just that most are indoctrinated at a very young age, and unfortunately know of no other way to function. 

That being said, as long as religious people stick to themselves, dont shove their beliefs down anyone elses throat, dont get special treatment like getting tax breaks because they believe in an invisible man in the sky, and like you, dont try to force everyone to believe bronze age stories are really science, I have no problem with religion.

And while I can hope billions of people will finally see that they dont need religion, I also am pragmatic enough to know that it will never happen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

While I am not offended by your choice of words, they were clearly aimed to antagonize and belittle. You're not just not religious, you're antagonistic towards those who are. You may think you have no problem with religious people but your words betray you. You've got some issues with religion, sir.


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

I've always known that the form of celibacy that the church forces their people to practice is wrong.  We all know how terrible it is when an adult exploits a child with abuse.  There are plenty of horrid and terrible stories out there.  Family members, school teachers- sleeze from all walks of life.

I am a firm believer of 'hate the sin not the sinner' and i dislike mobbings as they lead me to sympathize with the one being mobbed, however, my mother has often told me what they do to child molesters down in her native land...basically, something like castrating them and hanging them by some bridge or in the city for all to see.  Somehow, i guess it's how nature works to some degree. Decissive to say the least.  

What sickens me most and makes me quite sad for the grand fasade that is the church, is that these culprits are supposed to be the guardians and curators of our souls.   Wtf, this ain't the time of vestal virgins, and most of those socalled celibates are total fakes.  Simple weirdos running away from life.  And to have the audacity to preach to people and tell them  about the soul when they've hardly even experienced anything of life...  

Aside from the physical risks of engaging in sexual activities, there is a much great filth on the soul of him or her that denies sexuality and selfrightiously demonizes others.
You cannot expect someone to be able to force celibacy on themselves. The energy that is there is too powerful.  Without experience it also holds no value. To force or demand celibacy but is pure torture on the self.  It has to come from the heart.  The vow of lifelong celibacy is also really outdated and totally unrealistic i find-even unhealthy not only mentally but also physically. 

Purity is not only about not molesting people, son of a *****. There are all kinds of things one can consider force.  Some of my pet peeves are when someone brings something and holds it out saying 'here!', expecting you to take it.  Often done at a time when one is busy...It's like, put that **** down and i'll take it when i'm fine and ready.  All sorts of things like physically encroaching on weaker people or youngsters just because it's possible.  Even if i were to offer you a coaster for your drink, it's a kind of force, in my book.  So from my perspective, it's sooo damn wrong  that priests turn out to be some of the most pathetic pieces of **** on the planet.  I pray the church acts more responsibly on these matters.  Not like i'm happy about such tragedy.  I'm from a christian background and i've always felt there are problems. 


j


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> While I am not offended by your choice of words, they were clearly aimed to antagonize and belittle. You're not just not religious, you're antagonistic towards those who are. You may think you have no problem with religious people but your words betray you. You've got some issues with religion, sir.


 
Yes I do have an issue with religion Bill but not against many religious people. There is a difference. The vast majority of my friends are religious, and we get along very well, most of my family is religious, and again no issue.

However like you, I do have an issue when I hear about a cover up protecting pedophiles. Also when I hear about the Texas school board changing text books so that bronze age stories are taken as scientific truth, when children die because their parents dont believe in blood transfusions, when religious leaders think its a good idea to promote suicide attacks, when members of two major religions try to push to the national agenda the need to start the end time so the rapture can start, when hypocritical people pick and choose what stories to follow and what stories to dismiss from the old and new testament, when religious organizations get tax breaks on the backs of hardworking people. In that context, yes I do have an issue with religion.

On this forum we have developed a community that can belittle, make fun of, and be critical of any and all subject. I have seen yourself and many, many others get worked up about US politics, gun laws, and US involvement around the world. Why should religion get a bi? Because its religion? Because it hurts peoples feelings? Because it forces people to look critically at their beliefs? People need to not swallow the cool-aid provided, they need to question their entire religion, not just the 10% they have been force fed since infancy.

I stand by what I said earlier, _Religion is a plague, and I for one can't wait till its all gone from the face of the earth._


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> I've always known that the form of celibacy that the church forces their people to practice is wrong.  We all know how terrible it is when an adult exploits a child with abuse.



I do not see a link between celibacy and child molestation, as I discussed previously.  If you do, please state your argument.  If not, perhaps these two statements do not belong together as if one causes the other.

I personally do not have a problem with priestly celibacy.  I'm not a priest, so it isn't my issue.  Priests know what is required of them going in, and they can quit at any time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> On this forum we have developed a community that can belittle, make fun of, and be critical of any and all subject. I have seen yourself and many, many others get worked up about US politics, gun laws, and US involvement around the world. Why should religion get a bi? Because its religion? Because it hurts peoples feelings? Because it forces people to look critically at their beliefs?




Referring to someone's Deity as an 'invisible man in the sky' isn't getting anyone to confront their beliefs, and I'm sure you know that.  It's designed to be insulting, because you wish to insult.  I get that, sometimes I wish to be insulting too.  I choose not to be offended, but amazingly, when one's intention is to instruct, addressing the classroom as 'Hey idiots!' doesn't often get the results one desires.

If you want me (or anyone) to look critically at our beliefs, there are better ways of doing it than being rude and insulting.



> People need to not swallow the cool-aid provided, they need to question their entire religion, not just the 10% they have been force fed since infancy.



Pardon me for saying so, but this is a common theme among those who wish to modify the behavior of others, say through universal health care or banning guns or what-not.  They begin by stating what it is people need to do.

Look at the discussion on this or any other forum; those that are the most civil do not have any statements in them regarding how one person believes others must change their behavior.  Those that do nearly always have a statement in them regarding what others _'need to do'_.  And the discussion never goes very well after that point. _n'est_-ce _pas_?

Let me reply as I have in the past;  what I _'need to do'_ is precisely what I feel like doing; nothing more and nothing less.  I do not feel you _'need to do'_ anything at all; I would ask the same courtesy.  It is not a discussion when you *tell people how they ought to be living according to you*; that is nothing more than attempting to dictate other's lives for them.  And that is a very common feeling amongst members of a particular political persuasion.

What I _'need to do'_ is basically be left alone so long as nothing I do infringes on the civil liberties of others.  You should be left alone to seethe and rage against religion if that is your wish, but when you tell me what I _'need to do'_, then you are overstepping, IMHO.


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

The link between celibacy and childmolestation is a bit of a stretch i see that, but it do believe there is a connection.  Because celibacy is a requirement for church service, people who have 'problems with sexuality' magically gravitate to the church.  It is a haven for those that have come to tend a hostile attitude towards what is simply a part of life. -But just because they disdain sexuality in others and play pure lacking experience, doesn't mean they can uphold the farse.  So aside from simply turning bitter after 20 years or so, when they feel some kind of attraction of a sexual nature, they can be overpowered by the feelings under whatever conditions.  It is in the selfish nature of man to think that he can be the exception to a rule.  Then there are those that are quite concious of their actions, which is the most evil.

To me it is utterly inconceivable, but there are people also that have pedophile tendencies. I do find it shocking that the church tollerates and hides it and claims some therapy.  I strongly disagree with this.  No less than a seven nation army and some serious clockwork orange style therapy could ever help the situation. and i do not really believe in therapy for priests.   It's like therapy for a police man that shot people on purpose. Impossible. They're priests, they're supposed to uphold a certain standard.

To me this is not about religion or no religion.  That would be ignoring the problems at hand, which are that there are people using the church as a cover for haneous crimes against the soul, the church itself is losing credibility as a positive social force.  

Sortof a subject it would be advisable not to touch with even a very long pole, that is, sexual abuse.  I would nevertheless dare it, but the subject for me is that the criminals here are hiding out under the cover of rightiousness and enlightenment.  So wrong, so wrong. Don't you think?  
From my perspective as someone who tries to be real in respecting the soul in all people, it makes me mad.  
I call for UFC at bible study.




j


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

I agree with what you are saying Bill.  
I hate to say it though, whilst my heart bleeds for the nonbeliever, i cannot but understand completely, in light of the general incompetence from many spiritual factions, what is felt.  

Shame really, because it's a loss for the individuals. It's like someone who wants to be loved but makes himself hated.

j


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> The link between celibacy and childmolestation is a bit of a stretch i see that, but it do believe there is a connection.  Because celibacy is a requirement for church service, people who have 'problems with sexuality' magically gravitate to the church.



Then why do they also gravitate towards other Christian churches, teaching positions, scout leaderships, and martial arts instructions?  None of those require celibacy.  I suspect it is the position of authority over children that attracts molesters, not the celibacy requirement.



> It is a haven for those that have come to tend a hostile attitude towards what is simply a part of life. -But just because they disdain sexuality in others and play pure lacking experience, doesn't mean they can uphold the farse.



I don't think you understand the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to sexuality.  Priests take vows of celibacy so that their primary responsibility is to serve God (and other reasons which we can get into if you wish) but the Church itself celebrates sexuality inside of marriage.



> So aside from simply turning bitter after 20 years or so, when they feel some kind of attraction of a sexual nature, they can be overpowered by the feelings under whatever conditions.  It is in the selfish nature of man to think that he can be the exception to a rule.  Then there are those that are quite concious of their actions, which is the most evil.



I think you're way off base here.  Any kind of proof would be useful.



> To me it is utterly inconceivable, but there are people also that have pedophile tendencies. I do find it shocking that the church tollerates and hides it and claims some therapy.



I also find it shocking, and I share your view that therapy does not seem to cure pedophiles.



> I strongly disagree with this.  No less than a seven nation army and some serious clockwork orange style therapy could ever help the situation. and i do not really believe in therapy for priests.   It's like therapy for a police man that shot people on purpose. Impossible. They're priests, they're supposed to uphold a certain standard.



I agree that the situation is intolerable.



> To me this is not about religion or no religion.  That would be ignoring the problems at hand, which are that there are people using the church as a cover for haneous crimes against the soul, the church itself is losing credibility as a positive social force.



Yes, I absolutely agree.



> Sortof a subject it would be advisable not to touch with even a very long pole, that is, sexual abuse.  I would nevertheless dare it, but the subject for me is that the criminals here are hiding out under the cover of rightiousness and enlightenment.  So wrong, so wrong. Don't you think?
> From my perspective as someone who tries to be real in respecting the soul in all people, it makes me mad.



It makes me mad too.  And sad, and sick at my soul.



> I call for UFC at bible study.



Um, what?


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Yes I do have an issue with religion Bill but not against many religious people. There is a difference. The vast majority of my friends are religious, and we get along very well, most of my family is religious, and again no issue.
> 
> However like you, I do have an issue when I hear about a cover up protecting pedophiles. Also when I hear about the Texas school board changing text books so that bronze age stories are taken as scientific truth, when children die because their parents don&#8217;t believe in blood transfusions, when religious leaders think it&#8217;s a good idea to promote suicide attacks, when members of two major religions try to push to the national agenda the need to start the &#8220;end time&#8221; so the rapture can start, when hypocritical people pick and choose what stories to follow and what stories to dismiss from the old and new testament, when religious organizations get tax breaks on the backs of hardworking people. In that context, yes I do have an issue with religion.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with that bit about koolaid.

and when I was 15 one of my school friends in my class in jr high got cancer and he died. His parents wouldnt give consent to a blood transfusion to try and save him. I was only 15 so was he and it scarred me. Who the **** would take a god who may or may not even exist over their own son or trying to save their own son? **** that.

and everything I ever read about religion since then. My parents were into church stuff when i was little. Hell, they forced me to get confirmed at age 11 - even though I didnt want to and I made it clear. 

Like ken, most of the friends I ever had and my family believe in God. I was still able to be on great terms with them. However, I do believe that most of them though they may not act or show it because it would be evil - think that they hold the truth and we atheists I'm not, I am agnostic-atheist because I believe in the possibility of a god (agnostic) but dont believe on just blind faith (the atheist part) but the theists do seem to have this superiority righteous attitude about them though they may not show it or act it. 

and my sensei is not different. On friday night was having a God-y discussion and asked him why he believes in god. He said the world is too complex for it too have just all happen by chance like the big bang theory. Its true the world is complex, but that in itxself isnt 'proof' as I would define it. Anyway I told him I'm agnostic. he said 'You believe in god and one exists - you just dont realize it yet' like my beliefs are naive. and I was like Wtf? I adore my sensei to bits, but - Wtf?

Why can't theists even think that, No there is not absolute proof and maybe our thoughts might hold some water?

I just needed to have a vent. Because I dont say No you're wrong. I admit, Theists could be right. We just dont have any proof , or at least how I would define 'proof'

Of course then there are the ones who think We arent going to heaven if we dont convert and believe. I wont start with that. I mean I dont think Well you're not an agnostic like me so....No nono. Its just wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I actually agree with that bit about koolaid.
> 
> and when I was 15 one of my school friends in my class in jr high got cancer and he died. His parents wouldnt give consent to a blood transfusion to try and save him. I was only 15 so was he and it scarred me. Who the **** would take a god who may or may not even exist over their own son or trying to save their own son? **** that.
> 
> ...



I hear you.  It bothers me as well when others who are religious proselytize.  Their faith may require it, but I really don't want to hear it most of the time.  When I want to hear about religion, I go to Mass.

I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more than wishful thinking and imagination.  That's OK with me, I didn't ask for proof or any promises.  If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done differently if I did not believe.

There also isn't any disproof, as you say.  Nothing either way.

So I go on believing, but not expecting anyone else to.  Everybody has to find their own path, I say.  Live and let live, leave others alone and hope that they will leave you alone in return.

In the meantime, as I've posted before, I get a huge kick out of these videos - Mister Deity.  It pokes fun at religion and takes special aim at the big huge logical discrepancies and contradictions, but to me that's fine; it's all in good fun.  And the agnostics and atheists love it; it satisfies their need to be right about religion being wrong.  Check it out if you have a healthy sense of humor and a tolerance of others poking fun at your own beliefs (or lack of them) along the way.

http://www.mrdeity.com/


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Referring to someone's Deity as an 'invisible man in the sky' isn't getting anyone to confront their beliefs, and I'm sure you know that. It's designed to be insulting, because you wish to insult. I get that, sometimes I wish to be insulting too. I choose not to be offended, but amazingly, when one's intention is to instruct, addressing the classroom as 'Hey idiots!' doesn't often get the results one desires.
> 
> If you want me (or anyone) to look critically at our beliefs, there are better ways of doing it than being rude and insulting.


 
So "god" isn't invisible and he doesn't live in the heavens? I may be literal, but isn't that what many religious people believe?  I've had my feelings hurt here many times on various issues, that's for me to deal with. If this subject hurt your feelings, that's your issue to deal with. 

I argee, everyone should mind their own business. Everybody, religious and otherwise need to become better critical thinkers, thats not telling the world or anyone specific what to do, its simply what i believe. Do i expect anyone to do it simply becasue I said it? phht, of course not. But you are correct, the sooner everybody starts minding theri own business, religion included, the better.


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

> Then why do they also gravitate towards other Christian churches,  teaching positions, scout leaderships, and martial arts instructions?   None of those require celibacy.  I suspect it is the position of  authority over children that attracts molesters, not the celibacy  requirement.


You're right.  But my reason is, it's the church.-But i guess, it doesn't make it worse...so mote seems my point.




> I don't think you understand the teaching of the Catholic Church with  regard to sexuality.  Priests take vows of celibacy so that their  primary responsibility is to serve God (and other reasons which we can  get into if you wish) but the Church itself celebrates sexuality inside  of marriage.


this seems a bit idealistic to me.  More than often what i mentioned bears considerably true.



> I think you're way off base here.  Any kind of proof would be useful.


 actually i think i don't want to get much closer to this than this.



About the UFC, i meant i think that there is lots of fairness and common sense missing in the church.  
...either that or beating some oppressive mofos-)





peace


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I hear you. It bothers me as well when others who are religious proselytize. Their faith may require it, but I really don't want to hear it most of the time. When I want to hear about religion, I go to Mass.
> 
> I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more than wishful thinking and imagination. That's OK with me, I didn't ask for proof or any promises. If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done differently if I did not believe.
> 
> ...


 
 Agreed. :asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> So "god" isn't invisible and he doesn't live in the heavens? I may be literal, but isn't that what many religious people believe?



Yeah, that's a common response from the Dawkins folks.  Sorry, Ken, not biting.  See, it's insulting and you know it's insulting.  I'm not insulted, not offended, and my feelings are not hurt; but you do intend to hurt feelings by using terms like that.  Acting innocent isn't really working.

I've been down this road with people who are much better at it than you; even those who are much more hostile to religion than you.  But let me recap, and then I have to go do some grocery shopping.

1) I agree with you that the Catholic Church has much to answer for, and I'm in favor of criminal investigations into the cover-ups regarding pedophiles in the Church.

2) I agree with you that there is no proof that God exists in any form whatsoever, and I also agree with you that people should not shove their beliefs down anyone's throat.

3) You stated that you have no problem with religion, but that's not true, you do.  You stated you have no problem with people who are religious, but that's not true, you do.  You've been confronted on both points, and you basically admit it yourself.  You justify it by playing word games in which you use insulting words and then insist they're not insulting because they're actually accurate.  Yes, I get it.  No, it's not offending my shell-like ears or making me cry.

4) Being a prick is not the way to convert anyone to your way of thinking; and I should know, I'm a champion at being a prick when I want to be one.  So I can easily conclude that your purpose is not to convince anyone of the correctness of your argument, but simply to be a prick.  I leave you to it.

Now I must do my grocery shopping.  Take care.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I hear you.  It bothers me as well when others who are religious proselytize.  Their faith may require it, but I really don't want to hear it most of the time



No, I like discussing religion and such. If I didn't, I wouldnt have started a discussion about God with my sensei (and i also talk about religion with others as well) I like hearing what do people believe and why do they believe this. I like to get to know people. and my sensei and I are good friends.

Its just when they implicitly or explicitly say my beliefs are naive and they think they have the truth that gets my goat.


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

> and my sensei is not different. On friday night was having a God-y  discussion and asked him why he believes in god. He said the world is  too complex for it too have just all happen by chance like the big bang  theory. Its true the world is complex, but that in itxself isnt 'proof'  as I would define it. Anyway I told him I'm agnostic. he said 'You  believe in god and one exists - you just dont realize it yet' like my  beliefs are naive. and I was like Wtf? I adore my sensei to bits, but -  Wtf?


I don't know if your sensei is perfectly correct or not.  But his ideas sortof checkout with me.  But fact is, that religion itself sows the seeds of doubt,confusion and ignorance by being mindless, selfrightious and imposing.  I myself becoming so turned off of spiritualty(particularly many conventional forms) because of such reasons, it was a great realization for me at the age of twenty to see that that what mankind has created, in machines and technology is nothing compared to what nature is. And that all the illusion of moving flashing and wonderous things blinded me for years from the real miracle machine that is life and the cosmos, universe, nature, being.  
I feel like i can see the confusion like two apparitions fighting in a dream. But not always fighting for peace, reason or with all their heart.  Unfair and mean. So the cycle of meanness is perpetuated further...


Some arguments will go on and on, in a circular way like a train around a round track, never reaching anything.  And religion does seem to start some of those arguments sometimes, but that doesn't mean that a person should not have the right to understand everything for themselves.  




j


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, that's a common response from the Dawkins folks. Sorry, Ken, not biting. See, it's insulting and you know it's insulting. I'm not insulted, not offended, and my feelings are not hurt; but you do intend to hurt feelings by using terms like that. Acting innocent isn't really working.
> 
> I've been down this road with people who are much better at it than you; even those who are much more hostile to religion than you. But let me recap, and then I have to go do some grocery shopping.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> I don't know if your sensei is perfectly correct or not.  But his ideas sortof checkout with me.  But fact is, that religion itself sows the seeds of doubt,confusion and ignorance by being mindless, selfrightious and imposing.  I myself becoming so turned off of spiritualty(particularly many conventional forms) because of such reasons, it was a great realization for me at the age of twenty to see that that what mankind has created, in machines and technology is nothing compared to what nature is. And that all the illusion of moving flashing and wonderous things blinded me for years from the real miracle machine that is life and the cosmos, universe, nature, being.
> I feel like i can see the confusion like two apparitions fighting in a dream. But not always fighting for peace, reason or with all their heart.  Unfair and mean. So the cycle of meanness is perpetuated further...
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. Humans have created some wonderful things. Lots of them trying to mimic nature. Such as the ability to fly - admittedly not like birds, but we can fly with our machines.

But its true - it will never be like nature, life, and the cosmos. It is amazing.

In that, we agree. and is why some people - like my sensei and you - would conclude there is a Creator. or some divine being.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> .
> On the one hand, I do not believe that the Laity has any business dictating to the Church what policy should be; the Church is not a democracy or a republic. We do not vote.
> .


I've only read this thread this far, so I don't know how this thread has gone so far, but here goes my opinion. I'm a born and raised catholic. I was preached to from a very young age about having "one catholic and apostolic faith". I was lectured to about doing the right thing, and told my confession to some guy in a cubicle, who was no better than me on a Saturday before mass on Sunday morning. Then we'd give whatever measly amount of cash we could as a tithe, so that the Poniff and his bag o ***** cardinals could live the life of luxury they have become accutomed to.
Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahoney should be strung like Mussolini from the balconey on st Peter's square along with Benedict himself for the misery they have caused the innocent's among their Catholic flock. I remember feeling physically ill when the Catholic abuse scandal in Ireland first broke out in the media in the '90s. Seeing the vile picture of Brendan Smith in the paper made me want to go myself to his trial and look him dead in the eye when he was sentenced.
Noone can deny that Benedict has done his upmost to limit the damage done to his prcious organization by stratgically resituating a number of pedophiles into positions where they were free to abuse again.
The live the most lavish lifestyles while their flock suffer and they've done so since the beginnings of the faith. They've caused misey to their flock including; beatings, sodomy, separation of families. They have controlled the political destinies of nations and oppressed the masses. 
I agree that the faithful and the Church hierarchy are separate and my heart goes out to the faithul, but they should start voting with their wallets. When a scandal hits the church and they do nothing but limit the damage to their own bank accounts, catholics should just stop giving tithes. They'd only last so long without the money of the faithful for a while, until the'd have to start selling off their multi billion dollar real estate.
I believe in God and Jesus as his son, but the catholic church are the antithesis of Christianity as far as I'm concerned. Ye, they decry their flock for using condoms. I wonder if the priest who sodomized innocent children used them....probably not.


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

I am quite certain there is a creative force.  As even a storm can be personified in the concept of deity, one could call that force god.  
But noone can say, none of us really know.  We may feel and believe but to claim something boasts some kind of elite knowledge.

The question then would be, just how human and how regulated this force is.  I mean, does the universe really 'love' us.  Well, who knows, i guess it depends how you say it and when. 

I have read, regarding the creative force, that it would be more likely that a tornado passing through a junkyard assemble a boing 747 than life being random.  Also, watches are made by man and in a desert, you won't find a watch amongst the sands unless a person left one there.  Deserts don't produce watches. So how is it with intelligent beings even animals?  What made us?  Or, What have we become?  

j


----------



## kaizasosei (Mar 28, 2010)

Good input Yorkshirelad!  The last comment with the condoms was a bit hard.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Ive always been curious, but can someone please explain to me why the RC church tells its members that artificial birth control is wrong, but natural birth control is OK?
Besides the obvious, whats the difference? Isnt birth control, birth control?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Ive always been curious, but can someone please explain to me why the RC church tells its members that artificial birth control is wrong, but natural birth control is OK?
> Besides the obvious, whats the difference? Isnt birth control, birth control?



If you're interested in Church doctrine, the answer is found in the Humanae Vitae.  _"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."_  This forbids artificial means of contraception.

Likewise, the Church says _"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier."_

Until the 1930's, most Protestant churches also condemned any form of contraception other than the rhythm method.  They slowly changed to permit contraception in some circumstances, and finally as one wished, whenever one wished.

The Church believes that every marital act (sexual intercourse) should be completed as God intended it.  If it does not result in a pregnancy, that is God's Will.  Anything that makes pregnancy impossible is thwarting God's Will and is sinful.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> I agree that the faithful and the Church hierarchy are separate and my heart goes out to the faithul, but they should start voting with their wallets. When a scandal hits the church and they do nothing but limit the damage to their own bank accounts, catholics should just stop giving tithes. They'd only last so long without the money of the faithful for a while, until the'd have to start selling off their multi billion dollar real estate



This reminded me of something. Last year, the catholic dioscese of the church in st john's Newfoundland held a contest and offered a house to whoever won. I saw the advertisements they had in the paper. There was nothing of who organized this - unless you looked closer and there was the tiny tiny words at the bottom - the church catholic dioscese. They were confronted about this and they said - admitted they didnt want to say who they were because then people might not buy tickets. They had hoped to raise $one million for the church. What happened was they lost money and had to give away the houses anyway. Gee - I wonder why they didnt want to reveal who they were? No surprises there.

http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=262162&sc=79

This is a story on it. with comments.


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

I also do not think that celibacy was the cause for child molestation.  By most accounts, the priests charged with the molestation in my Archdiocese did not lead a celibate life and had numerous affairs with other adults (men in particular) before they sickened in to the despicable being that indulged themselves with children.

Like nearly all sex crimes, the root cause of the issue was probably not sex, it was power.  Is there anyone that cannot see the power trip from a priest molesting an altar boy or altar girl?  

Right after the priest scandal broke in the Archdiocese of Boston, donations to the church plummeted.   Many of the Catholic-run were essentially put out of operation, or had to reorganize so severely that they could not have the impact they had before.  At one point, a local charity near me had a sign up that said your donations remained with the charity and its attempt to help people, and none went to the Vatican.  That is how pissed off local Catholics were.  Tom Riley didn't prosecute Bernard Cardinal Law out of selfishness and incompetence...he did not want to lose the election over prosecuting the Cardinal.  Riley lost his seat to Martha Coakley (Scott Brown's opponent) who was actually able to put the priests behind bars, but at the time was not able to touch Law as he was not in her jurisdiction.

I don't think people should be obligated in to supporting the Church, or even being religious if that is not their cup of tea.  However, I look at what has happened in my very own city.  In the early 1900s, the only hospital for my city (then a mill town of 28000 people) was 8 beds in a rented home.  The Sisters of Charity from Montreal emigrated here to build a very much needed 70 bed hospital....which is still in operation today, and one of the better hospitals in the state.  

Bishop Guertin Prep, within 5 miles of me, is one of the best high schools in the state.    Isn't a sound, academically-rigorous education the best foundation a young person can have for a life of thinking critically and making sound, rational decisions?

I don't disparage anyone for not being religious, for not liking the Church, or for not agreeing with all the Church does.  I don't hide my own criticisms...and there are better Catholics than I am that disagree with the Church quite vociferously.  But if anyone wonders why anyone in the modern day supports Roman Catholic efforts...for many people who have needed a health care or education in my county, they are many examples of Catholic organizations serving the community right here at (my) home.  I can't disparage them for making my world a better place.


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Ive always been curious, but can someone please explain to me why the RC church tells its members that artificial birth control is wrong, but natural birth control is OK?
> Besides the obvious, whats the difference? Isnt birth control, birth control?



Its only when a sperm gets wasted, that God gets quite irate


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you're interested in Church doctrine, the answer is found in the Humanae Vitae.  _"Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."_  This forbids artificial means of contraception.
> 
> Likewise, the Church says _"If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier."_
> 
> ...


One further note:  Modern Natural Family Planning is much more than the rhythm method; a few minutes on a search engine can turn up plenty about it.  When done properly and consistently, it can be very effective.  The problem is that it's not nearly as simple as using a condom or taking a pill.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> One further note:  Modern Natural Family Planning is much more than the rhythm method; a few minutes on a search engine can turn up plenty about it.  When done properly and consistently, it can be very effective.  The problem is that it's not nearly as simple as using a condom or taking a pill.



Awwwwwwwight.....I'll bite.

 I 'spent a couple minutes on a search engine' and looked at every link on the first page and on the second page as well. No offence but this post of yours is horseradish. Every page talked about how it is not a reliable way of BC due to the fact that it does not take into account that every woman is different; even in the same woman her cycles will not always be alike and a woman can ovulate even when she is having the period. It said the failure rate is like out of every hundred people a quarter or more will get pregnant trying to use this BS method of BC and the failure rates for teens are even higher due to the fact they are changing and going through puberty. more unpredictable.

In addition it says this method would probably kill more embryos than it saves because eggs fertilized during the cycle are newer than eggs fertilized on the fringes, as would happen using this method. so they might have damages.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 28, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Awwwwwwwight.....I'll bite.
> 
> I 'spent a couple minutes on a search engine' and looked at every link on the first page and on the second page as well. No offence but this post of yours is horseradish. Every page talked about how it is not a reliable way of BC due to the fact that it does not take into account that every woman is different; even in the same woman her cycles will not always be alike and a woman can ovulate even when she is having the period. It said the failure rate is like out of every hundred people a quarter or more will get pregnant trying to use this BS method of BC and the failure rates for teens are even higher due to the fact they are changing and going through puberty. more unpredictable.
> 
> In addition it says this method would probably kill more embryos than it saves because eggs fertilized during the cycle are newer than eggs fertilized on the fringes, as would happen using this method. so they might have damages.


See HERE.  I know people who have very successfully used NFP methods to prevent and control pregnancy.  However, it requires strict adherence to the rules and principles for best success.  The only PERFECTLY successful method of birth control is absolute abstinence.  With one reported exception some 2000 years or so ago, nobody has gotten pregnant (we'll ignore technological intervention like _in vitro _fertilization) who has been absolutely abstinent.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You may think you have no problem with religious people but your words betray you. You've got some issues with religion, sir.



And quite right too.  I have as well, as should any other well-adjusted person with a basic grasp of biology and physics.

The only reason I am not going to take any further part in this thread, or any other discourse about religion here at MT is that there is *no* point. I'm not going to change anyones mind and there is no capital or enjoyment in it for me to needlessly antagonise people.  

After all, I can't put all of those here who have belief systems on 'Ignore' can I?  And even if I could, other than their views on non-existent Creators, I actually like most of them.

As to the OP, my views have not changed.  It most certainly will not matter to anyone but this topic offends me deeply and no amount of 'Spin' is going to convince me that there is anything other than a sanctioned breach of morality before us.

Regardless, Ken said it much better way back on page 3 (that'll larn me to post before reading everything ).  Also, this from Bill is very significant:

"*I also fully accept that all of my religious beliefs could be no more  than wishful thinking and imagination.  That's OK with me, I didn't ask  for proof or any promises.  If it turns out I'm wrong, I don't feel I  will have wasted my life or done anything that I would have done  differently if I did not believe*."  That's a sentiment I entirely agree with, at an individual level at least.  The problem only comes when you have powerful organisations pushing unproveable and untestable beliefs that are harmful to the development of civilisation.

So, to misquote the Dragon's Den, I'm out.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 28, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> See HERE.  I know people who have very successfully used NFP methods to prevent and control pregnancy.  However, it requires strict adherence to the rules and principles for best success.  The only PERFECTLY successful method of birth control is absolute abstinence.  With one reported exception some 2000 years or so ago, nobody has gotten pregnant (we'll ignore technological intervention like _in vitro _fertilization) who has been absolutely abstinent.



I'm not surprised the rates are in the mid to high 90s, but still, 3 pregnancies per 100 couples per year..... That stretches the definition of effective.

What parachute wold you rather have, the 99.95 one or the 97%?  Of course, if you are following your religion, you've got to do what you've got to do.

I'm also 100% convinced that the virgin birth concept is a mistranslation, but I'm a godless heathen


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

The Church, the dioceses, and the priests are not quite as rigid as some people think they are.  I used artificial birth control at the start of my marriage for a specific medical reason.  After discussing the reason why with our priest during our pre-cana conversations, his reaction was "Oh, that's why? That's no big deal...I won't even ask you to confess that."

Now?  I think modern family planning takes the subject of birth control of the table for discussion.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that doesn't have more than 3 kids....and I don't think the reason for that is entirely because modern family planning is effective.


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> ...who has been absolutely abstinent.



Well yeah, being single sucks.  But I digress.   Although I think the committed gay couples have a pretty good idea of how not to get pregnant as well.  :lfao:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 28, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> And quite right too. I have as well, as should any other well-adjusted person with a basic grasp of biology and physics.
> 
> The only reason I am not going to take any further part in this thread, or any other discourse about religion here at MT is that there is *no* point. I'm not going to change anyones mind and there is no capital or enjoyment in it for me to needlessly antagonise people.
> 
> ...


 
Well said.

Side note, there are many, many reasons we follow different paths, I shall mention as most of my family still lives in Northern Ireland, I won't even mention how much my family over there has been hurt by religion...and how it has "helped" me in finding my current beliefs.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> See HERE.  I know people who have very successfully used NFP methods to prevent and control pregnancy.  However, it requires strict adherence to the rules and principles for best success.  The only PERFECTLY successful method of birth control is absolute abstinence.  With one reported exception some 2000 years or so ago, nobody has gotten pregnant (we'll ignore technological intervention like _in vitro _fertilization) who has been absolutely abstinent.



That is a religious pro life site. so that is gonna be biased. That isnt biological or extremely scientific. They are primarily basing it on their pro life stance rather than on science. Of course they would say that it works. Show me actual scientific studies please, not a pro life propaganda site.

Secondly, I am a woman and having periods since I was 12. I can honestly say that most of that is BS in my case. Wont go into specific because it'll be TMI  

Also, it doesnt address what I also said about embryos born near the fringes not being as viable.

The site also says against sex being for pleasure as making a woman feel used. More BS.

but NFP when there was no pill or anything....didnt work in my grandma's day.....all four of my grandparents had large family....9 kids apiece.

My grandma has said that if there was BC she wouldnt have had so many and even today says she never wanted all her kids.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 28, 2010)

We're shifting pretty off topic with birth control.

To return to the topic at hand...  Yes, I detest the actions of the priests who abused children.  I absolutely support prosecution.  And I think that simply moving them and not even so much as warning the new pastor about the issue is akin to handing a toddler a jar of nitroglycerin and being shocked when something goes BOOM!  Especially the cases where a priest was moved more than once for the same reasons.  Anyone involved in that should at least be investigated, and probably charged.

However, I also distinguish between the actions of individuals and an organization.  Because the LAPD Rampart division was corrupt, is every gang cop corrupt?  Because there are a few corrupt cops, is every agency and every officer corrupt?  No.  Nor are police or the justice system at fault for the actions of those individuals -- even when a chief was involved.  (And I can name cases where chiefs were involved.)  In the same way, the *institution* of the Roman Catholic Church is separate from the people that make it up.  I am Roman Catholic by faith; I was raised Catholic, but made my own choices as well.  My faith -- which I admit is, by definition, unprovable! -- tells me that the *institution* of the Church is true; it's teachings on faith and morals are correct and infallible.  That is separate from the people who make it up, who are quite fallible.  Too often, tragically so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> Now?  I think modern family planning takes the subject of birth control of the table for discussion.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that doesn't have more than 3 kids....and I don't think the reason for that is entirely because modern family planning is effective.



I'm nearly 49.  No kids.  Catholic.  Care to try that again?


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm nearly 49.  No kids.  Catholic.  Care to try that again?



Gladly.



			
				Carol said:
			
		

> I don't think the reason for that is *entirely because *modern family  planning is effective.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 28, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> No, I like discussing religion and such. If I didn't, I wouldnt have started a discussion about God with my sensei (and i also talk about religion with others as well) I like hearing what do people believe and why do they believe this. I like to get to know people. and my sensei and I are good friends.
> 
> *Its just when they implicitly or explicitly say my beliefs are naive and they think they have the truth that gets my goat.*


 

Oh, the irony...


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 28, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Oh, the irony...



what are you on about, canuckma?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> Gladly.



I meant this part:



> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that doesn't have more than 3 kids



Yet here I am.  How hard was that?  By the by, my three younger sisters?  One has 4 kids. One has 3.  One has 2.  All are done having kids, so that's the final score.

However, to be more scientific, according to the 2000 US Census, the average number of children for all US families is 3.14.  That's more than 3, all right.  And according to other sources, there is no statistical difference between family sizes for Catholics and that of other religions in the USA.  Outside the USA, then yes, Catholics tend to have larger families.


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

Ack.  Sorry :asian:  Too many negatives in that statement.    And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.

I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids.  Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ack.  Sorry :asian:  Too many negatives in that statement.    And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.
> 
> I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids.  Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.



Ah, now I understand.  Yes, it is widely assumed that many US Catholics do not follow the Vatican's stance on use of contraception.  I can tell you that my family certainly did.  I am one of four children, and my father slept on the couch from as long as I can remember.  I believed _"Get the hell away from me"_ was a term of endearment.


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ah, now I understand.  Yes, it is widely assumed that many US Catholics do not follow the Vatican's stance on use of contraception.  I can tell you that my family certainly did.  I am one of four children, and my father slept on the couch from as long as I can remember.  I believed _"Get the hell away from me"_ was a term of endearment.



Heh.  My family did too.  My parents thought (in so many words) the Creator intended them to have one child and that was it....until I showed up.  I still have people looking at me a bit strangely when I say my late father was a WWII vet.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 28, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> what are you on about, canuckma?


 
This part


> *Its just when they implicitly or explicitly say my beliefs are naive and they think they have the truth that gets my goat.*




*You don't like religious people saying that to you, but look around this board and see how atheists view and belittle us who are religious.*


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 28, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ack. Sorry :asian: Too many negatives in that statement.  And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.
> 
> *I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids.* Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.


 
I DO! I DO! I was 43 when we had our 5th child. What do I win?

Michael


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2010)

Aikicomp said:


> I DO! I DO! I was 43 when we had our 5th child. What do I win?
> 
> Michael



THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!

[yt]nHGOl-jfUK0[/yt]


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> This part
> [/b]
> 
> *You don't like religious people saying that to you, but look around this board and see how atheists view and belittle us who are religious.*


 
Pot meet kettle, kettle, meet pot....


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 29, 2010)

To the OP, no it certainly is not. Hopefully with prayer and the grace of God it will get better. 

I've read this whole thread and find it quite sad (from the abuse parts) interesting (from the discussion part) and was going to post about all the incorrect theorys, statements and the general ignorance regarding the Catholic Church, however, to do so may incite more anger and I do not wish to do that.

So, if anyone (Catholics and Christians included) wants to really know what the teachings are of the Church are and why we do what we do, I would refer you to you local Barnes and Noble and look up a little work called "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" it explains it quite well. 

Here is a link: 

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

There are many, many other documents one can read that explain why the Catholic Church is what it is, teaches what it teaches, does what it does and the reasoning behind it.......the real question is......... how many will. 





We'll see.


Michael


----------



## Aikicomp (Mar 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!
> 
> [yt]nHGOl-jfUK0[/yt]


 

Love those!  Thanks.

Michael


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 29, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> Simple weirdos running away from life.  And to have the audacity to preach to people and tell them  about the soul when they've hardly even experienced anything of life...



This is actually one of the arguments in favor of Christ having been married. Because it would have been unheard of that a Rabbi was unmarried. This in turn makes the whole celibacy requirement moot.

But of course, 'everybody knows' that only the 4 accepted gospels are truthful and all the rest of vile lies attempting to tempt the faithful...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 29, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> One further note:  Modern Natural Family Planning is much more than the rhythm method; a few minutes on a search engine can turn up plenty about it.  When done properly and consistently, it can be very effective.  The problem is that it's not nearly as simple as using a condom or taking a pill.



It's also not nearly as effective if the woman has a very irregular cycle.

Also


> Likewise, the Church says "If there are serious reasons to space out births, reasons which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is morally permissible to take into account the natural rhythms of human fertility and to have coitus only during the infertile times in order to regulate conception without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier."



So even the rythm method is not ok if all you use it for is to aim for enjoyment rather than procreation.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 29, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, it's not.  I refer you to Fr. Andrew Greeley's book *The Catholic Myth*, where he examined just that question: Why do people who are at odds with the Church still remain Catholic?  In very brief -- it's because the Catholic teachings reflect they're world view... and that's much harder to change than the name you call yourself.  For the record -- I am Catholic.  I have served as a catechist and helped with youth ministry, though my current schedule doesn't permit this.



In my case, this is anything but true.

- Let's see. I don't agree with the RC views on birth control. Some old man who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'sex' has no authority to tell me what to do or not to do with the body that their god supposedly gave me. My tubes are tied.
- I don't agree with the RC views on homosexuality.
- I don't agree with monotheism. Since religion is an expression of human opinion and words, it is incorrect by definition. Religion is about what it means for you. So imo any religion is as valid as the next one.
- I don't believe in the virgin birth, walking on water, celibacy of jesus, the resurrection, and all the other hooha. I think that is caused by embellishment, mistranslation and censoring opposing views.
- I don't agree with how the RC church strives for power to rule the lives of men.
- I most certainly do not believe that un baptized children go to hell. Any God who'd let that happen is no God of mine.

There is very little I agree with in the teachings of the RC church.
My case is more like someone calling himself an American despite having a heartfelt contempt for the government in charge of the infrastructure.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I don't agree with the RC views on birth control. Some old man who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'sex' has no authority to tell me what to do or not to do with the body that their god supposedly gave me. My tubes are tied.



Catholic priests take vows of celibacy when they take their Holy Orders.  They may quite presumably have experienced sex prior to that.  Some few have even been married.



> I don't agree with the RC views on homosexuality.



Nor do I.



> I don't agree with monotheism. Since religion is an expression of human opinion and words, it is incorrect by definition. Religion is about what it means for you. So imo any religion is as valid as the next one.



That, of course, is up to each person to decide for themselves.



> I don't believe in the virgin birth, walking on water, celibacy of jesus, the resurrection, and all the other hooha. I think that is caused by embellishment, mistranslation and censoring opposing views.



It's possible, of course.  Belief is a matter for the individual.



> I don't agree with how the RC church strives for power to rule the lives of men.



Such as?



> I most certainly do not believe that un baptized children go to hell. Any God who'd let that happen is no God of mine.



First, the Catholic Church does not believe that either, and second, if God exists in the form Christians believe, he's your God, my God, everybody's God.  You can believe or not believe, but if the Christian belief is true, you can't wish Him out of existence.



> There is very little I agree with in the teachings of the RC church.



As long as what you disagree with about Catholic teachings are actually Catholic teachings, I have no problem with that.  I admit to becoming frustrated when people declare that Catholics believe this or Catholics believe that and it's not true.  We do not believe unbaptized babies go to hell, for example.  It's simply not dogma of the Catholic Church.



> My case is more like someone calling himself an American despite having a heartfelt contempt for the government in charge of the infrastructure.



I have problems with some of the stances of the Catholic church, but I don't have 'contempt' for it.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 29, 2010)




----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As long as what you disagree with about Catholic teachings are actually Catholic teachings, I have no problem with that.  I admit to becoming frustrated when people declare that Catholics believe this or Catholics believe that and it's not true.  We do not believe unbaptized babies go to hell, for example.  *It's simply not dogma of the Catholic Church*.



It depends on interpretation. From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

The New Testament  contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. *But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water  and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men  are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition  that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural  happiness of the beatific vision  (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS).* The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation  on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics  usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo." 

It's only been relatively recently the latter paragraph (about the perfect natural happiness) has gained traction among the clergy. Before that, say early 1900's, the fate of unbaptized children was said to be eternal damnation. One of the more folksy descriptions of hell in our parts had a 'bridge forged from the souls of unbaptized children, held in eternal agony' or something to that effect.

As for wanting to rule our lives: I don't know how the situation was in the US, but in Belgium, the RC clergy were at least partially in charge in all villages and cities. There was the holy trinity of industry leaders, clergy and school directors. Between the 3 of them, they bossed people around from cradle to grave.

In Belgium the RC church had a very strong influence over our leading 'elite' and the monarchy. That influence got broken only 15 or so years ago with the events surrounding the approval of the abortion laws. And the Vatican was seriously displeased with the Belgium cardinal for not being able to prevent those laws from being approved.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

We do all realize of course that there is zero evidence at all on the existence of Jesus as a person right? All evidence of his historical existence occurs decades after his supposed death. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> This is actually one of the arguments in favor of Christ having been married. Because it would have been unheard of that a Rabbi was unmarried. This in turn makes the whole celibacy requirement moot.
> 
> But of course, 'everybody knows' that only the 4 accepted gospels are truthful and all the rest of vile lies attempting to tempt the faithful...



The Catholic Church (and other churches which require celibacy) do not claim biblical authority to impose this condition (there is biblical tradition for those who wish to interpret it that way).  It is instead a church rule (dogma), which could be changed if the church sees fit to do so.  Nothing to do with Jesus being married or unmarried.

Furthermore, there are married Catholic priests!  Those who are members of certain Eastern orders that are in communion with the Holy See are both Catholic and married if they wish to be.  Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and are married may remain married and become Catholic priests. Even ministers of other Protestant faiths who have converted have been allowed to become priests and remain married:

http://www.thefloridacatholic.org/cns/2009_articles/20090609_cns_married_priest.php

And of course, it's voluntary.  One is not forced to become a priest.  Those seeking the priesthood are warned again and again about the requirements of celibacy.  It's not like it's a surprise to anyone, and they are free to refuse to become priests or even to quit if they find they cannot conform to the Church's rules and revert to the lay state.

I don't understand why people have so much heartburn over things that are a) half-truths and b) are not issues that they need to deal with anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> We do all realize of course that there is zero evidence at all on the existence of Jesus as a person right? All evidence of his historical existence occurs decades after his supposed death.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo



There is more evidence for the historical existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of anthropogenic global warming, and a higher percentage of scientists agree that Jesus, the man, lived at the time claimed in the Christian Bible.

You'll have to do better than that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> It depends on interpretation.
> ...
> It's only been relatively recently the latter paragraph (about the perfect natural happiness) has gained traction among the clergy. Before that, say early 1900's, the fate of unbaptized children was said to be eternal damnation. One of the more folksy descriptions of hell in our parts had a 'bridge forged from the souls of unbaptized children, held in eternal agony' or something to that effect.



It may be only recent, but it's the way it is now.  It's hard to complain about a religion holding a belief when they no longer hold that belief.



> As for wanting to rule our lives: I don't know how the situation was in the US, but in Belgium, the RC clergy were at least partially in charge in all villages and cities. There was the holy trinity of industry leaders, clergy and school directors. Between the 3 of them, they bossed people around from cradle to grave.



In the USA, Catholics have historically been looked upon with suspicion, and there has been a great deal of fear regarding Catholic control over the government.  JFK was our first and so far only Catholic president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism#United_States

The "Known Nothing" Party was an anti-Catholic political party.  Jefferson hated Catholics and many states devised loyalty oaths for elected officials that attempted to ensure that Catholics even if elected could not take office.

One might argue that in cities like Boston and Chicago, and perhaps even New York, Catholics eventually came to power and held sway, but as has been noted, American Catholics are as likely as not to disobey the Pope in many things.



> In Belgium the RC church had a very strong influence over our leading 'elite' and the monarchy. That influence got broken only 15 or so years ago with the events surrounding the approval of the abortion laws. And the Vatican was seriously displeased with the Belgium cardinal for not being able to prevent those laws from being approved.



Hasn't been the case in the USA.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Catholic Church (and other churches which require celibacy) do not claim biblical authority to impose this condition (there is biblical tradition for those who wish to interpret it that way)..


 
I can kind of see a good reason for priestly celibacy historically and even currently.

 The Catholic Church adminsters to some of the poorest societies in the world, more so than other denominations. The local parish priest would have a better lifestyle in that setting,  who the hell would want to throw sexual politics into that situation.

  That being said perhaps if priests were allowed to marry and the married priest assigned to the poorer parishes it might get around that situation


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> I can kind of see a good reason for priestly celibacy historically and even currently.
> 
> The Catholic Church adminsters to some of the poorest societies in the world, more so than other denominations. The local parish priest would have a better lifestyle in that setting,  who the hell would want to throw sexual politics into that situation.
> 
> That being said perhaps if priests were allowed to marry and the married priest assigned to the poorer parishes it might get around that situation



There are all kinds of good arguments for an against priestly celibacy.

Many inside the Church see the current crisis with the shortage of priests as being part of the overall problems experienced by the Church world-wide.  Churches go without priests, Deacons are being relied upon more and more.  Some say that the shortage of priests has led to an overall decline in the ability of the Church to turn down applications from those who might otherwise be rejected.

There is a practical matter; the Church supports the priest financially.  If the priest is married, then the Church would be bound to support a spouse and possible offspring as well.  Many Protestant denominations do this, of course, but it's a heavy burden.

The Church has traditionally stated that the priest cannot serve two responsibilities equally well.  A priest who is distracted with thoughts of family responsibilities cannot be giving his entire being to the needs of the Church and the faithful.

The Church has also tended not to bend to the will of the times, instead choosing deliberately when and if to change internally or externally, without regard to public pressure.

It goes on and on.  And even more - if the Church allows priests to marry, why not women also?  Why not gays?  And so on.

I don't mind having any of those debates, and I'm not one of those who would leave the Church if they allowed priests to marry or even women priests.  It's not up to me, and I'm OK with it either way.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is more evidence for the historical existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of anthropogenic global warming, and a higher percentage of scientists agree that Jesus, the man, lived at the time claimed in the Christian Bible.
> 
> You'll have to do better than that.


 
links please. As I've yet to find any evidence at all myself, enlighten me.
Unbaised if you will please.
Wiki, yes not the best, but not bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Why was it OK for at least the first 300 years and perhaps the first 1000 for priests to marry? but not now?


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2010)

I don't think it is realistic to say that priests know nothing about marriage.  Even the priests who have never been married have had to take a serious vow of their own with their ordination. 

In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Why was it OK for at least the first 300 years and perhaps the first 1000 for priests to marry? but not now?



You would have to go back and ask the various members of Church leadership that question.  I've read some of the various historical information about when and why celibacy was required, but it's not something I lose a lot of sleep over either way.  As I've said, I don't really understand why non-Catholics care one way or another, or why even Catholics care if they're not priests and not intending to become one.  It's not really anyone else's problem, let alone their business, is it?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> links please. As I've yet to find any evidence at all myself, enlighten me.
> Unbaised if you will please.
> Wiki, yes not the best, but not bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus



I actually read that Wikipedia entry with interest, but chose not to post the link to it.  I get tired of that dreary _"Oh, if you're going to post that source, then I guess you have no argument at all,"_ kind of thing.  

The oldest authenticated sources depicting Jesus go back to about the 1st Century, and there is a general agreement among historians that at least portions of John were written by John, portions of Mark written by Mark.  These would be first-hand accounts.  The problem of course is that we do not have the actual documents they wrote, the actual ink on paper from their pens.  But if their accounts are false, they're widespread and their lies date from the 1st century AD and have been kept remarkably accurate in their lying since that time (based on other documents that have come to light in more recent years).

The historical existence of Jesus is a very old debate, and the oldest books I've read on the subject date back to the early 1900's, such as The Historicity of Jesus by Shirley Jackson Case, published in 1912.

In any case, there is no direct evidence that Jesus the person did or did not exist.  The argument itself seems to have worn itself out, and the mass of historians that concern themselves with the question at all accept that there was a historical Jesus, regardless of whether or not they consider him to have been the Savior or Christ.

Did Jesus exist as a person?  Yes, beyond any real doubt.  Was he the Son of God?  That's up to people to decide for themselves.  It's pretty clear that without Paul of Tarsus, Jesus would have been a pretty obscure figure, perhaps even unknown today except as lumped in with a handful of other would-be Messiahs of that particular time period.  It was Paul that put Jesus on the map, so to speak.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You would have to go back and ask the various members of Church leadership that question. I've read some of the various historical information about when and why celibacy was required, but it's not something I lose a lot of sleep over either way. As I've said, I don't really understand why non-Catholics care one way or another, or why even Catholics care if they're not priests and not intending to become one. It's not really anyone else's problem, let alone their business, is it?


 
Bill I'm one of thsoe people who has studied history for my entire life, much of that history revolves around the RC religion. I find it all very interesting. I don't live in your country but i read up on US history all the time, I'm not of Nordic blood but i read up on the Vikings, I'm not religious but simply from a historical perspective I would travel teh "holy land" in a heart beat.
I simply love to understadn things'


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

But there in lies the arguement no?

Paul of Tarsus wrote decades after Jesus's death, quoting people who claimed to have known him. There is nothing directly from his time "alive". 

Again, back to me loving history stuff. 

Do I think he existed? Possibly, though he may very well be a compulation of multiple people perhaps? He may have been a rabbi who stirred up some serious crap? I'm curious as to the historical Jesus, because if he did exist raising crap among the Roman occupiers took serious balls. Obviously i have no interest in the religious Jesus simply because I don't believe in it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Bill I'm one of thsoe people who has studied history for my entire life, much of that history revolves around the RC religion. I find it all very interesting. I don't live in your country but i read up on US history all the time, I'm not of Nordic blood but i read up on the Vikings, I'm not religious but simply from a historical perspective I would travel teh "holy land" in a heart beat.
> I simply love to understadn things'



Ken, given your other posts, I have trouble buying into the notion that your inquiries are simply efforts to learn more about the historical dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.  Perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I apologize, but there seems to be a great deal of boy who cried 'wolf' here.  You have an admitted animosity towards religion and you ask your questions in the form of accusations; not typically the framework of scholarship, but more the leading questions of a person looking for a 'gotcha' to hurl in the face of a believer and walk away feeling good about having shown those religious morons a thing or two.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> But there in lies the arguement no?
> 
> Paul of Tarsus wrote decades after Jesus's death, quoting people who claimed to have known him. There is nothing directly from his time "alive".



Paul's writings were to and about his interactions with the Apostles who did know Jesus, and were detailed.  They make up one of several writings from people who knew those who knew Jesus, and taken together, most historians find them persuasive that the person described existed; miracles and resurrection to one side.



> Again, back to me loving history stuff.



I love history too.  I seldom approach it from the standpoint of 'prove to me that President Washington existed, or I'll assume he didn't'.  In other words, scholarship is seldom in the form of an attack dog.



> Do I think he existed? Possibly, though he may very well be a compulation of multiple people perhaps? He may have been a rabbi who stirred up some serious crap? I'm curious as to the historical Jesus, because if he did exist raising crap among the Roman occupiers took serious balls. Obviously i have no interest in the religious Jesus simply because I don't believe in it.



There were a number of people in the region claiming messianic status at that time.  Jesus is the one who is remembered, and the last one to have any followers.

There was a show recently on the National Geographic channel on other messianic figures in history.  Interesting stuff.  And also interesting - none of them seem to have anyone claiming they didn't actually exist, even though they likewise had no direct witness-writings about them (except the most recent ones).  It appears that the 'I don't think he existed' crowd tends to concentrate on the one claimant to messiahship whose message survived.  The others, they're perfectly willing to stipulate existed as historical persons.  No agenda there, right?  Right.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Ken, given your other posts, I have trouble buying into the notion that your inquiries are simply efforts to learn more about the historical dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and if so, I apologize, but there seems to be a great deal of boy who cried 'wolf' here. You have an admitted animosity towards religion and you ask your questions in the form of accusations; not typically the framework of scholarship, but more the leading questions of a person looking for a 'gotcha' to hurl in the face of a believer and walk away feeling good about having shown those religious morons a thing or two.


 
Point taken and I do apoligise if taht is the impression i give. 

It is difficult sometimes to balance out my love of history, (including about 1000 books surrounding me right now), and my serious dislike of religion.  

I have studied in school and on my own many..."useless" things in history, I'm great at trival pusuit!

We are actually very much a like Bill, we both like to "know" things, we don't mind being proven wrong, and we just want to be left alone. If you're ever in Toronto let me know, I'll buy you a beer, you buy teh wings and we can "argue" this stuff properly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Point taken and I do apoligise if taht is the impression i give.
> 
> It is difficult sometimes to balance out my love of history, (including about 1000 books surrounding me right now), and my serious dislike of religion.
> 
> ...



I would enjoy it, Ken.  Be careful, I may take you up on it!


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ack.  Sorry :asian:  Too many negatives in that statement.    And you are correct, I was referring to inside the U.S.
> 
> I meant you'd be hard-pressed to find a Catholic under the age of 45 that HAS more than 3 kids.  Roman Catholic families across the board in the US are much smaller than they have been and I don't think the answer is exclusively because of NFP.



because most younger catholics in north america these days use birth control. Its like in some countries like in the phillipines i believe where a lot of em dont use contraception.



CanuckMA said:


> This part
> [/b]
> 
> *You don't like religious people saying that to you, but look around this board and see how atheists view and belittle us who are religious.*



I have seen it. oh yes. Ken most notably. Me, I attack the beliefs (many of which are downright dangerous) but not in the manner that Ken does. 

What I dont attack is the belief in a God or divine Creator. Because as I said before, I am open to the possibility of a creator's existence.

I also dont attack the belief in Jesus. Yes, he may have existed. Christianity began from someone. 

and btw I am a history major and love history (though admittedly my focus was on Russian/Soviet history)


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

The abuse and the coverup are entirely predictable, and don't even really indict the Catholic Church _per se_.  We see similar behavior in many other institutions with lots of bureaucracy, hierarchy, lack of transparency, and institutionalized power.  What makes it worse in this case is that the Church puts itself forward as a moral arbiter, uses that moral standing to aid their crimes and coverups, and has the ability to use their power, moral standing, and international nature to further avoid accountability.  You see ****ups like this in say, a large company or a local independent church, but prosecutors won't leave them alone because they fear the political backlash.

The only mistake is in thinking that the Church or its members are somehow more moral than everyone else, and would avoid these predictable consequences of their structure.  Certainly no student of history would see the Catholic Church as more moral than anything else around it.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Blush.

I am 99.99% certain god does not exist. If there is any evidence to prove it, I am more then willing to look at it. I basically dont believe in the supernatural as most people understand it, again I need proof. Again, seriously, not to be insulting but god, ghosts, santa, theyre all the same to me.

Atheism and atheists have been mocked here too. Generally its a contemptuous attitude whereby we are treated as lost children who need to be shown the way.

I dont treat religion as sacred, at least on this forum; it should be argued/discussed about in the same way we argue about MA, politics and everything else here. This forum is a place where we can debate anything. I enjoy verbal sparring, I hold no animosity towards Bill or anyone else, why would I? Look through my past posts, Im a libertarian, I recall arguing that while I have no use for religion, I will always defend a persons right to be religious.  

In the real world I have never debated or argued with a religious person, ever. I have gone to midnight mass many times, I have organized many dinners where I have always added in the saying of grace, plus many other religious events, because they are important to people who are important to me. I am polite, (the Canadian in me!)! But I have been on numerous occasions been given bibles, been told that people are praying for me, been told I am going to hell, and have been the target of people who try and talk me out of my false beliefs. I have never done that to them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Blush.
> 
> I am 99.99% certain god does not exist. If there is any evidence to prove it, I am more then willing to look at it. I basically dont believe in the supernatural as most people understand it, again I need proof. Again, seriously, not to be insulting but god, ghosts, santa, theyre all the same to me.



Well, if you don't believe in Santa, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside.  You'll have reindeer tracks up your backside by the time we're done, laddy buck.



> Atheism and atheists have been mocked here too. Generally its a contemptuous attitude whereby we are treated as lost children who need to be shown the way.



Not by me.



> I dont treat religion as sacred, at least on this forum; it should be argued/discussed about in the same way we argue about MA, politics and everything else here. This forum is a place where we can debate anything. I enjoy verbal sparring, I hold no animosity towards Bill or anyone else, why would I? Look through my past posts, Im a libertarian, I recall arguing that while I have no use for religion, I will always defend a persons right to be religious.



Yes, you have said that, but you have also said that what religionists 'need' is to be 'told' about the truth.  You say you have no personal animosity, but you do, Ken, you do.  You may not believe it about yourself, but it leaks out of your very words.  Seriously, man.



> In the real world I have never debated or argued with a religious person, ever. I have gone to midnight mass many times, I have organized many dinners where I have always added in the saying of grace, plus many other religious events, because they are important to people who are important to me. I am polite, (the Canadian in me!)! But I have been on numerous occasions been given bibles, been told that people are praying for me, been told I am going to hell, and have been the target of people who try and talk me out of my false beliefs. I have never done that to them.



I've been told I'm going to hell by people picketing a porno theater I was going into (hey, I'm a Marine, I likes me the nekkid wimmins, get over it) and I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus that has been scolded for collecting money for 'retarded children' because a) that's not politically correct (sorry, I didn't come up with the name) and b) the KKK is bad (the Knights of Columbus are not *those* knights, thanks) and c) the Pope is the anti-Christ.  Yay me, even when I do good I do bad.

I've also argued with a man who insisted on calling Jesus a *'dead Jew on a stick'.*  Like you, he claimed he was not being insulting, but literal.  Didn't Jesus die?  Yes.  Wasn't he a Jew?  Yes.  Was he crucified?  Yes.  _"Then he's a 'dead Jew on a stick', and if you take offense to that, it's your problem and not mine."_  I get it, I get it.  But of course, the intent when using terms like that is to inflame the passions.  Get the other guy to lose it and take a swing at you (rhetorically or physically).  Win the argument by getting the other guy to go stark raving bonkers on you.

You could call God 'God' or simply deity or creator if the word God is offensive to you.  One word, easy to use and remember.  But 'invisible man in the sky' is so much more demeaning, so much more delicious, it's hard to pass up, huh?  If you can make a religionist's head explode, bonus points!  And you can argue that you're only being literal, not insulting.  Do you really think anyone believes that of you?

So I've had some experience with people who are general asshats regarding the question of religion, pro and con.  Please don't think you're the Lone Ranger here.

Religion?  I don't treat discussion of religion as sacred either.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss my beliefs and to admit that I have no answers, only beliefs, and that they could be completely wrong.  No problem.  That's discussion.  But some of the terms used, come on, that's not a dispassionate discussion of religion, that's a blatant attempt to get someone's goat.

It's also unfair, because the religionists can't fight back in kind.  Atheists know perfectly well that religionists are emotionally invested in their belief systems and have sore spots where they've been repeatedly poked by non-believers over and over again.  So instead of saying "Jesus," they say "Dead Jew on a Stick" and stand back and watch the fireworks.  What can a religionist call an atheist?  A 'Godless Heathen?" Yeah, big whoop.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

By the way, the Church is also making themselves look far, far worse with their recent behavior after the scandals broke.  They should sell a few pairs of those Prada shoes and hire a PR firm!

From the Archbishop of NY: "...urged his congregation to pray for the pope, saying he was suffering  some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus."

:jaw-dropping: How can one man be so arrogant and clueless?!?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's also unfair, because the religionists can't fight back in kind.  Atheists know perfectly well that religionists are emotionally invested in their belief systems and have sore spots where they've been repeatedly poked by non-believers over and over again.  So instead of saying "Jesus," they say "Dead Jew on a Stick" and stand back and watch the fireworks.  What can a religionist call an atheist?  A 'Godless Heathen?" Yeah, big whoop.



It can be a pretty big whoop, actually.  Coming from your neighbors.  Your parents.  Your boss.  Your spouse (ouch!).  A pretty reasonably sized swath of America thinks that atheists are evil and immoral.  In an infamous poll, atheists came in dead last in who you would vote for for President, after homosexuals, Muslims, and other supposedly unpopular categories.  Not by a small margin either, about 52%.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> By the way, the Church is also making themselves look far, far worse with their recent behavior after the scandals broke.  They should sell a few pairs of those Prada shoes and hire a PR firm!
> 
> From the Archbishop of NY: "...urged his congregation to pray for the pope, saying he was suffering  some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus."
> 
> :jaw-dropping: How can one man be so arrogant and clueless?!?



Agreed.  The key here would be remorse; absolute, complete, unequivocal, and a sincere promise to turn over all information regarding all molesters the Church knows about to the law enforcement agencies responsible immediately.  A little groveling would not hurt either, IMHO.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, if you don't believe in Santa, I'm going to have to ask you to step outside. You'll have reindeer tracks up your backside by the time we're done, laddy buck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You know Sam Harris charges $25K to speak at an event, what say we rent a hall, buy beer, sell tickets and do this out in the open?...I could use the coin....

No offense but I think this thread is beat to death right now. I have no doubt we can have more fun twisting another thread to suit our diabotical ways later on. 

Going for a run, picking up my daughter, going to the hardware store and doing some writing...mundane, everyday life, with or without religion. But ever thankful to be alive and healthy!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It can be a pretty big whoop, actually.  Coming from your neighbors.  Your parents.  Your boss.  Your spouse (ouch!).  A pretty reasonably sized swath of America thinks that atheists are evil and immoral.  In an infamous poll, atheists came in dead last in who you would vote for for President, after homosexuals, Muslims, and other supposedly unpopular categories.  Not by a small margin either, about 52%.



Yes, good point.  But let me try to explain what I mean.

When a Marine calls a soldier a 'Dogface', it is done with intent to be insulting.  And it often is; many soldiers dislike being called that.

When a soldier calls a Marine a 'Jarhead', it is likewise done with intent to be insulting, but it never works, because Marines like being called 'Jarhead'.

Like the difference between me using a certain racial epithet and someone of that race using it to describe someone else of that same race.  Same word, but offensive depending on who uses it.

Atheists know perfectly well that calling Jesus a 'Dead Jew on a Stick' or referring to God as a 'Sky Fairy' or 'Invisible Man in the Sky' is likely to inflame passions, and that's why they use those terms.  Playing all innocent like they're just using honest description doesn't really play very well, it falls flat as an act.

However, there aren't really any derogatory words for atheists that any atheist I know of would take particular offense to.  Like calling a Marine a 'Grunt' or a 'Seagoing Bellhop' or a 'Leatherneck', it's liable to net you a yawn and a "Yeah, so what?" in response.

I'm not saying atheists can't be discriminated against, clearly they can.  I'm saying it is difficult for a religionist to fight fire with fire when it comes to name-calling.  Since an atheist's belief (actually lack of belief) isn't emotionally bound, there's no way to needle them using pejorative words.  But religionists can be needled that way, and atheists know it and use it to their advantage.  Fine when you're fighting a war, but not really when you claim to want a rational discussion, you know?


----------



## dbell (Mar 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary.



Actually they are only required to have 2 years of Philosophy, and 4 years of Theology.  In many cases a Priest will have 4 years of Philosophy, but it is not required.  (They are required, in the US only, to have a 4 year Bachelors degree before going to Seminary, but only 2 years (such as an Associates Degree) need to be in Philosophy.


----------



## JWLuiza (Mar 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> I don't think it is realistic to say that priests know nothing about marriage.  Even the priests who have never been married have had to take a serious vow of their own with their ordination.
> 
> *In addition, priests go to school longer than MDs...4 years undergrad in Philosophy then at least 4 years at the Seminary*.


Ummm....

MD in US= 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and at least 3 years of residency.....
So at least 11 years of education before we are on our own. I'll be doing a fellowship after residency as well.

Not germane to the discussion, just curious as to how long you think doctors are trained...


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Point taken and I do apoligise if taht is the impression i give.
> 
> It is difficult sometimes to balance out my love of history, (including about 1000 books surrounding me right now), and my serious dislike of religion.
> 
> ...


 
put me down for a pint.....Guiness my goodness!


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> Ummm....
> 
> MD in US= 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, and at least 3 years of residency.....
> So at least 11 years of education before we are on our own. I'll be doing a fellowship after residency as well.
> ...



Med school is 4 years? Dammit...sorry, I'm mixing it up with Law, which is 3 years.   I meant no disrespect, just trying to illustrate it was .... very long.  Sorry for picking a bad example.  

The way it was explained to me when I was confirmed, priests do not have an academic residency requirement, but there is a 5 year "training" period that a new priest must go through. (I don't know the granualarity here...if this is at the diocesan level, national level, etc.)

A new priest takes on this trainee/junior role in an established parish under a more senior priest for 5 years.  He can live at the rectory, be paid a stipend, celebrate Mass, and perform other duties but is operating under the supervision of a more senior priest.  I don't know where the line of demarcation is.   I worked with a new priest for quite a bit when I was preparing for my confirmation, yet he did not confirm me, the senior priest did.  When a buddy of mine got married in the same church a couple of years later, she and her husband were married by the new fellow.  

After the 5 years are up, they are automatically transferred to another parish.  I was left with the impression that the priest can express some preference for his assignment, be it personal (ie: within New England) or professional (ie: a bilingual Spanish priest might ask for the chance to serve a parish with a large Latino population), but the ultimate decision was made by the higher ups.  As far as I know, once this transfer occurs, they are out on their own.  

So...not as long as doctors.  But still a long time.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> put me down for a pint.....Guiness my goodness!


 
Hey anytime....someone.....wants to organise a Toronto MT get together, I'm in!


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> put me down for a pint.....Guiness my goodness!



Me too.   You think I'd miss a chance to see the three of you duke it out?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 29, 2010)

Carol said:


> Me too. You think I'd miss a chance to see the three of you duke it out?


 
and who would you be cheering for Hun?
Oh cheerleader uniform????


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 29, 2010)

dbell said:


> Actually they are only required to have 2 years of Philosophy, and 4 years of Theology.  In many cases a Priest will have 4 years of Philosophy, but it is not required.  (They are required, in the US only, to have a 4 year Bachelors degree before going to Seminary, but only 2 years (such as an Associates Degree) need to be in Philosophy.


Additionally, some religious orders have different requirements.  In brief, there are two different types of priests in the Catholic Church; diocesan and those who belong to religious orders.  (As a sidenote, diocesan priests do not have to take a vow of poverty.)  Each order sets its own training curriculum for priest-brothers.


----------



## Carol (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> and who would you be cheering for Hun?



What, tell you in advance?  That would be no fun.  




> Oh cheerleader uniform????



I'm a bit too _zaftig_ to get away with that.  Now a dirndl on the other hand...is a bit more forgiving of the extra curves. :lol:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Hey anytime....someone.....wants to organise a Toronto MT get together, I'm in!



They have poutine in Toronto?  If so, I'm totally there.  Love Canadian beer, but I haven't had a drink since May of last year (diabetes), so I'll be a three beer man.  Drink one, spill one, give one away.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 29, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> But I have been on numerous occasions been given bibles, been told that people are praying for me, been told I am going to hell, and have been the target of people who try and talk me out of my false beliefs. I have never done that to them.



How about the ones who deliberately corner you, imprison you pretty much and wont let you leave? OH yeah had that happen to me too along with what else you've said.

The mormons who were giving away bibles and i was chatting with a few about their beliefs in a hallway at univ. and I didnt want a bible so i went to leave. Some douchenozzle mormon stopped me in the hall and no matter which way i turned he wouldnt let me go. I only got away because his cell phone rang and he had to answer. This was a couple years ago.

But.....Most of the friends I have had have been religious. and they were/are the sweetest people. 

religious people can be very nice. Your best buddies.

And some can be evil. Like all things I suppose. Doesnt mean I agree with religious beliefs though.nor should i have to.

But - interestingly, I have never had an atheist give me a hard time because I towards agnosticism. Maybe I havent met a bad atheist yet. Dunno. I'm sure they are out there, though.


----------



## pmosiun1 (Mar 30, 2010)

It is crazy some of you here are defending the church, what if you or your children the one being molested?


----------



## dbell (Mar 30, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Additionally, some religious orders have different requirements.  In brief, there are two different types of priests in the Catholic Church; diocesan and those who belong to religious orders.  (As a sidenote, diocesan priests do not have to take a vow of poverty.)  Each order sets its own training curriculum for priest-brothers.



But, the requirement for 2 years of Philosophy and 4 years of theology are Canon requirements, be it an Order or Diocesan priest that is ordained.  As long as those time requirements are met, any other added requirements may be placed as well.


----------



## dbell (Mar 30, 2010)

pmosiun1 said:


> It is crazy some of you here are defending the church, what if you or your children the one being molested?



I would still, hopefully, defend the Church, but not the person doing harm to my child.  That person would reported to the police, THEN the Church.  And I wouldn't let the Church cover it up.  The Church would not be the entity harming my child, the person is.  The Church may be protecting, to an extent, the villain, but they are not to blame.  And if I let them protect the villain it is my fault, and the legal systems fault.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 30, 2010)

pmosiun1 said:


> It is crazy some of you here are defending the church, what if you or your children the one being molested?


 
Umm I really didnt see that. I seen people defending their religion, but I never seen anyone defend any of the people who committed or cover-uped the atrocities.


----------



## Carol (Mar 30, 2010)

dbell said:


> I would still, hopefully, defend the Church, but not the person doing harm to my child.  That person would reported to the police, THEN the Church.  And I wouldn't let the Church cover it up.  The Church would not be the entity harming my child, the person is.  The Church may be protecting, to an extent, the villain, but they are not to blame.  And if I let them protect the villain it is my fault, and the legal systems fault.



Personally I am not even content with that.  

This is pasted directly from the website of my diocese.

http://www.catholicnh.org/child-saf...-protect-children/how-to-report-sexual-abuse/



> *If you or anyone you know has been sexually abused as a minor. . .*
> 
> If you or anyone you know has been sexually abused as a minor by a  priest, deacon, member of a religious institute, or Church employee or  volunteer, we encourage you to report the matter to the Division for  Children, Youth & Families (DCYF) of the State of New Hampshire at  (800) 894-5533 and/or local law enforcement.


They aren't saying to report it to the church.   They're saying to call the law and report it to the state.  I respect that highly.   




> *Church Personnel Reporting Requirements*
> 
> Church personnel who suspect a minor child has been sexually abused  by an employee or volunteer of the church must make a report to DCYF,  local law enforcement and the Delegate for Ministerial Conduct.
> If the alleged victim is no longer a minor, church personnel must  make a report to the Delegate for Ministerial Conduct, 603-669-3100.
> ...


Now here is what I don't like.  

In the middle of an English-only web site is one link in Spanish. 

What about the Spanish speaking members of the community?  I know my city celebrates Mass in at least 3 languages other than English, wouldn't that be a good indication that there may be people in the Diocese that aren't fluent in English or may have trouble navigating an English-only website...if they knew to go there to begin with? (I don't know the answer but I plan on asking).


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The "Known Nothing" Party was an anti-Catholic political party.  Jefferson hated Catholics and many states devised loyalty oaths for elected officials that attempted to ensure that Catholics even if elected could not take office.



To be honest, I can see the sense in that.
After all, devout Catholics are supposed to heed the words of the pope. But an elected official is supposed to heed the words / wishes / needs of his electorate. You cannot serve 2 masters.

I realize the same is basically true for any religious representative, but the difference with RC is that the pope is an embodiment of authority.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Hasn't been the case in the USA.



We grew up in a different culture. The reason I mistrust the Catholic clergy is that here, they really wielded political influence, even at the highest levels. My feelings are not knee jerk reactions but things I thought about before making up my mind.

Let me give you an example; one of many.
In 1990, our previous king (boudewijn) refused to sing into effect the abortion laws because of his religious beliefs. (Approving the stationing of US nuclear missiles in Belgium was apparently not against his beliefs).

Anyway, a law needs to be signed by the king to become effective. His signature does not indicate approval or not, but a guarantee that the laws have been created in a democratic process according to the requirements of the constitution. He refused to sign despite the fact that the creation of those laws had fulfilled all requirements.

Technically, he would have had to resign at that point according to the constitution but he didn't fancy that either. So the prime minister consulted with a constitutional lawyer, and they came up with a loophole that allowed them to dispose of the king for 1 day and pass the laws correctly. Whether this was legal or not depends on whom you're asking and the interpretation of technicalities.

Anyway, near the end of his life, Boudewijn had also indicated that he wanted to be succeeded by Prince Filip (who is at least as devout as Boudewijn was) instead of Prince Albert (who was, as they say, a man who enjoys life). When Boudewijn died sometime later, the prime minister decided (rightfully so) that that wish was totally impossible according to the constitution so Prince Albert became Kind Albert.

Now, 15 or so years later, Albert is getting old and realistically speaking, Prince Filip will become King within the near future. And as of 2 weeks ago, the entire government (including opposition parties) are working towards a constitutional change that would remove all political power from the King to prevent such shenanigans from happening again. Because even though Belgium is ruled in a democratic multi party fashion, the King currently has a number of key roles and powers that he could use. Our current King has never done so to force his own views upon the country, but with Filip, people really have no confidence that that state of affairs will continue.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 30, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> +1.
> 
> And I don't think any less of you for it. After all, I still call myself a Catholic despite having the aforementioned opinion about the Catholic church. I realize it is illogical, but there you are...



Interesting, I just received a neg rep (probably. It was grayed out for some reason) for the above post, stating that '_you people are just plain sick_'. And of course no name was left.

Puzzling though. I fail to see how that rep would be relevant to the comment I made. Presumably this was about Bill and me. Now I already indicated that, while considering myself Catholic, I am at odds with the church. Bill is not (correct me if I am wrong Bill). So there is no way that the comment would make sense if it tried to address us both.

Or perhaps we are sick for believing in something. But in that case most of the people in this discussion should have been neg repped, and I don't thnk that has happened.

Anyone care to take a guess?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 30, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Interesting, I just received a neg rep (probably. It was grayed out for some reason) for the above post, stating that '_you people are just plain sick_'. And of course no name was left.
> 
> Puzzling though. I fail to see how that rep would be relevant to the comment I made. Presumably this was about Bill and me. Now I already indicated that, while considering myself Catholic, I am at odds with the church. Bill is not (correct me if I am wrong Bill). So there is no way that the comment would make sense if it tried to address us both.
> 
> ...



I got the same comment, same neg rep, same no name.  No problem.  And you're correct, I'm not at odds with the Church.  Life goes on!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 30, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I got the same comment, same neg rep, same no name. No problem. And you're correct, I'm not at odds with the Church. Life goes on!


 
No offence boys, but inspite of my negative talk about religion in general, and not being religious, I got nothing, good or bad!! So I don't understand the logic the person used to single you both out.

Though i may have just dangled a very attractive piece of wool in front of a crazy cat....


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 31, 2010)

JWLuiza said:


> Not germane to the discussion, just curious as to how long you think doctors are trained...


 
Apparently, not nearly long enough, because they all keep 'practicing'.:boing2:


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 2, 2010)

Sorry for coming back with this.  I'm not against the church because i believe in the essence of the teachings, but i still wanted to add that if you study the matter further, you will find that not all the abuse was sexual.  That there were also many stories of unfair beatings, harsh corporal punishment and punishments that were in some instances cruel to the point of perversion.  From the martial perspective one must also take note of this.  The martial language is a such a delicate thing. 

In martial arts training or military you also can expect to encounter some toughness, but the happenings are beyond that scope and sometimes did involve the gratification of the torturer-oppressor in several ways.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 2, 2010)

kaizasosei said:


> Sorry for coming back with this.  I'm not against the church because i believe in the essence of the teachings, but i still wanted to add that if you study the matter further, you will find that not all the abuse was sexual.  That there were also many stories of unfair beatings, harsh corporal punishment and punishments that were in some instances cruel to the point of perversion.  From the martial perspective one must also take note of this.  The martial language is a such a delicate thing.
> 
> In martial arts training or military you also can expect to encounter some toughness, but the happenings are beyond that scope and sometimes did involve the gratification of the torturer-oppressor in several ways.



A lot there depends on context and historical setting.  The British school system was notorious for birchings and canings, such that there is quite a fetish there now amongst those who were so punished and now are tweaked that way.  

My father beat me with a belt; didn't turn me kinky (I have different kinks), but it sure left welts.  Different times.  I'm not broken because of the beatings I endured.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 2, 2010)

I went to school in africa and i got the cane- (a strip of bicycle tire in a cooky tin) several times.  I also am not a fan of people being sissies about things, but some of the stories are really disturbing.  Nothing like getting hit a number of times(which i don't believe in unless the person agrees and has no fear).  Nothing like a cross or sick old granny smacking the back of your fingers with a fat pencil.  Much more messed up


j


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 2, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A lot there depends on context and historical setting. The British school system was notorious for birchings and canings, such that there is quite a fetish there now amongst those who were so punished and now are tweaked that way.
> 
> My father beat me with a belt; didn't turn me kinky (I have different kinks), but it sure left welts. Different times. I'm not broken because of the beatings I endured.


 
Good thing we are in more progressive times, I was beaten with a wooden coat hanger by my mother, it taught me nothing except to reject the Catholic Church as the biggest scam (she was and still is religious) and it was more for her to release her anger than teach me anything.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 2, 2010)

> Good thing we are in more progressive times, I was beaten with a wooden  coat hanger by my mother, it taught me nothing except to reject the  Catholic Church as the biggest scam (she was and still is religious) and  it was more for her to release her anger than teach me anything.



That's too bad.  Sounds like you made sense of it for yourself somehow.


----------



## grydth (Apr 2, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Good thing we are in more progressive times, I was beaten with a wooden coat hanger by my mother, it taught me nothing except to reject the Catholic Church as the biggest scam (she was and still is religious) and it was more for her to release her anger than teach me anything.



I think it takes real courage to talk about these experiences. My sincere respect to you.

I would not presume to lecture you or anyone here on religion, and would only observe that," The Diety is with me, so I can **** you!" is not unique to any one religion. Also, with time you may be able to step back and not judge an entire group by one of its worst members.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A lot there depends on context and historical setting. *The British school system was notorious for birchings and canings, such that there is quite a fetish there now amongst those who were so punished and now are tweaked that way*.
> 
> My father beat me with a belt; didn't turn me kinky (I have different kinks), but it sure left welts. Different times. I'm not broken because of the beatings I endured.


 

Was it really? I think perhaps you've made that up. 

There's no such thing as a British school system, the schools in each country are different and then we have the public schools such as Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc which I'm guessing is the schools you are thinking of as much is made of public school boys in books such as Tom Brown's School Days, Flashman etc. 

I've never been hit in school and I've never been hit at home, to punish children by hitting and beating them is heinous and unforgivable. there's never a reason to beat a child whatever you think they have done.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 3, 2010)

Aye, need to be careful about what is history and what is fiction, Bill.

Now, given what this thread is about that contains a fair dollop of irony in and of itself .


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2010)

Talking of schools and Christian churches etc, this time of year was always dodgy for me at school, the Christians used to think it funny to try beat the Jews up. I think that's where my fighting spirit started up, aged 10, standing and defending myself against a gang who said I killed Jesus.
Although I'm interested in what other religions think and believe, it doesn't matter to me what it is UNTIL they start affecting me and mine. The Catholic church sadly has affected me and mine quite a lot over time.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 3, 2010)

Sad to hear of that unfortunate confluence of faiths and their use as an excuse for youthful bullying .  

It does seem to have been traditional for the holiday seasons to be used as a trigger for mass violence if there was a Catholic school on hand.  It was for me in my little country town and also for my missus in her's.  Huge fights between hundreds of pupils from the adjacent schools - nowadays I am sure there would be riot vans all over the place!

Mind you, no one ended up seriously hurt or in hospital, so don't get the impression that this was gang-violence writ large amidst the educational establishments of England.  There is a big difference between a 'punch up' and a 'beating' after all.

Anyhow, I'm getting tangential here, so I shall be quiet and get ready to go and whing steel around for the afternoon ...


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 3, 2010)

The Archbishop of Canterbury enters the fray.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQWrzPjAEtxgfa_tARqu5413A4PAD9ERIATO1


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Talking of schools and Christian churches etc, this time of year was always dodgy for me at school, the Christians used to think it funny to try beat the Jews up. I think that's where my fighting spirit started up, aged 10, standing and defending myself against a gang who said I killed Jesus.
> Although I'm interested in what other religions think and believe, it doesn't matter to me what it is UNTIL they start affecting me and mine. The Catholic church sadly has affected me and mine quite a lot over time.



I think in this case, though, the blame belongs on the school children who decided to act in that way, isn't it?  The Catholic Church does not condone violence against Jews or anyone else, just as it does not condone sexual molestation.  I am sorry to hear what happened to you, it's reprehensible.

The worst I can say happened to me growing up on account of my religion is that the Protestant kids used to vie to see who would sit next to me at various sports awards banquets, which were invariably on Fridays during Lent and invariably steak dinners.  The one who got to sit next to me got two, I got none.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think in this case, though, the blame belongs on the school children who decided to act in that way, isn't it? The Catholic Church does not condone violence against Jews or anyone else, just as it does not condone sexual molestation. I am sorry to hear what happened to you, it's reprehensible.
> 
> The worst I can say happened to me growing up on account of my religion is that the Protestant kids used to vie to see who would sit next to me at various sports awards banquets, which were invariably on Fridays during Lent and invariably steak dinners. The one who got to sit next to me got two, I got none.


 

Actually the blame lies with the Catholic teacher who told them that we killed Jesus and deserve everything we get, and illustrating this with tals from the Inquistition. She was actually sacked a few years later after she went too far and started attacking the Church of Scotland which has to be said isn't that friendly to the Catholic Church thanks to John Knox.

Ah yes though, the Church forgave us didn't he, for killing Jesus! However
recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur well for the Church not condoning anti Semitism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> The Archbishop of Canterbury enters the fray.
> 
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQWrzPjAEtxgfa_tARqu5413A4PAD9ERIATO1



I do not think that the Anglican Church has a leg to stand on here.  Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, pot.

I did a Google Archive New search for the keywords [religion] church child molestation.  This is not intended to be scientific, but it's a quick-and-dirty set of results that have some basic utility.

http://tiny.cc/9gj0c

Results *1* - *10* of about *4,940* for *anglican church child molestation*. (*0.29* seconds) 


http://tiny.cc/hvnes

Results *1* - *10* of about *42,700* for *catholic church child molestation*. (*0.19* seconds)

Now, it's always difficult to pin down precise numbers of religious in a given religion, but Wikipedia pegs the number of Anglicans worldwide (including Episcopals, etc) as 77 million.

The number of Catholics is likewise given as 1.147 billion.  So let's do a little math.

1,147,000,000 Catholics and 42,700 Google news hits for child molestation = 0.000372276 or 3 molestations per 10,000 Catholics.

7,700,000 Anglicans and 4,940 Google news hits for child molestation = 0.000641558 or 6 molestations per 10,000 Anglicans.

Based purely on Google News hits, the Anglican church has suffered twice the rate of child molestation reports.

This is, as I said, not scientific.  I'm sure it's not accurate, and I would not swear by these numbers.  I am using this to illustrate that child sexual molestation is not a Catholic issue, but it would seem to be, based on how often we see news reports mentioning child sexual molestation and the Catholic church.  The Catholic Church is much, much, larger than most of the other Christian denominations, which are also suffering these problems.

I therefore respectfully suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury consider the beam in his own eye before noticing the mite in that of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the blame lies with the Catholic teacher who told them that we killed Jesus and deserve everything we get, and illustrating this with tals from the Inquistition. She was actually sacked a few years later after she went too far and started attacking the Church of Scotland which has to be said isn't that friendly to the Catholic Church thanks to John Knox.



I was unaware of this, wasn't I?  Of course that it intolerable, and good that she was sent off.



> Ah yes though, the Church forgave us didn't he, for killing Jesus! However
> recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur well for the Church not condoning anti Semitism.



I'm sorry that you feel this way about Catholics.  It might be more politically correct to ignore (our) history about how Jesus came to die on the cross, but we don't do that.  We also do not think that Jews ever stopped being God's chosen people, nor do we 'blame' them for the Crucifixion.  I certainly do not blame Jews for anything, nor do I think they should be beaten up after school, nor was I ever taught that. If you wish to think I am lying to you, it's your choice.


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I therefore respectfully suggest that the Archbishop of Canterbury consider the beam in his own eye before noticing the mite in that of the Catholic Church.


 
I think that was payback for the Pope trying to welcome/poach disaffected Anglican Churches into the Catholic Church last year.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was unaware of this, wasn't I? Of course that it intolerable, and good that she was sent off.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you feel this way about Catholics. It might be more politically correct to ignore (our) history about how Jesus came to die on the cross, but we don't do that. We also do not think that Jews ever stopped being God's chosen people, nor do we 'blame' them for the Crucifixion. I certainly do not blame Jews for anything, nor do I think they should be beaten up after school, nor was I ever taught that. If you wish to think I am lying to you, it's your choice.


 
Why are you always on the attack? You seem to delight in attributing 'feelings' and putting words into people's mouths.
I don't feel anyway towards Catholics, I treat everyone as individuals whatever their religion.I don't hate or even dislike Catholics, why would I? I express the doubts that many feel towards a Pope who seems to want to turn the clock back on certain things which directly affect me, perhaps it's hangover from his Hitler Youth days.
Where would you get that I think you are lying?

I think you perhaps need to take a deep breath and actually think before you attack people, it's one of the reasons I've stopped posting so much here, something I used to like doing but the constant aggressiveness of your posts is upsetting.

I mentioned an incident that happened while I was in school in Scotland in the 60s why would you think I was blaming you in particular?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> I think that was payback for the Pope trying to welcome/poach disaffected Anglican Churches into the Catholic Church last year.


 

I think you're right. The Pope has seriously upset the C of E.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6883151.ece


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Why are you always on the attack? You seem to delight in attributing 'feelings' and putting words into people's mouths.



I am sorry that you think I'm attacking you.  I will do my best to ameliorate my words.



> I don't feel anyway towards Catholics, I treat everyone as individuals whatever their religion.I don't hate or even dislike Catholics, why would I?



I beg your pardon, but it was you who stated what the Catholic Church believes, as opposed to what the people who assaulted you chose to believe, or even what a warped teacher believed.

When you say that the Catholic Church believes this or that and it's not my understanding of the Church, I do feel compelled to offer my opinion on the matter.  That was my only intent.



> I express the doubts that many feel towards a Pope who seems to want to turn the clock back on certain things which directly affect me, perhaps it's hangover from his Hitler Youth days.
> Where would you get that I think you are lying?



When you state that the Catholic Church is anti-semitic and I am a Catholic, it would seem that you are stating I am anti-semitic as well.  I am not, nor do I believe that my Church teaches any such thing.  I offered the statement that you could continue to believe that the Church teaches anti-semitism (in which case I am lying about not being anti-semitic) or you can believe me when I say I am not anti-semitic and neither is my Church in my experience.



> I think you perhaps need to take a deep breath and actually think before you attack people, it's one of the reasons I've stopped posting so much here, something I used to like doing but the constant aggressiveness of your posts is upsetting.



I dislike your tone here, and I'll tell you why.  First, while I can and have posted from the hip without giving any particular matter enough thought, I do try my best to consider each point, as opposed to glossing over someone's statements and making a general come-back as many here tend to do.  As I said earlier, I do not see my posts as 'attacks' but rebuttals, and to be quite honest, I don't see myself as 'aggressive' but as assertive.  I have strong opinions about some things (and some I have no opinion about at all, and say so) and when I do, I express myself (I hope) clearly and concisely, and I defend my points with logic; or at least that is my intent and firm hope.

But what I object to is the implied threat _"If you don't stop posting things which upset me, I am going to go away and it will be all your fault."_  I'm truly sorry that sometimes you and I do not exactly see eye-to-eye.  I try to treat you with respect and decency.  If you choose to stop posting here, I will be sorry, because I enjoy your posts and I read them carefully and I hope thoughtfully.  But I cannot stifle myself because you threaten to go away if I don't.  There is an ignore button, or you can report me to the management if you feel it necessary.



> I mentioned an incident that happened while I was in school in Scotland in the 60s why would you think I was blaming you in particular?



As I mentioned, your statement was a general condemnation of the Catholic Church, and when I tried to offer that it was the people themselves who treated you badly who were to blame, you offered a statement that the Catholic Church is officially anti-semitic.  I am Catholic.  I do not take your statement personally nor are my feelings hurt, but yes, if you state what you think Catholics believe, that would include me.  If I don't actually believe that, I'm going to say so. That's fair, isn't it?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 3, 2010)

Historically the catholic Church is both anti semetic and anti islamic. i think the crusades is enough proof of that.. I'm an advocate of truth before tolerance, but in this case the RC church have neither been truthful or tolerant. The truth in Christian terms is that Christ died for the sins of humanity, if that is the truth then it doesn't make sense that the Jews would be responsible for the death of Jesus and yet Catholics have historically persecuted Jews.
Then again, the catholic hierarchy have historically been anti anything that isn't Catholic. In the past they've used both supernatural and physical coersion to expand their wealth and empire. They know that in this day and age that method won't work so instead, now they change their strategy and rely on sofisitcated PR campaigns.
I think the whole thing becomes ludicrous when a disgrace like Cardinal Law is on the council which elected Benedict to the position of pope. I think it quite disengenuous when people dismiss his membership of the Hitler youth. Just think about it. He was involved in Nazi propaganda at an age when he was highly impressionable. I think the same way about robert byrd in the senate. Membership of the KKK is relevant, regardless of his age at the time.
The Catholic Church will always be powerful, because their teachings have brainwashed the faithful for generations. It's time people were taught that the catholic churches "messianic-paganism" is not Christianity. Sure, they've done some good work and have had their true humanitarians, like Mother Teresa, but even the Nazi party had a great healthcre system.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 3, 2010)

You really are the end aren't you Bill?
 You take what people say and twist and turn it to mean what you want it to. I have never said what I think the Catholic Church believes in at all. I said that the recent moves by the Pope weren't promising. I didn't say it was currently anti semitic, it has been in the past certainly and yes certainly the current Pope was a member of an an extremely anti semitic as well as anti a lot of other things, organisation.  You have read into my posts things that aren't there and I hadn't thought of, you've done this a lot to quite a few people, it's as if you are Mr Angry, finding things to get mad about and rant at people. I haven't threatened at all to go away, this is* your* reading of my posts through a red mist. I just find it hard to take pleasure in a debate when words are being twisted and every post sounds angry. 
You may have strong opinions, many do but they also don't blow their top and see things that aren't there. There's a word for that....paranoia.

I said* one Catholic teacher* incited violence and hatred, I didn't say the Catholic Church. I said too she got her come uppance. I haven't blamed the Catholic Church for anything to do with me, I expressed doubts about the current Pope's actions. Don't pretend that was an attack on your church. 

The C of E and the Archbishop of Canterbury can say what they like, nothing to do with me if the Christians want to go tit for tat. I was merely agreeing with another poster that it was more than likely what got the Archbishop going.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You really are the end aren't you Bill?



Not sure what that means, but OK if you say so.



> You take what people say and twist and turn it to mean what you want it to. I have never said what I think the Catholic Church believes in at all.



You have.  I am sorry, but these are your words, not mine:

_"Ah yes though, the Church forgave us didn't he, for killing Jesus! However recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur well for the Church not condoning anti Semitism._"

I'm not twisting your words at all.  You stated that Pope Benedict has issued Bulls and Encyclicals that reinstate anti-semitic prayers.  Your words, not mine.  How can you say you have not stated what you think the Catholic Church believes in?



> I said that the recent moves by the Pope weren't promising. I didn't say it was currently anti semitic, it has been in the past certainly and yes certainly the current Pope was a member of an an extremely anti semitic as well as anti a lot of other things, organisation.



You did say it was anti-semitic, and you did not refer to the past.  Read your words again.  Pope Benedict, you said, issued Bulls and Encyclicals that reinstate anti-semitic prayers.  How is that not _"currently anti-semitic?"_  I'm not playing with your words, these are literally your words, unaltered, unexpanded, and there for anyone to see.



> You have read into my posts things that aren't there and I hadn't thought of, you've done this a lot to quite a few people, it's as if you are Mr Angry, finding things to get mad about and rant at people.



And again, I'm not mad, and this isn't a rant.  I'm responding to an accusation you have made, which you now deny making.  I'm reading back to you your own words, literally, without twisting anything.



> I haven't threatened at all to go away, this is* your* reading of my posts through a red mist.



_"I think you perhaps need to take a deep breath and actually think before you attack people, it's one of the reasons I've stopped posting so much here, something I used to like doing but the constant aggressiveness of your posts is upsetting."_

Again, your words above.  You don't post as much as you used to, and I'm the reason for it, according to you.  I will amend my statement - you didn't threaten to go away, you said you already partially had, and I'm to blame for it.



> I just find it hard to take pleasure in a debate when words are being twisted and every post sounds angry.



I do not know how to make my words sound less angry.  I can only keep repeating that I am not angry.



> You may have strong opinions, many do but they also don't blow their top and see things that aren't there. There's a word for that....paranoia.



You have yet to see me blow my top.  I've done it, sure, but I haven't even come close on this forum.  I'm not angry, not upset, not pissed off, not vengeful and I don't think you or anyone else is out to get me.  By the way, I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'paranoia'.  It's got nothing to do with anger or seeing things that are not there, it's having unreasonable fears.



> I said* one Catholic teacher* incited violence and hatred, I didn't say the Catholic Church.



You said Catholic students.  When I suggested that the students themselves were to blame, then and only then did you drop the other shoe and announce that they were egged on by a Catholic teacher, since given the sack.  And I agreed with you, rightfully so.

Then you stated (need I quote it again?) what the Catholic Church believes based on Pope Benedict's recent anti-semitic prayer reinstatement.  So yes, you said the Catholic Church.  I can't twist your words, you stated it plainly.



> I said too she got her come uppance. I haven't blamed the Catholic Church for anything to do with me, I expressed doubts about the current Pope's actions. Don't pretend that was an attack on your church.



You didn't express doubts, you made a flat statement.  I would like to see these Bulls and Encyclicals that reinstate anti-semitic prayers, if you don't mind.  To date, he has issued three Encyclicals, entitled "God is Love," "Saved by Truth," and "Love in Truth."  Please tell me which of these contains anti-semitic prayers.  He has issued no Bulls whatsoever to date.

Of course it is an attack if it contains statements that are not true and which disparage the object of the statements.  You expressed doubts, and that is certainly your right and not something I would ever object to.  But you did make flat statements, and in my opinion, they're untrue.  I've been trying to politely make that clear, but you seem determined not to accept responsibility for your own words, so I present them back to you once more:

_"Ah yes though, the Church forgave us didn't he, for killing Jesus! However recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur well for the Church not condoning anti Semitism._"

Tell me in what way your statement is not an accusation.  Tell me what Bulls and Encyclicals you speak of.  Point out the anti-semitic prayers, if you would be so kind.

And attack?  Yes, you attacked.  I am defending.  This is standard, common, everyday discussion.  I am not angry, not upset, I am asking for you to stand behind your words and defend them.  I'm sorry if you're upset, but you can't make accusations and expect no one to take issue with them; especially if they're untrue.



> The C of E and the Archbishop of Canterbury can say what they like, nothing to do with me if the Christians want to go tit for tat. I was merely agreeing with another poster that it was more than likely what got the Archbishop going.



I agree that might well the root cause as well.


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill: criticism of the Catholic Church does not imply criticism of you,  I doubt Tez lays the sins of the Catholic Church at the doorstep of every Catholic.  And let's recognize the historical anti-semitism of the RC Church and every other Christian denomination,  the RC church has even apologized for the anti-semitism.

Let's ignore internet arguments about Hitler's atheism/Catholicism etc.  even if he was an atheist he picked up his anti-semitism where else but from the historical anti-semitism of RC church dominated Germany where he was raised.


Tez: yes Benedict was a member of the Hitler youth, so was every German of his age,  his family was anti-Hitler and he deserted his military post as soon as he could.  There are even instances of Jewish youth being a member of the Hitler youth,  I have read accounts of the Nazis going into schools and declaring every student a member of the Hitler youth, some of them were Jews, the Nazis didn't think that any member of a particular upper class school could be Jewish.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 3, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Bill: criticism of the Catholic Church does not imply criticism of you,  I doubt Tez lays the sins of the Catholic Church at the doorstep of every Catholic.



I agree that everyone should feel free to level criticism at the Catholic Church or at any institution, nothing is beyond criticism.  As well, people should feel free to hold opinions, even those not based in fact.  It's a personal issue for each person to work out on their own.  I have plenty of personal opinions of my own, as most here know.

I am not saying that Tez blames me personally for the sins of the Catholic Church.  I am saying that Tez has stated _'what Catholics believe'_ by stating what Tez believes the Pope has ordered.  A Bull is an obligation on every practicing Catholic.  If the Pope issues a Bull, it is binding on the laity.

One may think that they do not criticize every Catholic by saying _"The Pope has issued a Bull that reinstated anti-semitic prayer,"_ but they do; for if it is true, then that prayer is indeed mandatory for Catholics.  Of course Catholics may refuse to heed it, but they're supposed to heed it, that's part of what it means to be Catholic; one accepts the primacy of the Pope on matters ecclesiastical.



> And let's recognize the historical anti-semitism of the RC Church and every other Christian denomination,  the RC church has even apologized for the anti-semitism.



Absolutely, and rightly so.  And I take note of the extreme lengths to which the current Pope has gone to try to mend fences and make amends for the sins of the Catholic Church against Jews and Muslims.



> Let's ignore internet arguments about Hitler's atheism/Catholicism etc.  even if he was an atheist he picked up his anti-semitism where else but from the historical anti-semitism of RC church dominated Germany where he was raised.



I don't recall that even being brought up, and in any case, I do indeed ignore it.


----------



## Ramirez (Apr 3, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't recall that even being brought up, and in any case, I do indeed ignore it.


 
I figure this is going to come up since Benedict's Hitler youth past was brought up,  so likely is Pius....might as well start another thread to deal with it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 3, 2010)

I went through the same experience as Tez in Montreal in the 60s. I was the only Jew in my school, and because my parents sent me to the French school board, it was Catholic. It was not one teacher. It was institutionalized, both school and church.  I was asked often enough to show my horns. So yes, the Church has a lot to answer for for what it preached back then.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not sure what that means, but OK if you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/europe/25pope.html

http://vlights.posterous.com/bbc-news-outrage-at-anti-semitism-comparison-0


The prayers are in the Tridentine Mass which he has brought back/allowed/permitted.

The prayer in the rite's Good Friday liturgy reads: "Almightly and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."

Jews and Catholics have had good relations under the last two Popes this one seems to be taking the clock back a long way before them. 

Oh and I said the Pope, not Catholics singly or en masse. Perhaps to non Catholics there is a separation there than Catholics like Bill can't see. This is one Pope who worries us in what and who he encourages.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2010)

Thanks for the neg rep whoever!
Shame you didn't have the guts either to sign it or post up on here under your own name, anonymous comments are worthy only of contempt. 
Coward.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/europe/25pope.html
> 
> http://vlights.posterous.com/bbc-news-outrage-at-anti-semitism-comparison-0
> 
> ...



OK, let's go there.  First of all, the Tridentine Mass is not new, nor has the Pope issued any Bulls or Encyclicals dealing with it.  I wasn't going to mention this, but since you refuse to take responsibility for your words, I'm going to out you; they weren't your words.

The phrase you used was cut-and-pasted from another website:

The Zionism and Israel Information Center (Ami Isseroff).  Interesting source, but hardly unbiased.

http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Papal_Bulls_Jews.htm

_"Many believed and hoped that Catholic persecution of Jews had ended in  	the period of Pope John XXIII. Recent Bulls and Encyclicals of Pope Benedict  	XVI that reinstate anti-Semitic prayers and Catholic societies do not augur  	well."_

You took the words of someone else and offered them up as your own.  You then refused to defend them, and now pretend that you didn't say what you said.

I asked you to defend those words you claimed as your own.  What Bulls?  What Encyclicals?  No response, you ignore my requests.  What does that say to your integrity?  To your honesty?  To your honor?  Not only were they not your words, but you throw accusations about and then refuse to even acknowledge the words you claimed as your own.

But let us turn to your newest accusation of anti-semitism.  You link to two New York Times articles.

_"Pope Reinstates Four Excommunicated Bishops"_

In this article, the current Pope has reinstated four bishops who had previously been excommunicated from the Church.  One of them, Richard Williamson, had been excommunicated for being one of four new bishops created in defiance of Vatican orders.  The current Pope chose to lift that excommunication for whatever reasons he has.  However, this caused an outrage among some because among other things, Bishop Williamson does not believe that the Holocaust occurred (he also does not believe women should wear pants, I'm told).

And this is an anti-semitic move by the Church in what way?  I find Bishop Williamson's beliefs absurd, bordering on insane.  However, his personal beliefs are not a consideration when it comes to his relationship with the Holy See.  He either is or he is not in communion with it.  And at the moment, he is in communion.

If the Church had expelled him for for holding the bizarre belief that the Holocaust had never occurred, and then brought him back, I might understand your objection.  However, he was not excommunicated for denying the Holocaust, he was excommunicated because he was made a Bishop in an unauthorized manner by a rogue Arch Bishop.  This was and is an internal Church matter.  It has nothing to do with his outlandish beliefs.

If the Church were to pander to every outside group that demands a priest be defrocked for holding unpopular (and incorrect) views on such topics, then Democrats would demand that Republican priests be defrocked and so on.  The man's personal beliefs, however wrong, are neither illegal nor the business of the Church inasmuch as they do not interfere with his duties as a Bishop of the Church.

Are all Rabbis scrutinized to make sure they don't believe or say anything offensive to Christians?  Should they be?

Anti-semitic?  Bishop Williamson may be, I can't say.  But the Pope?  I don't see it that way.

The second link you posted was a reference to a more recent news story:

_"BBC News - Outrage at anti-Semitism comparison by Pope preacher"_

http://www.totalcatholic.com/tc/ind...stances-itself-from-holocaust-comparison.html


> Fr Raniero Cantalamessa said in a Good Friday homily, which was listened to by the Pope in St Peter's Basilica, that a Jewish friend wrote to him to say the accusations against the Church reminded him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism".
> 
> The comparison has been criticised by both Jewish and victims' groups who have said it was inappropriate to compare the discomfort being experienced by the Church leadership in the sex abuse scandals to the violence which culminated in the Holocaust.
> 
> ...



So a Vatican priest said that a Jewish friend had written him and said that recent attacks on the Catholic Church reminded him of the _"more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism."_

I fail to see in what way this is anti-semitic!  Although it is quite common for many groups to take offense at ANYTHING being compared to either anti-semitism or the Holocaust, if anything, the priest in this statement was pointing to anti-semitism as a horror and and outrage, by comparing the current persecution of the Church to it.  If anything, this priest was saying that anti-semitism is bad, not good.

And now we turn to the Tridentine Mass...



> The prayer in the rite's Good Friday liturgy reads: "Almightly and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."



That is incorrect.  It was correct for a brief period of time (less than a year) after the Pope reinstated the Tridentine (Latin) Mass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1577720/Pope-removes-anti-Semitic-text-from-prayer.html



> Pope removes 'anti-Semitic' text from prayer



The correct quotation is:



> _Oremus et pro Iudaeis: Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum. (Oremus. Flectamus genua. Levate.) Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen_



http://uvcarmel.org/2008/04/04/clar...emus-et-pro-iudaeis-on-the-1962-roman-missal/

This translates as:



> Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.



It corresponds roughly to the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800689.htm



> "Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men. Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved."



It prays for the conversion of the Jews.  Obviously, the Jews do not wish to be converted, which is quite understandable, but since Christianity is based on Judaism, and Jews are still seen as the Chosen People of God, and because Jesus was Himself a Jew, we pray that Jews will also come to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.  How can that be seen as anti-semitic?  Does it call for the destruction of the Jews or of Israel?  Does it ask for God's wrath to be sent down upon them?  Any smiting going on?  No, it asks God for their hearts to be opened to what Christians believe is true, that Jews accept Jesus and JOIN US.  Yeah, that's real anti-Jew.  We hate them so much, we want them to become more our brothers and sisters than they already are.



> Jews and Catholics have had good relations under the last two Popes this one seems to be taking the clock back a long way before them.



No, that's simply untrue.  He's ruffled feather by refusing to bow to the wishes of those who want a un-excommunicated Bishop re-excommunicated (not for disobeying Vatican orders, but for having an incorrect opinion about a historical event), and one of his priests in the Vatican made the mistake of reading something a 'Jewish friend' had written him comparing current attacks on the Church with anti-semitism.  Whoa, there, that's big stuff?  He's taking the Church back to the stone age with that?  Sorry, that doesn't wash. 



> Oh and I said the Pope, not Catholics singly or en masse. Perhaps to non Catholics there is a separation there than Catholics like Bill can't see.



Nonsense.  You worry about the Pope taking the Church in dangerous directions, but then you say you are only speaking of the Pope and not of Catholics in general.  You acknowledge the power of the Pope in one breath, and then claim you didn't mean it that way in the next breath.  It's one or the other; either the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, and his policies affect how Catholics believe; or his opinions mean nothing to everyday Catholics, and in that case, what's your worry about?



> This is one Pope who worries us in what and who he encourages.



Your original attack was taken from a Zionist webpage and claimed as your own words.  You refused to defend them when asked repeatedly.  Your two links to news stories say nothing about what the Pope 'encourages', but merely points out your own bias.  Even the reference to the Tridentine Mass prayer for the Jews was incorrect, using old information and not acknowledging that the prayer had been changed at the request of various Christian and Jewish groups around the world who were concerned with how it would be interpreted.

Now, it is apparent to me that you have a personal problem here.  You say you have nothing against Catholics.  Based on your comments, I do not believe you.   You have made accusations and refused to back them up.  When pressed, you made new accusations and abandoned the old ones, and even they are incorrect.  You make statements that are not only untrue, I believe that you know they are untrue.  And you deflect any criticism of your arguments by calling me 'angry'.

I am moving on from this thread now.  I'm sorry you have an issue with the Catholic Church, and if you truly believe you don't, I am sorry for that too; you should take a deeper look at your own statements and conduct.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It prays for the conversion of the Jews. Obviously, the Jews do not wish to be converted, which is quite understandable, but since Christianity is based on Judaism, and Jews are still seen as the Chosen People of God, and because Jesus was Himself a Jew, we pray that Jews will also come to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. How can that be seen as anti-semitic? Does it call for the destruction of the Jews or of Israel? Does it ask for God's wrath to be sent down upon them? Any smiting going on? No, it asks God for their hearts to be opened to what Christians believe is true, that Jews accept Jesus and JOIN US. Yeah, that's real anti-Jew. We hate them so much, we want them to become more our brothers and sisters than they already are.


 

Yes, it does call for the destruction of the Jews. Once nobody practices Judaism, then there are no Jews. It can be a hard concept to grasp for non-Jews, I know I have to try and explain it often, but Judaism and behind a Jew are intertwined more than any other religion-'ethnicity' could ever be. 
When all Jews are Xtians, then there are no Jews.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 4, 2010)

I write for that site. Tez stands for Terribly Eager Zionist.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 4, 2010)

Well, whatever.  Happy Easter everyone.  Religious or not.  Peace, wisdom and understanding can bring us closer to the truth-whatever it is.


j


----------



## Ken Morgan (Apr 4, 2010)

Hey if anyone wants to join up with we atheists, I got some blank membership forms around here somewhere, oh and its only $19.99 a month, so send me your credit card numbers so i can do preauthorised withdrawals.


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 4, 2010)

Thanks but no thanks for me.  Same as with the beliefs, I prefer to not believe stuff for free, soul matters aside.  Plus i don't really have the cash anyway...
the light shines brightest in the dark


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 4, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It might be more politically correct to ignore (our) history about how Jesus came to die on the cross, but we don't do that.



Then where is the collective guilt and blame assigning for the Italian (once Roman) people who actually did the deed?


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 4, 2010)

After reviewing the last few pages of this thread I want to take a moment to enter a gentle nudge in the "polite discussion" direction.  Religion is one of the few things that many people simply cannot discuss reationally.  Take this into consideration as you continue this topic of discussion.

Also, remember that our site policy requires you to bring problematic matters to the attention of the moderation staff, be that a rude post, PM or reputation comment.  Please don't bring yourself in for sanction by not allowing the staff to do our job.  

Carry on, please, but be polite. :asian:


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2010)

I am going to throw up.  

The Bishop of Canary Islands (obispo de Tenerife) has stated publicly that children are partly to blame for the paedophilia in the church.  This is mortifying.



> En una declaración aberrante, inconcebible y que,  se supone, obligará al Papa a echarlo de inmediato de la Iglesia, el  obispo de la ciudad española de Tenerife dijo que *"hay menores que  desean el abuso e incluso lo provocan".*


This is a word for word traranslation of the quote that is bolded. 

Hay (there are) menores (minors) que (that) desean (desire) el abuso (the abuse) e (and) incluso (even) lo provocan (lead you on).

In Spanish, _provocar _can mean "to provoke", but in sexual situations, it refers specifically to the person that leads the other one in to the behaviour.


http://www.rosarionet.com.ar/rnet/opinion/notas.vsp?nid=49398

Here is the googlefished version:

ABERRANT
One bishop said that  "there are children who want to abuse" 

08/04/2010 - In a  statement that turns your stomach, the highest religious authority of  the Spanish in Tenerife, asked why the child molester is sick? " 

In a statement absurd,  inconceivable, and that is supposed to force the Pope to throw away of  the Church, the bishop of the Spanish city of Tenerife said that "there  are children who want to abuse and even cause it." 

"There may be children  who do consent, referring to the abuse, and indeed, there are. There are  adolescents who are under 13 years and are in close agreement and also  forward to that. Even if you cause you're not careful," said The bishop, in a  statement that riles common sense. 

The head of the Church in  Tenerife, Bishop Bernardo Alvarez made the curious and sensitive  analysis of the pedophilia that moves the foundation of the Vatican and  naked like never miseries of Catholicism, which has yet to answer many  questions during their history. 

Bishop Alvarez began to  discuss the serious problem of child abuse in an interview in the local  newspaper 'La Opinion'. 

The bishop likened  homosexuality to the abuse and, while ensuring that the difference  between homosexuality and abuse is clear, poses a question: "Why is the  child molester is sick?". 

As for his opinion about  homosexuals, Alvarez, despite claims to respect the sexual condition,  again displayed their most critical and said that "the phenomenon of  homosexuality is something that harms people and society." 

For the bishop today "is  not politically correct to say that is a disease, a lack, a distortion  of the nature of human beings. That saying any dictionary of psychiatry  decade ago, today you can not say." 

He considers that because  homosexuality "eventually pay the consequences as other civilizations  have paid." 

Alvarez advised not to  reach these ends "we must promote education and instill the values of  femininity and masculinity." 

To the question of  whether to target homosexuality, Bishop was even more critical, noting  that "you can not leave people fought for what comes out (sic) 

Why not do the same with  violence or other impulses that the human being? "Is preguntnó. 

In addition, assimilated  (homosexuality) to sexual assault, "the person practices, such as  practicing child abuse." 

After the scandal caused  by Alvarez, the Bishopric of Tenerife had to leave to explain that  Alvarez did not try to justify their statements "in any case, an event  as condemnable as the abuse of minors." 

For the rest of the  statements, the bishop refers only to the interview. 

Statements opened a  fierce controversy, especially after some dioceses of the Catholic  Church, particularly in the USA-Boston, San Diego, Los Angeles-and  Ireland-Dublin, were involved in serious sex abuse scandals that the  Church has come to make payments  to victims millionaires.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 9, 2010)

i'm gonna go be ill now

but its common that victims are often blamed for their being attacked by someone (sexual assaults its very common)


----------

