homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: To Hell with your evil theology (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: To Hell with your evil theology
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Heaven forbid that we should have a conversation based on mutual understanding! [Eek!]

Sorry, but this seems a bit ridiculous at the moment. I understand that you think I'm stupid, bigoted and ill-willed. What more do I need to understand at this juncture?

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Mutual understanding' is over-rated with respect to interesting conversation. I would go so far as to say, anyone claiming mutual understanding is either deluded or blowing smoke up your arse.

[ 19. July 2010, 00:05: Message edited by: Alfred E. Neuman ]

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
apostate630
Apprentice
# 15425

 - Posted      Profile for apostate630   Email apostate630   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Folks, 2010 is the 30th anniversary of my resignation from the Roman Catholic Church.

I've posted some of this elsewhere, but here we go again.

I stand second to no human in my admiration for John Paul II, even though I often refer to him as J2P2.

He was a key figure in bringing down the Soviet Empire. Which would have collapsed in due course anyway, but credit where's credit's due.

He also set the Church on a trajectory towards irrelavence by trying to reverse Vatican II. Benedict the Roman Numeral has simply stepped on the gas.

Folks, the fellow is in his 80s. He doesn't have time to rebound from these incredible scandals. He will be remembered as the Pope of the Pedophiles.

Already in Europe, in majority Catholic nations, the Church is increasingly ignored. In the US this is less so, but note that this former pious altar boy did not choose his handle at random.

The Roman Catholic Church will not be stamped out, it will simply . . . dissolve. "And like this insubstantial pageant faded leave not a wrack behind."

It'll take another couple of centuries, maybe a millennia. But it'll happen.

The Church played another key role, in holding on to what was left of the knowledge of the ancient world. And well done, you monks copying old books, after your predecessors burned 90% of the other old books.

The Church's roles, for good or evil, are done. And I sense I'm about to segue into a rant, and I decline to do so.

At this time.

Low stress to all.

Posts: 46 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, you can't just disagree and leave? Your absence in the Church just has to part of an epic paradigm shift for all of humanity?

Zach

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, an ex-Roman Catholic with a chip on his shoulder.

[Snore]

Grow up, little boy. The world does not revolve around you.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Segue INTO?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ah, an ex-Roman Catholic with a chip on his shoulder.

[Snore]

Grow up, little boy. The world does not revolve around you.

Lapsed Roman Catholics are amusing in their bitterness towards the Church. If you've spent most of your life thinking the Church is perfect and unstained, no wonder you end up feeling bitter when you find out the Church is just as earthy and political as any other large institution.

Anglicans of course have lower expectations of the Church. Any church that once had the promiscuous Charles II as supreme governor*, can't claim to be pure and completely wholesome.

*Apparently the Church's rule against adultery doesn't apply to the King of England.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256

 - Posted      Profile for Duo Seraphim   Email Duo Seraphim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.

On pain of receiving arguably the same ecclesial discipline as someone who has sexually abused children.

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.

Oh yes, silly me. Those individuals who were involved in the movement for the ordination of women really should be excommunicated, of course.

And female theologians who don't toe a traditional theological line as well as most communities of religious sisters really should be investigated, of course. But ordinary Catholics who don't really care one way or another can still have guarded conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table.

Whew, then.

My God you really ARE an idiot. Moving the goalposts simply confirms it. You must have pulled these points out of your arse.

Simply underwhelming.

--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)

Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
*Apparently the Church's rule against adultery doesn't apply to the King of England.

See Henry VIII, its founder.

[ 19. July 2010, 05:52: Message edited by: seasick ]

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The true position is that Canon law treats ordination of women as an addition to the list of grave offences attracting excommunication latae sententiae. SO we've gone from being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said to being unable to discuss OOW as contrary to the teaching of the Church 'cos Pope John Paul II said and there now being an express article of Canon law dealing with anyone trying OOW.

On pain of receiving arguably the same ecclesial discipline as someone who has sexually abused children.

quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
The ban on discussion hasn't stopped any Catholic talking about OOW, as multipara pointed out - guarded though such discussion might be.

Oh yes, silly me. Those individuals who were involved in the movement for the ordination of women really should be excommunicated, of course.

And female theologians who don't toe a traditional theological line as well as most communities of religious sisters really should be investigated, of course. But ordinary Catholics who don't really care one way or another can still have guarded conversations around the Thanksgiving dinner table.

Whew, then.

My God you really ARE an idiot. Moving the goalposts simply confirms it. You must have pulled these points out of your arse.

Simply underwhelming.

What the hell are you talking about?

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*clop clop clop*

great conversation, but let's watch out for the dead horses folks. The rights and wrongs of the Ordination of The Brighter Sex are to be discussed on the Dead Horses board.

Just a reminder.

As you were.

comet
Hellhost

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
*clop clop clop*

great conversation, but let's watch out for the dead horses folks. The rights and wrongs of the Ordination of The Brighter Sex are to be discussed on the Dead Horses board.

Just a reminder.

As you were.

comet
Hellhost

It's really interesting how people seem to think that this is about getting angry about the ordination of women.

It's not.

My anger - not hatred - comes from the implied "demotion" of padeophilia by making the punishment for OOW equivalent to paedophilia. <puts on tin hat>

My anger - not hatred - is that the Church seems to think that the internal consistency of its systematic theology is more important than the lived-out experience of people. So if a kid gets hurt because it gave a padeophile priest a second or a third chance in a parish, well that's regrettable. But God forbid anyone talk about OOW.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Seeker, get your sorry excuse for a head out of your ass. I didn't point out any particular posts, I didn't mention any particular posters. It was a gentle (painfully so) reminder to all that we not get into that debate. We haven't yet, but a few posts have skirted close.

Believe it or not, you hysterical little brick, this isn't all about you. I don't give a flying fornication what gets your tighty whities in a twist.

You can discuss the OOW all the fuck you want, and have righteous indignation the whole time. Just not on this board.

You want to whine about a host post? Take it to the Styx.

Meanwhile, take a deep fucking breath you little freak.

comet
Hellhost

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I worked for a Catholic organization for several years. I know quite a few RC's who couldn't give two hoots about what Rome says, feel that they are, and will remain, RC in their spiritual outlook, aren't about to change just because the leaders in Rome don't like women in charge, and get quite a bit of spiritual nourishment at the parish level. Oh, and some of them (female) read the gospel in church, preach, and say the words over the bread and wine--which is supposedly Not.To.Be.Done. Not all parishes or RC groups color within the lines.

There is nothing of a whine about a principled stand.

Only that's not a principled stand - it's cowardly and dishonest. What would be principled would be to try to change the structure openly from within; or to decide that the issue of women's ordained ministry was so important that it was a matter of conscience to leave any Church that would not conform to your ideas to allow it. What you describe is divisive, a cause for scandal, dishonest, and treads roughshod over several other essentially Catholic principles in order to usurp another. If that isn't proof of the need to impose Church discipline over such issues I'm Princess Mary of Teck (count your spoons).

I repeat: if you can't accept the deep principles which underly the Catholic Church, to the extent that you think them profoundly unjust, get the heck outta there.

Is there a place in the Roman Catholic Church for good-willed internal dissent?
Thank you for this! That's the point I was making, and now Chesterbelloc appears to be the second person to respond and then tell me to get out of the Catholic Church, when, in fact, I'm not in it. [Smile]

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


Staying in the Roman Catholic Church playing at being a priest while claiming to be oppressed by the evil hierarchy is just silly in this day and age. Pretending to be Roman Catholic when you aren't is just plain dishonest.

You simply don't know these people well enough to call them out in this way. Why are you so upset with them? Why does their desire to be Catholic in the way that makes sense to them disturb you?

Sometimes it's not a simple matter of staying or going, but of finding other ways to make sense of senseless rules.

And by what authority do you have the right to pronounce them as "pretenders?"

sabine

[ 19. July 2010, 12:07: Message edited by: sabine ]

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
comet--I replied to two posts as I read them in order before seeing you nudge that we not go there re: women's ordination. Hoping I haven't overstepped.

Mostly, I'm talking about internal dissent. The dissent I know about from my friends covers more than one topic.

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't understand that. If you want to discern your own spiritual truth, why would you be Roman Catholic? They don't encourage the discerning of your own spiritual truth.

And what would 'your own spiritual truth' even mean? Truth is truth. Truth is the correspondance between thought and reality. If what you believe is contrary to reality, it isn't 'true,' but false.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
On what planet does similar punishment for two different wrongdoings not equal moral equivalency?

This one. Because here, few, if any, entities use pure moral desert as the only criterion for punishment. Most apply some standard of consequences/aims/relevance/utility or whatever as well.

I, as a solicitor, would not be allowed to practice is I were made bankrupt. The same would apply if I wrote my own job reference and signed it purportedly by my boss. The same would apply if I knowingly lied to a Court. The same would apply if I nicked £100,000,000 from a client's account with my firm.

Does this mean that the Law Society considers all of these morally equivalent? That becoming insolvent through no fault of my own, or supplying a neutral reference if my boss was too lazy or hostile to do so, is the same as perjury or theft?

Of course not. Simply that for a mix of practical, historical or moral reasons, all of them would be inappropriate for a solicitor.


Or take UK law. I would imagine that most people would rather their spouse forgot to renew the TV licence than had an affair, but only one of those carries a legal sanction. Does this mean that the present government considers that forgetfulness is morally worse than infidelity? Or is it more likely that UK law is written on the basis that securing licence fee revenue is a proper function of the law, and enforcing strict sexual morality isn't?


Now even if you knew nothing at all about what excommunication means and what it's for in Catholic thought, you would have no reason to think that Catholic discipline is uniquely free from any practical or pastoral concerns and judges pure moral guilt. For example, a priest is apparently automatically excommunicated for using the sacrament of confession to solicit adultery, but not if he uses the same occasion to solicit murder. Which do you really think is most likely: (a) that the Pope thinks adultery is always and in every case worse than murder? or (b) that, unfortunately, priests do use (or have used) the sacrament to their advantage to obtain sexual favours often enough that a clear deterrent rule against it is warranted, whereas fortunately they do not solicit murder in that way nearly so often?

You may not know (and I certainly don't know) what the RCC hopes to achieve in every case by its disciplinary rules, and what makes excommunication sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. You do know enough to realise that you cannot simply take the rules as setting out precise moral equivalents. It would be ludicrous and absurd to suppose that RCC canon law is the complete text of everything that the Pope's conscience might have to say, and nothing else. There must be some reason for the selection of the wrongs that get put into these disciplinary categories, and it does not make too great a demand on someone's imagination or charity to suppose that there might be a more likely explanation than that the Pope thinks that OOW and child abuse are about equally bad.

Since IngoB (also Bullfrog and Marvin) have explained that there is a difference between acts that amount to a rejection of Catholic sacramental order, and acts that are morally evil, you really have no excuse for not getting it.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Or, perhaps it's just trying to understand what the Church is actually saying rather than pointing accusatory fingers before you know what's going on. Just a thought.

Well, what the Church appears to be saying is: if you rape children it's a terrible crime and you'll be punished by the secular authorities, but you'll have the opportunity within the Church to repent and be OK with God like the prodigal son you are. But if you try to ordain a woman your sin has automatically put you outside of the Church and therefore, though you'll suffer no temporal penalty, you'll burn in Hell forever like the irredeemable apostate you are.

Am I far off the mark?

Yes, both are mendable by contrition, confession and reparation (penance). In the case of abuse, the latter involves taking the legal punishment even if you are forgiven. So what we actually see is that abuse is treated harsher. In Cathoic theology, you have to be contrite in order for the absolution to 'take effect.' You must also make reparation.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But if the person's conscience seems to them genuinely to be forcing rejection of these Catholic essentials then the Church - though she will hold that the person's conscience is mistaken - will respect the decision to follow it. Formally, it is still apostasy, but people and situations are complex and messy and not all acts of apostasy should be treated with contempt as well as regret.

It would be schism, not apostacy. Apostacy would imply ceasing to be a Christian altogether, not merely switching demoninations.


(From the CCC para 2089:

quote:
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him
)

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
1. Crimes may only be punished by a fine
2. The maximum possible fine for any crime is £100
3. The punishment of Crime A is a fine of £100
4. The punishment of Crime B is a fine of £100

Q. Which crime is worse, A or B?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quite right, Eliab - my clumsiness.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
1. Crimes may only be punished by a fine
2. The maximum possible fine for any crime is £100
3. The punishment of Crime A is a fine of £100
4. The punishment of Crime B is a fine of £100

Q. Which crime is worse, A or B?

1. Serious contraventions of the workplace code may be punished by the management with disciplinary measures.
2. The most severe disciplinary measure is dismissal.
3. The punishment for stealing from the petty cash is dismissal.
4. The punishment for kidnapping and torturing the head of accounts in the stationery cupboard is dismissal.
5. The latter must also be reported to the criminal authorities for civil punishment.

Q: Which crime is worse, 3. or 4. ?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Exactly.

Those who claim the RCC is effectively saying the OoW is as bad as paedophilia are just pathetic anti-catholic bigots.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Pedant hat] So must #3[/pedant hat]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the real problem with this conversation is that most people can't get their heads around comparing OOW to any crime, even something so petty as stealing petty cash.

And to be fair, it did take some serious intellectual calisthenics on my part, but granting that the RCC thinks OOW is a crime, the rest isn't really that hard to understand.

[ 19. July 2010, 14:49: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
most people can't get their heads around comparing OOW to any crime

That's because their heads are up their arses.

[ 19. July 2010, 14:53: Message edited by: Yorick ]

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
most people can't get their heads around comparing OOW to any crime

That's because their heads are up their arses.
Nah. It's because they're not willing to engage in the really disgusting work of trying to understand an organization that has its head up its arse.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose, by that, you mean to imply your particular organisation doesn't have it's head up it's arse?

Quick question: is God a Protestant? Maybe He's a Catholic or a Moslem, or maybe He's none of these things, and they're all just pathetic human vanities, as bad as each other at sticking their flawed heads up their flawed arses.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I suppose, by that, you mean to imply your particular organisation doesn't have it's head up it's arse?

Quick question: is God a Protestant? Maybe He's a Catholic or a Moslem, or maybe He's none of these things, and they're all just pathetic human vanities, as bad as each other at sticking their flawed heads up their flawed arses.

Certainly not. I'm quite convicted, even convicted on total depravity.

If you get me started on the current problems in the UMC, I may find it hard to stop.

You very clearly don't know me from Adam.

[ 19. July 2010, 15:59: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mad Cat
Shipmate
# 9104

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Cat   Email Mad Cat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nothing gets between God and His people like religion. As someone's sig says. (Is it Spiffy??)

Check me out crossposting an' ting

[ 19. July 2010, 16:00: Message edited by: Mad Cat ]

--------------------
Weird and sweary.

Posts: 1844 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As anyone watching my posts will realise, I'm far from a supporter of the RCC. On the other hand, this was just PR idiocy. Rome takes its near-pointless rituals seriously, and ordaning a female priest shows that you are in serious disagreement with them in a way that should cause you to leave the church. It's a crossing of the Rubicon. Paedophilia on the other hand is weakness rather than intent and doesn't mean that you are turning your back on the Church. Intent matters.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
You very clearly don't know me from Adam.

Actually, I know you're a far nicer chap than Adam, and most of his friends. (I was just taking a cheap rhetorical shot at religious organisations, somewhat at your expense. Sorry.)

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
You very clearly don't know me from Adam.

Actually, I know you're a far nicer chap than Adam, and most of his friends. (I was just taking a cheap rhetorical shot at religious organisations, somewhat at your expense. Sorry.)
Why the fuck are you apologizing?

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The silver headed faux must be getting to him, Bullfron...

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
<<SNIP>> On the other hand, this was just PR idiocy. <<SNIP>>

Exactly. I tried to make this point a page or 2 or 3 ago, but was drowned out in all the shouting.

If the Church had issued these proclamations separately, with a few weeks intervening, would this thread even exist?

The RCC's dealings with OoW, whether or not you agree with them, are ancient news; the RCC's efforts, however deft or maladriot you find them, to deal with clergy sex abuse, somewhat less antique.

The only "equivalency" operating here is the Church's stupidly bundling the two into a single press release and failing to realize how that might come across to the vast majority of people outside Vatican City.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Since IngoB (also Bullfrog and Marvin) have explained that there is a difference between acts that amount to a rejection of Catholic sacramental order, and acts that are morally evil, you really have no excuse for not getting it.

I do "get it". And I think "it" is wrong and immoral and an offense against natural justice. I also think that its pedantic bullshit. Curse me to the high heavens for that opinion. Whatever.

It would appear that this conversation has pretty much run its course for constructive conversation, if that is possibile in hell.

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
It would appear that this conversation has pretty much run its course for constructive conversation, if that is possibile in hell.

At least the part with you in it. Bye, then.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520

 - Posted      Profile for Darllenwr   Email Darllenwr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If "The Western Mail ~ National Newspaper of Wales" is anything to go by, this certainly is a PR disaster, with one of their columnists making the same equation as some of our hotter-headed shipmates. In today's edition, under the heading "Catholic Church needs a rethink" came this article:
quote:
Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared last week.
New religious rules published by the Vatican set the "sin" of the ordination of women and paedophile offences by the clergy at the same level of gravity and recommended the same punishment for guilty priests.
Benedict XVI ~ the pope who makes his medieval predecessors seem enlightened ~ has made the biggest error yet in his controversial papacy by equating women priests with the perverts who have damaged Catholicism beyond measure. One thing's for certain. I can't help thinking that if the Catholic Church had ever had the sense, courage and humanity to discard 2000 years of misogyny and allow the former, they would have suffered a lot less of the latter.

The Columnist was Carolyn Hitt, if you are interested.

My point is this: to the outside world it matters not one jot what are the actual technicalities of canon law in these matters - appearance is all. To those not well versed in the workings of the RCC, it appears as Carolyn Hitt has described it. It is a PR disaster.

The gentlest thing one can say is that the juxtaposition of OoW and pederast priests in the same document was folly of a high order.

--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!

Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
jacobsen

seeker
# 14998

 - Posted      Profile for jacobsen   Email jacobsen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian: Paedophilia on the other hand is weakness rather than intent <snip> Intent matters. [/QB]
And the intent of giving in to the weakness? Are you by any chance suggesting that paedophiles can't help it? [Eek!] Or that they are not responsible for their actions? [Ultra confused] That this weakness is more acceptable to the RCC than OOW because it doesn't go against its deeper seated misogynist regulations? [Disappointed]

Sick, man. [Frown]

[ 19. July 2010, 21:22: Message edited by: jacobsen ]

--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.

Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
<<SNIP>> On the other hand, this was just PR idiocy. <<SNIP>>

Exactly. I tried to make this point a page or 2 or 3 ago, but was drowned out in all the shouting.
I heard ya, Apocalypso. Nuff respeck.

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
My point is this: to the outside world it matters not one jot what are the actual technicalities of canon law in these matters - appearance is all. To those not well versed in the workings of the RCC, it appears as Carolyn Hitt has described it.

You have a very low opinion of the outside world. I don't think that one needs to be well-versed in canon law (I'm certainly not) not to leap to the astonishingly improbable conclusion that the Vatican thinks ordaining women and abusing children are the same.

This, for instance:

quote:
Making a woman a priest is as sinful as abusing a child, the Roman Catholic Church declared last week.
is just a plain lie. The RCC declared no such thing. It is malicious scandal-mongering, not journalism.

The Vatican can, perhaps, be faulted for not taking into account the spite and mendacity of the press. They ought to know that anything about child abuse will be twisted and lied about by people who would like nothing better than to make some of the odium of the child abuse scandal stick to the present Pope. That does not in the least excuse those who delight in malicious falsehood.

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian: Paedophilia on the other hand is weakness rather than intent <snip> Intent matters.
And the intent of giving in to the weakness? Are you by any chance suggesting that paedophiles can't help it? [Eek!] Or that they are not responsible for their actions? [Ultra confused] That this weakness is more acceptable to the RCC than OOW because it doesn't go against its deeper seated misogynist regulations? [Disappointed]
I took Justinian to mean that sexual sin is the sort of sin one can commit while still thinking that it is wrong. One could accept the whole of the RCC's teaching on sex and still lust, masturbate, fornicate, commit adultery and rape. One can do all those things because the impulse to do them is inordinate desire, rather than a settled intellectual conviction that they are right. Whereas someone who ordains a woman is unlikely to be doing so in fulfillment of an obsessional and recurring fantasy which goes against there better moral judgment - they very like disagree with the Church's teaching on the point and are wilfully acting contrary to it. That is, the paedophile acts against his conscience, the ordainer of women acts in accordance with his, albeit that his conscience differs from that of the RCC.

There is a valid distinction there even if you think (as I do and suspect Justinian does) that most if not all abusers certainly can help themselves and are morally very guilty indeed.

[ 19. July 2010, 23:04: Message edited by: Eliab ]

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anyone else want to play "Psychoanalysis over the Internet"? It's fun! Put on your fake beards and Viennese accents, and join in!

If I were a Shipmate whose profile contained a link to the blog of a female ordained Methodist pastor... and if I, the aforementioned Shipmate, thought that the current Vatican statement meant that those who had ordained me were worse than child molesters ... I could see said Shipmate taking the whole thing somewhat personally.

Two ironies occur to me:

(1) it's a backhanded compliment to the authority of the Vatican that the OP'er might feel wounded by the comparison. If their fatwas don't apply to you, why worry?

(2) if the OP'er was annoyed by the comparison with child molesters, this places her in good company with Catholic priests, who are now broadly assumed to be - by more malicious media types - all child molesters.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Geneviève

Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098

 - Posted      Profile for Geneviève   Email Geneviève   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And if the Vatican's connection of the two "sins" is merely a PR blunder, it's a very interesting coincidence.

I find that defense hard to believe.

--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)

Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

 - Posted      Profile for Seeker963   Author's homepage   Email Seeker963   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Anyone else want to play "Psychoanalysis over the Internet"? It's fun! Put on your fake beards and Viennese accents, and join in!

If I were a Shipmate whose profile contained a link to the blog of a female ordained Methodist pastor... and if I, the aforementioned Shipmate, thought that the current Vatican statement meant that those who had ordained me were worse than child molesters ... I could see said Shipmate taking the whole thing somewhat personally.

Two ironies occur to me:

(1) it's a backhanded compliment to the authority of the Vatican that the OP'er might feel wounded by the comparison. If their fatwas don't apply to you, why worry?

(2) if the OP'er was annoyed by the comparison with child molesters, this places her in good company with Catholic priests, who are now broadly assumed to be - by more malicious media types - all child molesters.

Maybe people should read the part where the OPer says that she's not particularly worried about the Vatican's view of her ordination. If I were a man, the Vatican wouldn't see my ordination as valid, either. So why would I care about that?

Let's all tell our friends who have been sexually molested as children that the people who hurt them deserve equal or less punishment than the people who ordain women. And then let's lecture them about legal niceties like the internal philosophical consistencies of neo-platonic Christian theological systems.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Let's all tell our friends who have been sexually molested as children that the people who hurt them deserve equal or less punishment than the people who ordain women.

Why should we lie to them? Perhaps you missed the point where the child molester, in addition to ecclesial penalties, has to face legal action as well? Perhaps you didn't understand the part about maximum penalties not distinguishing between different crimes that get the maximum penalty, but that doesn't mean the offenses are felt to be equally bad?

You were right before when you implied you had nothing constructive to add to the conversation.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
apostate630
Apprentice
# 15425

 - Posted      Profile for apostate630   Email apostate630   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Folks, let's face it.

The Roman Catholic Church is imploding.

This ex-altar boy regrets this on some level. I still miss the surplice and cassock I wore at countless 6 a.m. masses. The candles. The incense. Swigging the sacramental wine in the sacristy.

But the Roman Catholic Church has forfeited any and all of its credibility.

This is especially painful for my elder brother, who is still a capital-B Believer. He tells me tales of parish priests who no longer dare hear confessions, or even talk with parishioners behind closed doors.

I sympathize with these good men who chose the priesthood.

And what the FUCK could they expect from the current leadership of the Roman Catholic Church?

I have not phrased the question thusly to my brother.

I should.

Posts: 46 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by apostate630:
Folks, let's face it.

The Roman Catholic Church is imploding.

It certainly looks like it from some angles. Of course it will likely take a century or two to finish imploding (if it is), and none of us will be here to see it and say, "I told you so." (Or, "No it's not, nyah nyah" if it goes the other way.)

It's not dead yet, Jim. Remains to be seen whether it dies, and how long it takes if it does. I think a lot of sincere and devout believers, like your brother, will be very hurt by whatever happens. Lord, have mercy.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geneviève:
And if the Vatican's connection of the two "sins" is merely a PR blunder, it's a very interesting coincidence. I find that defense hard to believe.

It's a PR blunder, but not because the connection is accidental. It isn't. The connection is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF, the former Inquisition) has claimed juridical power over certain cases, in the case of sexual abuse exactly in order to avoid the possibility that the cases could be mishandled by local ordinaries. And now they are issuing a major rule update with precise details about what cases the CDF will be responsible for, and which procedures they will follow. The document was linked to on page 1, here it is again, Article 1.3 tells you what it is about.

The document addresses in part a major concern of the public, namely mishandling of abuse cases by local bishops. It makes completely transparent to the world a strict judicial procedure that will be followed internally, thus being as open as possible about it. It should have gotten a positive acknowledgment from the public.

However, like all good bureaucrats writing regulations, the CDF was also thorough and complete. If they write up "stuff we handle", then they write up "stuff they handle". All of it, in the relevant detail. The CDF also handles the ordination of women. For much the same reason why it handles abuse cases, to avoid all local fudge. So they wrote that in, too. And all the rest they deal with, like apostasy.

As far as abuse was concerned, this is about a good step: getting cases out of any potential local sleaze. As far as what is described, this was a good document: being completely transparent. As far as bureaucratic procedure is concerned, this was a proper update: collecting all regulations in one place. As far as PR was concerned, this was another fucking disaster.

Because people in the Vatican's PR office do not get that they are being watched by enemies, who will fudge anything they can get their hands on to the very limits of their journalistic credibility. They also still do not count on the basic ignorance about all things Catholic in most of the population (including supposed Catholics), and the fact that a substantial part of the population is also not friendly towards the RCC and/or simply stupid. The RC department just does not get that it is fighting a serious uphill battle. They think they can just say it like it is, and get a friendly, fair hearing. Unfortunately, crass incompetence on the job is still dealt with by Roman standards in the Vatican. Expect them to get up to speed in a decade or two...

Meanwhile, the OPer is clearly not invincibly ignorant, but culpably idiotic.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
…people in the Vatican's PR office do not get that they are being watched by enemies…They also still do not count on the basic ignorance about all things Catholic in most of the population (including supposed Catholics), and the fact that a substantial part of the population is also not friendly towards the RCC and/or simply stupid.

Really? Seriously?

So how do you account for this colossal ignorance, and what does it say about the essential nature of the RCC organisation?

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools