Catholic Church in deeep water.

[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!

[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.

[KukriKhan]

Personally I'd be delighted if Jesus showed up and started doing what he did to the money changers. Hardly an authoritative source, but...

If Jesus took such offense to people selling things in the temple to those people trying to hear about God, just imagine what he would do to all these little Jesus-themed trinket shops, profiteering off of religion just to make a quick buck. I don't even want to think about what he would do to the church officials who sexually and otherwise physically and mentally abuse children. I have a feeling there would be some smoking craters in the ground. Time for another reformation... people seriously ought to stop paying any sort of money to that organization, and if they MUST be Catholic, they should have a local chapter which doesn't answer to the church hierarchy. Roman Catholicism should go. And there should be so much reform that what you're really talking about is going Protestant at the very least.

It's no longer just a den of thieves, it's a den of child molesters, thugs, and racketeers.

So, you would be in favor of the government indicting and prosecuting church hierarchy under RICO Statutes, seizing church properties, disallowing their tax-exempt status, and other such methods, ala The Mob?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Crazed Rabbit]

Lol.

I just got called a "despicable moron" and kicked out of a blog* for defending this article by Bill Donahue with this post:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So sorry to interrupt the group hate here, but let's get some things straight.

1) He did not brush off the report. He only sought to put some of the hysteria in perspective, pointing out that the Reuters report was sensational. When did Reuters suddenly become so free of bias? He is concerned that the report demeans the real suffering went through by those who were raped by comparing it to getting a slap.

2) He obviously didn't say it all happened in the 1970s. I mean, not only is that taken out of context, but it wasn't even what he said, which was that 82% of the incidents took place before 1970. And he said that in relation to the allegations of physical abuse and lack of emotional attachment; because corporal punishment was more common back then and the 'touchy-feely' revolution hadn't taken over parenting. That doesn't excuse the physical abuse, it puts it in perspective; it happened in a different era with different social values. It also means the vast majority of the wrongdoing stopped happening almost four decades ago.

3) Nor does he say the abused deserved it. He pointed out corporal punishment was more frequent, especially when dealing with what we'd call juvenile delinquents.

4) Nor does he say all those abused were delinquents.

5) He also points out that only 1 in 8 offenders were Priests, so the Reuters headline is again misleading.

6) He correctly points out that the article throws in the numbers of all those not sexually assaulted while throwing around the term abuse - which creates the impression of the abuse being much more wide spread than it is.

Finally -
#15 You are reading it wrong. 30k kids passed through. The number of incidents is only a fraction of that. I'm not sure if the 12% is out of all the incidents or just the sexual-related ones, but it certainly isn't out of 30k kids.

To those claiming 'slapping' is abuse - do you report parents you see spanking their children to child protection services? Sheesh.

To finish, these abuse are of course disgusting. Those responsible must be punished. But I wrote this so that the truth of the matter would come out, and that these real evils done would not be overshadowed by fantastic (as in fantasy) allegations about the level of abuses.

Oh - one final thing. It is the Irish government, not the Church (who's clergy are saying the guilty should be punished before the law), that is refusing to prosecute these crimes.

CR

To which Monsieur blogger's reply was this:

It's amazing, but this is where it seems to be headed -- no matter how disgusting and evil the comments are from people like Donohue, invariably someone will turn up and make excuses for them.

To the despicable morons who are doing that in this thread, I've corrected my post to say "before the 1970s," so you can take your idiotic legalisms, fold them into sharp corners, and cram them into your nether orifices.

All quite exciting. And then I got banned.
EDIT: And this as well:

To the two creeps who just lost their accounts -- don't bother emailing me to complain or spew abuse. Any emails from you will be deleted without reading.

I guess the moral of the story is we should be glad we all have such good debating partners in the scheme of things, and be happy we are at an upstanding site based on killing thousands of little computer men for our pleasure and not some trashy world events site.

CR
*A shiny ballon to whoever guesses! I bet Lemur knows...

[Lemur]

*A shiny ballon to whoever guesses! I bet Lemur knows...

Hmm, a lot of the sites I read don't have comments sections, but then you specified that it was a blog. A moderated blog, no less.

Slashdot? No. HuffPost? I don't think they moderate their comments, although I don't know for sure. Digg? Maybe. Maybe.

Was it Digg?

-edit-

No, you specify that the blogger responded to you. Not Digg. Hrm. The only site I read that has an individual blogger is Sullivan, and he has no comments section. Wonkette wouldn't be nearly so humorless, and there are something like three authors there. I give up, name the place!

[Crazed Rabbit]

You've mentioned it, oddly enough in one of our discussions about Sullivan and his thoughts on Sarah Palin's pregnancy...And how this blogger wasn't so tolerant of differing opinions...

I know you can get it.

EDIT: Forgot I wrote this right before I got banned there:

To the despicable morons who are doing that in this thread, I've corrected my post to say "before the 1970s," so you can take your idiotic legalisms, fold them into sharp corners, and cram them into your nether orifices.

Thank you sir! That scratches just the right itch - and you wouldn't believe how it is to get that kind of service when you live with a bunch of rabbits.

CR
If you don't remember, the answer is spoiled - though I know you know of it, even if you don't read it;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Little Green Footballs
Odd, too, since I've read it for a long time and generally agreed with the blogger. But I guess he's the type of guy who bans you for disagreeing. I had heard about it, just never personally experienced it. I suppose it will simply cement my long term move to libertarianism.

[Tribesman]

Good news ..... the latest court ruling saves the taxpyer at least 70 million , the state isn't eligible because strictly speaking even though it was the State it wasn't the State it was their sub-contractors and the subies have got indemnity .

[KukriKhan]

Good news ..... the latest court ruling saves the taxpyer at least 70 million , the state isn't eligible because strictly speaking even though it was the State it wasn't the State it was their sub-contractors and the subies have got indemnity .

That is... stunning.

[Tribesman]

That is... stunning.

No , that is the banana republic of Ireland

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm not sure that members have a sense of just how depraved this abuse was. Moreover, whilst the Catholic Church is deeply ingrained throughout the "moral" framework that created such horrors, the fault is far more that of the republic and all the people of Ireland.

It is hard to know where to begin to repair such damage, but the fact that the State hides behind technicality to avoid redress, bodes very badly for the future of our country. The burden of shame consistent with the crimes is eerily absent.

This article gives readers some sense of the utter bestiality that has been revealed and documented, and some sense of causation. Nonetheless, it is harrowing reading and you should be warned.

Yet, even as mind, reeling from the relentless degeneracy, latches on to such fragmented images, it cannot avoid the larger questions of how and why. What was it about our society that allowed it to consign one in 100 children to a system of deliberate and sustained terror? Essentially, independent Ireland sustained a system of prison camps for kids and allowed them to be run with arbitrary violence, utter depravity and a sense of absolute impunity.

Such institutions are not rare, but they are usually associated either with totalitarian regimes or with the brutalising effects of war. Ireland did not have a totalitarian regime, nor was it at war, but it managed to create, especially for poor children, the effects of both conditions. Some of the methods used in the industrial schools are queasily reminiscent of images from gulags or concentration camps: the shaved heads; the use of humiliation and disorientation to destroy the inmate’s sense of personal identity; the turning of fire hoses on inmates; the setting of dogs on inmates; the beating of inmates while they were hanging from hooks on a wall. Dr Norman Stewart, who lived beside Artane industrial school, and later beside Dachau, was struck, as he wrote to The Irish Times, by the similar local experience of “observing lines of desultory prisoners as they trudged through the neighbourhood on their way to and from their workplaces”.

[Tribesman]

the fact that the State hides behind technicality to avoid redress, bodes very badly for the future of our country.

Did you really expect anything different?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Very good article Banquo, thank you for the link. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is the anecdote at the end about the hmmanity of English prisons at the same time, not something I have heard before.

Not to beat at this again, but it seems to me that a part of the problem is the corporate and monastic nature of the administration. None of these men or women had to go home to a spouse and answer the question, "So, how was your day".

[Duke of Gloucester]

I'm not sure that members have a sense of just how depraved this abuse was. Moreover, whilst the Catholic Church is deeply ingrained throughout the "moral" framework that created such horrors, the fault is far more that of the republic and all the people of Ireland.

Its an interesting article but I disagree that the blame should go mostly to the state and not the Church. Firstly the Church had direct responsibility for the institutions where the abuse was happening. Secondly, the church itself proclaims standards of behaviour particularly towards children and the poor which were disregarded and subverted in these cases. The church can't claim that the State should have stopped these people behaving in the way they did.

One interesting aspect of the article is that it paints a picture of endemic abuse where emotional and physical abuse were the norm which all "carers" were expected to support. This contrasts with the American, British and Australian scandals which are more about individuals who were allowed to continue and were protected when they should have been stopped and punished.

Not to beat at this again, but it seems to me that a part of the problem is the corporate and monastic nature of the administration. None of these men or women had to go home to a spouse and answer the question, "So, how was your day".

It's an attractive idea, but not, I think, one that can be supported by evidence. Most child abuse happens within the family with the spouse at best turning a blind eye. Whilst these terrible things were happening in Ireland, married men in children's homes in England would have been doing similar things and going home to the wife and behaving quite normally, seeming to the neighbours to have been pillars of the community. It seems that it was much more widespread in Ireland because, if the article is correct, new members of the religious community were expected to fit in with the culture of violence and abuse that had grown up. The fact that these people had taken a vow of obedience to their superiors made it much harder for them to challenge what was going - that would have required real courage and self-confidence. Not that this excuses them. The obedience they swore to would not have included imoral acts which these clearly were. It is yet another sobering reminder of what human beings are capable of.

[Kralizec]

It found the Department of Education had generally dismissed or ignored complaints of child sexual abuse and dealt inadequately with them.

Child mistreatment was only recognised as a social phenomenon a couple of decades ago. Before that doctors did notice kids coming in frequently with bruises or broken bones but were actually scratching their heads what could cause this. When an American psychiatrist suggested that it may be because a fairly large amount of parents habitually mistreat their kids he was met with disbelief and outrage (not just from doctors, but society as a whole)

Link (not very informative, but it was the best I could find- the guy doesn't even have his own wiki)

I found it extremely hard to imagine that society as a whole could be so blind to child abuse, but it's the truth - and hindsight is 20/20. In this case it's disgusting that the perpetrators are getting away with less than a slap on the wrist, but that they could do it mostly unnoticed in the past isn't surprising.

[Louis VI the Fat]

*Thread resurrection!! *

(We are Catholics. We have resurrections)


"Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood".


Misery breeds great literature. Which is, not surprisingly then, Ireland great export product. Second only in importance to the export of poor, huddled masses.

The quote above is from Frank McCourt's 'Angela's Ashes'. It tells the story that should be familiar to many posters here: to hell or to America. Though peculiarly in Frank's case, his family chose hell and returned from Brooklyn to Ireland in 1935. Where Frank's family did as the Irish were wont to do for centuries: live a life of misery.


Has anybody read it by any chance? Is it a good book? Will it further my understanding of Ireland, of Catholicism?

[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?