Catholic Church in deeep water.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Catholic Church requires conformity and groupthink? Remind me to mention that to my fellow Catholics..

The Catholic church requires its members to conform to a set of commands which, if broken, can lead to excommunication. And it considers questioning or speaking out against some of those commands to be heresy.

That would be the very example of conformity I am referring to. As for bigotry and ignorance, I think their position about children born out of wedlock, or the destination of those who don't accept their point of view, or their positions on homosexuality are bigoted and ignorant.

Conformity and groupthink? I don't know how to respond to such wacky claims.

Certainly not with with consideration.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Awwww, I was thoughtless...

Now, lets look at these two statements, what can I derive from them?

1. You do not understand the dynamics of society

2. See edit above. SF

3. You dislike my thoughtless way of calling you out on your bollox

1. no explanation as to why you assert that.

2. no explanation as to why you assert that.

3. no explanation as to why it is "bollox".

Hardly a debate, but more a pissing contest.



I can take the hint fellas, you disagree and perhaps you don't like me personally. But I at least attempt to respond to your opposing positions with an open mind and I take the time to read your posts and if I disagree, I state why.

If you won't do me the same courtesy, that's fine, but it's laughable to call it a debate at that point.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Catholic church requires its members to conform to a set of commands which, if broken, can lead to excommunication. And it considers questioning or speaking out against some of those commands to be heresy.

That would be the very example of conformity I am referring to. As for bigotry and ignorance, I think their position about children born out of wedlock, or the destination of those who don't accept their point of view, or their positions on homosexuality are bigoted and ignorant.

So requiring Catholics to follow the rules of God is "demanding group conformity"? You could say the same thing about any group of people in the world. Beware! Book clubs require conformity!

At least you didn't try to defend the ridiculous "groupthink" allegation.

Certainly not with with consideration.

I consider only that worth considering.

1. no explanation as to why you assert that.

Because you don't. You act as though a group having rules members have to follow is some great evil.

2. no explanation as to why you assert that.

Because you are. You clearly know nothing of debates between Catholics that are ongoing on a range of subjects. You don't know of the official positions of the Church or what it's members believe.

3. no explanation as to why it is "bollox".

See above. For anyone in the know, it is clear.

I can take the hint fellas, you disagree and perhaps you don't like me personally. But I at least attempt to respond to your opposing positions with an open mind and I take the time to read your posts and if I disagree, I state why.

If you won't do me the same courtesy, that's fine, but it's laughable to call it a debate at that point.

Aww.... You just sit down now while I go get the fainting salts. Really, Pizzaguy, if you're gonna be in the backroom, you need to grow a thicker skin.

CR

[KukriKhan]

So requiring Catholics to follow the rules of God is "demanding group conformity"? You could say the same thing about any group of people in the world. Beware! Book clubs require conformity!

At least you didn't try to defend the ridiculous "groupthink" allegation.



I consider only that worth considering.




Because you don't. You act as though a group having rules members have to follow is some great evil.



Because you are. You clearly know nothing of debates between Catholics that are ongoing on a range of subjects. You don't know of the official positions of the Church or what it's members believe.



See above. For anyone in the know, it is clear.



Aww.... You just sit down now while I go get the fainting salts. Really, Pizzaguy, if you're gonna be in the backroom, you need to grow a thicker skin.

CR

Just to keep the bases covered, and before PizzaGuy responds, as I'm certain he will, let me ask this question, old friend:

You decry, in depth and ad infinitum in the Police Abuses thread, the misdeeds of law enforcers who abuse their authority and hurt people, AND their cohorts and superiors - indeed, the entire judicial system - for complicity in those abuses by people acting under color of authority. The "Blue Wall" if you will.

And yet, similar abusive behavior, by members of clergy, and subsequent coverups by their superiors - a "Black Wall", if you will - merits a mere shrug, and a claim that 'we're working on it, and you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're not in the group'?

Sorry mate, you can't have it both ways. Abuse of power is abuse of power. Whether it's someone charged with saving our skin, or someone charged with saving our souls.

I'm with you on most issues, and I had to grit my teeth and sthu at your display in the Police thread, because I have no come-back for the volume of abuse you cite there. It's wrong, and we gotta fix it, quick.

To me, it's the same here: wrong has been done. People have been damaged. Fixing is imperative. Religion be damned. Exemptions be damned. Find and prosecute the damagers, and those who covered it up. Understanding the concept of "forgiveness" is irrelevant to my government's obligation to protect its citizens from abuse.

In my personal opinion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You're right Kukri; the abuses and coverups of police and the Catholic Church in the past have many parallels. That's why I didn't post in this thread at first - it was depressing and I figured any of my posts lamenting the actions of the Church would add little.

And yet, similar abusive behavior, by members of clergy, and subsequent coverups by their superiors - a "Black Wall", if you will - merits a mere shrug, and a claim that 'we're working on it, and you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're not in the group'?

I don't think that's quite right. When me and my fellows here were saying to Pizzaguy that he doesn't know what he's talking about it was in response to his farcical claims of the Catholic Church "demanding conformity and groupthink".

I did not say that the actions of the clergy warranted a shrug - it is disgusting and they deserve severe punishment.

To me, it's the same here: wrong has been done. People have been damaged. Fixing is imperative. Religion be damned. Exemptions be damned. Find and prosecute the damagers, and those who covered it up. Understanding the concept of "forgiveness" is irrelevant to my government's obligation to protect its citizens from abuse.

In my personal opinion.

Quite right. Justice demands punishment And in this instance as well, it appears the onus is on the government to punish the wrongdoers - something they are resisting in both instances.

CR

[KukriKhan]

You're right Kukri; the abuses and coverups of police and the Catholic Church in the past have many parallels....



... When me and my fellows here were saying to Pizzaguy that he doesn't know what he's talking about it was in response to his farcical claims of the Catholic Church "demanding conformity and groupthink".

I did not say that the actions of the clergy warranted a shrug - it is disgusting and they deserve severe punishment.



Quite right. Justice demands punishment And in this instance as well, it appears the onus is on the government to punish the wrongdoers - something they are resisting in both instances.

CR

My abject apologies then, for my misunderstanding. I agree that PizzaGuy has got the "demand" bit wrong.

You simply fail to see this because you have nothing to do with the community and are ignorant on its positions.

I would not bet the house on this allegation, however insightful you may think it is, Sir.

[Incongruous]

I would not bet the house on this allegation, however insightful you may think it is, Sir.

Betting is against my religion.

If I am wrong, why make it out as if Rabbit, and those of us with similar positions, were merley shrugging their shoulders? For you must know that this is in no way how we wish our Church to be run.

[KukriKhan]

Betting is against my religion.

If I am wrong, why make it out as if Rabbit, and those of us with similar positions, were merley shrugging their shoulders? For you must know that this is in no way how we wish our Church to be run.

Therein lies the key, my friend. Forgiveness of sin is one thing, and one applauded, exhalted and prescribed by the Savior. We must strive to understand the evil deeds done by men, for they are without bottom, and possible to we all.

Still... we must also 'render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's'. What is Ceasar's in this day and time is: Justice. Or the Administration of Justice. People hurting people, whether it's cops or priests, should be, and is punishable under law. Particularly, if that hurting happens under colour of authority.

It is quite clear, that:

...this is in no way how we wish our Church to be run.

What is also clear, is that you, or me, as an individual adherant of faith, have Bupkus to say about how we wish...

That is decided by people above our securlar pay-grade. And, as such, those folks are answerable to both god and ceasar.

imho

[Incongruous]

Just to keep the bases covered, and before PizzaGuy responds, as I'm certain he will, let me ask this question, old friend:

You decry, in depth and ad infinitum in the Police Abuses thread, the misdeeds of law enforcers who abuse their authority and hurt people, AND their cohorts and superiors - indeed, the entire judicial system - for complicity in those abuses by people acting under color of authority. The "Blue Wall" if you will.

And yet, similar abusive behavior, by members of clergy, and subsequent coverups by their superiors - a "Black Wall", if you will - merits a mere shrug, and a claim that 'we're working on it, and you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're not in the group'?

Sorry mate, you can't have it both ways. Abuse of power is abuse of power. Whether it's someone charged with saving our skin, or someone charged with saving our souls.

I'm with you on most issues, and I had to grit my teeth and sthu at your display in the Police thread, because I have no come-back for the volume of abuse you cite there. It's wrong, and we gotta fix it, quick.

To me, it's the same here: wrong has been done. People have been damaged. Fixing is imperative. Religion be damned. Exemptions be damned. Find and prosecute the damagers, and those who covered it up. Understanding the concept of "forgiveness" is irrelevant to my government's obligation to protect its citizens from abuse.

In my personal opinion.

Bollox there is only a shrug of the shoulders, that viewpoint is endemic of having nothing to do with real Catholics and instead the card board cut out nutters society has come to expect.

"its wrong and we gotta fix it quick" probably sums the view of every fellow Catholic I know on the issue of child abuse, that includes my Priets.

You are saying exactly what most Catholics are saying, you know we are human, much as it must pain you to know it.

You simply fail to see this because you have nothing to do with the community and are ignorant on its positions.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Catholic church requires its members to conform to a set of commands which, if broken, can lead to excommunication. And it considers questioning or speaking out against some of those commands to be heresy.

So if you don't believe in God or believe in a different definition of God, you might be (in theory, but rarely in practice) thrown out of the Catholic Church. Fair enough.

Then one must ask the question why you're a Catholic anyway if you don't agree with the Catholic interpretation of God. Also whether atheists are conformists for all believing there is no God. Etcetera.

As for bigotry and ignorance, I think their position about children born out of wedlock, or the destination of those who don't accept their point of view, or their positions on homosexuality are bigoted and ignorant.

You know what I was getting at.

[Incongruous]

[/SPOIL]
1. no explanation as to why you assert that.

2. no explanation as to why you assert that.

3. no explanation as to why it is "bollox".

Hardly a debate, but more a pissing contest.



I can take the hint fellas, you disagree and perhaps you don't like me personally. But I at least attempt to respond to your opposing positions with an open mind and I take the time to read your posts and if I disagree, I state why.

If you won't do me the same courtesy, that's fine, but it's laughable to call it a debate at that point.

1. Why even bother, your concept of society is really out of whack.

2. omg, I am a Catholic and I can tell you witha straight face that you are talking bollox, its not my fault that you don't know it.

3. EMFM would do a better job than me, I can't be bothered debating with a gut who knows nothing about by religion as it is actually practiced.

Go out and talk to some real Catholics, spend time with a priest and his congregation, I dare you to be really critical.

Man ATPG, If you think this is harsh I would recomend you stay away from any thread to do with Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Repubs and Dems.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Quite. This is actually fairly civilized for, you know, a bunch of Catholics. We haven't even set Opus Dei on anyone yet.

[Beskar]

Catholic paedophile priests aren't just bad taste jokes, they are indeed a fact.

The vatican also protect them by moving them to Vatican city or put them into missionary work in places like Africa and Brazil, away from the authorities.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Catholic paedophile priests aren't just bad taste jokes, they are indeed a fact.

True. As is the fact that a vast majority of the clergy are not pedophiles, just as a vast majority of all of us are not. As this fact is, at best, mentioned only in passing, the references to the pedophile scandals that have affected the Church have become more of a club with which to beat up on the church and to try to marginalize it, rather than a means of addressing the specific issue of concern.

The vatican also protect them by moving them to Vatican city or put them into missionary work in places like Africa and Brazil, away from the authorities.

My understanding was that some bishops informed such offenders that they had just "discovered" a vocation for a cloistered monastic existence of solitude and prayer. Incarceration can take many forms.

Sadly too little was done to work with/help the victims of those abuses, and too much was done to "keep things quiet." This is a natural tendency of almost any organization -- but it rarely does more than delay the problem. More of us need to remember that when we're the ones running the organziation.

[Samurai Waki]

Really, if anger should be directed at any source its not the Catholic Church entirely. I mean the whistle was blown, by fellow clergymen... even if it was thirty years to late. The Irish Government is really more the source of the anger, since they aren't willing to prosecute, hell even Catholic Clergy outside of Ireland are asking why the Irish government is refusing to Prosecute...

I feel I have a certain right in being critical of Catholics (and the only reason why I've left is because I don't believe in Exclusivity within Spirituality), since I was one (in mostly name only) for the better part of twenty some years, most of the clergy as Seamus has said aren't pedophiles, bad, or even slightly bad people. Its amazing how several utterly terrible examples can set the tone for such an enormous organization. Some have said this goes all the way to the top, and all I can say is: Bollocks. It never really left Ireland, much like it never really left the US, small circles of people can keep quiet a lot easier than a really big circle, if it was indeed larger it would not have taken thirty years to finally figure out. The College of Cardinals, and most of the hierarchy for that matter are probably having a major fit over this whole fiasco.

[Tratorix]

It's sad how some people manage to take a calling meant to guide and teach and use it for things like this. As for the Church, I'm sure they'll send these people a "Sorry you were abused and molested" card in about 500 years.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The Catholic church requires its members to conform to a set of commands which, if broken, can lead to excommunication. And it considers questioning or speaking out against some of those commands to be heresy.

You need to be carefuly about your definition of "groupthink" if you are not to expose yourself to the accusation of "bigotry and ignorance". Certainly there is a body of beliefs that you have to accept to be a Catholic, but this is true of all religions. However, "Groupthink" implies everyoe has to have the same opinions as everyone else about everything. If you really think this about Catholics then you are either ignorant or bigotted or possibly both.

As for bigotry and ignorance, I think their position about children born out of wedlock, or the destination of those who don't accept their point of view, or their positions on homosexuality are bigoted and ignorant.

Children out of wedlock - same as everyone else
Destination of those who don't accept their point of view - Lumen Gentium (1964) and Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) make it clear that salvation is open to other Christians and may be open to people who sincerely seek the truth even though they had not found it.
Homosexuality - homosexual tendencies are morally neutral - homophobia and homosexual acts are both imoral.

Clearly ignorance (of what the Catholic Church teaches) on your part but only you can decide whether it is due to bigotry or not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm going to bow out, it seems fitting the Catholics defend themselves. They don't seem to be having any trouble with that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And I'm going to step in, just for the lulz. The Irish members will know better than me and a certain one may denounce this as bollox, but I think that this scandal is not so much reflective of the insular, closed ranks views of the Catholic Church as a whole, but instead a reflection of its very central role in Irish society in the past. It's so tied to the national identity you were practically a traitor if you didn't at least go along with the ceremonies and traditions.

Certainly, the Pope is not so intolerant as ATPG suggests. Heck, JP2 even said that Muslims would be joining Catholics in the afterlife. From what I gather, the Catholic Church likes to apply a very broad brush when it comes to Christianity, and their empahasis on good works mean that anyone can reach heaven if they live a good life and get forgiveness in their own way.

Something, of course, a puritan like me will take issue with!

[Tribesman]

It's so tied to the national identity you were practically a traitor if you didn't at least go along with the ceremonies and traditions.

Have you been getting "history" lessons from the H&W orangemen in your circle?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Have you been getting "history" lessons from the H&W orangemen in your circle?

LOL, it seems we do not know each other's societies quite perfectly. There is this notion that if you ever tell anyone you're a Presbyterian then it means you've got a mural of King Billy on your wall. We have this code where if you say you're Presbyterian it means you're an anti-Catholic bigot, and if you say you're a Christian it means you're a crazy Baptist of the very fundamentalist kind.

But there is an element of truth in what I said I think. I know deism was popular with early Irish nationalist leaders, and even Presbyterians in groups like the United Irishmen, they didn't get things easy under the "Church of Ireland" either. But even in the USA, people don't say they are Irish, they say they are an Irish Catholic. I'm not trying to bash Irish Catholics, in Scotland we had a very similar thing with the Presbyterian church. Obviously due to its less centralised nature it was seen more as OK to go against the official established version, but if you weren't a God-fearing Calvinist you would be ostracised.

[rory_20_uk]

Destination of those who don't accept their point of view - Lumen Gentium (1964) and Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) make it clear that salvation is open to other Christians and may be open to people who sincerely seek the truth even though they had not found it.

It's amazing how these two know exactly what God thinks.

But a good illustration of how even with no direct contact men down the years have either interpreted or announced facts and for some reason this is to be taken as inviolate - even if it directly is at variance to what occurred previously. No writings from the time are used for this, and indeed these are all at best heretical.

Seeking the truth? Sounds very close to Gnosticism. I thought they were all stamped out by the Catholics.

[miotas]

Children out of wedlock - same as everyone else

Are you saying that the church doesn't care if children are born out of wedlock? Because I have met very few people who treat either my parents or myself badly simply because they weren't married at the time. And the very few who did were just hardcore religious nutjobs.

It is horrible that this is happening in the church but it doesn't surprise me. Christianity is basically just a big cop-out. People can steal, kill, rape and just generaly be a big *daisy* and so long as they believe in jesus they will live in eternal happiness.

[Lemur]

Christianity is basically just a big cop-out. People can steal, kill, rape and just generaly be a big and so long as they believe in jesus they will live in eternal happiness.

Wait, are you trolling or is this your considered belief? I can't tell ...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Are you saying that the church doesn't care if children are born out of wedlock? Because I have met very few people who treat either my parents or myself badly simply because they weren't married at the time. And the very few who did were just hardcore religious nutjobs.

While the Church may not approve of the fact children are being born out of wedlock, it is not the fault of the child, and as such we cannot and the Church does not look down on the child for it. It is the mother's sin and not the child's in the eyes of the Church.

Christianity is basically just a big cop-out. People can steal, kill, rape and just generaly be a big and so long as they believe in jesus they will live in eternal happiness.

You really believe that? Seriously?

[Gregoshi]

Christianity is basically just a big cop-out. People can steal, kill, rape and just generaly be a big and so long as they believe in jesus they will live in eternal happiness.

You'd think that on the surface. However, if you REALLY believe in Jesus, you won't steal, kill, etc. And if your belief in Jesus is just lip service, the Man will know and you'll be on the elevator ride down to sub-level 666 - and don't forget to dress for warm weather. Well, that's my understanding of the belief deal.

[miotas]

You'd think that on the surface. However, if you REALLY believe in Jesus, you won't steal, kill, etc. And if your belief in Jesus is just lip service, the Man will know and you'll be on the elevator ride down to sub-level 666 - and don't forget to dress for warm weather. Well, that's my understanding of the belief deal.

But if a criminal got to end of a long life of being a *daisy* and truly felt sorry about it all then god would still grant him eternal happiness, no? Remember the criminal that Jesus forgave in his last moments on the cross? He would have believed in god for a matter of (hours, days? how long did a crucifiction last) yet he was still granted eternal happiness despite his crimes. Would you let a murderer evade a gaol sentence simply because they were sorry?

[Beskar]

There is obviously more to it then "just being sorry". You make it sound like it was the playground when the big kid after hitting the little kid get forced by the teacher to go to the little kid and say a forced sorry out, then be let off.

[miotas]

Of course simply saying sorry and not meaning it isn't enough, they have to mean it. But do you deny that belief in god and being truly sorry for your sins is enough to get into heaven?

And my question still stands. If a murderer was really, truely, 100% sorry and they truthfully said that they would never do it again in their life would you let them out of gaol?