Of course he won't.
-
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
You only see him if he wants to be seen.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
The primate of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Brady, has said he isn't going to resign over revelations he had details of abuse victims, and didn't pass them on to the police. Clickety[^] Why should he resign? After all, it's not as though he was guilty of not forwarding this information; of keeping quiet about it and being complicit in moving priests between parishes to keep them ahead of the allegations. I haven't started this off with the intention of knocking the catholic church. This is about personal responsibility - regardless of his feelings regarding the chain of command inside the church, he had a moral and legal duty to report the crimes. Even when he was a note taker, he was as responsible for reporting the acts as the person he reported to.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
-
I can only speak of the catholic church, but in this case you are obviously mistaking the way the Head in Vatican is preaching, and how the Faith is lived at the bottom of the "pyramid". The message is not exactly the same. I am involved in the church activities, and I don't think I am intolerant towards women, homosexuals, or other faiths. I haven't seen or been victim of organised paedophilia so far. The brainwash you are talking about is past, at least in my area: children are free to think what they want, and believe me or not, you can't force a child to go the church or to believe in God ( which in both cases would be pure nonsense ). I agree that religion has been largely misused in the past, and that some can see it as nonsense. The quintessence of religion is that it cannot be rationally explained, so if you don't believe, you don't believe, that was it. Religions are not offensive. What some people have done or are doing in the name of religion is offensive. Alike, what some other people have done or are doing in the name of religion is admirable.
Rage wrote:
and believe me or not, you can't force a child to go the church or to believe in God
Not. I was certainly forced to go to church as a child. I seriously doubt that many children freely choose to participate in most church related activities no more so than choosing to clean their room. And I am also certain that many adults attempt to force belief on children. Whether that fails or not is irrelevant to the act in the first place.
Rage wrote:
I agree that religion has been largely misused in the past
In the past? Perhaps you need to expand your media viewing to include some actual news.
Rage wrote:
Religions are not offensive. What some people have done or are doing in the name of religion is offensive
Religions don't exist without people so obviously that statement means nothing. The morality of a religion is based on the actions over time of the majority of the people associated with that religion. A religion doesn't get to claim it is 'good' today because it made a media statement yesterday that is no longer doing something that it did for years, decades or centuries up until yesterday. Applying that same philosophy to criminals would mean that every prison could be emptied overnight.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
As it stands, every time a new scandal appears people still don't give a damn.
I think that's a touch naive and very offensive to Catholics. I don't know a single Catholic who doesn't care - yes the church needs to know that such behaviour is unacceptable, but asking people to give up on their faith is not the way to achieve change. Taking your argument and extending it, people should stop supporting ALL organisations because some individuals in it break the law and the people in charge turn a blind eye to it. One small point. I don't think that he's giving his time to the organisation of the church. Most Catholic's give their time to the religion, not the organisation, and give their time to helping others, again not the organisation.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
but asking people to give up on their faith is not the way to achieve change.
Obviously since that would result in a "change" that is a false statement. In the context of Catholics giving up ones faith is based on no longer following the tenets issued by the Pope. However that is in fact what a large number of Catholics in the US already do - by choice. Or if not then I am badly mistaken about the view on divorce and/or the divorce rate of Catholics in the US.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Most Catholic's give their time to the religion, not the organisation, and give their time to helping others, again not the organisation.
Been a long time but I am fairly certain that you cannot be a Catholic if you refuse the organization. Have you heard of ex-communication? Other Christian religions are different.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, I can safely say that I've never burned a woman at the stake, never imprisoned anybody for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun, never tortured any heretics, never raped any children or covered up such an activity, never withdrawn support for a hospital for saving a person's life, never caused an AIDS epidemic through draconian rules regarding birth control, and I played absolutely no part in exploiting and murdering people in the Holocaust.
Neither have I. So what was your point? You are being stupid here. I'll ignore everything that happened before our parents were adults and address your comment about AIDS. The Catholic Church has been accused of encouraging the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa by refusing to encourage the use of condoms. The view of the Church is that sex is for procreating and that they are totally against promiscuity. That is the reasoning for not encouraging condom use, they encouraged monogamy instead. Add to that the fact that Catholics make up less then 10% of the Sub-Saharan population, and around 12% 17% [corrected] of the worlds, and you can't exactly blame them for the ills of the other 90% can you.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
and you can't exactly blame them for the ills of the other 90% can you.
Rather certain that their policies are exclusive rather than inclusive however. Thus they will NOT participate in activities where OTHERS promote the use of condoms. Also rather certain that the actively seek to restrict OTHERS access to condoms as well. And it seems likely that their policies, activities and promotions would have had more impact that just the affiliation of their members. It is their way or the highway.
-
A while back at a Father's Retreat we were talking with our priest about the issue of abuse in the church and how it has acted. He felt there was a side of the story that was not being communicated. In most cases, the main evidence [rather than allegation or rumour] came from the priests themselves through confession. At this point there was an argument that as it was confession it should not be taken any further. To my knowledge, this way of thinking is gone. If a priest hears a crime through confession they may not reveal it; that is part of Canon Law. What they can, and do, do is to encourage the person to confess outside of the sanctity of the seal. That then allows them to openly work and report it. If there is any knowledge outside of confession that a crime has been committed, the current thinking is that the Church should not act upon it on there own, but must report it and request permission to act in place of the police / prosecutors.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
To my knowledge, this way of thinking is gone. If a priest hears a crime through confession they may not reveal it; that is part of Canon Law. What they can, and do, do is to encourage the person to confess outside of the sanctity of the seal. That then allows them to openly work and report it. If there is any knowledge outside of confession that a crime has been committed, the current thinking is that the Church should not act upon it on there own, but must report it and request permission to act in place of the police / prosecutors.
So you have a theory...so at the next meeting... Why did the Church move the priests around? (How did they know to move them?) Why does "Servants of the Paraclete" exist? Why was it being discussed in the catholic hierarchy? Why have there been investigations of sexual abuse conducted by the Church? Why given that in the non-priest population that a significant number of pedophiles do not think that they are doing anything wrong while engaged in the activity would priests be different and thus would confess it in the first place? Or only be discovered when they do confess?
-
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
-
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Binding 100,000 items to a list box can be just silly regardless of what pattern you are following. Jeremy Likness
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Is this any different from Blair sending hundreds of young men to their deaths in an illegal occupation of a (or maybe two) foreign country(ies), and refusing to apologise for it?
Young men join the armed forces with an expectation they may be called on to risk their lives. Young(er) men don't become alter boys with an expectation of being fucked in the arse by a dirty old man who claims to be celibate.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Yeah, I've heard a lot of 'open talking' about how it isn't really abuse once the child above a certain age, how it's just a smear manufactured by Liberals and atheists, how they're not 'real' Catholics, etc.
Well, that's a surprise to me. I've never heard this argument used. Where have you heard this?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm guessing the subtext of this question is that you think I'm not good enough to criticise the Church.
Nope, that wasn't it at all. The subtext, above text, whatever you want to call the damn thing is that the vast majority of Christians give money to support good causes. I'm delighted that you've done the same, but the point being made was that they are giving the money for the causes - it just happens that the organisation in place to spend the money is the church. If other organisations were present and willing to do the same in place of the church, then I've no doubt that they'd be happy to give their money to those organisations instead. I believe one of the core tenets of the Christian faith is to support those less fortunate, and that seems to be what these people are trying to do. Is that such a bad thing?
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Well, that's a surprise to me. I've never heard this argument used. Where have you heard this?
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I believe one of the core tenets of the Christian faith is to support those less fortunate, and that seems to be what these people are trying to do. Is that such a bad thing?
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Well, that's a surprise to me. I've never heard this argument used. Where have you heard this?
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I believe one of the core tenets of the Christian faith is to support those less fortunate, and that seems to be what these people are trying to do. Is that such a bad thing?
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Citation please. As I've said, I've not heard this so perhaps I've just been reading the wrong things.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so. A lot of it is in land, and stored treasures. That doesn't affect people giving donations now does it? I get it - you don't like the Catholic church. Fair enough. A lot of people do though, so perhaps it's reasonable to take the moral high ground here and just let them get on with it, or are you going to descend to the same petty levels as those who want to impose their views on you. Try the high ground. The view's lovely up here.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
Problem is you remove the confidence of confession then people stop confessing. The idea at the moment is that if you can at least get them to confess to a priest then the priest can try to persuade them to confess to the law. If you put them off the first step of that process then the rest doesn't happen.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
I think even the believers can have fun with religion. Two words: Dave Allen. Go and look him up. He was a stone cold comic genius.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
The primate of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Brady, has said he isn't going to resign over revelations he had details of abuse victims, and didn't pass them on to the police. Clickety[^] Why should he resign? After all, it's not as though he was guilty of not forwarding this information; of keeping quiet about it and being complicit in moving priests between parishes to keep them ahead of the allegations. I haven't started this off with the intention of knocking the catholic church. This is about personal responsibility - regardless of his feelings regarding the chain of command inside the church, he had a moral and legal duty to report the crimes. Even when he was a note taker, he was as responsible for reporting the acts as the person he reported to.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
On a serious note, why should he resign? If he has done wrong (and he has) then the law should take its course. It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I think even the believers can have fun with religion
I am the greatest fan of the Life of Bryan.
Rage wrote:
I am the greatest fan of the Life of Bryan.
I preferred his brother Brian.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
On a serious note, why should he resign? If he has done wrong (and he has) then the law should take its course. It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
Wrong. The church is specifically espousing a morality as a fundamental precept of the organization itself. It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Church officials, and people echoing those officials.
Citation please. As I've said, I've not heard this so perhaps I've just been reading the wrong things.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The Catholic Church is an immensely wealthy organisation. They did not accumulate this unfathomable wealth by being any more charitable than the absolute minimum, and I'm fairly certain they keep the lion's share of any donations made through them.
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so. A lot of it is in land, and stored treasures. That doesn't affect people giving donations now does it? I get it - you don't like the Catholic church. Fair enough. A lot of people do though, so perhaps it's reasonable to take the moral high ground here and just let them get on with it, or are you going to descend to the same petty levels as those who want to impose their views on you. Try the high ground. The view's lovely up here.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
True. It is immensely wealthy, but that wealth has been built up over 2000 years or so.
Pretty sure that the actual accumulation didn't span 2000 years. Also pretty sure that at least some of that wealth was accumulated in ways that, one might suppose, that many current members would object to. So hypothetically one might suppose that a moral and apologitic way to deal with that now would be to sell it and use the proceeds to to help others. Versus the current policy which I suspect is that current tithes are being used to buy more even if it is some small percentage. Presuming it is small, say less than 1%. But I suspect it is larger than that.
-
_Maxxx_ wrote:
It is hit the job of any employer to act as vigilante.
Wrong. The church is specifically espousing a morality as a fundamental precept of the organization itself. It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
jschell wrote:
It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
No, no it's not. Not remotely similar. it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
jschell wrote:
It is similar to claiming that a medical doctor should be free to hire witch doctors to staff the hospital.
No, no it's not. Not remotely similar. it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
And are they not to respect the 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm on which the law is based?
Completely specious. First you are referring to an aspect of law and actually the law of a very limited (if not only one) number of countries. And that has nothing to do with the fundamental aspect of the church itself. Second if that concept is relevant in any way then why were they moving priests around?
_Maxxx_ wrote:
it is more like saying a hospital shouldn't be allowed to sack a doctor because he goes dogging on the weekend.
Again morality is a fundamental precept of the religion. So your analogy is not apt because it ignores the connection between the specific nature of the religion and the act. For your analogy to be apt the priests would have needed to have been engaging in ponzi schemes.
