Meaningfulness v meaninglessness; theism vs atheism;

[Justtristo]

To Dqualk,

I am mystified in why you would defending certain actions committed by the Roman Catholic church. Namely the church's support for the Nazi regime, which included smuggling Nazi criminals to South America after WW2. Also the culture which has existed for long time of the church protecting priests who have molested children. Not to mention church's continued failure to admit the obvious.

The only explanation I have for your attitudes are that your deeply held faith in Roman Catholicism has blinded you.

[dqualk]

To Dqualk,

I am mystified in why you would defending certain actions committed by the Roman Catholic church. Namely the church's support for the Nazi regime, which included smuggling Nazi criminals to South America after WW2. Also the culture which has existed for long time of the church protecting priests who have molested children. Not to mention church's continued failure to admit the obvious.

The only explanation I have for your attitudes are that your deeply held faith in Roman Catholicism has blinded you.

I am mystified to how you have allowed atheism to blind you. The fact is when one atheist does something we do not bind it on the whole. When on teacher and student do something we do not bind it on the entire school system. When on police officer shoots a black man because he is black we do not say the entire police force is evil etc etc etc etc

The Church has a way by which it represents its whole. Thats through the Tradition of the Church, through councils and through the Pope. In all of these areas the Church clearly CLEARLY teaches that such acts as molestation and covering it up are grave evil, and those who commit such acts are worthy of hell. When the cover ups came to light the Church did everything it could to ensure that it wouldn't happen again by enforcing the Canon Laws already in place that dealt with the matter in an appropriate way. The Church lacks the ability to spy on all her members to keep them from doing evil, and if it did it still couldn't stop them from doing evil as the Church is not omnipotent. With that said those who covered up or molested are disgusting people who have scandalized the Church SHAME on them. However, the Church as a whole is a good institution with good laws and good teachings, ESPECIALLY concerning cover ups and child molestation.

I would like to envoke Einstein who actually lived through the Nazi regime an saw what was happening first hand:

Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks….
.
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
.
- Albert Einstein, Time magazine, 23rd December, 1940 p. 38

There are many such accounts, for example the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after WW II and took the NAME of Pope Piux XII because of his heroic example in opposing Nazism. Stop reading your stupid revisionist history. Yes tehre were evil "Catholics" who did evil things, but they did it in opposition to the Church, and therefore the Church cannot be blamed as a whole.

[downbeatplumb]

I am mystified to how you have allowed atheism to blind you. The fact is when one atheist does something we do not bind it on the whole. When on teacher and student do something we do not bind it on the entire school system. When on police officer shoots a black man because he is black we do not say the entire police force is evil etc etc etc etc

The cover up of vile the sexual acts was institutional in nature.
Often with priests just being moved to other parishes when the abuse was uncovered.
As the cover up was regulated by the catholic churches hierachy it is not wrong to blame them for the continued abuse.

If a lone policeman kills a black person then he is to blame. If then the whole police force close ranks to ensure that the crime is covered up and that the perpetrator does not face the full force of the law because of this, then the whole police force is to blame. Especially if the cover up is repeated time and time again for centuries.

How many millions must have been raped by catholic priests over the millenia.

Oh and the chief cover upper now holds the position of pope.

[dqualk]

How about not simply moving such priests from one locale to another, where they can continue their behavior with a new batch of kids? How about paying attention to the letters that were streaming in to Vatican officials for several decades, warning about what was taking place and that the priests should be defrocked? How about letting your priests get married so they can satisfy their natural sexual desires in covenant matrimony (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:9)? And so on.

Some bad Bishops did evil things, this does not mean the Church as a whole is evil. The Vatican shut down many Bishops before this ever came out. I KNOW ITS A SHOCK!!!!!! But a lot of what the news reports are lies. The media tried so hard to make the Pope look bad and they wound up digging up the fact that he quickly and effectively shut down predators the moment he found out about them. The thing is the Vatican is not omnipotent. In the ordinary manner the local Bishops are supposed to take care of teh situation according to Canon Law. These Bishops did not do that, AND GUESS WHAT! They covered it up. What do you think a cover up is? They hid it from all of their brother bishops and from the secular crowd et al. The fact is MOST Bishops acted according to Canon Law and immediately defrocked etc the pradator priests. This is a fact. Further!!! The Church does not force anyone to make a vow to celibacy. These men do it of their own volition AND FURTHER they can leave anytime they want. The Church does not force them to stay and keep their vow to celibacy. The Church does not take vows lightly like you might perhpas, and is not going to say "sure just break your vows that you made directly to God." What a lame answer to the problem anyway! As if celibate people are more likely to be perverts. Grow up. Jesus was celibate. Paul was celibate. Did they molest? NO! I was celibate until I was 20 years old, I did not have an urge to molest. I dare say that I could have gone my entire life outside of marriage and I would have never had the desire to molest; I don't know about you.

First, don't lump me in with others. Second, that is not what I am doing. I did not suggest that the RCC should be blamed for what this or that priest did; the RCC should be blamed for what its Vatican authorities did or didn't do.

That's like saying all Amerians should be blamed for Bill Clinton get a head job while married and lying under oath. There are times when America speaks as one voice, and that is during elections, and during specific actions of are representaives. Not personal evil actions of our represenatives. In the same way the Church speaks as a whole in these follwing manners only, when the Pope is teaching on issues of faith and morals with an intention of teachings infallibly to the whole Church, when an Ecumenical Council is called and the Pope is presiding, or through our Tradition which can be found in the Bible, in our historical documents, and within the teachings of our magestirum, when those teachigns have clear precedent to being taugh always and everywhere. Short of that oyu can not blame the Church as an institution proper. The fact is when the cover ups came to light the Church and the vast majority of her bishops did everything they could to stop the abuses and make sure they dont happen again.

A claim Rome has made for years, and proven to be an outright lie in court in 2007. They had known since at least the 1950s.

Bull shit. When the Church finds out about a scandal it deals with it and applies damage control whenever possible. If damage control is not possible than its not possible. Only a small group of shameful bishops moved predators around. Most bishops would deal with it by removing the priest from ministry, have him go to counseling and give him some kind of accountability, and if teh offense was really bad, like say it was consentual, or it was a very young person then they would give him to teh secualr realm to put him in prison. This is the way the Church ordinarily deals iwth such cases. Teh Church has its own courts and lawyers, and she is her own State of sorts. The Church has legitimate ways to deal with criminals, just like the U.S. does and other nations recognize her as soverign. Occasionaly nations, as the Church, has a bad judge who does something stupid, shame on them. The Church does not have prisons however, and for this reason, when a man is exceptionally evil the Church will defrock him and hand him to the secular authorities. But the Church has legitimate ways to deal with offenses that don't necessarily deserve prison, they can restrain priests by forcing htem to remain in a place under watch for long durations of time, similar to jail, and they have some of the best physciatrists in the world.

Because you are doing what bishops and priests have done for decades—defending Rome and NOT the victims. And you are clearly not informed of the issues, since you are spewing Vatican talking points that are at minimum four years out of date and refuted by evidence in court. When you start showing more concern for the abuses than for the integrity of Rome, then I'll give you a break.

Bull shit. You have not done the research. If you get your news from sources hateful to the Church only then shame on you. Read both sides of the story. The Church has done everything it can to stop abuse. The Church defends the victims to the best of her ability. Look I call it like I see it, where there is integrity there is integrity, where there is abuse tehre is abuse. I just dont let some absue blind me into claiming a whole group of people, say the magesterium, are abusive. The Pope defrocked every priest and bishop he could that participated in these acts and he did it quickly. All Christian denominations deal with this problem, and so does all of soceity, including schools, univeristies, the President etc. If you want to say that certain memebers of teh Vatican were vile, I agree with you! if you want to say that certain bishops and priests were evil. I agree with you. But to bind it on the entire Church? No sir! That is a lie, and it is secualar propaganda. Most hypocritical as school systems have a worse record than the Church concerning such issues.

---

I am mystified to how you have allowed atheism to blind you. The fact is when one atheist does something we do not bind it on the whole. When on teacher and student do something we do not bind it on the entire school system. When on police officer shoots a black man because he is black we do not say the entire police force is evil etc etc etc etc

The cover up of vile the sexual acts was institutional in nature.
Often with priests just being moved to other parishes when the abuse was uncovered.
As the cover up was regulated by the catholic churches hierachy it is not wrong to blame them for the continued abuse.

If a lone policeman kills a black person then he is to blame. If then the whole police force close ranks to ensure that the crime is covered up and that the perpetrator does not face the full force of the law because of this, then the whole police force is to blame. Especially if the cover up is repeated time and time again for centuries.

How many millions must have been raped by catholic priests over the millenia.

Oh and the chief cover upper now holds the position of pope.

Liar. Prove it with facts. You cannot. I have researched this extensively. You are lying. Have a greater respect for reason, logic and truth.

[Darwinian]

In my opinion the Pope is an evil, self centred and odious creature who's only interest lies with the image of his church. He is so far removed from reality and the real lives of those people he supposedly cares for that I find it very difficult indeed to believe that even now he fully understands the sheer horror of what these filthy priests have done and has only acted under extreme pressure from people who have a firmer grasp of reality than he does.

How can anyone with a sense of justice say any different.

[dqualk]

Darwinian, read the facts.

As far as I'm concerned you Darwinian are to blame for the child molestations in your community. You have not done enough and you only care about your image. Of course I've done no research but I've heard that atheist lack morals from some news service. So I think you need to stop allowing the molestation of children and come off your high horse and do more about it. Do I have any facts to back up my evidence? No. Have I read any literature other than those who are seeking a profit to break a big story or who personally hate atheists? No. I just sit here and believe what I want, and I do not read all sides of the story blah blah blah

[Minimalist]

Liar. Prove it with facts. You cannot. I have researched this extensively. You are lying. Have a greater respect for reason, logic and truth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew...-boys.html

The Pope has been accused of failing to act against a known paedophile priest.

The claim that Pope Benedict XVI covered up the case of an American curate who abused 200 deaf children sent shockwaves through the Vatican.

Correspondence published between U.S. bishops and the future pontiff in the 1990s apparently show that he ignored their pleas for him to act.

Stop reading church propaganda and you won't make such a fool out of yourself.

[Darwinian]

Darwinian, read the facts.

As far as I'm concerned you Darwinian are to blame for the child molestations in your community. You have not done enough and you only care about your image. Of course I've done no research but I've heard that atheist lack morals from some news service. So I think you need to stop allowing the molestation of children and come off your high horse and do more about it. Do I have any facts to back up my evidence? No. Have I read any literature other than those who are seeking a profit to break a big story or who personally hate atheists? No. I just sit here and believe what I want, and I do not read all sides of the story blah blah blah

The Pope, as Pope and in his previous role is guilty of a massive cover up, placing the reputations of his precious organisation and those paedophiles before the lives and rights of the innocent children that have been defiled!

Just because you are living in some sort of fantasy world in which he can do no wrong does not change the facts!

[dqualk]

The New York Times front page (trying to sell papers more than anything else) suggests that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, failed to act against a Wisconsin priest who was accused of molesting scores of boys at a school for the deaf.

Is the story damaging? Yes. Should the Vatican have acted faster? Yes. Should the accused priest have been laicized? Yes again.

Nevertheless, before assigning all blame to the Vatican, consider these factors:

1. The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn't.

2. The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations. Local Church officials could have given police all the information they had about the allegations against Murphy. Indeed they could have informed police 40 years earlier. They didn't.

3. Milwaukee's Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn't. Instead he transferred the predator priest to a new diocese, allowing him to continue pastoral work giving him access to other innocent young people. And as if that weren't enough, later Archbishop Weakland made sure that there was no "paper trail." There was certainly a cover-up in this case. It was in Milwaukee, not in Rome.

4. Having called the Vatican's attention to Murphy's case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action. Because the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited so long to take action, the canonical statute of limitations had become an important factor in the Vatican's decision to advise against an ecclesiastical trial.

5. In a plea for mercy addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Murphy said that he had repented his misdeeds, was guilty of no recent misconduct, and was in failing health. Earlier this month Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the chief Vatican prosecutor in sex-abuse cases, explained that in many cases involving elderly or ailing priests, the CDF chooses to forego a full canonical trial, instead ordering the priest to remove himself from public ministry and devote his remaining days to penance and prayer. This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican's inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.

6. The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined. In 1996, when the archbishop made that prediction, the public outcry would--and should--have been focused on the Milwaukee archdiocese, if it had materialized. Now, 14 years later, a much more intense public outcry is focused on the Vatican. The anger is justifiable, but it is misdirected.

This is a story about the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland--who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself--to shift responsibility to Rome. The truth shall set you free. Once again, the evil Bishop and Priest's disobeyed Canon Law, and covered up the problem. When the Vatican found out they took appropraite actions. It took them a few months to get to the case, but this is the reality of a beauracracy dealing with thousands of issues. How many horrible cases have to wait in the United States courts until justice is meeked out? Further, it was not the Vaticans primary responsibility, the Bishop at hand should have dealt with it according to Canon Law and he didn't and when the Vatican found out they booted that despicable Weakland.

[Zen Badger]

Why does god allow pedophiles to become priests?