The iniquity of the Catholic church

[ippy]

May I suggest watching the following

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/the-catholic-church-is-a-force-for-good-in-the-world/

Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens debate the statement that "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the World" with Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe.

I am not a fan of Christopher Hitchens, but I am of Stephen Fry, but the pair of them seem to make a good case against the motion, as demonstrated by the vote at the end of the debate.

I will be interested to see your comments on the debate and it contents and result. Assuming, of course, anyone watches it.

I was there Owl, a large  section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.

Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him. 

The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame .

ippy

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I was there Owl, a large  section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.

Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him. 

The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame .

ippy

That's exactly what PUKIP supporters wrote about Farage and Clegg. Bioth claims were politely speaking, preaching to the converted, both claims were more accurately speaking, bollocks.

[Owlswing]

That's exactly what PUKIP supporters wrote about Farage and Clegg. Bioth claims were politely speaking, preaching to the converted, both claims were more accurately speaking, bollocks.

What is "PUKIP"?

What, precisely, did it/they say about Farage and Clegg?

What claims made in the debate were bollocks?

[Owlswing]

I was there Owl, a large  section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.

Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him. 

The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame .

ippy

. . . a large  section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', . . .

I do not know who walked out, but they cannot have been part of the audience as the number of votes that were taken prior to the debate commencing were 52 less than the number taken at the end of the debate. At the beginning of the debate the audience were 678 for the motion; 1,102 against and 346 undecided; After the debate the audience were 268 for the motion, 1,876 against and 34 undecided. 

[ippy]

I do not know who walked out, but they cannot have been part of the audience as the number of votes that were taken prior to the debate commencing were 52 less than the number taken at the end of the debate. At the beginning of the debate the audience were 678 for the motion; 1,102 against and 346 undecided; After the debate the audience were 268 for the motion, 1,876 against and 34 undecided.

Nor do I know who they were, but I didn't imagine the large section of people that did walk out; I didn't count how many there were and on thinking about it I would think there were somewhere between 30 to 40 of the audience  that walked out in what looked like disgust.

ippy

P S I remember looking over to the left hand side of the stage at the highest seats there were over on that side and there were at least two longish rows of empty seats left after they exited the hall.

 

[ippy]

What is "PUKIP"?

What, precisely, did it/they say about Farage and Clegg?

What claims made in the debate were bollocks?

Doesn't really matter Qwl, the leavers won and we're on our way out, it'll only be sour grapes.

ippy 

[Owlswing]

Doesn't really matter Qwl, the leavers won and we're on our way out, it'll only be sour grapes.

ippy

Oh, I see, off topic.

[Hope]

I was there Owl, a large  section of I assume RC's walked out en 'mass', (correct but an unintentional pun, a happy accidental one), after Chris H wiped them out with a vivid description of about fifty misdemeanours committed by the said RC's over the years.

Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.)  That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.

Chris was on top form and so was Stephen F, the opposition were completely wiped out by both of them, Chris gave me the impression he would have had no trouble listing hundreds of the RC's misdemeanours and good old Stevie wouldn't have been far behind him. 

The religionists invariably loose this kind of debate, such a shame .

Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard. 

As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones.  One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.)  That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard. 

As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones.  One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.

so the message here is that Christians act just like Satanists

[Owlswing]

Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.)  That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.

Except, of course, that the RC Church was being called to account by CH and SF for acts committed by the RC Church as an organisation, supported by tg hierarchy of that organisation, the prpetrators of these atrocities hidden from justice by that organisation. An organisation which, supposedly is the direct descendant of your Christ!

As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones.  One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.

As with my point above you are not comparing like with like. One side, the non-religious, is not an organised group, and the other is an an organisation, an organisation that considers itself to be above the common herd, i e the other side, yet their showing in this debate was dismal and this was amply demonstrated by the shift in the votes before and after.

This organisation, whether you like it or not, worships and follows the same God and the same Son of God as you do and excuses its abominable behaviour by quoting scripture from the same bible that your lot use!

I have yet to see a Protestant clergyman of any rank from parish priest to archbishop stand up publicly, on TV or in the press, and condemn the actions of the paedophile priests or the Magdelane nuns. Thus your lot are tarred with the same brush as the Catholics.

You, personally, may be exempt from blame or shame, your church is not.   

[Sassy]

Mother and baby homes started up about 1968 -1969 in England.
Some childrens homes turned into mother and baby homes for young pregnant girls.
The 60's may have radicalised social issues and social freedom. But a lot of girls were alienated and made to feel a leper and outcast because of unwanted pregnancies.

The shame was purely about the attitudes of people to those poor girls who didn't get themselves pregnant by themselves.

Whilst the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, Catholic is not a religion.
But I suppose it cannot really be called Christian given it's history.
Catholic means 'Universal' everywhere.. But the religion 'Catholic' doesn't exist.

What those girls needed was parents who loved them enough to stand by them.
There was more shame in abandoning your child than them being pregnant.

[Owlswing]

What those girls needed was parents who loved them enough to stand by them.
There was more shame in abandoning your child than them being pregnant.

The parents abandoned their daughters to the Magdalene nuns because the parents were Catholic and they followed the demands of the priests etc of the Catholic church.

The Catholic Chrurch which is part of the Christian faith. They worship the same God and revere the same Jesus Christ as you do!

[Gordon]

Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.)  That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.

Who 'generally believes' this?

This reads like another of your bizarre tu quoque-like attempts to defend religion by claiming it is no worse than any other element within society. The event in question was about the RCC specifically, which has had well documented problems with both sexual abuse offending and attempts by the organistion to cover this up: I seem to recall the RCC has issued apologies for its conduct (which not too long ago claimed their senior chap here in Scotland).

The notion that RCC attendees would have come equipped to defend the RCC by citing 'similar misdeamenours' is utterly perverse: aside from whether or not there are such misdeameanors that can be presented as being comparable to the RCC, such as by being compared with the numbers committed by non-RCC clergy within the same geographic are and over the same timescale (which would be interesting to know - I have no idea what the figures are), but even so in what way do these 'similar misdemeanours' (if there are any) excuse any sexual conduct problems within the RCC?

Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard.

Then present the numbers, along with the methods used to both categorise and sample these 'sides' and then compare the incidences sexual offending between 'sides', and we'll see: if you can't then this is yet another of your genalised and unsupported assumptions.   

[floo]

The long and short of it is that being religious doesn't make you a better person, sometimes it exacerbates bad behaviour. Good religious people, and there are many, would probably be good even if they were non believers, imo.

[ippy]

Except, of course, that the RC Church was being called to account by CH and SF for acts committed by the RC Church as an organisation, supported by tg hierarchy of that organisation, the perpetrators of these atrocities hidden from justice by that organisation. An organisation which, supposedly is the direct descendant of your Christ!

As with my point above you are not comparing like with like. One side, the non-religious, is not an organised group, and the other is an an organisation, an organisation that considers itself to be above the common herd, i e the other side, yet their showing in this debate was dismal and this was amply demonstrated by the shift in the votes before and after.

This organisation, whether you like it or not, worships and follows the same God and the same Son of God as you do and excuses its abominable behaviour by quoting scripture from the same bible that your lot use!

I have yet to see a Protestant clergyman of any rank from parish priest to archbishop stand up publicly, on TV or in the press, and condemn the actions of the pedophile priests or the Magdalene nuns. Thus your lot are tarred with the same brush as the Catholics.

You, personally, may be exempt from blame or shame, your church is not.   

Good one Owl, I'll stand behind you and hold your coat anytime, the only adjustment I would make to your post would be the underlined part in the next:

This organisation, whether you like it or not, worships and follows the same God and the same Son of God as you do and excuses its abominable behaviour by quoting scripture from the same bible that your lot use!

I would have said: 'the same god that you think you do', only because there's no evidence for the existence of gods and in the interests of accuracy.

ippy

[ippy]

Mother and baby homes started up about 1968 -1969 in England.
Some children's homes turned into mother and baby homes for young pregnant girls.
The 60's may have radicalised social issues and social freedom. But a lot of girls were alienated and made to feel a leper and outcast because of unwanted pregnancies.

The shame was purely about the attitudes of people to those poor girls who didn't get themselves pregnant by themselves.

Whilst the Roman Catholic Church has a lot to answer for, Catholic is not a religion.
But I suppose it cannot really be called Christian given it's history.
Catholic means 'Universal' everywhere.. But the religion 'Catholic' doesn't exist.

What those girls needed was parents who loved them enough to stand by them.
There was more shame in abandoning your child than them being pregnant.

This post of yours Sass, it shows that you're not always wrong, a good one and I share your sentiments entirely on this one.

ippy

[ippy]

Perhaps the RC folk didn't want to shame CH & SF by enumerating the similar misdeameanours committed by ordinary people (remember that it is generally believed that the number of such events is no greater in the religious community than in any other group of adults.)  That isn't to say that the behaviour isn't despicable, but that it is common to all parts of society.
Sadly for your argument, ippy, the numbers-game would suggest that both sides of the debate would be hoist with their own petard. 

As both a human being and a Christian, I find the fact that it takes place at all absolutely horrifying, especially in a society that likes to claim that it is 'better' than older ones.  One side trying to make out that the other side is worse than their own smacks - in my view - of ostrich-itis.

The Debate was about, 'The Catholic Church is a Force For Good in the World'?

How come you missed this Hope?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life.  I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern.   I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests.  I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts.  I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe. 

[floo]

The Debate was about, 'The Catholic Church is a Force For Good in the World'?

How come you missed this Hope?

ippy

The Catholic Church has never been a force for good, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't one of its proudest moments! Obviously many Catholics are good people, but in my opinion the institution itself is rotten to the core.

[ippy]

The Catholic Church has never been a force for good, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't one of its proudest moments! Obviously many Catholics are good people, but in my opinion the institution itself is rotten to the core.

That debate is worth a watch, skim through it Floo,  C H & S F, are certainly worth a listen, the others, well, ?

ippy

[Owlswing]

I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life.  I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern.   I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests.  I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts.  I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.

Just because you didn't see it does NOT mean it didn't happen! You are trying to defend the indefensible, but, having read your previous posts. I would expect nothing less than total blindness to the negatives of your Church and its clergy.

[ippy]

I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life.  I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern.   I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests.  I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts.  I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.

Explains a lot Alan.

ippy

[Owlswing]

The Catholic Church has never been a force for good, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't one of its proudest moments! Obviously many Catholics are good people, but in my opinion the institution itself is rotten to the core.

Just a small point, Floo, but the Spanish Inquisition is often cited as being the worst offender, but it had a very specific agenda and that was to find and deal with Conversos. Jews who professed to having converted to Christianity but actually remained practicing Jews.

The Right Royal Bastards of the Inquisition were those operating mainly in France anf Germany - the Witch-hunters. 

[jeremyp]

I have been a practising Roman Catholic all my life.  I attended RC primary school run by nuns and an RC secondary modern.   I personally have met hundreds of fellow Roman Catholics at meetings and conferences throughout the country, and I have known dozens of Catholic priests.  I have not come across a single case of abuse in all these personal contacts.  I know there have been well documented cases of abuse, but my personal experiences within the RC faith indicates that they are nowhere near as widespread as the media would have us believe.

I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not that RC priests are more likely to abuse children than anybody else - I couldn't tell you if that is true or not. The problem is twofold.

• The RC church sets itself up as God's moral authority on Earth. As such, its priests should be setting an example. What credibility do the RC church's moral missives have if its own employees can't keep to them.
• (This is the biggy.) The RC actively protected its priests from facing justice. It covered up instances o child abuse that it knew about. That is morally reprehensible.

[floo]

I think you are misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not that RC priests are more likely to abuse children than anybody else - I couldn't tell you if that is true or not. The problem is twofold.

• The RC church sets itself up as God's moral authority on Earth. As such, its priests should be setting an example. What credibility do the RC church's moral missives have if its own employees can't keep to them.
• (This is the biggy.) The RC actively protected its priests from facing justice. It covered up instances o child abuse that it knew about. That is morally reprehensible.

Spot on!