This Pope has misplaced his moral compass

[MrMan]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

Abortion is an moral issue that is independent of faith.

Great, we agree on something .

 

[Latrade]

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]

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

Paedophilia has very little to do with homosexuality.

 

[Chocks away]

Paedophilia has very little to do with homosexuality.

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

 

[DrMoriarty]

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

Come again?

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]

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

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

 

[michaelm]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Come again?

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?