# This Pope has misplaced his moral compass



## onq (17 Jul 2010)

[broken link removed]

On the one hand he views the ordination of women priest as being on a level with paedophilia - a lesser level from my reading of the text below.

-------------------------
_Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, underscored how the  ordination of women is "a crime against sacraments," while paedophilia  should be considered a "crime against morals" and both would fall under  the jurisdiction of the CDF._

_The organisation,  once known as the  Holy Office of the Inquisition, was previously headed by the current  Pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger._
-------------------------

On the other, he avoids making mandatory the reporting to the police of sex abuse within the church.

-------------------------
_"Clergy sex crimes must be reported to police and the Vatican must  make this a binding policy that is uniformly enforced," said David  Clohessy, of The Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests. _
_"Today's  action doesn't do that."(©Daily Telegraph London)_
-------------------------

I have lost any shred of respect I ever had for Ratzinger.
Somebody needs to denounce his utter, gross, egregious slander of women as a matter of urgency.

Either this man is not infallible _ex cathedra_ on this issue, being held to be simply, utterly and totally wrong on this point of canon law.
Or, if he can show that his interpretation of male-written church doctrine and dogma is correct, then said doctrine and dogma needs to be re-written.

ONQ.


----------



## Homer (17 Jul 2010)

All I can say about that is that I am shocked and horrified, but I am not surprised.  Any further comment would be superfluous.


----------



## Chocks away (17 Jul 2010)

People Power works. Stay away and stop donating money. Let's face it, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately knew a lot but I have never heard of his mentioning STANDING ORDERS or DIRECT DEBITS.


----------



## RMCF (17 Jul 2010)

Not just this Pope, previous Popes and the hierarchy for many many years have been wrecking the CC.


----------



## Purple (17 Jul 2010)

Why is anyone surprised, stunned shocked or horrified? This is par for the course for these people.


----------



## roland (17 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> Why is anyone surprised, stunned shocked or horrified? This is par for the course for these people.



Agree with this.  The gays have had years of this nonsense from the Vatican, but as they have had the continuing audacity to question Benny's edicts, the Vatican is shifting its attention elsewhere.  Anything to deflect attention from the appalling abuse crimes.  That said, I have to say even this edict is a little bit out there for the Vatican.  In a weird way it's now actually becoming a bit sad at just how far off the map they have gone.  As regards the reaction, I guess that it is now directed at 50% of the population (rather than just the 20 million or so gay people on the planet) it's bound to rise a few more people's anger.


----------



## starlite68 (18 Jul 2010)

and yet the churches...at least where i live, are full every sunday!


----------



## michaelm (18 Jul 2010)

onq said:


> _Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, underscored how the  ordination of women is "a crime against sacraments," while paedophilia  should be considered a "crime against morals" and both would fall under  the jurisdiction of the CDF._


I don't see what people can find surprising about the above statement.  It seems quite straight forward.  Christians who are unhappy with the Catholic Church's stance on women priests are free to move to another Church.  The feigned indignation of some committed atheists is interesting.  Why do these people get vexed at utterings from the Catholic Church.  Perhaps Church bashing is simply self-satisfying.


----------



## Chocks away (18 Jul 2010)

As an atheist, am I not allowed to bash corruption, hypocricy and law breaking?


----------



## starlite68 (18 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> I don't see what people can find surprising about the above statement. It seems quite straight forward. Christians who are unhappy with the Catholic Church's stance on women priests are free to move to another Church. The feigned indignation of some committed atheists is interesting. Why do these people get vexed at utterings from the Catholic Church. Perhaps Church bashing is simply self-satisfying.


 
have to say i agree with this,    everyone has a right to join any religion they want..or none at all. if you dont like the way the catholic church is run, simply google religion,and find one that suits your requriments!


----------



## dockingtrade (18 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> Perhaps Church bashing is simply self-satisfying.


 
perhaps it desrves to be bashed and probably alot worse because of the actions, in-actions and hypocrasy of many within it. 
Just ask yourself why are people bashing the church?? 

as a side note: that pope is one evil looking .....


----------



## michaelm (18 Jul 2010)

dockingtrade said:


> Just ask yourself why are people bashing the church??


I realise that the Catholic Church has failings.  It's the 'who' rather than the 'why' that I find more interesting.


----------



## Pique318 (19 Jul 2010)

dockingtrade said:


> perhaps it desrves to be bashed and probably alot worse because of the actions, in-actions and hypocrasy of many within it.
> Just ask yourself why are people bashing the church??
> 
> as a side note: that pope is one evil looking .....



Oh yeah, definitely.
[broken link removed]

If Hollywood wanted an 'antichrist-looking' person, he's the perfect choice !!!


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2010)

starlite68 said:


> have to say i agree with this,    everyone has a right to join any religion they want..or none at all. if you dont like the way the catholic church is run, simply google religion,and find one that suits your requriments!


I agree with that as well. I also agree that we all have the right to free speech and that includes the right to point out the flaws of the Roman Catholic Church.


----------



## Latrade (19 Jul 2010)

starlite68 said:


> have to say i agree with this, everyone has a right to join any religion they want..or none at all. if you dont like the way the catholic church is run, simply google religion,and find one that suits your requriments!


 
Hmmm, not entirely sure whether googling religion is how you go about things. Most of us were baptised as children and had to do the confirmation and communion too. So it appears to be an "opt out" system at some stage when you're older.

But then when the Catholic Church still has an influence on State Policy, education and health in this country over and above any other religion, it gives me the right to comment on their policies. Especially when they are contray to equality legislation and especially when they afford greater protection to the institution over and above any other employer. (You can google equality if you want).

The church cannot have it both ways, it cannot tell me to keep my nose out because I'm an atheist when it continues to stick its nose into my affairs through influencing state policy based on its own agenda. 

Do we really want people who think that having female priests is the same offence as hiding child abusers (you can google the Ferns Report or The Ryan Commission if you wish) having any say whatsoever in how this country should be or in the education of our children or in the "morals and ethics" committees of hospitals?

It's just not that easy to say to atheists or other religions to keep their noses out when this church continues to have an influence on me and my family.


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2010)

Very well said Latrade


----------



## michaelm (19 Jul 2010)

A right to free speech is of paramount importance, indeed it should be put into the constitution.  It usually isn't onerous to distil the considered opinion in a given discussion.  I think that the influence that the Church has over peoples lives today is grossly overstated, negligible even.

No doubt the CC is antiquated and not exactly a slick PR machine but I don't see it as sinister or evil.  I wonder what people expect; that the Church, for the sake of modernity, change their core beliefs?  Women priests, a thumbs up for homosexuality, and sure why not throw in abortions for all.


----------



## Shawady (19 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> But then when the Catholic Church still has an influence on State Policy, education and health in this country over and above any other religion, it gives me the right to comment on their policies.
> 
> 
> 
> It's just not that easy to say to atheists or other religions to keep their noses out when this church continues to have an influence on me and my family.


 
I was talking to one of my colleagues last week about primary schools. She was telling me that the amount of time children spend preparing for the communion and confirmation in those years was crazy. They spend a huge amount of time learning hymns and prayers , on school time.
Maybe communion/confirmation prep should be outside of school hours as an optional extra for practising RC's.


----------



## dockingtrade (19 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> A right to free speech is of paramount importance, indeed it should be put into the constitution. It usually isn't onerous to distil the considered opinion in a given discussion. I think that the influence that the Church has over peoples lives today is grossly overstated, negligible even.
> 
> No doubt the CC is antiquated and not exactly a slick PR machine but I don't see it as sinister or evil. I wonder what people expect; that the Church, for the sake of modernity, change their core beliefs? Women priests, a thumbs up for homosexuality, and sure why not throw in abortions for all.


 
if they are so much against homosexuality how come they protected homosexual child rapists! 



michaelm said:


> sinister or evil.


 Concealing, covering up, ignoring child rape by so so many is  sinister and is pure evil


----------



## Latrade (19 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> A right to free speech is of paramount importance, indeed it should be put into the constitution. It usually isn't onerous to distil the considered opinion in a given discussion. I think that the influence that the Church has over peoples lives today is grossly overstated, negligible even.
> 
> No doubt the CC is antiquated and not exactly a slick PR machine but I don't see it as sinister or evil. I wonder what people expect; that the Church, for the sake of modernity, change their core beliefs? Women priests, a thumbs up for homosexuality, and sure why not throw in abortions for all.


 
But then it would be fine if the consitution wasn't heavily influenced to begin with by the Catholic Faith. So on that basis it does affect my life and it does affect the lives of everyone. And they fight to retain those principles, so again that is the Church actively involved in influencing a state and state policy. 

It's far from negligable as I now run the risk of a criminal charge for blasphemy. That was only introduced because of Church influence. So it's all well and good people suggesting googling new faiths or tolerating atheism, but you don't run the risk of a personal prosecution for drawing attention to hypocrasy and immorality in those official views. Thanks. For. That. We'll hide those that abused children and while we're at it, we'll make it nice and illegal for you to comment on the full nature and extent of our actions and immorality. Negligable influence indeed.

The problem is we shouldn't need a thumbs up from the Church for homosexuality, it shouldn't be down to them as to whether or not all people have an equal footing and an equal access to services. Whether they approve or disapprove should be of no relevance. 

And I'm not even going to comment on the abortion issue, the standard card thown out whenever these discussions get under way. Abortion is an moral issue that is independent of faith. 

If in public the pope is going to state that women priests are as grevious a sin as hiding child abusers, then that's going to get comments. Such a statement is wholly alien and abhorent to me and many others, it was stated publically, it's going to be reacted to. It doesn't matter who makes such a ridiculous statement, if they make it in public, people will comment. And if people are going to defend that statement in public, then people are going to comment.


----------



## MrMan (19 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> It's far from negligable as I now run the risk of a criminal charge for blasphemy. That was only introduced because of Church influence. So it's all well and good people suggesting googling new faiths or tolerating atheism, but you don't run the risk of a personal prosecution for drawing attention to hypocrasy and immorality in those official views. Thanks. For. That. We'll hide those that abused children and while we're at it, we'll make it nice and illegal for you to comment on the full nature and extent of our actions and immorality. Negligable influence indeed.
> 
> The problem is we shouldn't need a thumbs up from the Church for homosexuality, it shouldn't be down to them as to whether or not all people have an equal footing and an equal access to services. Whether they approve or disapprove should be of no relevance.
> 
> ...



Many laws are antiquated and I can't remember anyone being arrested for blasphemy in my lifetime even though it can be heard of day of the week, so the influence you speak of here is hardly worth mentioning at all.
The 'we' you refer to when speaking of hiding rapists does not encapsulate the CC so to continually infer that the CC as a complete entity facilitated such crimes is again misleading and incorrect.
You don't need a thumbs up for homesexuality or anything else, make your own decisions, they have their guidelines you have yours, ignore them if you wish.
With regard to the comments, did he say that one sin was akin to the other? no he did not, but don't let that stop the bandwagon which is just about freedom of speech of course and has nothing to do with CC bashing whatsoever.
A crime against the sacrament is just that, a crime against what they believe was the way This post will be deleted if not edited immediately meant for his word to be carried out. A crime against morals is a crime against the teachings and what is considered right in society. I can see an obvious difference in what he said.


----------



## ney001 (19 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> I think that the influence that the Church has over peoples lives today is grossly overstated, negligible even.



Do you think the influence of the church is negligible in Africa?, for example in Cameroon or Nigeria??  Another pearl of wisdom delivered by benedict last year here when speaking about the spread of AIDS "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," "On the contrary, it increases the problem.".  Yes he was speaking in a country where in some parts 1 in 5 have AIDS, yes he was speaking in a country where girls as young as 12 are forced into marriage with elderly men who have AIDS.  His answer? practice abstinence........ yep that same 12 year old girl is to ask her new 'husband' not to have sex with her in case he infects her!  Maybe she should do some 'googling' herself and see what her options are!


----------



## Latrade (19 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Many laws are antiquated and I can't remember anyone being arrested for blasphemy in my lifetime even though it can be heard of day of the week, so the influence you speak of here is hardly worth mentioning at all.
> The 'we' you refer to when speaking of hiding rapists does not encapsulate the CC so to continually infer that the CC as a complete entity facilitated such crimes is again misleading and incorrect.
> You don't need a thumbs up for homesexuality or anything else, make your own decisions, they have their guidelines you have yours, ignore them if you wish.
> With regard to the comments, did he say that one sin was akin to the other? no he did not, but don't let that stop the bandwagon which is just about freedom of speech of course and has nothing to do with CC bashing whatsoever.
> A crime against the sacrament is just that, a crime against what they believe was the way This post will be deleted if not edited immediately meant for his word to be carried out. A crime against morals is a crime against the teachings and what is considered right in society. I can see an obvious difference in what he said.


 
We may have differing views on antiquated laws. Given the current blasphemy provisions were introduced in 2009, I personally wouldn't call that antiquated. In fact it's rather recent. And while the Constitution may be antiquated, it is still the Consitution. Removing the wording "special position" with the CC, didn't waterdown any of the other overly CC worded provisions. Provisions that dictate law and state policy to this day.

How doesn't it encapsulate the CC when hiding rapists? Are you really saying it was only an Irish problem and went no higher than lower ranking Irish Bishops? 

The new rules put attempts at ordinating women as one of the "most serious crimes". This is same category as paedophillia, so isn't that saying they're the same? I'm open to being corrected on this.

The only time free speech was used was when the right or ability to comment on this story was questioned because people weren't Catholic or religious. 

e.g.:


> The feigned indignation of some committed atheists is interesting. Why do these people get vexed at utterings from the Catholic Church.


 
I get equally vexed if these statements were made by anyone, of faith or not. It wouldn't matter if my greatest hero ever made those statements, I'd still be vexed. You can see a difference and you can defend them, good for you. Whatever way I look at it, if I try to ordain a women priest I will be treated to the same extent as if I hide an abusive priest. In effect to me the CC is saying that the Sacraments, that is This post will be deleted if not edited immediately specifically said no to Women Priests, but wasn't so bothered about paedophiles, at least not enough to go on record about it.


----------



## Purple (19 Jul 2010)

ney001 said:


> Do you think the influence of the church is negligible in Africa?, for example in Cameroon or Nigeria??  Another pearl of wisdom delivered by benedict last year here when speaking about the spread of AIDS "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," "On the contrary, it increases the problem.".  Yes he was speaking in a country where in some parts 1 in 5 have AIDS, yes he was speaking in a country where girls as young as 12 are forced into marriage with elderly men who have AIDS.  His answer? practice abstinence........ yep that same 12 year old girl is to ask her new 'husband' not to have sex with her in case he infects her!  Maybe she should do some 'googling' herself and see what her options are!


 Cameroon is only around 40% Christian and of those a little over 50% are Catholic (25% of total population). The problem of men with HIV/AIDS having sex with young (virgin) girls is based on tribal beliefs. Such beliefs are held by around 40% of the population.
Nigeria is around 14-15% RC with about twice as many Protestants. Islam accounts for 50% of the population.

Islam and all of the evangelical Protestant Churches hold the same views as the RC Church on contraception.   

I disagree with all of them.



dockingtrade said:


> if they are so much against homosexuality how come they protected homosexual child rapists!


 There is no link between child rape (of either sex) and homosexuality.


----------



## michaelm (19 Jul 2010)

ney001 said:


> Do you think the influence of the church is negligible in Africa?


It is silly to blame the spread of AIDS in Africa on the Catholic Church.  Do you really think that Africans don't use condoms because the Pope says don't?  The Pope is also down on adultery and sex before marriage but that doesn't seem to have an influence, so why would the Church's position on condoms make any difference . . come on .


----------



## ney001 (19 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> Do you really think that Africans don't use condoms because the Pope says don't?



I don't blame the CC for AIDS but in a country with a rising number of Catholics, yes I do think that what the pope says will have a bearing on what the zealous will do......or at least will be an excuse for people not to use them ( I seem to remember a certain Galway bishop who didn't believe in using condoms whilst having an affair)  As with most religions people will be selective with what they want to live by, if it suits their needs then they'll use it as justification.   The pope can talk about adultery and sex before marriage all he likes..... to me it's just the ravings of a crazy old man who has been given a lot of power by people who should know better! However he should stay the hell away from preaching about medical issues such as the AIDS issue because this will directly affect the thinking of some people... not all but some and they will use his crazy statements as justification.


----------



## michaelm (19 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> But then it would be fine if the consitution wasn't heavily influenced to begin with by the Catholic Faith. So on that basis it does affect my life and it does affect the lives of everyone. And they fight to retain those principles, so again that is the Church actively involved in influencing a state and state policy.


IMHO the Irish Constitution is a fine document, albeit one with room for improvement.  The Church has a large membership in Ireland and as such may lobby like any other interest group.  It seems to me that the Church punches well below its weight.  Do you genuinely believe that the Church exerts any real negative influence on you personally?





Latrade said:


> It's far from negligable as I now run the risk of a criminal charge for blasphemy. That was only introduced because of Church influence. So it's all well and good people suggesting googling new faiths or tolerating atheism, but you don't run the risk of a personal prosecution for drawing attention to hypocrasy and immorality in those official views. Thanks. For. That. We'll hide those that abused children and while we're at it, we'll make it nice and illegal for you to comment on the full nature and extent of our actions and immorality. Negligable influence indeed.


No one will ever be convicted of blasphemy.  I was under the impression that the Church was opposed to the introduction of such law.





Latrade said:


> The problem is we shouldn't need a thumbs up from the Church for homosexuality, it shouldn't be down to them as to whether or not all people have an equal footing and an equal access to services. Whether they approve or disapprove should be of no relevance.


We don't. The Church's approval or otherwise is, and should be, of no relevance to non-Catholics.





Latrade said:


> Abortion is an moral issue that is independent of faith.


Great, we agree on something .


----------



## Latrade (19 Jul 2010)

The Constitution is a fine document. But it's is covered with Catholic references. I accept times were different in the 30s, I accept Dev actually scaled back on a lot of what the conservative CC were trying to get introduced (declaration of CC as the one true faith etc). But it is still there and as such it still affects me personally. 

The CC doesn't have the special relationship but this statement means that's an academic issue anyway:



> _In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred_, _We, the people of Éire_, _Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial_, _Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation_,


There is only one Church that preaches the Trinity and it gives overall authority to a God. That affects me. It affects the laws made and interpretation of those laws. When the Dail resits and they're all refreshed from 3 months off, they'll start with a prayer and guidance on their decisions. 

You say the CC punches well below its weight. Again, the blasphemy laws. You claim no one will be prosecuted, so why introduce them? Why does religion get special protection over and above anyone else in what people can and can't say? To me getting special protection in legislation in 2009 shows a bit more influence.

However, whether or not I have an issue with their policies. Whether or not I have concerns over the morality of their core beliefs is irrelevant as I hold the same view of all religion. Objection to the news is nothing to do with Catholicisim or religion, I would be equally disturbed if the same was proposed by anyone of any religion or not, from any background, from any group. It is abhorent to me to consider ordination of women priests and paedophiles as both being among "the most serious crimes". 

Their influence on education and health show much more influence than any other organised group. Their influence on social policy (including the positive areas) shows much more influence than other organised groups. I'm not suggesting any CC conspiracy. I'm not promulgating a Dan Brown conspiracy, I'm just saying the actual influence is much greater than perhaps we should be comfortable with.


----------



## Complainer (19 Jul 2010)

dockingtrade said:


> if they are so much against homosexuality how come they protected homosexual child rapists!


  Paedophilia has very little to do with homosexuality.


----------



## Chocks away (19 Jul 2010)

Complainer said:


> Paedophilia has very little to do with homosexuality.


Except among priests ......... the overwhelming number of sexually abused were male. No?


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> It usually isn't onerous to distil the considered opinion in a given discussion.


Come again?


michaelm said:


> I think that the influence that the Church has over peoples lives today is grossly overstated, negligible even.
> [...] No doubt the CC is antiquated and not exactly a slick PR machine but I don't see it as sinister or evil.


As an atheist, I'm neither committed nor indignant, nor even surprised at Lombardi's pronouncement, which is perfectly accurate and entirely consistent with Church dogma. But I would venture exactly the opposite of what you say here.


----------



## Sunny (19 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> Except among priests ......... the overwhelming number of sexually abused were male. No?



So? Child abuse has nothing to do with your sexuality.


----------



## michaelm (19 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> The Constitution is a fine document. But it's is covered with Catholic references. . . as such it still affects me personally.


But does it actually effect you in any tangible way?





Latrade said:


> There is only one Church that preaches the Trinity and it gives overall authority to a God. That affects me. It affects the laws made and interpretation of those laws.


Hardly.





Latrade said:


> You say the CC punches well below its weight. Again, the blasphemy laws. You claim no one will be prosecuted, so why introduce them? Why does religion get special protection over and above anyone else in what people can and can't say? To me getting special protection in legislation in 2009 shows a bit more influence.


Silly legislation introduced unnecessarily by an overzealous Minister to cater for an oxbow lake of a Constitutional provision.





Latrade said:


> I'm just saying the actual influence is much greater than perhaps we should be comfortable with.


Fair enough.  I'm just saying that said influence is IMO markedly and deliberately overstated.


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Jul 2010)

To go back to 2003, by what 'grossly overstated, negligible' influence would you say that Michael Woods was empowered to broker a compensation deal for victims of clerical abuse which, for €128m, granted total indemnity for all time to the religious institutions responsible for covering up and perpetuating the abuse?


----------



## Chocks away (19 Jul 2010)

Sunny said:


> So? Child abuse has nothing to do with your sexuality.


Without wishing to indulge in semantics ............. homosexuality defines itself as an emotional/sexual attachment to persons of the same sex. If a paedophile priest indulges in sexual behaviour with an underage male ......... then, that to me is the act of a homosexual paedophile. Likewise you have heterosexual paedophiles. And you have female practioners of both genres.


----------



## michaelm (19 Jul 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> Come again?


No idea.  Did I write that. Low blood sugar maybe.





DrMoriarty said:


> As an atheist, I'm neither committed nor indignant, nor even surprised at Lombardi's pronouncement, which is perfectly accurate and entirely consistent with Church dogma.


Yes, consistent and unsurprising.





DrMoriarty said:


> But I would venture exactly the opposite of what you say here.


Maybe it's a matter of opinion, or maybe I'm just oblivious to their sinister ways and their hidden hand.





DrMoriarty said:


> To go back to 2003, by what 'grossly overstated, negligible' influence would you say that Michael Woods was empowered to broker a compensation deal for victims of clerical abuse which, for €128m, granted total indemnity for all time to the religious institutions responsible for covering up and perpetuating the abuse?


Again, maybe you're right that that terrible deal is down to a pervasive influence or perhaps it's just another example of a hapless Government decision; others that spring to mind are a blanket guarantee for the banks, M50 toll bridge mess, electronic voting, tax incentives for building in the middle of nowhere and for building too many hotels, Willie swapped helicopters worth many millions for some magic beans . . there is an endless list of bad decisions which have cost or exposed the taxpayer.


----------



## DrMoriarty (19 Jul 2010)

Indeed. But hapless government ministers do not, by and large, presume to offer global moral direction. Nor do they claim to be above the law of sovereign nations, even if they frequently act as though they were. 

Papal authority has never been about morality, anyway, but about preserving the secular power and wealth of the Church. That is why the ordination of women represents a far graver problem for the Vatican than does the presence of child abusers amongst its clergy.


----------



## Latrade (20 Jul 2010)

michaelm said:


> But does it actually effect you in any tangible way?


 
Well as the Constitution how can it not affect me? But if you want tangible as a co habiting couple with child on the way, the Constitution doesn't allow us to be considered a family. The history of the family definition and lack of up date to that definition is plagued with influence from the CC here.

The influence is there it can't be denied. Why did it take so long for the abuse issues to be taken seriously, to be looked into, to be investigated? Yes a succession of inept governments, but who was in their ear?

What I'm not hearing from the CC apologists is whether or not they agree with the statement that started this whole debate. All that has occurred is an immediate attack on those who dare to criticise the CC.


----------



## Purple (20 Jul 2010)

Chocks away said:


> Without wishing to indulge in semantics ............. homosexuality defines itself as an emotional/sexual attachment to persons of the same sex. If a paedophile priest indulges in sexual behaviour with an underage male ......... then, that to me is the act of a homosexual paedophile. Likewise you have heterosexual paedophiles. And you have female practioners of both genres.



You are incorrect. Paedophilia is a perversion of heterosexuality. Homosexual men are attracted to the male form. Child abusing men who target little boys are attracted to a feminine like pre-pubescent form. It is an aberration independent of sexual orientation.


----------



## starlite68 (20 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> Hmmm, not entirely sure whether googling religion is how you go about things. Most of us were baptised as children and had to do the confirmation and communion too. So it appears to be an "opt out" system at some stage when you're older.
> 
> But then when the Catholic Church still has an influence on State Policy, education and health in this country over and above any other religion, it gives me the right to comment on their policies. Especially when they are contray to equality legislation and especially when they afford greater protection to the institution over and above any other employer. (You can google equality if you want).
> 
> ...


i understand the point you make about the church having a certin influance over th state....how much influance is a matter of opinion, but you have understand that this is a catholic country, the vasy of majority of people on this island are roman chatolic,so therefore the chatolic church are always going to have som influance over the state...thats just the way the world works! i doubt it would be any different in say a muslim country ect, the only way things might change is if every chatolic in ireland decided to 'jump ship' and  join some new religion..dont think thats going to happen any time soon! but lets just say it did happen....how long do you think it take before this new shiny happy religion also has some influance over the state?


----------



## Chocks away (20 Jul 2010)

Purple said:


> You are incorrect. Paedophilia is a perversion of heterosexuality. Homosexual men are attracted to the male form. Child abusing men who target little boys are attracted to a feminine like pre-pubescent form. It is an aberration independent of sexual orientation.


Hmmmmm! Is there no overlap? Strict dividing lines? Surely if these fellows are attracted to "a feminine like prepubescent form", then it would be as easy to access that perversion with the real objects of their desires - young girls. These people are overwhelmingly abusers of young boys, so most paedophilia is in some way related to same sex activity. Have a look at the numbers. Maybe not PC but there you are.


----------



## Teatime (21 Jul 2010)

I often wonder whether the current pope or the previous one ever sit down and think 'outside the box' and come to the conclusion that their religion is all based on a nonsense. I mean they are intelligent men so I am sure they do question whether a 2000 year old zombie who was his own father, mother a virgin, water into wine etc ever existed and were the stories (from the nth 'edition' of the bible) actually true. I suppose I will never know but if I ever do meet Ratzinger, I'll ask him. Even if either of them had a eureka moment, it is not in their interest to publicise it and risk their career and high life I suppose.


----------



## dereko1969 (21 Jul 2010)

starlite68 said:


> i understand the point you make about the church having a certin influance over th state....how much influance is a matter of opinion, but you have understand that this is a catholic country, the vasy of majority of people on this island are roman chatolic,so therefore the chatolic church are always going to have som influance over the state...thats just the way the world works! i doubt it would be any different in say a muslim country ect, the only way things might change is if every chatolic in ireland decided to 'jump ship' and join some new religion..dont think thats going to happen any time soon! but lets just say it did happen....how long do you think it take before this new shiny happy religion also has some influance over the state?


 
The RC Church can have their opinion on things, fine. It's the FACT that they control virtually all of the education sector and the vast majority of the Health sector that impinges on the rights of all the citizens of this so-called Republic that is unacceptable. They control but don't pay, we pay.

Valuable school time being taken up with preparations for religious ceremonies like communion and confirmation should not be allowed in State funded schools.

When they start looking for opt-outs for employees of the State to carry out civil partnership ceremonies of same sex partners is going way beyond the pale.


----------



## starlite68 (21 Jul 2010)

...but thats what comes of living in a roman catholic country!  any country throughout the world that has one dominant religion would be mush the same.  as for having a go at the catholic church because it has some influance over the state...faie enough! but do you not think the state has something to answer here also.
when all is said and done,you will probably find that the state is happy enough to let the church have a bit of influance.


----------



## dereko1969 (21 Jul 2010)

you really haven't travelled much have you? 

France is a predominately Roman Catholic country, it has full state control over education and health as do most other Republics in the EU, the UK has an established church yet the State controls education and health and pays little heed to the views of the Church of which their Queen is the head. 

Why when virtually the entire budgets of hospitals are paid for by the citizens of this state does the Roman Catholic ethos determine policies of the ethics committee of those hospitals?


----------



## Latrade (21 Jul 2010)

starlite68 said:


> but thats what comes of living in a roman catholic country!


 
So those of us who are opposed to any religion, those of different faiths, must accept that to live in Ireland your life is influenced by the moral code of one and one only religious order?

That the education of my children and my health care are at the influence of a group of individuals with a dubious grasp of what true morality and ethics are really about?  

If I don't like the current government I can vote them out. I can't get rid of a group of people who hold views on humanity so diametrically opposed to my own and (I feel) the majority of others in this state. 

By the Constitution, the government acts and concedes authority to God. They run the country on the basis of the Trinity. In order for them to operate we have to have faith in a Supreme Being (who's all against women priests but a bit hazy on dealing with child abuse), a Jewish white skinned, blonde haired, illegitimate, zombie, native of the Middle East (where in the recent past mothers of illigitimate children have been subjected to the most horrendous abuse at the hands of the Church) and a Holy Ghost of no real fixed definition or tangible presence.

The point is I shouldn't have to lump it and live with it. No purely belief based system should have an influence on State policy of any kind.


----------



## UFC (21 Jul 2010)

It's religion though... childish, silly nonsense. I don't really understand why anyone  in this day and age continues to take this stuff seriously.


----------



## starlite68 (21 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> The point is I shouldn't have to lump it and live with it. No purely belief based system should have an influence on State policy of any kind.


 you are probably right, i dont get too wound up about it myself as it dosent really affect me one way or the other! but the fact is that their has always been a 'lets say...comfortable relationship between church and state here,  i cant see that changing any time soon, so its probably best to just try and live with it. noting in life is ever perfect!


----------



## MrMan (21 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> So those of us who are opposed to any religion, those of different faiths, must accept that to live in Ireland your life is influenced by the moral code of one and one only religious order?
> 
> That the education of my children and my health care are at the influence of a group of individuals with a dubious grasp of what true morality and ethics are really about?
> 
> ...



You can vote out a govt if enough people take a similar stance, your vote alone isn't enough. If the will of the people is that there should be no influence from the CC in any matters other than their own then let the people make themselves heard as a majority.
I would imagine myself that not enough people even believe that they have a strong influence let alone enough to get worked up about.


----------



## Latrade (21 Jul 2010)

The difference is we get to find out what the will of the people is every 4 years or so when it comes to the government. The influence of the church is never put to the test and whether people are confortable with it is never put to the test.


----------



## MrMan (21 Jul 2010)

Wouldn't that suggest then that the will isn't there to challenge the 'influence' If there was a large number of people that held your views and were as clearly riled by the perception of said influence then surely something could be done.


----------



## Latrade (22 Jul 2010)

MrMan said:


> Wouldn't that suggest then that the will isn't there to challenge the 'influence' If there was a large number of people that held your views and were as clearly riled by the perception of said influence then surely something could be done.


 
No it suggests that we have a general election and the whole nation gets to partake if they wish. We don't get the same choice. When the issue is put to the population regarding church influence in the form of referendums, aside from the abortion vote, all others have shown majority support against CC core values. 

But then it's a nice diversion for the apologists and the OP about a very rich private men's club (who do the occasional ceremonial open day) confirming that their God without question detests the notion of women preaching to and teaching men, but is only moderately concerned about the morals of child abuse and just how you go about reporting those cases...eventually.

Though I suppose the clarity is that if they are to both receive the same "punishment" that means those who ordain female priests will be moved from parish to parish, country to country to ordain women again.


----------



## MrMan (22 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> No it suggests that we have a general election and the whole nation gets to partake if they wish. We don't get the same choice. When the issue is put to the population regarding church influence in the form of referendums, aside from the abortion vote, all others have shown majority support against CC core values.
> 
> But then it's a nice diversion for the apologists and the OP about a very rich private men's club (who do the occasional ceremonial open day) confirming that their God without question detests the notion of women preaching to and teaching men, but is only moderately concerned about the morals of child abuse and just how you go about reporting those cases...eventually.
> 
> Though I suppose the clarity is that if they are to both receive the same "punishment" that means those who ordain female priests will be moved from parish to parish, country to country to ordain women again.


 
But people do have a choice, without church goers there would be no church in this land. Every year people have big days out through weddings, communions and confirmation. People enjoy what they get from the church and to my mind there isn't a whole lot taken back from them. I can't in any way think of how the church affects my day to day life.
To continually describe those that differ from your view as apologists is also over the top and does little to back up whatever argument you think you have. I don't attend mass regularly and have never read a bible but i'm still able to see that people tar everyone in the church with the same brush and cannot make reasonable arguments without dropping the child abuse scandal into it every time. All rapists should be tried and jailed as should all facilitators of such crimes, but it is the people involved that need to be tried and not the instituations.
The church does shoot itself in the foot and does not have slick pr people to say the right thing at the right time, but that is probably because they see themselves as more than an organistion that needs to appeal to public opinion.


----------



## Latrade (22 Jul 2010)

I consider influence on education and health policy as having an influence on my life, maybe I'm way off in thinking that. 

Church attendance is one area, but getting the figure is difficult, but most polls look at around 40% (average) for weekly and 50% (monthly). Of those who go, over 70% are over 70 and over 60% are FF (just found that last bit interesting). 

It's kind of hard not to bring child abuse into it, whether it be the rape or the likes of Goldenbridge. First because in this case the Church brought in the issue of sex offenders themselves, so it was always going to be discussed, and second because it's a pretty major issue. Not just the cases but the cover up and the continued web of secrecy around it. I would argue that this is more a criminal matter than lack of slick PR. I'm sorry if it upsets Catholics to have it repeated, but it's there it's part of the history of the CC here and in other countries. As much as it may sting, people will need to get used to it because it is fair and justifiable to mention, mention it often and never let people forget what has happened and how little justice was served. 

If 800 years of oppression is fair game to bring up with any reference to Britain, then something that's only a couple of decades old is certainly fair game.

And I stand by the apologist term. People are defending the CC here not just generally but on the original issue under discussion. In my opinion it's defending the indefensible in this case, therefore as I see it, it is apologist. 

If people are comfortable with this recent set of rules, when they're abhorent to me, then I just want to ask why they may hold that view. But then the general defence to date has been that as an athiest I wouldn't get it, as an atheist I'm not in a position to question it, as an athiest if I don't like it, I should leave. 

I haven't tarred anyone with anything, possibly except those higher up in the CC or any religion. I've made my arguments clear a few times when asking what the defence is for these rules. 

To me it's there in black and white. To ordain women is an offence that will be treated as severly as covering up for a child abuser. The difference being that because it is specifically written that women must not be ordained, this is a direct crime against God's word, where as there is no mention of child abuse, that's a moral sin.


----------



## Teatime (24 Jul 2010)

Latrade said:


> It's kind of hard not to bring child abuse into it, whether it be the rape or the likes of Goldenbridge. First because in this case the Church brought in the issue of sex offenders themselves, so it was always going to be discussed, and second because it's a pretty major issue. Not just the cases but the cover up and the continued web of secrecy around it. I would argue that this is more a criminal matter than lack of slick PR. I'm sorry if it upsets Catholics to have it repeated, but it's there it's part of the history of the CC here and in other countries. As much as it may sting, people will need to get used to it because it is fair and justifiable to mention, mention it often and never let people forget what has happened and how little justice was served.


 
100% agree.


----------



## Birroc (13 Aug 2010)

I cannot believe the pope has refused the resignations of the 2 bishops. Its hard enough to get them to resign (Galway one still holding out) but I cant see any reason for the pope to refuse those resignations. I have always thought that resignations were the easy option - I personally would have every single priest/bishop mentioned in the Murphy/Ryan reports under criminal investigation by now. Disgraceful.


----------



## The_Banker (30 Aug 2010)

I think its more that the pope who has lost his moral compass (see story below from the Indo) and this explains why Belguim police raided Catholic Church offices...

Leaked tapes of Belgium's Cardinal Godfried Danneels urging a victim not to reveal he was sexually abused by a bishop are some of the most damaging documents to emerge in the scandal rocking the Catholic Church worldwide. 
On the tapes, made secretly by the victim and published in two Belgian newspapers at the weekend, the former primate of Belgium is heard exhorting him to accept a private apology or wait one year until the bishop retired before making his case public.
The meeting took place on April 8, at a time when the Vatican was under fire for allegedly covering up similar abuse cases in other countries.
A spokesman for Cardinal Danneels (77) denied the once popular archbishop of Brussels wanted to cover up the case -- which led to the sudden resignation of then Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe (73) later that month -- but the tapes show the cardinal arguing for silence.
Belgian church spokesman Jurgen Mettepenningen confirmed the transcripts in Flemish dailies 'De Standaard' and 'Het Nieuwsblad' were genuine. 
The church has been hit over the past year by two detailed government reports on sexual abuse in this country and waves of abuse allegations in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands. Five bishops have quit due to the scandals.
*The Belgian tapes stand out as a rare verbatim record of how a leading Catholic prelate tried to persuade a victim, in this case a 42-year-old nephew of Vangheluwe, to keep quiet.*
They emerged as a judicial probe into the scandal teetered on the edge of collapse after reports that a June 24 police raid on church offices and Cardinal Danneels's apartment to seize files and computers was illegal and the documents could not be used.
In their one-on-one meeting, the victim asks for help. The cardinal responds by urging him not to go public.
"The bishop will resign next year, so actually it would be better for you to wait," the cardinal says. "I don't think you'd do yourself or him a favour by shouting this from the rooftops."
Cardinal Danneels warns the victim against trying to blackmail the church and urges him to seek forgiveness, accept a private apology from the bishop and not drag "his name through the mud".
"He has dragged my whole life through the mud, from five until 18 years old," says the victim. "Why do you feel so sorry for him and not for me?"
In a second tape, Cardinal Danneels and Vangheluwe meet the victim and one of his relatives. The bishop apologises and says he has searched for years for a way to make up for his misdeeds. "This is unsolvable," the relative replies. "You've torn our family completely apart."
Vangheluwe resigned on April 23. The newspaper said the victim decided to publish the tapes to counter allegations of blackmail. 

Link:


----------



## Noilheart (31 Aug 2010)

While I have not been a fan of the Catholic Church now for many years I thought Sinead O'Connor was somewhat over the top at the time of this .......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYw8JR1N90o

...but it seems prophetic now


----------



## shammy feen (1 Sep 2010)

ufc said:


> it's religion though... Childish, silly nonsense. I don't really understand why anyone in this day and age continues to take this stuff seriously.


 
+1


----------



## Purple (1 Sep 2010)

Noilheart said:


> While I have not been a fan of the Catholic Church now for many years I thought Sinead O'Connor was somewhat over the top at the time of this .......
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYw8JR1N90o
> 
> ...but it seems prophetic now


 +1. At the time I thought she was mad but now I feel that I should write her an apology.


----------



## Chocks away (1 Sep 2010)

I think we would all give Sinead an apology and carte blanche if she just sang in her beautiful voice and then STFU. She was not prophetic ......... just pathetic, as usual. Her recent ramblings about her cute butt just show how unhinged she is .......... or how a change of grass can be rather startling. Jah!


----------

