Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 15, 2018, 03:16:34 AM
-
At what point is an organisation inherently dangerous?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45190355
-
I can only thank my lucky stars I was not brought up a Catholic, where child sexual abuse was endemic, and maybe still is. The cover up by the church authorities is terrible and they should be brought to account.
Do the paedophile priests think saying a few hail marys will absolve them of their crimes?
I would like to hear our resident devout Catholic's opinion on this topic.
-
I would like to hear fewer of your opinions on any topic.
-
I would like to hear fewer of your opinions on any topic.
Discussion forums may not be for you.
-
Discussion forums may not be for you.
;D
-
Obviously there are some who would argue that Christianity in toto is harmful.
However,early Christianity starting with the apostles represents a moral revolution marked by impeccability.
Sadly, this pattern has not been followed by the network and institute known as the New atheists, who, comparatively speaking are still in the age of the apostles and yet public suspicion of it's impeccability seems to have crept in.
I say this not to defend Catholicism. I think it may be time for a root and branch change of direction there and probably one that will be forced on them. The catholic experience which should be heeded by all networks and institutions is ''your sins will find you out'' and even suppression won't work.
-
At what point is an organisation inherently dangerous?
When rumours food shortages and vital medicine unavailability begin?
-
When rumours food shortages and vital medicine unavailability begin?
You seem to be suggesting that protecting child abusers is fine. I presume you didn't mean that?
-
At what point is an organisation inherently dangerous?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45190355
This point?
-
This point?
NO! That point was passed (possibly) a hundref years ago if not more!
-
Was it known?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/former-vatican-ambassador-says-pope-benedict-and-pope-francis-knew-of-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-mccarrick-for-years/2018/08/26/5ac6dcda-a7e0-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html
-
Catholics should be asking themselves what it is about their doctrine which encourages a large number of their priests to be paedophiles, and their hierarchy to cover it up?
Yes all denominations have priests who are perverts, but not in the numbers with which the RCC is riddled.
-
Catholics should be asking themselves what it is about their doctrine which encourages a large number of their priests to be paedophiles, and their hierarchy to cover it up?
Yes all denominations have priests who are perverts, but not in the numbers with which the RCC is riddled.
And the answer is priestly celibacy. If an individual priest feels called to be celebate, fair enough, but it shouldn't be imposed on all.
-
No one is forced to be a priest. Plenty of people are celibate, not always from choice, and aren't perverts. If they did decide & were able to have a sexual relationship they wouldn't want a child, that's something quite different.
Perverts will look for professions/voluntary work/hobbies that give them access to the vulnerable. Being clergy is one example.
-
The priesthood is a vocation, as is monasticism. From what I have read about both, celibacy is a struggle for many. Yes, nobody makes them join. But to have a strong calling and yet still have the normal wants and desires that many - most? - of us experience is really not easy and can be a terrible source of inner conflict.
-
And the answer is priestly celibacy. If an individual priest feels called to be celebate, fair enough, but it shouldn't be imposed on all.
I think to some extent you are right, although enforced celibacy is not an excuse for child sexual abuse.
-
I think to some extent you are right, although enforced celibacy is not an excuse for child sexual abuse.
Of course not I'm offering a partial explanation, not excusing it.
-
There's a intelligence squared debate about, 'Is the catholic church a force for good in the world', you can get it on YouTube, Stephen Fry's contribution says it all about the RCC, imo there's nothing needed to be added to his testimony, I think it's faultless.
Regards ippy
-
For Catholic priests, celibacy means not marrying, not abstaining from sexual activity. Engaging in sexual activity is a mortal sin and has to be confessed and atoned for. It is not a disqualification from the priesthood.
Celibacy - in its correct sense - was introduced to protect church property.
It may be that the incidence of inappropriate sexual activity is no higher among catholic priests than among ministers of any religion - it just gets more publicity. Or it may be that there is some aspect about the life of catholic priests that appeals to homosexual hebephiles. They may be attracted to the priesthood because it gives them potential access to victims. Certainly, the traditional behaviour of the church authorities has been to protect the image of the institution rather than publicly condemn the miscreants.
Abolishing the rule of celibacy may have little effect.
-
For Catholic priests, celibacy means not marrying, not abstaining from sexual activity. Engaging in sexual activity is a mortal sin and has to be confessed and atoned for. It is not a disqualification from the priesthood.
I think you're committing the etymological fallacy here, confusing the etymology of a word with its meaning. "Celibate" is from a root meaning "unmarried", but as used nowadays, it meanes "abstainig from sex".
Celibacy - in its correct sense - was introduced to protect church property.
Evidence?
It may be that the incidence of inappropriate sexual activity is no higher among catholic priests than among ministers of any religion - it just gets more publicity. Or it may be that there is some aspect about the life of catholic priests that appeals to homosexual hebephiles. They may be attracted to the priesthood because it gives them potential access to victims. Certainly, the traditional behaviour of the church authorities has been to protect the image of the institution rather than publicly condemn the miscreants.
Abolishing the rule of celibacy may have little effect.
Or it may have considerable effect.
-
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned the rule of celibacy means that priests do not marry. Until about 1200, priests did marry (the rule was not enforced) and had children. It was the practice of priests arranging for their offspring to inherit church property which created the need to enforce the rule.
Since the RC Church operates in many countries and many languages it is quite possible that the practice in English to regard "celibate" as meaning "abstaining from sex" is idiosyncratic. In French it certainly means "unmarried".
-
There's a intelligence squared debate about, 'Is the catholic church a force for good in the world', you can get it on YouTube, Stephen Fry's contribution says it all about the RCC, imo there's nothing needed to be added to his testimony, I think it's faultless.
Regards ippy
I have watched this several tmes and each time my respect for Stephen Fry is justified.
In the same debate Anne Widdicombe made me want to vomit but the vote at the end of the debate, especially the difference from the one taken before the debate, was a vindication of everything he said - unfortunately his partner in the debate will give one poster on this Forum apoplexy!
-
I have watched this several tmes and each time my respect for Stephen Fry is justified.
In the same debate Anne Widdicombe made me want to vomit but the vote at the end of the debate, especially the difference from the one taken before the debate, was a vindication of everything he said - unfortunately his partner in the debate will give one poster on this Forum apoplexy!
The vote here is merely an ad pop. And all it shows is that one side had better debaters. It's the same nonsense that Alan/Alien, once of this parish, used to trout out about William Lane Craig. The better speaker is no indication of them being right.
-
The vote here is merely an ad pop. And all it shows is that one side had better debaters. It's the same nonsense that Alan/Alien, once of this parish, used to trout out about William Lane Craig. The better speaker is no indication of them being right.
That would be the Intelligence Squared debate between Steven Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and Anne Widdicomb and a catholic bishop whose name escapes me on the other. Fry and Hitchens totally knocked it out of the park. I happen to think they were right, but they won the debate because they were better prepared and they were more eloquent.
I have seen some of WLC's debates with atheists. In my opinion, the atheist usually loses because WLC is better prepared and he is eloquent and he knows the tricks of formal debating. The only atheist I have seen who got the better of WLC was Sam Harris and he did it mainly by refusing to play by the rules.
-
That would be the Intelligence Squared debate between Steven Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and Anne Widdicomb and a catholic bishop whose name escapes me on the other. Fry and Hitchens totally knocked it out of the park. I happen to think they were right, but they won the debate because they were better prepared and they were more eloquent.
I have seen some of WLC's debates with atheists. In my opinion, the atheist usually loses because WLC is better prepared and he is eloquent and he knows the tricks of formal debating. The only atheist I have seen who got the better of WLC was Sam Harris and he did it mainly by refusing to play by the rules.
Yep, thank you for the agreement
-
I have watched this several tmes and each time my respect for Stephen Fry is justified.
In the same debate Anne Widdicombe made me want to vomit but the vote at the end of the debate, especially the difference from the one taken before the debate, was a vindication of everything he said - unfortunately his partner in the debate will give one poster on this Forum apoplexy!
Yes it was quite a debate, I was there and a large section of the audience about 50-70 walked out en-bulk, after Chris spoke, there was a terrific atmosphere.
Regards ippy
-
The vote here is merely an ad pop. And all it shows is that one side had better debaters. It's the same nonsense that Alan/Alien, once of this parish, used to trout out about William Lane Craig. The better speaker is no indication of them being right.
I'm inclined to agree with your view about the overall quality of the better debaters on one side and the result N S, that's all very interesting but I'm just wondering what this had to do with this post of mine where all I wrote about amounted to was giving Stephen Fry's appraisal of the RCC a thumbs up?
Regards ippy
-
I'm inclined to agree with your view about the overall quality of the better debaters on one side and the result N S, that's all very interesting but I'm just wondering what this had to do with this post of mine where all I wrote about amounted to was giving Stephen Fry's appraisal of the RCC a thumbs up?
Regards ippy
You mentioned the vote.
ETA Apologies you didn't mention the vote, Owlswing did in the post I replied to.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46539341
I am sure the people who were allegedly abused will be so thrilled the Pope has demoted these cardinals! >:(
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46539341
I am sure the people who were allegedly abused will be so thrilled the Pope has demoted these cardinals! >:(
Expectng anything of any use from either the Pope or the Catholic Church as a whole is like expecting the EU to propose a Brexit deal that costs neither the EU nor the UK a penny.
-
Expectng anything of any use from either the Pope or the Catholic Church as a whole is like expecting the EU to propose a Brexit deal that costs neither the EU nor the UK a penny.
True.
-
Expectng anything of any use from either the Pope or the Catholic Church as a whole is like expecting the EU to propose a Brexit deal that costs neither the EU nor the UK a penny.
Here's a Brexit deal that will cost the EU and the UK not a penny (at least not a penny more than has already been spent on the fiasco): stay in the EU. That's a deal that's still on the table.
-
Things are not getting better for the Church are they?
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/naming-names-reckoning-underway-us-104441015.html
-
Who knows!
The increased levels of publicity about the wrong doings of the clergy and the the declining levels of vocations may well drag the RCC attitudes to sex, sexuality, chastity, marriage and celibacy into the 20th century.
-
Who knows!
The increased levels of publicity about the wrong doings of the clergy and the the declining levels of vocations may well drag the RCC attitudes to sex, sexuality, chastity, marriage and celibacy into the 20th century.
Eventually they may make it into the 21st century ;)
-
Eventually they may make it into the 21st century ;)
Karma applaud. ::)
-
Karma applaud. ::)
Agreed - they only have about 500 years to go!
-
Who knows!
The increased levels of publicity about the wrong doings of the clergy and the the declining levels of vocations may well drag the RCC attitudes to sex, sexuality, chastity, marriage and celibacy into the 20th century.
Oh come on, they have to get through all the other centuries first! :D
-
Oh come on, they have to get through all the other centuries first! :D
;D
-
I wonder how the parents did not see it? Abuse on such a large scale but no one became aware of it?
My parent's would have noticed something wrong and my parents would never allowed us to be in such an unsupervised position for abuse to take place.
I haven't time to read through, but I take it the abuse happened to children in Roman Catholic Orphanages?
We believe abuse is abuse yet we allow men to bring their 13 year old wives to this country.
Are we a world of humans who have double standards?
-
We believe abuse is abuse yet we allow men to bring their 13 year old wives to this country.
We do that?
Terrible!
How common is it?
-
I wonder how the parents did not see it? Abuse on such a large scale but no one became aware of it?
My parent's would have noticed something wrong and my parents would never allowed us to be in such an unsupervised position for abuse to take place.
I haven't time to read through, but I take it the abuse happened to children in Roman Catholic Orphanages?
We believe abuse is abuse yet we allow men to bring their 13 year old wives to this country.
Are we a world of humans who have double standards?
Can you provide evidence to support that claim? If it is true it is shocking to say the least. :o
-
My parents would have noticed and believed me had anything happened to me.
Unfortunately many didn't in the past, it seemed to be beyond their understanding. Too awful to contemplate in years gone by, not so much now. Everyone is more wised up now thank goodness.
-
My parents would have noticed and believed me had anything happened to me.
Unfortunately many didn't in the past, it seemed to be beyond their understanding. Too awful to contemplate in years gone by, not so much now. Everyone is more wised up now thank goodness.
Some parents would prefer to think the abuser is above doing that sort of thing, as I know for a fact. :o
-
Yes I agree, LR. It is too awful a thing to contemplate for many parents, however I know my parents would have believed me had such a thing happened when I was young. Something did happen when I was 19, nearly 20. I told my sister and mother and they believed me, so did Dad but unfortunately there was no way of identifying the man concerned so nothing could be done. I couldn't even remember what he looked like. It happened at a student house with lots of rooms, I felt so stupid but when he took me to a room I thought he was going to show me something, like a painting or book collection. I remember Rhiannon and I talking about it, she had had similar but was younger than me when it happened to her.
What really hurt was the fact that I told an acquaintance/ friend (who was going to meet me there but didn't turn up unless she came later), and she didn't believe me. She also told someone else who didn't believe me either.
I feel they would believe me now, times have changed and why would I lie about something like that?
Something also happened to my sis and I went for him big time! Surprised he is still alive and I'm not a violent, angry person by nature but I gave it to him big time.
-
Yes I agree, LR. It is too awful a thing to contemplate for many parents, however I know my parents would have believed me had such a thing happened when I was young. Something did happen when I was 19, nearly 20. I told my sister and mother and they believed me, so did Dad but unfortunately there was no way of identifying the man concerned so nothing could be done. I couldn't even remember what he looked like. It happened at a student house with lots of rooms, I felt so stupid but when he took me to a room I thought he was going to show me something, like a painting or book collection. I remember Rhiannon and I talking about it, she had had similar but was younger than me when it happened to her.
What really hurt was the fact that I told an acquaintance/ friend (who was going to meet me there but didn't turn up unless she came later), and she didn't believe me. She also told someone else who didn't believe me either.
I feel they would believe me now, times have changed and why would I lie about something like that?
Something also happened to my sis and I went for him big time! Surprised he is still alive and I'm not a violent, angry person by nature but I gave it to him big time.
It was the pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended as a child who touched me inappropriately when I was 14. My parents chose not to believe me when I informed them. :o
-
I have just seen this BBC News report.
A senior Roman Catholic Cardinal has said that files documenting child sexual abuse were destroyed, allowing offences to continue.
German Cardinal Reinhard Marx told a conference on paedophilia in the Church that procedures to prosecute offenders "were deliberately not complied with".
"The rights of victims were effectively trampled underfoot," he said.
The unprecedented four-day summit has brought together 190 bishops from across the world.
The Catholic Church has faced growing pressure amid long-running cases of sexual abuse of children and young men, with victims accusing it of failing to tackle the issue.
>:( >:( >:(
-
Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty in Australia of sexual offences against children, making him the highest-ranking Catholic figure to receive such a conviction.
I hope they lock him up and throw away the key. >:(
-
https://allthatsinteresting.com/myra-gale-brown-jerry-lee-lewis
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old third cousin. They landed in England but after a few shows and the publics disgust they left.
It isn't something new. Many from abroad when they come here bring child brides. But nothing is said.
It is a fact but what can be done about it?
-
Last night we watched a programme on the iplayer about child brides in the US. My husband and I were gobsmacked, to say the least, that it is legal in quite a number of states to marry a young girl. This often happens to prevent an adult male from being prosecuted for having sex with a girl who is underage, usually resulting in a pregnancy!
-
Last night we watched a programme on the iplayer about child brides in the US. My husband and I were gobsmacked, to say the least, that it is legal in quite a number of states to marry a young girl. This often happens to prevent an adult male from being prosecuted for having sex with a girl who is underage, usually resulting in a pregnancy!
I would not know LR,
But I believe the age of consent in Spain is something to discuss.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/spain-raises-age-of-consent
It use to be 13 years changed to 16 years.
Marriage was 14 years changed to 16 years.
We need a world wide age of consent and marriage consent... :(
-
I think marriage should not be an option until one is 18, even if a girl is pregnant. I also think it is sensible to live with one's partner first before tying the knot as did our two married daughters.
-
I think marriage should not be an option until one is 18, even if a girl is pregnant. I also think it is sensible to live with one's partner first before tying the knot as did our two married daughters.
My mother was allowed to marry my dad three months before her 21st birthday. They courted from being 14 years old. Their marriage lasted all their life and there was NO SEX before marriage. My mum wore white deservingly so. My grandmother before she died thought the latter too about living with one's partner.
I am surprised the games humans play that most relationships do lead to marriage. What kind of future do young people have in such a world today?