# Abortion Referendum, will it pass



## cremeegg (21 May 2018)

I have put this on a separate thread, so that it does not distract from the serious discussion and many excellent posts, on both sides, on the other thread.

I think that this referendum will pass, the polls and the bookies both say it will. I overheard a discussion in deepest rural Ireland the other day where the opinion was generally supportive. I predict that the difference between city and country constituencies will not be as great as expected.

I do not believe that there is a hidden No vote.

If it does pass, it is a remarkable change in Irish society. I was sure that the mention of unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks would not be acceptable to a large majority of Irish people.


----------



## Betsy Og (21 May 2018)

Think it will pass but on a narrow margin, I saw polls saying 56%, doubt it will be that conclusive tbh. As the campaign no doubt gets even worse in the next few days I think it will goad some unmotivateds into voting Yes, whether that will be enough to counteract those voting No but staying schtum is hard to tell. No harm for some on the Yes to air the 'what ifs' it doesn't pass, apathy or even protest vote is what can make the difference, worst thing that could happen is a few polls more than 60% yes, leading people not to bother.


----------



## michaelm (23 May 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I think that this referendum will pass, the polls and the bookies both say it will.





Betsy Og said:


> I saw polls saying 56%, doubt it will be that conclusive tbh.


I think it will pass also.  Yes is currently 1/7 & No is 4/1.  Most likely is Yes between 50 - 60% @ 8/13 with Ladbrokes.


----------



## dereko1969 (24 May 2018)

I think it will but a lot will depend on turnout, No voters will definitely vote, Yes inclined voters may be less likely to vote particularly with the talk of a definite Yes win. If turnout is above 60% Yes will win.


----------



## Sunny (25 May 2018)

Well if the exit polls are to be believed, it is a staggering result. Especially the rural Ireland vote.


----------



## Andarma (25 May 2018)

Amazing result, if that exit poll turns out to be accurate. I am so relieved.


----------



## Delboy (25 May 2018)

Landslide. Over to the politicians now where the real fun starts


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (25 May 2018)

Well, _cremegg _as usual your predictive powers on these matters has proved correct.  We can now see with this and the SSM referendum that the dreadful failings of the RC church have fundamentally changed how Irish people view the interaction of state legislation with private morality, for better or worse.


----------



## Betsy Og (25 May 2018)

Tight polls helped Yes I think, less complacency. Staggered by margin though. 

I'm not usually one for sewing it into the church, but given the margin and on such a hot topic, I do think they need to pack the tent, rise out of education and health and come back as...wait for it.... a religion! Novel, drastic but the time for mass movement religion (no pun intended) is over. It can then become a tight church of believers, not this decaying veneer spread thin over a country that doesn't want it.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 May 2018)

Due to GDPR regulations, the votes were deleted before they could be counted, therefore the referendum didn't past. At least, that's how I interpreted the bulletin on AAM.


----------



## Purple (29 May 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> It can then become a tight church of believers, not this decaying veneer spread thin over a country that doesn't want it.


Ohh, I like that! Can I use it?


----------



## Purple (29 May 2018)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We can now see with this and the SSM referendum that the dreadful failings of the RC church have fundamentally changed how Irish people view the interaction of state legislation with private morality, for better or worse.


Is it not the case that the failings of the RC church have fundamentally changed how Irish people view the interaction of state legislation with *religious* morality. Private morality has always existed. Religions pretend that they are the originator of that morality but they are not.


----------



## Betsy Og (29 May 2018)

Purple said:


> Ohh, I like that! Can I use it?



But of course, this is the internet age, if you were a reporter with the journal it would be up there already.   Thanks for asking though......


----------



## dub_nerd (31 May 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> I'm not usually one for sewing it into the church, but given the margin and on such a hot topic, I do think they need to pack the tent, rise out of education and health and come back as...wait for it.... a religion! Novel, drastic but the time for mass movement religion (no pun intended) is over. It can then become a tight church of believers, not this decaying veneer spread thin over a country that doesn't want it.


Best comment I've seen on this to date, and I've felt the same for a long time. Only thing in the way is the bishops who don't want to admit they've brought the place down around their ears. Interesting article here with recommendations for Ireland from a priest with experience of cultural Christianity in both the CofE and the USA, and a contrasting experience as a small religious minority in the southern US. He basically agrees with you too.


----------



## Purple (31 May 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Interesting article here with recommendations for Ireland from a priest with experience of cultural Christianity in both the CofE and the USA, and a contrasting experience as a small religious minority in the southern US. He basically agrees with you too.


Interesting article and good points but his hearkening for a very conservative "high Church Anglican" type Church is, for me, a retrenchment back into a very conservative Church. It would have a very grey congregation and would die out with them.


----------



## cremeegg (31 May 2018)

Diarmuid Martin has often spoken against the Catholic Church in Ireland becoming a religion of a small minority, immune to outside influence. He thinks it would become isolated from broader society and have nothing to offer the world. I will add a source if I can find one.


----------



## Purple (31 May 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Diarmuid Martin has often spoken against the Catholic Church in Ireland becoming a religion of a small minority, immune to outside influence. He thinks it would become isolated from broader society and have nothing to offer the world. I will add a source if I can find one.


I've a lot of time for Diarmuid Martin. I think he's right in what he says here.


----------



## dub_nerd (31 May 2018)

I understand where Diarmuid Martin is coming from but I think he's part of the problem. If the broader society wants nothing to do with the Catholic Church -- and with seven out of eight people under 35 voting for abortion, it absolutely doesn't -- it has no option but to retrench. What does Bishop Martin think the church is offering _now_, other than the fancy dress parties of first communions and weddings?


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I understand where Diarmuid Martin is coming from but I think he's part of the problem. If the broader society wants nothing to do with the Catholic Church -- and with seven out of eight people under 35 voting for abortion, it absolutely doesn't -- it has no option but to retrench. What does Bishop Martin think the church is offering _now_, other than the fancy dress parties of first communions and weddings?


I think that's a big difference between what the RC Church thinks it's offering and what it is offering. Fundamentally it, like all religions, thinks it is offering spiritual fulfillment. It thinks that spirituality and morality come from God. The majority of people seem to disagree. They see how there is a gulf between the words and the deeds of the RC Church, certainly historically. They see compassion to mean that you don't ostracise people because they are LGBT or were born outside marriage or are divorced etc. and so are at odds with the teachings of the Church.
When I was a kid I was thought that God was love. In my simple childish mind that love was unqualified and compassionate. As I grew I found that to be incompatible with the teachings and practice of the Church.


----------



## dub_nerd (1 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> ...It thinks that spirituality and morality come from God. The majority of people seem to disagree. They see how there is a gulf between the words and the deeds of the RC Church, certainly historically. They see compassion to mean that you don't ostracise people because they are LGBT or were born outside marriage or are divorced etc. and so are at odds with the teachings of the Church.
> When I was a kid I was thought that God was love. In my simple childish mind that love was unqualified and compassionate. As I grew I found that to be incompatible with the teachings and practice of the Church.


I see three things being conflated there: 1) is there a god who is the source of objective morality, 2) are some things objectively bad, 3) are there hypocrites in the RC church? Seems to me the answers to all three are somewhat independent of each other.


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I see three things being conflated there: 1) is there a god who is the source of objective morality, 2) are some things objectively bad, 3) are there hypocrites in the RC church? Seems to me the answers to all three are somewhat independent of each other.


The first one is down to the beliefs of the individual. The fact that so few people are practicing Catholics suggests that the majority of people don't think that the RC Church is the conduit to that objective mortality, if they believe it exists at all.  
The second is also down to the beliefs of the individual but the balance of the collective view is expressed through our laws.
The third is self evident as we are all hypocrites to a lesser or greater extent. We don't all set ourselves up as moral authorities.


I don't see any of the three being material to the point I was making as it was just an opinion as to why the RC Church has lost its appeal for so many people.


----------



## dub_nerd (1 Jun 2018)

I'd say the first and second are either objectively true or they are not, but it is fashionable to _believe_ that they are not. I guess that's why the church has lost its appeal.


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I'd say the first and second are either objectively true or they are not, but it is fashionable to _believe_ that they are not. I guess that's why the church has lost its appeal.


I don't think that's why the Church has lost its appeal. I think that was mainly due to internal factors.


----------



## dub_nerd (1 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> I don't think that's why the Church has lost its appeal. I think that was mainly due to internal factors.


Nah, I tend to think that was a convenient excuse for most people. Those "internal factors" were certainly dire, but it turns out they were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to. What's more, they were largely addressed many years ago, and ongoing monitoring is exemplary compared to some very shoddy practices I've seen in other public organisations. The church has been losing its appeal since I was a nipper 40+ years ago, before any of the "internal factors" came to light.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Nah, I tend to think that was a convenient excuse for most people. Those "internal factors" were certainly dire, but it turns out they were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to. What's more, they were largely addressed many years ago, and ongoing monitoring is exemplary compared to some very shoddy practices I've seen in other public organisations. The church has been losing its appeal since I was a nipper 40+ years ago, before any of the "internal factors" came to light.


It was losing it's appeal for the last 40 years alright but why?
The internal factors include, but are not exclusively, the abuse scandals. The idea that they were "absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to" is laughable, especially considering that they took the guy who was at the heart of the cover-up and made him Pope (not this one, the last guy).
The other internal factor is the appallingly bad way in which they presented the Gospel, their totally inability to present Christian philosophy in any meaningful way to most members. Then there's their didactic and prescriptive control over how the Christian message was presented to those members. The damage was done more than 40 years ago. They lost their flock because people are not willing to be sheep anymore.


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> The idea that they were "absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to" is laughable, especially considering that they took the guy who was at the heart of the cover-up and made him Pope (not this one, the last guy).


Completely crazy talk, but par for the course in the current climate.



Purple said:


> The other internal factor is the appallingly bad way in which they presented the Gospel, their totally inability to present Christian philosophy in any meaningful way to most members. Then there's their didactic and prescriptive control over how the Christian message was presented to those members. They lost their flock because people are not willing to be sheep anymore.


Seems self-contradictory. If people weren't willing to be sheep, how come they didn't do their own research ... in which case it was up to _them_ to discover the meaning in Christian philosophy. Why did they need to be spoon-fed? The fact of the matter is that most people were -- and still are -- cultural Catholics only. As for being sheep, well that hasn't changed either, as evidenced by the multitude of replacements for traditional spirituality. Came across this great one on Irish radio yesterday, where some guru was suggesting -- I kid you not -- "emotional freedom tapping" as the solution for school kids with exam anxiety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWu3rSEddZI ... you can shell out actual real money to become a "professional tapping  practitioner" in Ireland. So it's not only the RC Church tapping people up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWu3rSEddZI


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Completely crazy talk, but par for the course in the current climate.


We'll have to agree to differ on that. 
I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk. Nobody knew more about what was going on. Nobody did more to cover it up and in doing so nobody did more to facilitate and enable the abusers.
According to Irish Bishops they were told by the then cardinal to report all accusations of abuse to him and he would then decide if they were to be reported to civil authorities. In other words he instructed Irish citizens to give precedent to the laws and authority of a foreign power in the matter of child rape. 
His position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a matter of public record, as is the role of that office in the handling of abuse allegations. The instruction he gave to the Irish Bishops is disputed but he lacks credibility.  



dub_nerd said:


> Seems self-contradictory. If people weren't willing to be sheep, how come they didn't do their own research ... in which case it was up to _them_ to discover the meaning in Christian philosophy.


 The RC Church has a captive audience. They could have offered spiritual fulfillment instead of blind obedience. When people started thinking for themselves they realised that it was all just nonsense. 



dub_nerd said:


> Why did they need to be spoon-fed? The fact of the matter is that most people were -- and still are -- cultural Catholics only.


 Yes, thankfully that is true.



dub_nerd said:


> As for being sheep, well that hasn't changed either, as evidenced by the multitude of replacements for traditional spirituality. Came across this great one on Irish radio yesterday, where some guru was suggesting -- I kid you not -- "emotional freedom tapping" as the solution for school kids with exam anxiety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWu3rSEddZI ... you can shell out actual real money to become a "professional tapping practitioner" in Ireland. So it's not only the RC Church tapping people up.


In the end all religions are just different brands of crazy and there's no shortage of idiots.


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> We'll have to agree to differ on that.
> I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk. Nobody knew more about what was going on. Nobody did more to cover it up and in doing so nobody did more to facilitate and enable the abusers.
> According to Irish Bishops they were told by the then cardinal to report all accusations of abuse to him and he would then decide if they were to be reported to civil authorities. In other words he instructed Irish citizens to give precedent to the laws and authority of a foreign power in the matter of child rape.
> His position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a matter of public record, as is the role of that office in the handling of abuse allegations. The instruction he gave to the Irish Bishops is disputed but he lacks credibility.


Don't know where you are getting this cock and bull. Your "matters of public record" are just plain wrong. Up to 2001 the power to deal with abuse cases lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. It moved to the CDF in 2001, four years before Benedict became pope. In that period the volume and speed with which the Catholic Church defrocked abuser priests went up, and Benedict "required bishops and religious superiors to forward all credible cases of abuse to Rome for review after determining that they were shuffling pedophile priests from diocese to diocese rather than subjecting them to church trials".



Purple said:


> The RC Church has a captive audience. They could have offered spiritual fulfillment instead of blind obedience. When people started thinking for themselves they realised that it was all just nonsense... In the end all religions are just different brands of crazy and there's no shortage of idiots.


I can't reconcile your simultaneous notions -- that the RCC "could have offered spiritual fulfillment", and that all religion is crazy. You're blaming the RCC because it could have been good even though all religions are bad? That's a logical contradiction. Apart from that it lacks objectivity. The idea that the entire population suddenly woke from a zombie-like thrall to the RCC is a popular meme but a dumbed down and cartoonish one.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Don't know where you are getting this cock and bull. Your "matters of public record" are just plain wrong. Up to 2001 the power to deal with abuse cases lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. It moved to the CDF in 2001, four years before Benedict became pope. In that period the volume and speed with which the Catholic Church defrocked abuser priests went up, and Benedict "required bishops and religious superiors to forward all credible cases of abuse to Rome for review after determining that they were shuffling pedophile priests from diocese to diocese rather than subjecting them to church trials".


Right, so in the years between 2001 and 2013 when the then Ratzinger was handling the cases he defrocked all those priests because it was the right think to do?... or maybe it was because the tsunami of abuse cases was breaking over his head? I think The New Yorker covered this quite well.


dub_nerd said:


> I can't reconcile your simultaneous notions -- that the RCC "could have offered spiritual fulfillment", and that all religion is crazy. You're blaming the RCC because it could have been good even though all religions are bad? That's a logical contradiction.


 It's only a logical contradiction if, as you do, one chooses to view it that way. 



dub_nerd said:


> Apart from that it lacks objectivity. The idea that the entire population suddenly woke from a zombie-like thrall to the RCC is a popular meme but a dumbed down and cartoonish one.


 Who said that "the entire population suddenly woke from a zombie-like thrall to the RCC"? Given that you agree that most Catholics weren't really Catholics at all, just "Cultural Catholics" it shoudn't be too much of a leap to see how quickly their shallow faith would crumble. 
Once someone knows that the Emperor is naked it's hard to see the clothes any more.


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Right, so in the years between 2001 and 2013 when the then Ratzinger was handling the cases he defrocked all those priests because it was the right think to do?... or maybe it was because the tsunami of abuse cases was breaking over his head?


Yeah, maybe. Maybe pigs will fly. Maybe Prince Harry is the antichrist. Maybe it'll be 42°C on Dollymount Strand today.



Purple said:


> It's only a logical contradiction if, as you do, one chooses to view it that way


So logic is subjective in your world? 'Nuff said.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Yeah, maybe. Maybe pigs will fly. Maybe Prince Harry is the antichrist. Maybe it'll be 42°C on Dollymount Strand today.


 Right, so 2010, when all the abuse scandals broke, had nothing to do with it? You're putting the "Blind" into Blind faith. More info on this here, with details of his involvement in cover-ups dating back to 1985.




dub_nerd said:


> So logic is subjective in your world? 'Nuff said


No, not in mine.


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Right, so 2010, when all the abuse scandals broke, had nothing to do with it? You're putting the "Blind" into Blind faith. More info on this here, with details of his involvement in cover-ups dating back to 1985.


I don't put my faith in clerics. You seem to be living on a different planet. The abuse scandals didn't break in 2010. In Ireland they go back to the 80s and criminal cases to the 90s. Your reference makes the same factual mistake as you did about CDF oversight, and it presents two different opinions which it seems you only read one of. Maybe you're blind in one eye?


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I don't put my faith in clerics. You seem to be living on a different planet. The abuse scandals didn't break in 2010. In Ireland they go back to the 80s and criminal cases to the 90s. Your reference makes the same factual mistake as you did about CDF oversight, and it presents two different opinions which it seems you only read one of. Maybe you're blind in one eye?


Bad wording on my part; 2010 was the year that so many abuse scandals broke. It was the lowest point to date and so the defrocking of priests around that time can reasonably be explained as a reaction to that wave of publicity. 
The link I posted specifically states that "In 2001, he acted to give his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, jurisdiction over all sexual-abuse cases". What factual mistake are you talking about?
I said that Ratzinger was in charge of the CDF for 24 years before becoming Pope. Was that factually incorrect?

As one of the most powerful people in the Vatican he was involved in handling abuse cases before that. In 1988 JPII said that "The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way.". 
Are you suggesting that child abuse didn't factor anywhere within it's functions before 2001? 
Are you suggesting that the specific accusations of cover ups made against Ratzinger prior to 2001 are false  and if so what evidence do you have to support that?
Are you suggesting that he didn't know about child abuse by priests before 2001?
Are you suggesting that he wasn't in a  position of influence in this matter prior to 2001? 

What are you saying?


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Bad wording on my part; 2010 was the year that so many abuse scandals broke. It was the lowest point to date and so the defrocking of priests around that time can reasonably be explained as a reaction to that wave of publicity


That might be the case if it were true. Show me your stats that show "defrocking of priests around that time", compared to before. I already showed you mine. It's true there was a spike in numbers, but there was also a spike in numbers reported to the Vatican by congregations around the world in response to Benedict's attempt to clean house and his demand for transparency. Are you suggesting the Vatican should have taken action on cases that hadn't been reported to it?



Purple said:


> The link I posted specifically states that "In 2001, he acted to give his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, jurisdiction over all sexual-abuse cases". What factual mistake are you talking about? I said that Ratzinger was in charge of the CDF for 24 years before becoming Pope. Was that factually incorrect?



You said earlier that "Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk." That was factually wrong. Before 2001, as I said, that responsibility lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. Your own subsequent link bears that out.



Purple said:


> In 1988 JPII said that "The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way."


The hint is in the name, as well as in JPII's statement -- the CDF's responsibility is _doctrine_. That does not mean playing policeman to misbehaving clerics. Do you have any idea what doctrine is, or what the CDF actually does? As one of the non-sheep who was never under the spell of Irish catholic priests the way you seem to think the rest of the population was, I read a fair bit of its output by way of the stuff that Ratzinger either wrote himself or co-wrote with JPII. I never came across anything like what you're talking about.



Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that the specific accusations of cover ups made against Ratzinger prior to 2001 are false  and if so what evidence do you have to support that?


Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try, but generally the burden of proof falls to the accuser.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> That might be the case if it were true. Show me your stats that show "defrocking of priests around that time", compared to before. I already showed you mine. It's true there was a spike in numbers, but there was also a spike in numbers reported to the Vatican by congregations around the world in response to Benedict's attempt to clean house and his demand for transparency. Are you suggesting the Vatican should have taken action on cases that hadn't been reported to it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent selective answering there.


----------



## Betsy Og (5 Jun 2018)

Dub Nerd, on the subject of spoonfed, sure that was the way of the church. They would tell you what you needed to know and think.

For a long time they gargled away in Latin, then they played the same match every week... Not v engaging. When I was a kid, Popes visit &after, while the church was still strong, no-one I ever heard of (incl ourselves) ever opened a bible. You'd be told...end of.

So most people are just lazy (incl myself), hate being told what to do (incl myself) & then when it turns out the whole thing is riven with hypocrisy there's a secret delight in giving a guilt free two fingers to the whole cult (along with burning anger when we hear the horror stories).

So, getting back to the original point, when the tide went out on the institution we were left without any attachment to spirituality, scripture or anything that might sustain an attachment to the faith.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> The hint is in the name, as well as in JPII's statement -- the CDF's responsibility is _doctrine_. That does not mean playing policeman to misbehaving clerics. Do you have any idea what doctrine is, or what the CDF actually does?





Purple said:


> As one of the most powerful people in the Vatican he was involved in handling abuse cases before that. In 1988 JPII said that "The proper duty of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; *so it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way.*".


"touching this matter in any way" includes crimes against the sixth commandment committed by clerics against persons under the age of 18. Do you have any idea what the CDF actually does and did before 2001?



dub_nerd said:


> As one of the non-sheep who was never under the spell of Irish catholic priests the way you seem to think the rest of the population was, I read a fair bit of its output by way of the stuff that Ratzinger either wrote himself or co-wrote with JPII. I never came across anything like what you're talking about.


 So Ratzinger and JPII never wrote about covering up child abuse in official and doctrinal publications, is that what you are saying? If so are you surprised?
As for your defensive "sheep" comment; I was heavily involved in the RC Church when I was younger. My motivation for moving away from it was a lack of belief in God. I distinguish between the human institution of the Church and the message of the Bible and the theology of the RC Church. In my opinion the people most betrayed by the hierarchy of the Church are the priests and other clergy who gave their life to doing good and spreading the Christian message of love and compassion only to find that the institution they were part of was rotten to the core and utterly morally bankrupt. They are as much victims of these scandals and the children who were abused.





dub_nerd said:


> It's true there was a spike in numbers, but there was also a spike in numbers reported to the Vatican by congregations around the world in response to Benedict's attempt to clean house and his demand for transparency. Are you suggesting the Vatican should have taken action on cases that hadn't been reported to it?


I'm suggesting that their actions in defracking priests etc were in response to public anger against their actions and inaction's. I'm suggesting that it was a rearguard action borne of necessity rather that virtue and their primary motivator was to protect the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, the same motivation which led to generations of cover-up and facilitation of abuse. You seem to dismiss that idea, which is utterly bizarre.




dub_nerd said:


> You said earlier that "Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk." That was factually wrong. Before 2001, as I said, that responsibility lay with the Congregation of the Clergy and the Roman Rota. Your own subsequent link bears that out.


Fair point; every allegation globally only went across his desk for 12 or 13 years before he became Pope. Before that he would only have been aware of lots and lots of them. Does that change the substantive point being made?



dub_nerd said:


> Are you asking me to prove a negative? Nice try, but generally the burden of proof falls to the accuser.


 I'm not accusing him; I'm point to accusations being made by others. I'm then asking you if you are dismissing those accusations and if so on what basis.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Jun 2018)

Great stuff guys, we in the ringside seats are certainly getting our moneys worth.

I think Purple is ahead on points at the moment. Despite the slip up on the 24 years at the CDF, he is more persuasive on Ratzingers culpability.


But dub-nerd has a very important point here



dub_nerd said:


> they _(the Catholic Church)_  were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to.



If there was any back up for this I missed it. Could shift the argument considerably if we were convinced.


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> Dub Nerd, on the subject of spoonfed, sure that was the way of the church. They would tell you what you needed to know and think.


All I can say, from personal experience, is that some did their own research.



Betsy Og said:


> When I was a kid, Popes visit &after, while the church was still strong, no-one I ever heard of (incl ourselves) ever opened a bible. You'd be told...end of.


Again, my experience is completely different. I also know that around that exact time there were tens of thousands of Catholics involved in so-called _charismatic renewal_. That is admittedly a tiny minority, and it was a minority that were often looked on with suspicion and sometimes outright derision by "regular" Catholics. I think the term was "happy clappy". But they weren't  a negligible number either and they read and studied the bible on a daily basis. Their remnants and offshoots are the only people I know today who are still strongly practicing, along with an increasing number of traditionalists. The "regular" Catholics, meanwhile, have largely disappeared.



Betsy Og said:


> So most people are just lazy (incl myself), hate being told what to do (incl myself) & then when it turns out the whole thing is riven with hypocrisy there's a secret delight in giving a guilt free two fingers to the whole cult (along with burning anger when we hear the horror stories).



I can't speak for anyone else. I have plenty of sympathy for your experience. Loads of Masses I've attended over the years were, and are, cloying insipid rubbish. I have no interest in hearing a priest's golf anecdotes, or other twee stories. If you want something different you have to seek it out. I can tell you that Catholics are equally angry about the horror stories, and additionally have to deal with their compatriots' suspicion that anyone still practicing must be a co-conspirator.



Betsy Og said:


> So, getting back to the original point, when the tide went out on the institution we were left without any attachment to spirituality, scripture or anything that might sustain an attachment to the faith.



Well, at least you have the humility to acknowledge your own laziness in the matter. You were probably not well served by the institutional church either. It is hardly a surprise that when the winds of cultural change blew the whole thing crumbled. Good riddance to it, it can't disappear fast enough. (By which I don't mean the church hierarchy, which is essential to orthodox catholicism; but the old clericalism we can do without).


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> "touching this matter in any way" includes crimes against the sixth commandment committed by clerics against persons under the age of 18.



Being responsible for doctrine does not mean being the trial judge in every canonical case. Bishops are responsible for their own priests in general. See my note below on the situation prior to 2001.



Purple said:


> I was heavily involved in the RC Church when I was younger. My motivation for moving away from it was a lack of belief in God. I distinguish between the human institution of the Church and the message of the Bible and the theology of the RC Church.



Why do you make such a distinction if you don't believe in God? The Bible was written by humans too.



Purple said:


> I'm suggesting that their actions in defracking priests etc were in response to public anger against their actions and inaction's. I'm suggesting that it was a rearguard action borne of necessity rather that virtue and their primary motivator was to protect the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, the same motivation which led to generations of cover-up and facilitation of abuse. You seem to dismiss that idea, which is utterly bizarre.



I know that's what you're suggesting. And I believe some of it it true and some of it isn't. I don't believe there is serious evidence that Benedict was involved in some elaborate cover-up.



Purple said:


> Fair point; every allegation globally only went across his desk for 12 or 13 years before he became Pope. Before that he would only have been aware of lots and lots of them. Does that change the substantive point being made?



The requirement for allegations to be conveyed to the Vatican started in 2001 with the change in role of the CDF, which occurred at Benedit's own request. Prior to that time the responsibility for both investigating and disciplining perpetrators in abuse cases rested with the dioceses. Benedict became Pope in 2005. That's four years -- during which time he made sweeping changes to the processes for clerical prosecutions and for fast-tracking them. So no, I don't think your point has any substance whatsoever.



Purple said:


> I'm not accusing him; I'm point to accusations being made by others. I'm then asking you if you are dismissing those accusations and if so on what basis.



Fair enough. Then the burden of proof falls to those others. What's _their_ evidence?


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> dub_nerd said:
> 
> 
> > they _(the Catholic Church)_ were absolutely no worse than public institutions all over the planet were up to.
> ...



Try here. There was a higher rate among teachers, and among men in general.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Being responsible for doctrine does not mean being the trial judge in every canonical case. Bishops are responsible for their own priests in general. See my note below on the situation prior to 2001


Not being the trial judge doesn’t mean they were only responsible for doctrinal issues.


dub_nerd said:


> Why do you make such a distinction if you don't believe in God? The Bible was written by humans too.


 Because I think that the institution of the Church became more important than the message.


dub_nerd said:


> I know that's what you're suggesting. And I believe some of it it true and some of it isn't. I don't believe there is serious evidence that Benedict was involved in some elaborate cover-up.


 I believe that he intervened in cases in which he knew those involved or where representations were made by people he know. 



dub_nerd said:


> The requirement for allegations to be conveyed to the Vatican started in 2001 with the change in role of the CDF, which occurred at Benedit's own request. Prior to that time the responsibility for both investigating and disciplining perpetrators in abuse cases rested with the dioceses. Benedict became Pope in 2005. That's four years -- during which time he made sweeping changes to the processes for clerical prosecutions and for fast-tracking them. So no, I don't think your point has any substance whatsoever.


 His actions as Pope suggest otherwise to me. His instructions to the Irish bishops suggest otherwise. 



dub_nerd said:


> Fair enough. Then the burden of proof falls to those others. What's _their_ evidence?


 I’m just asking for your opinion on the matter as it is pertinent to the discussion and contextualises your comments.


----------



## Purple (5 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Try here. There was a higher rate among teachers, and among men in general.


The issue is the cover up by the institutional Church, not the abuse by its members. That’s what sets it apart.


----------



## dub_nerd (5 Jun 2018)

Your second to last post is supposition and innuendo and I don't have time to refute stuff for which the evidence is all in the public domain. Anyone interested in determining the truth in good faith can find it.



Purple said:


> The issue is the cover up by the institutional Church, not the abuse by its members. That’s what sets it apart.


There's plenty of institutional blame at diocesan level. But the whole nonsensical and tiresome "rotten to the core and utterly morally bankrupt" argument depends on pinning the blame at the very top. That's when we depart from the real world and enter Dan Brown territory.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> There's plenty of institutional blame at diocesan level. But the whole nonsensical and tiresome "rotten to the core and utterly morally bankrupt" argument depends on pinning the blame at the very top. That's when we depart from the real world and enter Dan Brown territory.



I think you are well and truly in the realm of fantasy if you think that this Pope or the last Pope or the one before him were unaware of serious and widespread child abuse allegations and accusations of endemic cover-up by priests, bishops and cardinals. 

To suggest that anyone who thinks that this Pope or the last Pope or the one before him were in a position to do more to protect children but didn’t, intervened in particular cases and steered the direction of the Church's reaction to the accusations in order to protect the Church and not the alleged victims is in “Dan Brown territory” is ludicrous.



Accusations of child sex abuse by priests have been around for generations. Popes were issuing decrees in the matter in the 16th century. Even if Ratzinger, by some perverse miracle, only became aware of those accusations in 2001 all he did was try to handle it within the confines of the RC Church. That in itself is utterly damning. He didn’t insist that every accusation be handed to the civil authorities in the countries in which the accusations were made. He had the files sent to him so that he could decide. At every stage those at the top in the Vatican tried to make sure that they were in control, even though it was a criminal matter within the individual countries in question.



Anyone in the corridors of power in the Vatican would have to have been blind and deaf to not know what was happening in the RC Church in Ireland and the USA and Australia and elsewhere. The Buck stops at the top; the people with the knowledge and the power to do the right thing by vulnerable children, to live by the Christian message, chose to protect their institution instead. I don’t know if that sort of rot is “to the core” but if it was an apple I wouldn’t eat it.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Your second to last post is supposition and innuendo and I don't have time to refute stuff for which the evidence is all in the public domain.


 That’s a very weak response.

I asked you “Are you suggesting that the specific accusations of cover ups made against Ratzinger prior to 2001 are false and if so what evidence do you have to support that?” You have continuously refused to answer that question. Do you consider that to be supposition and innuendo as well?




dub_nerd said:


> Anyone interested in determining the truth in good faith can find it.



Indeed they can.


----------



## Purple (6 Jun 2018)

This article from 2003 outlines details of the document sent in 1962, with the seal of Pope John XXIII, instructing all Bishops to keep all allegations of sexual abuse by clergy secret and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
From the link;
"_The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... *is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office*... under the penalty of excommunication'."_
The "Holy Office" is short for  Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was called at the time. That's where Ratzinger worked before he became Pope.


Tell me again how he knew nothing about the abuse and how all the changed he made weren't reactive in order to try to protect the Church.

From the article;
_"British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.

He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'

Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon."

"Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.

He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'"

Link to original pdf_


----------



## dub_nerd (7 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> This article from 2003 outlines details of the document sent in 1962, with the seal of Pope John XXIII, instructing all Bishops to keep all allegations of sexual abuse by clergy secret and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.


It purports to do so, but it is a seriously crazy misrepresentation.



Purple said:


> _Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... *is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office*... under the penalty of excommunication'."_ The "Holy Office" is short for  Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and is what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was called at the time. That's where Ratzinger worked before he became Pope.



Those instructions refer to a tribunal constituted under canon law. _Of course_ the proceedings are to be treated as confidential, like any proceedings held _in camera_ would be in a civil court of law. It doesn't mean there couldn't be a separate civil proceeding, or that a cleric couldn't give evidence at one. It simply means that the proceedings of the canonical case are confidential.

The inference about the "secret of the Holy Office" is Dan Brown-esque territory. It doesn't, nor could it possibly, mean that the Holy Office is the secret repository of all these proceedings. It's quite explicit that in the normal course of events, the matters are to be dealt with by the local bishop. The Holy Office (now CDF) has no involvement at all, except to be informed of the outcome. The suggestion that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case and prohibited dioceses from dealing with civil authorities is simply wrong (although I'll come back to the civil authorities bit). If you haven't read the full document, you should. The Guardian article is a caricature.

Wikipedia also has a thorough summary and analysis that is worth reading. It includes the opinion (and _only_ an opinion) that: "There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities". The article includes a section on the involvement of the Holy See.

My own opinion, as I've said, is that the focus on _Crimen sollicitationis_ as a "smoking gun" is silly. And it's really unnecessary unless you're determined to try to stick it to the pope himself. The cover-ups by certain dioceses are beyond dispute, and as far as I'm concerned the bishops concerned ought to be rotting in jail. In retrospect I also think _Crimen sollicitationis_ is guilty of naivety where it discusses recidivism, as the extremely high chance of recidividism in certain types of sexual offending is not addressed. (Though I'm also not sure how this applies to homosexual ephebophilia which is what the majority of the clerical sex crimes were).


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> The suggestion that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case and prohibited dioceses from dealing with civil authorities is simply wrong


Who said that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case?
The accusation is that they set the policy, not that they implemented it in most cases.


The idea that cover-ups only happened at diocesan level and the successive Popes and those in the Vatican were unaware of the issues is just ridiculous. The cover-ups were inter-generational and the Pope and senior Bishops and Cardinals in the Vatican came from dioceses around the world; they didn't emerge, perfectly formed, in a bubble in the Vatican. 

Anyone can write stuff in Wikipedia. 

You still haven't addressed the specific allegations made against Ratzinger, allegations which would speak to his mindset and attitude to such cases.


----------



## dub_nerd (7 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Who said that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case?



You did: "_I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk_". Firstly, as we established, the accusations didn't go to Rome to be dealt with, only summary reporting after decisions by local  bishops. Secondly, they didn't go to the CDF, they went to the Rota up to 2001. Thirdly, Ratzinger himself requested -- and was granted -- access to cases by the CDF from 2001 because he wanted oversight of the abuse issues and to clean up the act of bishops who were failing in their duties.



Purple said:


> The accusation is that they set the policy, not that they implemented it in most cases... You still haven't addressed the specific allegations made against Ratzinger, allegations which would speak to his mindset and attitude to such cases.



You haven't been very clear on _what_ the accusation is. You keep on repeating that I've ignored specific allegations but you haven't said what they are or provided any evidence for them. In fact you've said that _I_ have to provide evidence to negate them. I'd be more than happy to look at whatever you've got as I'm interested in the issue, but not in vague smears or hatchet jobs. Ratzinger's mindset would seem to be attested by his own request to be given control of the situation to clean up the "filth" (as he himself called it).



Purple said:


> The idea that cover-ups only happened at diocesan level and the successive Popes and those in the Vatican were unaware of the issues is just ridiculous. The cover-ups were inter-generational and the Pope and senior Bishops and Cardinals in the Vatican came from dioceses around the world; they didn't emerge, perfectly formed, in a bubble in the Vatican.



I'm happy to look at your evidence for that allegation, but your appeal to absurdity isn't evidence.



Purple said:


> Anyone can write stuff in Wikipedia.



Anyone can write stuff in the Guardian and in the latter case it's guaranteed to be a handpicked left winger.


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> You did: "_I base my view on the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for 24 years before he became Pope and so just about every accusation of Clerical sex abuse from every corner of the Earth streamed across his desk_".


So where did I say  that Ratzinger or his predecessors personally presided over every case? 


dub_nerd said:


> Firstly, as we established, the accusations didn't go to Rome to be dealt with, only summary reporting after decisions by local bishops.


 Okay, so you finally acknowledge that those in the Vatican were aware of all these cases and how they were being handled. If they were not happy with alleged victims being sworn to secrecy in order to prevent them pursuing civil actions then why, over the course of 40 years, did they not let their subordinate Bishops know?  


dub_nerd said:


> Secondly, they didn't go to the CDF, they went to the Rota up to 2001.


 We've dealt with that. 


dub_nerd said:


> Thirdly, Ratzinger himself requested -- and was granted -- access to cases by the CDF from 2001 because he wanted oversight of the abuse issues and to clean up the act of bishops who were failing in their duties.


 You are ascribing motive without any evidence.


dub_nerd said:


> You haven't been very clear on _what_ the accusation is. You keep on repeating that I've ignored specific allegations but you haven't said what they are or provided any evidence for them.


 The accusations are that as the second most powerful man in Pope John Paul II's papacy he could and should have done far more but instead only intervened to support priests who were accused of abuse. Just Google "John Kelly SOCA" for how abuse survivors in Ireland regard Katzinger. 


dub_nerd said:


> In fact you've said that _I_ have to provide evidence to negate them.


 No I haven't. I've asked you for your opinion. 


dub_nerd said:


> I'm happy to look at your evidence for that allegation, but your appeal to absurdity isn't evidence.


 Now you are really being absurd. You've already acknowledged that reports on abuse cases all over the world were being given to the Vatican since the 1960's and that Katzinger saw them all from at least 2001 onward, even if be was blissfully unaware of them before that (maybe he never watched TV or real a Newspaper).


dub_nerd said:


> Anyone can write stuff in the Guardian and in the latter case it's guaranteed to be a handpicked left winger.


 and that makes it wrong?


dub_nerd said:


> Those instructions refer to a tribunal constituted under canon law. _Of course_ the proceedings are to be treated as confidential, like any proceedings held _in camera_ would be in a civil court of law. It doesn't mean there couldn't be a separate civil proceeding, or that a cleric couldn't give evidence at one. It simply means that the proceedings of the canonical case are confidential.


 I strongly suggest that you read the linked pdf. All parties are bound to secrecy, including the accuser (victim)  under threat of excommunication. Therefore only the Holy Office can determine if a case should be referred to the civil authorities. This is from the 1960's.


----------



## dub_nerd (7 Jun 2018)

Your post is somewhat vexatious so I'll reply to it in summary. (Btw, I can't tell if your switch to calling the Pope Emeritus _Katzinger_ is intentional or a mistake, but it's pretty weird).

If you are _not_ saying Ratzinger presided over all those cases (even though you _did_ imply that by innuendo) then you also cannot say that he conspired to conceal them from civil authorities. There is nothing in the 1962 instruction that says the civil authorities cannot or should not be notified.

What you refer to as "reports on abuse cases" are not reports, but notifications of outcomes to the Vatican. The details of tribunals are -- according to the instruction that you yourself posted -- to be kept by the local Ordinaries.

I have indeed read the entire instruction, from start to finish. What you seem to be missing is that it deals with the instructions _for conducting a canonical tribunal_. (Are you forgetting the RCC is worldwide and was operating behind the iron curtain, in Communist China etc. It could have an instruction for its own procedures, but no single instruction could apply to the civil law world wide, then or now). It is entirely independent of any civil proceeding. If the church were to insist on secrecy in its own tribunal extending to a civil matter it would be breaking the civil law. Indeed, that is why it got sued from here to kingdom come when it transpired that some of its functionaries did that.

You say I am "ascribing motive without any evidence" when I say that "Ratzinger himself requested -- and was granted -- access to cases by the CDF from 2001 because he wanted oversight of the abuse issues and to clean up the act of bishops who were failing in their duties". You seem to be confused about the nature of evidence. What I presented _was_ evidence. An inference as to motive is _always_ just that -- an inference. There are no positive proofs about intentionality. If you disagree with the inference then provide your own, taking into account Ratzinger's own statements on his motive. 

Whether you are asking me for evidence or for an opinion on pre-2001 events, you'll have to detail what cases you are talking about. And even then I will decline to give you an opinion as you stated that you want it in order to "contextualise my comments". In other words you'd like to check if I'm some kind of rosary-bead-swingin' swivel-eyed catholic reactionary loon. I'm not interested in getting into an identitarian slanging match, any more than I want to know if you are a church-bashing catholic-hating rabble rouser. Let's keep it on a debate level, for as long as both of us are interested.

And your comment about the Guardian is pure trolling. No, an article appearing in the Guardian doesn't make it wrong, just as an article appearing in Wikipedia doesn't make it wrong. Nevertheless, the Guardian is famous for being strongly left-leaning, while the Wikipedia article is footnoted and cross-referenced and can be independently verified.


----------



## Purple (7 Jun 2018)

Cannon Law has no more legal weight in this country, or the USA, Australia, the UK etc, (or Communist China) than the rules of a Golf Club. By swearing victims to secrecy they forced them to not report their abuse to the civil authorities. That was the practice in all of the above countries. Are you seriously suggesting that the exact same interpretation of the 1962 instruction was reached in every country without any guidance from the Vatican, that the Vatican never became aware of that interpretation and that none of the Bishops from any of those countries who ended up working in the Vatican ever mentioned it Ratzinger or JPII or any other Cardinal or Bishop who received any of these reports?
Are you also suggesting that in never occurred to Ratzinger to ask about the details of any case and if he did then how the Church treated the evidence it had gathered never came up?

If he was aware of any of the cover-ups or how the 1962 document was being interpreted  in any case and didn't act to change that interpretation then he was part of the cover-up.


----------



## dub_nerd (8 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Cannon Law has no more legal weight in this country, or the USA, Australia, the UK etc, (or Communist China) than the rules of a Golf Club. By swearing victims to secrecy they forced them to not report their abuse to the civil authorities.



Swearing victims to secrecy in the context of a canonical tribunal would have no impact in a civil court. You just said it yourself -- it has no civil legal weight.



Purple said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the exact same interpretation of the 1962 instruction was reached in every country without any guidance from the Vatican, that the Vatican never became aware of that interpretation and that none of the Bishops from any of those countries who ended up working in the Vatican ever mentioned it Ratzinger or JPII or any other Cardinal or Bishop who received any of these reports?



I don't think the 1962 document has anything to do with it. I think bishops were too concerned with reputational damage. It doesn't need a giant conspiracy.



Purple said:


> Are you also suggesting that in never occurred to Ratzinger to ask about the details of any case and if he did then how the Church treated the evidence it had gathered never came up?



You are thinking of it as if Ratzinger is some glorified line manager in Rome with his underlings on speed dial. The church isn't organised like that.



Purple said:


> If he was aware of any of the cover-ups or how the 1962 document was being interpreted  in any case and didn't act to change that interpretation then he was part of the cover-up.



As I said, I don't think the 1962 document has any relevance.

What I think is that the cover-ups and misguided attempts at rehabilitation by bishops were so successful that the vast majority of clergy (let alone the public) had no idea what was going on. Some of it was down to criminal culpability on the part of bishops and much of it down to the church's institutional ineptitude.

Here are two articles from 2010 which I think both reflect the situation. One is from The Times and written by Vincent Nichols, bishop of Westminster, the other from the New York Times.

[broken link removed]

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02pope.html


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> What I think is that the cover-ups and misguided attempts at rehabilitation by bishops were so successful that the vast majority of clergy (let alone the public) had no idea what was going on. Some of it was down to criminal culpability on the part of bishops and much of it down to the church's institutional ineptitude.


So you don't think that those same Bishops and priests, upon being promoted/ moved to Rome and gaining offices of influence should have done anything?
Despite the fact they they were running the institution of the Church their actions didn't constitute an institutional cover-up?
You don't think a man of Katzingers intellect was aware of all of this, or at least enough to know what was going on in broad terms?
You don't think that swearing Catholics to secrecy, under threat of excommunication, constituted an attempt to stop them retorting those same allegations to the civil authorities?

I could go on but wow, (to paraphrase) there are none so blind that those who choose to not to see.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Jun 2018)

The fact you keep referring to "Katzinger" even after being corrected suggests to me you don't know very much about the situation. And you keep arguing from incredulity -- asking me if I _really_ believe 'X', and pretending that is some kind of evidence. _*Ratzinger*_ was an academic theologian practically his entire life, and went straight from being a professor to a cardinal. He never had any direct pastoral role as a bishop, being briefly the archbishop -- for four years in the 1970s -- of a diocese with three suffragan bishops.


----------



## Purple (14 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> He never had any direct pastoral role as a bishop, being briefly the archbishop -- for four years in the 1970s -- of a diocese with three suffragan bishops.


So the guy who was the second most powerful person in the Vatican under JPII and was an influential and powerful figure within the RC Church for decades before that knew nothing about the global story of child sex abuse within the RC Church... sure. He must have not listened to the radio, watches TV or read a newspaper either. 
Your position lacks credibility. States of Fear aired in 1999. The Boston Globe's Spotlight report was in 2002. Three Cardinals were implicated in that report. The first criminal investigation into the Mount Cashel Orphanage sex abuse scandal in Newfoundland was conducted in 1975 with a Royal commission set up in 1989 to investigate numerous cover-ups by RC Church and State officials and Police Officers.  Ratzinger became Pope in 2005 but if RTE and the Boston Globe knew what was going on, if Cardinals and Bishops were implicated, if cover-ups and collusion were already matters of public record it is not credible to suggest that these issues were not widely known within the hierarchy of the RC Church.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Jun 2018)

... all of which ties in with Ratzinger's increasing concern leading to his request to handle this issue at the CDF from 2001.


----------



## Purple (15 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> ... all of which ties in with Ratzinger's increasing concern leading to his request to handle this issue at the CDF from 2001.


We are just going around in circles now with you refusing to address any of the issues.


----------



## dub_nerd (15 Jun 2018)

There _aren't _any issues. There's just you claiming the upper echelons of the RC church were in on the act all along. A simple reading is that nobody other than a handful of bishops who should have known better (but were either ignorant or misled about the recidivist nature of the crimes involved) knew the scale of the issue even at individual diocesan levels. When it started to become obvious in the late 90s that there was a hideous problem of world-wide proportions, the church took steps at the highest level to address it.

I think that's a reasonable reading, neither siding with some catholics who swear the whole thing was a plot to discredit the church and, on the other hand, some bitter folks who do _actually_ want to (further) discredit the church and who bang on about sinister secret documents ... and the crusades as well for good measure


----------



## Vanessa (15 Jun 2018)

Surely this is an ecumenical matter


----------



## Purple (16 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> There's just you claiming the upper echelons of the RC church were in on the act all along. A simple reading is that nobody other than a handful of bishops who should have known better (but were either ignorant or misled about the recidivist nature of the crimes involved) knew the scale of the issue even at individual diocesan levels. When it started to become obvious in the late 90s that there was a hideous problem of world-wide proportions, the church took steps at the highest level to address it.


Just me?
Just a handful of Bishops?

Sure.


----------



## dub_nerd (19 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Just me?
> Just a handful of Bishops?
> Sure.



Again, your argument from incredulity is not going anywhere without evidence. You previously referred to "bishops and priests, upon being promoted/ moved to Rome" ... you seem to be stuck with this impression of the Vatican as a concentration of senior managers who have "seen it all", having moved up through the ranks and been "promoted to Rome". It simply isn't like that. The various curial offices are staffed in large part by specialist academics in diverse subjects like law, and history. The organisation of the catholic church is incredibly flat, with bishops responsible for pretty much everything in their own dioceses.

You can look up the structure of the curia yourself -- it's not a secret. Ignoring the two new dicasteries and secretariat created by Francis in the last couple of years there are: 2 secretariats, 9 congregations, 3 tribunals, 5 pontifical councils, and 3 financial offices. That's it. It's a tiny organisation. These offices are headed up by a total of 20 bishops, more than half of whom are local Italians. And some of them -- like Benedict -- have little or no pastoral experience. Pastors of large dioceses like the scandalous cardinals Bernard Law of Boston or Roger Mahony of Los Angeles do not generally "come up through the ranks" to Vatican jobs. They already hold the highest ecclesiastical office in the RC church.


----------



## Purple (19 Jun 2018)

If nobody knew anything was going on then why the 1962 document?

I know two priests who have spent time in the Vatican during their career. Did none of the thousands of clergy talk  to each other?


----------



## cremeegg (19 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> Did none of the thousands of clergy talk  to each other?



Yes but only in Latin, so while they spoke to each other they didn't understand each other.

Seriously guys, you are counting angels on the head of a pin. The church did not deal well with the sexual abuse of children which was perpetrated by the clergy, what more needs to be said. 

Except of course that the Irish people if they had any moral courage would demand that the church be excluded from any role in education.


----------



## dub_nerd (19 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> The church did not deal well with the sexual abuse of children which was perpetrated by the clergy, what more needs to be said.



Exactly right. It was horrendous. Now let's move on.



cremeegg said:


> Except of course that the Irish people if they had any moral courage would demand that the church be excluded from any role in education.



Why so? Most of the country wouldn't _have_ an education were it not for the church. Obviously there are an increasing number of people who don't want their children to have a religious education. But there are a surprising number who do. I personally find it a bit weird as there seems to be more of them than there are practicing Christians. Be that as it may, I'm in favour of the church getting out of the education business as it currently stands because I don't think they're achieving anything. The RC church should negotiate its exit in return for being allowed to operate Catholic schools for those who want them. With their current pariah status I think there's a risk that religious education will be banned altogether.


----------



## Purple (20 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Exactly right. It was horrendous. Now let's move on.


That would be fine if accusations were not being  that he is supporting clergy accused of child abuse. 
I am of course talking about Bishop Barros in Chile.
When _"Fifty Chilean lawmakers and priests, deacons and more than 1,000 laity in the Osorno diocese sign petitions protesting Bishop Barros’ appointment and urging Pope Francis revoke it" _but he ignores it. That was after members of the Chilean Bishops Conference send a formal letter to the Pope outlining their concerns.
The Pope said he was unaware of the accusations but the Associated Press reported that Pope Francis received an eight-page letter in April 2015 that laid out in detail why abuse victim Juan Carlos Cruz thought Bishop Barros was unfit to lead a diocese.
The Pope also said that the accusations against Barros were "slander".

The notion that the those at the head of a Global organisation were unaware of widespread sex abuse spanning decades and even centuries is, to those not blinded by delusion, nonsense. The case in chile shows that not only is the Vatican aware of the allegations but they lie about knowing and they then ignore the evidence and concerns of the Church in Chile and go ahead and promote/move the person at the center of those allegations.  

So maybe we shouldn't move on until the issue is resolved and children in poor countries are also safe from being raped by a priest.


----------



## dub_nerd (20 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> That would be fine if accusations were not being  that he is supporting clergy accused of child abuse.
> I am of course talking about Bishop Barros in Chile.


No argument from me there. The Pope has screwed up very badly in this case (although Bishop Barros has now resigned, no thanks to Francis). There's another case in which he reversed a decision made by Benedict and reinstated an Italian priest, only to have to sack him again after a civil conviction. I don't have much confidence in Francis.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Most of the country wouldn't _have_ an education were it not for the church.



That was probably true for my grandparents. Nowadays it is more the case that most of the country cannot get a secular education _because_ of the church




dub_nerd said:


> The RC church should negotiate its exit in return for being allowed to operate Catholic schools for those who want them. With their current pariah status I think there's a risk that religious education will be banned altogether.



I would certainly like to see religious education banned completely.

Its not ok to teach your children that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God and I (the priest rabbi, mullah, or indeed parent) have his teachings.


----------



## dub_nerd (21 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I would certainly like to see religious education banned completely.



You're reinforcing the conviction I've had for some time -- that Irish secularists are more authoritarian than the church they love to hate.



cremeegg said:


> Its not ok to teach your children that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God and I (the priest rabbi, mullah, or indeed parent) have his teachings.



Unless and until you install your own dictatorship, it is not only ok, it is an inalienable constitutional right.

_The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children._ (Bunreacht na hÉireann, Airt. 41.2).


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> You're reinforcing the conviction I've had for some time -- that Irish secularists are more authoritarian than the church they love to hate.


 I don't think removing the teaching of religion in the context of a particular faith development is authoritarian, unless you regard the American Constitution authoritarian in nature. 



dub_nerd said:


> Unless and until you install your own dictatorship, it is not only ok, it is an inalienable constitutional right.
> 
> _The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children._ (Bunreacht na hÉireann, Airt. 41.2).


I think a constitutional amendment would be a less dramatic path to take and would end up with the same result.


----------



## dub_nerd (21 Jun 2018)

Purple said:


> I don't think removing the teaching of religion in the context of a particular faith development is authoritarian, unless you regard the American Constitution authoritarian in nature.



The US constitution says nothing about banning the teaching of religion, quite the opposite in fact.



Purple said:


> I think a constitutional amendment would be a less dramatic path to take and would end up with the same result.



The fact that anyone can even imagine such a thing tells me our democratic principles are at an all time low. When the State starts telling you what your children may be taught, we will have full blown tyranny.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> The US constitution says nothing about banning the teaching of religion, quite the opposite in fact.


 They acknowledge that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. This State funded schools are not bound to any religion. 





dub_nerd said:


> The fact that anyone can even imagine such a thing tells me our democratic principles are at an all time low. When the State starts telling you what your children may be taught, we will have full blown tyranny.


 Sure, the idea that in a Republic people should have a real choice about what religion their children are taught or not taught; how tyrannical!


----------



## dub_nerd (21 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I would certainly like to see religious education _*banned completely*_.





Purple said:


> Sure, the idea that in a Republic people should have a _*real choice*_ about what religion their children are taught or not taught; how tyrannical!



Ok. I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole with someone who can't tell the difference between freedom of choice and prohibition.


----------



## Purple (21 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Ok. I'm not going any further down the rabbit hole with someone who can't tell the difference between freedom of choice and prohibition.


Fair enough. I took cremeegg's post to mean the banning of teaching religion, in the context of a particular religious ethos, in schools.


----------



## dub_nerd (21 Jun 2018)

I don't even understand what that means. Banning is banning. Freedom of choice is freedom of choice.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Its not ok to teach your children that there is an omnipotent, omniscient God and I (the priest rabbi, mullah, or indeed parent) have his teachings.





dub_nerd said:


> You're reinforcing the conviction I've had for some time -- that Irish secularists are more authoritarian than the church they love to hate.



Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that jews should be gassed.

Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that black people are inferior.

Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that female genital mutilation is a good idea.

Is it authoritarian to say that it is not ok to teach children that they are born with original sin.

It is authoritarian to say that, There is a truth proclaimed by an omnipotent God and I am its interpreter.


----------



## dub_nerd (22 Jun 2018)

Gawd. This is all very elementary but ...



cremeegg said:


> Would it be authoritarian to say that its not ok to teach children that jews should be gassed.



Yes. That would be authoritarian.

Not the answer you were expecting? Any prescriptive list of rights and wrongs would be authoritarian, i.e. handed down by authority. You are onto a loser unless you are teaching an ethical framework that is logically consistent, not just a list of _do_'s and _don't_s. Eventually, your tutees are going to have to figure it out for themselves, not just take your word for it. It's like the rules of spelling and grammar -- you can construct words and sentences that you've never heard before because you learned the grammatical framework, not just a list of words and phrases by rote.

I don't believe secular humanism even _has_ a consistent framework, but I'm open to discussion.


----------



## cremeegg (22 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I don't believe secular humanism even _has_ a consistent framework, but I'm open to discussion.



It was a great personal discovery to realise that life probably cannot accommodate a consistent ethical frame work. Having been brought up a catholic, to discover not just that certain teachings were wrong, but that the central question, "what is gods will" is absurd.

Most religions do not even try. That was the essence of Benedicts point about Islam which got him into so much trouble.

Catholicism used to try to reconcile faith and reason, that was what Aquinas was all about.

Many other Christian religions believe in the literal truth of the bible, with no effort at rationality.

Rationality is a worthy objective, but we have to learn to live until a rational worldview is uncovered.

Shakespeare clearly saw that justice and mercy are incompatible. The abortion question clearly shows that life does not admit consistent rational ethics. To destroy a potential human life is wrong, to force a woman to have a child against her will is wrong. If you can reconcile those for me you might convert me.


----------



## dub_nerd (23 Jun 2018)

cremeegg said:


> The abortion question clearly shows that life does not admit consistent rational ethics. To destroy a potential human life is wrong, to force a woman to have a child against her will is wrong. If you can reconcile those for me you might convert me.



If you can't figure that one out, I doubt you want to be converted.

I like swinging my arms freely. Is it wrong to force me to only swing my fists where your nose happens not to be?

In order for certain rights to be exercised, certain other freedoms must be circumscribed. Therefore there has to be a hierarchy of rights. Your freedom to act ends where it would injure another. That simple concept is unobjectionable to most people, most of the time.


----------



## cremeegg (23 Jun 2018)

If you do not want to engage thats obviously your right 

Stick to arguing the nitty gritty of who in the church knew what, when, about child abuse.


----------



## Purple (25 Jun 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I like swinging my arms freely. Is it wrong to force me to only swing my fists where your nose happens not to be?


Thta's how you equate the conflicting rights between the mother and baby in the case of abortion?
I think you can do better than that.


----------

