# Paedophilia = Friendship that crossed a line?



## dereko1969 (6 Sep 2012)

I am struggling to understand how in the 1990's a bishop could really believe this. It's not like it was the 1950's (obviously not an excuse for it happening then either) but is the man delusional, stupid or dangerous?

IT: 
*[broken link removed]*



> It is risible for the Bishop of Clonfert John Kirby to expect people  to believe that in the 1990s he saw the sexual abuse of a minor by a  priest in his diocese “as a friendship that crossed a boundary line”. He  then just moved the accused priest to another parish. He did so where a  second similarly accused priest was concerned there, too.
> 
> It is  beyond belief that anyone in Ireland would have thought, in the early  1990s or beforehand, that sexual abuse/interference with a child by an  adult was anything other than wrong. That a bishop did not do so,  particularly where a priest was concerned, belongs to the realms of  fantasy.
> 
> That alone renders meaningless Bishop Kirby’s  “if-I-knew-then-what-I-know-now” apology yesterday. It was merely  repetition of an all-too-empty formula employed by senior Catholic  Church figures caught in sticky situations and with which we have become  mind-numbingly familiar.


----------



## Knuttell (6 Sep 2012)

Pedophilia a friendship that crossed a line...words really fail me,its time to start locking these bishops up, they are unfit not only for the role they occupy but as members of the Human race.


----------



## Shawady (6 Sep 2012)

Is the bishop still active in the church i.e. does he take part in confirmations etc?


----------



## truthseeker (6 Sep 2012)

dereko1969 said:


> I am struggling to understand how in the 1990's a bishop could really believe this. It's not like it was the 1950's (obviously not an excuse for it happening then either) but is the man delusional, stupid or dangerous?



I do not believe for a minute that the bishop in question really believed this. What I do find plausible is that saying 'I just thought it was friendship that crossed a line' is a way of taking no responsibility for the fact that a child was being abused and he knew about it. Perhaps if he thought it was just friendship crossing a line then it was ok that he did nothing about it to protect the child - in his delusional mind.


----------



## DrMoriarty (6 Sep 2012)

I don't believe any of the church hierarchy are delusional or stupid. Just dangerous.


----------



## The_Banker (6 Sep 2012)

Yet they hold a place of importantance in Irish society... Run our schools and indoctrinate our children....

WHY????


----------



## delgirl (6 Sep 2012)

The catholic church is just like any other religious cult, the leaders of which use their power and influence to abuse their vulnerable followers.

Running the schools ensures a steady supply of brain-washed children and prohibiting contraception keeps the church's numbers up.


----------



## T McGibney (6 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> Running the schools ensures a steady supply of brain-washed children and *prohibiting contraception* keeps the church's numbers up.



So nobody in Ireland uses contraception?


----------



## MrMan (6 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> The catholic church is just like any other religious cult, the leaders of which use their power and influence to abuse their vulnerable followers.
> 
> Running the schools ensures a steady supply of brain-washed children and prohibiting contraception keeps the church's numbers up.



You haven't been down to any schools in a whille then I take it, as for contraception, I don't think the churches views hold much weight on your average night out.


----------



## mathepac (6 Sep 2012)

I heard the interviews on the news and was incredulous that someone so high up the hierarchy could be so unfeeling towards the little children these monsters abused and so dismissive of the  laity that he seemed to have no shame in expecting listeners to the interview to believe the arrant nonsense he came out with. The man is a disgrace.

"Kicking Bishop Brennan Up the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language" ah yes Ted if only we could kick all of them.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory bit about schools, brainwashing and ready source of kids to abuse. To be fair, the church established schools in their own parish communities on church land when no-one in central or local government had the will or where-with-all to do it. Fair play is good sport, that was a job that would never have been done except for a few go-ahead priests and their parish councils.


----------



## Shawady (7 Sep 2012)

Our child goes to a school that is not run by the RC church. It is only starting to dawn on friends and family he will not be making communion.
Most of the reaction has been negative, which is strange because most of them don't see the inside of a church from one year to the next.
I just find it interesting the even though many people knock the RC church they still go along with the traditions it holds.


----------



## Newbie! (7 Sep 2012)

DrMoriarty said:


> I don't believe any of the church hierarchy are delusional or stupid. Just dangerous.


 
Absolutely agreed. For years we have underestimated the calculated and underhand measures taken by members of the church.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Sep 2012)

Shawady said:


> Our child goes to a school that is not run by the RC church. It is only starting to dawn on friends and family he will not be making communion.
> Most of the reaction has been negative, which is strange because most of them don't see the inside of a church from one year to the next.
> I just find it interesting the even though many people knock the RC church they still go along with the traditions it holds.


 
Heard a great expression lately "belonging but not believing" and another "culturally catholic". Most of us not part of another religion are, at a minimum, culturally catholic. We want baptism, communion, confirmation, wedding, funeral. All social/family occasions. Mass, confession etc are a bit "meh"  (I'm more or less in this category as well in case anyone thinks I'm giving out).

Maybe its hypocrisy (though harmless), but I want my children to go through the motions of catholicism, give us a few days out, and who knows it might mean something big to them in the long run. I dont see it so much as brainwashing, maybe "innoculation" as the many many more dangerous religions out there. I also want a catholic funeral.

The more devoutely religious people are getting the hump about this a la cart attitude - yer man Archbishop (?) Martin in Dublin, in a newspaper article last year, more or less said that the non devout should hump off and stop wasting everyones time. I've personally heard pastoral council people saying the cultural catholic people shouldnt be given a baptism for their kids (and there was also talk about no funerals for them) - while this is obviously a minority and slightly extreme view it just shows the divergence in attitudes. I myself think we should leave the judging the almighty & not deny anyone access to the sacrements/rituals.

As a matter of interest - I presume there would be nothing to stop your child making their first communion, if they so wanted, albeit that it doesnt happen in their school? I also think we should move to Sunday school and break the link between school preparation for communtion & confirmation.


----------



## truthseeker (7 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> I dont see it so much as brainwashing, maybe "innoculation" as the many many more dangerous religions out there.



Interesting line of thought. I cant really see whats more dangerous than teaching people to believe in an all knowing all seeing supernatural sky god whose presence can never be ascertained and who frowns heavily on and sends you to be tortured for the rest of eternity of you have sex outside of marriage, are gay, use contraception, covet your neighbours wife or break any of the other rules that control your sex life!


----------



## T McGibney (7 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Interesting line of thought. I cant really see whats more dangerous than teaching people to believe in an all knowing all seeing supernatural sky god whose presence can never be ascertained and who frowns heavily on and sends you to be tortured for the rest of eternity of you have sex outside of marriage, are gay, use contraception, covet your neighbours wife or break any of the other rules that control your sex life!



You should be proud of this most enlightened statement, positively exuding  warmth, respect and tolerance.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Interesting line of thought. I cant really see whats more dangerous than teaching people to believe in an all knowing all seeing supernatural sky god whose presence can never be ascertained and who frowns heavily on and sends you to be tortured for the rest of eternity of you have sex outside of marriage, are gay, use contraception, covet your neighbours wife or break any of the other rules that control your sex life!


 
Hey, its all relative, the competitors might want you to join a commune, wife swap, give them all your money, convince you they are god, tell you the end of the world is coming and posion you in a cave. Christian religions in the modern world are, in general, a force for good - the "established religions" are less likely to do any of the things I listed above - just be careful with your kids around them (or any other adults for that matter!!!).

Learning about a forgiving Christ, the love of God, the 10 commandments, the hope of an afterlife (& sure a bit of fear of hell may be no harm), the virtue in doing good deeds, charity, believing in community, in humility, in forgiveness  - thats all good stuff IMHO and if more of us took some heed of it there world might be a tiny bit better. 

Just never check your brain at the door and use your own judgment (which would take care of issues like contraception). So I dont think a catholic upbringing, to "culturally catholic" parents (i.e. who can discern whats "for the birds" and dont burden their children with it), is a damaging scenario.


----------



## delgirl (7 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Christian religions in the modern world are, in general, a force for good - the "established religions" are less likely to do any of the things I listed above - just be careful with your kids around them (or any other adults for that matter!!!).


For teaching faith contrary to the teaching of the Church of Rome, history records the martyrdom of more than *100 million people.*



Betsy Og said:


> Learning about a forgiving Christ, the love of God, the 10 commandments, the hope of an afterlife (& sure a bit of fear of hell may be no harm), the virtue in doing good deeds, charity, believing in community, in humility, in forgiveness - thats all good stuff IMHO and if more of us took some heed of it there world might be a tiny bit better.


The thing is you don't have to be a Christian / Catholic to be a good, decent human being with all of the above qualities. 

I know lots of people who don't believe in the mumbo jumbo and rituals associated with organised religion and who are fantastic, honest, decent human beings. I also know so called devout christians and catholics who steal, lie, cheat and have statues of the Virgin Mary in every room of their home.

Millions of people around the world have been brainwashed with rosaries, scapulars, candles, incense, image worship, miracles, moving statues, solid blood of the saints that turns to liquid conveniently for processions each year, etc.


----------



## truthseeker (7 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> You should be proud of this most enlightened statement, positively exuding  warmth, respect and tolerance.



Did I say anything untrue? Did I say people shouldnt believe it? 
Do you think its warm, respectful and tolerant to teach people that homosexuality is sinful?


----------



## delgirl (7 Sep 2012)

mathepac said:


> I heard the interviews on the news and was incredulous that someone so high up the hierarchy could be so unfeeling towards the little children these monsters abused and so dismissive of the laity that he seemed to have no shame in expecting listeners to the interview to believe the arrant nonsense he came out with. The man is a disgrace.
> 
> I don't buy the conspiracy theory bit about schools, brainwashing and ready source of kids to abuse.


It is well known that some paedophiles choose careers such as teachers, sports coaches etc. to gain access to children.  Priests are no different - the Catholic Church provides them with Authority, Secrecy and Protection!

*Authority:* Priests are powerful figures in their communities;  in their parishioners’ minds they hold the keys to salvation. Priests are (or used to be) trusted implicitly. Catholic children are taught to respect and trust priests, giving them absolute power over the children in their care. 

*Secrecy:* In the Catholic Church the principal path to forgiveness depends upon secrecy.  The “seal of the confessional” means that anyone can get away with anything and still be forgiven by confessing to a priest in charge. And, most damning in my opinion, official church policy, until the lawsuits started, was to keep quiet about the paedophiles and to transfer sexual predators to new parishes without any warnings to their next potential victims.

* Protection:* When sexual abuse by clergy of, not only children, but also vulnerable adults, who were supposedly under their pastoral care, started to be reported to the Vatican; a prominent cardinal formulated the policy of suppressing the facts, bribing  the victims  (“settlements”) not to make reports of criminal activity, and ferrying the predators to new parishes whenever they were reported. 

This man, Cardinal Ratzinger, is now the Pope.


----------



## MrMan (7 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> It is well known that some paedophiles choose careers such as teachers, sports coaches etc. to gain access to children.  Priests are no different - the Catholic Church provides them with Authority, Secrecy and Protection!
> 
> *Authority:* Priests are powerful figures in their communities;  in their parishioners’ minds they hold the keys to salvation. Priests are (or used to be) trusted implicitly. Catholic children are taught to respect and trust priests, giving them absolute power over the children in their care.
> 
> ...



*Authority:*
No right minded person gives anyone absolute power over their child.  

*Secrecy:*
It's not that simple, and to be forgiven you might have to own up to  authorities, but either way do you think that someone capable of abusing  a child stops to think about absolution?

*Protection:*
This is really the area that the church has to answer and may struggle to recover from if it ever is to last


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Sep 2012)

[Any of ye have problems with being logged out when replying?? - did a detailed reply to Delgirl below that I havent the heart to retype. What follows is the short version, if you can believe that]

Delgirl - what happened 100's of years ago not relevant to the experience of a child having a christian upbringing in 2012.

One mans "brainswashed" is anothers "choosing to believe" or "having faith". Of those following mainstream christian religion - they are not being exploited, what harm is their religion doing to them?, none, those with faith feel its quite a force for good in their life.

Yes there are hyprocites, no religion has a monopoly on good or being the one true faith (yes, I know the catholic church's assertion), and you could be all good things without knowing anything of religion.

My point is that social problems getting worse, feral kids and dis-interested parents, christian religions are a source of good in helping to provide a 'moral compass'.

Re my own kids, I have no wish to pass on my cynicism re religion to them or make them the expression of my disgruntlement with the catholic church - catholic teachings will do them no harm at all, and we're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## delgirl (7 Sep 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Any of ye have problems with being logged out when replying?? - did a detailed reply to Delgirl below that I havent the heart to retype. What follows is the short version, if you can believe that.


Yes, if it's a long post, it's better to compose it in Word and paste it in. Or maybe it was a sign from above? 



Betsy Og said:


> Re my own kids, I have no wish to pass on my cynicism re religion to them or make them the expression of my disgruntlement with the catholic church - *catholic teachings will do them no harm at all*


So it's ok for children to be taught that Catholicism is the only way and everyone else is wrong. It's ok to teach them that gay people will go to hell, it's ok to teach them that a priest can repeatedly sexually assault a vulnerable child, destroy their life and not suffer any consequences?

My son went to a non-denominational school and is a lovely, open-minded young man who does not descriminate against others who believe in organised religion or are homosexual, etc.

IMHO, forcing a child to embrace a set of beliefs they cannot yet fully understand is just wrong. Childhood should be a religion-free zone. Let them figure it out when they're ready. Religious instruction in schools should be limited to something along the lines of, "All religions are of value to those who follow them. As such, all are equally worthy of respect. Next subject."


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> So it's ok for children to be taught that Catholicism is the only way and everyone else is wrong. It's ok to teach them that gay people will go to hell, it's ok to teach them that a priest can repeatedly sexually assault a vulnerable child, destroy their life and not suffer any consequences?
> 
> 
> IMHO it's better to allow kids to grow up with a knowledge of all the world's religions and to allow them to choose what they want to believe, if anything, when their brain is sufficiently developed to do so and not to try to indoctrinate them with any particular beliefs or superstitions when they can't possible understand it.


 
Stop the lights, you're dont honestly believer thats what's being taught? I can recall the tune of "Love one another as I have loved you, this is what our saviour told his 12 friends to do" - thats about as moralistic as it gets. I dont think its actually church teaching to repeatedly assault children.... Nor is gay bashing part of the cirriculum.

You are definitely projecting your anger with the church onto the national school system - is every teacher an evil drone of the worst elements of the catholic church??? 

I just think that the whole "let them pick their own religion" thing nearly puts them at more risk of getting into the more looney stuff - your average catholic knows there's no great magic in religion and you nod to the most of it and throw your eyes up to heaven (ironically) at the fruitier bits. Whereas if you've no experience of any religion, could you be at more risk of falling into a more extreme version (thats kinda what I meant by innoculation).


----------



## mathepac (7 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> It is well known that some paedophiles choose careers such as teachers, sports coaches etc. to gain access to children.  ...


Let me stop you right there. When someone tries to tell me "it is  well-known that ..." I suddenly lose all interest in what they have to say. It is not a well-known fact to me nor maybe, even to others. Perhaps you have some evidential grounds for supporting your *belief* as distinct from "*well known fact*" but I don't


delgirl said:


> ... Priests are no different - the Catholic Church provides them with Authority, Secrecy and Protection! ...


So if I read right, you allege that priests and  paedophiles are analogous and priests are only different from non-priest  paedophiles because they have church backing? I'm sorry but I cannot make that logical leap; it just doesn't add up for me.

Maybe commenting on my actual post would help keep you away from your apparent need to have an anti-church tirade.


----------



## Guest105 (7 Sep 2012)

mathepac said:


> Let me stop you right there. When someone tries to tell me "it is well-known that ..." I suddenly lose all interest in what they have to say. It is not a well-known fact to me nor maybe, even to others. Perhaps you have some evidential grounds for supporting your *belief* as distinct from "*well known fact*" but I don't
> So if I read right, you allege that priests and paedophiles are analogous and priests are only different from non-priest paedophiles because they have church backing? I'm sorry but I cannot make that logical leap; it just doesn't add up for me.
> 
> Maybe commenting on my actual post would help keep you away from your apparent need to have an anti-church tirade.


 

I think what the Delgirl meant to say was that many paedophiles are attracted to professions or jobs where they have what they say in academic terms _'easy access to the prey'_ that is why you often read in media reports how social workers, priests, guards, teachers, estate agents, judges etc are convicted of paedophilia, sickening but true often the higher up the academic scale the higher the abuse.


----------



## Guest105 (7 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> IMHO, forcing a child to embrace a set of beliefs they cannot yet fully understand is just wrong. Childhood should be a religion-free zone. Let them figure it out when they're ready. Religious instruction in schools should be limited to something along the lines of, "All religions are of value to those who follow them. As such, all are equally worthy of respect. Next subject."


 

Hi delgirl, you forget one thing, across the world in all religions, you get the kids young and then you indoctrinate them and you have them for life and their children and their children's children etc etc, that's how religion survives and that is how it will go on into the future. 

Education helps, it did in Ireland once free secondary education opened up in the sixties and then when more and more kids started going to university in the eighties they started questioning the Catholic religion which eventually led to its downfall or so to speak.


----------



## delgirl (11 Sep 2012)

mathepac said:


> Let me stop you right there. When someone tries to tell me "it is well-known that ..." I suddenly lose all interest in what they have to say. It is not a well-known fact to me nor maybe, even to others. Perhaps you have some evidential grounds for supporting your *belief* as distinct from "*well known fact*" but I don't.


You're changing my words, I didn't say it was a well known fact, I said it is well known that *some* paedophiles (not specifically priests) choose professions which put them in a position of authority and allow them ready access to children.

Some of this evidence came from a friend who works in a centre in Ireland which specifically and exclusively provides treatment for priests and brothers who have been found guilty of, and have themselves admitted to, the sexual abuse of children. _*Some*_ of these criminals have admitted that they joined the church as they knew they could access children.




mathepac said:


> So if I read right, you allege that priests and paedophiles are analogous and priests are only different from non-priest paedophiles because they have church backing? I'm sorry but I cannot make that logical leap; it just doesn't add up for me..


Again, these are your words, not mine.



mathepac said:


> Maybe commenting on my actual post would help keep you away from your apparent need to have an anti-church tirade.


Pray tell why I should be restricted to commenting on your post?

I am an atheist who has respect for all religions and for whatever individuals wish to believe in and gain comfort from. However, when it comes to the horrific abuse of children and cover up of this abuse allowing further abuse to take place, I'm happy to speak out against any church which allows this to happen and it just so happens that this thread is about the Catholic Church's pathetic response to it.


----------



## MrMan (11 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> I am an atheist who has respect for all religions and for whatever individuals wish to believe in and gain comfort from. However, when it comes to the horrific abuse of children and cover up of this abuse allowing further abuse to take place, I'm happy to speak out against any church which allows this to happen and it just so happens that this thread is about the Catholic Church's pathetic response to it.



The thread is about an idiots response, not the Catholic Churchs ethos, which by the way doesn't teach that abuse is ok. When I went to school it was never 'my way of the highway' with regard to other religions, and I was never told that gay people would go to hell.


----------



## truthseeker (11 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> The thread is about an idiots response, not the Catholic Churchs ethos, which by the way doesn't teach that abuse is ok. When I went to school it was never 'my way of the highway' with regard to other religions, and *I was never told that gay people would go to hell.*



I dont think gay people will go to hell just for being gay. But the *act* of homosexual sex is a sin according to the RCC. Not only that, but sex outside of marriage is a sin, and marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. So if you have gay sex (even in a civil partnership!) you are actually committing two sins. 

Now correct me if Im wrong, but you can only get forgiveness for sins you repent of and are genuinely sorry for, right? And whats the point of having such a thing as sins at all if you dont get punished for not repenting of them? Otherwise we could all go round sinning joyously and never repenting with no worries? The ultimate punishment happens to be hell. Torture for all eternity in a what I can only imagine looks like the fires of Mordor. Add in a bit of Monty Python chained to the wall half naked beardy types and Bobs your Uncle. Your gay uncle that is. He's there because he didnt repent the sin of homosexual sex.


----------



## delgirl (11 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> The thread is about an idiots response, not the Catholic Churchs ethos, which by the way doesn't teach that abuse is ok.


That 'idiot' *Bishop* John Kirby is an extremely powerful figure, not only in the Irish Catholic Church, but also in Rome.



MrMan said:


> the Catholic Churchs ethos, which by the way doesn't teach that abuse is ok.


The abuse was condoned by the Church by knowingly allowing it to continue.

Cases have also been brought against members of the catholic church's hierarchy who did not report sex abuse allegations to the authorities. It has been shown they deliberately moved sexually abusive priests to other parishes where the abuse sometimes continued. This has led to a number of fraud cases where the Church has been accused of misleading victims by deliberately relocating priests accused of abuse instead of removing them from their positions.



MrMan said:


> When I went to school it was never 'my way of the highway' with regard to other religions.


The vatican has issued a document stating that the Catholic Church is the only true Church!



MrMan said:


> ... and I was never told that gay people would go to hell.


The Catholic Church specifically lists homosexuality as a sin in it's Catechism.  We were taught both in school (Catechism) and in church that homosexuality was an abomination and a sin and that those practicing such abominations, along with idolaters, fornicators etc. were destined to go to hell.


----------



## T McGibney (11 Sep 2012)

Mods

Time to close this thread? - it is no longer a discussion but a succession of ill-informed rants.


----------



## Sunny (11 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Mods
> 
> Time to close this thread? - it is no longer a discussion but a succession of ill-informed rants.



No more so than the one on the croke park agreement.


----------



## delgirl (12 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> No more so than the one on the croke park agreement.


Absolutely correct Sunny. There has always been lively debate in LOS and it's great that everyone can express their point of view.

It's a sad day for freedom of expression when if you don't agree with what's being written, the mods are asked to close the thread.


----------



## truthseeker (12 Sep 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Mods
> 
> Time to close this thread? - it is no longer a discussion but a succession of ill-informed rants.



How informed can someone be on a supernatural being and imaginary places? 
It is all made up you know!


----------



## T McGibney (12 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> Absolutely correct Sunny. There has always been lively debate in LOS and it's great that everyone can express their point of view.
> 
> It's a sad day for freedom of expression when if you don't agree with what's being written, the mods are asked to close the thread.



If you want freedom of expression, tune into Liveline


----------



## Shawady (12 Sep 2012)

Sunny said:


> No more so than the one on the croke park agreement.


 
Or the recent one on abortion.

LOS could become very quiet!


----------



## MrMan (12 Sep 2012)

delgirl said:


> That 'idiot' *Bishop* John Kirby is an extremely powerful figure, not only in the Irish Catholic Church, but also in Rome.
> 
> The abuse was condoned by the Church by knowingly allowing it to continue.
> 
> ...


 
I'll just bring you back to what you actually said, which is what I commented on;

*So it's ok for children to be taught that Catholicism is the only way and everyone else is wrong. It's ok to teach them that gay people will go to hell, it's ok to teach them that a priest can repeatedly sexually assault a vulnerable child, destroy their life and not suffer any consequences?
*


----------



## MrMan (12 Sep 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont think gay people will go to hell just for being gay. But the *act* of homosexual sex is a sin according to the RCC. Not only that, but sex outside of marriage is a sin, and marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. So if you have gay sex (even in a civil partnership!) you are actually committing two sins.
> 
> Now correct me if Im wrong, but you can only get forgiveness for sins you repent of and are genuinely sorry for, right? And whats the point of having such a thing as sins at all if you dont get punished for not repenting of them? Otherwise we could all go round sinning joyously and never repenting with no worries? The ultimate punishment happens to be hell. Torture for all eternity in a what I can only imagine looks like the fires of Mordor. Add in a bit of Monty Python chained to the wall half naked beardy types and Bobs your Uncle. Your gay uncle that is. He's there because he didnt repent the sin of homosexual sex.


 
It doesn't change the fact that I wasn't taught at school that gay=sin. I would doubt that there are many people in the world that subsribe 100% with any teaching.


----------



## Kine (12 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> I would doubt that there are many people in the world that subsribe 100% with any teaching.


 
Scientology!


----------



## delgirl (12 Sep 2012)

Kine said:


> Scientology!


Slightly off topic, but since you've mentioned Scientology - just read a really good, eye-opening book on the subject - "The Complex" written by John Duignan, an Irish man who spent 22 years as a high-ranking member of the church.


----------



## orka (12 Sep 2012)

MrMan said:


> It doesn't change the fact that I wasn't taught at school that gay=sin.


So what were you taught about homosexuality at school?  I was at school in the 70s/80s and I don't think I was taught either that gay = sin - but only because I don't think homosexuality/being gay was mentioned EVER.  I don't think I was taught that paedaophilia is a sin either - but again only because it was never mentioned.  What was drummed into us was that all sexual activity outside of marriage (even in your thoughts...) was considered a sin  so given that gay marriage is not recognised, I suppose by extension, if you knew there was such a thing as gay sex, you would know it was automatically a sin?


----------



## truthseeker (12 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> So what were you taught about homosexuality at school?  I was at school in the 70s/80s and I don't think I was taught either that gay = sin - but only because I don't think homosexuality/being gay was mentioned EVER.  I don't think I was taught that paedaophilia is a sin either - but again only because it was never mentioned.  What was drummed into us was that all sexual activity outside of marriage (even in your thoughts...) was considered a sin  so given that gay marriage is not recognised, I suppose by extension, if you knew there was such a thing as gay sex, you would know it was automatically a sin?



Thats pretty much how it went for me too. I didnt even know there was such a thing as homosexuality until I was in my teens and the "Dont die of ignorance" Aids ad campaigns were in full force.


----------



## MrMan (13 Sep 2012)

orka said:


> So what were you taught about homosexuality at school?  I was at school in the 70s/80s and I don't think I was taught either that gay = sin - but only because I don't think homosexuality/being gay was mentioned EVER.  I don't think I was taught that paedaophilia is a sin either - but again only because it was never mentioned.  What was drummed into us was that all sexual activity outside of marriage (even in your thoughts...) was considered a sin  so given that gay marriage is not recognised, I suppose by extension, if you knew there was such a thing as gay sex, you would know it was automatically a sin?



That's my point really re: gay = sin. I would doubt that it would come up when teaching 4-12 year olds.


----------



## Teatime (9 Oct 2012)

This bishop in the news again

[broken link removed]

I heard an interview with Patsy McGarry yesterday on Drivetime about his article above. I have always had a lot of respect for McGarry. It seems the bishop denied his accusation in a statement. McGarry is more than willing to challenge that statement and has sources to back it all up.


----------

