Of course he won't.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
and very offensive to Catholics.
That's pretty much my experience when talking openly about subjects they're uncomfortable dealing with.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I don't know a single Catholic who doesn't care
This caring probably doesn't manifest in action, though. I'm guessing they're no less generous in their tithing.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
but asking people to give up on their faith is not the way to achieve change.
I'm not asking them to do it. I'm merely criticising them for not doing it.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
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.
It can be a grey area, sure, but the Catholic Church has far surpassed the grey area.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
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.
If he's not giving a single cent or a nanosecond to the Church, then that's fine with me.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
and very offensive to Catholics.
That's pretty much my experience when talking openly about subjects they're uncomfortable dealing with.
I don't think this is the case. Catholics aren't comfortable with the abuse scandal, and they are more than willing to talk openly about it, but your argument was that they are condoning this behaviour - that is the offensive part.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm guessing they're no less generous in their tithing
And given that this tithing helps to pay for such things as orphanages in places like Peru, is it such a bad thing that they give their money? What do you do to support these causes? In many cases, the churches are the only organisations that operate in the poorer areas, so should people stop caring about these locations?
*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
-
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:
What they can, and do, do is to encourage the person to confess outside of the sanctity of the seal.
Agreed, NO ONE is above the law and all should be treated equally and fairly. Am I stupid or what?, this will never happen.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
and very offensive to Catholics.
That's pretty much my experience when talking openly about subjects they're uncomfortable dealing with.
I don't think this is the case. Catholics aren't comfortable with the abuse scandal, and they are more than willing to talk openly about it, but your argument was that they are condoning this behaviour - that is the offensive part.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm guessing they're no less generous in their tithing
And given that this tithing helps to pay for such things as orphanages in places like Peru, is it such a bad thing that they give their money? What do you do to support these causes? In many cases, the churches are the only organisations that operate in the poorer areas, so should people stop caring about these locations?
*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:
Catholics aren't comfortable with the abuse scandal
Of course they are.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
and they are more than willing to talk openly about it
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.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
but your argument was that they are condoning this behaviour - that is the offensive part.
In this whole affair, if that's what they find offensive then I think they need to sort out their priorities. They should be offended by what's being done in their names.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
What do you do to support these causes?
I'm guessing the subtext of this question is that you think I'm not good enough to criticise the Church. I have virtually nothing to give. I've donated a modest amount to a charity to provide palliative care to terminally ill children, but that's it. I've done nothing for the people of Peru.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
In many cases, the churches are the only organisations that operate in the poorer areas, so should people stop caring about these locations?
There are frequently secular organisations willing to do the same, if they were given the chance.
-
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.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
and very offensive to Catholics.
That's pretty much my experience when talking openly about subjects they're uncomfortable dealing with.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I don't know a single Catholic who doesn't care
This caring probably doesn't manifest in action, though. I'm guessing they're no less generous in their tithing.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
but asking people to give up on their faith is not the way to achieve change.
I'm not asking them to do it. I'm merely criticising them for not doing it.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
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.
It can be a grey area, sure, but the Catholic Church has far surpassed the grey area.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
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.
If he's not giving a single cent or a nanosecond to the Church, then that's fine with me.
To paraphrase Pete, stop being an arse. The Church, not just the damned Papists, is extremely upset by the whole issue of abuse. The majority, the 99.9%, of Christians find the whole issue disgusting and feel that the approach of the Catholic church was at best misguided and at worst offensive. But you have to wake up to reality, as the Church has. Any organisation that has high level of child access will be a target area for pedophiles. As I said before, to follow your argument we must stop supporting the Scouts, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children, et al. They are involved with children and they have all in the past acted to protect their reputations rather than the vulnerable. Do hey still do so? We like to think not and the Catholic Church says it will not act that way either. I don't know, nor do I care for, your personal back story. But I'll be clear that Christians, of all denominations, have done a lot of good, and will continue to do a lot of good, for the poor, the vulnerable, the needy and the sick. Have 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
-
All religions are offensive. Be it organised paedophilia in the catholic church, the high regard muslims have of a paedophile prophet or the genital mutilation of children in judaism. They are all basically intolerant of women, homosexuals, those of other faiths or no faith. They are divisive and insular, often brainwashing (or mentally abusing to give it the correct term) children into their parochial belief systems with threats of terrible vengeance should the individual decide to leave. They hate change in a changing world, and none like being criticised. The sooner religion is consigned to the scrap bin of history the better, and those that are afflicted should be given serious psychiatric help.
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] English League Tables - Live
Dalek Dave wrote:
All religions are offensive.
Couldn't agree more.
Dalek Dave wrote:
genital mutilation of children in judaism
and Americans. You forgot Americans. But I have no drawbacks in life! (I have to say I never even think about it - it is what it is). I have no idea what it must be like to have a foreskin but I'm very happy without it.
Dalek Dave wrote:
The sooner religion is consigned to the scrap bin of history the better, and those that are afflicted should be given serious psychiatric help.
The vast majority of the human race are ignorant and uneducated: the only way they can understand the world is to follow a god and religion with abrogates them of the any responsibility or original thought or discussion. You will never get rid of it as mythological superstition is the backbone of many people's lives. Yes, we may sneer at those beliefs as idiotic and delusional (which they are) but we are the minority. Just a thought: can't he be done for obstruction of justice?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
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:
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.Your first para and second appear to contradict each other. I can understand that priests are like lawyers, but a crime is a crime and I disagree with the lawyer/client confidentiality sometimes. Only because it allows the lawyer to better cover their client's a**. Whereas full disclosure would mean that a client would have to lie even to his own lawyer thereby making it much more difficult to get away with a crime. I don't know, maybe the Minority Report isn't such a bad thing. :)
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Catholics aren't comfortable with the abuse scandal
Of course they are.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
and they are more than willing to talk openly about it
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.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
but your argument was that they are condoning this behaviour - that is the offensive part.
In this whole affair, if that's what they find offensive then I think they need to sort out their priorities. They should be offended by what's being done in their names.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
What do you do to support these causes?
I'm guessing the subtext of this question is that you think I'm not good enough to criticise the Church. I have virtually nothing to give. I've donated a modest amount to a charity to provide palliative care to terminally ill children, but that's it. I've done nothing for the people of Peru.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
In many cases, the churches are the only organisations that operate in the poorer areas, so should people stop caring about these locations?
There are frequently secular organisations willing to do the same, if they were given the chance.
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
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
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.Your first para and second appear to contradict each other. I can understand that priests are like lawyers, but a crime is a crime and I disagree with the lawyer/client confidentiality sometimes. Only because it allows the lawyer to better cover their client's a**. Whereas full disclosure would mean that a client would have to lie even to his own lawyer thereby making it much more difficult to get away with a crime. I don't know, maybe the Minority Report isn't such a bad thing. :)
I don't think I'm contradicting myself. The point of confession is that the priest is acting in Christ's Name. Using the legal framework, if a priest says he did not know about something, legally that means he did not know outside of confession about something. Nothing a priest hears in confession ca be repeated by the confessor. The big change is that the confessor should encourage the penitent to make mortal amends.
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
-
To paraphrase Pete, stop being an arse. The Church, not just the damned Papists, is extremely upset by the whole issue of abuse. The majority, the 99.9%, of Christians find the whole issue disgusting and feel that the approach of the Catholic church was at best misguided and at worst offensive. But you have to wake up to reality, as the Church has. Any organisation that has high level of child access will be a target area for pedophiles. As I said before, to follow your argument we must stop supporting the Scouts, Christian Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children, et al. They are involved with children and they have all in the past acted to protect their reputations rather than the vulnerable. Do hey still do so? We like to think not and the Catholic Church says it will not act that way either. I don't know, nor do I care for, your personal back story. But I'll be clear that Christians, of all denominations, have done a lot of good, and will continue to do a lot of good, for the poor, the vulnerable, the needy and the sick. Have 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:
To paraphrase Pete, stop being an arse.
Yeah, we should always give religion a free pass. :rolleyes:
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
The majority, the 99.9%, of Christians find the whole issue disgusting and feel that the approach of the Catholic church was at best misguided and at worst offensive.
I do not see this reflected in their actions.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
But you have to wake up to reality, as the Church has.
:laugh: The perfect irony.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
to follow your argument we must stop supporting the Scouts
Why would I support an organisation that wouldn't have me because of some quirk of nature?
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
the Catholic Church says it will not act that way either.
I don't believe it. It has too much bad history and is based on fantasy.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Have you?
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.
-
I don't think I'm contradicting myself. The point of confession is that the priest is acting in Christ's Name. Using the legal framework, if a priest says he did not know about something, legally that means he did not know outside of confession about something. Nothing a priest hears in confession ca be repeated by the confessor. The big change is that the confessor should encourage the penitent to make mortal amends.
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 paraphrase Pete, stop being an arse.
Yeah, we should always give religion a free pass. :rolleyes:
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
The majority, the 99.9%, of Christians find the whole issue disgusting and feel that the approach of the Catholic church was at best misguided and at worst offensive.
I do not see this reflected in their actions.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
But you have to wake up to reality, as the Church has.
:laugh: The perfect irony.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
to follow your argument we must stop supporting the Scouts
Why would I support an organisation that wouldn't have me because of some quirk of nature?
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
the Catholic Church says it will not act that way either.
I don't believe it. It has too much bad history and is based on fantasy.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Have you?
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.
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
-
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:
Neither have I. So what was your point?
You accused me of failing to be a good person, with the implication being that the Church is better than me. But I haven't committed the atrocities that the Church has.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
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.
An incredibly insidious view, and totally out-of-touch. They're encouraging the deaths of people who do not live up to their ridiculous ideals.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
and you can't exactly blame them for the ills of the other 90% can you.
I don't blame them for problems they have had no hand in.
-
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.
-
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.
ChrisElston wrote:
the priest can try to persuade them to confess to the law.
Does that really happen? Ever?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
ChrisElston wrote:
the priest can try to persuade them to confess to the law.
Does that really happen? Ever?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
What they can, and do, do is to encourage the person to confess outside of the sanctity of the seal.
Agreed, NO ONE is above the law and all should be treated equally and fairly. Am I stupid or what?, this will never happen.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
Quote:
NO ONE is above the law
I'm pretty sure Steven Seagal is.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
I'm pretty sure Steven Seagal is.
No only Chuck Norris!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
ryanb31 wrote:
I'm pretty sure Steven Seagal is.
No only Chuck Norris!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
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
