atheism and children

[Javaman]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "dodging" your question, I guess I just misunderstood it. When you say "the Catholic Church use their influence," aren't you referring to Catholic people deciding that they are going to do this? What exactly are you referring to?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke. The last kudos I gave you was genuine because I liked that you accepted my response and then asked the next question respectfully.

Both you and Randy have suggested that the phrase "The Catholic Church" means all Catholics everywhere. For example, you said this: "Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church."

I realize this is a bit late, but do you realize how that sounds to an outsider? It sounds like you are suggesting that you, as a Catholic, are equally culpable and complicit in both the good and bad actions of the Church. This includes the despicable acts of shielding pedophiles and encouraging clergy not to contact the authorities when sexual abuse is reported.

I'm having a hard time making sense of that stance.

[Catholic_Lady]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "dodging" your question, I guess I just misunderstood it. When you say "the Catholic Church use their influence," aren't you referring to Catholic people deciding that they are going to do this? What exactly are you referring to?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke. The last kudos I gave you was genuine because I liked that you accepted my response and then asked the next question respectfully.

Both you and Randy have suggested that the phrase "The Catholic Church" means all Catholics everywhere. For example, you said this: "Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church."

I realize this is a bit late, but do you realize how that sounds to an outsider? It sounds like you are suggesting that you, as a Catholic, are equally culpable and complicit in both the good and bad actions of the Church. This includes the despicable acts of shielding pedophiles and encouraging clergy not to contact the authorities when sexual abuse is reported.

I'm having a hard time making sense of that stance.

The Catholic individuals who covered up the abuse, are morally responsible for those actions. The Catholic individuals who did not cover up the abuse, are not morally responsible for those actions.

[Kingpin]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was "dodging" your question, I guess I just misunderstood it. When you say "the Catholic Church use their influence," aren't you referring to Catholic people deciding that they are going to do this? What exactly are you referring to?

When you were being very mean to me earlier on in the thread, I was giving you kudos as a joke. The last kudos I gave you was genuine because I liked that you accepted my response and then asked the next question respectfully.

Both you and Randy have suggested that the phrase "The Catholic Church" means all Catholics everywhere. For example, you said this: "Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church."

I realize this is a bit late, but do you realize how that sounds to an outsider? It sounds like you are suggesting that you, as a Catholic, are equally culpable and complicit in both the good and bad actions of the Church. This includes the despicable acts of shielding pedophiles and encouraging clergy not to contact the authorities when sexual abuse is reported.

I'm having a hard time making sense of that stance.

I understand the dilemma there. I would equate it to the scandal of Enron in the 90s. Just because someone is a member of Enron does not mean they were complicit in the scandal at the top. Nor does it mean they held the same views as those at the top. This is the problem when we paint with broad brushes we lose the ability to discuss things at a personal or subjective level. We often identify ourselves or label as members of a larger group (republican, white, black, Jewish, homosexual, etc) and that creates the danger of guilt by association. We are all individuals who may share common ideas with multiple "groups" but we need to be careful when we make inclusive claims of belonging to a particular sect of whatever because we may be telling others we agree 100% with that groups stances and beliefs but in reality it's not true.

[Kingpin]

I feel I need to expound a little on my last statement. Basically what I mean is unity does not necessitate uniformity. You can believe in the core tenets of a groups beliefs and differ on less important or in other words peripheral issues. If you say you are a democrat, you have a set of social and economic principles that you feel should govern the nation, but you can certainly differ on international diplomacy, campaigns, etc. I could even go as far to say you may differ slightly in the core tenets, because I personally know some who identify as democrat but are against gay marriage for example. If you are not uniform in the core tenets does that exclude from identifying with the group? No.

[Catholic_Lady]

Both you and Randy have suggested that the phrase "The Catholic Church" means all Catholics everywhere. For example, you said this: "Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church."

I realize this is a bit late, but do you realize how that sounds to an outsider? It sounds like you are suggesting that you, as a Catholic, are equally culpable and complicit in both the good and bad actions of the Church. This includes the despicable acts of shielding pedophiles and encouraging clergy not to contact the authorities when sexual abuse is reported.

I'm having a hard time making sense of that stance.

I understand the dilemma there. I would equate it to the scandal of Enron in the 90s. Just because someone is a member of Enron does not mean they were complicit in the scandal at the top. Nor does it mean they held the same views as those at the top. This is the problem when we paint with broad brushes we lose the ability to discuss things at a personal or subjective level. We often identify ourselves or label as members of a larger group (republican, white, black, Jewish, homosexual, etc) and that creates the danger of guilt by association. We are all individuals who may share common ideas with multiple "groups" but we need to be careful when we make inclusive claims of belonging to a particular sect of whatever because we may be telling others we agree 100% with that groups stances and beliefs but in reality it's not true.

Yes, this. And it wasn't even everyone at the "top" who played a part in covering up, either. The actions of a few, should not represent the majority.

[Javaman]

I understand the dilemma there. I would equate it to the scandal of Enron in the 90s. Just because someone is a member of Enron does not mean they were complicit in the scandal at the top. Nor does it mean they held the same views as those at the top. This is the problem when we paint with broad brushes we lose the ability to discuss things at a personal or subjective level. We often identify ourselves or label as members of a larger group (republican, white, black, Jewish, homosexual, etc) and that creates the danger of guilt by association. We are all individuals who may share common ideas with multiple "groups" but we need to be careful when we make inclusive claims of belonging to a particular sect of whatever because we may be telling others we agree 100% with that groups stances and beliefs but in reality it's not true.

Yes, this. And it wasn't even everyone at the "top" who played a part in covering up, either. The actions of a few, should not represent the majority.

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I get all of that: frankly it's what I assumed from the outset. But that's why I was puzzled by your earlier response CL. To be more specific, when I used the phrase "Catholic Church" you seemed unclear whether I meant the "higher ups" or all Catholics in general; to me, it seemed obvious I meant those officials who can claim to act or speak on behalf of the institution itself.

I guess for me the next thing that needs clarification is who gets to decide when an official of the Catholic Church (priest, bishop, cardinal, pope, etc) is acting as an individual as opposed to representing the institution of the Church. For example, let's assume that a bishop speaks on behalf of all Catholics when he declares that IVF is an immoral act. Is he still speaking on behalf of all Catholics when he threatens excommunication to politicians who don't vote to make it illegal? Is he still speaking on behalf of all Catholics when he likens IVF to Nazi eugenics?

When Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became the pope, instructed bishops to first report to the Vatican (i.e. instead of the police) any allegations of child sexual abuse, was he acting as an individual? Or as a representative of the Church? And again, who gets to make those distinctions and how?

[Javaman]

Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church." But I see what you mean. You're referring to the higher ups. The Pope, Cardinals, etc.

Well first of all, I don't think they could make it illegal even if they wanted to. The governments world wide don't consult with the Church when making their laws, etc, so your question is flawed to begin with.
Second, I don't think any of those guys are interested in making IVF illegal anyway. There are plenty of things we (as a Church) think are immoral but that we don't think should be illegal. IVF is one of those things.

Abortion and the death penalty, on the other hand, are definitely things the higher ups have said should be illegal, and that we, as a Church, believe should be illegal. But as far as I know, they don't speak the same way about IVF. Neither do I think they should. The answer is no.

I missed this statement in all the commotion. I think it's naive for you to suggest the Catholic Church (i.e. "the institution") does not attempt to persuade politicians to vote in ways that match church doctrine. I'll agree that its influence has waned greatly in the past few decades, but let's not pretend this retreat was initiated by the Church itself.

I'm not singling out the Catholic Church here: this is not unique to it at all.

We've had the stone age, the bronze age, the industrial age, the chemical age, the information age... here's hoping for the secular age.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, this. And it wasn't even everyone at the "top" who played a part in covering up, either. The actions of a few, should not represent the majority.

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I get all of that: frankly it's what I assumed from the outset. But that's why I was puzzled by your earlier response CL. To be more specific, when I used the phrase "Catholic Church" you seemed unclear whether I meant the "higher ups" or all Catholics in general; to me, it seemed obvious I meant those officials who can claim to act or speak on behalf of the institution itself.

I guess for me the next thing that needs clarification is who gets to decide when an official of the Catholic Church (priest, bishop, cardinal, pope, etc) is acting as an individual as opposed to representing the institution of the Church. For example, let's assume that a bishop speaks on behalf of all Catholics when he declares that IVF is an immoral act. Is he still speaking on behalf of all Catholics when he threatens excommunication to politicians who don't vote to make it illegal? Is he still speaking on behalf of all Catholics when he likens IVF to Nazi eugenics?

When Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became the pope, instructed bishops to first report to the Vatican (i.e. instead of the police) any allegations of child sexual abuse, was he acting as an individual? Or as a representative of the Church? And again, who gets to make those distinctions and how?

Anyone who is Catholic is representing the Catholic Church. How well they are representing the Church, is where the issue lies.  

The only thing that can be spoken on behalf of all Catholics as an official position of the Church, are matters of faith and morals. Also known as Church Doctrine. Only the pope can do this, and only when he is officially making an infallible pronouncement.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well it's just weird because all of us Catholics make up the "Catholic Church." But I see what you mean. You're referring to the higher ups. The Pope, Cardinals, etc.

Well first of all, I don't think they could make it illegal even if they wanted to. The governments world wide don't consult with the Church when making their laws, etc, so your question is flawed to begin with.
Second, I don't think any of those guys are interested in making IVF illegal anyway. There are plenty of things we (as a Church) think are immoral but that we don't think should be illegal. IVF is one of those things.

Abortion and the death penalty, on the other hand, are definitely things the higher ups have said should be illegal, and that we, as a Church, believe should be illegal. But as far as I know, they don't speak the same way about IVF. Neither do I think they should. The answer is no.

I missed this statement in all the commotion. I think it's naive for you to suggest the Catholic Church (i.e. "the institution") does not attempt to persuade politicians to vote in ways that match church doctrine. I'll agree that its influence has waned greatly in the past few decades, but let's not pretend this retreat was initiated by the Church itself.

I'm not singling out the Catholic Church here: this is not unique to it at all.

We've had the stone age, the bronze age, the industrial age, the chemical age, the information age... here's hoping for the secular age.

As you said, we all want to "persuade" politicians to vote in what we support, if we could. So I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at.

[dyresand]

Have none, never will. You'd have to kidnap me, drug me and reverse my vasectomy first!

Only furry children for me, that's where my paternal instinct lies Currently have 4 of those! I'd have more if we had the space/money.

you me let's make a baby