This Pope has misplaced his moral compass

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
...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.
 
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?
 
starlite68 said:
but thats what comes of living in a roman catholic country!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
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.
 
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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top