dqualk Wrote:You are lying. Have a greater respect for reason, logic and truth.

Oh the irony of religious folk demanding we have a greater respect for logic and reason haha!

Sugar, each time you respond to these allegations you continually defend your church by stating that the actions of a few do not necessarily represent the actions of the many.

This is true. It's the reason people put disclaimers about opinions in interviews and such, yes? Organizations don't want to be blamed for the opinions and actions of people who align themselves with them. I've never seen the church put out a bulletin that says "the individual actions of our clergymen do not necessarily represent the opinions and beliefs central to the Church or Catholicism." Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

Here is a fact of human life: if you are entered into the media spotlight, or even placed in a position of leadership over a group of people, you come to represent your organization or belief system to that group or the nation. Most days, people do not have time to seek out many, or even one more, person to create a wider sampling of any group. They are concerned with the everyday business of living. This sounds like the actions of the ignorant - in reality most days it comes down to the choice of "do I sift through possibly vast quantities of information about the rest of such-and-such group, or do I get my kids home, fed, their homework done, bathed, clothes mended, toys fixed, house cleaned, some news watched, pets cared for, spouse tended to, plants watered, bills paid, etc, etc?"

Our problem is that instead of distancing themselves immediately from anyone who might end up being a "bad apple," your church has closed ranks around them. In order to avoid the media finding out about these heinous crimes, officials attempted every possible cover up. People were allowed to retain their jobs. In an attempt to keep the church blemish free, they essentially made themselves look worse. Instead of cleansing themselves when they most needed it, they merely covered the rotten areas and allowed them to fester. You can agree with me on that or not as far as reality goes, but you cannot deny the perception that gives the rest of the world when something manages to split the facade and you realize it's like a tree dying from the inside out. It implies that 1) they knew what happened was wrong and they were so ashamed they couldn't face the way that person represented their church to that particular flock, or 2) they didn't believe it was wrong but knew other people would have a problem with it, and thus hid it anyway. Strength of character and willingness to do right by your parishioners would have been better handled by saying "Look! We discovered a man who was doing wrong, and as we the church do not condone it we will cast him out (publicly - for everyone else should know not to let him around your children) to prove we in NO WAY support this. We will not continue to keep him on our payroll in a position of any sort of power."

I have two huge issues: 1) You saying that these people do not have to stay as priests if they do not wish to stay celibate. 2) Using the example that people will start to shout "abuse!" simply to gain money (17 year old being with an older man, I think was your example, specifically gay).

You misunderstand the nature of an abuser. In fact, most of your postings dealing with this smack of someone who has never been abused, or seen the psychological, emotional, and physical damage abuse can incur on someone. I could be wrong, but I see no empathy for the victim in your answers, and frankly it sickens me. If these men were merely concerned with their need to fulfill their sexual urges, they would go about them in a way that every other healthy adult does - choose another consenting adult, and what happens lies between them (and god, if you so desire to bring that into it). I imagine if a priest met a man or woman who captured his fancy and made him doubt his life choice, he would give the idea of leaving some consideration, and no doubt if he felt he was no longer up to the task an understanding superior would allow him to leave. Abusers don't care. They aren't out to merely fulfill a sexual need - they crave power and dominance and thus prey on the weak. Typically these are children. Sometimes it is adults. Abuse in secular circles isn't limited to age, and it's prevalent enough - I don't know why we expect it to be different in the church, which is made up of human beings. You give these men who have this predisposition to dominate anyway even more power by encouraging the 'flock' to trust him as a shepherd. I have heard from too many formerly catholic friends that these men were supposed to be respected as your parents. Their direction was supposed to be followed implicitly. The door is then open for abuse patterns to begin, and once the cycle of shame and guilt is created it is hard to break. I could be wrong, but I think you have no idea what it is like to fear the sound of someone's voice because they committed violence against you - how a sound, innocent enough in its making (such as the scraping of a chair over the floor), could nonetheless be connected to something heard during the abuse and wreak havoc on a victim's psyche. Often times the abuser will blame the victim - "look what you made me do!" It takes incredible courage to break free from this and point the finger. Imagine the horror when a victim realizes their abuser wasn't punished, but merely moved where they can begin the cycle anew...or sometimes still continue from a distance! These men won't consider leaving because of their 'urges'. Their comfortable lifestyle gives them all they need - food, shelter, respect, and a platform to commit their misdeeds.

I won't deny that some people attempt to jump on a money bandwagon if they feel they have a shot. However, it's plain retarded to say that it's not the priest's fault if a 17 year old consented to have sex with him and later accused him. Depending on the age of consent (as well as legal adulthood) in whatever area it was committed, combined with statutory rape laws, IT IS STILL ILLEGAL! As the adult, the priest should say "not until you're 18," if only to protect himself, not even just the child (if you want to look at it selfishly). I am a gardener, and I think pot has medical benefits that would help immensely, as well as not believing its "bad" properties are not that bad - but I don't grow it...because it's ILLEGAL. If I don't like it, I need to join the ranks attempting to prove its worth to our lawmakers. If the priests wanted to enjoy consensual sex with someone younger than the legal adult age in that area...they should discuss with lawmakers why that age should be lowered. It is not so hard to wait to shtook someone if you're abstaining because you truly care about them and their well-being, and respect yourself. Don't make the adult the victim here - by the time you're 60 (as I think you used in your example) you ought to fucking know better.

And now that I have a little more time, here are the two sides of the coin:

The individual:
If you accept the responsibility of a position of leadership in your community, you are, as I've said, accepting that you are representing your organization to everyone - be it your followers or the public at large. It is your responsibility to have a clear understanding of what your organization's goals and priorities are. You should have thorough knowledge of any laws or rules, spoken or unspoken. You should be well-versed in the image your organization wishes to project. If you see another 'representative' of your organization acting in a way that is detrimental to those goals, priorities, or image, it is beneficial to you and your organization at large if you take action of some sort instead of ignoring it. You should also know that in a position of leadership, you become partially responsible for the safety and well-being of your followers. While you cannot control all, or even any, of their actions, you can guide them and also actively work towards their safety and well-being. This is the burden we face as leaders of any sort. You might not like it, but it is the way of things. We become disillusioned with our leaders when they forget this duty and reveal themselves as all too human through irresponsible actions. You see, it is true that one bad apple spoils the bunch, but only if you leave it in the barrel.

The organization:
Every organization has a head of some sort, be it made up of one or many, clear or unclear. For the purposes of this argument, the Catholic church has clear hierarchy. The pope sets the tone from his high seat on down. As an organization, you should have all of those goals and priorities defined in order for your 'officers' to follow. If your stance is that pedophilia and abuse is unacceptable, then that should be made clear, and clear punishment enacted. There is no reason to worry about your reputation being besmirched because of one or two 'bad apples' if you are open about getting rid of them, especially if the other priests have been circumspect, therefore no reason to cover it up, which only implies shame.

The Church is not the government. There are no secrets it needs to hold to keep its followers "safe", as the government might concerning intel or technology. We hate the secrets the government keeps, but they can be successfully argued as necessary. Please let me know what 'secrets' the church might have that deserve the same treatment. There is no reason whatsoever for anything to be "covered up" unless it is in fact shameful in some way.

You once argued a hypothetical point where, in the case of a family with an abuse victim and a priest, it was decided to keep it quiet out of respect. The priest was supposed to get 'help'. It might be all well and good for the family to be kept out of the media light - no victim needs to suffer more exposure. But we make pedophiles register for a reason - unless new definitive evidence has surfaced that I haven't read about (and I'm no medical doctor, so just point me in the right way if I'm wrong), no 'cure' has been found for pedophiles...and abusers may control themselves but I've never heard someone say they were "cured" either. I understand this is my opinion here now, and little to do with fact, but it seems to me that once you are caught doing something illegal to a minor you have lost the right for privacy. Too much statistical data still says that offenders will continue to do so if given the opportunity, and putting these men in the public eye allows communities to police themselves. I suggest you take a look at the FBI's sex offender statistics, as well as those like Family Watchdog. I find the church's actions thus far to be completely reprehensible on this issue, and the fact that they allowed it to fester unfortunately produced the "bad apple" effect you continue to argue against.

You can cry all you want that not all Catholics are evil. No, they're not. Probably not all priests are either. I would just call them deluded. Those who knew about the abuses and covered them up? They are disgusting.

And I hate to keep harping on this one issue. I have problems in many areas with Catholicism's teachings. Condom condemnation is a huge one. You will have no parishioners if they all die of disease.

I would love to say that other than being quite deluded, the Catholic church is okay for a sect of Christianity. They seem to be willing to embrace some science. I even get the ritualism involved - Catholics seem to be able to relate to Jews quite well because of this. But for any advance they make, there seems to be another point where they digress, dangerously.

I will leave the philosophy arguments you were trying to make to DvF and Ryft - they are obviously better equipped than I to discuss whether or not the worldview and philosophies promoted by the church are valid and sound. But I cannot and will not agree that your church is not responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions, through superstition, willful ignorance, irresponsible guidance and protection of power. Your church discourages sex outside of the marriage bed, as far back as its creation from what I can tell, but once owned brothels because they were so lucrative. One of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill," but too many have been slaughtered in the name of YOUR god, your trinity. You say conversion wasn't supposed to be forced? Tell that to entire nations of Ameri-Indians whose treasures and books were burned in order to force them to accept Christianity.

The actions of a few, you argue? These men were not islands. They had superiors. They wrote to them and their colleagues of their exploits. And too often, no one lifted a finger to stop the atrocities.

You can argue all you want that the crimes made were for secular reasons, but they were done 99.9% of the time under the guise of god and religion, and thus can you blame us for having no trust?

(January 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm)dqualk Wrote: Listen welsh cake, as much as you would like to avoid responsibility by saying that you are not related to each other, you are wrong!

Boy, you're really not making any sense. Even if you are giving a legitimate response to my post, as opposed to talking out of your arse that is, it is highly arrogant and presumptuous of you to assume that simply because you disagree with me, for no apparent reason, I must somehow automatically be "wrong" because you are inherently "right", its just a darn shame that you've demonstrated from the start you have little to no grasp of what atheism actually means and consequently offended several people in the process which doesn't bowed well for your first impressions on these forums.

Quote:You see, this is the way we categorize anything, especially within a Darwinian world! Things that are similar in a way we can group together. For example, there is no actual yform of tree out there, yet we recognize that it is useful to group trees together so we do it. In the same way it is useful for me to group atheists together, and to make general assumptions and analogies about them as a whole, now naturally this process wont be perfect, as there are always those who do not quite fit within the category, but are unfortunately lumped in. But this is the way the world works. We have to generalize sometimes to make a point.

That's nothing more than an inductive logical fallacy, specifically a hasty generalization fallacy you've presented there, so that you may cling to any prejudices you may have about atheism and other people who simply don't think or believe the way you do.

Are you ready to learn what atheism is yet? Or would you rather prefer to continue trolling like the self-righteous hypocritical bigot that you are making yourself out to be? Kindly let us know.

Should I post tim minchins pope song?
I dont want to give the poor chap a heart attack.......but it would be funny.

Do it. I'll set the mood.

(January 17, 2011 at 3:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Should I post tim minchins pope song?
I dont want to give the poor chap a heart attack.......but it would be funny.

Do it, I like the song, has a nice ring about it

(January 17, 2011 at 8:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Why does god allow pedophiles to become priests?

How the fuck could he do that when he doesn't exist?

(January 17, 2011 at 8:15 am)Skipper Wrote:

dqualk Wrote:You are lying. Have a greater respect for reason, logic and truth.

Oh the irony of religious folk demanding we have a greater respect for logic and reason haha!

Skipper... poor you, you really believe that you and your tiny group of atheists are the only intelligent rational people on Earth don't you? How sad and delusional. I do not make that claim that there are no well meaning intelligent atheists, I am not so arrogant. I feel for those arrogant ignorant people who think they are the only right ones, and treat anyone with differing opinions with disdain and disrespect. I have the great respect for any man who is truly seeking truth in charity, whether he is athesit, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian.

---

Quote:I've never seen the church put out a bulletin that says "the individual actions of our clergymen do not necessarily represent the opinions and beliefs central to the Church or Catholicism." Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

I respectfully say that you are wrong, the Church consistently says that individual actions do not represent the whole. The Church is represented as a whole in its Tradition which is defined in Counsels and by the Papacy when speaking on issues of faith and morals. A Pope's personal actions will scandalize the Church and defame it, but they do not reflect on the whole. The truth is there will always be stupid asses in the Church, and unfortunately we have bad Popes from time to time.

I fully accept that some Bishops made bad mistakes. Shame on them, I hope it never happens again, unfortunately, because of human nature, which is not exclusive to any belief system or lack thereof, I’m sure something like it will happen again.

I can understand why people would blame the whole Church, and I do not blame them. You make perfect sense in what you are saying. These bad bishops and bad members of the Vatican et al. have scandalized the Church and have given her a bad name. However, the Church does have many members who do great acts of charity, I'm sure you know of some, if not call your local Catholic charity and you will see that they help hungry families regardless of creed or lack thereof.

All I am saying is that the situation is very complex situation. My only intention in bringing this up is that the situation is a very complex and multi layered situation that people act as if all priests abuse 8 year old kids by doing extremely heinous acts, when in fact the cases are not always so heinous. This is not to say that it’s not evil or a scandal only that it’s complicated and misrepresented by the media for the sake of a big story. There are many layers influenced by time, victim, situation etc.

Well midsummer I think your post was a good post and it made strong points many of which I agree with. These priests and bishops were disgusting and they were a scandal on the Church. But once you sift through all of the misinformation, you will see that the Church is only as bad as any other institution. It’s no worse. Especially an atheist who creates their own right and wrong based on relative principles, relative to other organizations the Church’s record of abuse is rather low. And its record of charity is extremely high. So I think a rational person will have respect for the Church as a whole and recognize it as a decent organization as a whole, even though it has some sicko bastards who deserve to die within it. All organizations have sickos in it.

The Church has a canon law that deals with the situation appropriately. On paper the Church has the right laws and mindset in place on this topic. That is the Church says it’s a grievous sin, and that it is to be reported to the authorities and the priest is to be defrocked.

The Church does not release all things to the public to save the Church from scandal. Because people might blame the actions of bad individuals on the whole. In cases of abuse the Church according to Canon Law is not to worry about scandal, the victims concern is most important and the predator priest is to be defrocked and given to the authorities.

I agree pedophiles just need to sit in prison for life or under a constant secure watch at least. I agree the priests and bishops who covered it up are disgusting.

I can not blame you for not having trust in the Church. But I do beleive that you will find that the Church can be trustworthy under certain assumptions and if you examine the entire Church for what she is. At the same time I recognize that many do not have the time or capability to spend the time looking into the Church, and I cannot blame them, this is why it is so evil for those bishops and priest to scandalize the Church in such a way.

---

(January 17, 2011 at 3:18 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Are you ready to learn what atheism is yet? Or would you rather prefer to continue trolling like the self-righteous hypocritical bigot that you are making yourself out to be? Kindly let us know.

You may tell me what atheism is and I will apologize where I wrong. My point is to say that telling me that I can not lump people who share certain common elements together is like telling a scientist that he should not lump mammals into a category becuase a human is so different from a platypus or something. The fact is they hold something in common therefore it is useful at times to lump them together. This classifying will always fail on some issue. So I can intelligibly lump atheists together even if its not always a perfect process.

Quote:Skipper... poor you, you really believe that you and your tiny group of atheists are the only intelligent rational people on Earth don't you?

One irrelevant ad hominem deserves another:

I've ever had the impression of elitism from Skipper.

However, judging by your posts and lack of any evidence of independent thought, I can understand why you might think that.