|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: To Hell with your evil theology
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Ship's Chaplain:
Jesus doesn't expect us to get everything right, Jesus expects us to fail.
Really? Then what was all that talk about our holiness exceeding that of the Pharisees? Are we to be holy failures?
--------------------
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
|
|
Socratic-enigma
Shipmate
# 12074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This woman likes "different but equal" just about as much as African Americans liked Jim Crow. Like nil.
Like, I kinda expected you would. But then, they are associated with our old friends
some things never change ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
S-E
--------------------
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
David Hume
Posts: 817 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose, I can accept and affirm points one through seven of the EbD credo (perhaps with a little wince at the emphasis on wrath of point four). I'm even down with point eight, up to and including the "complementary relationships."
But the sly shift from "male and female" of point one and from the "men and women" of points two through seven to the "gender" of point eight is where the wagon wheels come off.
I'd also like to know more about what they mean by "status, honour and dignity." I'm guessing that doesn't mean to refer to the "dignity of the priesthood."
And then, there is the give-away at the top of the page that it's really all about teh gayz.
[ 21. July 2010, 03:57: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Child abusers don't get automatically excommunicated, which would seem to indicate that it's a lesser crime than OOW.
Which is bullshit, of course. Molesting a child maybe doesn't get you automatically excommunicated, but it is considered a mortal sin. As anyone who bothers to learn what the Catholic Church says about mortal sins would know, if they aren't confessed, they will damn you to hell. And by 'confessed' the Church doesn't just mean 'tell it to a priest.' You must be sincerely contrite, or it will not 'take effect.' You must also take the penance — and whatever punishment you get from the legal authorities.
So while it's true that abusing a child don't get you automatically excommunicated, the punishment is in fact worse than that of a person involved in OOW. The latter will 'merely' barr you from the sacraments. The child molestor, on the other hand, is in fact damning his own soul to hell, and can only be saved if he *really* confesses the act and takes the legal punishment.
Since skipping Sunday Mass without serious reason is a mortal sin as well, it only complicates matters further. Not for those mainly motivated by a legalistic view of religion, of course. But for those who suspect there's more to following Jesus than RC legalism, it may be bewildering that unrepentantly skipping Sunday Mass carries the same eternal punishment in Hell as acting out pedophile urges by supposedly celibate priests.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
At heart I am a Roman Catholic
It would be interesting to hear what you actually mean by that. I really have no idea. We already know how the RCC has to change so that you would grace her with your presence, but not why you would be interested anyhow. (Concerning your conditions: (b) is arguably fulfilled since 2002, at least in the US. And (c) is about discipline, not doctrine, and you could go to the Eastern Catholics or even some married convert priest. (a) appears to be your actual Dead Horse stable.)
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Since skipping Sunday Mass without serious reason is a mortal sin as well, it only complicates matters further. Not for those mainly motivated by a legalistic view of religion, of course. But for those who suspect there's more to following Jesus than RC legalism, it may be bewildering that unrepentantly skipping Sunday Mass carries the same eternal punishment in Hell as acting out pedophile urges by supposedly celibate priests.
Because the RCC pulled "keeping the Sabbath" out of her ass, right? What a complete invention that is, never heard of before in Salvation history until the RCC decided to impose yet another regulation on her downtrodden faithful, just for the heck of it...
I'm sure both Jesus and Paul would be mightily bewildered about how their critique of the Pharisees ended up establishing universal license in the minds of some. The Pharisees would have made the most devout SSPXer look like an apathetic, chaotic slob. Pointing out that this extreme is an error does not establish the opposite extreme as right. In particular, none of the Jewish NT personnel would have dreamed of not keeping the Sabbath. That's just a given. The only discussion is about how to keep the Sabbath. And the RCC, by her power to bind and lose, has stated what the bare bones is concerning that: drag your lazy ass to at least an hour of mass on Sundays, if you are able to, and important worldly matters do not get in the way. That is not legalism, it's bloody minimalism...
[ 21. July 2010, 06:34: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Incoherent horseshit from opaWim:
Since skipping Sunday Mass without serious reason is a mortal sin as well, it only complicates matters further. Not for those mainly motivated by a legalistic view of religion, of course. But for those who suspect there's more to following Jesus than RC legalism, it may be bewildering that unrepentantly skipping Sunday Mass carries the same eternal punishment in Hell as acting out pedophile urges by supposedly celibate priests.
IngoB is too kind. That, or has nothing better to do.
opaWim, I wuz wrong. That post wasn't incoherent horseshit. There wasn't enough substance there to make up a mule fart.
You have soft, runny puppy shit for brains.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Sorry to arrive late at this bit - I dragged myself in on my knuckles.
Concerning Erin's terms of surrender: am I right in guessing that it would take nothing less than the Church ordaining women for Erin to accept that it believed women to be equal to men in the eyes of God?
[ 21. July 2010, 08:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
At heart I am a Roman Catholic
It would be interesting to hear what you actually mean by that. I really have no idea. We already know how the RCC has to change so that you would grace her with your presence, but not why you would be interested anyhow.
I can't speak for Erin, but I'd be interested because there is a lot of good in the RCC. But there is a heckuva lot of bad in its doctrines as well, and as long as it insists on total obedience to those doctrines I can do no other than keep well away, and pray earnestly for its members to see the light.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
Ever wonder why a rather polite observation would move you to so many unfounded assumptions and so much abuse?
To be clear on this, I did not challenge the wisdom of the RCC in obliging the faithful to attend Mass on Sundays. Furthermore, in apparent contrast to you, it never occurred to me to visualize the RCC having an ass to pull such legislation out of.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My understanding is they haven't said that abusers must be reported to secular authorities, despite what someone said.
Then update your understanding already! Is it asking too much to follow links (second paragraph) showing that this is part of (particular) canon law?
Thanks for this! I've wanted something that concise for some time.
There are many good things there. I've skimmed it several times. But I don't see any penalties for the bishops or the review boards if they don't follow them, or don't do it in a timely matter. Did I miss something?
BTW, did you read the excerpt I posted from the Huffington Post article, with the monsignor's comments? That's what I was going by and referring to.
To my mind, the bishops' document still doesn't put enough emphasis on immediate reporting to civil authorities. That doesn't show up until item 11, after most of the internal procedures. Maybe that's just a quirk of the way they write regulations...but I'd believe it more if it was near the top of the list. It's mentioned in the preamble, in passing.
quote:
What you could possibly complain about is Rome not wrestling control over the rules and regulation concerning this matter from the bishop's conferences, where it more naturally resides (the above norms are from the US bishops). This however misunderstands the place of Rome, which is not some centralist tyrannical bureaucracy micromanaging the affairs of over a billion catholics. With its 3000 staff it is rather a kind of clearing house for stuff that can't be dealt with on the local level. It pretty much functions like the Supreme Court in the judicial system of most countries, just that it deals with buck-stopping at multiple levels: administrative, doctrinal, judicial, ...
The bishops are the actual "rulers" in general. Rome does not mess with the bishops unless it really has to. So far it doesn't look like it has to, e.g., the response of the US bishops appears adequate - and the US was first hit, hence dealt with this problem first, and on a time scale that is rapid by Roman standards. I think it is also likely that Rome wants to see how the US "experimental" legislation performs before drafting any general guidelines for all countries. Correcting universal, worldwide legislation is a nightmare.
Ok, I get that. I knew the Church has a ton of bureaucracy. I didn't know that Rome is loathe to intervene with bishops. I know there've been power clashes between bishops and Rome.
On the other hand, the Church is structured as a princedom, headed by one man who *can* lay down the law and *can* (in some instances) be considered to deliver infallible rulings. And this man is supposed to be reigning in Christ's stead. So...I would think it just might be possible for him to say, very proactively and not just buried in canon law, "Dudes, no more of this. You're permitting and enabling very sick people to hurt Christ's little ones. They're sick; what's your excuse? Yourrrrrrr'e OOOUUUUTTTTT!" (A la a baseball umpire.)
quote:
Finally, the CDF is simply not the institution for doing any of this. They are the modern Inquisition, not the regular administration. They are the guys that should move in when the shit has hit the fan. One could hence very well argue that these CDF norms are bad news as a whole. The Inquisition should not move in as a matter of course, but only where things go wrong, and this is centralizing power to Rome which really belongs to the bishops. It is a sign of weakness among the bishops and appeasement to the world that it has come to this.
I have, both in knee-jerk and more thoughtful moments, wondered if the Inquisition aspect is part of the problem. Their mission is to protect the faith, which does not necessarily mean protecting individuals or groups from the way the Church and its employees damage them. (Praise God that their methods are not what they were...)
But...the things you've said, if they're accurate, come across as "it's not the pope's department, and it ain't Rome's department neither". (Not blaming you for that!)
Would St. Peter's crumble from the tip-top down if the pope et al said, in plain language, the kinds of things I've suggested? (Including in my earlier posts.)
What's the worst that could happen? I doubt they'd incur more legal liability, seeing they've already had to deal with and settle many, many lawsuits.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging? Firing squad? What?
Burning on the stake would be more traditional... [/QB][/QUOTE]
I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging?
I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.
So, you would think (if you were in favour of capital punishment, which you aren’t) that the RCC should kill those who enable child abuse, and that would be proportionate to excommunication for the OoW.
Riiiiight, okay. That's smashing. Back to the real world, then.
Happily, the RCC does not punish any crime with capital punishment these days. The severest punishment it administers is excommunication. Knowing this (and I don’t mean to piss on your weird little la-la land, in which you may imagine how you’d think if you were in favour of something you aren’t, and which bizarre hypothesis in any case has no bearing whatsoever on the real world), why don’t you answer the fucking question? Here it is again, for your ease of comprehension:
Given the real-world facts that (a) the severest punishment at the disposal of the RCC is excommunication, and (b) that the RCC considers the OoW as deserving of excommunication, how would you suggest the RCC should punish paedophilia?
Clue: it's excommunication.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
To the SilentAcolyte:
please consider that the human brain (yours included) is of an approximate consistency with "soft runny puppyshit" and after more than 30 minutes ouside the cranial cavity wouldn't smell any better.
OpaWim has made a valid point as regards the official RC view on "grave sin" i.e. a grab-bag of every offence from murder, sodomy and rape to Mass-missing. Maybe that's why RCs make such creatively-minded crims since there is nothing like being hung for a sheep as much as for a lamb.
And all the apologists can keep bleating on as much as they like; Msgr Scicluna has made a right royal ass of himself not to mention the rest of the RCC by his ill-advised remarks.
m
..
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging?
I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.
So, you would think (if you were in favour of capital punishment, which you aren’t) that the RCC should kill those who enable child abuse, and that would be proportionate to excommunication for the OoW.
Riiiiight, okay. That's smashing. Back to the real world, then.
Happily, the RCC does not punish any crime with capital punishment these days. The severest punishment it administers is excommunication. Knowing this (and I don’t mean to piss on your weird little la-la land, in which you may imagine how you’d think if you were in favour of something you aren’t, and which bizarre hypothesis in any case has no bearing whatsoever on the real world), why don’t you answer the fucking question? Here it is again, for your ease of comprehension:
Given the real-world facts that (a) the severest punishment at the disposal of the RCC is excommunication, and (b) that the RCC considers the OoW as deserving of excommunication, how would you suggest the RCC should punish paedophilia?
Clue: it's excommunication.
The RCC may think the most severe punishment it can mete out is excommunication but I don't think it is appropriate.
If in the secular world, ie that in which child abuse happens, a teacher was even accused or suspected of child abuse they would be suspended from duty immediately. That's what should happen in the RCC, pending enquiries by the civil authorities. It could make things awkward for the parishioners for their priest to be unavailable but it's awkward for children when their usual teacher is unavailable.
If accusations against, say, a priest are proved, then their ordination/license to preach should be removed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
How the RCC should handle accusations of paedophilia is different from how it should punish proven paedophilia, like how your brain works is different from how someone’s brain works whose IQ is >50.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
How the RCC should handle accusations of paedophilia is different from how it should punish proven paedophilia, like how your brain works is different from how someone’s brain works whose IQ is >50.
And I always thought minds had IQs. Must be another of my problems.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
You only have one, which is that you have neither.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
To the SilentAcolyte:
please consider that the human brain (yours included) is of an approximate consistency with "soft runny puppyshit" and after more than 30 minutes ouside the cranial cavity wouldn't smell any better.
OpaWim has made a valid point as regards the official RC view on "grave sin" i.e. a grab-bag of every offence from murder, sodomy and rape to Mass-missing. Maybe that's why RCs make such creatively-minded crims since there is nothing like being hung for a sheep as much as for a lamb.
And all the apologists can keep bleating on as much as they like; Msgr Scicluna has made a right royal ass of himself not to mention the rest of the RCC by his ill-advised remarks.
m
..
Protestants have no concept of moral or venial sin at all. Sin is sin. Committing any sin at all damns you to hell. Well, at least that is what conservative Protestants would say, the others prefer to avoid any mention of sin at all not committed by Republicans, large corporations, or Israel.
By making an ass of Roman Catholics, would you say he is making an ass of you as well since you say you are Roman Catholic?
I think next time I'm at a Roman Catholic Church I'm going to take communion. I've decided that I'm as much of a Roman Catholic than most people calling themselves such. Why not?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
The disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.
First, I call bullshit on the "millions" of RCs throughout the world yearning for the OoWP to the point of defying (or even seriously contemplating defying) the Church's teaching about that.
Ok, I should have written general discontent between Rome and millions of RCs....so you spotted my bad writting, but it is hardly bullshit--and I am reporting what my friends have told me, not providing "proof" of anything. so I don't feel the need to substantiate anything. I've had conversations with good friends who are RC. This is what they had to say. I left out an important word that made it seem that my statement quoted referred to women's ordination.
Thank you for your good eye.
Meanwhile, I'm sure my friends will find it amusing that you characterise them as "off kilter." They seem pretty stable to me, and very religious.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
(b) allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy would be automatically referred to local police authorities instead of hiding behind their bullshit lies of taking care of it internally
I realize that this is something of a side issue of this thread, but I thought I'd pipe up and say that not too long ago I would have heartily concurred with Erin's condition (b), but I recently read a column by John Allen in which he noted that part of the Vatican's hesitation in adopting this policy universally is that in many places where such things as democracy and <i>habeus corpus</i> cannot be taken for granted (e.g. China, or any number of African republics), and where the Church is one of the few institutions capable of effectively resisting the government, such a policy makes a lot less sense. It could easily become a tool for eliminating those in the Church whom the government finds troublesome.
I think in the US and other Western nations, such a policy makes complete sense (and is the current policy of the Catholic Church in the US) . But I am now willing to consider that in some places it would not.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
They feel very sad about the current state of affairs since they are life-long Catholics from families which have been Catholic for centuries. They feel there is much about their faith that is good and helpful to them personally, but the disconnect between Rome and the millions of RCs around the world is troubling.
Because of course there aren't enough Protestant denominations already...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Why not just join one of the ones that already exist instead of trying to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time?
BEcause they aren't Protestant in their faith POV. If it were a matter of simply moving around to a new religion each time a leader did something the faithful didn't agree with, we'd had a whole lot of moving going on in all religions and denominations.
And then it would be all about following one person/inner circle or one person/inner circle's interpretation rather than also following what God has spoken to one's own heart.
It's just not that simple--at least not for my friends. Jumping ship isn't always the best spiritual strategy for a person.
Actually, I admire the RC friends I have mentioned here for wanting to work out internal issues rather than run away from them; standing up for their spiritual truths in the face of challenges; sticking with what they feel is good about their religion even when difficulties arise; allowing their faith to move them in compassionate ways (even when leaders are not providing compassionate examples); continuing to see God in their faith, etc. etc.
I admire them enough to feel the need to defend them when others present simplistic "remedies" for their real dilemma.
sabine
[ 21. July 2010, 12:34: 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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The leaders didn't do anything in their lifetime. The status quo regarding ordination of women has existed for centuries. The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.
What makes them Roman Catholic other than they want to call themselves Roman Catholic?
Inquiring minds want to know...I'm going to start a Purg thread.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
BEcause they aren't Protestant in their faith POV.
Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert the teaching authority of the Pope, the ordinary magisterium and their own bishops in favour of "what God has spoken to their own hearts". Whatever else that is, it is not Roman Catholicism. How difficult can it be to understand that?
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Actually, I admire the RC friends I have mentioned here for wanting to work out internal issues rather than run away from them; standing up for their spiritual truths in the face of challenges; sticking with what they feel is good about their religion even when difficulties arise; [...], etc. etc.
They're not working out anything - they're just chucking out the bits that they think they know better about than the Church. Actually, they haven't even got the integrity of people like Erin, who sees the stuff she can't put up with a keeps herself out of an organisation that she would otherwise be joining.
No wonder JohhnyS think he's as much of an RC as they are - if he went along to your pals' place they might even let him concelebrate.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It is Beeswax Altar not JohnnyS. JohnnyS wouldn't want to concelebrate. Beeswax Altar would...though probably not at any of the places that would let me.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
My bad, Beeswax. But that's what you get for having JohnnyS's name in your signature, innit. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Ah, the Mystery of the Incarnate Binity: he is both Beeswax Altar and JohnnyS, and, yet, neither.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
RhetoricalPrig: you're a twisted, poisonous little twerp, aren't you? Your "I'm just angry for teh kidz!" gambit is just like the invisible man's arsehole: it stinks, and I can see straight through it.
I've just realised that this might have been directed at me.
If so, coming from the Ship's most snivelling, abased, slavish, obnoxious and sycophantic apologist for the Church of Rome, I take it as a complement. To receive the contempt of one so contemptible is a form of praise. It's like being told you are stupid by NephilimFree, or told you are wrong by Joseph Ratzinger.
Go molest yourself, Chesterbelloc.
(Link not worksafe!)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Also, the link it not safe for anyone who suffers from a sense of humour deficiency, or who is still under the delusion that the Roman Catholics Church is so fucking holy as to be above parody.
[ 21. July 2010, 13:46: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
BEcause they aren't Protestant in their faith POV.
Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert the teaching authority of the Pope, the ordinary magisterium and their own bishops in favour of "what God has spoken to their own hearts". Whatever else that is, it is not Roman Catholicism. How difficult can it be to understand that?
That's a fine theoretical point.
But, taking into account all the things that apparently separate a person from real Roman Catholicism in your book, in the real world, there are damned few real Roman Cathlics in this city or country.
In fact, the shortage of priests just got solved and the archbishop could give a break to all the 75 and 80 and 85 year old priests he is having to use to staff parishes (one to every 2-3 parishes in some cases, cause that's all the men he's got). And the bishop across the river could stop licensing nuns and lay staff to preside at mass (communion from the reserved scarament).
We'd only need 2-3 average sized parishes -- instead of the 30-40, some with parish lists of 5,000-7,000 families.
What with support for gays and ordination of women (according to reputable public polls), open disregard for policies on birth control, and attendence at mass only at Christmas and Easter, if then, I figure your definition just lost the RCC between 95 and 98 percent of its current, theoretical membership in this part of the world.
Too bad the people themselves and their priests and bishops don't seem to agree with you, at least in terms of what they actually do about it.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Splutter much, RantyWigout?
Revenge may well be a dish best served cold, but your "comeback" was as accomplished as a cup of chilled puke.
P.S.: Mind if I don't open you wee linky-winky? If it's really funny, I'm sure someone will let me know.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Nice try John, but I was talking about sabine's friends who have taken matters into their own hands (sometimes, quite literally) rather more radically most of the "95-98%" you're talking about. It's one thing to quibble about specific bits of the magisterium, but quite another to reject it wholesale in favour of one's own "private" truth".
But there is a serious issue about just how much Catholic doctrine one can reject and heteropraxy one is prepared to indulge in and still count as a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Why not contribute to that over on Beeswax's thread in Purg?
[ 21. July 2010, 14:15: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
(b) allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy would be automatically referred to local police authorities instead of hiding behind their bullshit lies of taking care of it internally
I realize that this is something of a side issue of this thread, but I thought I'd pipe up and say that not too long ago I would have heartily concurred with Erin's condition (b), but I recently read a column by John Allen in which he noted that part of the Vatican's hesitation in adopting this policy universally is that in many places where such things as democracy and <i>habeus corpus</i> cannot be taken for granted (e.g. China, or any number of African republics), and where the Church is one of the few institutions capable of effectively resisting the government, such a policy makes a lot less sense. It could easily become a tool for eliminating those in the Church whom the government finds troublesome.
I think in the US and other Western nations, such a policy makes complete sense (and is the current policy of the Catholic Church in the US) . But I am now willing to consider that in some places it would not.
I would go further and say that it does not necessarily make sense even in the West, where the Belgian raids and the punking of Cardinal Daneels increasingly looks like a McCarthy-style witchhunt. Let us also not forget that eliminating "sexual abuse" in the Catholic Church (some real, some not) has historically been a useful pretext for eliminating those persons who the State found troublesome - - Hitler and Thomas Cromwell/Henry VIII being the most well-known examples. Even the United States, where the Connecticut state legislature last year tried to dispossess the church of its properties, and may try again this year, or the notorious Paul Shanley case where a man is now sitting in prison for life convicted of a sex crime he probably did not commit due to the ambitions of a now-failed candidate for national office, is not immune to this sort of abuse.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Sorry to arrive late at this bit - I dragged myself in on my knuckles.
Concerning Erin's terms of surrender: am I right in guessing that it would take nothing less than the Church ordaining women for Erin to accept that it believed women to be equal to men in the eyes of God?
Yep. I find all of the arguments against ordination of women severely lacking. But that is a dead horse that I'm not interested in pursuing.
Roman Catholic spirituality is beautiful and true. How they deal with issues of this world, not so much.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.
Acknowledging our failures in practice, I still have to say: huh???????
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert.....
You don't even know these people; how can you know if they are blithe or not? And how can you know what their spirituality really is?
How easy it is to write people off when you haven't even had a chance to know them.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Roman Catholic spirituality is beautiful and true. How they deal with issues of this world, not so much.
I sometimes feel this way myself, not enough cause a conversion in my own faith, but enough to see that not everything is awful about Roman Catholic spirituality simply because some things are done badly by leaders.
sabine
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
...notorious Paul Shanley case where a man is now sitting in prison for life ... due to the ambitions of a now-failed candidate for national office....
Yowza!
I'm pretty familiar with the shameless railroading of Paul Shanley and I don't know what you are talking about. Can you be persuaded to name names, or are the fingers of the conspiracy reaching for your throat, too?
[ 21. July 2010, 16:30: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert.....
You don't even know these people; how can you know if they are blithe or not? And how can you know what their spirituality really is?
Well, they if they were deeply troubled by their rejection of Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of the Altar and of Holy Orders, would they really be quietly subverting the practise of that faith behind their bishops' backs by allowing laymen/laywomen to simulate the consecration of the Eucharist?
Come on, sabine - I can only believe so many implausible things before dinner...
And as for their "spirituality" (whatever you mean by that), if they do that kind of thing, their rationale is, as a matter of fact, not Roman Catholic.
[ 21. July 2010, 16:34: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Well they sure aren't Roman Catholics in their POV either. They blithely reject and covertly subvert.....
You don't even know these people; how can you know if they are blithe or not? And how can you know what their spirituality really is?
Well, they if they were deeply troubled by their rejection of Catholic teaching on the Sacrament of the Altar and of Holy Orders, would they really be quietly subverting the practise of that faith behind their bishops' backs by allowing laymen/laywomen to simulate the consecration of the Eucharist?
Come on, sabine - I can only believe so many implausible things before dinner...
And as for their "spirituality" (whatever you mean by that), if they do that kind of thing, their rationale is, as a matter of fact, not Roman Catholic.
If you want to believe you know more about my friends than I do, be my guest. I have shown what you said to one of them who has advised me that he needs no more support in the face of someone who claims to know him already. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
And since you are confusing faith with practice when it comes to spirituality, I'm not going to create a tangent. They are not the same thing, but I suspect you haven't figured that out yet.
As for believing only so many implausible things before dinner....there is no way I can make you believe me on anything I have reported here. I leave you to your misunderstanding of who my friends are and what they believe.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
And since you are confusing faith with practice when it comes to spirituality, I'm not going to create a tangent. They are not the same thing, but I suspect you haven't figured that out yet.
Lex orandi est lex credendi.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Zackly.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Wha?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Roughly: Show me how you pray, and I'll show you what you believe.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.
Acknowledging our failures in practice, I still have to say: huh???????
Have you failed in practice to prevent the ordination of women or punish those who do?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
How should the RCC punish paedophilia, if they punish OoW by excommunication? Hanging?
I'm not in favor of capital punishment...but if I were, it would be for the enablers.
So, you would think (if you were in favour of capital punishment, which you aren’t) that the RCC should kill those who enable child abuse, and that would be proportionate to excommunication for the OoW.
Riiiiight, okay. That's smashing. Back to the real world, then.
Happily, the RCC does not punish any crime with capital punishment these days. The severest punishment it administers is excommunication. Knowing this (and I don’t mean to piss on your weird little la-la land, in which you may imagine how you’d think if you were in favour of something you aren’t, and which bizarre hypothesis in any case has no bearing whatsoever on the real world), why don’t you answer the fucking question? Here it is again, for your ease of comprehension:
Given the real-world facts that (a) the severest punishment at the disposal of the RCC is excommunication, and (b) that the RCC considers the OoW as deserving of excommunication, how would you suggest the RCC should punish paedophilia?
Clue: it's excommunication.
It was a toss-up as to whether I was going to comment on your and Ingo's sarcasm about capital punishment. I mulled it over, decided to post, and may have made the wrong choice. Still not sure. Apologies if I hurt anyone.
You two brought up the suggestion of capital punishment. Except for in really emotional moments, I don't believe in capital punishment. My knee-jerk reaction to hearing about someone who hurts kids is to want the person killed or very badly hurt. But that's not the right way.
If there *were* to be capital punishment regarding clergy abuse, I think it would be more apt to apply it to the enablers. The abusers are desperately sick.
As to "being proportionate to excommunication for the OoW": OoW doesn't enter into my calculations for how to handle abuse, because one doesn't have anything to do with the other, which is the point that many people have made. If OoW were wrong, it would still be far, far less wrong than abuse and enabling abusers. Someone mentioned upthread that following a quasi-ordained RC woman priest could cost the followers their eternal salvation, and so it really did deserve harsher treatment than abuse. Strangely, I think that hurting children now and enabling them to be hurt now is worse. And if you're concerned with people going to hell, you might think about how many abuse survivors have been driven away from the Church and from God. By the Church's lights, they might be going to hell. If you can't care about a living, breathing child, then care about that.
As to punishing the abusers: immediately report them to civil law enforcement; in the meantime, put them in a situation where they can't possibly encounter any children or other vulnerable people; and defrock them. The enablers should have the no-nonsense treatment I mentioned earlier.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The RC has always taken a tough stand against ordination of women. It hasn't always taken a stand against child molestation.
Acknowledging our failures in practice, I still have to say: huh???????
Um...are you for real???
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If OoW were wrong, it would still be far, far less wrong than abuse and enabling abusers.
<takes a deep breath and counts to ten>
Okay.
I have my own personal ideas about what sort of punishment is appropriate for child sex abusers (and they’re considerably more severe than yours, as it happens). All that, however, is beside the frigging point, which you are still failing to get. Unbelievably.
The criticism was made at the start of this thread that, by punishing it similarly, the RCC is effectively treating the OoW as though it is as serious as paedophilia. This is an utterly fallacious analysis, for the reasons that have been demonstrated ad fuckeam on this thread. How you and I would personally like to see the RCC treat paedophilia is entirely beside the fucking fuckity fuckfucked point. The severest punishment it may mete is excommunication, and that counts for paedophilia as well as the OoW, apostasy, stealing paperclips, and everything. The severest punishment they may exact for paedophilia is therefore not hanging, nor chemical castration, nor your preferred method, outlined above. It is excommunication.
It is entirely reasonable that excommunication also happens to be the punishment for apostasy and the OoW, because the punishment has nothing to do with how the RCC views the relative severity of those different crimes. (Only if the punishments were different, might it, since they would then be variously less than the severest possible).
I should warn you that if you hereby reply to the effect that in your opinion the RCC should instead punish paedophilia by excommunication and reporting it immediately to the authorities, I shall arise from my desk, drive to my neighbour’s farm, steal his goat and sacrifice it forthwith on an altar to the god of fucking utter cluelessness.
Don’t make me do it.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Gosh, Yorick - you've been so excitable lately. Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior?
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
No. I think it's your cologne, darling.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If OoW were wrong, it would still be far, far less wrong than abuse and enabling abusers.
<takes a deep breath and counts to ten>
Okay.
I have my own personal ideas about what sort of punishment is appropriate for child sex abusers (and they’re considerably more severe than yours, as it happens). All that, however, is beside the frigging point, which you are still failing to get. Unbelievably.
The criticism was made at the start of this thread that, by punishing it similarly, the RCC is effectively treating the OoW as though it is as serious as paedophilia. This is an utterly fallacious analysis, for the reasons that have been demonstrated ad fuckeam on this thread. How you and I would personally like to see the RCC treat paedophilia is entirely beside the fucking fuckity fuckfucked point. The severest punishment it may mete is excommunication, and that counts for paedophilia as well as the OoW, apostasy, stealing paperclips, and everything. The severest punishment they may exact for paedophilia is therefore not hanging, nor chemical castration, nor your preferred method, outlined above. It is excommunication.
It is entirely reasonable that excommunication also happens to be the punishment for apostasy and the OoW, because the punishment has nothing to do with how the RCC views the relative severity of those different crimes. (Only if the punishments were different, might it, since they would then be variously less than the severest possible).
I should warn you that if you hereby reply to the effect that in your opinion the RCC should instead punish paedophilia by excommunication and reporting it immediately to the authorities, I shall arise from my desk, drive to my neighbour’s farm, steal his goat and sacrifice it forthwith on an altar to the god of fucking utter cluelessness.
Don’t make me do it.
Dear Yorick:
Your counting ability is impressive. If 10 is all you can manage, why not branch out and learn to count to 10 in other languages? Then you could pile them all together and, effectively, count to...say...100. Much more calming than 10.
I see what you're saying. That's never been the issue. But, to quote the last line of the movie "Women In Love", "I disagree". ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
As to your plot against your neighbor and his poor goat: the god of cluelessness just wouldn't get it, I would call PETA on you, and you'd go to jail for theft and cruelty to animals. If I were you, I'd be most worried about that second consequence. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Now, I believe there's a lovely, quiet little resort in the countryside, where you can learn underwater basket-weaving, talk about your anger issues, and be graced with the fetching jackets that the place is known for.
Do write to us, now and then. Crayon is perfectly acceptable.
PS Count von Count from "Sesame Street" says "hi". He'll come visit you at the resort. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
PPS Does the fervent desire to sacrifice to a god mean you've become a Deist? ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
PPPS If the resort staff permits it, I'll send you some mala beads. There are 108 of them. Perhaps you could manage to count to 9 twelve times? ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Cordially, etc. etc.
[ 22. July 2010, 09:04: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Roughly: Show me how you pray, and I'll show you what you believe.
Nice quote, but not quite....
Actions and liturgies are prayers in my mind, and I've described people doing actions and liturgy. Even everyday activities can be prayers.
But how would anyone explain a non-christian who attends Mass and also a Mennonite Church with her friends (and recently a Coptic church), and participates in the actions and liturgy (except communion, the creed and crossing myself)?
Does that then make me a Christian? Can you tell from my outward behavior that I am a Catholic or Mennonite in my belief and not a Quaker? I've shown you how I "pray" in these Catholic and Mennonite and Coptic actions, but my spirituality is not of these faiths.
When my friends join me at Meeting, they sit in silence. It is a form of worship. Does that make them Quakers?
There is one God--I enjoy being with my friends in fellowship and worship of the one God, but that God has also led me to a specific faith that continues even as I attend other services.
So while it's nice to believe that how one prays reveals one's beliefs, it doesn't go deep enough as a detection tool.
Faith and Practice may provide insight into each other, but they are not the same thing.
sabine
[ 22. July 2010, 14:07: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
