This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just been reading this sickening article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/children-galway-mass-g...
Some of the comments say this is being virtually ignored by the Irish press
Can any of the Irish on here confirm that?
If yes, any opinions on why?
Is Ireland now just sick of articles on the Catholic Church?
In reply to Carless:
It's hardly being ignored: I heard Catherine Corless being interviewed on Irish radio last week and there's an article about it in today's Irish Examiner.
It's hardly being ignored: I heard Catherine Corless being interviewed on Irish radio last week and there's an article about it in today's Irish Examiner.
In reply to Carless:
Awful, awful story. My dad's from Tuam. I might ask him about the order of sisters in question, I can't remember seeing their convent.
Awful, awful story. My dad's from Tuam. I might ask him about the order of sisters in question, I can't remember seeing their convent.
In reply to Carless:
That's awful. How can any practising Catholic still continue to be a Catholic ? I suspect they are either scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
The Irish government should commission an independent report and then apply proper sanctions against the church.
That's awful. How can any practising Catholic still continue to be a Catholic ? I suspect they are either scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
The Irish government should commission an independent report and then apply proper sanctions against the church.
In reply to I like climbing:
Option 1: you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way.
Option 2: 1.2 billion people are all scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
Option 1 seems far more likely.
> That's awful. How can any practising Catholic still continue to be a Catholic ? I suspect they are either scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
Option 1: you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way.
Option 2: 1.2 billion people are all scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
Option 1 seems far more likely.
In reply to elsewhere:
What a stupid comment ! Just because 1.2 billion people profess to be Catholics doesn't make the Catholic church or their actions acceptable and doesn't excuse these people for continuing to support the church.
What a stupid comment ! Just because 1.2 billion people profess to be Catholics doesn't make the Catholic church or their actions acceptable and doesn't excuse these people for continuing to support the church.
In reply to I like climbing:
I didn't say anything like that. I said "you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way".
You should have a more nuanced approach to how 1.2 billion different individuals might think.
> What a stupid comment ! Just because 1.2 billion people profess to be Catholics doesn't make the Catholic church or their actions acceptable and doesn't excuse these people for continuing to support the church.
I didn't say anything like that. I said "you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way".
You should have a more nuanced approach to how 1.2 billion different individuals might think.
In reply to elsewhere:
I didn't say anything like that. I said "you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way".
You should have a more nuanced approach to how 1.2 billion different individuals might think.
Disagree. Ignoring child rape and torture among other things is unforgivable. Would you stay in an organisation that did that ? I know I wouldn't and I like to think you wouldn't either.
I didn't say anything like that. I said "you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way".
You should have a more nuanced approach to how 1.2 billion different individuals might think.
Disagree. Ignoring child rape and torture among other things is unforgivable. Would you stay in an organisation that did that ? I know I wouldn't and I like to think you wouldn't either.
In reply to I like climbing:
You can be disgusted with the abuses whilst retaining faith in god (less so in the church) and have a selective approach to the dogma.
I expect that's how many cathloics view their catholicism.
I don't think 1.2 billion catholics are scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
You can be disgusted with the abuses whilst retaining faith in god (less so in the church) and have a selective approach to the dogma.
I expect that's how many cathloics view their catholicism.
I don't think 1.2 billion catholics are scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
In reply to cem:
Good to hear that some noise is being made, but Catherine Corless herself said "People don’t seem shocked, I don’t understand. If two children were discovered in an unmarked grave, the news would be everywhere. We have almost 800 here."
I would have thought it'd be front page everywhere
Good to hear that some noise is being made, but Catherine Corless herself said "People don’t seem shocked, I don’t understand. If two children were discovered in an unmarked grave, the news would be everywhere. We have almost 800 here."
I would have thought it'd be front page everywhere
In reply to elsewhere:
And that's how Catholicism (and other religions) fail to put their house (widespread criminal and sadistic behaviour) in order.
There will be much that is admirable about the vast majority of the 1.2 billion, but something's going on (and it absolutely does include a form of brainwashing) to allow the past and present behaviour of the few to remain ignored.
> You can be disgusted with the abuses whilst retaining faith in god (less so in the church) and have a selective approach to the dogma.
> I expect that's how many cathloics view their catholicism.
And that's how Catholicism (and other religions) fail to put their house (widespread criminal and sadistic behaviour) in order.
> I don't think 1.2 billion catholics are scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
There will be much that is admirable about the vast majority of the 1.2 billion, but something's going on (and it absolutely does include a form of brainwashing) to allow the past and present behaviour of the few to remain ignored.
In reply to elsewhere:
People following a religion they're been indoctrinated into since birth, that tells them the church is infallible and they'll burn in hell for eternity if they go off the rails...
Option 2 seems more likely to me, personally...
> Option 1: you are brainwashed or stupid to write off 1.2 billion people that way.
> Option 2: 1.2 billion people are all scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
> Option 1 seems far more likely.
People following a religion they're been indoctrinated into since birth, that tells them the church is infallible and they'll burn in hell for eternity if they go off the rails...
Option 2 seems more likely to me, personally...
In reply to Carless:
Ignored? Its everywhere here. Probably not the same level of outrage because frankly, at this stage, it doesn't suprise anyone. The horrors of what the church got up to in Ireland has been coming out for years and we're suffering from scandal fatigue at the moment
Ignored? Its everywhere here. Probably not the same level of outrage because frankly, at this stage, it doesn't suprise anyone. The horrors of what the church got up to in Ireland has been coming out for years and we're suffering from scandal fatigue at the moment
In reply to Carless:
Shockingly sad story though.
Sometimes I get a bit angry with God for not existing (*)...I might get a bit of comfort in believing that these people didn't get away with their acts, and might actually have been called to account by the all-seeing god they apparently believe in.
(*) Quote stolen from Terry Pratchett
Shockingly sad story though.
Sometimes I get a bit angry with God for not existing (*)...I might get a bit of comfort in believing that these people didn't get away with their acts, and might actually have been called to account by the all-seeing god they apparently believe in.
(*) Quote stolen from Terry Pratchett
Post edited at 17:04
In reply to elsewhere:
I don't think 1.2 billion catholics are scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
And I do.
I don't think 1.2 billion catholics are scared and brainwashed, stupid or evil.
And I do.
In reply to Carless:
There's the concept of 'limbo children', who die before being baptised.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="limbo+children"+catholic
I came across this concept in a Cadfael novel, but it's a real Catholic doctrine.
There was a programme on the subject a couple of years ago called (unsurprisingly) 'Limbo Children', about the issue of the Catholic Church's attitude to the burial of stillborn children. The policy has always been that unbaptised souls, suicides and murderers cannot be buried in consecrated ground. So newborns, either stillborn, or dying before being baptised, cannot be buried in a cemetery, and theological theory is that they are denied a place in heaven until the end of time; there can be no grace for them.
And, even though I have no faith at all, and no belief in an afterlife, the concept is so powerful that the thought of such refusals for these children is very moving. It seems so cruel to deny this simple consolation to people who have already suffered so much (the parents, that is). Such dogmatism seems so at odds with the concept of Christian compassion, and a forgiving God. How can a stillborn child be anything other than free from sin? (which brings us to the bizarre theological concept of original sin...).
The programme featured a large churchyard in Ireland, where thousands of such burials have taken place over the years, and done without ceremony, with the mothers often knowing nothing about what had been done with their child. In a piece of boggy ground, next to, but outside the churchyard. Which then got sold for development... Fortunately, the error was spotted before the development occurred, and a campaign started to make some memorial.
My upset is not for the children, they're dead; it's for the poor souls left behind, who have no comfort in belief that their dead child may enter heaven. And it's an empathy with that belief, and the knowledge that they would be separated from their child for eternity (no reunion in heaven for the limbo children) that makes me sad and angry. I felt it when I read the book, understanding what it would mean for the parents, and felt it watching the programme, seeing the imagined upset for real.
It seems that the Catholic church has, since Vatican II, decided that a more Christian stance on this issue might be better, and it seems that burials within the pale will now be sanctioned. And a re-assessment of the theological thinking (the official line from a Vatican enquiry...) is that we "might have strong hope for the salvation of these souls".
I find the following to be a bunch of weasel words, squirming around the simple concept "suffer [allow] little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not". "Oh, but they're not baptised; how can they possibly come unto You?" That's it? You're stuck on that bit of dogma? For God's sake...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con...
There's the concept of 'limbo children', who die before being baptised.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="limbo+children"+catholic
I came across this concept in a Cadfael novel, but it's a real Catholic doctrine.
There was a programme on the subject a couple of years ago called (unsurprisingly) 'Limbo Children', about the issue of the Catholic Church's attitude to the burial of stillborn children. The policy has always been that unbaptised souls, suicides and murderers cannot be buried in consecrated ground. So newborns, either stillborn, or dying before being baptised, cannot be buried in a cemetery, and theological theory is that they are denied a place in heaven until the end of time; there can be no grace for them.
And, even though I have no faith at all, and no belief in an afterlife, the concept is so powerful that the thought of such refusals for these children is very moving. It seems so cruel to deny this simple consolation to people who have already suffered so much (the parents, that is). Such dogmatism seems so at odds with the concept of Christian compassion, and a forgiving God. How can a stillborn child be anything other than free from sin? (which brings us to the bizarre theological concept of original sin...).
The programme featured a large churchyard in Ireland, where thousands of such burials have taken place over the years, and done without ceremony, with the mothers often knowing nothing about what had been done with their child. In a piece of boggy ground, next to, but outside the churchyard. Which then got sold for development... Fortunately, the error was spotted before the development occurred, and a campaign started to make some memorial.
My upset is not for the children, they're dead; it's for the poor souls left behind, who have no comfort in belief that their dead child may enter heaven. And it's an empathy with that belief, and the knowledge that they would be separated from their child for eternity (no reunion in heaven for the limbo children) that makes me sad and angry. I felt it when I read the book, understanding what it would mean for the parents, and felt it watching the programme, seeing the imagined upset for real.
It seems that the Catholic church has, since Vatican II, decided that a more Christian stance on this issue might be better, and it seems that burials within the pale will now be sanctioned. And a re-assessment of the theological thinking (the official line from a Vatican enquiry...) is that we "might have strong hope for the salvation of these souls".
I find the following to be a bunch of weasel words, squirming around the simple concept "suffer [allow] little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not". "Oh, but they're not baptised; how can they possibly come unto You?" That's it? You're stuck on that bit of dogma? For God's sake...
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con...
In reply to I like climbing:
I don't think it's intentional evil; it's merely the consequence of positing certain theological concepts (the need for baptism before you can enter heaven), and sticking dogmatically to the 'logical' conclusion that arises when you have to apply that concept to the real world (children dying before they can be baptised). If you accept that unbaptised children can enter heaven, you have to accept that baptism may not be essential for anyone to enter heaven. Which 'evil' do you choose to hold on to?
So from what started as a well-intentioned means of trying to make people stick to the tenets of a religion (to be nice to each other), with a lot of unnecessary enforcing functions, you end up being pretty unpleasant. But that's 'complex theology' for you.
I don't think it's intentional evil; it's merely the consequence of positing certain theological concepts (the need for baptism before you can enter heaven), and sticking dogmatically to the 'logical' conclusion that arises when you have to apply that concept to the real world (children dying before they can be baptised). If you accept that unbaptised children can enter heaven, you have to accept that baptism may not be essential for anyone to enter heaven. Which 'evil' do you choose to hold on to?
So from what started as a well-intentioned means of trying to make people stick to the tenets of a religion (to be nice to each other), with a lot of unnecessary enforcing functions, you end up being pretty unpleasant. But that's 'complex theology' for you.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I understand what you mean but that religion is based on fear and brainwashing. I know some others are too.
The hardline, unsympathetic attitude in what you mention sucks and must have caused great distress.
I understand what you mean but that religion is based on fear and brainwashing. I know some others are too.
The hardline, unsympathetic attitude in what you mention sucks and must have caused great distress.
In reply to I like climbing:
The historic persecution of single mothers as sinners and they and their bastard children being ostracised by society instigated by the church and other religions is awful and possibly described as evil, and pervasive in most societies historically, although thankfully that is changing slowly now.
We need to remember that these things happen in all types of institution though. Saville @the beeb and stoke mandeville, the childrens homes on jersey, various schools, the nursery nurses in cornwall. The difference is the church promotes an image of infallibility, and has repeatedly covered up problems instead of being honest open and just as they should aspire to be
The historic persecution of single mothers as sinners and they and their bastard children being ostracised by society instigated by the church and other religions is awful and possibly described as evil, and pervasive in most societies historically, although thankfully that is changing slowly now.
We need to remember that these things happen in all types of institution though. Saville @the beeb and stoke mandeville, the childrens homes on jersey, various schools, the nursery nurses in cornwall. The difference is the church promotes an image of infallibility, and has repeatedly covered up problems instead of being honest open and just as they should aspire to be
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Agreed.
The pressure on the Catholic church needs to be ramped up with more investigations. The media coverage should be sustained and I hope that people start to disown and leave the church. In their millions.
Agreed.
The pressure on the Catholic church needs to be ramped up with more investigations. The media coverage should be sustained and I hope that people start to disown and leave the church. In their millions.
In reply to I like climbing: As a practising catholic of some sixty years, I believe I have a social conscience and the ability to see the right and wrong in most things including the church that I choose to explore my faith in. The more I read of religious and faith threads on this website , the more I become convinced of most respondents' ignorance of faith and in particular the Catholic Church, and the likelihood that the more common brainwashing is towards bigotry and fear of an "organisation" that I do not recognise in the way it is characterised. God Bless !
In reply to I like climbing:
Just to be clear, if some children in Ireland are raped or neglected so they starve (or whatever happened), you think Catholics in Sheffield should stop being Catholic as a matter of principle?
> Disagree. Ignoring child rape and torture among other things is unforgivable. Would you stay in an organisation that did that ? I know I wouldn't and I like to think you wouldn't either.
Just to be clear, if some children in Ireland are raped or neglected so they starve (or whatever happened), you think Catholics in Sheffield should stop being Catholic as a matter of principle?
In reply to Mike Conlon:
I'm an ex Catholic (I simply stopped believing and religion no longer makes any sense to me) but I think some of the generalisations are incredible.
There does seem to be a pattern of abuses being covered up, which need investigating, but children being abused isn't something unique to the Catholic church, it's a very dark side of human nature in some people.
Not all priests or bishops or nuns who are Catholic abuse children either...
I'm an ex Catholic (I simply stopped believing and religion no longer makes any sense to me) but I think some of the generalisations are incredible.
There does seem to be a pattern of abuses being covered up, which need investigating, but children being abused isn't something unique to the Catholic church, it's a very dark side of human nature in some people.
Not all priests or bishops or nuns who are Catholic abuse children either...
Post edited at 00:24
In reply to Timmd:
At the risk of Godwinning this thread, the membership of certain political organisations in Germany is no longer seen as acceptable. The organisations have been closed down.
Abuse in the Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be confined just to Ireland
At the risk of Godwinning this thread, the membership of certain political organisations in Germany is no longer seen as acceptable. The organisations have been closed down.
Abuse in the Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be confined just to Ireland
In reply to Mike Conlon:
Do you think I would be appropriate to excommunicate priests who have sexually abused children?
Do you think I would be appropriate to excommunicate priests who have sexually abused children?
In reply to Timmd:
Good evening (morning) Timmd. High church religion has never had much relevance for me and in terms of my own faith, I am experiencing one of those "dark night of the soul" episodes which others might describe as doubt or indifference. I normally come out of this and have some experiences which leave me utterly convinced of a "higher being". Regardless of the state of my faith at any time, I have yet to come across any flaws in the simple teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels. I work with disadvantaged kids and it takes all of my faith and seeing a little bit of God in all of them to stop me from throteling them at times. But then I guess I have just confirmed a catholic stereotype in that statement. Good night, sleep well.
Good evening (morning) Timmd. High church religion has never had much relevance for me and in terms of my own faith, I am experiencing one of those "dark night of the soul" episodes which others might describe as doubt or indifference. I normally come out of this and have some experiences which leave me utterly convinced of a "higher being". Regardless of the state of my faith at any time, I have yet to come across any flaws in the simple teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels. I work with disadvantaged kids and it takes all of my faith and seeing a little bit of God in all of them to stop me from throteling them at times. But then I guess I have just confirmed a catholic stereotype in that statement. Good night, sleep well.
In reply to woolsack:
No it isn't. What is interesting it that you never hear of priests involved in the abuse of children in Italy.
> At the risk of Godwinning this thread, the membership of certain political organisations in Germany is no longer seen as acceptable. The organisations have been closed down.
> Abuse in the Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be confined just to Ireland
No it isn't. What is interesting it that you never hear of priests involved in the abuse of children in Italy.
In reply to icnoble:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/pope-paedophile-priests-italy
> No it isn't. What is interesting it that you never hear of priests involved in the abuse of children in Italy.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/pope-paedophile-priests-italy
In reply to Carless:
Just utterly disgraceful that anybody could treat those poor children like that.
Disposed of like garbage by garbage.
Just utterly disgraceful that anybody could treat those poor children like that.
Disposed of like garbage by garbage.
In reply to Clauso:
To my mind, the way the body is disposed of is not a big issue in itself, but more that is speaks of how they were treated when alive.
To my mind, the way the body is disposed of is not a big issue in itself, but more that is speaks of how they were treated when alive.
Post edited at 07:17
In reply to captain paranoia:
Laurence Sterne proposed a solution for this 250 years ago. He was an Anglican vicar, though.
CB
> I don't think it's intentional evil; it's merely the consequence of positing certain theological concepts (the need for baptism before you can enter heaven), and sticking dogmatically to the 'logical' conclusion that arises when you have to apply that concept to the real world (children dying before they can be baptised). If you accept that unbaptised children can enter heaven, you have to accept that baptism may not be essential for anyone to enter heaven.
Laurence Sterne proposed a solution for this 250 years ago. He was an Anglican vicar, though.
CB
In reply to Mike Conlon:
I have yet to come across any flaws in the simple teaching of Jesus Christ
Well a practical problem with the treat others as you would like to be treated approach is that if others don't do likewise, you get shafted (unless you have the ability to resurrected, of course).
I have yet to come across any flaws in the simple teaching of Jesus Christ
Well a practical problem with the treat others as you would like to be treated approach is that if others don't do likewise, you get shafted (unless you have the ability to resurrected, of course).
Post edited at 08:46
In reply to balmybaldwin:
But where was GOD when the acts were carried out, why didn't the Almighty do something about it? Doubtless these nuns were doing gods work, I don't think Jimmy Saville could use that excuse.
> We need to remember that these things happen in all types of institution though. Saville @the beeb and stoke mandeville, the childrens homes on jersey, various schools, the nursery nurses in cornwall. The difference is the church promotes an image of infallibility, and has repeatedly covered up problems instead of being honest open and just as they should aspire to be
But where was GOD when the acts were carried out, why didn't the Almighty do something about it? Doubtless these nuns were doing gods work, I don't think Jimmy Saville could use that excuse.
In reply to Mike Conlon:
And what would you suggest be done about Tuam and all the other abuses ?
Interesting that you immediately choose to defend Catholicism and suggest criticism is ignorant. Just blind defence of your faith. That comes first for you. Your response is worrying to say the least.
I don't see Catholics publicly trying to find out the truth about these revelations or prosecute the guilty. What I see is an organisation trying to minimise the damage caused and desparate to cover up other crimes.
Most normal people should be so disgusted by Catholic atrocities over the years that they should stop being Cathoilcs.
And what would you suggest be done about Tuam and all the other abuses ?
Interesting that you immediately choose to defend Catholicism and suggest criticism is ignorant. Just blind defence of your faith. That comes first for you. Your response is worrying to say the least.
I don't see Catholics publicly trying to find out the truth about these revelations or prosecute the guilty. What I see is an organisation trying to minimise the damage caused and desparate to cover up other crimes.
Most normal people should be so disgusted by Catholic atrocities over the years that they should stop being Cathoilcs.
In reply to Timmd:
But this isn't one isolated incident. I think people should leave the church because there have been so many crimes and the church's response has been all about protecting itself.
> Just to be clear, if some children in Ireland are raped or neglected so they starve (or whatever happened), you think Catholics in Sheffield should stop being Catholic as a matter of principle?
But this isn't one isolated incident. I think people should leave the church because there have been so many crimes and the church's response has been all about protecting itself.
In reply to I like climbing:
The difference is that most catholics believe that catholicism is the one true faith. They believe that the teachings of the catholic church are right, and - this is important - those teachings do not support, in any way, the abuses carried out by some members of the church.
It's clear that there are/were evil people in the catholic church, but the are actions of some individuals really reason to throw up everything you believe in?
"Most normal people should be so disgusted by British atrocities over history that they should give up their citizenship."
> But this isn't one isolated incident. I think people should leave the church because there have been so many crimes and the church's response has been all about protecting itself.
The difference is that most catholics believe that catholicism is the one true faith. They believe that the teachings of the catholic church are right, and - this is important - those teachings do not support, in any way, the abuses carried out by some members of the church.
It's clear that there are/were evil people in the catholic church, but the are actions of some individuals really reason to throw up everything you believe in?
> Most normal people should be so disgusted by Catholic atrocities over the years that they should stop being Cathoilcs.
"Most normal people should be so disgusted by British atrocities over history that they should give up their citizenship."
Post edited at 10:34
In reply to Timmd:
Perhaps you could make a distinction between "stop being a Catholic" and "disowning the Catholic church."
Only an unquestioning sheep would believe that involvement with their church has any connection to the veracity of their belief.
> Just to be clear, if some children in Ireland are raped or neglected so they starve (or whatever happened), you think Catholics in Sheffield should stop being Catholic as a matter of principle?
Perhaps you could make a distinction between "stop being a Catholic" and "disowning the Catholic church."
Only an unquestioning sheep would believe that involvement with their church has any connection to the veracity of their belief.
In reply to Carless:
You've got to love this !!!
http://www.bonsecours.ie/sistersprayerrequest
I've asked them :-
"Please pray for The bodies of 796 children, between the ages of two days and nine years old, have been found in a disused sewage tank in Tuam, County Galway. They died between 1925 and 1961 in a mother and baby home under the care of the Bon Secours nuns."
Apparently "Thank you. Your entry has been successfully submitted."
You've got to love this !!!
http://www.bonsecours.ie/sistersprayerrequest
I've asked them :-
"Please pray for The bodies of 796 children, between the ages of two days and nine years old, have been found in a disused sewage tank in Tuam, County Galway. They died between 1925 and 1961 in a mother and baby home under the care of the Bon Secours nuns."
Apparently "Thank you. Your entry has been successfully submitted."
In reply to I like climbing:
As an organisation, the Catholic church must be unique in surviving after committing so many horrendous acts. The only word that comes close to describing it is evil.
> But this isn't one isolated incident. I think people should leave the church because there have been so many crimes and the church's response has been all about protecting itself.
As an organisation, the Catholic church must be unique in surviving after committing so many horrendous acts. The only word that comes close to describing it is evil.
In reply to wintertree:
>
Organised religion thrives on unquestioning sheep !
>
> Only an unquestioning sheep would believe that involvement with their church has any connection to the veracity of their belief.
Organised religion thrives on unquestioning sheep !
In reply to I like climbing:
Many people would strongly defend their right to call themselves Catholics whilst being in strong opposition the organised Roman Catholic Church. In this particular case the state is as culpable as the church (one of the specific problem in Ireland was the church and sate was/is too intertwined), but I wouldn't expect people to stop calling themselves Irish. I know it isn't a perfect analogy but I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between organised religion and personal faith and identity.
I'm completely non-religious and strongly believe in secularism.
> Most normal people should be so disgusted by Catholic atrocities over the years that they should stop being Cathoilcs.
Many people would strongly defend their right to call themselves Catholics whilst being in strong opposition the organised Roman Catholic Church. In this particular case the state is as culpable as the church (one of the specific problem in Ireland was the church and sate was/is too intertwined), but I wouldn't expect people to stop calling themselves Irish. I know it isn't a perfect analogy but I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between organised religion and personal faith and identity.
I'm completely non-religious and strongly believe in secularism.
Post edited at 11:01
In reply to climbwhenready:
Very interesting points. However, they should be seen as an organisation to be doing much more about abuses.
And the point about giving up citizenship over historical atrocities is one I think some people have taken.
Very interesting points. However, they should be seen as an organisation to be doing much more about abuses.
And the point about giving up citizenship over historical atrocities is one I think some people have taken.
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
Well put.
> As an organisation, the Catholic church must be unique in surviving after committing so many horrendous acts. The only word that comes close to describing it is evil.
Well put.
In reply to krikoman:
Haven't you heard? GOD moves in mysterious ways... it was probably a test
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> [...]
>
> But where was GOD when the acts were carried out, why didn't the Almighty do something about it? Doubtless these nuns were doing gods work, I don't think Jimmy Saville could use that excuse.
>
> [...]
>
> But where was GOD when the acts were carried out, why didn't the Almighty do something about it? Doubtless these nuns were doing gods work, I don't think Jimmy Saville could use that excuse.
Haven't you heard? GOD moves in mysterious ways... it was probably a test
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Probably best they call themselves something else then. To be a Roman Catholic does mean recognising the authority of the organised church.
Yes because the state was composed mostly of Catholics. So whilst the state should be held accountable the main fix there is to remove the religious controls.
Changing your nationality is somewhat tricky. Changing the church is quick.
Remember it isnt a case of a few bad eggs it was a case of those bad eggs being protected by the hierarchy.
Even today they still seem more interested in protecting themselves than anything else.
A more accurate analogy would be a political party. So you agree with most of their policies but they then get into a whole bunch of scandals.
You can just ignore it and keep giving them support or you either try and get them out of office or alternatively find another similar party which isnt morally bankrupt.
> Many people would strongly defend their right to call themselves Catholics whilst being in strong opposition the organised Roman Catholic Church.
Probably best they call themselves something else then. To be a Roman Catholic does mean recognising the authority of the organised church.
> In this particular case the state is as culpable as the church (one of the specific problem in Ireland was the church and sate was/is too intertwined)
Yes because the state was composed mostly of Catholics. So whilst the state should be held accountable the main fix there is to remove the religious controls.
> I know it isn't a perfect analogy but I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between organised religion and personal faith and identity.
Changing your nationality is somewhat tricky. Changing the church is quick.
Remember it isnt a case of a few bad eggs it was a case of those bad eggs being protected by the hierarchy.
Even today they still seem more interested in protecting themselves than anything else.
A more accurate analogy would be a political party. So you agree with most of their policies but they then get into a whole bunch of scandals.
You can just ignore it and keep giving them support or you either try and get them out of office or alternatively find another similar party which isnt morally bankrupt.
In reply to I like climbing:
I presume that "normal" means just like I like climbing?
Maybe all normal people should dislike climbing because of I like climbings bigoted attitude to the beliefs of others?
> Most normal people should be so disgusted by Catholic atrocities over the years that they should stop being Cathoilcs.
I presume that "normal" means just like I like climbing?
Maybe all normal people should dislike climbing because of I like climbings bigoted attitude to the beliefs of others?
In reply to timjones:
I wasnt aware I like climbing was in a position of power? If so then people might want to leave the club they set up and either join another one or just not bother with a club.
However it would be rather silly to dislike climbing completely. It would be like stopping being christian rather than just roman catholic.
> Maybe all normal people should dislike climbing because of I like climbings bigoted attitude to the beliefs of others?
I wasnt aware I like climbing was in a position of power? If so then people might want to leave the club they set up and either join another one or just not bother with a club.
However it would be rather silly to dislike climbing completely. It would be like stopping being christian rather than just roman catholic.
In reply to dissonance:
I'd say that it would be rather silly to stop being Roman Catholic. Surely it's better to stop with the organisation and try to improve things than running away?
> I wasnt aware I like climbing was in a position of power? If so then people might want to leave the club they set up and either join another one or just not bother with a club.
> However it would be rather silly to dislike climbing completely. It would be like stopping being christian rather than just roman catholic.
I'd say that it would be rather silly to stop being Roman Catholic. Surely it's better to stop with the organisation and try to improve things than running away?
In reply to dissonance:
I said Catholic which is a broader term, but now you mention it I would defend someone right to call themselves a Roman Catholic even if they have diverged from the Papacy (like women priest groups have.... that's how things advance). Basically, I would defend someone right to their personal faith regardless of whether the pope excommunicated them, it isn't up to him what people believe.... you'd have to be religious to believe it is.
France was mostly Catholic but that didn't stop the establishment of a secular state. The opposite happened in Ireland, church and state were intertwined, probably in some ways a reaction to the history of the British Isles..
It isn't for religious people, your analogy to political parties in not accurate at all.
> Probably best they call themselves something else then. To be a Roman Catholic does mean recognising the authority of the organised church.
I said Catholic which is a broader term, but now you mention it I would defend someone right to call themselves a Roman Catholic even if they have diverged from the Papacy (like women priest groups have.... that's how things advance). Basically, I would defend someone right to their personal faith regardless of whether the pope excommunicated them, it isn't up to him what people believe.... you'd have to be religious to believe it is.
> Yes because the state was composed mostly of Catholics.
France was mostly Catholic but that didn't stop the establishment of a secular state. The opposite happened in Ireland, church and state were intertwined, probably in some ways a reaction to the history of the British Isles..
> Changing your nationality is somewhat tricky. Changing the church is quick.
It isn't for religious people, your analogy to political parties in not accurate at all.
In reply to Mike Conlon:
I'd suggest that your being a practising catholic is incidental to having ability to see right and wrong; it just requires you to have human empathy.
It strikes me that the Catholic Church (not Catholics), is still struggling to free itself from the dogmatic trappings of its mediaeval power-hungry past. So much dogma is involved with ensuring that people stayed under the control of the church, and this can still be heard today in sermons around the world, where priests exhort the flock to ask for strength to maintain their faith. You might ask 'what does an atheist know about sermons?' Well, the odd thing is that I have my bedside radio to turn on at 8:30 every morning. And that includes Sundays. And that's the time of the Sunday service on Radio 4. And I'm so often struck by how little of the service actually talks about how to behave towards other people in the modern world, and how much of the service is devoted to rituals and prayers that are self-referential, asking for strength of faith.
By what means did the Church wield social power?
- by insisting on baptism to enter heaven
- by saying that sex outside marriage was a sin
- by being the only entity to ratify marriages
- by being the only conduit to God (prior to Protestant rebellion, which said that everyone can talk to God)
- by being the only entity that could absolve sin
- by giving absolution and last rights
- by controlling who could be buried in 'hallowed ground', and performing funeral rites
- by praying for salvation (from purgatory)
- etc.
Birth, sex, marriage, death, eternal life. Many religions tell you what you can eat, wear, how to cut your hair, and that you have to mutilate your body. That's a lot of power...
In return for these services, the Church demanded attendance at church, a tithe, and, frequently, a bequest in a will to ensure prayers were said in church for their soul/salvation. Often 'encouraged' on the deathbed, at the expense of the grieving family...
By these measures, the Church initially sought to ensure that people were nice to each other (i.e. they were enforcing functions), but it didn't take long for them to simply become a means of wielding social power. And the indoctrination of these measures is so strong that people do very odd things in their name, and results in the 'complex' theology' I mentioned earlier, and the sort of hideous, weasel-like thinking illustrated by the Vatican link I posted above. 'Angels dancing on the head of a pin' stuff.
I'm minded to agree with you. The trouble is, the established Church has added all sorts of stuff way beyond the Gospels, and way beyond the simple message of Matt 22:39 'love thy neighbour as thyself'. Although, even there, Jesus gave an enforcing function first: Matt 22:37 'love the lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind' doesn't tell you how to behave towards your fellow man, and its only purpose is to ensure you stick to the Faith.
Maybe it's time for a complete re-think, to peel away the veneers of 'theological' crap and enforcing functions that have accumulated over the last two thousand years, and get back to the original, simple message. And give up the power the Church wields over people's lives.
> As a practising catholic of some sixty years, I believe I have a social conscience and the ability to see the right and wrong in most things
I'd suggest that your being a practising catholic is incidental to having ability to see right and wrong; it just requires you to have human empathy.
It strikes me that the Catholic Church (not Catholics), is still struggling to free itself from the dogmatic trappings of its mediaeval power-hungry past. So much dogma is involved with ensuring that people stayed under the control of the church, and this can still be heard today in sermons around the world, where priests exhort the flock to ask for strength to maintain their faith. You might ask 'what does an atheist know about sermons?' Well, the odd thing is that I have my bedside radio to turn on at 8:30 every morning. And that includes Sundays. And that's the time of the Sunday service on Radio 4. And I'm so often struck by how little of the service actually talks about how to behave towards other people in the modern world, and how much of the service is devoted to rituals and prayers that are self-referential, asking for strength of faith.
By what means did the Church wield social power?
- by insisting on baptism to enter heaven
- by saying that sex outside marriage was a sin
- by being the only entity to ratify marriages
- by being the only conduit to God (prior to Protestant rebellion, which said that everyone can talk to God)
- by being the only entity that could absolve sin
- by giving absolution and last rights
- by controlling who could be buried in 'hallowed ground', and performing funeral rites
- by praying for salvation (from purgatory)
- etc.
Birth, sex, marriage, death, eternal life. Many religions tell you what you can eat, wear, how to cut your hair, and that you have to mutilate your body. That's a lot of power...
In return for these services, the Church demanded attendance at church, a tithe, and, frequently, a bequest in a will to ensure prayers were said in church for their soul/salvation. Often 'encouraged' on the deathbed, at the expense of the grieving family...
By these measures, the Church initially sought to ensure that people were nice to each other (i.e. they were enforcing functions), but it didn't take long for them to simply become a means of wielding social power. And the indoctrination of these measures is so strong that people do very odd things in their name, and results in the 'complex' theology' I mentioned earlier, and the sort of hideous, weasel-like thinking illustrated by the Vatican link I posted above. 'Angels dancing on the head of a pin' stuff.
> I have yet to come across any flaws in the simple teaching of Jesus Christ as recorded in the gospels.
I'm minded to agree with you. The trouble is, the established Church has added all sorts of stuff way beyond the Gospels, and way beyond the simple message of Matt 22:39 'love thy neighbour as thyself'. Although, even there, Jesus gave an enforcing function first: Matt 22:37 'love the lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind' doesn't tell you how to behave towards your fellow man, and its only purpose is to ensure you stick to the Faith.
Maybe it's time for a complete re-think, to peel away the veneers of 'theological' crap and enforcing functions that have accumulated over the last two thousand years, and get back to the original, simple message. And give up the power the Church wields over people's lives.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
No you dont. You just need to know that to be a Roman Catholic, at least without rendering the terms meaningless, you have to accept the authority of the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy. Some churches you could since they are decentralised but not the roman catholics.
If you dont like it then dont be a roman catholic, its what schisms are designed for.
The reasons for France becoming secular date back to the revolution and the close links between the church and the monarchy. Not dissimilar to the Russian revolution or the Spanish civil war (although that being a case where the church chose the winning side).
That set the scene for the ongoing relationship where the churches power was deliberately hobbled.
Yes it is. After all just look at how religious people either dont attend formal churches or set up their own. If we did that with countries I would be in my own kingdom by now.
Also try speaking with a really serious political person and you will see the similarities in most cases with a serious religious believer.
> Basically, I would defend someone right to their personal faith regardless of whether the pope excommunicated them, it isn't up to him what people believe.... you'd have to be religious to believe it is.
No you dont. You just need to know that to be a Roman Catholic, at least without rendering the terms meaningless, you have to accept the authority of the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy. Some churches you could since they are decentralised but not the roman catholics.
If you dont like it then dont be a roman catholic, its what schisms are designed for.
> France was mostly Catholic but that didn't stop the establishment of a secular state.
The reasons for France becoming secular date back to the revolution and the close links between the church and the monarchy. Not dissimilar to the Russian revolution or the Spanish civil war (although that being a case where the church chose the winning side).
That set the scene for the ongoing relationship where the churches power was deliberately hobbled.
> It isn't for religious people, your analogy to political parties in not accurate at all.
Yes it is. After all just look at how religious people either dont attend formal churches or set up their own. If we did that with countries I would be in my own kingdom by now.
Also try speaking with a really serious political person and you will see the similarities in most cases with a serious religious believer.
In reply to timjones:
If only people had stuck with the Khmer Rouge things would have been alright in the end.
There has to be a point with any organisation, political party, church etc where you accept the best thing to do is get out and move on.
> I'd say that it would be rather silly to stop being Roman Catholic. Surely it's better to stop with the organisation and try to improve things than running away?
If only people had stuck with the Khmer Rouge things would have been alright in the end.
There has to be a point with any organisation, political party, church etc where you accept the best thing to do is get out and move on.
In reply to Mike Stretford:
exactly..
> Many people would strongly defend their right to call themselves Catholics whilst being in strong opposition the organised Roman Catholic Church. In this particular case the state is as culpable as the church (one of the specific problem in Ireland was the church and sate was/is too intertwined), but I wouldn't expect people to stop calling themselves Irish. I know it isn't a perfect analogy but I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between organised religion and personal faith and identity.
> I'm completely non-religious and strongly believe in secularism.
exactly..
In reply to Ridge:
Don't you think the current pope is doing the best thing? These were committed decades ago.. The church thankfully is quite different now, and although like any organisation (the UK police being a prime example) self protection may well still exist), its made great strides in trying to reform, and being driven from the top down for one of the first times in its history...
Don't you think the current pope is doing the best thing? These were committed decades ago.. The church thankfully is quite different now, and although like any organisation (the UK police being a prime example) self protection may well still exist), its made great strides in trying to reform, and being driven from the top down for one of the first times in its history...
Post edited at 14:45
In reply to wintertree:
I'm just trying to work out what he means...
> Perhaps you could make a distinction between "stop being a Catholic" and "disowning the Catholic church."
> Only an unquestioning sheep would believe that involvement with their church has any connection to the veracity of their belief.
I'm just trying to work out what he means...
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Not sure you were being ironic there, I hope so.
Just in case though :-
A test who for??
A test obviously everyone failed with the consequences born by the children.
Some benevolent GOD that allows that to happen.
> Haven't you heard? GOD moves in mysterious ways... it was probably a test.
Not sure you were being ironic there, I hope so.
Just in case though :-
A test who for??
A test obviously everyone failed with the consequences born by the children.
Some benevolent GOD that allows that to happen.
In reply to dissonance:
In reality religion is about tradition, culture and superstition, that is what people hold dear, not the authority of a hierarchy. The term is much more meaningful when it describes someone who adheres to those traditions and superstition than those who await instructions from the Pope. As the Captain observed the hierarchy is stuck in the middle ages while the flock is mostly of the modern world, so the hierarchy have little control over what the flock get up to. In that sense it is decentralised so I don't let a technicality let me stop treating Catholics like Muslims ie I don't tar them with the sins of others who share their religion.
Fine that's your opinion, go and spread the world. I'm not religous so you're wasting your time on me.
Yeah I know and by the same token that is one reason why in Ireland the Church got so involved. It is that involvement which caused a disproportionate number of abuse cases IMO, and I said I believe strongly in secularism.
I'd agree when it comes to converts and born agains, but not to the vast majority (mostly ageing), to whom religion is something they were brought up with and is part of their identity.
> No you dont. You just need to know that to be a Roman Catholic, at least without rendering the terms meaningless, you have to accept the authority of the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy. Some churches you could since they are decentralised but not the roman catholics.
In reality religion is about tradition, culture and superstition, that is what people hold dear, not the authority of a hierarchy. The term is much more meaningful when it describes someone who adheres to those traditions and superstition than those who await instructions from the Pope. As the Captain observed the hierarchy is stuck in the middle ages while the flock is mostly of the modern world, so the hierarchy have little control over what the flock get up to. In that sense it is decentralised so I don't let a technicality let me stop treating Catholics like Muslims ie I don't tar them with the sins of others who share their religion.
> If you dont like it then dont be a roman catholic, its what schisms are designed for.
Fine that's your opinion, go and spread the world. I'm not religous so you're wasting your time on me.
> The reasons for France becoming secular date back to the revolution and the close links between the church and the monarchy. Not dissimilar to the Russian revolution or the Spanish civil war (although that being a case where the church chose the winning side).
> That set the scene for the ongoing relationship where the churches power was deliberately hobbled.
Yeah I know and by the same token that is one reason why in Ireland the Church got so involved. It is that involvement which caused a disproportionate number of abuse cases IMO, and I said I believe strongly in secularism.
> Also try speaking with a really serious political person and you will see the similarities in most cases with a serious religious believer.
I'd agree when it comes to converts and born agains, but not to the vast majority (mostly ageing), to whom religion is something they were brought up with and is part of their identity.
Post edited at 14:52
In reply to timjones:
Let us remember the victims of the Catholic church. They are owed the demise of Catholicism.
> I presume that "normal" means just like I like climbing?
> Maybe all normal people should dislike climbing because of I like climbings bigoted attitude to the beliefs of others?
Let us remember the victims of the Catholic church. They are owed the demise of Catholicism.
In reply to I like climbing:
Absolute nonsense.. that's just throwing out the baby..
Why not ban swimming? Thats been centre for pedophile rings..
> Let us remember the victims of the Catholic church. They are owed the demise of Catholicism.
Absolute nonsense.. that's just throwing out the baby..
Why not ban swimming? Thats been centre for pedophile rings..
In reply to krikoman:
Yes I was being ironic... but this is often the explanation trotted out by the religious when something horrible happens or someone gets seriously ill etc
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> [...]
>
> Not sure you were being ironic there, I hope so.
>
> Just in case though :-
>
> A test who for??
>
> A test obviously everyone failed with the consequences born by the children.
>
> Some benevolent GOD that allows that to happen.
>
> [...]
>
> Not sure you were being ironic there, I hope so.
>
> Just in case though :-
>
> A test who for??
>
> A test obviously everyone failed with the consequences born by the children.
>
> Some benevolent GOD that allows that to happen.
Yes I was being ironic... but this is often the explanation trotted out by the religious when something horrible happens or someone gets seriously ill etc
In reply to wintertree:
By the way, where do people get off being so pernickety?
'Let us remember the victims of the Catholic church. They are owed the demise of Catholicism.'
People not being Catholics does seem to be what he ment, so I was right to ask.
This forum's become even more full of snicks and pernickerty types...
> Perhaps you could make a distinction between "stop being a Catholic" and "disowning the Catholic church."
> Only an unquestioning sheep would believe that involvement with their church has any connection to the veracity of their belief.
By the way, where do people get off being so pernickety?
'Let us remember the victims of the Catholic church. They are owed the demise of Catholicism.'
People not being Catholics does seem to be what he ment, so I was right to ask.
This forum's become even more full of snicks and pernickerty types...
In reply to IainRUK:
Absolute nonsense.. that's just throwing out the baby..
Why not ban swimming? Thats been centre for pedophile rings..
Can you image how awful life must have been for the victims of Tuam ?
Personally I don't have any issues with swimming. It doesn't make me or anyone else I know want to do unnatural evil things to children.
Absolute nonsense.. that's just throwing out the baby..
Why not ban swimming? Thats been centre for pedophile rings..
Can you image how awful life must have been for the victims of Tuam ?
Personally I don't have any issues with swimming. It doesn't make me or anyone else I know want to do unnatural evil things to children.
In reply to I like climbing:
Yes yes, very noble of you. Do you think people should stop being Hindus too, after the religious killings in India? Or Muslims after what happened during the partition? Or Christians, after the Crusades?
It makes just as much sense.
Yes yes, very noble of you. Do you think people should stop being Hindus too, after the religious killings in India? Or Muslims after what happened during the partition? Or Christians, after the Crusades?
It makes just as much sense.
Post edited at 16:05
In reply to I like climbing:
>
Every time I see a nun, I cannot help asking myself what nasty sociopath is hiding inside those robes. I'm convinced they are running away from a society they cannot cope with. That isn't to say that all nuns are sadistic and perverted, but given the authority they had in these institutions, I fear for the worse.
>
> Can you image how awful life must have been for the victims of Tuam ?
> Personally I don't have any issues with swimming. It doesn't make me or anyone else I know want to do unnatural evil things to children.
Every time I see a nun, I cannot help asking myself what nasty sociopath is hiding inside those robes. I'm convinced they are running away from a society they cannot cope with. That isn't to say that all nuns are sadistic and perverted, but given the authority they had in these institutions, I fear for the worse.
In reply to I like climbing:
How does catholicism? It doesn't make anyone do such acts.. what an incredible statement. People have abused positions, they've been protected, all wrong, but the church didn't make them do 'unnatural things to children'...
It was a sport heavily infiltrated by pedophiles, to not have an issue with it shows true ignorance of child welfare…
In Ireland the people of church and swimming coaches were heavily connected in the pedophile rings.. this just highlights your gross ignorance on this issue.
How does catholicism? It doesn't make anyone do such acts.. what an incredible statement. People have abused positions, they've been protected, all wrong, but the church didn't make them do 'unnatural things to children'...
It was a sport heavily infiltrated by pedophiles, to not have an issue with it shows true ignorance of child welfare…
In Ireland the people of church and swimming coaches were heavily connected in the pedophile rings.. this just highlights your gross ignorance on this issue.
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
You do realise many were just packed off to the church for money issues?
The families had large families, get them off to seminary school and they have a long term, fairly well paid career early on.
You do realise many were just packed off to the church for money issues?
The families had large families, get them off to seminary school and they have a long term, fairly well paid career early on.
In reply to IainRUK:
When people start posting a certain amount of gobbledegook it stops being worth trying to use logic.
When people start posting a certain amount of gobbledegook it stops being worth trying to use logic.
In reply to Timmd:
Well, elsewhere had said
To which you replied
It seemed to me that there was a large gulf between those two sentences, and one that far exceeded "pernickety". I'm not going to be pernickety about it however...
> By the way, where do people get off being so pernickety?
Well, elsewhere had said
> Would you stay in an organisation that did that ?
To which you replied
> you think Catholics in Sheffield should stop being Catholic as a matter of principle?
It seemed to me that there was a large gulf between those two sentences, and one that far exceeded "pernickety". I'm not going to be pernickety about it however...
In reply to I like climbing:
>
Of course I can.. like I can for the victims in many UK children's homes at that time… and in many non-religious institutions.
Remember the North Wales abuse scandal?
The jersey home scandal?
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/chil-j05.html
Abuse in children's homes is sadly nothing new, to blame the Church is just ignorant, those people enter such professions regardless…
>
> Can you image how awful life must have been for the victims of Tuam ?
Of course I can.. like I can for the victims in many UK children's homes at that time… and in many non-religious institutions.
Remember the North Wales abuse scandal?
The jersey home scandal?
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/chil-j05.html
Abuse in children's homes is sadly nothing new, to blame the Church is just ignorant, those people enter such professions regardless…
In reply to IainRUK:
I was taught by nuns in my primary school.
I've never known such nasty, sadistic bitches in all my life !
I was taught by nuns in my primary school.
I've never known such nasty, sadistic bitches in all my life !
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
I'm sure some enter for the wrong reasons.. likewise there are bad teachers.. and other bad people in care homes.. the UK certainly had huge issues within its (secular) care home system at the same time as this Irish case. To suddenly point at the church is just ludicrous.
I'm sure some enter for the wrong reasons.. likewise there are bad teachers.. and other bad people in care homes.. the UK certainly had huge issues within its (secular) care home system at the same time as this Irish case. To suddenly point at the church is just ludicrous.
Post edited at 16:19
In reply to wintertree:
You make a valid point, but he later posted the demise of Catholicism is owed to the children who died, which is what I had a feel he ment, even though he'd not yet posted as such.
Perhaps I've spent too much time surfing web forums, but I can almost start to tell what some people are going to post next. It's time I stopped and got on with things.
You make a valid point, but he later posted the demise of Catholicism is owed to the children who died, which is what I had a feel he ment, even though he'd not yet posted as such.
Perhaps I've spent too much time surfing web forums, but I can almost start to tell what some people are going to post next. It's time I stopped and got on with things.
Post edited at 16:29
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
I agree. You make an excellent point.
> Every time I see a nun, I cannot help asking myself what nasty sociopath is hiding inside those robes. I'm convinced they are running away from a society they cannot cope with. That isn't to say that all nuns are sadistic and perverted, but given the authority they had in these institutions, I fear for the worse.
I agree. You make an excellent point.
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/12/18/uk-establishment-closes-ranks-as...
Also worth reading about this and how the UK Government protected its ministers here…
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/12/18/uk-establishment-closes-ranks-as...
Also worth reading about this and how the UK Government protected its ministers here…
In reply to I like climbing:
He's asking for objectivity.
You know, a scientific analysis of the facts rather than broad brush generalisations...
He's asking for objectivity.
You know, a scientific analysis of the facts rather than broad brush generalisations...
Post edited at 16:24
In reply to IainRUK:
>. To suddenly point at the church is just ludicrous.
As I stated in an earlier post, the Catholic church has a indefensible past and these new discoveries only worsen its' case. By definition, a Church should lead by example.
>. To suddenly point at the church is just ludicrous.
As I stated in an earlier post, the Catholic church has a indefensible past and these new discoveries only worsen its' case. By definition, a Church should lead by example.
In reply to I like climbing:
How have I defended those involved? Not for one moment.
I have constantly attacked the Catholic Church on these forums, its a widely corrupt organisation which has protected pedophiles, but likewise so has the UK Government… but it is modernising.
You just seem to have the ignorant view, which is highlighted by your ignorance of the swimming coaches.. I was a child welfare officer for the local running club, a legally required position because child abuse within sports is sadly too common…
But hey ho you can spout with authority when you tare just talking shite...
> You don't seem to be able to criticise the Catholic Church do you ?
How have I defended those involved? Not for one moment.
I have constantly attacked the Catholic Church on these forums, its a widely corrupt organisation which has protected pedophiles, but likewise so has the UK Government… but it is modernising.
You just seem to have the ignorant view, which is highlighted by your ignorance of the swimming coaches.. I was a child welfare officer for the local running club, a legally required position because child abuse within sports is sadly too common…
But hey ho you can spout with authority when you tare just talking shite...
In reply to Pyreneenemec:
Like the Government?
And the Police?
> >. To suddenly point at the church is just ludicrous.
> As I stated in an earlier post, the Catholic church has a indefensible past and these new discoveries only worsen its' case. By definition, a Church should lead by example.
Like the Government?
And the Police?
In reply to I like climbing: This is Scotlands history.. 1950-1995..
As I said abuse in care homes was far from just an issue in Catholic churches, it was sadly way way too common.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/20104729/20
I doubt you are reading these links, that would just mean you'd be informed when ignorance is far more fun…
People use organisations like the church, care homes, sports to have positions of power and treat kids like this..
As I said abuse in care homes was far from just an issue in Catholic churches, it was sadly way way too common.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/11/20104729/20
I doubt you are reading these links, that would just mean you'd be informed when ignorance is far more fun…
People use organisations like the church, care homes, sports to have positions of power and treat kids like this..
In reply to Timmd:
I'm glad you appreciate my compassion.
We could address other religions in another thread !
I'm glad you appreciate my compassion.
We could address other religions in another thread !
In reply to I like climbing:
Yeah we can, or we can look at the real issue which is getting systems in place to stop this as it was so wide spread throughout the care home system….
You have gone for this one but the Irish state and church are intwined… and then we look at the UK system which was often secular and similar cases of abuse existed.. yet you still seem to be singling out the church…
It's very odd..
Yeah we can, or we can look at the real issue which is getting systems in place to stop this as it was so wide spread throughout the care home system….
You have gone for this one but the Irish state and church are intwined… and then we look at the UK system which was often secular and similar cases of abuse existed.. yet you still seem to be singling out the church…
It's very odd..
In reply to IainRUK:
Neither of which a professing to be doing "GODS" work. For me this whole issue isn't about Catholics and what's wrong with that system, it's about how people can claim there is any such thing as a god who allows these things to happen. And if someone does say that he works in mysterious way then that's bullshit. A supposedly omnipresent being turning his back on so much suffering in nothing more than a cnut.
If I looked the other way when someone was dying then I would expect to be vilified for it.
> Like the Government?
> And the Police?
Neither of which a professing to be doing "GODS" work. For me this whole issue isn't about Catholics and what's wrong with that system, it's about how people can claim there is any such thing as a god who allows these things to happen. And if someone does say that he works in mysterious way then that's bullshit. A supposedly omnipresent being turning his back on so much suffering in nothing more than a cnut.
If I looked the other way when someone was dying then I would expect to be vilified for it.
In reply to IainRUK:
And still the insults keep coming from you…….
Good to hear that you have criticised the CC. I have been unaware of the swimming coach problem but thank you for letting me know about it.
And I have read some of the links you posted and intend to read the others.
And still the insults keep coming from you…….
Good to hear that you have criticised the CC. I have been unaware of the swimming coach problem but thank you for letting me know about it.
And I have read some of the links you posted and intend to read the others.
In reply to krikoman:
And how is gods work abusing kids….
For me this whole issue isn't about Catholics and what's wrong with that system, it's about how people can claim there is any such thing as a god who allows these things to happen. And if someone does say that he works in mysterious way then that's bullshit. A supposedly omnipresent being turning his back on so much suffering in nothing more than a cnut.
Yes they are wrong… but the same abuse happens when you remove religions… so the effort should be on stopping abuse not religions..
> Neither of which a professing to be doing "GODS" work.
And how is gods work abusing kids….
For me this whole issue isn't about Catholics and what's wrong with that system, it's about how people can claim there is any such thing as a god who allows these things to happen. And if someone does say that he works in mysterious way then that's bullshit. A supposedly omnipresent being turning his back on so much suffering in nothing more than a cnut.
> If I looked the other way when someone was dying then I would expect to be vilified for it.
Yes they are wrong… but the same abuse happens when you remove religions… so the effort should be on stopping abuse not religions..
In reply to IainRUK:
I can't remember saying anything of the sort. That doesn't sound like me. Are you sure you haven't got me confused with someone else ?
I can't remember saying anything of the sort. That doesn't sound like me. Are you sure you haven't got me confused with someone else ?
In reply to IainRUK:
But we know this was to do with them being born out of wedlock and they were not worth looking after because god won't like it.
My whole point is not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, it's that god should have stepped in.
> Yes they are wrong… but the same abuse happens when you remove religions…
But we know this was to do with them being born out of wedlock and they were not worth looking after because god won't like it.
My whole point is not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, it's that god should have stepped in.
In reply to krikoman:
Yes.. well we have 2 potential responses.. blame god and pray he gets better at protecting those at risk..
But the church is far different now. issues like divorce and kids out of wedlock are far less stigmatised.
To say 'well god didn't protect them'.. we can do that about every death, every harm a kid would have..
> But we know this was to do with them being born out of wedlock and they were not worth looking after because god won't like it.
> My whole point is not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, it's that god should have stepped in.
Yes.. well we have 2 potential responses.. blame god and pray he gets better at protecting those at risk..
But the church is far different now. issues like divorce and kids out of wedlock are far less stigmatised.
To say 'well god didn't protect them'.. we can do that about every death, every harm a kid would have..
Post edited at 17:52
In reply to IainRUK:
BLAME god!!! are you suggesting he's wrong? I would have thought that since he's been around for sometime and is supposed to be the creator of everything he might have ironed out the little getting things wrong bit, especially when it comes to letting people us his name in the killing of small children.
The church might be different but has god changed his mind too, or did they do something against gods will? Then go away with it for 60 + years?
And why not if he's so omnipotent and omnipresent why not stop the suffering of all children, that's what a good parent would strive to do, unless he's a bad parent. I'm not saying stop them falling off their bikes and grazing their knees but stopping them being abused by his followers would be a good start, and then there's the children who die of starvation and AIDs. All a nice stating point for god to put some of his mistakes right. And why did he invent malaria in the first place, surely if he's the great creator he could have left malaria, and TB out of the mix, or just another mistake?
> Yes.. well we have 2 potential responses.. blame god and pray he gets better at protecting those at risk..
BLAME god!!! are you suggesting he's wrong? I would have thought that since he's been around for sometime and is supposed to be the creator of everything he might have ironed out the little getting things wrong bit, especially when it comes to letting people us his name in the killing of small children.
> But the church is far different now. issues like divorce and kids out of wedlock are far less stigmatised.
The church might be different but has god changed his mind too, or did they do something against gods will? Then go away with it for 60 + years?
> To say 'well god didn't protect them'.. we can do that about every death, every harm a kid would have..
And why not if he's so omnipotent and omnipresent why not stop the suffering of all children, that's what a good parent would strive to do, unless he's a bad parent. I'm not saying stop them falling off their bikes and grazing their knees but stopping them being abused by his followers would be a good start, and then there's the children who die of starvation and AIDs. All a nice stating point for god to put some of his mistakes right. And why did he invent malaria in the first place, surely if he's the great creator he could have left malaria, and TB out of the mix, or just another mistake?
In reply to krikoman:
I once named a new route "Blame God". It was near Islamabad and the locals weren't quite sure how to take it, as it clearly implies some kind of divine fault, which wasn't something commonly acknowledged. It was just one of many such risqué names though and everyone was grown up enough to appreciate them without taking unintended offence. Other memorable names included "Osama bin climbing", "Girls and other animals" and "Men holding hands".
I once named a new route "Blame God". It was near Islamabad and the locals weren't quite sure how to take it, as it clearly implies some kind of divine fault, which wasn't something commonly acknowledged. It was just one of many such risqué names though and everyone was grown up enough to appreciate them without taking unintended offence. Other memorable names included "Osama bin climbing", "Girls and other animals" and "Men holding hands".
In reply to krikoman:
You are arguing with someone who has published papers in evolutionary biology.. quite clearly I'm not one who believes that he 'invented' anything.. nor coordinates lifes events.
You are arguing with someone who has published papers in evolutionary biology.. quite clearly I'm not one who believes that he 'invented' anything.. nor coordinates lifes events.
In reply to IainRUK:
Do you believe "he" exists?
> You are arguing with someone who has published papers in evolutionary biology.. quite clearly I'm not one who believes that he 'invented' anything.. nor coordinates lifes events.
Do you believe "he" exists?
In reply to IainRUK:
So you're cherry picking the bits that suit you then?
> You are arguing with someone who has published papers in evolutionary biology.. quite clearly I'm not one who believes that he 'invented' anything.. nor coordinates lifes events.
So you're cherry picking the bits that suit you then?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I don t know.. I'm certainly not a big believer..
> Do you believe "he" exists?
I don t know.. I'm certainly not a big believer..
In reply to krikoman:
Why?
How can anyone who is agnostic or an atheist blame god?
> So you're cherry picking the bits that suit you then?
Why?
How can anyone who is agnostic or an atheist blame god?
Post edited at 14:14
In reply to IainRUK:
And my point was, similar things happened in the care home system throughout the UK, where God wasn't involved..
I'm not saying bodies wrongly buried, but abuse and sexual abuse were rife. Look at North Wales. There were many investigations nation wide of abuse in the 60's, 70's and 80's all over the country in the UK. To be honest, if you aren't religious then the body is pretty much irrelevant as the moment you are dead its just a matter of hygiene. I'm much more concerned about the abuse of living people than what actually happens to a dead body. Obviously that doesn't mean I'm condoning throwing them in cesspits, but mass graves, unmarked graves etc isn't a huge issue for me. It probably happens world wide for people with no family to pay for the graves or people who will visit. I'd imagine in those days cremation wasn't an option, I think the Church was later in accepting that was a valid option.. Apologies if it offends as Jim C was 'outraged' by me saying that I'm more concerned with abuse of living than dead bodies...
In Ireland you can't separate Church and State so I can't see why the Church is getting such a kicking when the state is being spared, and as it similarly happened in the UK it does suggest it wasn't just an issue with the Church.
That doesn't mean I'm defending the church, I just think it could be more balanced. It also needs remembering that this was 5 decades ago.. things have changed.
The new pope has probably brought the church on more in the last 5 years than in the last 50 years.
I'm not sure I'd class my self as a catholic, but was brought up in a catholic family, but went to protestant and later a fairly much unreligious state school, and probably only attend mass once a year at Christmas with family. I certainly I'm no great believer and use the church as any sort of guidance.. and that's also true for most catholics in day to day life… there is this mistaken view on here that catholics are dictated to by the vatican… in reality that's just bullshit.. even the priests are much more open minded than many on here think.
And my point was, similar things happened in the care home system throughout the UK, where God wasn't involved..
I'm not saying bodies wrongly buried, but abuse and sexual abuse were rife. Look at North Wales. There were many investigations nation wide of abuse in the 60's, 70's and 80's all over the country in the UK. To be honest, if you aren't religious then the body is pretty much irrelevant as the moment you are dead its just a matter of hygiene. I'm much more concerned about the abuse of living people than what actually happens to a dead body. Obviously that doesn't mean I'm condoning throwing them in cesspits, but mass graves, unmarked graves etc isn't a huge issue for me. It probably happens world wide for people with no family to pay for the graves or people who will visit. I'd imagine in those days cremation wasn't an option, I think the Church was later in accepting that was a valid option.. Apologies if it offends as Jim C was 'outraged' by me saying that I'm more concerned with abuse of living than dead bodies...
In Ireland you can't separate Church and State so I can't see why the Church is getting such a kicking when the state is being spared, and as it similarly happened in the UK it does suggest it wasn't just an issue with the Church.
That doesn't mean I'm defending the church, I just think it could be more balanced. It also needs remembering that this was 5 decades ago.. things have changed.
The new pope has probably brought the church on more in the last 5 years than in the last 50 years.
I'm not sure I'd class my self as a catholic, but was brought up in a catholic family, but went to protestant and later a fairly much unreligious state school, and probably only attend mass once a year at Christmas with family. I certainly I'm no great believer and use the church as any sort of guidance.. and that's also true for most catholics in day to day life… there is this mistaken view on here that catholics are dictated to by the vatican… in reality that's just bullshit.. even the priests are much more open minded than many on here think.
Post edited at 15:34
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...