The pope...

[Ramirez]

Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"

I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.

Those statistics , technicalities and comparisons to public school teachers must be great comfort to the victims of those priests, and to the Irish orphans physically abused in those Catholic orphanages.

It is so much better that they targeted adolescents instead of prepubescents.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Oh for Goodness sakes.

Look, there are religious and non religious evil people. Religion and atheism in and of themselves are not necessarily the root cause of that evil. There are other reasons, we do not make our decisions in a vacuum, based on one specific dogma.

A short clip by Sam Harris says it better then I. If you’re in a hurry click over to 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&p=2366D5468EDEC3DC&playnext=1&index=11

 

[Omar B]

It's hardly a term I "concocted." If you're not familiar with it that's not my fault. If you want to argue that materialism is a synonym for atheism that's fine by me. It doesn't do anything to refute my point. Communists were motivated by their ideology of historical materialism, which is explicitly atheistic, when they were killing millions of people.

So what you are trying to say is that materialism is an atheist quality. If that were so then only atheists would be billionaires because that seems to be our only motivation you think and everyone else would work and give it away. We should tell all the televangelists, oil barons in the middle east, etc to quit it.

You seem to put all atheists in one box. Not believing in something does not make you act a certain way, it just means you don't believe in something. It's like saying people who don't believe in Santa Clause are always serial killers or people who don't believe in the Easter Bunny are all cannibals.

Love the clip Ken.

 

[Empty Hands]

So what you are trying to say is that materialism is an atheist quality. If that were so then only atheists would be billionaires because that seems to be our only motivation you think and everyone else would work and give it away.

No, he means the philosophy of materialism, "The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." However, not all atheists are materialists, nor are all materialists atheists. The term "atheistic materialism" adds nothing, since the philosophy neither requires nor is distinguished by atheism, nor is "atheistic materialiam" qualitatively different from other forms of materialism. A good sign that the speaker isn't really engaging the topic.

As for the apologetics, we can discuss rates and statistics till the cows come home, but that doesn't change one basic reality. The Church was responsible for covering up and enabling the crimes of pedophile priests. This includes then Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote in 1985 that defrocking a pedophile priest should take more time, and any such decision should take into account the good of the church and the reaction of the community of the faithful. He was involved, despite protestations to the contrary by the Church.

Honest, holy men own up to their mistakes, especially such grave ones. They don't hide them, deny them, or explain them away. Nor do they accuse those holding them to account of conducting a "smear campaign."

 

[Ramirez]

Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"

I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.

If the defenders of this church needs to excuse the crimes of priests by drawing comparisons to laity and secular professions then this church has lost any moral authority and any relevance to modern society.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the defenders of this church needs to excuse the crimes of priests by drawing comparisons to laity and secular professions then this church has lost any moral authority and any relevance to modern society.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

First, I'm Catholic. I defend the church. I do not excuse the crimes of priests.

However, I don't see where it is inappropriate to point out that the RCC is not the only organization that appears to attract sexual predators to its ranks. If the comparisons are not correct, kindly point them out. If they are correct, then I fail to see how they could be inappropriate. I do not in any way make excuses for the clergy who have sexually abused children or those who have covered up for their crimes.

With regard to *my* being able to affect the moral authority of the RCC, I cannot and do not speak for the church. I *am* the laity. My opinions are my own.

As to the 'moral authority' of the church, that could only apply to believers. If you're not, then the RCC is in no position to tell you what's right or wrong.

With regard to 'relevance to modern society,' the RCC has no obligation to modify its beliefs or positions to be more in tune with what non-believers want. It's not a club that changes to suit your beliefs, it's not a business that is trying to gain customers. You change to suit the RCC's beliefs, or you don't join. Pretty simple.

 

[Ramirez]

A teacher, karate instructor, etc. makes no claims to being the moral and spiritual advisor or leader to anyone to the extent a priest does, we hold priests to a higher standard of morality and they assume a higher standard of morality and leadership.

that is why the betrayal of that trust is so much more a crime for a priest.

If they are judged on the same standards as any other secular vocation then the Church has no right to assume a higher standard of moral authority or leadership than a karate instructor.

 

[Ramirez]

As to the 'moral authority' of the church, that could only apply to believers. If you're not, then the RCC is in no position to tell you what's right or wrong.

.

As you well know Bill, the Catholic church tries to exert its influence on far more than just its flock. It is opposed to gay marriage (although it doesn't have to marry homosexuals in its bailiwick) and abortion for everyone, not just Catholics.

It opposes the use of condoms for Africans even though it would limit the spread of aids .

etc.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A teacher, karate instructor, etc. makes no claims to being the moral and spiritual advisor or leader to anyone to the extent a priest does, we hold priests to a higher standard of morality and they assume a higher standard of morality and leadership.

OK, fair enough. I think I've also pointed out that clergy other than Catholics have also had a problem with these types of crimes. Are they held to a lesser standard than Catholic clergy?

that is why the betrayal of that trust is so much more a crime for a priest.

Personally, I don't know if I would make that distinction, but I see your point.

If they are judged on the same standards as any other secular vocation then the Church has no right to assume a higher standard of moral authority or leadership than a karate instructor.

Again, I'm not sure why you say the church has any authority whatsoever outside of the ranks of the faithful. Only believers see it as a moral authority. I would hardly expect non-Christians or for that matter, non-Catholics to see the Pope as a moral authority or to obey the rules of the RCC. Where are you getting that?

 

[Ramirez]

Where are you getting that?

I posted right afterwards Bill, if the Church were to say that for instance gay marriage isn't on for Catholics....fair enough, but they oppose gay marriage in general.

If they were to say that Catholics cannot have an abortion and still be part of the Catholic Church, I have no problem with that, but they oppose abortion for all people.

the same with birth control.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I posted right afterwards Bill, if the Church were to say that for instance gay marriage isn't on for Catholics....fair enough, but they oppose gay marriage in general.

If they were to say that Catholics cannot have an abortion and still be part of the Catholic Church, I have no problem with that, but they oppose abortion for all people.

the same with birth control.

Sure, they oppose it for all people. All a non-Catholic has to do is say 'bugger that' and move on. If you're saying that the church as 'lost' moral authority on that basis, then I'd say it never had it to begin with. What right does the RCC have to make anyone do what it wants them to do? It's allowed to have opinions, everybody gets to have them. It can even tell people about them, that's pretty much universal in the Western world too. Nobody is forced to listen, and especially not to obey.

I *think* what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that since the RCC is in a pretty messed-up state right now vis-a-vis these crimes, it should NOT be speaking in public about how others should live their lives. Well, I can see your point there, it seems a bit hypocritical. On the other hand, who is going to stop them and why should they? It's like talk radio - just don't listen.

With all due respects, your comments kind of remind me of those people who hate Rush Limbaugh and can't stop listening to his show so that they have something new to be offended about each day (I'm not a fan, don't listen, but also don't care what he says or doesn't say). If the RCC's pronouncements on abortion, homosexuality, etc, bother you, don't listen.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As you well know Bill, the Catholic church tries to exert its influence on far more than just its flock. It is opposed to gay marriage (although it doesn't have to marry homosexuals in its bailiwick) and abortion for everyone, not just Catholics.

It opposes the use of condoms for Africans even though it would limit the spread of aids .

etc.

I'm Catholic and the RCC has a lot of positions I don't agree with. To put it bluntly, so what? The RCC is not obligated to change it's positions to be more in line with what others would like (me, you, Africans, etc).

 

[Omar B]

No, he means the philosophy of materialism, "The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." However, not all atheists are materialists, nor are all materialists atheists. The term "atheistic materialism" adds nothing, since the philosophy neither requires nor is distinguished by atheism, nor is "atheistic materialiam" qualitatively different from other forms of materialism. A good sign that the speaker isn't really engaging the topic.

As for the apologetics, we can discuss rates and statistics till the cows come home, but that doesn't change one basic reality. The Church was responsible for covering up and enabling the crimes of pedophile priests. This includes then Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote in 1985 that defrocking a pedophile priest should take more time, and any such decision should take into account the good of the church and the reaction of the community of the faithful. He was involved, despite protestations to the contrary by the Church.

Honest, holy men own up to their mistakes, especially such grave ones. They don't hide them, deny them, or explain them away. Nor do they accuse those holding them to account of conducting a "smear campaign."

If that's what he was trying to get at then sure, I observe the facts of reality, not something that exists only in the mind of believers like gods, ghosts, goblins and fairy folk.

Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.

 

[Empty Hands]

However, I don't see where it is inappropriate to point out that the RCC is not the only organization that appears to attract sexual predators to its ranks.

It's true, but orthogonal to the main criticism of the Church. From what I have seen, no one blames the Church for some priests committing crimes, what they blame the Church for is how they responded to those crimes. In the face of that criticism, what any other class of people get up to is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Empty Hands]

Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.

You sound like one of those extremist Nazi atheists.

 

[Omar B]

Sure, they oppose it for all people. All a non-Catholic has to do is say 'bugger that' and move on. If you're saying that the church as 'lost' moral authority on that basis, then I'd say it never had it to begin with. What right does the RCC have to make anyone do what it wants them to do? It's allowed to have opinions, everybody gets to have them. It can even tell people about them, that's pretty much universal in the Western world too. Nobody is forced to listen, and especially not to obey.

I *think* what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that since the RCC is in a pretty messed-up state right now vis-a-vis these crimes, it should NOT be speaking in public about how others should live their lives. Well, I can see your point there, it seems a bit hypocritical. On the other hand, who is going to stop them and why should they? It's like talk radio - just don't listen.

With all due respects, your comments kind of remind me of those people who hate Rush Limbaugh and can't stop listening to his show so that they have something new to be offended about each day (I'm not a fan, don't listen, but also don't care what he says or doesn't say). If the RCC's pronouncements on abortion, homosexuality, etc, bother you, don't listen.

Certain choices should not be up to organizations like the church to have a say in. Thing is the church seems to have an opinion on everything. Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, etc I don't think they should be speaking on. Opposing or supporting anything for all people should never happen, lord over your own flock.

As to your second point, I totally agree. Didnt Jesus say "remove the log from your own eye before you take the splinter from mine?" Or something to that effect.

 

[Omar B]

You sound like one of those extremist Nazi atheists.

Gotta do something on the weekend.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's true, but orthogonal to the main criticism of the Church. From what I have seen, no one blames the Church for some priests committing crimes, what they blame the Church for is how they responded to those crimes. In the face of that criticism, what any other class of people get up to is entirely irrelevant.

Good point. However, reference the 'blame' in this thread, there are some truly hateful things about Catholicism being said; I'm trying not to take it personally. I'm wondering how some of these Catholic-haters would respond to me in person? Attack me? Curse me out? Or is this just an online thing?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Certain choices should not be up to organizations like the church to have a say in. Thing is the church seems to have an opinion on everything. Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, etc I don't think they should be speaking on. Opposing or supporting anything for all people should never happen, lord over your own flock.

First, define "have a say in." If you mean set policy for non-believers, I agree; but then again, they don't. If you mean 'have an opinion' or 'set policy for their own members' then I disagree. People and organizations are allowed to have any opinions they wish, and as many of them as they wish.

Not being allowed to speak on any topic is anti-freedom. I could never support that.

As to your second point, I totally agree. Didnt Jesus say "remove the log from your own eye before you take the splinter from mine?" Or something to that effect.

Yep. And that would be an internal debate the church should be (and is) having. Non-Catholics are welcome to have an opinion; but not a 'say' as you put it.

 

[Omar B]

First, define "have a say in." If you mean set policy for non-believers, I agree; but then again, they don't. If you mean 'have an opinion' or 'set policy for their own members' then I disagree. People and organizations are allowed to have any opinions they wish, and as many of them as they wish.
Not being allowed to speak on any topic is anti-freedom. I could never support that.
Yep. And that would be an internal debate the church should be (and is) having. Non-Catholics are welcome to have an opinion; but not a 'say' as you put it.

There ya go. It's as if certain religions think all should live by their set of rules even those not of their flock which I heartily disagree with. I'm a good person, an ethical person, I don't think I should have a metaphorical finger waggled in my direction because I my wish to do X, Y or Z that a certain religion may not belive in.